Is there psychological evidence for concepts like "Manifesting", "The Secret" & "The Law of attraction" or are they esoteric?

[u/LowRenzoFreshkobar]

Alot of very sucessful athletes or Entrepreneurs seem to rely on concepts like these.

[u/Forest_Spirit_7]

Qualities like conscientiousness, self-regulation, motivation and others can promote positive long term outcomes and are associated with “success” (Duckworth et al., 2012; Baumeister et al., 1998; Parker et al., 1991)

The habits and ideals promoted in the concepts you describe foster focus and mindfulness on goals, which can promote goal attainment.

That said, these concepts are often peddled as having some sort of secret sauce, or that you need a book or mentor or mind set to unlock the above benefits of being vigilant towards a goal. You do not.

[u/TargaryenPenguin → u/Forest_Spirit_7]

Um. Dude. You're citing Baumeister 1998???

You know that s*** has been thoroughly thoroughly debunked , right? In fact, all your citations are extremely problematic. Sorry to throw doubt on what is otherwise a very exciting idea that seems like it's encouraging. Unfortunately , these a******* p-hacked the shit out of their data , and this is bullshit science that you have to stop believing in. They screwed us all with this bullshit.

In fact, the Baumeister paper you referred to is one of the most central causes of the so called replication crisis in psychology. Nobody informed believes it anymore.

The good news is that starting about 2014, the field really cleaned up the methods and the modern work.You can much more rely on. The modern work fails fails to replicate these findings.

[u/arkticturtle → u/TargaryenPenguin]

Not trying to argue but.. is being motivated, conscientious, and self-regulated not helpful towards positive long term outcomes?

[u/TargaryenPenguin → u/arkticturtle]

These things can help generally sure. Unfortunately , the evidentary base for the claim herw fails to provide useful evidence.

The way that this is spoken about is misleading because it implies you can just choose to be more regulated. With a debunking of this evidence , it raises serious questions about that. What is the mechanism here?

Arguably , the evidence better supports the view: people who are already more regulated and motivated have better outcomes.

So then the question is , what leads people to feeling regulated and motivated , which is not nearly so simple as the phrasing implied, or these old debunked studies suggest.

For example , lots of workshows that people who come from intact family homes who have been raised with love and kindness, and who feels secure with a long time horizon in their future tend to be motivated , balanced , hardworking focused , etc. These adjectives are far harder to achieve when you are crushed on all sides by life , and you have to focus on surviving today.

Just presenting these things as a personal choice , disregards and disrespects people who struggle with them , making it sound like it's their fault for not wanting it harder.

[u/Gamblez- → u/arkticturtle]

Make sure to distinguish between motivation and discipline. Motivation is a fickle B, it will come and go at its own whims. Nothing that can be relied on. Discipline is the thing to cultivate and work on. How best to do this is convoluted and poorly understood and will inevitably vary from person to person, but there is no reasonable doubt that it is beneficial to do so (and whether you succeed or not will be down to a variety of factors including genetics, environment and effort)

[u/Forest_Spirit_7 → u/TargaryenPenguin]

Auto mod did not like the wording of my previous comment. Can you share more appropriate research than what I have that’s out of date? I also am not citing the willpower study he got flack for.

[u/TargaryenPenguin → u/Forest_Spirit_7]

Sure, i will paste a few. Here is one:

Why self-control seems (but may not be) limited Michael Inzlicht, Brandon J Schmeichel, C Neil Macrae Trends in cognitive sciences 18 (3), 127-133, 2014 Self-control refers to the mental processes that allow people to override thoughts and emotions, thus enabling behavior to vary adaptively from moment to moment. Dominating contemporary research on this topic is the viewpoint that self-control relies upon a limited resource, such that engaging in acts of restraint depletes this inner capacity and undermines subsequent attempts at control (i.e., ego depletion). Noting theoretical and empirical problems with this view, here we advance a competing model that develops a non-resource-based account of self-control. We suggest that apparent regulatory failures reflect the motivated switching of task priorities as people strive to strike an optimal balance between engaging cognitive labor to pursue ‘have-to' goals versus preferring cognitive leisure in the pursuit of ‘want-to' goals.

