Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 May 29;11(2):349-62.
doi: 10.5964/ejop.v11i2.943. eCollection 2015 May.

Pressing Obligations or Inspiring Potentials? The Influence of the Ought vs. Expected Selves on Task Performance

Waclaw Bak  1 , Slawomir Ciastek  1 , Malgorzata Michalczuk  1
Affiliations

Pressing Obligations or Inspiring Potentials? The Influence of the Ought vs. Expected Selves on Task Performance

Waclaw Bak et al. Eur J Psychol. .

Abstract

This paper focuses on the effects of activating expected self as compared to the effects of activating the ought self. The expected self is a component of self-knowledge that pertains to the perception of one's capabilities and potentials. Two experimental studies compared participants' task performance after manipulating the momentary accessibility of the expected self vs. the ought self. In Study 1, contrary to expectations, the activation of the expected self resulted in poorer outcomes when the task required sustained attention. However, an interesting mood difference was revealed, which led us to hypothesise that activating the expected self results in slower (i.e., less hasty) work while performing the task. This hypothesis was confirmed in the second study.

Keywords: expected self; obligations; ought self; potentials; task performance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Bandura A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. doi:.10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide to the construction of self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
    1. Bandura A. (2007). Much ado over a faulty conception of perceived self-efficacy grounded in faulty experimentation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 641–658. doi:.10.1521/jscp.2007.26.6.641 - DOI
    1. Bandura A., Locke E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87–99. doi:.10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brown C. M., McConnell A. R. (2009). Effort or escape: Self-concept structure determines self-regulatory behavior. Self and Identity, 8, 365–377. doi:.10.1080/15298860802377818 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources