From social traditions to personalized routines: Maintenance goals as a resilience factor

Received: 1 March 2023 Accepted: 29 April 2024 DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.3074 RESEARCH ARTICLE From social traditions to personalized routines: Maintenance goals as a resilience factor Yael Ecker1 Alexandra W. Busch2 Stefan Schreiber2 Roland Imhoff3 1 Social Cognition Center Cologne, University of Cologne, Koln, Germany 2 Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Leibniz-Forschungsinstitut für Archäologie, Mainz, Germany 3 Department of Legal and Social Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany Correspondence Yael Ecker, Social Cognition Center Cologne, University of Cologne, Richard-Strauss-St. 2, 50931 Cologne, Germany. Email: yecker@uni-koeln.de Funding information Leibliz Collaborative Excellence (Leibliz Kooperative Exzellenz); Resilience factors in a diachronic and intercultural perspective, Grant/Award Number: #K83/2017 Abstract We identified and tested a novel aspect of human resilience: The daily pursuit of maintenance goals. Taking inspiration from archaeological records, which point at routinized cultural practices as a central resilience factor, we tested whether personal routine practices, governed by maintenance goals, serve a similar function to individuals as traditional practices do to societies. Namely, we hypothesized that maintenance striving increases individuals’ resilient responses to stressful events. Confirming this prediction, a longitudinal Study 1 showed that maintenance striving but not avoidance striving, predicted subsequent increases in well-being following the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Study 2 confirmed our predictions on trait resilience and maintenance versus avoidance motivations in the household and relationship life domains in cross-sectional data. These studies contribute to the understanding of resilience by demonstrating the benefits of maintenance goals for both situational and trait-level resilience. KEYWORDS Approach-Avoidance, Goal pursuit, Maintenance goals, Motivation, Resilience, Wellbeing 1 INTRODUCTION This work underscores the role of human intentionality in psychological resilience, examining how goal-directed action steers individuals In recent years, the global landscape has been characterized by an through turbulent waters. unprecedented cascade of challenges. From the pervasive impact of health crises to the intensifying strains of social and political unrest, individuals and communities worldwide have navigated a labyrinth of 1.1 Personal goals and psychological resilience stressors that test the bounds of human adaptability. In the face of these relentless pressures, the concept of psychological resilience has Individuals respond to environmental challenges and opportunities by emerged as a critical lifeline. Psychological resilience reflects individu- setting personal goals and pursuing them (Carver & Scheier, 1998; als’ tendency to experience less mental health problems despite being Kruglanski et al., 2002; Wilkowski & Ferguson, 2016). They may do so subjected to psychological or physical stressors (Luthar, 2000; Mas- by utilizing one of three types of goals: progress, protection and main- ten, 2001). During the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, people have tenance goals (Ebner et al., 2006; Ecker et al., 2022, 2023; Ecker & had to navigate lockdowns, loss and the relentless uncertainty of a Moors, 2023; Lappi & Wilkowski, 2020). When wishing to change or world in flux. Such a prolonged period of stress may have severe con- achieve something, people set progress goals that guide them in bring- sequences for individuals who are not able to respond effectively to it. ing their current state to align with their desired state. When wishing This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. © 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Social Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1198 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ejsp Eur J Soc Psychol. 2024;54:1198–1210. to prevent negative changes from happening, individuals set protection seem to be especially prevalent in life domains that concern people’s goals that guide them in bringing their anticipated state to align with relationships with others as well as in domains that concern people’s their desired state. Finally, when wishing to sustain a current state of households. The emotional experience of maintenance striving is affairs, people pursue maintenance goals that guide them in keeping uniquely characterized by satisfaction and low threat (Ecker et al., things running such that both the current state and anticipated state 2022), and the tendency to engage in maintenance is predicted by a remain stable. greater sense of satisfaction (Ecker et al., 2023). Investigations in the For instance, in the health domain, one may either have the goal applied fields of health behaviour underscore the crucial role of main- to increase fitness (progress), prevent influences that would reduce tenance goals in health and well-being (Foxx, 2013; Rothman, 2000). fitness (protection) or regularly keep up with a fitness routine (mainte- After reaching the minimal conditions necessary for individual health nance). Or, in the social domain, one may either have a goal to make new and prosperity begins the arguably more difficult task of maintaining social contacts, to prevent unwanted contacts or to regularly maintain them. Any desired behavioural pattern – eating healthy, exercising, existing contacts. Along similar lines, in the household domain, one may keeping away from smoking or consuming alcohol – is only beneficial have a goal to find a new house or to renovate an existing household when maintained in the long run. In addition to one’s physical health, (progress), to prevent burglaries or damages to the house (protection) one’s personal relationships require large investments in ongoing or to regularly maintain one’s household. maintenance (Canary & Stafford, 1994; Duck, 1986). Keeping in touch Which of these goal types is more likely to steer people towards with friends and family members, caring for children, reinforcing greater psychological resilience in the face of life’s adversaries? intimate bonds with spouses and close friends, and staying in contact Research on psychological resilience has identified several key with diverse social cycles – these are but a few aspects of relationship resilience factors, most of which reflect personal traits (self-efficacy, maintenance. religiosity) and some reflect aspects of the environment (e.g., social The pursuit of maintenance goals is an investment in the durability support; Fritz et al., 2018; Helmreich et al., 2017). To the best of of the current state of affairs. As