Close
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Can I make the time or is time running out? That depends in part on how I think about difficulty
(USC Thesis Other)
Can I make the time or is time running out? That depends in part on how I think about difficulty
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Can I Make The Time Or Is Time Running Out? That Depends In Part On How I Think About
Difficulty
by
Su Young (Kevin) Choi
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC DORNSIFE COLLEGE OF LETTERS, ARTS AND SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(PSYCHOLOGY)
August 2023
Copyright 2023 Su Young (Kevin) Choi
ii
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Daphna Oyserman, Norbert Schwarz and Wandi Bruine De Bruin for
their comments on this work, and the USC IBM Lab for advice on study design and analysis.
Correspondence should be addressed to Su Young Choi, University of Southern California,
Department of Psychology, 3551 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA. 90089. Email:
choisuyo@usc.edu.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. iv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ivi
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2: Studies 1-2 ..................................................................................................................... 9
Method 9
Results and Discussion 11
Chapter 3: Studies 3-5 ................................................................................................................... 16
General Methods 16
Results and Discussion 20
Chapter 4: Study 6 ........................................................................................................................ 24
Method 24
Results and Discussion 26
Chapter 5: Studies 3 – 6 General Results ...................................................................................... 29
Chapter 6: Study 7 ........................................................................................................................ 30
Method 30
Results & Discussion 31
Chapter 7: General Discussion ...................................................................................................... 33
Theoretical Implications 35
Limitations and Future Directions 37
Conclusion 39
References ..................................................................................................................................... 41
Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 47
Figures........................................................................................................................................... 52
iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Studies 1 and 2: Scale Descriptive Information .............................................................. 47
Table 2. Studies 3 – 5: Participant Demographics Information .................................................... 48
Table 3. Studies 3-5: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Independent Samples t-tests for Time-as-
Limited and Time-as-Expandable ................................................................................... 49
Table 4. Studies 3-5: Model Fit Adequacy for Multigroup SEM Models .................................. 50
Table 5. Studies 3-5: Correlations and Fisher’s z-Test comparing Difficulty-as-Importance and
Difficulty-as-Impossibility Conditions ........................................................................... 51
v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Difficulty-as-Importance Shapes Time-Prepare Through Time-as-Expandable ........... 52
Figure 2. Difficulty-as-Importance Shapes Dysfunctional Planning Through
Time-as-Expandable ..................................................................................................... 53
Figure 3. Difficulty-as-Impossibility Shapes Time-to-Prepare Through Time-as-Limited .......... 54
Figure 4. Difficulty-as-Impossibility Shapes Dysfunctional Planning Through
Time-as-Limited ........................................................................................................... 55
Figure 5. Studies 4 and 5: Time-as-Limited Mediates the Effect of Difficulty Mindsets on Pro-
Environmental Behavior ............................................................................................... 56
Figure 6. Study 6: Difficulty-as-Impossibility Increases Endorsement of Time-as-Limited
Relative to Difficulty-as-Importance and Control ........................................................ 57
Figure 7. Forest Plots of the Mini Meta-Analyses of Studies 3 – 6. ............................................. 58
vi
Abstract
When you have a task or goal to attend to but feel short on time, do you find the time to persist
or do you disengage and switch to something else? Identity-based motivation theory predicts that
what people do depends in part on their interpretation of difficulty working on an upcoming task
or goal. People can interpret difficulty as a signal of value and importance (difficulty-as-
importance) or as a reminder to stop wasting their time (difficulty-as-impossibility). We
predicted that these interpretations matter for what people do by shaping how they experience
time. Across seven studies (two correlational, total N=338 American adults; five experimental,
total N=1289 college students), we find that an endorsed or accessible difficulty mindset shapes
judgments about time. When people apply a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset, time feels
limited and not expandable. In contrast, when they apply difficulty-as-importance, time feels
limited yet expandable. Endorsing difficulty-as-importance and difficulty-as-impossibility are
associated with intuitions about planning under time constraints via time beliefs (Studies 1, 2).
Accessible difficulty-as-impossibility undermines future-focused action (Studies 4-6).
Interpretations of experienced difficulty and beliefs about time may co-reside in associative
knowledge networks: we find some evidence that accessible time beliefs also trigger a relevant
difficulty mindset (Study 7).
Keywords: difficulty mindsets, time perception, identity-based motivation, metacognitive
experiences, conceptual metaphors
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Time is a valuable resource that people use to accomplish their goals. Since investing
time in one goal leaves less time available to pursue other goals, time can be thought of as a
constraint on goal pursuit, yielding the notion that time is scarce and limited (Etkin, 2019; Rudd,
2019; Shah, Mullainathan & Shafir, 2012). However, people’s decision to engage in tasks and
goals should also entail the belief that they can find and make the time to meet task demands.
People’s interpretation of time is therefore malleable, and whether time is construed as being
limited or expandable in the moment should in turn guide behavior. Building on identity-based
motivation theory, we predict that the different inferences that people make about whether time is
a limited or an expandable resource depends in part on their metacognitive experiences of
difficulty (Oyserman, 2007, 2009). When people interpret difficulty thinking about or working
on a task or goal to imply that engaging is impossible, they spend less time (Smith & Oyserman,
2015) and perform worse on goal-related tasks (Oyserman et al., 2018) than when they interpret
this difficulty to imply that engaging is important (Oyserman et al., 2018; Smith & Oyserman,
2015). In the current paper, we investigate whether the effects of difficulty mindsets on task
engagement and performance is in part influenced by how people make sense of time. We predict
that when people infer that difficulty implies impossibility, they perceive time as a limited and
not expandable resource, so they do not want to waste time by engaging in goals with low odds
of success. In contrast, when people infer that difficulty implies importance, they perceive time
as a limited yet expandable resource, so they believe that they can make the time to pursue the
goal at hand.
2
Identity-Based Motivation
Identity-based motivation is a situated social cognition theory of motivation, goal pursuit,
and self-regulation (Oyserman, 2009; Oyserman et al., 2017). It predicts that people prefer to act
in identity-congruent ways, and which identities come to mind and what it implies for behavior is
dynamically constructed in context, in part by affecting how people make sense of their
metacognitive experiences of difficulty (Oyserman, Destin & Novin, 2015). People hold two
interpretations of what difficulty think about or working on a task or goal implies (Oyserman et
al., 2017). They apply whichever mindset is accessible and feels relevant in the moment of
judgement (Lewis & Earl, 2018; Mourey & Waldman, 2020; Oyserman et al., 2017; Oyserman,
Smith & Elmore, 2014). When people use a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset, they infer that
the task is not for them and reduce effort, freeing up resources to pursue other goals. In contrast,
when people use a difficulty-as-importance mindset, they infer that the task or goal is self-
relevant and increase effort. Both difficulty mindsets are useful, as interpreting difficulty as a cue
to shift to something else and a cue to stick to the goal at hand can both be valuable means of
self-regulation. Hence, people should have both mindsets available in memory and features of
the situation should trigger which mindset is made accessible.
A body of studies supports each of these predictions. First, prior work demonstrates that
subtle primes can influence which difficulty mindset is brought to mind. Some researchers
manipulate the accessibility of difficulty mindsets by using a biased scale approach. In these
studies, participants are randomly assigned to consider how much they agree or disagree with the
idea of difficulty-as-importance or with the idea of difficulty-as-impossibility (Oyserman et al,
2018; Aelenei et al., 2017). Other researchers manipulate the accessibility of difficulty mindsets
by using an autobiographical recall approach. In these studies, participants are randomly
3
assigned to consider a time in their lives in which they experienced difficulty as either a signal of
importance or impossibility (Smith & Oyserman, 2015; Yan et al., 2023). Some versions of this
approach also include a social comparison manipulation in which people are led to infer that they
have this experience relatively more frequently or less frequently than their peers (Smith &
Oyserman, 2015).
Second, prior work documents downstream consequences of accessible difficulty
mindsets on the perceived centrality and attainability of task-related identities. When students
were randomly assigned to consider difficulty as a signal of the importance of school tasks and
goals, they subsequently considered academics to be more central to their identity (Smith &
Oyserman, 2015). They were also more certain about the possibility of attaining their academic
possible identities and of using effective strategies to do so (Aeleni, Lewis, & Oyserman, 2017).
On the other hand, students who were guided to consider the possibility that difficulty is a signal
of impossibility were less academic-focused in their identities (Oyserman et al., 2018).
Third, prior research documents downstream consequences of accessible difficulty
mindsets on task engagement and performance. Students who were guided to consider the
possibility that difficulty is a signal of importance subsequently invested more time on problem
solving tasks compared to students who considered the possibility that difficulty is a signal of
impossibility (Smith & Oyserman, 2015). Students applying a difficulty-as-importance mindset
also scored higher on a standardized writing task (Oyserman et al., 2018), and performed better
on a Raven’s Progressive Matrices task (Elmore et al., 2016). Some studies also document effects
of accessible difficulty mindsets outside of the academic domain. For example, dieters who rated
their agreement with statements regarding difficulty working on their weight goal as a signal of
importance showed greater self-control in their eating behavior in comparison to those who rated
4
their agreement with statements describing difficulty as a signal of impossibility (Lewis & Earl,
2018).
