Task choice immunizes against incidental affective influences in volition.

Abstract

Two experiments tested whether engaging in actions by personal choice vs. external task assignment moderates the effect of incidental affective stimulation on action control (volition). As choice of an action alternative has been found to lead to strong goal commitment, an implemental mindset, and determined task focus, we reasoned that it should shield action control from incidental affective influences. By contrast, external task assignment should lead to weaker action shielding and thus give way to incidental affective influences. Results followed our predictions. When participants were assigned the cognitive task, they persisted less (Study 1) and mobilized lower effort assessed as cardiac pre-ejection period (Study 2) when they were exposed to happy music as compared with sad music.These music effects on volition did not appear among participants who could choose the task. Our results show that working on a task is shielded better from incidental affective influences when the task is chosen rather than assigned.

Task choice shields against incidental affective influences on effort‐related cardiovascular response

“…1 Allegro", and in the Sad Music condition to the depressing piece "The coup" by Hans Zimmer from the movie "The House of Spirits". These pieces of music have efficiently induced happy and sad mood states in several previous studies (e.g., Gendolla et al, 2001Gendolla et al, , 2021Gendolla & Krüsken, 2001a, 2001b and were presented in moderate background volume. The music presentations started 15 s before the first task trial.…”

“…Previous research applying the present task choice and music manipulations has found significant effects of medium size on resource mobilization measures with samples of 20-22 participants per condition (Gendolla et al, 2021). To have at least the same sample size, we aimed at collecting data of 30 participants per condition to compensate for eventual data loss due to technical problems.…”

Goal prioritization and behavior change: Evaluation of an intervention for multiple health behaviors.

“…Although there is evidence that increased goal activation, more proximal scheduling, greater energization in pursuit of the goal, and improved goal shielding explain how goal priority promotes performance (e.g., Unsworth et al, 2014), a simultaneous test of these different mechanisms of action is needed. It is worth noting that the current research design took account of the potential effect of incidental affect by randomizing participants to condition and by allowing them to self-set goals, which are more immune to incidental emotional effects than researcher-set goals (Gendolla et al, 2021). Second, research should be directed toward developing improved strategies for promoting prioritization.…”

Choosing task characteristics oneself justifies effort: A study on cardiac response and the critical role of task difficulty.

“…One might also aim for higher commitment and still higher success importance in the Choice condition. Therefore, one could replicate the present study with an alternative and potentially more powerful Choice manipulation where participants ostensibly choose between different actions (e.g., attention task vs. memory task; see Falk et al, 2022b; Gendolla et al, 2021) instead of task characteristics. Nonetheless, the significant overall PEP effect clearly supported the predicted pattern and it is of note that apparently unimportant color choices could evidently justify relatively high effort during task performance.…”

“…Previous research applying a comparable choice manipulation has found significant effects of medium size on resource mobilization measures with samples of 20-22 participants per condition (Gendolla et al, 2021). To have at least the same sample size, we aimed at collecting data of 30 participants per condition to compensate for eventual data loss due to technical problems.…”