Mindset theory suggests that a deliberative mindset entails openness to information in one’s environment, whereas an implemental mindset entails filtering of information. We hypothesized that this open- versus closed-mindedness influences individuals’ breadth of visual attention. In Studies 1 and 2, we induced an implemental or deliberative mindset, and measured breadth of attention using participants’ length estimates of x-winged Müller-Lyer figures. Both studies demonstrate a narrower breadth of attention in the implemental mindset than in the deliberative mindset. In Study 3, we manipulated participants’ mindsets and measured the breadth of attention by tracking eye movements during scene perception. Implemental mindset participants focused on foreground objects, whereas deliberative mindset participants attended more evenly to the entire scene. Our findings imply that deliberative versus implemental mindsets already operate at the level of visual attention.
AndersonB. A.LaurentP. A.YantisS. (2011). Value-driven attentional capture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 10367-10371.
2.
ArmorD. A.TaylorS. E. (2003). The effects of mindset on behavior: Self-regulation in deliberative and implemental frames of mind. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 86-95.
3.
BayerU. C.GollwitzerP. M. (2005). Mindset effects on information search in self-evaluation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 313-327.
4.
BoksemM. A. S.MeijmanT. F.LoristM. M. (2005). Effects of mental fatigue on attention: An ERP study. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 107-116.
5.
BrandstätterV.FrankE. (2002). Effects of deliberative and implemental mindsets on persistence in goal-directed behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1366-1378.
6.
BüttnerO. B.FlorackA.GöritzA. S. (2013). Shopping orientation and mindsets: How motivation influences consumer information processing during shopping. Psychology & Marketing, 30, 779-793.
7.
BüttnerO. B.FlorackA.LederH.PaulM. A.SerfasB. G.SchulzA. M. (2014). Hard to ignore: Impulsive buyers show an attentional bias in shopping situations. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 5, 343-351.
8.
ChuaF. H.BolandJ. E.NisbettR. E. (2005). Cultural variations in eye movements during scene perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 12629-12633.
9.
CorbettaM.ShulmanG. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Review Neuroscience, 3, 201-215.
10.
CosmanJ. D.VeceraS. P. (2013). Context-dependent control over attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 836-848.
11.
DijksterhuisA.AartsH. (2010). Goals, attention, and (un)consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 467-490.
FinkG. R.HalliganP. W.MarshallJ. C.FrithC. D.FrackowiakR. S. J.DolanR. J. (1996). Where in the brain does visual attention select the forest and the trees?Nature, 382, 626-628.
14.
FörsterJ. (2012). GLOMOsys: The how and why of global and local processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 15-19.
15.
FörsterJ.DannenbergL. (2010). GLOMOsys: A systems account of global versus local processing. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 175-197.
16.
FreitasA. L.GollwitzerP. M.TropeY. (2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others’ self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 739-752.
17.
FujitaK.GollwitzerP. M.OettingenG. (2007). Mindsets and pre-conscious open-mindedness to incidental information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 48-61.
GableP. A.Harmon-JonesE. (2010). The motivational dimensional model of affect: Implications for breadth of attention, memory, and cognitive categorisation. Cognition & Emotion, 24, 322-337.
20.
GagnéF. M.LydonJ. E. (2001). Mind-set and close relationships: When bias leads to (in)accurate predictions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 85-96.
21.
GollwitzerP. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In HigginsE. T.SorrentinoR. M. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 53-92). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
22.
GollwitzerP. M. (2012). Mindset theory of action phases. In Van LangeP.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 526-545). London, England: SAGE.
23.
GollwitzerP. M.BayerU. (1999). Deliberative versus implemental mindsets in the control of action. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 403-422). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
GollwitzerP. M.HeckhausenH.StellerB. (1990). Deliberative vs. implemental mind-sets: Cognitive tuning toward congruous thoughts and information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1119-1127.
25.
GollwitzerP. M.KinneyR. F. (1989). Effects of deliberative and implemental mind-sets on the illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 531-542.
26.
GoryoK.RobinsonJ. O.WilsonJ. A. (1984). Selective looking and the Müller-Lyer illusion: The effect of changes in the focus of attention on the Müller-Lyer illusion. Perception, 13, 647-654.
27.
HeckhausenH.GollwitzerP. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational and volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, 11, 101-120.
28.
HollingworthA.HendersonJ. M. (2002). Accurate visual memory for previously attended objects in natural scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 113-136.
29.
LangP. J. (1980). Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment: Computer applications. In SidowskiJ. B.JohnsonJ. H.WilliamsT. A. (Eds.), Technology in mental health care delivery systems (pp. 119-137). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
30.
LibermanN.FörsterJ. (2009). The effect of psychological distance on perceptual level of construal. Cognitive Science, 33, 1330-1341.
31.
LibermanN.TropeY. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5-18.
32.
MargucJ.FörsterJ.van KleefG. A. (2011). Stepping back to see the big picture: When obstacles elicit global processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 883-901.
33.
NavonD. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353-383.
34.
OrquinJ. L.Mueller LooseS. (2013). Attention and choice: A review of eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 144, 190-206.
35.
PietersR.WedelM. (2007). Goal control of attention to advertising: The Yarbus implication. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 224-233.
36.
PredebonJ. (2004). Selective attention and asymmetry in the Müller-Lyer illusion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 916-920.
37.
ProverbioA. M.MinnitiA.ZaniA. (1998). Electrophysiological evidence of a perceptual precedence of global vs. local visual information. Cognitive Brain Research, 6, 321-334.
38.
PucaR. M. (2001). Preferred difficulty and subject probability in different action phases. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 307-326.
39.
SteyerR.SchwenkmezgerP.NotzP.EidM. (1997). Der Mehrdimensionale Befindlichkeitsfragebogen (MDBF). Handanweisung [The Multidimensional Mood State Questionnaire]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
40.
TaylorS. E.GollwitzerP. M. (1995). Effects of mindset on positive illusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 213-226.
41.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463.
42.
TsaiC. I.McGillA. L. (2011). No pain, no gain? How fluency and construal level affect consumer confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 807-821.
43.
VogtJ.De HouwerJ.MoorsA.Van DammeS.CrombezG. (2010). The automatic orienting of attention to goal-relevant stimuli. Acta Psychologica, 134, 61-69.
44.
WieberF.SezerL. AGollwitzerP. M. (2014). Asking “why” helps action control by goals but not plans. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 65-78.
45.
YamaguchiS.YamagataS.KobayashiS. (2000). Cerebral asymmetry of the “top-down” allocation of attention to global and local features. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, RC72.
46.
ZuckermanM.LubinB. (1965). Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist: Today form. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