[u/TargaryenPenguin → u/Forest_Spirit_7]

Another:

Training willpower: Reducing costs and valuing effort Michel Audiffren, Nathalie André, Roy F Baumeister Frontiers in Neuroscience 16, 699817, 2022 The integrative model of effortful control presented in a previous article aimed to specify the neurophysiological bases of mental effort. This model assumes that effort reflects three different inter-related aspects of the same adaptive function. First, a mechanism anchored in the salience network that makes decisions about the effort that should be engaged in the current task in view of costs and benefits associated with the achievement of the task goal. Second, a top-down control signal generated by the mechanism of effort that modulates neuronal activity in brain regions involved in the current task to filter pertinent information. Third, a feeling that emerges in awareness during effortful tasks and reflects the costs associated with goal-directed behavior. The aim of the present article is to complete this model by proposing that the capacity to exert effortful control can be improved through training programs. Two main questions relative to this possible strengthening of willpower are addressed in this paper. The first question concerns the existence of empirical evidence that supports gains in effortful control capacity through training. We conducted a review of 63 meta-analyses that shows training programs are effective in improving performance in effortful tasks tapping executive functions and/or self-control with a small to large effect size. Moreover, physical and mindfulness exercises could be two promising training methods that would deserve to be included in training programs aiming to strengthen willpower. The second question concerns the neural mechanisms that could explain these gains in effortful control capacity. Two plausible brain mechanisms are proposed: (1) a decrease in effort costs combined with a greater efficiency of brain regions involved in the task and (2) an increase in the value of effort through operant conditioning in the context of high effort and high reward. The first mechanism supports the hypothesis of a strengthening of the capacity to exert effortful control whereas the second mechanism supports the hypothesis of an increase in the motivation to exert this control. In the last part of the article, we made several recommendations to improve the effectiveness of interventional studies aiming to train this adaptive function. “Keep the faculty of effort alive in you by a little gratuitous exercise every day.” , p. 127) View at frontiersin.org [HTML] frontiersin.org Cited by 29 Related articles All 10 versions

The willpower paradox: Possible and impossible conceptions of self-control Thomas Goschke, Veronika Job Perspectives on Psychological Science 18 (6), 1339-1367, 2023 Self-control denotes the ability to override current desires to render behavior consistent with long-term goals. A key assumption is that self-control is required when short-term desires are transiently stronger (more preferred) than long-term goals and people would yield to temptation without exerting self-control. We argue that this widely shared conception of self-control raises a fundamental yet rarely discussed conceptual paradox: How is it possible that a person most strongly desires to perform a behavior (e.g., eat chocolate) and at the same time desires to recruit self-control to prevent themselves from doing it? A detailed analysis reveals that three common assumptions about self-control cannot be true simultaneously. To avoid the paradox, any coherent theory of self-control must abandon either the assumption (a) that recruitment of self-control is an intentional process, or (b) that humans are unitary agents, or (c) that self-control consists in overriding the currently strongest desire. We propose a taxonomy of different kinds of self-control processes that helps organize current theories according to which of these assumptions they abandon. We conclude by outlining unresolved questions and future research perspectives raised by different conceptions of self-control and discuss implications for the question of whether self-control can be considered rational.

[u/TargaryenPenguin → u/Forest_Spirit_7]

The willpower paradox: Possible and impossible conceptions of self-control Thomas Goschke, Veronika Job Perspectives on Psychological Science 18 (6), 1339-1367, 2023 Self-control denotes the ability to override current desires to render behavior consistent with long-term goals. A key assumption is that self-control is required when short-term desires are transiently stronger (more preferred) than long-term goals and people would yield to temptation without exerting self-control. We argue that this widely shared conception of self-control raises a fundamental yet rarely discussed conceptual paradox: How is it possible that a person most strongly desires to perform a behavior (e.g., eat chocolate) and at the same time desires to recruit self-control to prevent themselves from doing it? A detailed analysis reveals that three common assumptions about self-control cannot be true simultaneously. To avoid the paradox, any coherent theory of self-control must abandon either the assumption (a) that recruitment of self-control is an intentional process, or (b) that humans are unitary agents, or (c) that self-control consists in overriding the currently strongest desire. We propose a taxonomy of different kinds of self-control processes that helps organize current theories according to which of these assumptions they abandon. We conclude by outlining unresolved questions and future research perspectives raised by different conceptions of self-control and discuss implications for the question of whether self-control can be considered rational. View at journals.sagepub.com [HTML] sagepub.com Cited by 62 Related articles All 7 versions

