- Email: [email protected]
Goal adjustment ability predicts magnitude of emotional and physiological responses to an unsolvable anagram task
Personality and Individual Differences 86 (2015) 417–421
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Goal adjustment ability predicts magnitude of emotional and physiological responses to an unsolvable anagram task Berhane Messay ⁎, Anna L. Marsland Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 6 March 2015 Received in revised form 2 July 2015 Accepted 3 July 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Goal adjustment ability Goal disengagement Goal reengagement Cardiovascular reactivity Emotional reactivity
a b s t r a c t Individuals differ in their ability to disengage from unattainable goals (goal disengagement, GD) and reengage in other activities (goal reengagement, GR). Existing studies examining GD and GR abilities are limited by crosssectional design and reliance on self-reported measures. The present study employed an experimental paradigm using an anagram solving task to examine whether self-reported and behaviorally observed GD and/or GR abilities relate to emotional, heart-rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) reactivity. Results show no significant association between self-reported GD and time to disengage from unsolvable anagrams. However, self-reported GR predicted persistence behavior during unsolvable anagrams. Higher self-reported GR ability and longer behavioral persistence on unsolvable trials related to more positive affect before and during the task. Self-reported GD was associated with higher baseline HR and a tendency towards lower HR reactivity in response to unsolvable anagrams. While findings did not provide criterion-related validity to the GD measure, they do show self-reported GD and GR abilities may be relevant in the emotional and physiological consequences experienced during challenging goal pursuits. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction In situations where goals are challenging, but ultimately attainable, perseverance may pay off (e.g., Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). However, in situations where goals are not achievable despite extended effort, early goal disengagement and reconsideration may be more adaptive and minimize the experience of protracted frustration and other negative emotions (Klinger, 1975; Wrosch & Scheier, 2003). It has been suggested that there are stable individual differences in ability to modify goals based on perceived attainability, referred to as goal adjustment ability, that contribute to emotion regulation (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver, & Schulz, 2003). Two independent sets of skills are purported to contribute to goal adjustment ability: goal disengagement and goal re-engagement (Wrosch & Scheier, 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz, & Carver, 2003; Wrosch et al., 2003). Goal disengagement is the ability to evaluate the demands of a given goal and, cognitively and behaviorally ‘let-go’ when goals are perceived as unattainable. Goal reengagement is the ability to shift attention toward generating and re-engaging in more achievable goals. Goal adjustment ability is typically assessed using a 10-item selfreport measure called the “Goal Disengagement and Goal Reengagement Scale” (Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003), with goal disengagement subscale items assessing how easily respondents reduce effort and ⁎ Corresponding author at: 3213 Sennott Square, 210 S. Bouquet St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Messay).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.010 0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
abandon their commitment to a goal (e.g., “it's easy for me to reduce my effort toward the goal”) and goal reengagement items measuring how easily individuals are able to identify and pursue new goals (e.g., “I start working on other new goals”). Evidence supports the internal consistency of the subscales (Cronbach's alpha of .84 for goal disengagement and .86 for goal reengagement; Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003) and shows that they are largely independent (e.g., correlation between subscale scores = .21; Dunne, Wrosch, & Miller, 2011). However, to date, validation of the scales has only been examined by relating respondent's scores on this scale to other selfreport measures (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003). To our knowledge, the scale has never been validated against objective indices of goal adjustment behavior. Accordingly, a primary goal of the current study was to examine whether scores on the goal disengagement subscale reflect the tendency to disengage from an unsolvable anagram challenge in the laboratory. It was hypothesized that higher disengagement scores would relate to less time spent trying to solve unsolvable anagrams (hypothesis 1). Recent evidence suggests that goal disengagement and goal reengagement abilities relate differentially to emotional adjustment. Generally, inability to disengage from unachievable goals is positively related to symptoms of depression (e.g., Dunne et al., 2011); whereas, ability to reengage in new goals is associated with positive affect (e.g., feelings of hopefulness and self-reported purpose in life; Wrosch, Amir, & Miller, 2011). It is suggested that ability to disengage from unachievable goals minimizes the experience of failure and accompanying negative emotional consequences. In contrast, engaging in new goals may reduce
418
B. Messay, A.L. Marsland / Personality and Individual Differences 86 (2015) 417–421
rumination about failure to succeed and permit emotional recovery, leading to higher feelings of self-mastery and other positive emotional states (Wrosch & Scheier, 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003). To date, however, there is little empirical evidence connecting goal adjustment tendencies to emotional state in the face of unattainable goals. Thus, a second goal of the current study was to examine whether scores on the goal adjustment scale are associated with emotional response to an unsolvable anagram task. It was hypothesized that goal reengagement subscale scores, but not goal disengagement scores, would associate with positive affective responses to the task (hypothesis 2). It is widely accepted that prolonged negative emotional experiences are detrimental to health (Cohen, Janicki-Deverts, & Miller, 2007). By moderating negative emotional responses to life's challenges, goal adjustment ability may contribute to emotion-related physical health risk. For instance, existing studies show goal disengagement