Positive interferences and goal value : attention : how different ways of dealing with positive interferences influence goal value

(1)

Running head: POSITIVE INTERFERENCES AND GOAL VALUE

Attention: How Different Ways of Dealing With Positive Interferences Influence Goal Value

Alexandra N. de Bruijn

Student Number: 10348557 Supervisor: Dr. J. Marguc

Second Assessor: Dr. A.R. Feddes Master Thesis Social Psychology March, 2017

(2)

POSITIVE INTERFERENCES AND GOAL VALUE

2 Abstract

How does dealing with a temptation during goal pursuit influence the value of the goal? The current study investigated how different kinds of instructions about dealing with a positive interfering force influence goal value to the extent that participants handle the aversive force as instructed. Participants had to work on an anagram task, while they were exposed to different positive visual stimuli (i.e., interfering force). Participants were randomly assigned to either the

oppose condition where they had to oppose the stimuli, or the coping condition where they had

to cope with the feelings the stimuli caused. Results show that there was no difference between the two conditions to the extent that they handled the aversive force as instructed. Explorative results show that participants in the coping condition experienced more happiness during the anagram task, evaluated the visual stimuli more positively, had a worse performance on the anagram task and found the task more difficult than participants in the opposing condition. Further research is needed to investigate how different kinds of instructions influence the strength of engagement and the goal value when interferences are positive.

(3)

3 Attention: How Different Ways of Dealing With Positive Interferences Influence Goal Value

How should we deal with distractions during our goal pursuit? Most, if not all of us, know the problem of facing a tempting alternative while working towards a goal: The temptation to do something fun instead of a boring task, hanging out with friends rather than studying for an exam, watching a funny video on the internet instead of finishing a task for work, or checking social media instead of taking care of the taxes. People often try to ignore these kinds of temptations and resist the urge to give in, to perform better during their goal pursuit. Is resisting these kinds of interfering forces always the most productive option? How do different ways of dealing with positive interferences influence engagement and the value of the goal?

Regulatory Engagement Theory

According to the regulatory engagement theory (RET; Higgins, 2006), the value of a goalis a motivational force experience of attraction or repulsion towards a target object. There are different sources of value, such as need satisfaction, hedonic experiences, or the strength of engagement during a goal pursuit activity. Both need satisfaction (e.g., hunger) and hedonic experiences (i.e., the pleasure and pain properties of the goal), can influence the direction of the value in terms of positive or negative valence. By contrast, strength of engagement (i.e., the state of being involved, occupied, and interested in something) only determines the intensity of the motivational force experience (Higgins, 2006; Higgins & Scholer, 2009). Strong engagement with the goal pursuit makes people engrossed and fully attentive to it (Higgins, 2006; Higgins & Scholer, 2009). The stronger the engagement is, the more intense the attraction to positive end-states (e.g., scoring a 10 on an exam) or the repulsion from undesired end-end-states (e.g., failing an exam) will be. Notably, strength of engagement can have different sources, including the opposition to interfering forces. An interfering force (e.g., a funny video on the internet) can hinder goal pursuit by disrupting attention to the focal goal activity and possibly shifting

(4)

4 attention away from that activity towards the interference or something else, such as the feelings or thoughts produced by it.

Opposing interfering forces. During goal pursuit, people can encounter different interfering forces, which can have both a positive or negative valence. A positive interfering force could be a temptation, which is a low-order goal conflicting with a higher-order goal one is pursuing (Fishbach & Zhang, 2008). For example, checking social media instead of working on a paper. The temptation can be triggered by situational cues that draw attention during the goal-pursuit. In order to fulfil the high-order goal, one should resist the temptation and maintain focused on the high-order goal, which requires self-control (Fishbach, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2003). This can be challenging when the high-order goal is less attractive than the low-order temptation (Baumann & Kuhl, 2005). A way to maintain focused on the high-order goal is by ignoring the temptation, which can influence task enjoyment and task performance, as shown by Freitas, Liberman, and Higgins (2002). Participants in this study had to work on a math task while being exposed to the potential distraction of an attractive video (i.e., temptation).