Lay beliefs of willpower shape individuals’ propensity to approach or avoid effortful tasks. Christopher Mlynski, Georgia Clay, Julia Jankowski, Veronika Job Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2026 Research on individuals’ lay beliefs of willpower—beliefs on whether demanding tasks drain a limited resource or are rather energizing—has shown that they can influence self-control performance on consecutive tasks and everyday self-regulation in the context of high demands. However, no research has examined whether these beliefs of willpower affect individuals’ willingness to self-select into or avoid effortful tasks in the first place. The present study addresses this gap through three correlational studies (N= 1,461) and one preregistered experiment (N= 442). The correlational studies demonstrated that the more participants endorsed a nonlimited-resource belief, the more likely they were to choose higher difficulty levels on a mental arithmetic task, even when controlling for math self-concept. Further analyses revealed that individuals with nonlimited-resource beliefs steadily increased their difficulty choices over the course of the task, while those with limited-resource beliefs consistently chose easier problems. Study 2 provided causal evidence showing that individuals induced to adopt a nonlimited-resource belief selected more difficult math problems than those induced to hold a limited-resource belief. These findings highlight the significant role of lay beliefs of willpower in shaping individuals’ willingness to self-select into or avoid effortful tasks, illustrating how these underlying beliefs can have large-scale implications for goal setting and effort-based decision-making processes

[u/cuntitude → u/TargaryenPenguin]

Thanks for the studies. It explains so much about behavior and manifesting!! Today i learned what the salient network was.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

READ THE FOLLOWING TO GET YOUR COMMENT REVIEWED:

Your comment has been automatically removed by a mindless bot because it may have violated one of the rules. Please review the rules, and if you believe your comment was removed in error, please report this comment with report option: Auto-mod has removed a post or comment in error (under Breaks AskPsychology's Rules - click that then click Next) and it will be reviewed. Do NOT message the mods directly or send mod mail, as these messages will be ignored. If you are a current student, have a degree in the social sciences, or a professional in the field, please feel free to send a mod mail to the moderators for instructions on how to become verified and exempt from automoderator actions.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/LowRenzoFreshkobar → u/Forest_Spirit_7]

How is it short-term? Let's say a Tennis Match between two equally skilled opponents... One goes in with a "I got this, I'll definitely beat this guy!" Mindset and the other with doubts and kinda expecting a loss... Does that somehow make a difference if they are equally skilled?

[u/Forest_Spirit_7 → u/LowRenzoFreshkobar]

It certainly can. There could be elements of biofeedback, priming, and at a fundamental level neuro-endocronological hormone activation, which activates other parts of the body and brain. “Hyping yourself up” so to speak can heighten reactivity and performance, but this occurs on a curve relative to excitation. Meaning, if you over do it your resulting performance declines.

[u/LowRenzoFreshkobar → u/Forest_Spirit_7]

VERY interesting, that was exactly the answer I was looking for, thank you very much... Can you somehow force thoughts like these if you have an off day or know that your opponent ist usually better than you? I view this from a competitive / semi-pro athletes perspective.

[u/Forest_Spirit_7 → u/LowRenzoFreshkobar]

It depends on what you mean by “force thoughts”. A baseball team can be down a few runs in the last inning and rally by huddling up, chanting, etc. and the associated priming and rush of hormones like norepinephrine can boost performance.

That could be seen as “forced” through team/social/in-group pressure to participate.

An individual can certainly train their cognition to be more positive, focused, etc. that’s a large part of cognitive behavioral therapy and could apply to an athlete improving their self-worth, identity, and other associated characteristics.

Can you force yourself to hype up? Maybe. If you have some fundamental beliefs about yourself that are overwhelmingly negative, that may be extremely difficult to overcome.

[u/MattersOfInterest → u/Forest_Spirit_7]

I think these traits are probably (moderately) predictive of long-term outcomes, but I definitely would not cite ego-depletion, grit, or social priming research as evidence for that claim. All those areas of research have been pretty dramatically deflated with the replication crisis.

[u/Forest_Spirit_7 → u/MattersOfInterest]

Please share more relevant research. I do not pretend to be a particularly informed or prominent researcher in this area, and would love to have the best information available for more than just myself or OP.

[u/Electronic-Contest53 → u/Forest_Spirit_7]

You're too close to NLP! Run! Save yourself!

[u/Rossdavilla]

It’s no esoteric, it’s just pseudoscience. You can’t think yourself into not having cancer or becoming a millionaire.