Fourth, difficulty mindsets can be reliably measured (Fisher & Oyserman, 2017;
O’Donnell, Yan, Bi, & Oyserman, 2022; Yan et al., 2023). People tend to be above the scale
midpoint (tend to accept) in endorsing the idea that difficulty can imply that a task or goal is
important for oneself, and tend to be below the midpoint (tend to reject) in endorsing the idea
that difficulty can imply that a task or goal is impossible for oneself to succeed at (Fisher &
Oyserman, 2017; O’Donnell et al, 2022; Yan et al.,2023). Across studies, the two difficulty
mindsets are distinct. The two mindsets can be positively or negatively correlated, sometimes
significantly so, and sometimes not, but never being experienced by participants as flipsides of
the same idea.
Fifth, how much people endorse difficulty-as-importance and difficulty-as-impossibility
are associated with different sets of outcomes. For example, endorsing a growth mindset is
orthogonal to endorsing difficulty-as-importance, though negatively correlated with endorsing
difficulty-as-impossibility (Fisher & Oyserman, 2017). In a series of studies with samples from
various cultures, endorsement of a fixed mindset was positively correlated with endorsing
difficulty-as-impossibility and was either negatively or positively correlated with difficulty-as-
importance based on the country of origin (Yan et al., 2023). In the context of the COVID19
pandemic, endorsing difficulty-as-importance was associated with seeing silver linings in the
pandemic and in turn willingness to engage in health guidelines, but endorsing difficulty-as-
impossibility was unrelated to either (Kiper et al, 2023). Moreover, people who endorsed
difficulty-as-importance more believed that using ‘effortful’ means is the effective way to reach
their health and academic goals, while people who endorsed difficulty-as-impossibility more
5
believed that using ‘efficient’ means is the more effective way (Kiper, Oyserman & Yan, under
review).
In sum, research to date suggests that people have both difficulty-as-importance and
difficulty-as-impossibility mindsets available in memory, and that the two mindsets have
downstream consequences on identity and action in distinct ways. At the same time, this body of
research does not address mediating processes. In the current studies, we address this gap by
predicting that the mediating process entails people’s subjective interpretation of time. If
difficulty implies importance, people should engage, but to do so, they need to believe that they
can make the time. On the other hand, one of the reasons why difficulty-as-impossibility may
function as a distinct mindset is because if difficulty implies impossibility, it reminds people not
to waste their time. Hence when people are in a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset, they may see
time as a limited and not expandable resource, while people in a difficulty-as-importance
mindset may see time as a limited but expandable resource in the moment. In the next section,
we consider research on conceptual metaphors of time, summarize extant research on time
perception, and highlight what is novel in our approach.
Difficulty Mindsets and Time Perception
Because time is an abstract concept, people use concretizing metaphors to make sense of
time (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Landau, Meier, & Keefer, 2010; Landau, 2016). As summarized
by metaphor researchers, conceptual metaphors allow people to make sense of the abstract by
applying their knowledge of the concrete (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Landau, 2016). In the case of
time, people can describe time as distance (the future feels far; it has been a long time) and as a
resource (don’t waste time; time is running out) among other metaphors. Indeed, in the latter
case, they might even conclude that ‘time is money’ (DeV oe & Pfeffer, 2007; Evans et al., 2004).
6
If time is money, it is both limited, and in some ways, expandable – people have a finite sum of
money in the moment but can always make more of it. By implication, we derive two resource
metaphors for time: time-as-limited and time-as-expandable.
However, extant literature on time does not address this conceptualization. Instead,
researchers conceptualize time as scarce by focusing on the limited time left between now and
the future. Prior research suggest that time can feel scarce when people are reminded of mortality
(Fung & Carstensen, 2006) and the shortness of life (Barber et al., 2016; Fung et al., 1999;
Layous et al., 2018). Feelings of time scarcity can have implications for motivation and behavior
(Mogilner, Chance, and Norton 2012; Rudd, V ohs, and Aaker 2012). For example, when people
feel time scarce, they try to save time by making goal tradeoffs (Shah, Shafir, & Mullainathan,
2015), such as prioritizing a single trip (e.g., shopping for groceries), instead of making multiple
trips (e.g., shopping for clothes and groceries) (Fernbach et al., 2015). Researchers have also
proposed that when people experience time as limited, they may be more likely to shift their
attention to the most immediate goals and be less inclined to focus on their long-term goals
(Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013). However, research-to-date has not explored whether these
consequences are a function of how people use concretizing metaphors to make sense of time. In
the current paper, we therefore take a somewhat different approach. Rather than focusing on time
as scarce because future time horizons feel limited, we use a resource metaphor to think about
time as both limited and expandable in the moment. We predict that 1) while correlated, people
should perceive these two metaphors to be distinct, and 2) how negatively correlated the two
metaphors feel depends on whether at the moment of judgment difficulty-as-importance or
difficulty-as-impossibility is on the mind as an interpretive frame.
7
Current Studies
Predictions
We test four predictions in seven studies:
H1: Difficulty-as-impossibility is associated with experiencing time as a limited
resource. People who endorse (Studies 1 and 2) or have an accessible difficulty-as-impossibility
mindset (Studies 3 to 6) are more likely to believe that time is a limited resource.
H2: Difficulty-as-importance is associated with experiencing time as an expandable
resource. People who endorse (Study 1 and 2) or have an accessible difficulty-as-importance
mindset (Studies 3 to 6) are more likely to believe that time is an expandable resource.
H3: The extent to which the two constructs of time are perceived as two opposing
(limited and not expandable) or two separable constructs (limited, yet expandable) depends on
people’s interpretations of difficulty. Specifically, the more people endorse (Studies 1, 2) or have
an accessible difficulty-as-impossibility mindset (Studies 3 to 6), the more they perceive time-as-
limited and time-as-expandable as strongly negatively associated ideas. In contrast, the more
people endorse (Studies 1, 2) or have an accessible difficulty-as-importance mindset (Studies 3
to 6), the less they see these two aspects of time as opposites.
H4: Difficulty mindsets influence behavior in part by influencing how people make sense
of time. We measure dysfunctional planning tendencies (Studies 1 to 3), beliefs about time to
prepare (Studies 1 to 3), and the decision to engage in pro-environmental behavior (Studies 4 to
6) as operationalizations of behavioral intuitions and outcomes.
Exploratory Question 1: Are the effects of difficulty mindsets on time perception
due to the effect of difficulty-as-importance, difficulty-as-impossibility, or both? In Study 6
we include a control group to explore whether people's shift in the experience of time as a
8
function of an accessible difficulty mindset is due to a difficulty-as-importance mindset, a
difficulty-as-impossibility mindset, or both.
Exploratory Question 2: Is the association between difficulty mindset and time
perception recursive? We explore this question by manipulating the accessibility of time as
limited and time as expandable constructs and measuring endorsement of difficulty mindsets.
9
Chapter 2: Studies 1-2
The aim of Studies 1 and 2 was to understand how people’s interpretation of difficulty
and their subjective experience of time is associated. We used a correlational method,
preregistering Study 2 (pre-registration: http://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=nw3f4r).
Method
Sample
Adults (Study 1: n=106; Study 2: n=257) participated in a 4-minute study for $0.70 on
Prolific. After excluding participants who skipped more than half of the items in our measure or
failed the attention check (Study 1: n=6; Study 2: n=15), our final samples were n=96 in Study 1
(59.4% Female, Mage= 31.89, SDage=11.78) and n=242 in Study 2 (53.7% Female, Mage= 32.36,
SDage=11.25).
Power, Stop rules, and Exclusions
We ran a sensitivity power analysis with alpha of 0.05 and power of 0.80, finding that we
are powered to find an absolute correlation of r = 0.201 in Study 1 and of r = 0.126 in Study 2
(Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). As can be seen below, our main analyses are
adequately powered.
In Study 1, we aimed to collect data from 100 participants to get an initial estimate of the
association between difficulty mindsets and time perception. In Study 2, as detailed in our pre-
registration, we aimed for a final sample of 250 as correlation estimates tend to stabilize at this
point (Schonbrodt & Perugini, 2013). We had two exclusion criteria for participants (missing
data, failing the attention check). Participants who skipped more than half of the items or exited
the survey before completion were excluded as missing data. We embedded the following
attention check in our dysfunctional planning scale: “Indicate that you are reading the question
10
and select 'Strongly Disagree' as your answer.” We operationalized failing the attention check as
giving a response other than Strongly Disagree to this item.
Procedure
Participants completed the following measures in four blocks. We randomized the order
of presentation of the items within each measure. We randomly assigned participants to one of
two order conditions (time-as-resource first, difficulty mindset first). All participants then
completed the time to prepare scenarios in the third block and the dysfunctional planning items
in the fourth block.
Difficulty-as-Importance and Difficulty-as-Impossibility Mindsets. We used Fisher
and Oyserman’s (2017) 4-item, 6-point response (1=Strongly Disagree, 6=Strongly Agree)
scales. An example difficulty-as-importance items is “If a task feels difficult, my gut says that it
really matters for me.” An example difficulty-as-impossibility item is “If a task feels difficult,
my gut says that it may be impossible for me.”
Time-as-Expandable and Time-as-Limited. We created our 4-item, 6-point response
(1=Strongly Disagree, 6=Strongly Agree) scales by adapting Carstensen and Lang’s (1996)
Future Time Perspective Scale, and Rudd, V ohs, and Aaker’s (2012) Perceived Time Availability
Index. An example time-as-expandable item is: “When I have something I really must do, I can
make the time to do it.” An example time-as-limited item is “When I am doing one thing, it
means I won’t have time for something else.”
Time-to-Prepare Likelihood. We created a 4-item likelihood (1=Not at all, 6=Very) of
having time-to-prepare-well scale using four face-valid situations that respondents were asked to
imagine experiencing at work. An example situation is: “You have a presentation for work and
11
haven’t started preparing. How likely is it that you’ll be able to make enough time to be well-
prepared for the presentation?”
