Home

Biographical Sketch

Jens Förster attended highschool at Lübbecke/Westfalia , majoring in German and French Literature , Biology , and Religious Sciences. Afterwards he did a civil service at a youth hostel for 2 years , followed by 6 months of factory work in the metal industry. In 1986 he attended Trier University where he obtained a Diploma in Psychology (1992) and his Dr. rer. nat. (1994). His advisor was Fritz Strack. He also studied German Literature , Linguistic Data Processing , and Philosophy in Trier , and Opera and Performing Arts in Saarbrücken and received his “Vordiploma” (≈ BA) in 1991 and 1994. 1996-1998 he spent two years at Columbia University , New York , as a post doc where his advisor was Tory E. Higgins. He also taught at the Newschool for Social Research , New York . In 2000 , he received his habilitation at Würzburg University . Before moving to Amsterdam , he held positions at the Universities of Trier , Würzburg ,and Duisburg and at Jacobs University,formerly known as International UniversityBremen . He is author or co author of more than one hundred book chapters or articles on topics including embodiment , metacognition , stereotypes , social judgments , mood , and self regulation. He serves or has served on a variety of boards of leading journals in social psychology , such as British Journal of Social Psychology , European Journal of Social Psychology , European Review of Social Psychology , Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Sections 1 and 2) , Social Cognition , Social Psychology , and Self and Identity. 2003-2005 he was elected speaker of the German Social Psychology Association. Since 2008 he is the scientific director of the Kurt Lewin Institute. He received severval awards , among others the Heisenberg-Stipend by the German Science Foundation (DFG) , the Thomas-M.-Ostrom-Scholars-in-Residence-Award from Ohio State University, the Charlotte-und-Karl-Bühler-Award from the German Society of Psychology (2010, DGPs), and the Kurt-Lewin-Award from the European Association of Social Psychology (2011, EAESP).  2012, he received together with Laura Dannenberg the Best Social Cognition Paper Award 2011 from the International Social Cognition Network for the article:

Förster , J. & Dannenberg , L. (2010). GLOMO sys : A Systems Account of Global versus Local Processing. Psychological Inquiry , target article , 21 , 175-197.

 

 

Research Interests

Jens Förster is interested in examining basic principles of motivation and information processing and its implications for: stereotypes and prejudice; accessibility of thoughts and goals; approach and avoidance motivation; risk perception and behavior; creative and analytic thinking; self regulation and self control; novelty; time construal; thinking styles; meta cognition; memory; decision making; aggression; consumer behavior; organizational psychology; speed/accuracy tradeoffs. Current research focuses on situational factors influencing creativity; the way novel information is processed; how global versus local processing styles relate to higher order mental processes such as creativity and comparisons; how goals are represented in memory and what makes them different from other mental concepts and processes; when distance to the goal improves motivation , and how bodily feedback influences informationprocessing.

Brief Summaries of Theories and Models

Novelty Categorization Theory

How do people mentally prepare for meeting a new doctor , listening to a new opera or learning about new economic facts? How do people perceive new situations , like moving to a different country or starting a new relationship? What happens if marketers advertise their products as ”brand new”? Since cognitive consequences of novelty are under-examined in psychology , we introduced Novelty Categorization Theory (NCT; Förster , Marguc & Gillebaart , 2010). According to NCT , in order to understand novel information , one needs to integrate it into pre-existing knowledge structures. Based on a “motive to know” (Kagan , 1972) , people usually approach novel situations by engaging in global perception (looking at the forest rather than the trees) and broadening mental categories (e.g. , thinking of “people” instead of “students”). Over time , a “when-novel-then-process-globally” routine develops that can be automatically elicited when novelty is encountered (Förster , 2009; Förster , Liberman & Shapira , 2009). Global processing should support performance in tasks that profit from global perception such as creativity tasks , metaphor understanding , and face recognition. As a result , exposing people to novelty , for instance by framing a face recognition task as new , should facilitate performance in these domains. However , not all effects of global processing are desirable. To illustrate , introducing people as new may direct attention away from details , and consequently lead to stereotyping. NCT suggests interventions for these situations. Moreover , in some situations,novelty may be experienced as a threatwhich leads to opposite effects , enhancing local processing. Finally , NCT holds that contextual factorsdetermine whether people perceive events as novel in the first place. Specifically , the use of broad mental categories should reduce perception of an event being novel , whereas usingnarrow categories should increase it. To summarize , we examine across diverse contents and domains whenpeople perceive events as novel , how they process novel events , and how novelty influences peoples’ performance and behavior.

 

 

Accessibility from Goals

What happens mentally when we pursue goals? What happens when we have attained them? What do we have on top of our minds when we pursue goals and when we realize: we are there? Accessibility is the activation potential of thoughts (what we have on top of our minds) and within the scope of this project , the motivational influences on information accessibility are investigated (see Förster , Liberman & Friedman , 2007; Förster & Liberman , 2007; Liberman & Förster 2005). It is assumed that motivational states - such as needs , goals and intentions - are associated with enhanced accessibility of motivation-related constructs. Such enhanced accessibility is thought to be conducive for effective goal pursuit. It prepares the individual to efficiently detect goal-relevant cues in the environment , which , in turn , supports ultimate goal attainment. Specifically , the following principles are proposed to characterize accessibility of motivation-related constructs: 1) The motivation to achieve a goal enhances the accessibility of goal-relevant constructs. 2) This enhanced accessibility persists until the goal is fulfilled or becomes irrelevant.3) Goal attainment inhibits the accessibility of goal-relevant constructs. 4) Both the accessibility of goal-relevant constructs as well as their inhibition following goal attainment are enhancedby the value of a certain goal and the expectancy of succeeding during goal pursuit.

While the first twoprinciples are well documented and found ample support in the psychological literature , the third principle – the inhibition of goal-relevant constructs after goal-attainment – has received less attention thus far. In accordancewith theories in Cognitive and Social Psychology , as well as in Motivation and Volition Psychology , it issuggested that an enhanced accessibility of goal-relevant constructs is adaptive in terms of effective self-regulation. It helps to detect stimuli in the environment that are instrumental for efficient goal pursuit , and thus increases the likelihood of goal achievement. In contrast to traditional priming-models – which would predict a gradual decline of the accessibility of goal-relevant constructs over time– it is assumed that the goal-relevant constructs are immediately inhibited after goal attainment. In particular , it is assumed that once the respective goal is fulfilled , the accessibility of motivation-related constructs loses its functionality. For example , if you have a goal of finding your glasses , it is little adaptive to be enduringly occupied with glasses and their possible depositories , if thesearched glasses have already been found. The accessibility of former goal-relevant constructs could even potentially interfere with other tasks that the individual faces. In a series of studies , we found consistent confidence for post fulfillment inhibition effects in diverse fields such as for example person perception , behavior control (e.g. for undesirable effects of thought suppression , the post suppressional rebound; Liberman & Förster , 2000; Förster & Liberman , 2001; Denzler , Förster & Liberman , 2010). Recently , we also applied this notion to the   cartharsis-effect in aggression (Denzler , Förster & Liberman , 2009; Denzler,Förster & Liberman ,2010). We findthat under some specific circumstances , aggressive acts inhibit aggressive thoughts. Future research is needed here to get a clear picture when violence triggers more aggression and when it reduces it.   The fourth principle , too , is consistent with a functional view. More specifically , it is believed that a high motivation is associated with the readiness to invest a lot of energyingoal pursuit , and , probably , gives the respective goal a high priority over other goals. We just started to examine these effects in our labs.

 

Regulatory Focus Theory

Obviously , people have a huge variety of goals , needs , intentions , wishes and concerns. But what are the major systematic differences among them? Regulatory Focus Theory developed by Tory Higgins (1997; for a review see Förster & Werth , 1999) suggests a basic distinction: In a nutshell , goals and desired end states are connected to security or to growth. Whether a goal entails security or growth depends on structure , personality and the situation: if the need for self-realization and to maximize positive events takes control , then attention is focused on reaching ideals and wins. If , instead , the need for security and safety takes precedence , then minimizing of losses becomes of the essence. In the first case people find themselves in a promotion focus , while in the second case they are in a prevention focus.

As a consequence , for people in a promotion or prevention focus the very same event can be perceived in different ways. For example a person with a promotion focus may get married to be safe and protected , whereas a person with a promotion focusmay rather want to experience new things and to share her life with someone. Independent from a person’s personality , social events and tasks can also be framed in terms of security (prevention) or growth(promotion). If , for example , friendsandfamily convey the message that a marriage provides shelter and security , one may eventually adopt this point of view , whereas if they encourage the perspectivethat marriage is the romantic start of a wonderful lifetime journey , people may embrace this idea instead.