relates to higher subjective well-being, to lower systemic inflammation, and to health behaviors including better sleep efficiency, a more active lifestyle, and less substance use (Rasmussen, Wrosch, Scheier, & Carver, 2006; Wrosch & Sabiston, 2012; Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003; Wrosch, Miller, Scheier, & Brun de Pontet, 2007; Miller & Wrosch, 2007; Wrosch et al., 2011). Goal adjustment ability may also relate to magnitude of physiological response to psychological challenge. Individuals differ substantially and consistently in the magnitude of their cardiovascular (heart rate and blood pressure) responses to psychological challenge. These individual differences have been implicated in future health risk and have been conceptualized as measures of health vulnerability (Cohen & Manuck, 1995). For example, heightened blood pressure reactivity to stressful situations (e.g., laboratory challenge) may, over time, result in structural changes of the arteries that could place individuals at risk for cardiovascular disease (Krantz & Manuck, 1984). In support, studies have related heightened blood pressure reactivity to future hypertension and atherosclerosis risk (e.g., Carroll et al., 2012; Matthews, Zhu, Tucker, & Whooley, 2006; Treiber et al., 2003). There is also evidence that individuals who have high ruminative tendencies (i.e., difficulty emotionally and cognitively disengaging from a stressor) maintain elevated levels in cardiovascular parameters following acute challenge when compared to their less ruminative counterparts (e.g., Gerin, Davidson, Christenfeld, Goyal, & Schwartz, 2006; Glynn, Christenfeld, & Gerin, 2002). Thus, individual differences in goal adjustment ability may relate to magnitude of cardiovascular reactivity, providing another potential pathway to health risk. A final goal of the current study was to conduct an initial examination of this possibility by examining whether scores on the goal adjustment scale relate to the magnitude of heart rate and blood pressure responses to the anagram task. Here, it was hypothesized that higher goal disengagement and goal reengagement subscale scores would associate with lower baseline and task-related increases in heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) (hypothesis 3).
2. Method 2.1. Participants Participants were 90 young adults (59.3% female; 75.8% Caucasian; 93.4% non-smoker) with a mean age of 19.24 (SD = 1.34) years and no reported history of significant psychiatric illness or diseases known to affect the cardiovascular system. Participants were excluded from the study if they had a resting blood pressure above 150/90 mm Hg or were noncompliant with study restrictions (no caffeinated beverages for at least 4 h, no smoking or eating for at least 2 h, and no exercise or drinking alcohol for at least 24 h prior to their scheduled session). Post hoc power analysis taking the most common effect size observed in the present study (β of |.26|) yielded a power (1-β err prob) value
of .81, confirming that the study was adequately powered. The study was approved by the university's Institutional Review Board. 2.2. Procedure All laboratory sessions were held between 1 and 4 pm. Participants first completed a battery of questionnaires assessing demographic and health history, personality factors and self-reported goal disengagement/re-engagement ability. They were then fitted with three disposable electrodes on their chest (modified lead II confirmation; MindWare Technologies, LTD, Gahanna, OH) and an occluding cuff on their non-dominant arm for automated measurement of HR and systolic and diastolic BP (SBP, DBP). Participants remained seated for the duration of the study, which included a 20 minute baseline (habituation) and an anagram completion task (maximum 20 min). Participants' mood was measured during the task. At the end of the task, participants rated the difficulty of the task, and completed a 10 minute test to assess their anagram solving ability. 2.3. Description of anagram task Participants were informed prior to arriving at the laboratory that they were going to be asked to complete a challenging anagram task. Participants completed a series of 16 five-letter anagrams under 20 min time pressure (adapted from Aspinwall & Richter, 1999). The task presentation was modified from the original format to allow for cardiovascular and affect measurement. Four sets (2 solvable and 2 unsolvable) of four anagrams were presented. The solvable anagrams are considered moderate in difficulty (50–60% of participants solved them correctly; Aspinwall & Richter, 1999). To encourage effort, the first anagram presented was always solvable. Participants were also informed that they were eligible to win a prize ($100 gift card) for correctly solving the anagrams. To minimize order effects, presentation of the remaining three anagram sets was counterbalanced. Participants were not permitted to return to prior sets after choosing to disengage from a set (i.e., they were required to ‘abandon’ a specific goal). After presentation of each anagram set, participants were given time to write down their responses. A timer was displayed on the screen for participants to see how long they spent on each set. Time participants spent on solvable and unsolvable anagram sets was recorded separately. Preliminary analyses showed average time to disengage from both unsolvable sets was strongly correlated with time to disengage from the first unsolvable set (r = .86, p b .01), confirming that, on average, participants continued to maintain effort following the first unsolvable set. 2.4. Instruments/measurements 2.4.1. Health history and demographic information Participants completed a brief questionnaire assessing demographics and personal health history. 2.4.2. Goal adjustment ability Self-reported goal disengagement and goal reengagement ability were determined using the 10-item Goal Disengagement and Goal Reengagement Scale (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003). Consistent with prior findings, the subscales showed adequate reliability in the current sample (Cronbach's alpha = .82 for goal disengagement subscale and .87 for goal reengagement subscale). Also consistent with findings reported by Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al. (2003) and Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al. (2003), a confirmatory factor analysis showed that goal disengagement items loaded on one factor with correlations ranging from .72 to .86 and goal reengagement items loaded on a second factor with values ranging from .67 to .87. Time to disengage from unsolvable anagrams was used as a measure of behavioral disengagement.