Dysfunctional Planning. We created a 4-item dysfunctional planning scale (1=Strongly
Disagree, 6=Strongly Agree). An example item is “When I try to think about what I need to get
done, I often throw up my hands.”
Results and Discussion
Preliminary Analyses. We conducted preliminary analyses to verify that our measures
are reliable and to rule out an effect of order of presentation. As displayed in Table 1, our scales
were adequately reliable (all alpha reliability scores are above .75). The more people endorsed
time-as-limited, the less they endorsed time-as-expandable (Study 1, r(94)=-0.629, p < 0.001,
95% CI
[-0.736, -0.491]; Study 2, r(240)=-0.519, p < 0.001, 95% CI [-0.605, -0.421], p < .01).
This strong negative correlation is not so high as to imply that the two measures are simply flip
sides of the same measure, as the size of the correlation is well below Kline’s (2011) .85 criterion
for being considered redundant. We take this to imply that though the two interpretations of time
are associated, people consider both constructs of time somewhat separately. Similarly, our two
difficulty mindset measures are distinct (Study 1: r(94)=-0.026, p=0.801, 95% CI [-0.225,
0.175]; Study 2: r(240) =-0.195, p=0.002, 95% CI [-0.313, -0.071]). We found no order of
presentation effect, so we do not include order in analyses. Next, we proceeded with our plan to
test the association between people’s interpretation of difficulty and conceptualization of time.
Descriptive Analyses. As can be seen in Table 1, on average, people tended to slightly
agree that difficulty means importance and that time is an expandable resource. They tended to
disagree or slightly disagree that difficulty means impossibility and were relatively neutral to the
idea that time is a limited resource. On average, they were slightly more likely to agree that they
12
would have the time to do a good job on these tasks, and tended to slightly disagree that planning
is for naught.
H1: People who endorse difficulty-as-impossibility experience time as a limited
resource. Supporting our prediction, the more people endorsed a difficulty-as-impossibility
mindset, the more they experienced time as being a limited resource (Study 1, r(94)=0.270,
p=0.008, 95% CI [0.074, 0.446]; Study 2, r(240)=0.302, p<0.001, 95% CI [0.183, 0.412]).
H2: People who endorse difficulty-as-importance experience time as an expandable
resource. Supporting our prediction, the more people endorsed a difficulty-as-importance
mindset, the more they experienced time as being an expandable resource (Study 1, r(94)=0.228,
p=0.025, 95% CI [0.029, 0.409]; Study 2, (r(240)=0.332, p<0.001, 95% CI [0.215, 0.439]).
H3: The extent to which the two constructs of time are perceived as two opposing
(limited and not expandable) or two separable constructs (limited, yet expandable) depends
on people’s interpretation of difficulty. People who endorse difficulty-as-importance are more
likely to endorse time-as-expandable (as shown in H2) but no more or less likely to endorse the
idea of time-as-limited (Study 1, r(94)=-0.013, p=0.900, 95% CI [-0.187, 0.212]; Study 2,
r(240)=-0.038, p=0.556, 95% CI [-0.163, 0.088]). In contrast, people who endorse difficulty-as-
impossibility are more likely to endorse time-as-limited (as shown in H1) and less likely to
endorse the idea of time-as-expandable (Study 1, r(94)=-0.318, p=0.002, 95% CI [-0.487, -
0.126]; Study 2, r(240)=-0.204, p=0.001, 95% CI [-0.321, -0.080]). This pattern of results
suggest that a difficulty-as-importance mindset focuses people’s attention on the expandable
nature of time, while a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset guides people to perceive time as a
resource that is not only limited, but also not expandable.
13
H4: Difficulty mindsets influence behavior in part by influencing how people make
sense of time. We used Haye’s Macro (Hayes, 2017) to analyze the relationship between
difficulty mindsets and people’s intuitions about future planning behaviors (believing one can do
a good job; believing that planning is futile), with time-as-limited and time-as-expandable as our
mediators.
First, we examined if the association between difficulty-as-importance and believing one
has time to do a good job is mediated by believing that time is an expandable resource. Then we
replicated this mediation with our dysfunctional planning scale as our dependent variable. We
repeated both analyses using difficulty-as-impossibility as our predictor and time-as-limited as
our mediator.
We focus first on the mediating effect of believing that time is an expandable resource.
Regarding doing a good job, as detailed in Figure 1, we found a marginally significant indirect
effect in Study 1 (b=0.112, SE=0.059, 95% CI [-0.004, 0.228]) and a significant indirect effect in
Study 2 (b=0.095, SE=0.030, 95% CI [0.036, 0.154]). Regarding planning, as detailed in Figure
2, we found a marginally significant indirect effect in Study 1 (b=-0.128, SE=0.064, 95% CI [-
0.253, -0.003]) and a significant indirect effect in Study 2 (b=-0.115, SE=0.030, 95% CI [-0.178,
-0.052]). This suggests that people who endorse a difficulty-as-importance mindset perceive they
have the time to do a good job on work tasks and are less likely to engage in dysfunctional
planning in part because they believe that they can make the time to engage.
Effects are more robust when we look at the mediating effect of believing that time is a
limited resource. Regarding lack of time to do a good job, as detailed in Figure 3, we found a
significant indirect effect in Study 1 (b=-0.072, SE=0.035, 95% CI [-0.141, -0.003]) and in Study
2 (b=-0.049, SE=0.018, 95% CI [-0.084, -0.014]). Regarding the feeling that planning is for
14
naught, as detailed in Figure 4, we found significant indirect effects in both Study 1 (b=0.074,
SE=0.037, 95% CI [0.001, 0.147]) and Study 2 (b=0.110, SE=0.027, 95% CI [0.057, 0.163]).
This suggests that people who score higher in difficulty-as-impossibility mindset believe they
have less time to complete tasks and are dysfunctional planners in part because they experience
time as too limited to meet their needs.
The strength of Studies 1 and 2 are two-folds: First, prior research on difficulty mindsets
has not directly measured what interpretations of difficulty imply for people’s understanding of
time. The results of our studies address this gap by illustrating that how high people score on
each interpretation of difficulty is uniquely associated with how high they score on time-as-
limited and time-as-expandable scales. Second, we find evidence that people’s beliefs about time
mediate the effects of difficulty mindsets on intuitions about future planning behavior. People
who score high on time-as-limited are less likely to think they have the time to plan or do a good
job, while those who score high on time-as-expandable are more likely to believe that they do.
While documenting an association between beliefs, our correlational method cannot
address causality. Hence, we cannot infer from Studies 1 and 2 that people’s experience of time
is a function of, rather than simply being associated with, their interpretations of what difficulty
implies. We address this issue in Studies 3 to 6.
Another limitation of the current studies is our dependent variables. Our behavioral
measures capture people’s beliefs about their future planning tendencies. Our sample of adult
participants who joined the studies via a social media platform may have well-developed theories
about the relationship between time and its related behavioral intuitions. However, it is possible
that these intuitions are specific to this population and thus the results may or may not generalize
to a student population with less experience with negative feedback on performance with time
15
pressure –many likely procrastinated but all made it to a research 1 university. Hence, in Studies
3 to 6, we explore the robustness of the effects of difficulty mindsets and time on intuitions about
behavior, but also add another more ecologically relevant behavioral measure.
16
Chapter 3: Studies 3-5
General Methods
Having shown that people’s endorsement of difficulty mindsets is uniquely associated
with how people experience time, we investigated whether this relationship is causal. In the
current studies, we randomly assigned people to recall a time in their lives when they
experienced difficulty as either a signal of importance or impossibility, and subsequently
measured people’s experience of time and behavioral outcomes.
Samples
We detail each study sample and pre-registration information in Table 2. Our participants
were undergraduates who received course credit for participation.
Power, Stop Rules, and Exclusions
We determined our target sample size by using Kline’s (2016) structural equation model
sample size rule of thumb. Kline (2016) recommends N = 100 per group for a multigroup SEM
sample size rule of thumb. To have at least 100 participants per condition, we planned to collect
250 participants with the assumption that some participants will be excluded based on our
exclusion criteria. This was a conservative estimate, as a sensitivity analysis based on the results
from our studies using Wang & Rhemtulla (2021) shinyapp, pwrSEM, revealed that a sample
size of 180 will provide 0.9 power to detect indirect effects in our parallel mediation model.
As in Studies 1 and 2, we had two exclusion criteria for participants (missing data, failing
the attention check). As an attention check, we embedded the following question at the end of
our survey: “This is a memory check. We asked students to recall an episode in their life when
they experienced difficulties in one of two different ways. Please read the two options below and
choose the one that describes the episode you were asked to imagine.” Participants were given a
17
binary response option (I was asked to remember an episode in which the difficulty I was having
with a task or goal reminded me of its value and worth; I was asked to remember an episode in
which the difficulty I was having with a task or goal reminded me to invest my efforts
elsewhere). We operationalized failing the attention check as choosing a response that was
inconsistent with the participant’s condition.
Procedure
We randomly assigned participants to one of two conditions: difficulty-as-importance and
difficulty-as-impossibility. Participants randomly assigned to the difficulty-as-importance
condition were asked to recall a time in their life when they experienced difficulty as a signal of
importance, and as a result, felt motivated to make progress on that task or goal. Participants
randomly assigned to the difficulty-as-impossibility condition were asked to recall a time in their
life when they experienced difficulty as a signal of impossibility, and as a result, mentally quit
and switched to another task or goal. Then participants completed the time-as-limited and time-
as-expandable scales with items presented in randomized order in a single block.
