Metamotivational beliefs about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

Although intrinsic motivation is often viewed as preferable to more extrinsic forms of motivation, there is evidence that the adaptiveness of these motivational states depends on the nature of the task being completed (e.g., Cerasoli et al., 2014). Specifically, research suggests task-motivation fit such that intrinsic motivation tends to benefit performance on open-ended tasks (tasks that involve qualitative performance assessment; e.g., creative writing) and extrinsic motivation benefits performance on closed-ended tasks (tasks that involve quantitative performance assessment; e.g., multiple choice). We examined people's metamotivational beliefs about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the context of this task-motivation fit. Across 11 studies (seven primary, four supplemental; N = 3,544), participants provided beliefs about the utility of different types of motivation-regulation strategies: strategies that enhance one's interest and enjoyment in a task versus strategies that focus on the value associated with task outcomes (self-relevance strategies and reward strategies). Across all studies, participants recognized that the adaptiveness of these strategies depends on the nature of the task being completed. Consistent with an understanding of normative task-motivation fit, participants generally reported that interest-enhancing strategies were more useful for open-ended tasks and that reward strategies were more useful for closed-ended tasks; however, in some studies, participants reported that reward strategies were equally useful across task types (Studies 2, 3, and 5). More normatively accurate beliefs were associated with more normatively accurate consequential behavioral choices (Study 6) and better task performance (Study 7). We discuss the implications of these results for theories of motivation and self-regulation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Melting COVID-frozen goals: How goal disengagement supports well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The current research addresses dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic's disruption to goal pursuit. Specifically, we examined the effects of disengaging from frozen goals (goals for which progress had been disrupted due to COVID-19). In May 2021, we asked participants (N = 226) what percentage of their goals were COVID-frozen goals and asked them to report their engagement in one such goal (vs. an active goal): the degree to which they think about the goal, ruminate about the goal, and are committed to the goal. Participants also reported on two facets of their recent well-being: psychological distress (stress, depressive symptoms, anxiety) and life satisfaction. As expected, percentage of COVID-frozen goals was positively associated with psychological distress (stress, depressive symptoms, and anxiety). Moreover, frozen goal rumination (but not thought frequency or commitment) was negatively associated with life satisfaction and positively associated with psychological distress (stress, depressive symptoms, and anxiety; even when controlling for active goal rumination). Furthermore, individual differences in the capacity to disengage and reengage in alternatives were negatively associated with frozen goal rumination, positively associated with life satisfaction, and negatively associated with psychological distress (stress, depressive symptoms, and anxiety). These results highlight the adaptive function of disengagement in goal pursuit. We discuss implications for the goal disengagement literature and for coping with COVID-19. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11031-022-09959-w.