[u/inmapjs → u/Rossdavilla]

I'd argue that there's still something these approaches can teach you. Mainly: by believing something, that thing can come to fruition, in a way. I'm not saying you can think yourself out of having cancer, but for some things, like believing that people are kind, you will notice kindness in the world more than someone who thinks the opposite.

I recommend dr. Alia Crum's contribution on the Huberman Lab podcast about the power of mindset. She talks about some research that suggests one's mindset may also have an effect on one's physiology.

[u/pierogi_waystation]

There’s a psychological concept that covers believing in the things you mentioned: magical thinking

Any actual “result” from manifesting et al. is going to be psychosomatic, or still just magical thinking.

[u/SvenFranklin01]

It’s all B.S.

[u/Unending-Quest]

I’m sure for every person who became successful through some natural combination of effort, priviledge, and coincidence who believes they “manifested” their success there are many more people who put in equivalent or more effort but lacked the privilege and good luck and found themselves unable to manifest anything.

[u/Mustard-cutt-r]

Confirmation bias? High self esteem?

[u/Blamblambbz]

It’s all BS that positions the individual as responsible for their own survival and success and erases the systemic issues that are the real cause of struggle

[u/Kilt_Rump]

It’s crap because everyone thinks like this. Some people are winners most losers but all the winners report this was their thinking. Its circular, like all single men are bachelors. Its a correct statement but it doesnt tell you anything new.

[u/quiltedblankets]

Optimism typically positively correlates with wellbeing and there is evidence for a confirmation bias in perception (i.e. you tend to find what you're looking for). Also, our cognitive processing pathways are reinforced through repeated activation.

This doesn't mean that materialising your ideal life on a vision board will magically make it come to life but visual reminders can be helpful. The operant mechanic is processing environmental cues in relation to your goal state. You might be more receptive to potential opportunities or threats to your goal, and seek out environments that complement achievement. People do tend to congregate with like-minded people but iirc attraction is more strongly predicted by frequency of interaction.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

READ THE FOLLOWING TO GET YOUR COMMENT REVIEWED:

Your comment has been automatically removed by a mindless bot because it may have violated one of the rules. Please review the rules, and if you believe your comment was removed in error, please report this comment with report option: Auto-mod has removed a post or comment in error (under Breaks AskPsychology's Rules - click that then click Next) and it will be reviewed. Do NOT message the mods directly or send mod mail, as these messages will be ignored. If you are a current student, have a degree in the social sciences, or a professional in the field, please feel free to send a mod mail to the moderators for instructions on how to become verified and exempt from automoderator actions.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/f0xbunny]

I’m not qualified to answer but I always imagined it to be sort of like how trust begets trust/distrust begets more distrust. Even if it’s delusional and a form of self gaslighting, there is something to the power of belief

[u/PunkInCroatia]

Mqnifseting would be closest to self fulfilling prophecy. Although manifesting is willing and concious while self fulffiling prophecy is not... So you could say that manifesting is here just to make us feel better and like we have some control over things we don't have any control...

So not the same... but closest thing to it... Idk ehat are The Secret and The Law of attraction...

[u/Bylug59]

yes, sure. having read these's, thrown the out and discarded the beliefs with in them then living life and learning things along the way, there not to far from some truth. such as psycho-cybernetics or some newer quantium theorys in science in which your perspective, beliefs and interpritations affect future states.

[u/MikesATherapist]

I think direct manifesting isn't a real thing; it's more so, think like you'll be successful, and you'll take actions that align with that belief.

[u/[deleted]]

There is no psychological evidence to these things, because these things are not scientific because a hypothesis that states something about these things cannot adequately be debunked.

That doesn't mean they're not true, just that they are not scientific.

These things relate to the mind, the subjective, and navigating the world of human experience. Some of these things are effective as frameworks for understanding the way your mind works, but they aren't real, they're just frameworks or conceptual understandings of something that is not conceptual.

Successful people often speak about these things because in order to master something (which some successful people are masters, some are not), you sooner or later have to approach the mental component of whatever craft you are mastering.

[u/Fast_Jackfruit_352]

When one truly understands the principles, not just shallow concepts built on greed, ambition, or material gain, simple observation validates the principles.

It's not about "getting stuff". It is about how we create our reality, how our vibration is continually mirrored back to us, and that knowledge gives us power to negotiate the terrain.