B. Messay, A.L. Marsland / Personality and Individual Differences 86 (2015) 417–421
2.4.3. Cardiovascular assessment HR was recorded continuously (i.e., every minute) throughout the session (MindWare Biolab software, Version 3.0.8 version). Oscillometric BP recordings (Critikon Dinamap 8100) were recorded every 2 min during the last 10 min of the baseline period and at minutes, 1, 3, and, when possible, 5 of each anagram set. HR and BP measures were averaged across the last 10 min of baseline, unsolvable, and solvable anagram periods. 2.4.4. Mood assessment Participants' mood was assessed at the end of the baseline and following each anagram set using the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM; Bradley & Lang, 1994). SAM is a pictographic method of assessing arousal, feelings of being in-control, and positive mood on a scale of 1 (low) to 9 (high). SAM correlates highly with paper-and-pencil report of emotional response (Bradley & Lang, 1994). Average emotional responses to the solvable and unsolvable anagrams were obtained separately using E-Prime software (E-Data Aid, version 2.0, Psychology Software Tools, Inc.). 2.4.5. Potential covariates A number of demographic and lifestyle characteristics [age, race, gender and body mass index (BMI; kg/m2)] and several trait-like factors, including trait negative and positive affectivity, perception of task difficulty, and anagram solving ability, were assessed and considered as possible covariates. 2.4.5.1. Trait negative and positive affect. An 88-item adjective rating scale comprised of items from four well-validated instruments including the POMS (Usala & Hertzog, 1989), Goldberg's Big-5 factor Scales (Goldberg, 1992, 1993), the Larsen and Diener Circumplex model (Larsen & Diener, 1992), and the Mackay Circumplex (Mackay, Cox, Burrows, & Lazzerini, 1978) was used. For each item, participants rated accuracy of trait descriptions on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all accurate) to 4 (extremely accurate). Principal component factor analyses with varimax rotation showed that the positive and negative mood items loaded on separate factors ranging from .81–.95 and .83–.85, respectively, forming our trait negative and positive affect scales. 2.4.5.2. Task difficulty appraisal (TDA). A 6-item task appraisal scale was used to assess perceived task difficulty (adapted from Segerstrom & Solberg Nes, 2007), with higher scores reflecting greater difficulty. Participants rated items such as “the task required a lot of effort” or “I had to force myself to keep going” on a Likert scale from 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree. This scale has adequate internal consistency (alpha = .81; Segerstrom & Solberg Nes, 2007). 2.4.5.3. Anagram solving ability (ASA). A 15 item standardized paperand-pencil anagram solving task was administered at the end of the task to assess expertise in anagram solving (adapted from Hicks, Hicks, & Mansfield, 1969). Participants were given ten minutes to generate solutions. 2.5. Data analyses 2.5.1. Preliminary analyses Bivariate correlations were performed to examine associations between covariates and variable of interests. Covariates that were correlated with primary variable at a p value b .1 were considered as standard covariates and controlled during subsequent analyses. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired sample t-tests were performed to examine within subject changes in emotional and cardiovascular parameters. 2.5.2. Primary analyses First, partial correlations were used to examine whether selfreported goal disengagement, as assessed by the Goal Disengagement
419
and Goal Re-engagement Scale, related to time to disengage from impossible anagrams. Age, sex, race and ASA were considered as standard covariates in these analyses. Then, a series of linear multiple regression analyses were performed to examine associations of perceived goal adjustment ability with baseline and task-related changes in affect, HR and BP. For these analyses, age, sex, race, ASA and BMI were entered in the first step as covariates, followed by our independent variables of goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and behavioral disengagement in the second step of separate models predicting affect and cardiovascular parameters. Residualized change scores were employed in these analyses to control for variance associated with baseline levels. 3. Results 3.1. Goal adjustment ability and behavioral disengagement from anagram task Bivariate associations between study variables and covariates are displayed in Table 1. As expected, participants spent significantly more time (t(78) = 15.14, p b .001) on the unsolvable sets (mean = 330.37 s, SD = 125.65 s) than solvable anagram sets (mean = 118.70 s, SD = 64.10). Contrary to expectations, self-reported goal disengagement was not significantly associated with average time to disengage from unsolvable sets (rp = .02, p = .89). Further, there was a positive relationship between self-reported goal reengagement and average time to disengage from unsolvable sets (rp = .27, p = .02), indicating that self-reported goal reengagement ability predicted persistence during unsolvable anagram sets. 3.2. Emotional and cardiovascular responses to the anagram task Arousal increased while positive mood decreased in response to both solvable and unsolvable anagram sets (arousal: t(84)'s = 10.96 and 10.60, p's b .01; positive mood: t(84)'s − 4.70 and − 11.84, p's b .01, respectively). Feelings of being in-control decreased following unsolvable, but not solvable anagram sets (t(84) = − 8.96, p b .01; t(84) = − 1.48, p = .14, respectively). Compared to baseline, HR and BP increased significantly during both solvable (HR: t(74) = 4.01; SBP: t(73) = 6.34; DBP: t(73) = 6.76, p's b .01) and unsolvable (HR: t(81) = 5.47; SBP: t(78) = 5.58; DBP: t(78) = 5.72, p's b .01) anagram sets. Surprisingly, BP responses tended to be larger in response to solvable than unsolvable sets (SBP: t(73) = 1.76, p = .082, DBP: t(73) = 2.15, p b .05). It is possible that this reflects the assessment of BP only during the first 5 min of the task periods and not for the entire time participants were engaged in anagram solving, which was longer for unsolvable than solvable sets. Table 1 Pearson correlations between study variables and covariates. Study variables
Age
Gender
Race
Na
Pa
ASA
TDA
BMI
GD GR T_SA T_UA B_SAM arousal B_SAM control B_SAM Pmood B_SBP B_DBP