Participants were instructed to ignore the video and maintain their focus on the focal task. There were no instructions on how to ignore the video, so the specific strategy participants were using depended on whether participants were in a state of approach or avoidance, which was

manipulated in the study. The strategy of participants in the approach state is trying to maintain focused on the focal task, while participants in the avoidance state use the strategy of paying no attention to the videos (Patterson & Mischel, 1976). Those who were in a state of avoidance, and ignored the video by not paying attention to it, experienced greater task enjoyment and

performed better when they were exposed to the distraction compared to when they could work without distraction. These results indicate that ignoring, and thus avoiding the temptation of the attractive video, ensures more enjoyment in the task and hereby better task performance. The attractive video can be seen as an interfering force because it could shift the attention away from

(5)

5 the math task to the video, and hereby hinder or impede the performance on the math task. Ignoring this interfering force is a passive manner of avoiding the influence of this force. A more active manner of avoiding this influence is by opposing the interfering force. To the extent that ignorance equalled opposition in this research, the above study suggests that opposing positive interfering forces could have an influence on task performance, but this does not mean that the engagement strength is also influenced.

To the best of our knowledge, no research to date has examined the effect of temptations or other positive interfering forces on engagement strength and value intensity. However, Higgins and colleagues (2012) found evidence suggesting that opposing negative interfering forces can influence value depending on what people are engaged in, that is, where they direct their attention. Specifically, these authors investigated how different ways of dealing with a negative interfering force while working towards a goal affects the value of a goal-related object. Participants in this study worked on a set of anagrams, whereby adequate performance enabled them to win a prize. During this task, they were exposed to somewhat annoying animal sounds and received instructions for how to deal with this distraction. Participants should either oppose the sound, or cope with the negative feelings it might cause. In the "opposing" condition, participants who spent less attention to the noise (i.e., were more engaged in opposing the interference) valued the prize more. By contrast, in the "coping" condition, participants who spent less attention to the noise (i.e., were more engaged in coping with their feelings) valued the prize less. Thus, these results indicate that how people deal with a negative interfering force can have opposite effects on the value of a goal.

Positive versus negative interferences. The finding that coping with the feelings caused by an interfering force can have a different effect on goal value than opposing this interfering force, tells us that the way people are dealing with interfering forces is important in the process of goal pursuit. Opposing an interfering force is a strategy to deal with the force where one tries

(6)

6 to resist the distraction caused by the force (Higgins, 2006; Higgins & Scholer, 2009). Coping, can be defined as the thoughts and behaviours that are used to deal with the forces and situations one can encounter in life (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). Coping with the feelings an interfering force could cause, means accepting and dealing with the feelings that may arise from the force. In the above study, people need to deal with the emotional

distraction caused by the interfering force. The interfering force will evoke mainly negative emotions, for example annoyance, which can influence the overall affect. Having a negative affect can change the way one is approaching a goal and can reduce the task performance (Baumann & Kuhl, 2002). To avoid the influence of the negative emotions the interfering force can evoke, one can cope with these emotions. Coping requires emotion regulation, the process where people influence which emotions they have and how they express these emotions (Gross, 1998). Emotion regulation demands attention, with the result that one is having less attention for the focal task. Coping with positive emotions will require less emotion regulation, and so will pull less attention from the focal task, than coping with negative emotions.

Besides the influence on attention, coping with the feelings an interfering force could cause can also influence one’s affect. Positive interfering forces may elicits positive feelings which can bring someone in a positive mood. The influence of the positive emotions on one’s affect can have benefits for the task performance, because a positive affect relates to more creativity, better job performance and higher motivation in a task (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005; Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Erez & Isen, 2002; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). Positive emotions may arise from dealing with a positive interfering force (i.e., temptation) and these emotions can influence one’s affect and hereby the task performance. However, it is not certain if temptations only cause positive emotions. It is likely that negative emotions can arise as well when dealing with the temptation. For example, feelings of guilt for interactingwith the temptation or feelings of desire to interact with the temptation could draw attention away from

(7)

7 the focal task and require emotion regulation. It is questionable, if coping with the feelings caused by a positive interfering force (i.e., temptation) will only elicits positive emotions. If so, we can expect that the positive emotions will influence one’s affect, and thus one’s task

performance, and coping with the force will pull less attention away from the focal task. On the other hand, if a positive interfering force will elicit negative emotions as well, more emotion regulation is needed and a strong pull of attention from the focal task is present.

