The Get Ready Mindset:
When Anticipated Future
Resource Demands Increase Effort
Allocation to Unrelated Current Tasks
Anick Bosmans,
Rik Pieters and
Hans Baumgartner
The Get Ready Mindset
Outline of research idea
 allocation of scarce cognitive resources in
sequential tasks; specifically, how do expectations
of future task demands influence resource allocation
to unrelated current tasks?
 the anticipation of a difficult future task activates a
“get ready mindset”;
 the resources mobilized in anticipation of future task
demands may inadvertently transfer to unrelated
current tasks;
 ability to keep tasks separate moderates the
hypothesized resource carry-over;
The Get Ready Mindset
Getting ready for future performance
 similar to Gollwitzer et al.’s postulate of an implementation mindset, anticipated future task demands may
create a get ready mindset;
 cognitive, affective and motivational states evoked by one
context sometimes carry over to other, unrelated contexts:
Gollwitzer et al.’s (1990) work on implementation mindsets
□ Dillman’s work on residual arousal
□ misattribution of mood (Schwarz and Clore 1983; Pham
1998)
□
 resources mobilized in anticipation of a difficult future
task may carry over to unrelated current tasks;
The Get Ready Mindset
Experiment 1A: Mindset activation
and product evaluation
 34 Ps completed two tasks:
□
Initial task: write about an easy or difficult future task
(manipulation of Future Task Difficulty)
□ Focal information search task: evaluate a diet drink
based on various information links
 Dependent variables:
□
□
□
Number of words and letters used to describe the
initial task
Product evaluation (e.g., like it/dislike it)
Number of information links consulted
The Get Ready Mindset
Experiment 1A: Results
Easy
Future Task
Difficult
Future Task
F(1,32)
p
65/274
73/343
<1
n.s.
Product evaluation
3.74
4.12
<1
n.s.
# of information links
consulted
3.6
6.7
9.64
<.01
# of words/letters
The Get Ready Mindset
Experiment 1B: Mindset activation
and baseline effort
 68 Ps completed several tasks:
□
□
□
Different Manipulation of Future Task Difficulty: come
up with as many $1 gifts as possible (described as an
easy or difficulty task, or no information)
Practice gift listing task
Focal information search task: evaluate a diet drink
based on various information links
 Dependent variables:
□
□
□
Expectation of having to work hard during the session
Product evaluation
Number of information links consulted
The Get Ready Mindset
Experiment 1B: Results
Easy
Future
Task
Control
Difficult
Future
Task
F(2,65)
p
Manipulation
check
2.91
3.05
5.48
6.50
<.01
Performance in
practice task
5.78
5.68
4.00
2.28
n.s.
# of information
links consulted
.96
2.41
3.83
8.61
<.001
The Get Ready Mindset
Experiment 1C: Mindset activation
and idea generation

77 Ps completed several tasks:

Manipulation of Future Task Difficulty: come up with as
many $1 gifts as possible (described as an easy or
difficulty task)
 Different Focal task: generate ideas about how to lose 6
lbs. of weight in a month
 Future task: list 1$ gifts

Dependent variables:

Expected difficulty level of the weight loss and gift listing
tasks
 Quantitative effort (number of weight loss ideas) and
qualitative effort (high effort-related minus low effortrelated thoughts, observer ratings of effort)
The Get Ready Mindset
Experiment 1C: Results
Easy
Future Task
Difficult
Future Task
F
p
Expected difficulty of
the weight loss task
3.98
4.38
1.06
n.s.
Expected difficulty of
the gift listing task
3.40
5.84
44.94
<.001
# of dieting ideas
3.08
3.97
6.61
<.05
# of effort-related
thoughts
-.10
.49
7.65
<.01
Observer-rated effort
1.84
2.36
13.74
<.001
The Get Ready Mindset
Keeping things separate
 transfer effects occur b/c people have trouble separating
experiences associated with one object, event or activity
from those associated with others;
 as the ability to separate experiences increases, carry-over
effects should become less likely:
□
□
Situational: as the distinctiveness of tasks increases,
carry-over of resources should decrease;
Dispositional: people who are characteristically better
able to separate experiences (independent vs.
interdependent style of processing) should exhibit
less carry-over of resources;
The Get Ready Mindset
Experiment 2A:
Task similarity as a moderator