−.02 −.08 .19~ −.12 −.17 −.02 −.12 .13 .23⁎
.08 .02 −.02 −.03 .19~ −.08 −.03 −.60⁎⁎ .04
−.14 −.15 .11 .07 −.12 .13 .11 −.01 −.18
.03 −.21⁎ −.14 −.04 .29⁎⁎ −.15 −.22⁎ −.15 −.02
.03 .11 .02 .03 −.08 .11 .31⁎⁎ −.07 −.11
−.15 .15 −.09 −.45⁎⁎ −.24⁎ .05 .11 −.12 .09
.19~ .10 .11 .06 .13 −.19~ .01 .11 −.02
−.12 .04 −.08 −.02 .12 −.02 .03 .24⁎ −.11
Abbreviations: GD (self-reported goal disengagement ability), GR (self-reported goal reengagement ability), T_SA (time to disengage from solvable anagram sets), T_UA (time to disengage from unsolvable anagram sets), B_ (baseline/pretask), Na (trait negative affect), Pa (trait positive affect), ASA (anagram solving ability), TDA (task difficulty appraisal), and Pmood (positive mood). ~ p b .10. ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
420
B. Messay, A.L. Marsland / Personality and Individual Differences 86 (2015) 417–421
3.3. Goal adjustment ability and baseline and task-related emotional responses As expected, self-reported goal reengagement ability was related to higher baseline positive affect, including positive mood (β = .33, p = .003) and being in-control (β = .26, p = .03). Goal reengagement also related to smaller decreases in positive mood following solvable (β = − .26, p = .03) and unsolvable anagram sets (β = − .23, p = .04). Interestingly, self-reported goal disengagement also predicted smaller declines in feelings of being in-control in response to unsolvable anagram sets (β = −.29, p = .01). Contrary to expectations, when disengagement ability was assessed behaviorally, longer time to disengage from unsolvable sets predicted higher positive mood prior to the task (β = .29, p = .014), smaller declines in positive mood (β = − .31, p = .006) and a tendency to feel more in-control (β = −.21, p = .07) following unsolvable sets. In sum, findings show that self-reported goal reengagement and persisting during unsolvable anagram sets related to both higher baseline positive mood and smaller task-related changes in positive mood following the unsolvable anagram sets. Self-reported goal disengagement also related to smaller changes in positive mood following the impossible anagrams. 3.4. Goal adjustment ability and baseline and task-related cardiovascular responses Contrary to expectations, self-reported goal disengagement was related to higher baseline HR (β = .25, p = .035). Also unexpected, persisting behavior was associated with lower baseline HR (β = −.23, p = .05) and lower task-related increase in DBP (β = −.27, p = .02) during unsolvable anagram sets. However, in line with our hypothesis, higher selfreported goal disengagement tended to associate with smaller increases in HR in response to unsolvable anagram sets (β = −.22, p = .08), an association that was independent of baseline HR. Thus, individuals who perceived themselves as more able to disengage from goals showed higher baseline HR, but tended to show smaller increases in HR during the task. However, this pattern was not observed when goal disengagement was assessed behaviorally. Here, individuals who persisted during unsolvable sets displayed lower baseline HR and smaller task-related increases in DBP. 4. Discussion 4.1. Validation of the Goal Disengagement Subscale In an effort to examine criterion-related validity of the Goal Disengagement and Goal Reengagement Scale (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003), the present study investigated whether scores on the goal disengagement subscale relate to time to disengage from an unsolvable anagram task. Findings do not support a significant association of self-reported goal disengagement ability with this behavioral measure of disengagement. Several possible explanations can be offered for this failure to behaviorally validate the self-report measure. First, while the subscale shows internal reliability (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003 and the current sample), it is possible that what is being measured is not the ability to disengage from goals. In fact, our finding that goal reengagement ability was associated with greater likelihood of persisting when confronted with an impossible anagram solving task, raises the possibility that the scale may be measuring other facets of positive disposition that relate to goal perseverance. For instance, a growing number of studies show that positive traits, such as conscientiousness or optimism, predict persistence behavior in real life and in a laboratory setting (Ozer and Benet-Martínez, 2006; Segerstrom & Solberg Nes, 2007; Solberg Nes, Carlson, Crofford, de Leeuw, & Segerstrom, 2011). Indeed, it is suggested that positive dispositional traits may maintain positive emotional experiences during goal pursuit
and motivate individuals to persevere (Solberg Nes et al., 2011). Consistent with this possibility, we found that individuals who persisted during unsolvable anagram sets showed higher positive mood at baseline and tended to experience a smaller reduction in positive mood while working on the task. Of note, while self-reported goal disengagement or goal reengagement ability was not significantly related to the trait positive affectivity measure used in the current study (see Table 1), it is possible this reflects our use of an index of mood tendencies rather than of positive behavioral dispositions. Another potential explanation for why we were unable to behaviorally validate the self-report measure of goal disengagement is the laboratory setting of our study. It is possible that participants' knowledge that they are being observed or social desirability factors (i.e., a “good” participant will display continuous effort on a study task) obscured inter-individual variation in goal adjustment that would be observed in more natural settings. It is also possible that the laboratory anagram solving task is qualitatively different from goals pursued by individuals in ‘real-life’. Finally, our failure to behaviorally validate this measure may indicate that scores on the goal disengagement subscale are unrelated to goal disengagement behavior. Regardless of these possibilities, our failure to behaviorally validate the widely-used goal disengagement measure raises questions about the validity of the measure which should be taken into consideration in the interpretation of findings presented below. 