such, a greater prevalence of mainte- our knowledge, however, there is no research on the role of goals or nance goal pursuit may contribute to personal resilience. For instance, intentional behaviour in personal resilience. In this paper, we begin if Julie invests high continuous efforts in keeping in touch with friends to explore the relationship between personal goals and psychological throughout hard times, such as during a wave of the COVID-19 pan- resilience by drawing inspiration from archaeological records, which demic, her relationships may be stronger as a result of that investment point at the crucial role that routines have played in the ability of and would sustain better during lockdowns or recover more quickly societies to withstand crises throughout human history (Boschung thereafter. Similar can be said about people’s regular investments in et al., 2015; Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983). For instance, during the their health, their household, etc. More generally, the integrity of one’s Roman conquest of Italy, indigenous populations established their personal worldview, the sense of meaning in life and the extent to own routine forms of expression, thereby assuring them of their own which one feels balanced and secure, may depend on routine prac- culture and providing a source of resilience to their group identity tices that serve as a stabilizing force in everyday life. Following this (Busch 2015; Fontijn 2015). rationale, we argue that people’s investments in maintenance prac- A similar dynamic might be at work in the routine practices of indi- tices – act intended towards the preservation of the current state and viduals. Indeed, psychological research points at a positive relationship not towards approaching gains or avoiding losses – serve to increase between the frequency of personal routines and individual well-being personal resilience in the face of adversary. (Heintzelman & King 2019). Just like societies make use of a recurrent Research that looked into the unique implications of maintenance behavioural framework, transmitted from generation to generation, to striving is generally scarce (Ecker & Gilead, 2018; Lappi & Wilkowski, regain stability, so may individuals reinforce stability through individ- 2020). Research on goals has traditionally centred on progress and ual intentionality. For instance, a workday routine that begins with a protection goals and ignored the potentially unique nature of goals that cup of coffee and a newspaper, and ends with walking the dog in the guide attempts to regularly maintain current states. One study that did evening, may provide a sense of stability and assurance in hard times. examine maintenance goals distinctly from progress and protection While some routine behaviour might be unintentional or habitual – found a positive correlation between the tendency to pursue mainte- that is, not guided by people’s goals – many others certainly are (for a nance goals and well-being in older ages (Ebner et al., 2006). However, recent debate on this issue, see De Houwer et al., 2023; Wood et al., because this finding is correlational and based on cross-sectional data, 2022). Specifically, from a goal-directed perspective, people’s routine it is impossible to determine its causal direction. It seems reasonable, behaviours are guided by maintenance goals (Ecker & Gilead, 2018; for instance, that high well-being will increase maintenance striving Railton, 2017). rather than vice versa. Thus, in the current investigation, we employ both longitudinal and cross-sectional data to examine the contingency between maintenance striving and well-being under stress. More 1.2 The pursuit of maintenance goals specifically, we hypothesize that maintenance goals predict greater increases in well-being when following high compared to low stress Research shows that maintenance goals account for about 40% of (H1) and correlate positively with resilience at the trait level (H2). people’s goals (Ebner et al., 2006; Ecker et al., 2022). Such goals Moreover, we expect the positive relationships between maintenance 10990992, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3074 by Leibniz Center For Archaeology, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1199 FROM SOCIAL TRADITIONS TO PERSONALIZED ROUTINES ECKER ET AL. striving and resilience to be stronger than a similar relationship unique timing, we conceptualized improvements in well-being as indi- between protection striving and resilience (H3). cators of resilience. More specifically, we tested how goal-directed In testing these hypotheses, we hope to contribute both to research maintenance (as compared to goal-directed approach and avoidance) on psychological resilience and basic research into the underlying interacted with levels of objective COVID-19 stress, as reflected in mechanism of maintenance goals. If we find that maintenance striv- weekly national infection rates.2 Because resilience factors exert more ing uniquely predicts subsequent recovery from stressful events, this influence on well-being in the face of adversary than in times of stability would not only add knowledge of practical importance to the study of (Luthar 2000; Masten 2001), we predicted that maintenance practices resilience but also help to establish the unique nature of maintenance will predict well-being more strongly the higher the infection rate is goals. during a certain week. In an attempt to collect evidence that approximates our theorized causal role of maintenance practices via its role as a temporal pre- 1.3 The current research cursor, we examined how such practices predicted well-being on the next week when taking into account well-being on the same week. This By definition, psychological resilience is revealed and best determined allowed us to test how well maintenance practices predict well-being under adversarial environmental conditions (Luthar 2000; Masten separately from an opposite (and arguably plausible) direction wherein 2001). Recent research has conceptualized resilience as a distinct pat- well-being influences maintenance practices. Admittedly, it remains tern of reaction to stressors across time (Kalisch, 2015). In line with possible that a third variable influenced both maintenance striving and that definition, Study 1 measured longitudinal changes in well-being weekly changes in well-being. For instance, an interpersonal tendency during the peak and subsequent waning down of the third COVID-19 for resilience may have caused people to maintain as well as to improve wave in Germany. Additionally, in pre-registered Study 2, we tested in well-being as infection rates decreased. We argue, however, that it trait-level resilience on a sample of British residents. In doing so, we is less reasonable to assign situational changes in well-being to an indi- followed an earlier predominant conceptualization of resilience as a vidual trait rather than to a proximal situational variable. Due to the personal trait (Helmreich et al., 2017). Thus, in Study 1 we tested our uncertain nature of the data collection – we could not foresee changes H1 and H3, while in Study 2 we tested our H2 and H3. The combination in infection rates – we did not pre-register our prediction in this study. of this set of hypotheses and these two studies allowed us to examine whether the varied perspectives on resilience converge with regard to our predictions. 