Mental contrasting promotes effective self-regulation for the benefits of groups.

IF 3.2 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL British Journal of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1111/bjso.12791

SunYoung Kim, Peter M Gollwitzer, Gabriele Oettingen

{"title":"Mental contrasting promotes effective self-regulation for the benefits of groups.","authors":"SunYoung Kim, Peter M Gollwitzer, Gabriele Oettingen","doi":"10.1111/bjso.12791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Self-regulation is essential for maintaining harmonious social connections and sustaining groups, yet little research has examined how individuals regulate their actions for the benefits of groups and which self-regulatory strategies promote effective self-regulation (active engagement and disengagement) in group contexts. In three experiments, focusing on identity groups (family and friends in Study 1) and two distinct functional groups (workplace teams in Study 2; sports teams in Study 3), we investigated whether mental contrasting of a desired future with the obstacle of reality, compared to indulging in the desired future, facilitates expectancy-dependent contributions for the benefits of groups. We assessed participants' expectancies of successfully contributing to their groups and varied the mode of thought (mental contrasting vs. indulging). Contributions to groups were measured 1 week (Studies 1 and 2) and 3 weeks later (Study 3). Results showed that mental contrasting guided people to align their actions with expectancy levels; the higher their expectancy, the more people contributed to their groups. In contrast, indulging resulted in insensitivity to expectancy levels. Our findings suggest the potential applicability of the mental contrasting strategy for promoting effective self-regulation in various group settings and provide insights into designing interventions to enhance individuals' engagement in groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12791","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Self-regulation is essential for maintaining harmonious social connections and sustaining groups, yet little research has examined how individuals regulate their actions for the benefits of groups and which self-regulatory strategies promote effective self-regulation (active engagement and disengagement) in group contexts. In three experiments, focusing on identity groups (family and friends in Study 1) and two distinct functional groups (workplace teams in Study 2; sports teams in Study 3), we investigated whether mental contrasting of a desired future with the obstacle of reality, compared to indulging in the desired future, facilitates expectancy-dependent contributions for the benefits of groups. We assessed participants' expectancies of successfully contributing to their groups and varied the mode of thought (mental contrasting vs. indulging). Contributions to groups were measured 1 week (Studies 1 and 2) and 3 weeks later (Study 3). Results showed that mental contrasting guided people to align their actions with expectancy levels; the higher their expectancy, the more people contributed to their groups. In contrast, indulging resulted in insensitivity to expectancy levels. Our findings suggest the potential applicability of the mental contrasting strategy for promoting effective self-regulation in various group settings and provide insights into designing interventions to enhance individuals' engagement in groups.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

心理对比能促进有效的自我调节，使群体受益。

自我调节对于维持和谐的社会关系和群体的持续发展至关重要，但很少有研究探讨个人如何为了群体的利益而调节自己的行为，以及哪些自我调节策略能在群体背景下促进有效的自我调节（积极参与和脱离）。在三个实验中，我们以身份群体（研究 1 中的家人和朋友）和两个不同的功能群体（研究 2 中的工作团队；研究 3 中的运动团队）为重点，研究了与沉溺于理想的未来相比，在心理上将理想的未来与现实的障碍进行对比，是否有助于为群体的利益做出与期望相关的贡献。我们评估了参与者对成功为团体做出贡献的预期，并改变了思维模式（心理对比与沉溺）。一周后（研究 1 和 2）和三周后（研究 3），我们测量了参与者对团体的贡献。结果显示，心理对比引导人们使自己的行动与期望水平保持一致；期望越高，人们对小组的贡献就越大。与此相反，放纵则导致人们对期望水平不敏感。我们的研究结果表明，心理对比策略可能适用于在各种团体环境中促进有效的自我调节，并为设计干预措施以提高个人在团体中的参与度提供了启示。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

British Journal of Social Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-

CiteScore

9.50

自引率

7.40%

发文量

期刊介绍： The British Journal of Social Psychology publishes work from scholars based in all parts of the world, and manuscripts that present data on a wide range of populations inside and outside the UK. It publishes original papers in all areas of social psychology including: • social cognition • attitudes • group processes • social influence • intergroup relations • self and identity • nonverbal communication • social psychological aspects of personality, affect and emotion • language and discourse Submissions addressing these topics from a variety of approaches and methods, both quantitative and qualitative are welcomed. We publish papers of the following kinds: • empirical papers that address theoretical issues; • theoretical papers, including analyses of existing social psychological theories and presentations of theoretical innovations, extensions, or integrations; • review papers that provide an evaluation of work within a given area of social psychology and that present proposals for further research in that area; • methodological papers concerning issues that are particularly relevant to a wide range of social psychologists; • an invited agenda article as the first article in the first part of every volume. The editorial team aims to handle papers as efficiently as possible. In 2016, papers were triaged within less than a week, and the average turnaround time from receipt of the manuscript to first decision sent back to the authors was 47 days.