Following the time-as-resource scales, participants completed measures of behavioral
outcomes. In Study 3, participants completed the time-to-prepare, and dysfunctional planning
scales in two blocks, presented in randomized order, with items randomized within scale. Study 4
was a direct replication of Study 3, so the procedure was identical apart from the addition of the
environmental decision task, which was presented last to ensure that we performed an accurate
replication of the original flow of Study 3. In Study 5, we simplified our procedure to just
include our environmental decision task, as our main goal was to establish robustness of the
effects of difficulty mindsets on pro-environmental behavior.
18
Time-as-Expandable and Time-as-Limited. We used the same 4-item, 6-point response
(1=Strongly Disagree, 6=Strongly Agree) scales as in Studies 1 and 2.
Time-to-prepare and Dysfunctional Planning. We used the same 4-item likelihood
(1=Not at all, 6=Very) of having time-to-prepare-well scale, and 4-item dysfunctional planning
scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 6=Strongly Agree) as in Studies 1 and 2.
Environmental Decision Task. We used a modified version of the task created by
Whillans and Dunn (2015). Participants were asked to imagine that they have learned about the
positive impact that daily decisions can have on the environment. The specific instruction was as
follows: “Imagine that you have recently listened to a radio program about the importance of
everyday environmental behaviors. This radio program reminded you about a simple daily action
that can help the environment—using a travel mug versus a disposable cup for your favorite
morning beverage (e.g., coffee). You have purchased a travel mug, but after leaving the house
this morning, you realize that you have left your travel mug at home (which is about a 5 minute
walk away).” Participants were then asked how likely they are to engage in the environmental
friendly behavior (e.g., “How likely are you to return home to retrieve your travel mug?”) using
a single item, 6 point scale (1=Not at all, 6=Very).
Analysis Plan
H1 and H2. We conducted an independent samples t-test with time-as-limited and time-
as-expandable scores as the dependent variable and task condition as the predictor.
H3. We conducted multigroup SEM using psych (v. 2.2.9; Revelle, 2022) and lavaan (v.
0.6; Rosseel, 2012) packages in the R programming language (R Core Team, 2022). In our
model, we included our conditions (difficulty-as-importance; difficulty-as-impossibility) as two
discrete groups mapping onto two latent variables (time-as-limited; time-as-expandable), with
19
factor loadings of each item on to their respective latent variable. We specified our model to have
unconstrained variance, which allows us to compare whether the two latent constructs are
differentially correlated for each group. We used Fisher’s z-test to analyze whether the
correlation for the two constructs of time is significantly different across the two groups. We
checked for model fit adequacy using chi-square (χ 2) with degrees of freedom (df), Comparative
Fit Index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) following Hu and Bentler (1999, CFI > .90 and RMSEA < .08 suggests good fit of the
hypothesized model to data).
To test whether the factor structures were stable across the two discrete groups, we used
measurement invariance analyses by constructing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models.
Given that we were mainly interested in understanding the difference in the size of the
correlations between the two constructs across conditions, we were interested in the comparison
between configural and weak (loadings) structures (Hirschfeld & von Brachel, Ruth, 2014). The
weak invariance model tests the invariance of the factor loadings by holding all factor loadings
to be constrained across groups. By rejecting the hypothesis that the weak invariance model is
not significantly different from the configural model, we are able to infer that the construct has
the same meaning across groups, which substantiates the comparison of correlations.
H4. We conducted parallel mediation analyses using path analysis in SEM. SEM is the
preferred method of mediation analysis when there are multiple mediators (Preacher & Hayes,
2008; Vanderweele & Vansteelandt, 2014). Furthermore, a strength of conducting a parallel
mediation analysis is that we are able to observe the effects of the proposed mediators while
accounting for their variance (Hayes, 2017). Our model included time-as-limited and time-as-
expandable as proposed mediators for the effects of difficulty mindsets on behavioral outcomes.
20
We obtained the individual indirect effects through bootstrapping estimates (MacKinnon et al.,
2002; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). The same criteria for model fit adequacy
described above was used to evaluate the model.
Results and Discussion
H1: People with an accessible difficulty-as-impossibility mindset are more likely to
believe that time is a limited resource.
Supporting our prediction, participants in the difficulty-as-impossibility condition were
more likely to perceive time as a limited resource than participants in the difficulty-as-
importance condition. Across 3 studies, this difference was significant (for detailed test-statistics,
see Table 3). This is consistent with results from Studies 1 and 2, suggesting that when people
perceive difficulty on a task or goal as a signal of impossibility, they feel that they do not have
enough time to pursue their goals.
H2: People with an accessible difficulty-as-importance mindset are more likely to
believe that time is an expandable resource.
We found partial support for H2. We observed a trend level effect of an accessible
difficulty-as-importance mindset on people’s perception of time as an expandable resource. On
average, participants in the difficulty-as-importance condition scored higher on the time-as-
expandable scale compared to participants in the difficulty-as-impossibility condition, but this
difference was only marginally significant (for detailed test-statistics, see Table 3).
H3: When difficulty-as-impossibility is on the mind, people are more likely to
experience time as both a limited and not expandable resource. In contrast, when difficulty-
as-importance is on the mind, people are more likely to experience time as a limited yet
expandable resource.
21
As we show in Table 4, the results indicated that the fit of our multigroup SEM model
was good. Confirming our hypothesis, our model revealed that while the two metaphors for time
were perceived to be negatively associated in both conditions, the two metaphors were perceived
to be more strongly negatively associated for people with a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset
than people with a difficulty-as-importance mindset. Fisher’s z-test revealed that the difference
between the two correlations was significant (for detailed statistics, see Table 5). This provides
support for our prediction that while people perceive the two interpretations of time to be
distinct, people with an accessible difficulty-as-impossibility mindset are more likely to perceive
time as a resource that is not only limited, but also not expandable. On the other hand, people
with an accessible difficulty-as-importance mindset are less likely to perceive time in such
antithetical manner. When difficulty is interpreted as a signal of importance, people are more
likely to perceive time as a limited, yet expandable resource.
Our results from the measurement invariance analyses suggest that the invariance of the
factor loadings was not supported when comparing the weak invariance model to the configural
invariance model [Study 3: χD2 (6) = 9.281, p = 0.16; Study 4: χD2 (6) = 9.42, p = 0.15; Study 5:
χD2 (6)= 8.639, p = 0.20)]. This adds confidence to our conclusion that the two conditions differ
not in how the items load on to the time-as-limited and time-as-expandable scales or the error
variances but differ in the mean scores and in the correlation between the two scales.
H4: Difficulty mindsets influence behavior in part by influencing how people make
sense of time.
In Study 3, we aimed to investigate whether the association between difficulty mindsets
and intuitions about future planning behavior observed in Studies 1 and 2 would replicate. We
first constructed parallel mediation models to test whether the effect of task condition on future
22
planning behavior (time-to-prepare; dysfunctional planning) is mediated by either perceiving
time as an expandable resource or by perceiving time as a limited resource. Both models showed
adequate fit (time-to-prepare: χ 2 = 99.383, df = 60, CFI = .971, TLI = .963, RMSEA = .051;
dysfunctional planning: χ 2 = 112.209, df = 60, CFI = .969, TLI = .960, RMSEA = .059).
Regarding beliefs about time to prepare for upcoming tasks and goals, we did not find a
significant indirect effect for both the time-as-limited (β = −.058, p = .12) and the time-as-
expandable (β = .081, p = .19) paths from condition to time-to-prepare. Regarding planning, we
found a significant indirect effect for the time-as-limited path (β = .122, p = .05) but an
insignificant indirect effect for the time-as-expandable path (β = -.013, p = .49). This is partially
consistent with results from Studies 1 and 2, where effects were more robust when looking at the
mediating role of time-as-limited in comparison to time-as-expandable.
In Studies 4 and 5, our primary aim was to test and to establish robustness of the role of
time in mediating the effect of difficulty mindsets on pro-environmental behavior. Our models in
both studies showed good fit (Study 4: χ 2 = 43.015, df = 31, CFI = .989, TLI = .984, RMSEA
= .040; Study 5: χ 2 = 46.126, df = 31, CFI = .964, TLI = .947, RMSEA = 0.066).
As detailed in Figure 5, we found a significant indirect effect via the time-as-limited path
(Study 4: β = −.149, p = .021; Study 5: β = -.133, p = 0.027), but an insignificant indirect effect
via the time-as-expandable path (Study 4: β = −.03, p = .42; Study 5: β = -0.039, p = 0.26). Our
results suggest that compared to people with an accessible difficulty-as-importance mindset,
people with an accessible difficulty-as-impossibility mindset, when faced with competing
demands, are less likely to engage in the environmentally friendly behavior in part because they
see time as a resource that is too limited to meet their needs. We do not however find sufficient
23
evidence to conclude that an accessible difficulty-as-importance mindset increases engagement
in pro-environmental behavior due to people’s perception of time as an expandable resource.
Although we were able to establish causality and replicate our prior results using an
experimental paradigm, Studies 3 to 5 have one major limitation. Given that we did not include a
control condition, our experimental design limits our ability to discern whether one interpretation
of difficulty is shifting people’s beliefs about time, or whether both mindsets are affecting how
people experience time. To address this issue, we included a control group in Study 6 to explore
whether the effects of an accessible difficulty mindset on people's endorsement of time-as-
limited and time-as-expandable scales are uniquely driven by either a difficulty-as-impossibility
or difficulty-as-importance mindset, or a combination of both.
