The “more is less” effect in equifinal structures: Alternative means reduce the intensity and quality of motivation (original) (raw)
Related papers
Six experiments tested a dilution model of self-regulation, whereby increasing the number of goals (e.g., building muscles and losing weight) that a single means (e.g., exercising) can satisfy reduces the perception of its instrumentality with respect to each goal. The authors found that an increase in the number of simultaneous, salient goals that can be satisfied via a single means weakens the associative strength between that means and each individual goal, and as a result, individuals perceive the means as less effective for the attainment of each goal. Consequently, means that are connected to multiple (vs. single) goals are less likely to be chosen and pursued when only one of these goals is activated.
Means of goal attainment are said to be multifinal when they are capable of attaining more than 1 goal at the same time. Such means have an advantage over unifinal means because they have the potential to attain greater overall value. However, they have the disadvantage (relative to unifinal means) of diluting the association between the means and each of the goals . In turn, diluted association strength is often interpreted as reduced means' instrumentality. Given these tradeoffs between value (favoring a multifinal option) and instrumentality (favoring the unifinal option), the question is under what conditions 1 or the other would be selected. Based on regulatory mode theory , we predicted and found in 5 experiments that individuals operating in a locomotion self-regulatory mode prefer a unifinal to multifinal means, whereas individuals operating in an assessment mode prefer multifinal to unifinal means. Implications of these findings for self-regulatory phenomena are discussed.
The dilution model: How additional goals undermine the perceived instrumentality of a shared path
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2007
Six experiments tested a dilution model of self-regulation, whereby increasing the number of goals (e.g., building muscles and losing weight) that a single means (e.g., exercising) can satisfy reduces the perception of its instrumentality with respect to each goal. The authors found that an increase in the number of simultaneous, salient goals that can be satisfied via a single means weakens the associative strength between that means and each individual goal, and as a result, individuals perceive the means as less effective for the attainment of each goal. Consequently, means that are connected to multiple (vs. single) goals are less likely to be chosen and pursued when only one of these goals is activated.
Four studies examined the relation between the number of equifinal means to a goal, actors' commitment to that goal, and their commitment to the means. In Study 1, participants freely generated varying number of means to two of their work goals. In Study 2, they generated social means to their goals (people they viewed as helpful to goal attainment). In Studies 3 and 4, the number of means to participants' goals was experimentally manipulated. All four studies found that means commitment is negatively related, whereas goal commitment is positively related, to means number. Consistent support was also obtained for the notion that the relation between means number and goal commitment is mediated by the expectancy of goal attainment, and by goal importance. Conceptual and practical implications of the findings were considered that link together the notions of substitutability and dependency within a goal systemic framework.
Means of goal attainment are said to be multifinal when they are capable of attaining more than 1 goal at the same time. Such means have an advantage over unifinal means because they have the potential to attain greater overall value. However, they have the disadvantage (relative to unifinal means) of diluting the association between the means and each of the goals (Zhang, Fishbach, & Kruglanski, 2007). In turn, diluted association strength is often interpreted as reduced means’ instrumentality. Given these tradeoffs between value (favoring a multifinal option) and instrumentality (favoring the unifinal option), the question is under what conditions 1 or the other would be selected. Based on regulatory mode theory (Higgins, Kruglanski, & Pierro, 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000), we predicted and found in 5 experiments that individuals operating in a locomotion self-regulatory mode prefer a unifinal to multifinal means, whereas individuals operating in an assessment mode prefer multifinal to unifinal means. Implications of these findings for self-regulatory phenomena are discussed.
From One to Many: Toward an Understanding of Multiple Means and Multiple Goals
2013
Consumers often use products, services, and behaviors to help them pursue their multiple goals. They eat fresh produce to be healthy, buy suits to look professional at work, and buy movie tickets to relax and have fun. These goal-related products and services are collectively referred to as "means" to goal attainment (Kruglanski et al. 2002). Prior research to-date has primarily focused on the use of a single means to pursue a single goal. This one-to-one relationship between a single means and a single goal, however, is an overly simplistic perspective. Consumers typically utilize multiple means for goal pursuit, and have multiple goals they wish to pursue at the same time. My dissertation adopts this more realistic framework for understanding how consumers use means to pursue their goals. In three essays I explore how relationships among multiple means and multiple goals, which I define in terms of variety, impact consumer motivation.
The Multifinality Constraints Effect: How Goal Multiplicity Narrows the Means Set to a Focal End
In the presence of several objectives, goal conflict may be avoided via multifinal means, which advance all of the active goals at once. Because such means observe multiple constraints, they are fewer in number than the unconstrained means to a single goal. Five experimental studies investigated the process of choosing or generating such means for multiple goals. We found that the simultaneous activation of multiple goals restricted the set of acceptable means to ones that benefitted (or at least, did not harm) the entire set of active goals. Two moderators of this phenomenon were identified: (a) the feasibility of identifying multifinal means, which was dependent on the relations between the different active goals, and (b) the enhanced importance of the focal goal, which resulted in the inhibition of its alternatives and the consequent relaxation of multifinality constraints.
Counterfinality: On the Increased Perceived Instrumentality of Means to a Goal
The present research investigates the counterfinality effect, whereby the more a means is perceived as detrimental to an alternative goal, the more it is perceived as instrumental to its focal goal. The results from five studies supported this hypothesis. Study 1 demonstrated the counterfinality effect in an applied context: The more pain people experienced when getting tattooed, the more they perceived getting tattooed as instrumental to attaining their idiosyncratic goals (being unique, showing off, etc.). Study 2 experimentally replicated and extended the results of Study 1: A counterfinal (vs. non-counterfinal) consumer product was perceived as more detrimental, which in turn predicted the perceived effectiveness of the product. In Studies 3 and 5, we showed that increased perceived instrumentality due to counterfinality led to more positive attitudes toward a means. Finally, Studies 4 and 5 indicated that simultaneous commitment to both the focal and the alternative goal moderated the counterfinality effect. We discuss how various psychological phenomena can be subsumed under the general framework of counterfinality, which has broad practical implications extending to consumer behavior, health psychology, and terrorism.
In the presence of several objectives, goal conflict may be avoided via multifinal means, which advance all of the active goals at once. Because such means observe multiple constraints, they are fewer in number than the unconstrained means to a single goal. Five experimental studies investigated the process of choosing or generating such means for multiple goals. We found that the simultaneous activation of multiple goals restricted the set of acceptable means to ones that benefitted (or at least, did not harm) the entire set of active goals. Two moderators of this phenomenon were identified: (a) the feasibility of identifying multifinal means, which was dependent on the relations between the different active goals, and (b) the enhanced importance of the focal goal, which resulted in the inhibition of its alternatives and the consequent relaxation of multifinality constraints.