1. Processes of Mental Contrasting: Linking Future with Reality
Andreas Kappes1, Henrik Singmann1 & Gabriele Oettingen1,2
1 University of Hamburg, 2 New York University
Abstract
The self-regulatory strategy of mentally contrasting a positive future with the negative reality translates high expectations of success into strong goal commitments; elaborating the negative reality and then the positive future (reverse contrasting) does not. Investigating the underlying processes revealed that mental contrasting, but not reverse contrasting, produces expectancy-dependent associations between future and reality that mediate the energization- and commitment-inducing effects.
Induction of the Experimental Conditions
Participants elaborated:
Results
Links of Future And Reality
Participants in the mental contrasting showed expectancy-dependent effects on the accessibility of relevant aspects, the link of future and reality, and the link of reality and future. Participants in the reverse contrasting and the control condition did not.
Mediation in the Mental Contrasting Condition
Mental Contrasting
Reverse Contrasting
Control Group
Future-Reality Link
Expectation
Energization
(β = .60** )
β = .62**
β = -.38*
β = . 36*
1. Positive Future
1. Positive Reality
1. Positive Experience
Mental Contrasting: A Self-Regulatory Strategy for Successful Goal Setting
A long tradition of research suggests that people commit to goals that are desirable and feasible. Fantasy Realization Theory (Oettingen, 2000) spells out the self-regulatory strategy that translates feasibility (i.e., expectations of success) into goal commitment: Mental contrasting of a positive future with the negative reality that stands in the way of realizing the positive future. When people have high expectations of success, they form strong goal commitments; when people have low expectations of success, they form weak commitments (e.g., Oettingen, Pak, & Schnetter, 2001). To the contrary, when people contrast the negative reality with the positive future (i.e., reverse contrasting), expectations of success are not translated into goal commitment. A multitude of studies support this pattern of results (summary by Oettingen & Thorpe, 2006).
The Present Research
Investigating how mental contrasting achieves its commitment-inducing effects, we hypothesize that mental contrasting produces expectancy-dependent associations between the positive future and the negative reality. When expectations of success are high, people assured to be able to realize the positive future, should form strong associations between the positive future and the negative reality. These strong associations in turn should lead to strong energization and goal commitment. In contrast, when expectations of success are low, people assured not to be able to realize the positive future, should form weak associations between the positive future and the negative reality. These weak associations should then lead to weak energization and goal commitment.
2. Negative Reality
2. Negative Experience
Future-Reality Link
Reality-Future Link
2. Negative Future
Accessibility
Future-Reality Link
Expectation
Clarity
(β = .56** )
β = .62**
β = -.44*
β = . 28
Lexical Decision Task
Future-Reality Link
Expectation
Control
(β = .66** )
β = .62**
β = -.38*
β = .42*
Summary
Mental contrasting, rather than reverse contrasting translates high expectations into strong associations between the positive future and the negative reality and low expectations into weak associations. Importantly, the associations between the positive future and reality mediated the expectancy-energization relation and the expectancy-commitment relation in the mental contrasting condition.
Goal Commitment
Participants in the mental contrasting reported expectancy-dependent effects on the perceived control, perceived clarity, and energization. Participants in the reverse contrasting and the control condition did not.
Critical Trials
Dependent variable
Prime
Target
Accessibility of relevant aspects
Negative word
Desired future
Positive word
Impeding reality
Link of future and reality
Link of reality and future
Energization
Clarity
Control
References
Oettingen, G. (2000). Expectancy effects on behavior depend on self-regulatory thought. Social Cognition, 18,
Oettingen, G., Pak, H., & Schnetter, K. (2001). Self-regulation of goal-setting: Turning free fantasies about the future into binding goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
Oettingen, G., & Thorpe, J. (2006). Fantasy realization and the bridging of time. In L. J. Sanna & E. C. Chang (Eds.), Judgments over time: The interplay of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (pp ). New York: Oxford University Press
Methods
All participants (134 New York University students) named their most important Life Task (Cantor et al., 1987) in the social domain, their expectations of success (i.e., How likely do you think it is that you will succeed in this Life Task?), an aspect that they associate with achieving the positive future, and an aspect that they associate with standing in the way of achieving the positive future (i.e., impeding reality).
Energization and Goal Commitment Indicators (7-point scales)
Energization: Encouraged, Active, Incited (α = .95)
Responsibility (Cantor et al., 1987): How much do you feel in control of your life task?
Clarity (Emmons, 1986): How clear an idea do you have of what you need to do successful in your Life Task?
Poster presented at the 20th Annual Convention of the Association for Psychological Science in Chicago, IL, May 2008