Our contribution to RFT is the following. We found that people in a promotion focus can be motivated better by giving positive feedback whereas motivation for people in a prevention focus is increased by givingthem negative feedback (Förster , Grant , Idson , & Higgins , 2003). Wefound that an approach motivation is related to a promotion focus whereas an avoidance motivation is related to a prevention focus (Förster , Higgins , & Idson , 1998) , and if people perform a strategy (approach vs. avoidance) that “fits” the respective foci , performance is improved (Förster , et al. 1998). We further found that people in a promotion focus are more creative than people in a prevention focus (Friedman & Förster , 2000; 2001; 2002; 2005; 2008; 2010). This happens among others , because people in a promotion focus broaden their categories and their perception; they focus on the forest rather than the trees (Förster & Higgins , 2005; Förster , Friedman , Özelsel & Denzler , 2006) and a broader scope has been shown to improve creativity (Friedman , Fishbach , Förster , & Werth , 2003) and a search for similarities (Förster , 2009). Furthermore we showed that when in a promotion focus , people are fast but inaccurate , whereas those in a prevention focus are slow and accurate; however , a strong promotion focus can improve even both , fast and accurate behavior at the same time (Förster , Higgins & ,Taylor Bianco , 2003). Finally , we applied RFT to more social domains , such as when people suffer from negative self stereotypes. In research with Beate Seibt (Seibt & Förster , 2004) ,we could show that people exposed to their negative self stereotypes (e.g. ,a woman exposed to the stereotypeof “women cannot do math”) are set in a prevention focus and as a result show vigilant , slow , uncreative behavior , whereas people exposed to their positive self stereotypes (e.g. , a womanexposed to the stereotype of “women are good communicators) show eager , fast , and creative behavior. Finally , we related RFT to the consumer’s domain showing that promotion focused people prefer luxury objects (e.g. , lipsticks) whereas prevention focused people prefer those related to security (e.g. , condoms , insurances; see Werth &Förster , 2007).

 

Embodiment

How does our body influence our mind? Does it matter whether we receive feedback while sitting in an upright or in a slumped bodily position? What happens if we suppress a smile , or aggressive tendencies? In my dissertation (see Förster & Strack , 1996) I found that participants who performed a positive behavior (nodding) automatically learned more positive words than negative words , whilefor participants who performed a negative behavior (head shaking) , the opposite was true. In a different experiment , we asked participants to shake their heads or to nod and to learn positive or negative words. In addition they were asked to simultaneously perform an unrelated task testing their finger dexterity. It was shown that participants in compatible conditions (those that nodded in front of positive and those that shook their heads in front of negative information) were better on this additional task than those that did incompatible conditions (those that nodded in front of negative and those that shook their heads in front of positive information). These findings could also be replicated with different body postures (upright and slumped down , see Förster & Stepper , 2000). We further found that participants with positivebodily expressions (arm flexion=is pulling things towards the body) spontaneously recalled more positive individualsthan negative ones , whereas for participants with negative bodily expressions (arm extension = pushing things away from thebody) the opposite was true (Förster & Strack , 1997; 1998). Finally , we found that arm flexion enhanced food intake and evaluations of positive foods , while arm extension reduced food intake and reduced evaluations of negative foods (Förster , 2003; 2004). All in all , these studies show close body-mind associations with positive bodily patterns to be psychologically related to positive information and with negative bodily patterns to be related to negative information.Applications for sports , motivation and health arebeing studied. Currently , we aim for a more theoretical framework to explain these results. Such findings were already discussed within prominent theories of embodiment such as Barsalou’s theory (1999).