It is interesting how dealing with a positive interfering force (i.e., temptation) during goal pursuit, will affect the value of the goal. It is most likely that the dealing with a positive interfering force will have different effects than dealing with a negative interfering force.In some cases, opposing a temptation appears to be less effective. When the interfering force is in conflict with the goal one is pursuing, opposing it does not always strengthen engagement and can even cause lack of productivity, as shown by Grund and Fries (2012). They found that in a study-leisure conflict, pursuing the study goal and opposing the interference of leisure can have negative effects on their motivation and engagement in the study goal, because of the

continuously distraction of the leisure force. Participants in their study had to imagine themselves in a conflict were they had to work on a paper, but received an invitation from a friend to do something fun. Measures of mood, distractibility, depth of processing and thoughts about opportunity costs indicate that the study-leisure conflict itself can cause negative effects. Even if one decides not to give in on the leisure temptation, the thoughts of the leisure activity can stay in a person’s mind and create feelings of regret of missing the leisure activity, which cause distraction during the study activity (Schmid, Hofer, Dietz, Reinders, & Fries, 2005). The temptation one is facing during goal pursuit can continuously create a pull of attention.

Differently than facing a negative interfering force, facing this temptation (i.e., positive interference) makes people eager to engage with it. Impulsive processes will automatically focus on the temptation, especially when the temptation seems more attractive than the main goal

(8)

8 (Milyavskaya, Inzlicht, Hope, & Koestner, 2015). People are facing many temptations during their goal pursuit in everyday life. Knowing how to deal with these temptations in order to fulfil the main goal is really important for effective goal pursuit. It is questionable if opposing a positive interfering force (i.e., temptation) will have the same effect as opposing a negative interfering force, as found by Higgins and colleagues (2012). Can we expect the same effects of opposing an interfering force, or coping with the feelings the force might cause, on goal value? Or is it expected that the different ways of dealing with the interfering force will have other effects on goal value than Higgins and colleagues (2012) had found? No clear answer can be given on these questions according to earlier research. Therefore, it is interesting to investigate how these different ways of dealing with a positive interfering force will affect goal value. Current Research

Regulatory engagement theory (RET) suggests that the value intensity of a goal depends on the engagement strength and that opposing an interfering force is an important source of the engagement strength (Higgins, 2006; Higgins & Scholer, 2009). Opposing a negative interfering force, rather than coping with the negative feelings it elicits, can strengthen the engagement in the focal task and thereby intensify the value of a goal related to it (Higgins et al., 2012). There is lack of research on the effect of positive interfering forces (e.g., temptations) on engagement strength and value. Facing a positive interfering force during goal pursuit can elicit different feelings. Some may be positive (e.g., enjoyment) whereas others may be negative (e.g., guilt). It is unclear if we can expect the same effect with positive interfering forces as found with

negative interfering forces (Higgins et al., 2012). Therefore, in the present research, we

investigate the effect of opposing a positive interfering force on the engagement strength and the value intensity of a goal by conceptually replicating the study of Higgins and colleagues (2012) with a positive interfering force instead of a negative interfering force.

(9)

9 We expect to find the same findings as with the negative interfering forces. In other words, we expect that to the extent participants are engaged in opposing positive interferences, they will value a prize associated with good task performance more, but to the extent they are engaged in coping with the feelings it elicits, they will value the same prize less. Coping with the feelings the interfering force elicits will cause distraction from the focal task, because participants shift away their attention from that task to the feelings they are experiencing. When participants are very engaged in coping with their feelings, they will spend less attention on the focal task and thus will value the goal-related prize less. We expect that positive interfering forces will elicits both positive and negative feelings. Coping with these feelings will shift the attention away from the focal task, and thereby participants will value the goal-related prize less.

To summarize, the present research investigates how different kinds of instructions about dealing with a positive interfering force influence goal value to the extent that participants handle the aversive force as instructed. Participants will be working on an anagram task and will be exposed to pleasant visual stimuli. The choice for visual stimuli instead of auditory stimuli is made because visual stimuli are a more realistic positive interference in everyday life. We frequently have to deal with visual temptations, which pull attention away from our main focus (e.g., social media or funny video clips). Besides, auditory stimuli in real life is more often negative (e.g., annoying background sounds). In the present research, participants will be instructed in two different ways. As in Higgins and colleagues (2012), participants will be instructed to either oppose the interfering force (i.e., resist the interfering force) or to cope with the positive or negative feelings the interfering force could cause (i.e., accepting and dealing with the feelings that may arise).

We predict that participants in the opposing condition with poorer memory of the visual stimuli (i.e., more engagement in opposing) will value the goal-related prize more. Participants

(10)

10 in the coping condition with poorer memory for the visual stimuli (i.e., more engagement in coping, less engagement with the focal task) will value the goal-related prize less.