4.2. Goal adjustment ability and emotional and cardiovascular response to an unattainable goal Contrary to our expectations, we found both goal disengagement and goal reengagement positively related to feelings of being in control and general positive mood before and during the anagram task. This finding provides additional support for the possibility that responses on the goal disengagement and reengagement scale are tapping positive dispositional factors rather than something specific to goal adjustment ability. In terms of cardiovascular response, we observed that goal disengagement was associated with higher resting HR but a tendency toward lower increases in HR during unsolvable anagram sets, possibly reflecting reduced effort. Our finding that goal disengagement and goal reengagement relate in an expected manner with task-related changes but not with baseline measures of HR is interesting. Perhaps individuals who perceive themselves as higher in goal adjustment ability are more physiological activated in anticipation of the task. However, consistent with theory, they may reduce effort or disengage from the task thus displaying smaller increases in HR. No associations of goal adjustment ability, as measured by self-report or observed behaviors, with baseline or task-related changes in BP were observed. This may reflect timing of the task assessment of BP, which was only collected for the first 5 min of each anagram set. A number of participants took longer than 5 min on the unsolvable sets and we may have missed relevant task-related BP reactivity. Still, the lack of a clear pattern in our findings suggests a need for future studies to replicate and further examine the psychophysiological correlates of goal adjustment ability. 4.3. Limitations and future directions There were several limitations of the current study that warrant consideration in future research. First, our sample was primarily comprised of healthy, young, Caucasian college students from middle to high SES households (median annual parental income was between 100,000 and 120,000 dollars), which limits our ability to generalize our findings to other populations, and may also explain some of the null findings. A possibility for future studies is to examine if the association of GD and GR ability with behavioral disengagement, affect, and cardiovascular makers would differ using a different demographic. Second, behavioral validation was tested for the disengagement scale only. Disengagement and reengagement are proposed to be distinct factors (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver
B. Messay, A.L. Marsland / Personality and Individual Differences 86 (2015) 417–421
et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003) and construct validity of the reengagement scale was not examined in the current study. Third, as noted above, BP was only collected for the first five minutes of each anagram set which may resulted in our missing reactivity related to prolonged effort on the unsolvable sets for some participants. Future studies would benefit from continuous assessment of BP throughout the task period. Future work examining goal adjustment ability should also consider the possibility that goal disengagement and reengagement may interact to predict distress and physiological response. Studies have found that individuals who endorse high goal disengagement but low goal reengagement ability may be particularly susceptible to distress in the face of challenge (O'Connor, Fraser, Whyte, Machale, & Masterton, 2009; Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003). It is possible that these individuals experience increased negative emotions due to absence of positive emotional consequences that comes from pursuing new meaningful goals (Wrosch & Scheier, 2003). It is also possible that individuals who easily give-up on their goals and fail to reengage in alternative goals may be exhibiting some form of learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975), which may place them at risk for experiencing negative emotions and long term mental and physical health consequences. Lastly, while all our analyses were guided by a priori hypotheses, it is possible that the number of analyses that were conducted resulted in chance findings. Despite these limitations, we believe that the presented findings make several valuable contributions to the literature. To our knowledge, we present the first study to examine goal disengagement ability using both self-reported and behavioral methods. Our findings raise questions about the validity of the widely used Goal Disengagement and Goal Reengagement Scale (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003) as a measure of tendency to disengage from unattainable goals. Inconsistent with current goal adjustment theory, we also show that perceived goal reengagement ability predicts persistence behavior in the face of unattainable/unsolvable task. We also provide further evidence linking perceived goal adjustment ability to positive dispositional characteristics. Finally, we present the first study to use an experimental paradigm (i.e., a laboratory goal pursuit) to examine the emotional and physiological correlates of goal adjustment ability. Acknowledgments The authors want to thank Dr. Pete Gianaros for contributing to study design and data acquisition, Dr. Lei Sheu for her assistance in data analysis, and Dr. Carissa Lowe for reviewing an early draft of the manuscript. References Aspinwall, L. G., & Richter, L. (1999). Optimism and self-mastery predict more rapid disengagement from unsolvable tasks in the presence of alternatives. Motivation and Emotion, 23, 221–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021367331817. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental, Psychiatry, 25, 49–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9. Carroll, D., Ginty, A. T., Der, G., Hunt, K., Benzeval, M., & Phillips, A. C. (2012). Increased blood pressure reactions to acute mental stress are associated with 16‐year cardiovascular disease mortality. Psychophysiology, 49(10), 1444–1448. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01463.x. Cohen, S., Janicki-Deverts, D., & Miller, G. E. (2007). Psychological stress and disease. JAMA, 14, 1685–1687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.14.1685. Cohen, S., & Manuck, S. B. (1995). Stress, reactivity, and disease. Psychosomatic Medicine, 57, 423–426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006842-199509000-00002. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087–1101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087.