  

Contextual Creativity

How can we improve our creative performance? Are there situations in which we naturally aremore creative than in others? How does our mood influence our potential to think creatively? A large and growing number of studies support the notion that creativity is not something that some people have and others don’t , but that it changes across situations. For example , research shows that arousing positive emotional states expand , and arousing negative states constrict , the scope of attention on both the perceptual (such as perceiving the forest or the trees) and conceptual levels (such as thinking broadly or creativelyversus thinking narrowly). However , these studies have predominantly involved the manipulation or measurement of conscious emotional experiences (e.g. , subjective feelings of happiness or anxiety).   Within a research project Ron Friedman and I (Friedman & Förster , 2000;2001;2005;2008; Förster , Friedman, Özelsel and Denzler , 2006) raised the question: Do cues that are merely associated with benign versus threatening situations , but that do not elicit conscious positive or negative feelings (i.e. , conscious emotional arousal) ,independently expand or constrict people’s attentional scope?   We suggested that rudimentary intero- (such as feelings) and exteroceptive stimuli (such as external information) may indeed become associated with the onset of positive or negative emotional states and/or with appraisals that the environment is benign or threatening and thereby come to moderate the scope of attention in the absence of conscious emotional experience.   Specifically , we posit that implicit“benign situation” cues broaden , and implicit “threatening situation” cues narrow , the range of perceptual and conceptual attentional selection.   An extensive array of research findings involving a diverse set of such implicit affective cues (e.g.,enactment of approach and avoidance behaviors , incidental exposure to colors signaling safety versus danger) is marshaled in support of this proposition. We recently summarized recent findings and developed a  attentional tuning model of creativity (Friedman & Förster , 2008; 2010).

 

GLOMO sys

People can look at the forest or they can look at the trees. Whereasthe former involves a global processing style , the latter involves a local processing style. According to prominent views in cognitive psychology , perceptual processing is connected to and determines more high-level cognition. On the basis of such accounts , we developed GLOMO sys (the GLObal versus LOcal processing MOdel a systems account) which suggests that:

Global versus local perceptual processing carries over to other tasks and is related to conceptual processing: In a series of experiments , we asked participants in a first phase of the experiment to either look at “the forest” or “the trees” of a given stimulus set (i.e. , state maps) and then asked them to do a different , allegedly unrelated task that measures more cognitive performances. It could be shown that global perceptual processing enhanced performance in tasks that profit from broadened mental categories , such as when people generate creative solutions (Friedman , Fishbach , Förster & Werth , 2003) , search for similarities (Förster , 2009) , assimilate judgments to given standards (Förster , Liberman & Kuschel , 2008) , include objects and people into given categories (Förster , Denzler & Schimmel , under review) , try to understand metaphors (Förster , unpubl.) , or have to recognizefaces (Förster et al. , unpubl.; Macrae & Lewis , 2002). In contrast , local processing enhanced performance in tasks that profit fromnarrowed mental categories such as when people search for analytic solutions or dissimilarities (Förster , 2009) , contrast themselves to given standards (Förster , Liberman & Kuschel , 2009) , exclude objects or people from a given category (Förster , Denzler & Schimmel , under review) , or have to recognize verbal information (Förster , unpubl.). The experiments speak for a strong link between perception and higher level conceptual processes.

Perceptual and conceptual processing is elicited byrealworld variables: To illustrate , global processing can be triggered by good mood (Gasper , 2004) , right hemisphere activation (Derryberry & Tucker , 1994) , distance (Liberman & Förster , 2009) , love (Förster , 2010; .Förster , Özelsel , & Epstude , 2010; Förster , Epstude and Özelsel , 2009)a promotion focus (Förster & Higgins , 2005) , high power (Smith & Trope , 2004) , and interdependence (Kühnen&Oyserman,2002) , and localprocessing is related to bad mood , left hemisphere activation , proximity , sex, a prevention focus , low power , and independence.

Regulatory focus , psychological distance and novelty are driving effects and the global system (glo-sys) processes novelty , while the local system (lo-sys) processes familiarity: Whenever something is novel , unfamiliar , ambiguous , complex , uncertain , distant , unclear , blurry , vague , abstract or otherwise represents an information-gap , the global processing glo-sys tries to make sense of it by integrating it into superordinate , inclusive knowledge structures. Upon a global understanding , lo-sys , the local processing system takes over , reflecting a global to local sequence. Whenever something is experienced as familiar , clear , close , proximal , or concrete , lo-sys may simply accept this event as “understood” or may search further for informative details that differentiatethis eventfrom others.

 

Television Appearances (Selection)

Nachtcafé (SWR)

Buten & Binnen (RB)

Hermann & Tietjen (NDR)

Euroland (SWF)

Menschen der Woche (SWF)

Die große Show der Naturwunder (ARD)

Quarks & Co (WDR)

Plasberg persönlich (WDR)

Im Palais (RBB)

Westart (WDR