2.1 Method Across both studies, we report all measures relevant to our hypothesis. Both studies included measures pertaining to a separate project, Participants. Forty-five Israeli immigrants in Germany participated in which we report in the Supporting Information. Sample sizes were pre- the study, with an average participation in 80% of the sessions (67% determined, and no observations were excluded from either of the women; Mage = 36.54, SD = 8.54). This sample was recruited via ads studies. All studies examining the current hypothesis are reported in on Facebook groups for Israelis in Germany, and each participant was this paper. Raw data and analysis scripts using R are fully available on rewarded with personalized feedback in addition to €30 at the end of the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/6rpqg/?view_only= the study. We also recruited 120 native Germans via the Prolific plat- a7a6fbd2ada840e49f80e9a4ee9f286c). form, with an average participation rate of 82% (39% women; Mage = 29.49, SD = 8.23). Participants in this sample were rewarded £1.88 for a baseline session (£8.35 per hour) and £0.63 for the shorter subsequent 2 STUDY 1: RESILIENCE AS A PROCESS session (3–5 min long, thus keeping up a similar hourly rate). Because statistical power depended on largely unforeseeable variables (Judd In Study 1, we measured situational resilience in a 3-month longitudi- et al., 2017), we did not perform a power analysis to determine the nal study during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. sample size. This study included 12 weekly measurements and sampled from two Procedure. All study sessions were conducted online on the Qualtrics types of populations: An Israeli sample of immigrants in Germany and a platform. The questionnaires were transmitted in German for the native sample of Germans.1 From both samples, we recorded changes native German sample and in Hebrew for the Israeli sample. Each week, in participants’ investments in maintenance, approach and avoidance participants answered three well-being questionnaires: Meaning in life goals (for more on this goal distinction, see Ecker & Moors, 2023) was measured using two items from the Daily Meaning Scale (DMS; as well as changes in well-being. Data collection spanned from April Steger et al., 2008), which were adapted to weekly measurment and to August 2021, as infection rates during the third wave in Germany measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all to 7 = Very much) began to decrease and eventually reached a plateau. Because of this (e.g., ‘In the last week, how much did you find your life meaningful?’ Cronbach’s 𝛼 == .94 on both Israeli and German samples), the depression 1 The two samples were collected for a different project which explores questions about religious and national practices among native and immigrant populations. For this paper, we use hierarchical linear modelling to combine and generalize beyond the two samples. 2 Information about the national infection rates were taken from the the Robert Koch Institute, a German federal government agency and research institute. 10990992, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3074 by Leibniz Center For Archaeology, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1200 F I G U R E 1 Average infection rates (in thousands) and average self-report ratings of well-being and subjective COVID-19 stress by week. MIL, meaning in life; WEMWBS, Warwick-Edinburgh mental wellbeing scale; DASS, depression, anxiety, and stress scale. and stress scales from the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress scale (DASS- sion and stress (DASS-21). Avoidance investment did not correlate with 21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995; e.g., ‘In the last week, I found it difficult to any of the three well-being measures. relax’; 𝛼 = .90 and .89 in the Israeli and German samples, respectively) Our central aim was to test the extent to which maintenance goal were measured on a 4-point scale (0 = Does not apply to me at all to 3 = investment predicted resilience. For completeness, we also tested how Strongly or very often applies to me) and the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental goal investment in two other goal types – approach and avoidance – Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS; Tennant et al., 2007; e.g., ‘In the last week, affected resilience. Because the weekly measurements in this study are I felt happy’; 𝛼 = .87 and .89 in the Israeli and German samples, respec- nested within participants, statistical inference requires a model that tively) was measured on a 5-point scale (1 = Never to 5 = All the time). accounts for the hierarchical structure of the data. We conducted lin- Additional measures are detailed in the Supporting Information. ear mixed effects analyses using the lme4 package in R (Bates et al., In the next step, participants answered a battery of questions 2012). To obtain p-values for fixed effects, we used the LmerTest on traditional behaviour, pertaining to a separate research project. package (Kuznetsova et al., 2017), based on Satterthwaite’s degrees Then, participants reported their weekly goal-directed investments: of freedom method. We operationalized resilience as a greater posi- How much time did you invest this last week in the following? (In hours; tive change in well-being following weeks with higher infection rates. 