Knowledge and Flexible Implementation of Construal Level in Self-Regulation

Ohio State University, The, Columbus OH

Investigators

Abstract

Despite the best of their intentions, people often fail to act in a manner that is consistent with their important goals and values. These discrepancies between people's intentions and behavior have been implicated in some of society's most pressing problems, including obesity, substance abuse, discrimination, aggression, and poor financial decision-making. Self-regulation research attempts to understand who, when, and why some succeed--and others fail--in realizing their goals and values in their every day behavior. One important insight from this research is that self-regulation involves a number of distinct challenges that must each be addressed in unique ways. At times, self-regulation requires thinking about circumstances that extend beyond the immediate here-and-now. To illustrate, although students might be tempted to attend a week-night social gathering, it is their ability to think about the distant future rewards of studying that advances their academic goals. At other times, self-regulation requires attention to the details of the present context. Proof-reading for typographical errors, for example, requires students to narrowly focus their attention on the specifics of the task at-hand. The present work aims to test if people have developed unique thinking styles or mindsets that are tuned to help them address each of these two types of challenges--namely, high-level and low-level construal. Critically, the investigator tests the novel prediction that successful regulation requires flexibly matching the right mindset to the right challenge. That is, knowing when to engage in which psychological mindset may be the key reason why some people are able to attain their goals, and others are not. These questions are explored in six studies. The studies examine people's beliefs about what kinds of thinking will promote their goals under different circumstances. Those beliefs are compared to what research indicates will improve versus undermine self-regulation in those situations. In particular, the investigator tests the prediction that those who intuitively know what research reveals to be good versus bad for self-regulation will be better at attaining goals. Experiments also examine the factors that might explain why some are able, and others not, to engage in the right kinds of thinking styles at the right time. For example, some people may be more cognitively flexible--able to think about the same event from multiple perspectives--whereas others may not be so flexible. Studies examine to what extent cognitively flexible individuals may be better at self-regulation because of their ability to adopt the most advantageous thinking style at any given moment. To examine the practical implications of this work, a field study tests to what extent these hypotheses explain students' performance in a classroom context. Such a context is ideal in that it is a real-world situation known to present numerous self-regulation challenges. Understanding the factors that promote self-regulation may spur the development of new interventions and policies that enhance people's ability to behave in line with and eventually attain their valued goals.