Finding “Meaning” in Psychology A Lay Theories Approach to Self-Regulation, Social Perception, and Social Development Daniel C. Molden Northwestern University Carol S. Dweck Stanford University Much of psychology focuses on universal principles of sal principles with a careful consideration of personal thought and action. Although an extremely productive pur- meaning. Consider, for example, recent work in cultural suit, this approach, by describing only the “average per- psychology. An increasing number of findings are showing son,” risks describing no one in particular. This article that many psychological phenomena common in Western discusses an alternate approach that complements interests cultures either do not hold or operate differently in other in universal principles with analyses of the unique psycho- cultures (e.g., Heine et al., 2001; Markus & Kitayama, logical meaning that individuals find in their experiences 1991; Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). Yet and interactions. Rooted in research on social cognition, rather than conclude that the principles typically thought to this approach examines how people’s lay theories about be behind these phenomena are flawed, researchers in the stability or malleability of human attributes alter the cultural psychology have focused on unraveling how and meaning they give to basic psychological processes such as why such principles are altered by the personal meaning self-regulation and social perception. Following a review that members of distinct cultures bring to their experiences of research on this lay theories perspective in the field of (see Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, 1999; Hong & Chiu, 2001; social psychology, the implications of analyzing psycho- Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000; Medin & logical meaning for other fields such as developmental, Atran, 2004). cultural, and personality psychology are discussed. Here, we follow this line of thinking one step further: It is almost certain that many common psychological phe- Keywords: lay theories, meaning systems, social cognition nomena do not hold the same meaning for all individuals within a culture either. In this article, we use recent and sychology is often “one size fits all.” For example, ongoing research on people’s naive, or “lay,” theories all people within a culture are typically depicted as about the social world to show how, even within a common Pchoosing goals, drawing inferences from their ex- cultural environment, different ways of representing the periences, and regulating their self-esteem in similar ways. self and others interact with general principles of informa- They are also frequently seen as developing in similar tion processing, motivation, and self-regulation to produce ways, with everyone proceeding along a common path, important effects on achievement, self-esteem, interper- some just going farther, faster, or more skillfully. sonal relations, and development. In so doing, we also The search for universal principles of human behavior show how key findings in many areas can be organized, and information processing is (and should be) one of the reconceptualized, and extended. primary goals of psychological science (see, e.g., Higgins & Kruglanski, 1996) and has led to great advances in the Finding “Meaning” in Psychology field. Yet psychological science has (and should have) The idea that people structure and interact with the world another primary goal as well: to understand how people differently on the basis of the meaning they assign to events give meaning to their experiences and to their relations in their social and physical environments has had a con- with the world around them (see, e.g., Lakoff, 1994; Mc- siderable history. Philosophers have long grappled with the Adams, 2001.) However important universal principles are, metaphysical systems that they themselves (Pepper, 1942), they sometimes obscure how real people actually function. scientists (Whitehead, 1938), and lay people (Langer, That is, by attempting to describe only the average, one runs the risk of describing nobody in particular. Thus, it is important to recognize that people can vary greatly in how Preparation of this article was supported by grants from the National they represent themselves and their social worlds. They Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the William T. may then process information and regulate themselves in Grant Foundation, and the Spencer Foundation. fundamentally different ways—ways that can send them Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Daniel C. Molden, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, along different developmental paths. 2029 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, or Carol S. Dweck, Department The most promising approaches to psychology may of Psychology, Stanford University, Jordan Hall, Stanford, CA 94305. therefore be those that closely marry the pursuit of univer- E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] 192 April 2006 ● American Psychologist Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association 0003-066X/06/$12.00 Vol. 61, No. 3, 192–203 DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192 social cognition could severely hamper the development of a comprehensive and realistic account of the processing of social information” (Higgins, Kuiper, & Olson, 1981, p. 396). Perhaps for these reasons, even as this area of focus has grown and changed, considerations of personal mean- ing have remained a priority in many extended research programs and have continued to inform the larger psycho- logical principles that describe a wide variety of social phenomena (e.g., Andersen & Chen, 2002; Bless & Forgas, 2000; Cervone, 2004; Higgins, 1997; Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Molden, Lee, & Higgins, in press; Nisbett et al., 2001). Although research on individual differences has long thrived across all domains of psychology (Ainsworth, 1979; Binet, 1905; Murray, 1938), it is important to note that social cognition research has gone beyond merely asking which individuals possess more or less of certain inclinations and with what consequences. That is, social– cognitive perspectives do not focus solely on topics such as how dispositional variation in people’s primary needs or Daniel C. motives (e.g., McClelland, 1985), in their basic emotional Molden perceptions or sensitivities (e.g., Gray, 1991), or in their general cognitive styles (e.g., Witkin & Goodenough, 1977) alter their performance or behavior. Rather, such perspectives are primarily concerned with how these types 1972) construct to make sense of the world and to guide of motives, sensitivities, or styles, which may vary either their actions. There were also several important early at- chronically between individuals or from moment to mo- tempts within psychology to capture the idea that people ment within a single individual, affect the ways in which structure their environments using cognitive or affective people give meaning to their experiences (Bless & Forgas, systems of meaning. For example, Kelly’s (1955) theory of 2000). Moreover, they are also concerned with how this personal constructs proposed that everyone possesses a meaning might, in turn, direct and organize people’s affect, unique set of conceptual representations that they use to cognition, and behavior (see Mischel & Shoda, 1995). scan the environment for meaningful information. Also, Osgood’s (1962) work on semantic differentials attempted A Lay Theories Approach to Meaning to define the basic evaluative meaning that serves as the Given the promise of social–cognitive perspectives for foundation on which people’s attitudes and preferences are clarifying the role of personal meaning in thought and built. More recently, the idea that children form internal behavior, they have heavily informed the approach we have working models that give meaning to their relationships taken to this issue (see Dweck & Leggett, 1988). We have with caregivers, which stems from the theorizing of concentrated on how the meaning that emerges from peo- Bowlby (1969/1982), has taken hold and guided important ple’s fundamental assumptions (i.e., lay theories) about the research in social development (e.g., Main, Kaplan, & nature of the self and the social world can alter the general Cassidy, 1985). cognitive structures and processes through which they per- Although considerations of personally constructed ceive this world (see also Morris, Ames & Knowles, 2001; meaning have deep theoretical roots in psychology, one Wegener & Petty, 1998). The specific assumptions that area in which such consideration has made widespread, have been our primary focus concern whether fundamental important, and lasting empirical contributions to the field is person attributes (such as intelligence or personality) are the study of what has come to be known as social cogni- considered to be static traits that are relatively fixed or, tion. Social–cognitive approaches began with a focus on instead, more dynamic qualities that can be cultivated (see the general cognitive structures and processes underlying Dweck, 1999). The former assumption is termed an entity social judgment and social behavior (e.g., Hamilton & theory, since here the belief is that human attributes are Gifford, 1976; Smith & Miller, 1979; Srull & Wyer, 1979), fixed entities that are not subject to personal development. but from the beginning, an important subset of researchers The latter assumption is termed an incremental theory, within this tradition recognized the need to combine an since here the belief