["Journal of Personality, EarlyView. ", "\nABSTRACT\n\nIntroduction‐Objective\nWe outline and test three key assumptions of identity‐based motivation theory. First, in everyday life, people draw both difficulty‐as‐importance and difficulty‐as‐impossibility inferences when tasks or goals feel hard to think about (ecological validity). Second, how much people endorse each inference is both an individual difference and context sensitive (trait‐like and state‐like). Third, strong (unambiguous) contexts shift momentary endorsement (context matters).\n\n\nMethods\nFive studies (N = 2746, undergraduates except Study 2) apply autobiographical recall, secondary data analyses, daily diaries, and experimental methods. All use validated difficulty‐as‐importance and difficulty‐as‐impossibility scales.\n\n\nResults\nEcological validity: people recall making both inferences a few times monthly (Study 1, N = 986). Trait–state: difficulty‐as‐importance and difficulty‐as‐impossibility scores differ between and fluctuate within persons about equally (Study 2, N = 733 elementary‐to‐high‐school‐aged students; Study 4, N = 260, n = 2789 two‐week daily diaries). Trait difficulty‐as‐impossibility predicts preference for easier tasks (Study 3, N = 216); trait difficulty‐as‐importance predicts daily meaningful engagement with school (Study 4). Daily difficulty‐as‐importance and difficulty‐as‐impossibility are associated with daily self‐esteem, self‐compassion, and self‐efficacy (Study 4). Context: Strong contexts shape momentary difficulty‐as‐importance and difficulty‐as‐impossibility scores (Study 5, N = 551).\n\n\nConclusion\nResults support three key assumptions and suggest that difficulty mindsets can be meaningfully considered as consequential traits and as fluctuating states affected by strong (unambiguous) contexts.\n\n"]