There is an active debate regarding whether the ego depletion effect is real. A recent pre-registered experiment with the Stroop task as the depleting task and the antisaccade task as the outcome task found a medium level effect size. In the current research, we pre-registered a multi-lab collaborating project to replicate that experiment. Data from twelve labs across the globe (N = 1775) revealed a small but significant ego depletion effect, g = 0.12, CI95 = [0.02, 0.21]. The data also provided some evidence in support of a moderating effect of individual differences in lay theory about willpower, such that participants with an unlimited-resource theory evinced a weaker depletion effect. Finally, a series of auxiliary analyses provided important implications for future studies investigating the robustness of ego depletion, such that strictly controlled experimental settings and outcome tasks with medium difficulty might be better for observing a stronger depletion effect.
People oriented toward promotion are concerned with changing (improving) their current state, while those oriented toward prevention are concerned with maintaining (not worsening) their current state (Higgins, 1997). Because a promotion orientation is directed at moving from the reality to a better future, whereas a prevention orientation is directed at keeping the reality, we predicted and found in 4 studies that when thinking about important personal wishes or concerns, promotion-oriented participants focused more on the future (vs. the reality) than prevention-oriented participants. Promotion-oriented participants also viewed the future more positively compared to their reality than prevention-oriented participants. We assessed focus toward the future and reality by asking participants to name and write about an important personal wish or concern and analyzing the content of their written texts. We observed the effects when we manipulated participants' regulatory focus by asking them to generate promotion (vs. prevention) oriented concerns (Studies 1 and 2) and when we measured their chronic regulatory focus (Study 3).
Mentally contrasting future with reality is a self-regulation strategy that triggers expectancy-dependent energization for tasks instrumental to attaining the desired future. Energization by mental contrasting even transfers to tasks unrelated to the desired future at hand. Would such energization transfer by mental contrasting even energize people to perform unrelated tasks for which they have low success expectations? In Laboratory Experiment 1, mentally contrasting (vs. indulging) about performing well in a creativity task triggered physiological energization and better performance in an unrelated low-expectancy cognitive task that participants received in place of the creativity task. In Field Experiment 2, mentally contrasting an interpersonal wish helped schoolchildren invest more effort and perform better in a low-expectancy academic task—finding typos. Online Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 2 with adults. Mental contrasting participants’ effort and performance in the low-expectancy academic task did not differ from their effort and performance in a high-expectancy task. We discuss implications for designing interventions to foster energization for low-expectancy tasks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.