Method Participants

The sample consisted of 85 participants (69 females, 16 males). The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 30 years, with an average of 20 years (SD = 2.47). The

participants were recruited through the LAB department of the University of Amsterdam. The participants were mostly students of the Faculty of Social Behavioural Sciences of the

University of Amsterdam, there were no excluding criteria’s. Participants received 0.5 course credit for their participation.

Procedure

Upon arrival at the lab, participants were seated in cubicles. They were told they had to work on an anagram task with which they could earn a lottery ticket. They were told that they were participating in a study on performance under distraction and that they had to complete a verbal anagram task in the presence of different visual stimuli that may or may not be distracting in order to simulate real world-conditions where people sometimes work in the presence of various ambient stimuli in their environments.

Next, the anagram task was explained. Specifically, participants were told that they had to work on a set of anagrams and that their task was to solve as many anagrams as possible in eight minutes, as good performance will qualify them for a lottery with which they could win a 10 Euro gift voucher for the online bookstore bol.com. In addition, they were told that to mimic real-world working conditions, some ambient stimuli would be displayed on the computer screen while they were working on the anagram task.

They were randomly assigned to two different conditions with different instructions about how to deal with the stimuli. Participants in the opposing condition were told: “The visual

(11)

11 stimuli can influence your performance on the anagram task. To perform well, try to overcome the distraction and oppose its interference.” Participants in the coping condition were told: “The visual stimuli can evoke different feelings. To perform well, try to cope with these feelings.” The visual stimuli were the same for all participants, a set of 32 images changing every 15 seconds.

Materials

Anagram task. Participants had to work for 8 minutes on an anagram task. They received a sheet of paper with 21 words. For every word, they were instructed to form a new word, using all the letters of the main word. They had to write the words down on the paper. Visual stimuli. To select suitable stimuli, we completed a pilot study. We exposed 38 participants to 64 different visual stimuli that are potentially tempting (e.g., beautiful

landscapes) and we asked participants about the extent to which they agreed with different statements about the effects of the stimuli on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (completely

disagree) to 7 (completely agree), for example, “This picture makes me happy” or "It is pleasant

to look at this picture." For the main study, we selected the 32 pictures that were rated as most positive. We used the 32 pictures that were significantly above the scale midpoint (M = 4.82, SE = .25), t(37)= 3.32, p = .002.

Value of the prize. To measure the value of the prize, participants were asked how much they valued the prize, using a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much). In addition, we asked about the motivational force experience more directly, that is, "How much do you want to win this prize?" and we asked if participants were willing to perform another task. Finally, we asked about the hedonic enjoyment, for example, “How happy would you be if you would win this prize?”.

Experience of the anagram task. To measure the experience of the anagram task, participants were asked multiple questions like, “How difficult did you find it to solve the

(12)

12 anagrams?”, “How involved were you in the anagram task?” and “How much did you enjoy performing the anagram task?” using a 9-point scaleranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much).

Attraction of the interfering force. To assess the attraction of the interfering force, and as a manipulation check, participants were asked multiple questions about the interfering force using a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much): “How much did you enjoy looking at the images?”, “How troublesome did you find the images?” and “How distracted did you feel by the images?”.

Strength of engagement. To measure the engagement and the attention to dealing with the visual stimuli as instructed, there was a surprise recognition task for the content of the visual stimuli. Participants were exposed to all of the 32 pictures that were showed during the anagram task, and an equal number of pictures that had not been showed before. The pictures were presented in random order, and participants had to indicate whether or not they saw the picture before.

Importantly, the main focus in this study was on the strength of engagement and the value of the prize. The other measures were included and examined with an exploratory perspective.

Results Main Analyses

Value of the prize. To test our hypotheses, we performed regression analyses with Response Type (Opposing vs. Coping), Response Strength and the Response Type x Response Strength interaction as independent variables and value of the prize as dependent variable. To arrive at a score for Response Strength, we computed a non-parametric recognition accuracy measure of A’(i.e., correct discrimination of old items for new decoy items, with higher scores reflecting greater sensitivity; see Grier, 1971) based on the proportion of hits (correct

(13)

13 recognition memory. To the extent that participants are engaged in the instructed strategies, they recalled fewer distractor stimuli correctly. There were no significant main effects of condition framing or A’ on the perceived value of the prize, see Table 1. Neither was there a significant effect of the Response Type x Response Strength interaction on the perceived value of the prize,

B = 2.64, SE = 1.81, t = 1.46, p = .147. Although no significant effect has been found, the

direction of the relationship between Response Type, Response Strength, and Value, was as predicted, as can be seen in Figure 1. However, this pattern should be interpreted with great caution, as it was relatively far from significance.