0–84): Approach investment: Improving things in my life, striving for more Hence, we entered each goal investment measure alongside its interac- (e.g., starting new projects, new directions, making new contacts with peo- tion with the weekly peak of national infection rates as fixed variables. ple, etc.); Maintenance investment: Maintaining things in my life, investing Well-being in the same weekly session was also added as a fixed vari- in stability and balance (e.g., in my current relationships, my current projects able. We included random intercepts for participants and sample type and directions, my health, etc.). Avoidance investment: Preventing nega- (native German, Israeli). The goal investment measures were all cen- tive things from happening in my life (e.g., removing threats from my current tred around the grand mean. Well-being ratings in the subsequent week relationships, projects, health, etc.). This measurement of maintenance, were the dependent variable. Because we had three different mea- approach and avoidance goal striving was adapted from Ecker and sures of well-being, we repeated this analysis three times, for DASS-21, colleagues (2022). WEMWBS and meaning in life (MIL). The results of all interaction effects are presented in Table 2. Confirming our H1, the analysis found significant interactions of infection 2.2 Results rate and maintenance investment in predicting subsequent changes in two out of three well-being measures. Maintenance investment Figures 1 and 2 show average values of well-being and goal striv- correlated more strongly and negatively with subsequent depression ing per week. Table 1 presents person-level (Level 2) correlations and stress (DASS-12) the higher the infection rates were that week. between measures averaged across weekly sessions: three well-being Additionally, maintenance investment correlated more strongly and measures and three goal investment measures. As the table shows, positively with mental well-being (WEMWBS) the higher infection both maintenance and approach investment at the person level cor- rates were that week. A similar descriptive pattern emerged in pre- related positively with the mental well-being scale (WEMWBS), and dicting meaning in life (MIL) but this effect did not reach statistical approach investment additionally correlated negatively with depres- significance. 10990992, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3074 by Leibniz Center For Archaeology, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1201 FROM SOCIAL TRADITIONS TO PERSONALIZED ROUTINES ECKER ET AL. Average hours invested in maintenance, approach and avoidance by week. FIGURE 2 TA B L E 1 Study 1: Correlations between person-level variables. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. DASS-21 2. WEMWBS −.70*** 3. MIL −.64*** .72*** 4. Maintenance −.13 .23** .23** 5. Approach −.17* .30*** .24** .44*** 6. Avoidance .11 .02 −0.05 .55*** .48*** Mean 2.02 4.13 4.48 14.93 9.97 9.23 SD 0.55 0.57 1.31 1.16 .77 .72 *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Figures 3 and 4 present the interactions of maintenance investment Similarly, simple effects analyses revealed that maintenance invest- and infection rate in predicting DASS-21 and WEMWBS, respectively. ment significantly predicted subsequent increases in mental well-being Simple effects analyses revealed that maintenance investment sig- (WEMWBS) only in the first 2 weeks, when infection rates were 21,000 nificantly predicted subsequent decreases in depression and stress (Estimate = 0.004, SE = 0.002, t = 2.42, p = .016) and 16,782 (Estimate = (DASS-12) at the highest infection rate (21,000), which occurred on 0.003, SE = 0.001, t = 2.22, p = .026). the first measurement week (Estimate = −0.003, SE = 0.002, t = 2.08, Looking at the interaction of avoidance investment and infection p = .037). Later on, the correlation with maintenance investment rate, we found the opposite descriptive pattern on all three mea- reversed: After the sixth measurement, in which the infection rate sures of well-being. Partially confirming our H3, on one measure of sunk to 3533 new cases, maintenance investment actually predicted well-being this pattern was statistically significant: Avoidance invest- greater depression and stress (p values ranging from .049 to .015). ment was more strongly and positively correlated with subsequent 10990992, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3074 by Leibniz Center For Archaeology, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1202 TA B L E 2 Main analysis: Predicting well-being from the interaction of goal striving and infection rate. Goal striving at t-1 × Infection rate Model DV Type of goal striving b (SE) t (df) p Random effect (SD): Adjusted ICC 1 DASS-21 Maintenance −0.0003 (0.0001) −3.07 (1272) .002 Participants: 0.127 (0.356) 0.461 Participants: 0.147 (0.383) Sample: 0.000 (0.020) 0.472 Participants: 0.610 (0.781) Sample: 0.009 (0.098) 0.535 2 3 WEMWBS MIL Approach −0.0001 (0.0001) 1.08 (1288) .279 Avoidance 0.0003 (0.0001) 1.99 (1317) .047 Maintenance 0.0002 (0.0001) 2.5 (1265) .012 Approach −0.0002 (0.0001) 0.14 (1280) .888 Avoidance −0.0001 (0.0001) 0.86 (1309) .389 0.0004 (0.0002) 1.84 (1236) 0.066 Maintenance Approach 0.0002 (0.0002) 0.09 (1245) .925 Avoidance −0.0005 (0.0003) 1.72 (1281) .089 Abbreviations: df, degree of freedom; DASS-21, depression, anxiety, and stress scale; WEMWBS, Warwick-Edinburgh mental wellbeing scale; MIL, meaning in life. depression and stress (DASS-12) the higher the infection rates were on resilience has emphasized the view of resilience as a process that that week. Finally, looking at the interaction of approach investment emerges in reaction to stress, earlier research has predominantly and infection rate, we did not find any significant effects. viewed resilience as a trait (Helmreich et al., 2017). Therefore, we Sensitivity power analysis. We conducted a sensitivity analysis to find aimed to pre-register and conceptually replicate our predictions about the minimal effect size that our sample was able to detect. This analysis the relationship between maintenance practices and individual differ- found that the minimal interaction effect of infection rates and main- ences in resilience. We used two central resilience scales: The Brief tenance striving that our sample could detect is 0.0002 with DASS-21 Resilience Scale (BRS; Smith et al., 2008) and a 10-item version of as the dependent variable, 0.0006 with MIL as the dependent variable the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10; Campbell-Sills & and 0.0003 with WEMWBS as the dependent variable. Stein, 2007). As a measure of maintenance, we asked participants to report their motivation to engage in maintenance in the relationship and household domains and used parallel items to measure approach 2.3 Discussion and avoidance motivation in these domains. The choice of domains relied on research showing that households and relationships are two Our longitudinal measurements during the end of the third wave of the domains in which people consistently report to have a large propor- COVID-19 pandemic in Germany consistently point at maintenance tion of maintenance goals (Ecker et al., 2023). We pre-registered the investment as a resilience factor. On weeks with greater infection rates, prediction that maintenance motivation will correlate with trait-level investment in maintenance predicted greater improvement in well- resilience. Based on Study 1, we also pre-registered the prediction being on the following week. The same was not true for investment that maintenance motivation