In 3 studies, the authors demonstrated that individuals are motivated by role models who encourage strategies that fit their regulatory concerns: Promotion-focused individuals, who favor a strategy of pursuing desirable outcomes, are most inspired by positive role models, who highlight strategies for achieving success; prevention-focused individuals, who favor a strategy of avoiding undesirable outcomes, are most motivated by negative role models, who highlight strategies for avoiding failure. In Studies 1 and 2, the authors primed promotion and prevention goals and then examined the impact of role models on motivation. Participants' academic motivation was increased by goal-congruent role models but decreased by goal-incongruent role models. In Study 3, participants were more likely to generate real-life role models that matched their chronic goals.

Long-standing theories have suggested high self-esteem (SE) can assume qualitatively different forms that are related to defensiveness. The authors explored whether some high-SE individuals are particularly defensive because they harbor negative self-feelings at less conscious levels, indicated by low implicit SE. In Study 1, participants high in explicit SE but low in implicit SE showed the highest levels of narcissism-an indicator of defensiveness. In Studies 2 and 3, the correspondence between implicit and explicit SE predicted defensive behavior (in-group bias in Study 2 and dissonance reduction in Study 3), such that for high explicit-SE participants, those with relatively low implicit SE behaved more defensively. These results are consistent with the idea that high SE can be relatively secure or defensive.

The links among narcissism, explicit (deliberate, controllable) self‐esteem, and implicit (automatic, uncontrollable) self‐esteem are unclear despite numerous attempts to illuminate these links. Some investigations suggest that narcissism reflects high explicit self‐esteem that masks low implicit self‐esteem, but other investigations fail to replicate this pattern. Here, we place the ‘mask’ model of narcissism in historical context and review the existing empirical evidence for this model. We then discuss three possible issues that might shed light on the inconsistent findings that have emerged from tests of the mask model. These issues include the unreliability of implicit attitude measures, narcissism's different associations with agentic versus communal self‐views, and distinctions between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism subtypes. We also summarize several alternatives to the mask model of narcissism. Throughout, we offer suggestions for improving the study of narcissism and self‐esteem and point to directions for future research on this topic.

Obesity and excess weight are significant societal problems. Mindfulness may encourage healthier weight and eating habits. Across four studies, we found a positive relation between mindfulness and healthier eating. Trait mindfulness was associated with less impulsive eating, reduced calorie consumption, and healthier snack choices. In addition, we found a causal effect of mindfulness on healthier eating. An experimental manipulation of state mindfulness led participants to consume fewer calories in a spontaneous eating task. We also found preliminary evidence that mindfulness affects eating behavior by encouraging attitudinal preferences for healthier foods. Taken together, these results provide strong evidence that mindfulness encourages healthier eating, even in the absence of specific instruction in mindful eating. These results suggest that generic mindfulness-based strategies could have ancillary benefits for encouraging healthier eating behavior.

Interest in unintended discrimination that can result from implicit attitudes and stereotypes (implicit biases) has stimulated many research investigations. Much of this research has used the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to measure association strengths that are presumed to underlie implicit biases. It had been more than a decade since the last published treatment of recommended best practices for research using IAT measures. After an initial draft by the first author, and continuing through three subsequent drafts, the 22 authors and 14 commenters contributed extensively to refining the selection and description of recommendation-worthy research practices. Individual judgments of agreement or disagreement were provided by 29 of the 36 authors and commenters. Of the 21 recommended practices for conducting research with IAT measures presented in this article, all but two were endorsed by 90% or more of those who felt knowledgeable enough to express agreement or disagreement; only 4% of the totality of judgments expressed disagreement. For two practices that were retained despite more than two judgments of disagreement (four for one, five for the other), the bases for those disagreements are described in presenting the recommendations. The article additionally provides recommendations for how to report procedures of IAT measures in empirical articles.