Table 1

Linear model of predictors prize value

B SE B β P Model 1 (Constant) Response Type Response Strength 4.86 0.02 -0.94 0.19 0.19 1.80 .01 -.06 p = .000 p = .911 p = .603 Model 2 (Constant) Response Type Response Strength Resp. Type x Strength

4.86 0.02 -0.55 2.64 0.19 0.19 1.81 1.81 .01 -.03 .16 p = .000 p = .910 p = .760 p = .147 Note. R2 = .00 for Model 1; R2 = .03 for Model 2

(14)

14 Exploratory Analyses

Anagram performance. There was a significant difference between conditions in the number of anagrams solved correctly F(1, 84) = 4.24, p = .043. Participants in the opposing condition performed better (M = 14.12, SE = 0.57) than participants in the coping condition (M = 12.49, SE = 0.55). But performance was no significant covariate in the Response Type x Response Strength interaction, B = 0.03, SE = 0.05, t = 0.63, p = .532.

Manipulation check. There was a significant difference in conditions to the extent that participants perceived the pictures as an obstacle they needed to overcome to perform well on the anagram task t(77) = -2.56, p = .012. Participants in the opposing condition perceived the pictures more as an obstacle (M = 3.00, SE = 1.96) than participants in the coping condition (M = 2.02, SE = 1.52). However, there was no significant difference in conditions to the extent that participants tried to cope with the feelings the stimuli caused t(83) = 0.61, p = .544. Participants

Figure 1. Effects of attention to dealing with temptation (A’) and the way of dealing with

the temptation (opposing with the temptation; coping with the feelings caused by the temptation) on value of the prize.

(15)

15 in the opposing condition tried to cope less with their feelings (M = 2.64, SE = 1.85) than

participants in the coping condition (M = 2.88, SE = 1.80).

With participants in the opposing condition, the visual stimuli did not evoke significantly less positive feelings (M = 5.43, SE = 2.17) than with participants in the coping condition (M = 5.77, SE = 1.78), t(83) = 0.79, p = .433. However, withparticipants in the opposing condition, the visual stimuli did evoke significantly more negative feelings (M = 3.05, SE = 1.78) than with participants in the coping condition (M = 1.95, SE = 1.29), t(75) = -3.24, p = .002.

There was no significant difference on A’ between the opposing condition (M = 0.65, SE = 0.02) and the coping condition (M = 0.65, SE = 0.02), F(1, 84) = 0.00, p = .997. There was also no significant difference on value of the prize between the opposing condition (M = 4.88,

SE = 0.29) and the coping condition (M = 4.84, SE = 0.26), F(1, 84) = .01, p = .910.

Finally, we measured some items on experience of the anagram task, experience of the interfering forces and emotional experiences during the anagram task. We found significant differences between the two conditions on the items difficulty anagrams, pleasantness pictures,

troublesome pictures, attractiveness pictures, and happiness, see Table 2.

Table 2

Differences in Opposing and Coping conditions

Opposing Coping F p M SE M SE Difficulty Anagrams Pleasantness Pictures Troublesome Pictures Attractiveness Pictures Happiness 5.57 5.38 3.00 5.14 5.05 0.25 0.24 0.28 0.31 0.26 6.28 6.14 2.00 5.98 5.70 0.23 0.18 0.20 0.24 0.20 4.31 6.63 8.56 4.44 3.99 p = .041 p = .012 p = .004 p = .038 p = .049 Note. df (1,84)

(16)

16 Alternative measures. As alternative variables for prize value, we used different items like wanting, happy, liking and extra task. Regression analyses with these different items gives no significant results. As alternative variables for A’, we used different items like difficulty,

effort, involvement, absorption, liking, enjoyment and attention. We only find a significant effect

for the variable involvement as alternative for A’. Involvement as alternative for A’ significantly predicted value of the prize B = 0.31, SE = 0.15, t = 2.12, p = .037.