will be a significantly better predictor of in approach and avoidance. Interestingly, maintenance correlated with resilience than avoidance motivation. The pre-registration is available subsequent increases in well-being only when infection rates were high. on the as.predicted platform: https://aspredicted.org/GN1_ZBM On a measure of depression and stress (DASS-21), maintenance investment correlated negatively with well-being when infection rates sunk – greater investment in maintenance predicted increases in depres- 3.1 Method sion and lower well-being. Although unexpected, this pattern may make intuitive sense in the following manner: Certain behaviours, which Participants. A total of 403 English residents participated in the may be crucial during hard times, are maladaptive when stressors are study (72% women; Mage = 32.56, SD = 11.57). Participants were removed and things get back to normal. We elaborate on this possibility recruited on the Prolific platform and rewarded £0.63 (£7.27 hourly further in closing this paper. rate). In pre-determining the sample size, we made sure to exceed 250 participants, which is roughly the required sample for stable small to moderate correlation estimates (Schönbrodt & Perugini, 3 STUDY 2: RESILIENCE AS A TRAIT 2013). Procedure. Participants filled out the two resilience questionnaires In Study 2, we move on from situational resilience during the COVID- – BRS (Cronbach’s α = .87) and CD-RISC-10 (Cronbach’s α = .90) – in 19 pandemic to measuring resilience as a trait. While recent research random order. Then, they answered three separate questionnaires 10990992, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3074 by Leibniz Center For Archaeology, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1203 FROM SOCIAL TRADITIONS TO PERSONALIZED ROUTINES ECKER ET AL. F I G U R E 3 Study 1: Mental well-being (WEMWBS) in the following week by investment in maintenance (in weekly hours) at all levels of infection rates. WEMWBS, Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale. about maintenance, approach and avoidance motivation in random and maintenance would add to the longitudinal evidence in Study 1 order (Cronbach’s α > .90). Each questionnaire included eight items, which points at a beneficial influence of maintenance on resilience. four about relationship concerns and four about household concerns. Table 3 presents simple correlations between all measures of moti- Participants rated their agreement with each item on a 7-point scale. vation and resilience. To test our hypotheses, we ran two similar For instance, in the avoidance questionnaire, participants saw the analyses, one on the relationship domain measures and another on item ‘I am motivated to prevent misunderstandings and fights in my the household domain measures. In each analysis, we entered all three relationships’. In the maintenance questionnaire, participants saw motivation types. Additionally, we added a random intercept for the items such as ‘I am motivated to nurture my current relationships with type of resilience measure. This allowed us to enter the two resilience close friends, family and loved ones and in the approach questionnaire scales as a unified dependent variable in one model and account for participants saw items such as ‘I am motivated to make new connections the differences between them without losing data (as in averaging). and get to know new people’. Full verbatim of these questionnaires as Because these two resilience types were measured within participants well as the results of a confirmatory factor analysis are presented in (i.e., nested in participants), we also entered a random intercept for the Supporting Information. participants. As in Study 1, we conducted the linear mixed effects analyses with the lme4 and LmerTest packages in R (Bates et al., 2012; Kuznetsova et al., 2017). 3.2 Results and discussion The analyses confirmed our H2 concerning the relationship between maintenance and personal resilience. In the relationship Our central aim was to test whether each type of motivation – main- domain, there was a main effect only of maintenance motivation (and tenance, approach and avoidance, in the relationship and household not of approach or avoidance motivations) in predicting resilience, domains – would predict personal resilience. As a cross-sectional b = 0.157; SE = 0.045; t(399) = 3.40; p < .001. In the household study, Study 2 can only inform on correlations between resilience domain, there was a main effect of maintenance motivation, b = 0.211; and motivation and not on the causal route that may have led to SE = 0.070; t(399) = 3.01; p = .003, as well as of approach motivation, them. Nevertheless, finding a stronger correlation between resilience b = 0.107; SE = 0.034; t(399) = 3.13; p = .002. 10990992, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3074 by Leibniz Center For Archaeology, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1204 F I G U R E 4 Study 1: Depression and stress from the depression, anxiety, and stress scale (DASS-21) on the following week by investment in maintenance (in weekly hours) at all levels of infection rates. TA B L E 3 Study 2: Correlations between resilience and motivation measures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. CD-RISC-10 2. BRS .69**** 3. Maintenance relationship .32**** .12* 4. Maintenance household .35**** .14** .56**** 5. Avoidance relationships 6. Avoidance of household .22**** .27**** .08 .44**** .37**** .40**** .72**** .42**** .24**** .11* 7. Approach relationships .17*** .04 8. Approach household .30**** .14** .42**** .30**** .20**** .14** .27**** .35**** .25**** .36**** Mean 4.79 4.15 5.33 5.99 5.53 5.59 4.54 4.54 SD 1.03 1.10 1.23 0.98 1.17 1.03 1.42 1.48 Note: All measures are on a 7-point scale. Abbreviations: BRS, Brief Resilience Scale; CD-RISC-10, Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. 10990992, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3074 by Leibniz Center For Archaeology, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1205 FROM SOCIAL TRADITIONS TO PERSONALIZED ROUTINES To test our H3, we then compared the predictive strength of maintenance motivation to that of avoidance and approach motivation. ECKER ET AL. tion. We view this part of the analysis as exploratory and, therefore, as requiring further confirmatory research. For that purpose, we created a dummy-coded variable of goal type, Sensitivity power analysis. We conducted sensitivity analysis to with maintenance as the reference category (comparing maintenance detect the smallest effect size our samples could find with power to avoidance and maintenance to approach). This allowed us to test greater than 90%. For the main effects of maintenance on resilience, how well resilience predicts motivation depending on the type of goal the smallest effect we could find in Study 2 is 0.15 in the relationship to which the motivation pertains. We included goal type, resilience domain and 0.22 in the household domain. The smallest effect size we scores and their two-way interaction, as fixed variables in two separate could find in the combined dataset of Study 2 and the pretest is 0.11 models, one for each resilience scale. We entered random intercepts (on both CD-RISC-10 and BRS). for participants as well as for domain (relationship, household), which enabled us to enter all motivation scores as a unified dependent variable. 