The role of mindsets, productions, and perceptual symbols in goal‐directed information processing

Abstract

Three recent conceptualizations have been proposed to account for the manner in which goal-directed activity in one situation can influence judgments, behavioral decisions, and overt behavior in a later situation. One, which accounts for the effect of behavioral mindsets (Wyer & Xu, 2010, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 107), conceptualizes the effect of performing goal-directed behavior in a situation on the strategies selected for use in attaining quite different goals in a later, unrelated situation. A second, stimulated by Anderson's (1983, The architecture of cognition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) conceptualization of cognitive productions, accounts for the effects of stimuli of which one is not completely aware on motor behavior that is performed with little if any cognitive mediation. The third, suggested by Barsalou's (1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577; 2008, Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617) conceptualization of perceptual symbol systems (Barsalou, 1999), accounts for the associations of not only semantic concepts and their metaphorical meanings but also visual images, affective reactions, sensory stimulation (taste, smell, etc.), and behavioral dispositions. Recent research exemplifying effects of each of these formulations is reviewed, and an approach for conceptually integrating their implications into a more general formulation of information processing is suggested. K E Y W O R D Sgrounded cognition, mindsets, priming, procedural knowledge, productions | INTRODUCTIONAlthough people's thoughts, feelings, and overt behavior are often consciously goal-directed, they can also occur spontaneously with little if any cognitive deliberation. They can be elicited in part by characteristics of the situation in which they occur, but are also influenced by previously acquired concepts and knowledge. However, people typically do not consider all of the relevant knowledge they have acquired (Taylor & Fiske, 1978). Rather, they restrict their consideration to a small portion of it that happens to come to mind easily at the time.Consequently, objectively irrelevant situational factors that influence the subset of knowledge that is accessible in memory at the time people make a judgment can have an impact on this judgment and decisions that are based on it.This observation is not controversial. After considerable research during the past four decades, the effects of knowledge accessibility on judgments are now taken for granted. Thus, procedures for influencing the subset of knowledge that people have accessible in memory have become a standard methodological tool in determining the cognitive bases for individuals' responses to the situations they encounter and the information they receive.Theoretical formulations of the processes that underlie the effects of knowledge activation and its consequences (e.g., Collins & Loftus, 1975;Higgins, Bargh, & Lombardi, 1985;Hintzman, 1986; Wyer & Srull, 1989) have also received broad support. However, theseMost of the writing of ...

Why and When Consumers Indulge in Smartphones: The Mental Association Between Smartphones and Fun

“…A behavioral mindset emerges when behavior related to the pursuit of a goal in one situation elicits more general behavior-related concepts in memory. 17,18 Compared with the use of computers, the chronic use of smartphones for entertainment purposes could inevitably establish a cognitive association between smartphones and for-fun concepts, 19 which can remain an inherent mindset. When smartphones are primed or used, the for-fun mindset and its related concepts are activated.…”

“…Existing research has shown that accessible mental concepts can affect consumers' decisions even for an unrelated goal. 17,[20][21][22] For example, hunger stimulates the goal of acquiring food and increases the mental accessibility of acquisition-related concepts, thus bolstering people's intention to acquire not only food but also nonfood objects. 21 In addition, extant research has shown that mental representations of fun can result in indulgent consumption, 20 suggesting that the forfun mindset stimulated by smartphones likely drives consumers to favor products with more hedonic attributes.…”

Toward a Process-Transfer Model of the Endorser Effect

“…Research on the underlying processes of mindsets provides theoretical support for the proposed process-transfer model (Anderson 1983;Kim and Meyers-Levy 2008;Kühnen, Hannover, and Schubert 2001;Shen and Wyer 2008;Wyer 2018;Wyer, Xu, and Shen 2012;Xu and Wyer 2007). Cognitive processes, like other types of knowledge (e.g., categories, implicit theories), vary in terms of their accessibility in memory.…”

“…In turn, the activation of this general process increases the likelihood that it will be called to mind and used when evaluating another stimulus (e.g., the product). Therefore, an activated cognitive process can exert an effect in a situation that is unrelated to the situation that gave rise to the process (for a review, see Higgins [1996] and Wyer [2018]). For example, inducing consumers to provide different answers to a series of questions about animals (e.g., “Which animal is friendliest?” “Which animal is smallest?” “Which animal is most ferocious?”) can increase the variety of products they select in a subsequent product choice situation (Shen and Wyer 2010).…”

Product (Un)availability and Shopping Mind-set in Sequential Purchases

“…Extant research has postulated that mind-set is composed by two phases, deliberation and implementation (Gollwitzer & Bayer, 1999;Achtziger & Gollwitzer, 2008;Wyer, 2018). In a deliberative mind-set, consumers will weigh the pros and cons of each alternative, determining which goal will better achieve the desired end, whereas in the implementation mind-set they will structure the steps aiming to steer behaviors and actions to reach a consumption goal (Fujita, Gollwitzer, & Oettingen 2007;Xu & Wyer, 2007).…”