Discussion

We investigated how different kinds of instructions about dealing with a positive interfering force influence goal value to the extent that participants handle the aversive force as instructed. We predicted that participants who had to oppose the visual stimuli (i.e., interfering force), with poorer memory of the visual stimuli, would value the goal-related prize more. In contrast, participants who had to cope with the feelings the visual stimuli caused, with poorer memory of the visual stimuli, would value the goal-related prize less. The results of our study do not support our predictions. However, the direction of the relationship between the way

participants deal with the interfering force to the extent that they follow the instruction and the value of the prize, is the same as our predictions. This can give a small indication and makes it useful to investigate this direction more in further research.

To test our main predictions, we used memory of the visual stimuli as a measure for the strength of engagement in the anagram task. By using a different measure for engagement strength, namely the degree of involvement in the anagram task, we found that participants who were more involved in the anagram task valued the goal-related prize more. These results show that engagement strength is indeed, as the regulatory engagement theory states, a source of value in a goal pursuit activity (Higgins, 2006). However, we did not find support for our prediction that there was a difference in involvement between participants who opposed the stimuli and participants who coped with the feelings caused by the stimuli.

(17)

17 Exploratory,we investigated how different kinds of instructions about dealing with a positive interfering force influence task performance. We found that participants who had to

oppose the positive interfering force (i.e., visual stimuli) performed better on the anagram task

than participants who had to cope with the feelings the positive interfering force caused. Besides, we found that participants who had to oppose the interfering force experienced the anagram task as less difficult than participants who had to cope with the feeling the interfering force caused. This finding is not in line with our expectations formed by earlier research about the influence of positive emotions on task performance. Earlier research tells us that the presence of a positive affect can have benefits for the task performance, because it strengthens the ability and motivation for a task (Amabile et al., 2005; Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). This suggest that participants who had to cope with the feelings the

interfering force caused should perform better, and should experience the anagram task as less difficult, provided that the feelings they experienced were positive.Results show that with participants who had to cope with the feelings the interfering force caused, less negative feelings were evoked by the stimuli than with participants who had to oppose the interfering force. However, with participants who had to cope with the feelings, the visual stimuli did not evoke more positive feelings than with participants who had to oppose the interfering force. The fact that the visual stimuli did not evoke positive feelings, suggest that there will be no effect of the stimuli on one’s affect, and hereby no effect on task performance. This explains the discrepancy with earlier research, that participants who coped with the feelings caused by the stimuli, did not had a better task performance than participants who opposed the stimuli.

In addition, we investigated other differences between participants who had to oppose the interfering force and participants who had to cope with the feelings the interfering force caused. We found that participants who had to oppose the interfering force, experienced the visual stimuli (i.e., interfering force) as less pleasant, more troublesome and less attractive than

(18)

18 participants who had to cope with the feelings caused by the interfering force. Further,

participants who had to oppose the interfering force, experienced less feelings of happiness during the anagram task, than participants who had to cope with the feelings the interfering force caused.

An explanation for the fact that the visual stimuli evoked more negative feelings with participants who had to oppose the interfering force than with participants who had to cope with the feelings, is that the process of opposing itself evoked these negative feelings. The

continuously distraction of the interfering force can create a continuously pull of attention, which can have negative effects on one’s experience (Grund & Fries, 2012; Schmid et al., 2005). The restriction to resist the influence of the interfering force can be exhausting over time, because of the continuously pull of attention. A state of ego depletion could appear, which is a state where one is cognitively exhausted (i.e., depleted) with the result that one is experiencing a loss of self-control and poorer performance on a task (Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012; Inzlicht, Schmeichel, & Macrae, 2013). This affects one’s perception of the interfering force, where the positive interfering force will be experienced as a negative interfering force, which our results confirm.

We found that participants who had to oppose the visual stimuli experienced the stimuli as less pleasant, more troublesome and less attractive comparing to participants who had to cope with the feelings, because they had to suppress the urge to interact with the stimuli. Participants who had to cope with the feelings were allowed to interact with the stimuli, which can provoke a less negative experience. This can be an explanation for the fact that participants who had to

cope with the feelings caused by the force, experienced more overall happiness during the

anagram task than participants who had to oppose the force. The fact that we did not find an instigating of positive feelings by the visual stimuli, makes us conclude that the overall

(19)

19 to oppose the force and participants who had to cope with the feelings, to the extent to which they experienced happiness during the anagram task and negative feelings evoked by the stimuli, is most likely caused by the fact that participants were able to interact with the stimuli when they had to urge to do so.

