Experimental evidence that exerting effort increases meaning.

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition Pub Date : 2025-01-23 DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106065
Aidan V Campbell, Yiyi Wang, Michael Inzlicht
{"title":"Experimental evidence that exerting effort increases meaning.","authors":"Aidan V Campbell, Yiyi Wang, Michael Inzlicht","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Efficiency demands that we work smarter and not harder, but is this better for our wellbeing? Here, we ask if exerting effort on a task can increase feelings of meaning and purpose. In six studies (N = 2883), we manipulated how much effort participants exerted on a task and then assessed how meaningful they found those tasks. In Studies 1 and 2, we presented hypothetical scenarios whereby participants imagined themselves (or others) exerting more or less effort on a writing task, and then asked participants how much meaning they believed they (or others) would derive. In Study 3, we randomly assigned participants to complete inherently meaningless tasks that were harder or easier to complete, and again asked them how meaningful they found the tasks. Study 4 varied the difficulty of a writing assignment by involving or excluding ChatGPT assistance and evaluated its meaningfulness. Study 5 investigated cognitive dissonance as a potential explanatory mechanism. In Study 6, we tested the shape of the effort-meaning relationship. In all studies, the more effort participants exerted (or imagined exerting), the more meaning they derived (or imagined deriving), though the results of Study 6 show this is only up to a point. These studies suggest a causal link, whereby effort begets feelings of meaning. They also suggest that part of the reason this link exists is that effort begets feeling of competence and mastery, although the evidence is preliminary and inconsistent. We found no evidence the effects were caused by post-hoc effort justification (i.e., cognitive dissonance). Effort, beyond being a mere cost, is a source of personal meaning and value, fundamentally influencing how individuals and observers perceive and derive satisfaction from tasks.</p>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"257 ","pages":"106065"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106065","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Efficiency demands that we work smarter and not harder, but is this better for our wellbeing? Here, we ask if exerting effort on a task can increase feelings of meaning and purpose. In six studies (N = 2883), we manipulated how much effort participants exerted on a task and then assessed how meaningful they found those tasks. In Studies 1 and 2, we presented hypothetical scenarios whereby participants imagined themselves (or others) exerting more or less effort on a writing task, and then asked participants how much meaning they believed they (or others) would derive. In Study 3, we randomly assigned participants to complete inherently meaningless tasks that were harder or easier to complete, and again asked them how meaningful they found the tasks. Study 4 varied the difficulty of a writing assignment by involving or excluding ChatGPT assistance and evaluated its meaningfulness. Study 5 investigated cognitive dissonance as a potential explanatory mechanism. In Study 6, we tested the shape of the effort-meaning relationship. In all studies, the more effort participants exerted (or imagined exerting), the more meaning they derived (or imagined deriving), though the results of Study 6 show this is only up to a point. These studies suggest a causal link, whereby effort begets feelings of meaning. They also suggest that part of the reason this link exists is that effort begets feeling of competence and mastery, although the evidence is preliminary and inconsistent. We found no evidence the effects were caused by post-hoc effort justification (i.e., cognitive dissonance). Effort, beyond being a mere cost, is a source of personal meaning and value, fundamentally influencing how individuals and observers perceive and derive satisfaction from tasks.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cognition
Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
283
期刊介绍: Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.
期刊最新文献
Blocking of associative learning by explicit descriptions. London taxi drivers exploit neighbourhood boundaries for hierarchical route planning. Hidden size: Size representations in implicitly coded objects. Is an eye truly for an eye? Magnitude differences affect moral praise more than moral blame. People expect artificial moral advisors to be more utilitarian and distrust utilitarian moral advisors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1