Effects of Deliberative and Implemental Mindsets on Persistence in Goal-Directed Behavior

Abstract

In three experiments with a total of 243 students, the hypothesis was tested that mindsets affect goal-directed persistence in behavioral conflict situations. In Studies 1 and 2, an implemental mindset led to higher persistence as compared with a deliberative mindset in solving a puzzle or playing a computer game, respectively, when the characteristics of the task implied a behavioral conflict (i.e., when perceived desirability was low and perceived feasibility was high, or vice versa).No differences were found when the desirability and feasibility of the task were both low or both high. In Study 3, it was demonstrated that, depending on the functional value of persistence in the given situation, the implemental mindset leads to lower persistence compared with the deliberative mindset. These findings are interpreted to mean that the implemental mindset is a self-regulatory mechanism that permits a flexible response to the demands of a particular situation.

Non-conscious processes and dual-process theories in health psychology

“…A main reason for this focus is that health behaviours are interesting as they often reflect problems with self-regulation (De Ridder & De Wit, 2006;Hagger et al, 2016;Hagger, Wood, Stiff, & Chatzisarantis, 2010) and conflicts between well-learned, habitual, cue-and impulse-driven responses and deliberative, reasoned, and reflective controls (Brandstätter & Frank, 2002). In addition, developing a comprehensive understanding of health behaviours may inform methods and interventions to alter and change behaviours that may enhance health (Abraham, 2015;Wallace, Brown, & Hilton, 2014).…”

Forensic Accounting Knowledge and Mindset on Task Performance Fraud Risk Assessment

“…Previous study shows that a simple difference in mindsets can produce considerable performance differences as well as impact persons' confidence, determination, and commitment to accomplish the decision making task (Brandstatter & Frank, 2002;Gollwitzer et al, 1990;Gollwitzer, 1999). In the context of this study, a forensic accountant mindset differs from an auditor mindset in terms of purpose, frequency, scope, users of services and reports, staffing, limitation to use the report, and objective.…”

“…This is best implemented in a loosely structured, networked organization. From the findings of Brandstatter and Frank's (2002) study, the inferences arising therefrom are that the implemental mindset is a self-regulatory mechanism that permits a flexible response to the demands of a particular situation This shows clearly that mindsets affect the behaviour of people most especially in the areas of fraud risk assessment task performance. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:…”

Task performance fraud risk assessment on forensic accountant and auditor knowledge and mindset in Nigerian public sector

“…Also, it shows that, depending on the functional value of persistence in the given situation, the implemental mindset leads to lower persistence compared with the deliberative mindset [39,40,41]. The inferences that can be made from their findings are that the implements mindset is a self-regulatory mechanism that permits a flexible response to the demands of a particular situation This shows clearly that mindsets affect the behavior of people most especially in the areas of fraud risk assessment performance judgment.…”

“…This is probably best implemented in a loosely structured, networked organization. Similarly, in another three experiments performed by Brandstatter and Frank [39] with a sample size of 243 students, the hypothesis was tested that mindsets affect goaldirected persistence in behavioral conflict situations. Two of the three experiments deduced that an implemental mindset led to higher persistent as compared with a deliberate mindset in solving a puzzle or playing a computer game, respectively, when the characteristics of the task implied a behavioral conflict, when perceived desirability was low and perceived feasibility was high, or vice versa.…”