4 GENERAL DISCUSSION Confirming H3, in the first of these pre-registered analyses we found a significant interaction of maintenance versus avoidance and The current research provides initial evidence for a potentially novel CD-RISC-10 in predicting motivation scores, b = 0.097; SE = 0.059; resilience factor: goal-directed maintenance. In Study 1, we con- t(2010) = 1.96; p = .049. This interaction reflected a larger positive ceptualized resilience as a process wherein people recover faster relationship between motivation and resilience under maintenance from environmental stress (Kalisch 2015). Accordingly, we found that (Estimate = 0.348; SE = 0.04; t = 8.644; p < .001) compared to avoidance greater investments in maintenance predicted greater subsequent (Estimate = 0.251; SE = 0.05; t = 5.09; p < .001). A similar interac- improvement in well-being following the peak of the third COVID-19 tion of maintenance versus avoidance and BRS was not significant (b = wave in Germany. Moreover, in line with the claim that maintenance 0.030; SE = 0.046; t(2010) = 0.66; p = .511). Nevertheless, the descrip- serves as a resilience factor, positive changes in well-being were found tive pattern of this interaction reflected a larger positive relationship only after the weeks of peak infection rates and not as the wave between motivation and resilience under maintenance (Estimate = waned down. In Study 2, we tested the relationship between mainte- 0.123; SE = 0.04; t = 3.09; p = .002) compared to avoidance (Estimate nance motivation and trait resilience. We found strong support for a = 0.093; SE = 0.05; t = 1.93; p = .053). The two two-way interactions of positive relationship between maintenance and resilience using two maintenance-versus-approach and CD-RISC-10, b = 0.026; SE = 0.05; resilience measures. We additionally found evidence that this rela- t(2010) = 0.529; p = .597, as well as maintenance-versus-approach and tionship is stronger in maintenance motivation compared to avoidance BRS, b = 0.030; SE = 0.05; t(2010) = 0.557; p = .511, were not significant motivation. Taken together, this research found evidence for a unique (we did not pre-register a hypothesis for this). relationship between maintenance striving and resilience at both the Because the results comparing maintenance to avoidance motiva- process and the trait level. These findings contribute to the study of tion were inconclusive, we decided to combine Study 2’s dataset with resilience by exposing a new resilience factor of a potentially high prac- that of a pre-test with identical measures of motivation and resilience. tical value as well as to the study of basic motivational processes by The pre-test, which included 400 participants (76% women; Mage = providing evidence of the unique implications of maintenance striving. 32.93, SD = 10.70) was an exploratory investigation that preceded the Although there is extensive research on the factors that contribute confirmatory and pre-registered investigation in Study 2.3 In the com- to psychological resilience, rarely have goal-directed practices been bined dataset (see Figures 5 and 6), we found a significant interaction considered in that literature (Fritz et al., 2018; Helmreich et al., 2017). of maintenance versus avoidance and CD-RISC-10 in predicting moti- More specifically, the consideration of maintenance practices as a vation scores, b = 0.123; SE = 0.033; t(4021) = 3.42; p < .001. Moreover, source of personal resilience is absent. This is hardly surprising because analyses on this larger dataset showed a significant interaction of main- research on goal-directed maintenance in general is scarce (Ecker & tenance versus avoidance and BRS in predicting motivation scores, b = Gilead, 2018; Lappi & Wilkowsky, 2020). While research comparing 0.074; SE = 0.033; t(4021) = 2.21; p = .027. Both of these interactions approach and avoidance motivations finds relative well-being bene- reflected a stronger relationship between motivation and resilience fits for the approach (Roskes et al., 2014), little is known about the under maintenance (Estimates = 0.38, 0.185; SEs = 0.03; ts = 11.52, potential benefits of maintenance. Although central to everyday life 5.723; ps < .001) than under avoidance (Estimates = 0.26, 0.111; SEs and a large part of people’s life goals, the study of maintenance still = 0.03; ts = 7.833, 2.44; ps < .001). However, because this analysis lags behind that of other types of motivation. Therefore, the connec- was not pre-registered, any interpretation of its results warrants cau- tion between maintenance and resilience that we have laid out in this paper offers a valuable contribution – not only to the study of resilience but also to the study of maintenance and the study of motivation as a 3 Both studies were identical in their procedure and the population from which the sample was taken. The studies ran on a sample of Prolific participants that reside in the United Kingdom with no additional qualification requirements for a payment of £0.5. We view the first study as whole. a pre-test because it did not include a pre-registration of our predictions. The pattern of results remained consistent in both studies with regard to the interaction of trait resilience measures with maintenance versus avoidance but was somewhat stronger in the pre-test: bs = 0.11, 0.15; SE = 0.05; ts(2006) = 2.45, 2.91; ps = .014, .004. support psychological resilience? In our theorizing, we argued that – Why might maintenance practices and the motivation to maintain just as societies are aided by traditional practices that reinforce and stabilize their present state – so may individuals be aided by routine 10990992, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3074 by Leibniz Center For Archaeology, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1206 F I G U R E 5 Combined dataset of Study 2 and pre-test: Predicting motivation by scores on the BRS under different goal types. BRS, Brief Resilience Scale; practices that reinforce their current state. These are the practices of never be certain that the general increase in well-being reflected goal-directed maintenance. When investing resources to stabilize the recovery and not simply an (unrelated) increase