People can draw two inferences about themselves when a task or goal feels hard to think about: “This is important to me, worthwhile” (difficulty-as-importance) and “This is not for me, a waste of time” (difficulty-as-impossibility). Identity-based motivation theory makes three predictions that have not been directly tested: First, people make both inferences (ecological validity). Second, endorsement varies across people and situations (trait-state) and matters for self-perception and action (consequential). Third, unambiguous contexts (context) shift momentary endorsements. We address this gap using validated difficulty-as-importance and difficulty-as-impossibility scales across five studies (N = 2,746), finding support for each prediction. Ecological validity: people recall making both inferences a few times a month (Study 1, N=986 undergraduates). Trait-state: difficulty-as-importance and difficulty-as-impossibility scores differ between persons and fluctuate within-persons (Study 2, three time-points, N=733 middle schoolers and high schoolers; Study 4, N=260 undergraduates, n=2,789 two-week daily diaries). Consequential: trait difficulty-as-impossibility predicts later preference for easier tasks (Study 3, N=216 undergraduates); trait difficulty-as-importance predicts daily meaningful engagement with school (Study 4). Daily fluctuations in both are associated with daily self-esteem, self-compassion, and goal self-efficacy (Study 4). Context: unambiguous contexts shape momentary difficulty-as-importance and difficulty-as-impossibility scores (Study 5, N=551 undergraduates).
Burbidge et al. (Sat,) studied this question.