Editorial: Motivation for the Future

In contemplating the future, we often dwell not in the present but in imagined tomorrows. Yet, the envisioned future may not always manifest into reality. This possibility raises a pivotal question: What factors drive our motivation to actualize these imagined futures? Such motivations may span from ideals and goals to acquisitions, transformations, growth, self-control, inheritance, and maintenance. But do these future-oriented motivations truly fulfill our desires? In recent decades, research in this area has burgeoned, proposing a myriad of theories to enhance future motivation. This special issue sheds light on the latest empirical and theoretical advancements in the psychology of future motivation.

Lee (2024) uses a meta-analysis to examine the strength of the relationship between various types of motivation and accompanying future outcomes that individuals intend to change, based on 337 effect sizes from 62 studies. Considerable variation existed among the 14 theoretically postulated types of motivation, ranging from small negative effect sizes to moderate positive effect sizes. The 14 summary effect sizes were also moderated by the type of future outcomes, the use of a motivational intervention, the use of a longitudinal design, and the time between the point that measured motivation and future outcomes. The findings of this study are critical because they integrate previous studies and raise new questions for future research.

Nishimura (2024), utilizing self-determination theory, explores how aspirations (future motivation) uniquely influence active behaviors in positive classroom participation while controlling for academic motivation (current motivation). The study's findings illustrate a distinct variance in aspirations: Intrinsic aspirations correlate positively with active class participation, while extrinsic aspirations demonstrate a negative relationship with participation. This study is noteworthy for its revelation that future motivation, particularly when intrinsically driven, enhances active learning behaviors beyond the influence of present motivation.

Goto et al. (2024) examine the interplay between students' achievement goals and their preferences for personalized questions in computer-adaptive tests. The study found that while mastery goals aligned with a preference for challenging problems, performance goals correlated with a preference for success-guaranteed problems. Interestingly, only the preference for complex problems predicted future intentions to engage with computer-adaptive tests. These findings suggest that merely introducing computer-adaptive testing in educational settings may not suffice. The study offers practical insights into integrating educational technology, such as computer-adaptive tests, to tailor teaching and learning experiences.

Takehashi et al. (2024) examine the motivational impact of growth mindsets from the perspective of character strengths. A growth mindset, the belief in the developmental potential of abilities (Dweck & Yeager, 2018), was assessed across 25 strengths, including intelligence and 24 character traits. Participants evaluated their perceived competence, growth mindset, and intention to improve each strength. Notably, the study reveals that the intention to enhance a specific strength aligns more closely with the corresponding growth mindset than with other growth mindsets. This research highlights the importance of tailoring growth mindset interventions to particular traits, expanding beyond the traditional focus on intelligence (Dweck & Yeager, 2021).

Adachi and Adachi (2024) expand on Rosenbaum et al.'s (2014) concept of procrastination—the drive to minimize cognitive load swiftly, even at physical cost—and examine the relationship between procrastination and self-control. Their results delineate several associated traits of procrastination: initiating tasks early to alleviate cognitive and emotional burdens; delaying tasks due to physical cost, burden, or fear of the task; and the influence of high self-control in balancing these factors. This study contributes significantly to academic discourse by replicating previous findings on procrastination and broadening the understanding of this complex phenomenon.

Asayama et al. (2024) assigned Japanese university students to an episodic future thinking condition, a semantic future thinking condition, and a control condition. After performing tasks for each condition, the participants were asked to respond to a learning intention measure. A comparison of learning intentions for each condition revealed that participants in the episodic future thinking condition planned to study significantly longer than participants in the other conditions when the importance of goal attainment was high. In other words, episodic future thinking related to the achievement of important learning goals may reinforce learning intentions more than simple awareness of future self and learning goals. This study is important in that it uses an experimental approach to empirically clarify the impact of future thinking.

Tang and Toyama (2024) experimentally examine the moderating effects of regulatory foci on the effectiveness of episodic future thinking (EFT) in reducing delay discounting. After measuring the promotion/prevention focus, an EFT manipulation (imagine recent events or imagine future events) was performed, followed by a delay discounting task. The results show that positive EFT is particularly effective for individuals with a high promotion focus compared to individuals with a high prevention focus, providing insight into how EFT attenuates delay discounting. Similar to Asayama et al. (2024), the value of this study, which empirically clarifies the impact of ETFs using experimental methods, is high.

Finally, Toyosawa et al. (2024) conducted a study examining motivation regarding autonomous and continuous disaster preparedness from the perspective of self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Through two studies, this paper identifies four categories comprising the structure of motivation regarding autonomous and continuous disaster preparedness. These four categories were examined through a quantitative survey, and four factors were extracted through factor analysis of motivation. Furthermore, correlation analysis revealed that all motivations were positively correlated with autonomous, household, and continuous preparedness. This is a unique study dealing with future motivation in the context of disaster prevention, and we hope to see further development of this research in the future.

This special issue underscores the multifaceted impacts of understanding future motivation: self-regulation, academic behavior and performance, disaster prevention behavior, and clinical applications. The concept of future motivation intertwines with numerous influential psychological constructs. The inherently unexperienced, changeable, and malleable future bears a unique relevance to action. While the number of papers in this issue is limited, we eagerly anticipate future contributions where “motivation for the future” may provide groundbreaking insights into the psychology of human action and decision-making.