Limitations and future directions

An explanation for the fact that the visual stimuli (i.e., positive interfering force) did not evoke more positive feelings with participants who had to cope with the feelings compared to participants who had to oppose the stimuli, is that the visual stimuli itself was not strong enough in emotional valence. Both with participants who had to oppose and participants who had to

cope, the extent to which they experienced the visual stimuli as attractive and pleasant, was

quite low. Participants experienced the visual stimuli as less attractive than expected, and thus as less positive. Besides, the visual stimuli did not evoke positive feelings, which indicates that the stimuli itself was not high in positive valence. This lack of valence induce the weak influence of emotions on affect, and thereby the influence on goal value. In future research, it is important to use stimuli that is stronger in their positive value. In other words, the stimuli should be rated as more attractive and pleasant to interact with, in order to have an influence on goal value.

Besides the valence of the visual stimuli, another problem with the stimuli is the fact that participants did not experience the stimuli as distracting. An interfering force will continuously pull attention away from the focal task (Higgins, 2006; Higgins & Scholer, 2009). When the interfering force is not experienced as a distraction, this pull of attention is not present, and opposing this interfering force will have no influence on engagement strength and hereby goal value. An explanation for this lack of distraction, is the spatial distance between the visual stimuli and the focal task. While the focal task was on a sheet of paper, the visual stimuli was presented on a computer screen, which makes it easier for participants to ignore the stimuli and hereby to resist the influence of the stimuli. A solution for this problem could be to present the

(20)

20 focal task and the interfering force on the same screen. In future research, it could be useful to present the anagram task on a computer screen, where different visual stimuli will pop up on the same screen. These stimuli will have a much stronger interfering effect, and dealing with these forces will be more challenging.

A possible explanation for the lack of support for our hypotheses, is the manipulation of

coping. We found that participants who had to oppose the interfering force, experienced the

visual stimuli as an obstacle they needed to overcome to perform well on the anagram task to a higher extent than participants who had to cope with the feelings the interfering force caused. This suggests that the manipulation of opposing was successful.However, we did not found a difference between the two instructions to the extent that participants tried to cope with the feelings the stimuli caused. In addition, some participants who received the instruction to cope with the feelings asked for clarification after the instruction. This may indicate that the

manipulation to cope with the feelings caused by the interfering force, was not successful. Besides, participants who had to cope with the feelings did not experience the interfering force as more distracting than participants who had to oppose the force, which is in contrast to what Higgins and colleagues (2012) had found. They showed that participants who had to cope with feelings caused by an interfering force, had to shift their attention away from the focal task, and hereby will experience the force as more distracting than participants who oppose the force. For future research, we suggest to use more clear instructions for participants who have to cope with the feelings caused by an interfering force. Considering that participants who had to cope with the feelings did not understand the instructions, results could be compromised, leading to diminished support for our hypotheses. However, it is possible that the fact that participants did not rated the visual stimuli as highly positive, influences the success of the manipulation as well. It might be the case that coping with the feelings caused by an interfering force which is

(21)

21 stronger in valence, will induce a stronger pull of attention from the focal task, and hereby will have a stronger influence on goal value.

We suggest to do further research in how different ways of dealing with the interfering force influence goal value. An interesting extension and possibly more practically relevant condition for positive interferences would be to add other strategies of dealing with the force, for example the condition of giving in. In this condition, participants get the instruction to give in on the temptation when the urge is too strong. This can be an effective strategy, as shown by Fries and Dietz (2007). They compared the task enjoyment and task performance of students who give in on an attractive alternative before working on a learning task, with students who had to work on the learning task knowing there was an attractive alternative waiting for them afterwards. Students who watched video clips before they had to work on the learning task, were more motivated and performed better on the task than students who had to finish the learning task before they could watch the video clips. Giving in can help to overcome the negative effects of

opposing (e.g., ego depletion), because it gives someone an autonomous choice in how to handle

the interference. Having an autonomous choice will cause less ego depletion than having a controlled choice (Moller, Deci, & Ryan, 2006) as is the case when one is forced to oppose an interfering force. The autonomous choice option to give in should cause less ego depletion, and thereby ensures a more positive experience. Further research should investigate the influence of the strategy of giving in to a positive interfering force on goal value, because it might be a good alternative for opposing the interfering forces.