421
Dunne, E., Wrosch, C., & Miller, G. E. (2011). Goal disengagement, functional disability, and depressive symptoms in old age. Health Psychology, 30, 763–770. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/a0024019. Gerin, W., Davidson, K. W., Christenfeld, N. J., Goyal, T., & Schwartz, J. E. (2006). The role of angry rumination and distraction in blood pressure recovery from emotional arousal. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68, 64–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000195747. 12404.aa. Glynn, L. M., Christenfeld, N., & Gerin, W. (2002). The role of rumination in recovery from reactivity: Cardiovascular consequences of emotional states. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 714–726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.PSY.0000031574.42041.23. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.4.1.26. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.48.1.26. Hicks, R. A., Hicks, M. J., & Mansfield, H. (1969). A multi-solution anagram task. Psychological Reports, 24, 671–674. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1969.24.2.671. Klinger, E. (1975). Consequences of commitment to and disengagement from incentives. Psychological Review, 82, 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076171. Krantz, D. S., & Manuck, S. B. (1984). Acute psychophysiologic reactivity and risk of cardiovascular disease: A review and methodologic critique. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 435–464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.435. Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and problems with the circumplex model of emotion. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 25–59. Mackay, C., Cox, T., Burrows, G., & Lazzerini, T. (1978). An inventory for the measurement of self-reported stress and arousal. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 283–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1978.tb00280.x. Matthews, K. A., Zhu, S., Tucker, D. C., & Whooley, M. A. (2006). Blood pressure reactivity to psychological stress and coronary calcification in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study. Hypertension, 47(3), 391–395. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1161/01.HYP.0000200713.44895.38. Miller, G. E., & Wrosch, C. (2007). You've gotta know when to fold 'em: Goal disengagement and systemic inflammation in adolescence. Psychological Science, 18, 773–777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01977.x. O'Connor, R. C., Fraser, L., Whyte, M. C., Machale, S., & Masterton, G. (2009). Selfregulation of unattainable goals in suicide attempters: The relationship between goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and suicide ideation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 164–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.11.001. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.psych.57.102904.190127. Rasmussen, H. N., Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (2006). Self-regulation processes and health: The importance of optimism and goal disengagement. Journal of Personality, 74, 1721–1748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00426.x. Segerstrom, S. C., & Solberg Nes, L. (2007). Heart rate variability indexes self-regulatory strength, effort, and fatigue. Psychological Science, 18, 275–281. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01888.x. Seligman, M. E. (1975). Helplessnesss: On depression, development, and death. WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co. Solberg Nes, L., Carlson, C. R., Crofford, L. J., de Leeuw, R., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2011). Individual differences and self-regulatory fatigue: Optimism, conscientiousness, and selfconsciousness. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 475–480. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.paid.2010.11.011. Treiber, F. A., Kamarck, T., Schneiderman, N., Sheffield, D., Kapuku, G., & Taylor, T. (2003). Cardiovascular reactivity and development of preclinical and clinical disease states. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(1), 46–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ 00006842-200301000-00007. Usala, P. D., & Hertzog, C. (1989). Measurement of affective states in adults: Evaluation of an adjective rating scale instrument. Research on Aging, 11, 403–426. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0164027589114001. Wrosch, C., Amir, E., & Miller, G. E. (2011). Goal adjustment capacities, coping, and subjective well-being: The sample case of caregiving for a family member with mental illness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 934–946. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037/a0022873. Wrosch, C., Miller, G. E., Scheier, M. F., & Brun de Pontet, S. (2007). Giving up on unattainable goals: Benefits for health? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 251–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294905. Wrosch, C., & Sabiston, C. M. (2012). Goal adjustment, physical and sedentary activity, and well-being and health among breast cancer survivors. Psycho-Oncology, 21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pon.3037 (online early issue). Wrosch, C., & Scheier, M. F. (2003). Personality and quality of life: The importance of optimism and goal adjustment. Quality of Life Research, 12, 59–72. Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Schulz, R. (2003a). The importance of goal disengagement in adaptive self-regulation: When giving up is beneficial. Self and Identity, 2, 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860309021. Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Miller, G. E., Schulz, R., & Carver, C. S. (2003b). Adaptive selfregulation of unattainable goals: Goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1494–1508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203256921.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Goal adjustment ability predicts magnitude of emotional and physiological responses to an unsolvable anagram task Berhane Messay ⁎, Anna L. Marsland Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 6 March 2015 Received in revised form 2 July 2015 Accepted 3 July 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Goal adjustment ability Goal disengagement Goal reengagement Cardiovascular reactivity Emotional reactivity
