Concrete mindset impairs filtering in visual working memory

Abstract

Two studies tested whether a mindset manipulation would affect the filtering of distractors from entering visual working memory (VWM). In Study 1, participants completed a concrete mindset manipulation (by repeatedly describing how to perform an action), an abstract mindset manipulation (by repeatedly describing why to perform an action), and a baseline condition (no manipulation). In Study 2, some participants completed a concrete mindset manipulation, whereas others completed an abstract manipulation. Filtering efficiency was estimated by a change-detection task that included a condition with distractors alongside targets. We derived our prediction from construal-level theory (CLT), according to which concrete representations retain information regardless of its relevance, whereas abstract representations retain the relevant and omit the irrelevant elements of an input array. In a task that requires attending to task-relevant targets and ignoring task-irrelevant distractors in a visual array, concrete processing should impair performance relative to abstract processing. We therefore predicted that a concrete mindset would reduce filtering efficiency as compared to an abstract mindset. Consistent with our hypothesis, we found that a concrete mindset manipulation reduced filtering efficiency, as compared to both an abstract mindset manipulation (Studies 1 and 2) and the baseline condition (Study 1). These results suggest a new factor that may contribute to both individual differences and situational variation in working memory performance.

Abstract thinking facilitates aggregation of information.

“…Another prediction derived from CLT is that an abstract mindset would improve performance when gist extraction or filtering-out irrelevant information is beneficial (e.g., Hadar et al, 2019), but not when one needs to retain the exact details. The results of Experiment 4 are consistent with this prediction.…”

“…We tested this prediction in three experiments (Experiments 1–3) that manipulated, within participants, abstract versus concrete thinking via the “why/how” mindset manipulation, which was originally developed by Freitas et al (2004), and has been widely used since then. Indeed, a review by Burgoon et al (2013) mentions 11 published articles that used this manipulation, and many more used it since then (Ding & Keh, 2017; Efrat-Treister et al, 2020; Gilead et al, 2014; Hadar et al, 2019; Hansen & Trope, 2013; Kille et al, 2017; Napier et al, 2018; Spunt et al, 2016; Stillman et al, 2017; Yudkin et al, 2020). Experiment 1 examined accuracy in a numerical averaging task (Brezis et al, 2015; Malmi & Samson, 1983; Rosenbaum et al, 2021), and Experiment 2 was a preregistered replication.…”

Absolute number heuristic in discount frames

“…by using the “how” versus “why” questions, e.g. Hadar et al , 2019, or by inducing mindfulness, Chan and Wang, 2019) to further elucidate the role of construct level in the joint effect of discount frame and price level.…”

Remembering Social Events: A Construal Level Approach

“…In summary, then, while the influence of construal level on how people attend to, evaluate, and encode information is relatively well understood, little is known about how construal might alter how people retrieve information once it has been stored in memory. We aim to investigate the effects of construal level on how people remember events—an outcome that has been largely neglected in the plethora of research stemming from CLT (recent work linking construal level with working memory notwithstanding, Hadar et al, 2019 ). In particular, because of the uniquely multifaceted nature of social events, we focus on testing the hypothesis that construal level affects one’s retrieval of various aspects of one’s memory for a social encounter in distinct ways.…”