24
Chapter 4: Study 6
In Study 6 (pre-registered: https://aspredicted.org/8ZQ_YXF), we included a no difficulty
recall control group to explore if our H1 to H4 effects are a function of a difficulty-as-importance
mindset, a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset, or a combined function of the difference between
the two mindsets.
Method
Samples
Our final sample after excluding participants with missing data (n=3) and those who
failed the attention check (n=12) consisted of three hundred thirty five students (49.3% Female,
Mage= 21.55, SDage= 3.32) recruited from the University of California Riverside subject pool for
course credit.
Power, Stop Rules, and Exclusions
We used the same sample size rule of thumb for multigroup SEM (Kline, 2016), aiming
for 100 participants per condition. To be conservative, we planned to collect 330 participants
with the assumption that some participants will be excluded based on our exclusion criteria
described below. To ensure that we were also adequately powered to find an effect for our
exploratory analysis, we conducted power analysis in G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) based on the
effect sizes observed in our prior studies and a power of .80 to detect an effect when conducting
a one-way ANOV A with three groups. Our approach yielded a sample size of 180, which was
well below our sample size goal.
As in prior studies, we had two exclusion criteria for participants (missing data, failing
the attention check). As an attention check, we embedded the following question at the end of
our survey: “This is a memory check. We asked students to recall an episode from their life.
25
Please read the options below and choose the one that describes the episode you were asked to
imagine.” Participants were given three response options (I was asked to remember an episode in
which the difficulty I was having with a task or goal reminded me of its value and worth; I was
asked to remember an episode in which the difficulty I was having with a task or goal reminded
me to invest my efforts elsewhere; I was asked to remember an episode about the last breakfast I
ate). We operationalized failing the attention check as choosing a response that was inconsistent
with the participant’s condition.
Procedure
We used a three condition between-subjects design. Participants were randomly assigned
to one of three conditions: difficulty-as-importance, difficulty-as-impossibility, or control. As in
prior studies, participants randomly assigned to the difficulty-as-importance condition were
asked to recall a time in their life when they experienced difficulty as a signal of importance;
participants randomly assigned to the difficulty-as-impossibility condition were asked to recall a
time in their life when they experienced difficulty as a signal of impossibility; lastly, participants
assigned to the control condition were asked to briefly describe the last breakfast they ate. Then
participants completed the time-as-limited and time-as-expandable scales with items presented in
randomized order in a single block, immediately followed by the pro-environmental decision
task.
Time-as-Expandable and Time-as-Limited. We used the same 4-item, 6-point response
(1=Strongly Disagree, 6=Strongly Agree) scales to measure time-as-limited and time-as-
expandable.
Environmental Decision Task. We used the same scenario and 6-point scale (1=Not at
all, 6=Very) to measure pro-environmental behavior.
26
Analysis Plan
Our analysis for H1 to H4 was parallel to Studies 3 to 5. For our exploratory analysis, we
conducted a one-way ANOV A to compare the effects across the three conditions.
Results and Discussion
H1: People with an accessible difficulty-as-impossibility mindset are more likely to
believe that time is a limited resource.
Replicating prior findings, participants in the difficulty-as-impossibility condition (M =
3.85, SD = 1.13) were more likely to perceive time as a limited resource than participants in the
difficulty-as-importance condition (M = 3.55, SD = 1.05), t(218) = 2.652, p = 0.03.
H2: People with an accessible difficulty-as-importance mindset are more likely to
believe that time is an expandable resource.
We attained the expected pattern for the effects of condition on endorsement of the time-
as-expandable scale. Participants in the difficulty-as-importance condition (M = 4.79, SD = 0.75)
scored higher on time-as-expandable compared to participants in the difficulty-as-impossibility
condition (M = 4.63, SD = 0.89), but this difference only reached marginal significance, t(218) =
1.48, p = 0.07.
Exploratory question: Are the effects of an accessible difficulty mindset on people's
endorsement of time uniquely driven by either a difficulty-as-impossibility or a difficulty-
as-importance mindset?
As Figure 6 depicts, condition matters for how much people endorse time-as-limited. A
one-way between subjects ANOV A comparing the effects across the three conditions showed a
significant between-condition difference on endorsement of time-as-limited, F(2,333) = 3.78, p =
0.021. Follow-up Bonferroni-corrected post hoc test revealed that the difficulty-as-impossibility
27
condition differed from both the difficulty-as-importance condition (adjusted p = 0.04) and from
the control condition (p = 0.019).
In regards to people’s belief about time as an expandable resource, we did not find a
significant effect of task condition on endorsement of time-as-expandable, F(2,333) = 1.54, p =
0.21.
H3: When difficulty-as-impossibility is on the mind, people are more likely to
experience time as both limited and not expandable. In contrast, when difficulty-as-
importance is on the mind, people are more likely to experience time as limited yet
expandable.
Given that both experimental conditions differed from the control condition, we
proceeded with our analyses without grouping either experimental conditions with the control
condition. As in prior studies, we conducted multigroup SEM, and our model showed good fit, χ
2 = 46.141, df = 38, CFI = .992, TLI = .988, RMSEA = .044.
Replicating prior findings, the model revealed that time-as-limited and time-as-
expandable metaphors were perceived to be more negatively correlated in the difficulty-as-
impossibility condition (r = -0.648, p = 0.00) than in the difficulty-as-importance condition (r = -
0.336, p = 0.00), and this difference was significant (z = 3.09, p = 0.002). Consistent with our
prior findings, the invariance of the factor loadings was not supported when comparing the weak
invariance model to the configural invariance model, χD2 (6)= 8.332, p = 0.22, substantiating our
comparison of correlations as meaningful.
H4: Difficulty mindsets influence behavior in part by influencing how people make
sense of time.
28
Our parallel mediation model showed good fit, χ 2 = 38.966, df = 31, CFI = .992, TLI
= .989, RMSEA = .034. Supporting our prediction, we found a significant indirect effect via the
time-as-limited path (β = −.22, p = .041) from condition to pro-environmental behavior. We did
not find a significant indirect effect via the time-as-expandable path (β = −.056, p = .22).
Taken together, the current study established robustness of our results from prior studies.
More importantly, we were able to show which difficulty mindset is accessible at the moment of
judgement has implications on both the direction and strength of the shift in how people interpret
time as a limited and an expandable resource.
29
Chapter 5: Studies 3 – 6 General Results
To provide a synthesis of the results from our experimental studies, we followed the
emerging practice of conducting a mini meta-analysis of our own studies to evaluate the overall
effect size (Goh, Hall & Rosenthal, 2016; Lakens & Etz, 2017; McShane & Bockenhold, 2017).
We conducted mini meta-analyses of the effect of difficulty mindsets on endorsement of time-as-
limited and time-as-expandable by fitting a random-effects model. The results of the Q-test for
heterogeneity (Cochran, 1954) revealed no significant heterogeneity among the experiments
[time-as-limited: Q(3) = 0.383, p = 0.944; time-as-expansive: Q(3) = 0.049, p = 0.997]. The
overall time-as-limited effect size was -0.38 (95% CI = [-0.52, -0.25], p < .001) and the overall
time-as-expandable effect size was 0.21 (95% CI = [0.079, 0.34], p = .002). Both results can be
interpreted as consistent weak to moderate effects. Forest plots and the results of the two
random-effects mini meta-analyses are presented in Figure 7.
30
Chapter 6: Study 7
Studies 3-6 explored whether people’s interpretation of difficulty influences their
subjective experience of time. We cannot, however, eliminate the possibility that both processes
are mutually influential in triggering the other. Study 7 addressed this possibility by exploring
two potential paths. First, when people are thinking about time as a limited resource, do they
score higher on difficulty-as-impossibility? Second, when people are thinking about time as an
expandable resource, do they score higher on difficulty-as-importance?
Method
Samples
Our final sample after excluding participants with missing data (n=3) and those who
failed the attention check (n=2) consisted of two hundred sixty six students (52.5% Female,
Mage= 20.78, SDage= 3.30) recruited from the University of Southern California subject pool for
course credit.
Power, Stop Rules, and Exclusions
We conducted power analysis in G*Power to calculate the required sample size to detect
a difference between two independent means, with a small to medium effect size and power
of .80. Our approach yielded a sample size of 230, so we aimed for at least 130 participants per
condition with the assumption that some participants will be excluded based on our exclusion
criteria.
As in prior studies, we had two exclusion criteria for participants (missing data, failing
the attention check). As an attention check, we embedded the following question at the end of
our survey: “This is a memory check. We asked students to recall an episode from their life.
Please read the options below and choose the one that describes the episode you were asked to
31
imagine.” Participants were given two response options (I was asked to remember an episode in
which time felt scarce; I was asked to remember an episode in which time felt abundant). We
operationalized failing the attention check as choosing a response that was inconsistent with the
participant’s condition.
Procedure
We randomly assigned participants to one of two conditions: time-as-limited and time-as-
expandable. We adapted our autobiographical recall task from our prior studies to prime
perceptions of time as a limited or an expandable resource. For example, participants randomly
assigned to the time-as-limited (time-as-expandable) condition read: “Please take a moment to
think of a period in your life when you felt that time was scarce (abundant), like you just did not
have enough time (had plenty of time) to do, accomplish or experience something. If you can,
think of a specific episode from that period in your life when you felt that time was scarce or not
enough (abundant or open). Take a moment to vividly recall the episode and how it felt like to be
in that situation.” Participants then completed the difficulty mindset scales with items presented
in randomized order in a single block.
