IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0203131.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Individual differences in exploration and persistence: Grit and beliefs about ability and reward

Author

Listed:
  • Gillian Dale
  • Danielle Sampers
  • Stephanie Loo
  • C Shawn Green

Abstract

The tradeoff between knowing when to seek greater rewards (exploration), and knowing when to settle (exploitation), is critical to success. One dispositional factor that may modulate this tradeoff is “grit.” Gritty individuals tend to persist in the face of difficulty and consequently experience greater life success. It is possible that they may also experience a greater tendency to explore in a reward task. However, although most exploration/exploitation tasks manipulate beliefs about the presence/magnitude of rewards in the environment, the belief of one’s ability to actually achieve a reward is also critical. As such, we investigated whether individuals higher in grit were more likely to explore, and how beliefs about the magnitude/presence of rewards, and the perceived ability to achieve a reward, modulated their exploration tendencies. Over two experiments, participants completed 4 different exploration/persistence tasks: two that tapped into participant beliefs about the presence/magnitude of rewards, and two that tapped into participant beliefs about their ability to achieve a reward. Participants also completed measures of dispositional grit (Experiment 1a and 1b), conscientiousness (Experiment 1b), and working memory (Experiment 1a and 1b). In both experiments, we found a relationship between the two “belief of rewards” tasks, as well as between the two “belief of ability” tasks, but performance was unrelated across the two types of task. We also found that dispositional grit was strongly associated with greater exploration, but only on the “belief of ability” tasks. Finally, in Experiment 1b we showed that conscientiousness better predicted exploration on the “belief of ability” tasks than grit, suggesting that it is not grittiness per se that is associated with exploration. Overall, our findings showed that individuals high in grit/conscientiousness are more likely to explore, but only when there is a known reward available that they believe they have the ability to achieve.

Suggested Citation

  • Gillian Dale & Danielle Sampers & Stephanie Loo & C Shawn Green, 2018. "Individual differences in exploration and persistence: Grit and beliefs about ability and reward," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0203131
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203131
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203131
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203131&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0203131?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    2. Bruno B Averbeck, 2015. "Theory of Choice in Bandit, Information Sampling and Foraging Tasks," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-28, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Farid Anvari & Stephan Billinger & Pantelis P. Analytis & Vithor Rosa Franco & Davide Marchiori, 2024. "Testing the convergent validity, domain generality, and temporal stability of selected measures of people’s tendency to explore," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-23, December.
    2. Mahlon Juma, 2024. "Development and Validation of Domain-Specific Grit Scale for Prisoners in Criminal Justice System in Kenya," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(17), pages 1-13, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    2. Giuliani, Elisa & Martinelli, Arianna & Rabellotti, Roberta, 2016. "Is Co-Invention Expediting Technological Catch Up? A Study of Collaboration between Emerging Country Firms and EU Inventors," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 192-205.
    3. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    4. Son K. Lam & Thomas E. DeCarlo & Ashish Sharma, 2019. "Salesperson ambidexterity in customer engagement: do customer base characteristics matter?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 659-680, July.
    5. Bruneel, Johan & Clarysse, Bart & Bobelyn, Annelies & Wright, Mike, 2020. "Liquidity events and VC-backed academic spin-offs: The role of search alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    6. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    7. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    8. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    9. Liu, Zhiqiang & Yan, Miao & Fan, Youqing & Chen, Liling, 2021. "Ascribed or achieved? The role of birth order on innovative behaviour in the workplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 480-492.
    10. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    11. Keegan, A. & Turner, J.R., 2000. "Quantity versus Quality in Project Based Learning Practices," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2000-55-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    12. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    13. Robert P. Garrett Jr. & Jeffrey G. Covin, 2015. "Internal Corporate Venture Operations Independence and Performance: A Knowledge–Based Perspective," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 39(4), pages 763-790, July.
    14. Marco Valeri & Rodolfo Baggio, 2021. "A critical reflection on the adoption of blockchain in tourism," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 121-132, June.
    15. Sarv Devaraj & Robert F. Easley & J. Michael Crant, 2008. "Research Note ---How Does Personality Matter? Relating the Five-Factor Model to Technology Acceptance and Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 93-105, March.
    16. Daniel Reimsbach & Bastian Hauschild, 2012. "Corporate venturing: an extended typology," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 71-80, September.
    17. Li, Mingxiang, 2021. "Exploring novel technologies through board interlocks: Spillover vs. broad exploration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    18. Sadovnikova, Anna & Pujari, Ashish & Mikhailitchenko, Andrey, 2016. "Radical innovation in strategic partnerships: A framework for analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1829-1833.
    19. Thomas Bolli & Martin Woerter, 2013. "Technological Diversification and Innovation Performance," KOF Working papers 13-336, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    20. Hamza El Kaddouri & Modar Ajeeb, 2021. "The introduction of legal audit within French universities: The impact on the managerial latitude of managers [L'introduction de l'audit légal au sein des universités françaises : l'impact sur la l," Post-Print halshs-04246174, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0203131. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.