a b s t r a c t Individuals differ in their ability to disengage from unattainable goals (goal disengagement, GD) and reengage in other activities (goal reengagement, GR). Existing studies examining GD and GR abilities are limited by crosssectional design and reliance on self-reported measures. The present study employed an experimental paradigm using an anagram solving task to examine whether self-reported and behaviorally observed GD and/or GR abilities relate to emotional, heart-rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) reactivity. Results show no significant association between self-reported GD and time to disengage from unsolvable anagrams. However, self-reported GR predicted persistence behavior during unsolvable anagrams. Higher self-reported GR ability and longer behavioral persistence on unsolvable trials related to more positive affect before and during the task. Self-reported GD was associated with higher baseline HR and a tendency towards lower HR reactivity in response to unsolvable anagrams. While findings did not provide criterion-related validity to the GD measure, they do show self-reported GD and GR abilities may be relevant in the emotional and physiological consequences experienced during challenging goal pursuits. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction In situations where goals are challenging, but ultimately attainable, perseverance may pay off (e.g., Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). However, in situations where goals are not achievable despite extended effort, early goal disengagement and reconsideration may be more adaptive and minimize the experience of protracted frustration and other negative emotions (Klinger, 1975; Wrosch & Scheier, 2003). It has been suggested that there are stable individual differences in ability to modify goals based on perceived attainability, referred to as goal adjustment ability, that contribute to emotion regulation (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver, & Schulz, 2003). Two independent sets of skills are purported to contribute to goal adjustment ability: goal disengagement and goal re-engagement (Wrosch & Scheier, 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz, & Carver, 2003; Wrosch et al., 2003). Goal disengagement is the ability to evaluate the demands of a given goal and, cognitively and behaviorally ‘let-go’ when goals are perceived as unattainable. Goal reengagement is the ability to shift attention toward generating and re-engaging in more achievable goals. Goal adjustment ability is typically assessed using a 10-item selfreport measure called the “Goal Disengagement and Goal Reengagement Scale” (Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003), with goal disengagement subscale items assessing how easily respondents reduce effort and ⁎ Corresponding author at: 3213 Sennott Square, 210 S. Bouquet St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Messay).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.010 0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
abandon their commitment to a goal (e.g., “it's easy for me to reduce my effort toward the goal”) and goal reengagement items measuring how easily individuals are able to identify and pursue new goals (e.g., “I start working on other new goals”). Evidence supports the internal consistency of the subscales (Cronbach's alpha of .84 for goal disengagement and .86 for goal reengagement; Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003) and shows that they are largely independent (e.g., correlation between subscale scores = .21; Dunne, Wrosch, & Miller, 2011). However, to date, validation of the scales has only been examined by relating respondent's scores on this scale to other selfreport measures (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003). To our knowledge, the scale has never been validated against objective indices of goal adjustment behavior. Accordingly, a primary goal of the current study was to examine whether scores on the goal disengagement subscale reflect the tendency to disengage from an unsolvable anagram challenge in the laboratory. It was hypothesized that higher disengagement scores would relate to less time spent trying to solve unsolvable anagrams (hypothesis 1). Recent evidence suggests that goal disengagement and goal reengagement abilities relate differentially to emotional adjustment. Generally, inability to disengage from unachievable goals is positively related to symptoms of depression (e.g., Dunne et al., 2011); whereas, ability to reengage in new goals is associated with positive affect (e.g., feelings of hopefulness and self-reported purpose in life; Wrosch, Amir, & Miller, 2011). It is suggested that ability to disengage from unachievable goals minimizes the experience of failure and accompanying negative emotional consequences. In contrast, engaging in new goals may reduce
418
B. Messay, A.L. Marsland / Personality and Individual Differences 86 (2015) 417–421
rumination about failure to succeed and permit emotional recovery, leading to higher feelings of self-mastery and other positive emotional states (Wrosch & Scheier, 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003). To date, however, there is little empirical evidence connecting goal adjustment tendencies to emotional state in the face of unattainable goals. Thus, a second goal of the current study was to examine whether scores on the goal adjustment scale are associated with emotional response to an unsolvable anagram task. It was hypothesized that goal reengagement subscale scores, but not goal disengagement scores, would associate with positive affective responses to the task (hypothesis 2). It is widely accepted that prolonged negative emotional experiences are detrimental to health (Cohen, Janicki-Deverts, & Miller, 2007). By moderating negative emotional responses to life's challenges, goal adjustment ability may contribute to emotion-related physical health risk. For instance, existing studies show goal