Difficulty-as-Importance and Difficulty-as-Impossibility. We used the same Fisher and
Oyserman’s (2017) 4-item, 6-point response (1=Strongly Disagree, 6=Strongly Agree) scales as
in Studies 1 and 2 to measure difficulty-as-importance and difficulty-as-impossibility.
Results & Discussion
On average, participants in the time-as-expandable condition (M = 4.26, SD = 0.74) were
more likely to endorse difficulty-as-importance than participants in the time-as-limited condition
(M = 4.13, SD = 0.82), but this difference did not reach significance, t(260) = -1.264, p = 0.10.
Similarly, participants in the time-as-limited condition (M = 2.68, SD = 1.06) were more likely to
32
endorse difficulty-as-impossibility than participants in the time-as-expandable condition (M =
2.51, SD = 1.05), but this difference only reached marginal significance, t(260) = 1.290, p =
0.09.
Our prior studies found that an accessible difficulty mindset influences people’s
metaphoric interpretation of time as a resource. The current study aimed to explore the
possibility that this relationship is recursively linked. Results from the current study, however,
only found marginal effects of time perception on difficulty mindsets. Hence, we take this to
imply that difficulty mindsets influence people’s perceptions of time more robustly than the
reverse.
33
Chapter 7: General Discussion
People hold two distinct theories about what it means for them to experience difficulty
working on a task or goal (Oyserman, 2007). One, a difficulty-as-importance mindset focuses
attention on difficulty as a signal that success at the task at hand is valuable and important. The
other, a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset, focuses attention on difficulty as a signal that success
at the task at hand is unlikely, and even impossible. We predicted that interpretations of difficulty
should be linked to people’s perceptions of time, because the decision to engage in goals should
instigate thoughts about whether they can make the time to pursue the task or goal at hand. A
central premise of our prediction is that people can interpret time using two distinct metaphors:
time-as-limited and time-as-expandable.
We found support for our reasoning. First, our factor analyses suggest that time-as-
limited and time-as-expandable metaphors are correlated, but not two sides of the same metaphor
(Studies 1-2). In other words, believing that one can find the time to do what needs to get done is
not the opposite of believing that one simply does not have the time to do everything. More
importantly, we show that these beliefs about time are influenced by people’s metacognitive
experiences of difficulty. Across 6 studies, we show that people who endorse (Studies 1-2) or
have an accessible (Studies 3-6) difficulty-as-impossibility mindset are sensitized to the
perception of time as a limited resource, something that should not be wasted. In contrast, people
who endorse (Studies 1-2) or have an accessible (Studies 3-6) difficulty-as-importance mindset
are more likely to believe that they can make the time to take on the difficulty task or goal,
thereby perceiving time as an expandable resource. Our mini meta-analyses found no
heterogeneity across our experiments, suggesting that the observed relationship between
difficulty mindsets and time was consistent in our studies. Results from our multigroup SEM
34
further revealed a more nuanced relationship (Studies 3-6). People with an accessible difficulty-
as-impossibility mindset are more likely to perceive the two metaphors to be opposites; They run
out of time and do not feel that they can make the time to do the things that they need to get
done. On the other hand, people with an accessible difficulty-as-importance mindset perceive
time-as-expandable and time-as-limited as separable, but not necessarily opposing metaphors.
For them, being able to make time is not the same as not having time for something else.
Research on IBM theory has documented that people’s interpretation of difficulty matters
for the actions that people take. We reasoned that the downstream consequences of difficulty
mindsets on action are found in part due to people’s belief about time. Our findings found
support for our hypothesis. Our mediation analysis revealed that the effect of difficulty-as-
impossibility and difficulty-as-importance on people’s intuitions about future planning behavior
was mediated by people’s endorsement of time-as-limited and time-as-expandable, respectively
(Studies 1-2). Similarly, compared to people with an accessible difficulty-as-importance mindset,
people with an accessible difficulty-as-impossibility mindset were less likely to engage in pro-
environmental behavior, in part because they perceived time to be too limited to manage
competing demands (Studies 4-6). However, we did not find a stable effect for the mediating role
of perceiving time as an expandable resource on people’s decision to engage in the
environmentally friendly behavior.
We also considered the possibility that difficulty mindsets and time perception are closely
associated in our knowledge network, such that triggering thoughts about time should similarly
influence people’s metacognitive experiences of difficulty. More specifically, we asked whether
believing that one can make the time to pursue upcoming task or goal would increase
endorsement of difficulty-as-importance, whereas believing that one’s time is too limited would
35
increase endorsement of difficulty-as-impossibility. Although in the expected direction, we did
not find sufficient evidence for this relationship (Study 7). The pattern of results suggest that
difficulty mindsets seem to activate thoughts about time more robustly than the reverse. One
explanation as to why we observed a weaker effect of time perception on difficulty mindsets is
because thoughts about time can activate a diverse network of thoughts, both related and
unrelated to goal pursuit. Time is an important resource tied to various outcomes. For example,
thinking about time can induce a greater sense of personal meaning (Mogilner & Aaker, 2009),
make social motivations more salient (Mogilner, 2010), evoke notions of stress and anxiety
(Teuchmann, Totterdell & Parker, 1999; Gärling et al., 2016; Pfeffer & Carney, 2017, Roxburgh,
2004), and direct attention to the most pressing goals (Fernbach, Kan, & Lynch, 2015). However,
we posit that people’s metacognitive experiences of difficulty when working on or thinking about
upcoming tasks or goals should necessitate beliefs about time. Time is inextricably linked to goal
pursuit. Our goals are defined by time, pursued over time, evaluated by time, and are subject to
time constraints (Etkin, 2019). Hence, the experienced difficulty working on or thinking about
upcoming tasks or goals should activate and be closely associated with people’s beliefs about
time, while our thoughts about time may be associated with, but not as strongly tied to the
importance of a task or goal.
Theoretical Implications
Prior research has shown that when time feels scarce, people are less likely to pursue
goals (Etkin, 2019; Fung et al., 1999; Mohammad & Drolet, 2019), experience worse health
(Strazdins et al., 2011; Venn & Strazdins, 2016) and less well-being (Kasser & Sheldon, 2009;
Mogilner, 2019). One associate of feeling pressed for time is low income (Sullivan, 2008),
especially in the U.S. (Hamermesh & Lee, 2007). At the same time, women, working parents,
36
people in dual earner households, the wealthy, and the well-educated also report time stress
(Rudd, 2019). While important, social stratification is not the only source of time scarcity. In the
current studies, we shed light on another source: people’s theories about what experiences of
difficulty imply for them.
By documenting how people’s interpretations of difficulty influence how they make
sense of time, we link research on the motivational and self-regulative aspects of identity-based
motivation to research on time. First, our results are relevant to research on goal persistence and
disengagement (see also Brandstätter & Bernecker, 2022). Our findings suggest that when people
infer difficulty working on a task or goal to imply impossibility, they may fail to persist because
they believe that they cannot make the time to work on them. On the other hand, when people
infer difficulty working on a task or goal to imply importance, they may fail to appropriately
disengage from tasks and goals because they believe that they can make the time to work on
them. Second, extending from our findings, a potential reason why people might fail to make
effortful identity-relevant choices is because when faced with competing demands, a difficulty-
as-impossibility mindset triggers perceptions of time as limited and not expandable, which might
in part explain why people engage less in pro-environmental behavior (Whilans and Dunn,
2015), and delay saving for retirement (Lewis & Oyserman, 2015) or taking care of their one’s
health (Sirois, 2004). Third, our results also address gaps in prior studies by addressing a
potential mediating process. People who endorse difficulty-as-importance attain better grades
and are less likely to fail courses by the end of the school year (Oyserman, et al., 2021). Our
results suggest that this positive effect may be in part because these students experience
themselves as being capable of making the time to invest in their academic goals and over time,
investing in schoolwork should pay off with better grades.
37
Furthermore, extant research on time perception has not considered the possibility that
people can perceive time as both limited and expandable in the moment. Research on
socioemotional selective theory (SST, Cartensen, 2006) find that future time horizons can feel
constrained or expansive, and this has consequences on people’s decision to commit to goals that
benefit the future self (Cartensen, Fung & Charles, 2003), take on new goals (Zaubernman &
Lynch, 2005), and prioritize goals that expand their experiences (Fung et al., 1999; 2020).
Although behavioral decisions can be influenced by the subjective sense of time left in life, we
theorized that thoughts about perceived endings are less likely to be salient in everyday
decisions. Instead, we show that people have an accessible lay theory of time as a resource,
something that can feel limited but also expandable in the moment, and these beliefs about time
influence people’s decision to engage or disengage with the task or goal at hand.