The regulatory engagement theory states that the value of an object depends on engagement strength in the goal-directed activity and that an important source of engagement strength is the opposition of interfering forces (Higgins, 2006; Higgins & Scholer, 2009). In our study, we did not find evidence for the hypothesis that opposing a positive interfering force will cause higher goal value. This could be due the fact that the visual stimuli in our study were not

(22)

22 strong, distracting interfering forces. When the stimuli is not experienced as a strong

interference, opposing this stimuli will have no effect on goal value. Besides, the interfering force did not elicit strong feelings, so coping with these feelings will neither have an effect on goal value. We suggest that a positive interfering force can be such a strong force that it pulls the attention away from the focal task, especially when people try to cope with the feelings caused by the force. In the current study we did not find support for this expectation and further research is needed to investigate the role of a positive interfering force and different ways of dealing with the force in the engagement strength and the value of the goal.

Although we did not find support for our predictions, the current study gives us an indication that different ways of dealing with a positive interfering force can have different effects on the emotional experience during the task, the value of the interfering force itself, and the task performance. Opposing a positive interfering force ensures better task performance, but negatively influences one’s affect and feelings about the interfering force, comparing to coping with the feelings a force can cause. Further research is needed to investigate how these different ways of dealing with a positive interfering force influence the value of a goal. This question remains interesting, because knowing how to deal with temptations in our everyday life is important for effective goal pursuit.

(23)

23 References

Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367-403. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30037208

Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? The Academy

of Management Perspectives, 21, 36-59. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4166286

Baumann, N., & Kuhl, J. (2002). Intuition, affect and personality: Unconscious coherence judgments and self-regulation of negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 83, 1213-1223. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.5.1213

Baumann, N. & Kuhl, J. (2005). How to resist temptation: The effects of external control versus autonomy support on self-regulatory dynamics. Journal of Personality, 73, 443-470. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00315.x

Erez, A., & Isen, A. M. (2002). The influence of positive affect on the components of expectancy motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1055-1067. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.6.1055

Fishbach, A., Friedman, R. S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). Leading us not unto temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 84, 296-309. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.296

Fishbach, A. & Shah, J. Y. (2006). Self-control in action: Implicit dispositions toward goals and away from temptations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 820-832. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.820

Fredrickson, B. L. & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 313-332.

(24)

24 Freitas, A. L., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Regulatory fit and resisting temptation

during goal pursuit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 291-298. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.150

Fries, S., & Dietz, F. (2007). Learning in the face of temptation: The case of motivational interference. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 93-112.

doi:10.3200/JEXE.76.1.93-112

Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of

Psychology, 55, 745-774. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456

Grier, J. B. (1971). Nonparametric indexes for sensitivity and bias: Computing formulas.

Psychological Bulletin, 75, 424-429. doi:10.1037/h0031246

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of

General Psychology, 2, 271-299. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271

Grund, A., Brassler, N. K., & Fries, S. (2014). Torn between study and leisure: How motivational conflicts relate to students’ academic and social adaptation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 106, 242-257. doi:10.1037/a0034400

Grund, A., & Fries, S. (2012). Motivational interference in study-leisure conflicts: How opportunity costs affect the self-regulation of university students. Educational

Psychology, 32, 589-612. doi:10.1080/01443410.2012.674005

Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review,

113, 439-460. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.439

Higgins, E. T., Marguc, J., & Scholer, A. A. (2012). Value from adversity: How we deal with adversity matters. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 965-967.

(25)

25 Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2009). Engaging the consumer: The science and art of the

value creation process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 100-114. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.02.007

Inzlicht, M., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2012). What is ego depletion? Toward a mechanistic revision of the resource model of self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 450-463. doi:10.1177/1745691612454134

Inzlicht, M., Schmeichel, B. J., & Macrae, C. N. (2013). Why self-control seems (but may not be) limited. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 127-133.

Milyavskaya, M., Inzlicht, M., Hope, N., & Koestner, R., (2015). Saying “no” to temptation: Want-to motivation improves self-regulation by reducing temptation rather than by increasing self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 677-693. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000045

Moller, A. C., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). Choice and ego-depletion: The moderating role of autonomy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1024-1036. doi: 10.1177/0146167206288008

Patterson, C. J., & Mischel, W. (1976). Effects of temptation-inhibiting and task-facilitating plans on self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 209-217. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.33.2.209

Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, 19, 2-21. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2136319

Schmid, S., Hofer, M., Dietz, F., Reinders, H., & Fries, S. (2005). Value orientations and action conflicts in students’ everyday life: An interview study. European Journal of Psychology

(26)

26 Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Can implementation intentions help to overcome

ego-depletion? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 279-286. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00527-9