59 Ps completed several tasks:

Manipulation of Task Similarity: tasks are related/unrelated
and draw on similar/different psychological processes;
 Different Manipulation of Future Task Difficulty: anagram
task that was said to be perceived as easy or difficult by
previous Ps;
 Practice anagram task
 Focal task: generate ideas about how to lose 6 lbs. of
weight in a month

Dependent variable:

number of weight loss ideas
The Get Ready Mindset
Experiment 2A: Results
 No significant effects in the practice task;
 # of dieting ideas:
Mean number of
dieting ideas
6
5
4
Difficult
3
Easy
2
1
0
Low
High
Perceived Task Similarity
The Get Ready Mindset
Experiment 2B:
Processing style as a moderator

67 Ps completed several tasks:

Manipulation of Future Task Difficulty: anagram task that
was perceived as easy or difficult by previous Ps;
 Practice anagram task
 Focal task: evaluate a diet drink based on various
information links (information search)
 After several filler tasks, three RT measures to assess
independent vs. interdependent style of processing;

Dependent variable:

number of information links consulted
 time spent reading each piece of information consulted
The Get Ready Mindset
Experiment 2B: Results
Information
Consulted
7
6
5
Difficult
4
Easy
3
2
1
0
Independents
Interdependents
Processing Style
The Get Ready Mindset
Experiment 2B: Results
Reading times
(in seconds)
16
14
12
10
Difficult
8
Easy
6
4
2
0
Independents
Interdependents
Processing Style
The Get Ready Mindset
Discussion
 when people expected to engage in a difficult future task,
they expended more – not less – effort on an unrelated
intervening task;
 this finding was replicated with different manipulations of
task difficulty and different focal tasks and effort
measures;
 results are not due to differences in achievement motives,
standards of performance, mood, self-esteem, or resource
completion;
 resource carry-over is moderated by people’s ability to
separate tasks (task distinctiveness and independent vs.
interdependent style of processing);
The Get Ready Mindset
Discussion (cont’d)
 Question whether information about the difficulty of the future
task established different performance standards:
□
□
Manipulation checks and performance on practice tasks argue
against this account;
No explicit evidence for the processes underlying the standard-ofperformance account;
 Question of when people will conserve and when carry-over
will occur:
□
□
Some evidence of conservation in Experiments 2A and 2B
Salience of resource scarcity and extent of self-control required in
the future task as relevant factors
 Implications of resource carry-over for performance on the
future task
The Get Ready Mindset
Manipulation in Experiment 1A
We are currently investigating how people experience routine [complex]
tasks. Routine tasks are tasks that are relatively simple, require no or little
energy, and are relatively effortless. You do not become tired after performing
a routine task [Complex tasks are tasks that are difficult, require a substantial
amount of energy, and are relatively effortful. You become tired after
performing a complex task]. In this task you are asked to describe – in as much
detail as possible – a routine [complex] task that you plan to carry out in the
near future (i.e., in a few moments or in a couple of hours). Think about a task
that you expect to be easy and effortless [difficult and effortful].”
In the space below please describe as elaborately and in as much detail as
possible an easy, routine task [a difficult, complex task] that you anticipate to
carry out in the near future. Also, discuss the reasons why you anticipate this
task to be easy [difficult] and why the task will require little or no [a lot of]
energy.
The Get Ready Mindset
Experiment 2A:
Manipulation checks

Future Task Difficulty:




65 Ps received the same task difficulty instructions as in the
main experiment;
Ps in the Difficult Future Task condition anticipated having to
work harder in the remainder of the experiment than Ps in the
Easy Future Task condition (5.50 vs. 4.39);
no significant differences in mood states, self-esteem, or extent
of resource depletion;
Perceived Task Similarity:


34 Ps received the same task similarity instructions as in the
main experiment;
Ps who received the similar task instructions rated the two tasks
as more similar than Ps who received the dissimilar task
instructions (4.90 vs. 3.68);
The Get Ready Mindset
Stimuli used to measure processing style