Limitations and Future Directions
While our results are important, our studies have a number of limitations which point to
future directions of research. Regarding the effects of difficulty mindsets on people’s intuitions
about future planning behavior, we found consistent effects with adult samples (Studies 1-2), but
less robust effects with college student samples (Studies 3-6). With adult participants, our results
suggest that, albeit correlational, how high people score on difficulty-as-importance and
difficulty-as-impossibility scales is associated with their intuitions about future planning
behaviors, in part by affecting people’s endorsement of time-as-expandable and time-as-limited,
respectively. Although we explored whether both adults and students would hold similar
intuitions, we did not find consistent effects with college student samples. We speculate on two
potential reasons. First, differences in life experiences may differentially affect people’s
intuitions about time and its implications on future outcomes. For example, students hold
38
optimistic expectations about academic performance (e.g. Ruthig, et al., 2007) and show greater
tendency to procrastinate (e.g. Özer, 2011); adults receive negative feedback for failing to meet
deadlines, while students often receive positive feedback even when doing things in the last
minute. Hence, students’ expectations about the quality of work that they can produce may not be
as strongly associated with their beliefs about time. Second, an alternate possibility is that the
measures are simply not stable. To account for these limitations, we included the environmental
decision task which has less to do with people’s subjective intuitions about planning, but more to
do with how people relate time and the importance of an upcoming task or goal. The stronger
and more robust effect of difficulty mindsets on pro-environmental behavior is in line with IBM
theory. Environmental issues are likely to be identity salient to college students who are
frequently exposed to college sustainability initiatives. Therefore, the decision to engage in the
environmentally friendly behavior is likely to have been interpreted as identity-congruent or
incongruent based on the mindset that was made accessible for the respondent. However, the
environmental measure also has its own limitations. For example, despite the convenience of
using scenario-based measures, intentions do not necessarily translate to behavior (Sheeran &
Webb, 2016). Our results should therefore be considered as an important first step, requiring tests
of other operationalizations of behavior and potential boundary conditions.
Identity-based motivation theory predicts that both difficulty-as-importance and
difficulty-as-impossibility mindsets have adaptive benefits. By implication, an alternative way of
interpreting our results is that applying a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset may be beneficial as
it highlights that investing time in one task may be unwise because it reduces time for other
tasks. Kiper, Oyserman and Yan (in press) find that people who endorse a difficulty-as-
impossibility mindset are more likely to prefer strategies that are efficient. Our findings suggest
39
that this preference for efficiency may be in part because people experience time as a limited
resource, so for them, time must be used efficiently to meet task demands. This heightened focus
on efficiency and opportunity costs might allow people with a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset
to disengage from goals, which may be beneficial in certain scenarios, such as those involving
sunk costs (Arkes & Blumer, 1985). Although we did not directly test for the positive role of
perceiving time as a limited resource, some research suggest that busyness and time pressure
may have benefits (e.g. Rudd, 2019). For example, Wilcox and colleagues (2016) showed that
people were more motivated after missing a deadline if they were led to believe that they were
busy (had many tasks) and that they were using their time efficiently. Festini and colleagues
(2019) found a positive association between the objective time pressure of being busy and
cognitive skill among older adults. Future research could therefore begin to explore the positive
effects of applying a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset and perceiving time as a limited
resource.
Conclusion
In seven studies, we investigated the relationship between difficulty mindsets and time
perception, and its downstream consequences on behavior. We document that people can make
sense of time using two correlated yet distinct resource metaphors (time-as-limited; time-as-
expandable), and their interpretation of time is in part influenced by their metacognitive
experiences of difficulty. We show that people who perceive difficulty as a signal of goal
impossibility are more likely to experience time as a limited and not expandable resource, while
people who interpret difficulty as a signal of goal importance are more likely to experience time
as a limited yet expandable resource. This relationship has implications for people’s intuitions
about future planning behavior and the decision to engage in pro-environmental behavior. In
40
showing these relationships, our studies integrate literature on self-regulation and time
perception, and address yet unexplored questions about the relationship between people’s
experience of time and their outcomes.
41
References
Aelenei, C., Lewis Jr, N. A., & Oyserman, D. (2017). No pain no gain? Social demographic
correlates and identity consequences of interpreting experienced difficulty as
importance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 43-55.
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational behavior and
human decision processes, 35(1), 124-140.
Barber, S. J., Opitz, P. C., Martins, B., Sakaki, M., & Mather, M. (2016). Thinking about a
limited future enhances the positivity of younger and older adults’ recall: Support for
socioemotional selectivity theory. Memory & cognition, 44(6), 869-882.
Brandstätter, V ., & Bernecker, K. (2022). Persistence and disengagement in personal goal
pursuit. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 271-299.
Carstensen, L. L. (2006). The influence of a sense of time on human
development. Science, 312(5782), 1913-1915.
Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and
the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and emotion, 27, 103-123.
Carstensen, L. L., & Lang, F. R. (1996). Future Orientation Scale. Unpublished manuscript,
Stanford University.
Cochran, W. G. (1954). Some methods for strengthening the common χ 2
tests. Biometrics, 10(4), 417-451.
DeV oe, S. E., & Pfeffer, J. (2007). When time is money: The effect of hourly payment on the
evaluation of time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 1-
13.
Etkin, J. (2019). Time in relation to goals. Current opinion in psychology, 26, 32-36.
Evans, J. A., Kunda, G., & Barley, S. R. (2004). Beach time, bridge time, and billable hours: The
temporal structure of technical contracting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1), 1-
38.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
research methods, 39(2), 175-191.
Fernbach, P. M., Kan, C., & Lynch Jr, J. G. (2015). Squeezed: Coping with constraint through
efficiency and prioritization. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(5), 1204-1227.
Festini, S. B., Hertzog, C., McDonough, I. M., & Park, D. C. (2019). What makes us busy?
Predictors of perceived busyness across the adult lifespan. The Journal of general
psychology, 146(2), 111-133.
42
Fisher, O., & Oyserman, D. (2017). Assessing interpretations of experienced ease and difficulty
as motivational constructs. Motivation Science, 3(2), 133.
Fung, H. H., Chu, S. T. W., Jiang, D., Chen, A. X., & Ng, C. C. (2020). Contrasting the effects of
mortality salience and future time limitation on goal prioritization in older and younger
adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 75(10), 2112-2121.
Fung, H. H., Carstensen, L. L., & Lutz, A. M. (1999). Influence of time on social preferences:
implications for life-span development. Psychology and aging, 14(4), 595.
Gärling, T., Gamble, A., Fors, F., & Hjerm, M. (2016). Emotional well-being related to time
pressure, impediment to goal progress, and stress-related symptoms. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 17, 1789-1799.
Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta‐analysis of your own studies: Some
arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 10(10), 535-549.
Hamermesh, D. S., & Lee, J. (2007). Stressed out on four continents: Time crunch or yuppie
kvetch?. The review of Economics and Statistics, 89(2), 374-383.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
Hirschfeld, G., & V on Brachel, R. (2014). Improving Multiple-Group confirmatory factor
analysis in R–A tutorial in measurement invariance with continuous and ordinal
indicators. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 19(1), 7.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a
multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. M. (2009). Time affluence as a path toward personal happiness and
ethical business practice: Empirical evidence from four studies. Journal of Business
Ethics, 84, 243-255.
Kiper, G., Oyserman, D., & Yan, V .X., (under review). I’ll take the high road: Paths to goal
pursuit and identity-based interpretations of difficulty.
Kiper, G., Atari, M., Yan, V . X., & Oyserman, D. (2023). The upside: How people make sense of
difficulty matters during a crisis. Self and Identity, 22(1), 19-41.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Lakens, D., & Etz, A. J. (2017). Too true to be bad: When sets of studies with significant and
nonsignificant findings are probably true. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 8(8), 875-881.
43
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The journal of
Philosophy, 77(8), 453-486.
Landau, M. J. (2016). Conceptual metaphor in social psychology: The poetics of everyday life.
Psychology Press.
Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., & Keefer, L. A. (2010). A metaphor-enriched social
cognition. Psychological bulletin, 136(6), 1045.
Layous, K., Kurtz, J., Chancellor, J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2018). Reframing the ordinary:
Imagining time as scarce increases well-being. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 13(3), 301-308.
Lewis Jr, N. A., & Earl, A. (2018). Seeing more and eating less: Effects of portion size
granularity on the perception and regulation of food consumption. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 114(5), 786.
Lewis Jr, N. A., & Oyserman, D. (2015). When does the future begin? Time metrics matter,
connecting present and future selves. Psychological science, 26(6), 816-825.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V . (2002). A
comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable
effects. Psychological methods, 7(1), 83.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect
effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate behavioral
research, 39(1), 99-128.
McShane, B. B., & Böckenholt, U. (2017). Single-paper meta-analysis: Benefits for study
summary, theory testing, and replicability. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 1048-
1063.
Mogilner, C. (2010). The pursuit of happiness: Time, money, and social
connection. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1348-1354.
Mogilner, C. (2019). It’s time for happiness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 26, 80-84.
Mogilner, C., & Aaker, J. (2009). “The time vs. money effect”: Shifting product attitudes and
decisions through personal connection. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 277-291.
Mogilner, C., Chance, Z., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Giving time gives you time. Psychological
Science, 23(10), 1233-1238.
Mohammad, A. P., & Drolet, A. (2019). The influence of age and time horizon perspective on
consumer behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 26, 94-97.
44
Mourey, J. A., & Waldman, A. E. (2020). Past the privacy paradox: The importance of privacy
changes as a function of control and complexity. Journal of the Association for Consumer
Research, 5(2), 162-180.
Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Macmillan.
O'Donnell, S. C., & Oyserman, D. (2022). Apt and actionable possible identities matter: The case
of academic outcomes. Journal of Adolescence.
Oyserman, D. (2007). Social identity and self-regulation. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins
(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 432–453). The Guilford
Press.
Oyserman, D. (2009). Identity-based motivation and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 19(3), 276-279.
Oyserman, D., Destin, M., & Novin, S. (2015). The context-sensitive future self: Possible selves
motivate in context, not otherwise. Self and identity, 14(2), 173-188.
Oyserman, D., Elmore, K., Novin, S., Fisher, O., & Smith, G. C. (2018). Guiding people to
interpret their experienced difficulty as importance highlights their academic possibilities
and improves their academic performance. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 781.
Oyserman, D., Lewis Jr, N. A., Yan, V . X., Fisher, O., O'Donnell, S. C., & Horowitz, E. (2017).
