Mechanics of Mindset: Declarative and Procedural Knowledge

Mindsets are a manifestation of the activation of declarative and procedural knowledge (Shen et al., 2012; Shen & Wyer, 2008; Wyer & Xu, 2010). Declarative knowledge stores facts and semantic concepts (e.g. persons, places, things) and also the cognitive consequences of cognitively processing these concepts (e.g. attitudes, opinions and implicit theories) (Wyer & Xu, 2010). Mental representations of past episodic events (e.g. the time you failed your driving test), information relating to prototypic memories (e.g. going shopping for groceries) and implicit theories (e.g. the belief that car salesmen are untrustworthy) are also stored in declarative memory.

Declarative knowledge is consciously processed and collected over time to facilitate future decisions (Smith, 1994). For example, within consumer buying situations, semantic concepts (e.g. price, perception of value, brand quality etc.) may be used to provide meaningful comparison criteria (Shen & Wyer, 2008).

In contrast to declarative knowledge, “procedural knowledge refers to the sequences of actions that we perform in order to achieve a goal” (Xu & Wyer, 2010;

p. 7). As such, procedural knowledge relates to the rules and thought processes that ensure the efficient processing of declarative knowledge. It provides the protocols for accessing declarative knowledge and “includes the sequences of interrelated operations that transform, store, retrieve or make inferences based on declarative

26

knowledge” (Smith, 1994; p. 101). Procedural Knowledge may be activated via two general thought processes known as “cognitive procedures” and “productions”.

According to the ACT Model, postulated by Anderson (1983), “productions” are simple rule based thought processes that follow an “If X, then Y” structure. These thought processes that regulate routine, goal pursuit behaviours (e.g. driving) are chronically accessible and automated due to repeated activation (Wyer, 2010).

Consequently, productions require little or no cognitive mediation (Schneider &

Shiffrin, 1977). Less efficient thought processes that require more deliberate thought are known as “cognitive procedures” (Shen & Wyer, 2010). Cognitive procedures are sequential strings of cognitive and motor actions that are used to achieve a goal. The complexity of the cognitive procedure is mirrored by the specificity or generality of the goal directed behaviour (e.g. ironing your shirt vs. correcting exam scripts).

Cognitive procedures are used to access declarative knowledge and are stored as declarative knowledge. Consequently, unlike productions, individuals are often aware of the cognitive procedures they are implementing. For example, while individuals may not be aware of the productions that regulate their driver actions (e.g. gear change, braking, yielding at the roundabout etc.) they may be consciously aware of the cognitive procedures that they are employing when following the instructions issued by their sat nav (Wyer & Xu, 2010).

Both cognitive procedures and productions are used to guide goal directed behaviours. While productions are used to pursue very concrete goals (Anderson, 1983), cognitive procedures have a wider application and can be used to pursue more abstract goals (Kruglanski et al., 2002). Quite often individuals are unaware of the cognitive procedures that remain actively pursuing goals indirectly related to the

27

current situation. Indeed, cognitive procedures can influence an individual’s goal pursuit strategies in situations that are unrelated to the situation that prompted their initial activation.

Mindsets represent the activation of non-conscious goal pursuit strategies that occur as a consequence of the orchestrated interaraction between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge (Wyer & Xu, 2010). Goals are cognitive representations that contain both information on the desired end state and the information needed to achieve this desired end state (Kruglanski, 1996). Research suggests that goals can be activated outside of conscious awareness (e.g. Fitzsimons et al., 2008) and may drive much of our consumer behaviour (Dijksterhuis, Smith, van Baaren, & Wigboldus, 2005). “People use their goals as scaffolds with which to build mental representations of the present in a selective manner” (Fujita & Trope, 2014; p.

73). Higher order (abstract) goals (e.g. to be happy) may be characterised as goals directed towards an end state (e.g. meeting friends or going shopping). In contrast, lower order (concrete) goals (e.g. making a cup of coffee) may be envisaged as a series of step-by-step procedures (i.e. filling the kettle, turning on the power, taking a cup from the cupboard etc.) used to achieve the desired end state (i.e. drinking a cup of refreshing tea). A hierarchy of goals and means (see Figure 1) may thus be envisaged.

28 Figure 1

Hierarchy of Goals and Means

Kruglanski et al. (2002) posited the concepts of equifinality and multifinality to explain goal pursuit strategies. Equifinality refers to a situation in which one specific goal may be achieved via a variety of sub-goals (see Figure 2). For example, in order to commute to college one might walk, cycle, jog, take a bus or get a taxi. All of these options will achieve the goal of arriving at college (i.e. equifinality). In contrast, multifinality refers to a situation in which one sub-goal may be applicable to a variety of different goals (see Figure 2). Either of these transport options (i.e. means) can serve a variety of goals (i.e. end states). For example, cycling to college may satisfy fitness goals by increasing general fitness (cardio vascular exercise), weight loss goals (burning calories) and cultural/education goals (allow the cyclist to listen to audio books of literary classics during the cycle). Wyer and Xu (2010) invoke the concepts of equifinality and multifinality to explain how mindsets exert their influence. For example, one mode of thinking (counterarguing) can be applied to various situations with different goals (resisting a TV advert message, resisting the sales patter of a sales

29

person etc.). Conversely, two different modes of thinking (e.g. deliberative thinking vs. implemental thinking) can be used to achieve one goal (e.g. shopping for a new car). This distinction between equifinality and multifinality is relevant for the present research because counterarguing and bolstering cognitive procedures can be applied across a range of consumer contexts. Counterarguing occurs when an individual refutes the implications of a message. In contrast, bolstering occurs when an individual generates supporting arguments in response to a message. According to Xu and Wyer (2012 p. 922) “making supportive elaborations in an earlier situation (can) activate a general procedure of generating supporting arguments, giving rise to a bolstering mind-set”. Conversely, “generating opposing arguments in an earlier situation (can) give rise to a counterarguing mind-set” (Xu and Wyer, 2012 p. 922).

Figure 2

Equifinality and Multifinality