in well-being. We current state, people may establish a more powerful basis for their consider this to be a limitation that comes with the use of real-life mental welfare – for instance, stronger relationships to close others, data and especially when using data that involve unpredictable social clearer work practices, more effective home care practices, etc. There phenomena. are, however, additional ways in which maintenance may encourage While the longitudinal data collected in Study 1 is compatible with resilience. It seems plausible, for instance, that regular maintenance a causal influence of maintenance practices on well-being as a likely investments result in a greater availability of resources that could be explanation, it is nevertheless correlational. Unfortunately, evidence flexibly re-distributed, providing individuals with the tools to adapt of causal effects on resilience as reflected in patterns of response to to the environmental challenges. These different possible routes may stress over time is notoriously hard to capture in experimental settings. both be true, of course. It is the task of future research to explore the Still, it remains an important task for future research to attempt to do potentially varied ways in which maintenance practices protect people so. One possible route may be through intervention programmes for from environmental stressors. populations that have undergone a stressful event. In Study 1, in this paper, we interpret longitudinal measurements Additionally, while the current work points at a promising new direc- of well-being as reflecting individuals’ resilience to the circumstances tion, it is far from providing a comprehensive account of the role of of the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, latent growth analyses (see the goals in human resilience. Indeed, the broader picture of how goal Supporting Information) show that well-being linearly increased dur- striving relates to resilience and well-being remains largely unveiled. ing the measurement period, which corresponded with decreases in We argue that maintenance striving should not be viewed separately infection rates immediately after the peak of the wave. Unfortunately, from other types of striving. In actual life, there is likely a constant however, the measurement period did not include the time prior to flow between states that call for maintenance, approach and avoid- the peak of the wave and therefore could not capture an earlier ance. Moreover, people may approach greater benefits, maintain these trend wherein well-being decreases as infection rates rise. We can benefits and prevent them from harm all at the same time. Thus, 10990992, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3074 by Leibniz Center For Archaeology, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1207 FROM SOCIAL TRADITIONS TO PERSONALIZED ROUTINES ECKER ET AL. F I G U R E 6 Combined dataset of Study 2 and pre-test: Predicting motivation by scores on the CD-RISC-10 under different goal types. CD-RISC-10, Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale. the benefits of maintenance to psychological resilience are entwined ACKNOWLEDGEMENT within a broader picture of resource allocation. This project was funded as part of a Leibliz Collaborative Excellence Crucially, maintenance striving is unlikely to be invariantly beneficial for well-being. Indeed, the results of our Study 1 point at a potential disadvantage of investment in maintenance after environmental stres- (Leibliz Kooperative Exzellenz) project titled ‘Resilience factors in a diachronic and intercultural perspective’ (#K83/2017). Open access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. sors are removed. Taking into account people’s limited resources, one way to interpret this pattern is that an unnecessarily high prioritization CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT of maintenance comes at the expense of other goals, which may have All authors declare no conflicts of interest. an important role in the return to normality after an acute stress event. After a long period of lockdown, for instance, it may be advisable to ETHICS STATEMENT invest in meeting new people and aspiring for new achievements rather All procedures were conducted in accordance with the American Psy- than only keeping the current state. chological Association Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code In closing this paper, we point at the potential relevance of the of Conduct (American Psychological Associatio, 2017). At the senior broader knowledge established in the social sciences to the field of author’s institution (JGU Mainz, Department of Psychology, Ethics psychology. Our hypothesis that personal maintenance practices serve Committee), studies that did not involve deception, vulnerable popu- as a resilience factor was drawn from outside the discipline of psy- lations, identifiable data, intensive data or interventions were exempt chology, heeding the vast data that comes from the material remains from ethical approval and not evaluated at the time of data collection. of human societies throughout history. While the leap from the social All participants gave informed consent at the beginning of the studies. to the individual level poses conceptual challenges, it also guarantees tremendous benefits. By bridging these domains, psychological DATA TRANSPARENCY STATEMENT research stands to gain a nuanced understanding informed by the vast All data and materials for this research project are available at: https:// expanse of human history. osf.io/6rpqg/?view_only=a7a6fbd2ada840e49f80e9a4ee9f286c 10990992, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3074 by Leibniz Center For Archaeology, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1208 ORCID Yael Ecker https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9431-0242 Roland Imhoff https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0807-463X REFERENCES Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2012). Fitting linear mixedeffects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1406.5823 Boschung, D., Busch, A. W., & Versluys, M. J. (Eds.) (2015). Reinventing “The invention of tradition”? Indigeneous pasts and the Roman present. Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Busch, A. W. (2015). Back to the roots – indigenous past (s) and the Roman present in North-Western Europe. In D. Boschung, A. W. Busch, M. J. Versluys, & A. W. Busch (Eds.), Reinventing ‘The invention of tradition’? (pp. 215–236). Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor–Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 1019–1028. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20271 Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic and routine interaction. In Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 3–22). Academic Press. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press. Duck, S. W. (1986). Human relationships: An introduction to social psychology. Sage Publications. De Houwer, J., Buabang, E. K., Boddez, Y., Köster, M., & Moors, A. (2023). Reasons to remain critical about the literature on habits: A commentary on Wood et al. (2022). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(4), 871– 875. Ebner, N. C., Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2006). Developmental changes in personal goal orientation from young to late adulthood: from striving for gains to maintenance and prevention of losses. Psychology and Aging, 21, 664. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.4.664 Ecker, Y., & Gilead, M. (2018). Goal-directed allostasis: The unique challenge of keeping things as they are and strategies to overcome it. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 618–633. Ecker, Y., Gilead, M., & Imhoff, R. (2022). The phenomenology of maintenance goals: lower threat and greater satisfaction with the current state. Motivation and Emotion. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-022-09994-7 Ecker, Y., Gilead, M., & Imhoff, R. (2023). An examination of the motivations to maintain, approach, and avoid by proximity to the ideal state. Social Cognition, 41(1), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/k8cvx Ecker, Y., & Moors, A. (2023). The distinct nature of maintaining what we have compared to progress and protection: A ternary framework of basic goal types, [Manuscript submitted for publication]. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ ams8r Foxx, R. M. (2013). The maintenance of behavioral change: The case for longterm follow-ups. American Psychologist, 68, 728–736. https://doi.org/10. 1037/a0033713 Fritz, J., de Graaff, A. M., Caisley, H., van Harmelen, A.-L., & Wilkinson, P. O. (2018). A systematic review of amenable resilience factors that moderate and/or mediate the relationship between childhood adversity and mental health in young people. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 230. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00230 Fontijn, D. (2015). Reinventing tradition in the Roman West? Some reflections on the re-use of prehistoric burial mounds. In D. Boschung, A. W. Busch, M. J. Versluys, & A. W. Busch (Eds.), Reinventing ‘The Invention of Tradition’? (pp. 189–213). Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2019). Routines and Meaning in Life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(5), 688–699. Helmreich, I., Kunzler, A., Chmitorz, A., König, J., Binder, H., Wessa, M., & Lieb, K. (2017). Psychological interventions for resilience enhance- 1209 ment in adults. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017(2), CD012527. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012527 Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (1983). The invention of tradition. Cambridge University Press. Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2017). Experiments with more than one random factor: Designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 601–625. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-psych-122414-033702 Kalisch, R., Müller, M. B., & Tüscher, O. (2015). A conceptual framework for the 648 neurobiological study of resilience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, e92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1400082X Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W. Y., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 331–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00652601(02)80008-9 Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. Lappi, S. K., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2020). The generalized approach, attainment, maintenance, and avoidance (GAMMA) motivation scale: development, validation, and theoretical contribution. Motivation and Emotion, 44, 389–409. Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the Beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94) 00075-U Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00164 Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.56.3.227 Railton, P. (2017). At the core of our capacity to act for a reason: The affective system and evaluative model-based learning and control. Emotion Review, 9, 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916670021 Roskes, M., Elliot, A. J., & De Dreu, C. K. (2014). Why is avoidance motivation problematic, and what can be done about it? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 09637214145242 Rothman, A. J. (2000). Toward a theory-based analysis of behavioral maintenance. Health Psychology, 19, 64–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/02786133.19.suppl1.64 Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609–612. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009 Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15, 194–200. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10705500802222972 Steger, M., Kashdan, T., & Oishi, S. (2008). Being good by doing good: Daily eudaimonic activity and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.03.004 Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., Parkinson, J., Secker, J., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). The Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5 https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-563 Wilkowski, B. M., & Ferguson, E. L. (2016). The steps that can take us miles: Examining the short-term dynamics of long-term daily goal pursuit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(4), 516–529. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/xge0000150 Wood, W., Mazar, A., & Neal, D. T. (2022). Habits and goals in human behavior: Separate but interacting systems. Perspectives on 10990992, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3074 by Leibniz Center For Archaeology, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License FROM SOCIAL TRADITIONS TO PERSONALIZED ROUTINES Psychological Science, 17(2), 590–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/174569 1621994226 ECKER ET AL. How to cite this article: Ecker, Y., Busch, A. W., Schreiber, S., & Imhoff, R. (2024). From social traditions to personalized routines: Maintenance goals as a resilience factor. European SUPPORTING INFORMATION Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 1198–1210. Additional supporting information can be found online in the Support- https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3074 ing Information section at the end of this article. 10990992, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3074 by Leibniz Center For Archaeology, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1210