An identity-based motivation framework for self-regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 28(2-
3), 139-147.
Oyserman, D., O'Donnell, S. C., Sorensen, N., & Wingert, K. M. (2021). Process matters:
Teachers benefit their classrooms and students when they deliver an identity-based
motivation intervention with fidelity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 66,
101993.
Oyserman, D., Smith, G. C., & Elmore, K. (2014). Identity‐based motivation: Implications for
health and health disparities. Journal of Social Issues, 70(2), 206-225.
Özer, B. U. (2011). A cross sectional study on procrastination: who procrastinate more.
In International Conference on Education Research and Innovation (V ol. 18, No. 1, pp.
34-37).
Pfeffer, J., & Carney, D. R. (2018). The economic evaluation of time can cause stress. Academy
of Management Discoveries, 4(1), 74-93.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research
methods, 40(3), 879-891.
Revelle, W. (2022). psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. R package
(version 2.2. 5). Computer software]. https://CRAN. R-roject. org/package= psych.
45
Rosseel, Y . (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of statistical
software, 48, 1-36.
Roxburgh, S. (2004). “There Just Aren't Enough Hours in the Day’: The Mental Health
Consequences of Time Pressure. Journal of health and social behavior, 45(2), 115-131.
Rudd, M. (2019). Feeling short on time: Trends, consequences, and possible remedies. Current
Opinion in Psychology, 26, 5-10.
Rudd, M., V ohs, K. D., & Aaker, J. (2012). Awe expands people’s perception of time, alters
decision making, and enhances well-being. Psychological science, 23(10), 1130-1136.
Ruthig, J. C., Haynes, T. L., Perry, R. P., & Chipperfield, J. G. (2007). Academic optimistic bias:
Implications for college student performance and well-being. Social psychology of
education, 10, 115-137.
Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize?. Journal
of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609-612.
Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2012). Some consequences of having too
little. Science, 338(6107), 682-685.
Shah, A. K., Shafir, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2015). Scarcity frames value. Psychological
science, 26(4), 402-412.
Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016). The intention–behavior gap. Social and personality
psychology compass, 10(9), 503-518.
Sirois, F. M. (2004). Procrastination and intentions to perform health behaviors: The role of self-
efficacy and the consideration of future consequences. Personality and Individual
differences, 37(1), 115-128.
Smith, G. C., & Oyserman, D. (2015). Just not worth my time? Experienced difficulty and time
investment. Social Cognition, 33(2), 85-103.
Strazdins, L., Griffin, A. L., Broom, D. H., Banwell, C., Korda, R., Dixon, J., ... & Glover, J.
(2011). Time scarcity: another health inequality?. Environment and Planning A, 43(3),
545-559.
Sullivan, O. (2008). Busyness, status distinction and consumption strategies of the income rich,
time poor. Time & Society, 17(1), 5-26.
Teuchmann, K., Totterdell, P., & Parker, S. K. (1999). Rushed, unhappy, and drained: an
experience sampling study of relations between time pressure, perceived control, mood,
and emotional exhaustion in a group of accountants. Journal of occupational health
psychology, 4(1), 37.
46
VanderWeele, T., & Vansteelandt, S. (2014). Mediation analysis with multiple
mediators. Epidemiologic methods, 2(1), 95-115.
Venn, D., & Strazdins, L. (2017). Your money or your time? How both types of scarcity matter to
physical activity and healthy eating. Social science & medicine, 172, 98-106.
Wang, Y . A., & Rhemtulla, M. (2021). Power analysis for parameter estimation in structural
equation modeling: A discussion and tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in
Psychological Science, 4(1), 2515245920918253.
Wilcox, K., Laran, J., Stephen, A. T., & Zubcsek, P. P. (2016). How being busy can increase
motivation and reduce task completion time. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 110(3), 371.
Whillans, A. V ., & Dunn, E. W. (2015). Thinking about time as money decreases environmental
behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 44-52.
Yan, V . X., Oyserman, D., Kiper, G., & Atari, M. (2021). Difficulty-as-improvement: The
courage to keep going in the face of life’s difficulties. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 01461672231153680.
Zauberman, G., & Lynch Jr, J. G. (2005). Resource slack and propensity to discount delayed
investments of time versus money. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 134(1), 23.
47
Table 1. Studies 1 and 2: Scale Descriptive Information
Study 1 Study 2
M (SD) α M (SD) α
Difficulty-as-Importance 4.04 (0.82) .773 4.09 (0.92) .851
Difficulty-as-Impossibility 2.63 (0.92) .830 2.74 (1.12) .904
Time-as-Expandable 4.34 (0.94) .852 4.54 (0.75) .775
Time-as-Limited 3.53 (0.97) .763 3.63 (1.03) .795
Time-to-Prepare 4.66 (0.90) .810 4.67 (0.90) .844
Dysfunctional Planning 2.93 (0.96) .760 3.06 (0.99) .763
48
Table 2. Studies 3 – 5: Participant Demographics Information
Study 3 Study 4 Study 5
N 207 239 242
Preregistered No Yes Yes
Sample Source University of
Southern California
Subject Pool
University of
California Riverside
Subject Pool
University of
Southern California
Subject Pool
% female 42.3 66.7 52.4
M (SD) age 20.4 (2.04) 20.5 (5.72) 21.1 (3.16)
49
Table 3. Studies 3-5: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Independent Samples t-tests for Time-as-
Limited and Time-as-Expandable
Importance Impossibility
M (SD) M (SD) t p
Study 3
Time-as-Limited 3.95 (1.00) 4.25 (1.01) 2.10 0.028
Time-as-Expandable 4.32 (0.84) 4.13 (0.89) 1.56 0.081
Study 4
Time-as-Limited 4.01 (1.01) 4.36 (1.04) 2.62 0.005
Time-as-Expandable 4.40 (0.79) 4.26 (0.85) 1.28 0.101
Study 5
Time-as-Limited 3.85 (1.03) 4.21 (1.09) 2.65 0.004
Time-as-Expandable 4.58 (0.85) 4.43 (0.89) 1.49 0.070
50
Table 4. Studies 3-5: Model Fit Adequacy for Multigroup SEM Models
χ
2
df CFI TLI RMSEA
Study 3 44.036 38 0.994 0.992 0.036
Study 4 42.029 38 0.996 0.994 0.030
Study 5 55.394 38 0.986 0.979 0.061
51
Table 5. Studies 3-5: Correlations and Fisher’ s z-Test comparing Difficulty-as-Importance and
Difficulty-as-Impossibility Conditions
Importance Impossibility
r r z p
Study 3 - 0.193*** -0.448*** 2.25 0.025
Study 4 - 0.203** -0.470*** 2.32 0.020
Study 5 - 0.212** -0.550*** 3.10 0.002
52
Figure 1. Difficulty-as-Importance Shapes Time-Prepare Through Time-as-Expandable
53
Figure 2. Difficulty-as-Importance Shapes Dysfunctional Planning Through Time-as-
Expandable
54
Figure 3. Difficulty-as-Impossibility Shapes Time-to-Prepare Through Time-as-Limited
55
Figure 4. Difficulty-as-Impossibility Shapes Dysfunctional Planning Through Time-as-Limited
56
Figure 5. Studies 4 and 5: Time-as-Limited Mediates the Effect of Difficulty Mindsets on Pro-
Environmental Behavior
57
Figure 6. Study 6: Difficulty-as-Impossibility Increases Endorsement of Time-as-Limited
Relative to Difficulty-as-Importance and Control
58
Figure 7. Forest Plots of the Mini Meta-Analyses of Studies 3 – 6.
Note. The first plot refers to time-as-limited, and the second plot to time-as-expandable. Higher
Hedges’s g values indicate higher values in the difficulty-as-impossibility condition compared
with the difficulty-as-importance condition. A Hedges’s g of 0 indicates no difference between
the conditions.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Difficulty-as-sanctifying: when difficulties build character, purify the self, and elevate the soul
PDF
The antecedents and consequences of believing that difficulties are character-building
PDF
Difficulty-as-importance and difficulty-as-impossibility: unpacking the context-sensitivity and consequences of identity-based inferences from difficulty
PDF
People can change when you want them to: changes in identity-based motivation affect student and teacher Pathways experience
PDF
Intuitions of beauty and truth: what is easy on the mind is beautiful and true
PDF
A roadmap for changing student roadmaps: designing interventions that use future “me” to change academic outcomes
PDF
Only half of what I’ll tell you is true: how experimental procedures lead to an underestimation of the truth effect
Asset Metadata
Creator
Choi, Su Young (Kevin)
(author)
Core Title
Can I make the time or is time running out? That depends in part on how I think about difficulty
School
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Degree
Master of Arts
Degree Program
Psychology
Degree Conferral Date
2023-08
Publication Date
07/11/2023
Defense Date
08/01/2023
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
conceptual metaphors,difficulty mindsets,identity-based motivation,metacognitive experiences,OAI-PMH Harvest,time perception
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Oyserman, Daphna (
committee chair
), Bruine de Bruin, Wändi (
committee member
), Schwarz, Norbert (
committee member
)
Creator Email
choisuyo@usc.edu,kchoi1011@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113263619
Unique identifier
UC113263619
Identifier
etd-ChoiSuYoun-12064.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ChoiSuYoun-12064
Document Type
Thesis
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Choi, Su Young (Kevin)
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20230711-usctheses-batch-1066
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
conceptual metaphors
difficulty mindsets
identity-based motivation
metacognitive experiences
time perception