disengagement relates to higher subjective well-being, to lower systemic inflammation, and to health behaviors including better sleep efficiency, a more active lifestyle, and less substance use (Rasmussen, Wrosch, Scheier, & Carver, 2006; Wrosch & Sabiston, 2012; Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003; Wrosch, Miller, Scheier, & Brun de Pontet, 2007; Miller & Wrosch, 2007; Wrosch et al., 2011). Goal adjustment ability may also relate to magnitude of physiological response to psychological challenge. Individuals differ substantially and consistently in the magnitude of their cardiovascular (heart rate and blood pressure) responses to psychological challenge. These individual differences have been implicated in future health risk and have been conceptualized as measures of health vulnerability (Cohen & Manuck, 1995). For example, heightened blood pressure reactivity to stressful situations (e.g., laboratory challenge) may, over time, result in structural changes of the arteries that could place individuals at risk for cardiovascular disease (Krantz & Manuck, 1984). In support, studies have related heightened blood pressure reactivity to future hypertension and atherosclerosis risk (e.g., Carroll et al., 2012; Matthews, Zhu, Tucker, & Whooley, 2006; Treiber et al., 2003). There is also evidence that individuals who have high ruminative tendencies (i.e., difficulty emotionally and cognitively disengaging from a stressor) maintain elevated levels in cardiovascular parameters following acute challenge when compared to their less ruminative counterparts (e.g., Gerin, Davidson, Christenfeld, Goyal, & Schwartz, 2006; Glynn, Christenfeld, & Gerin, 2002). Thus, individual differences in goal adjustment ability may relate to magnitude of cardiovascular reactivity, providing another potential pathway to health risk. A final goal of the current study was to conduct an initial examination of this possibility by examining whether scores on the goal adjustment scale relate to the magnitude of heart rate and blood pressure responses to the anagram task. Here, it was hypothesized that higher goal disengagement and goal reengagement subscale scores would associate with lower baseline and task-related increases in heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) (hypothesis 3).
2. Method 2.1. Participants Participants were 90 young adults (59.3% female; 75.8% Caucasian; 93.4% non-smoker) with a mean age of 19.24 (SD = 1.34) years and no reported history of significant psychiatric illness or diseases known to affect the cardiovascular system. Participants were excluded from the study if they had a resting blood pressure above 150/90 mm Hg or were noncompliant with study restrictions (no caffeinated beverages for at least 4 h, no smoking or eating for at least 2 h, and no exercise or drinking alcohol for at least 24 h prior to their scheduled session). Post hoc power analysis taking the most common effect size observed in the present study (β of |.26|) yielded a power (1-β err prob) value
of .81, confirming that the study was adequately powered. The study was approved by the university's Institutional Review Board. 2.2. Procedure All laboratory sessions were held between 1 and 4 pm. Participants first completed a battery of questionnaires assessing demographic and health history, personality factors and self-reported goal disengagement/re-engagement ability. They were then fitted with three disposable electrodes on their chest (modified lead II confirmation; MindWare Technologies, LTD, Gahanna, OH) and an occluding cuff on their non-dominant arm for automated measurement of HR and systolic and diastolic BP (SBP, DBP). Participants remained seated for the duration of the study, which included a 20 minute baseline (habituation) and an anagram completion task (maximum 20 min). Participants' mood was measured during the task. At the end of the task, participants rated the difficulty of the task, and completed a 10 minute test to assess their anagram solving ability. 2.3. Description of anagram task Participants were informed prior to arriving at the laboratory that they were going to be asked to complete a challenging anagram task. Participants completed a series of 16 five-letter anagrams under 20 min time pressure (adapted from Aspinwall & Richter, 1999). The task presentation was modified from the original format to allow for cardiovascular and affect measurement. Four sets (2 solvable and 2 unsolvable) of four anagrams were presented. The solvable anagrams are considered moderate in difficulty (50–60% of participants solved them correctly; Aspinwall & Richter, 1999). To encourage effort, the first anagram presented was always solvable. Participants were also informed that they were eligible to win a prize ($100 gift card) for correctly solving the anagrams. To minimize order effects, presentation of the remaining three anagram sets was counterbalanced. Participants were not permitted to return to prior sets after choosing to disengage from a set (i.e., they were required to ‘abandon’ a specific goal). After presentation of each anagram set, participants were given time to write down their responses. A timer was displayed on the screen for participants to see how long they spent on each set. Time participants spent on solvable and unsolvable anagram sets was recorded separately. Preliminary analyses showed average time to disengage from both unsolvable sets was strongly correlated with time to disengage from the first unsolvable set (r = .86, p b .01), confirming that, on average, participants continued to maintain effort following the first unsolvable set. 2.4. Instruments/measurements 2.4.1. Health history and demographic information Participants completed a brief questionnaire assessing demographics and personal health history. 2.4.2. Goal adjustment ability Self-reported goal disengagement and goal reengagement ability were determined using the 10-item Goal Disengagement and Goal Reengagement Scale (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003). Consistent with prior findings, the subscales showed adequate reliability in the current sample (Cronbach's alpha = .82 for goal disengagement subscale and .87 for goal reengagement subscale). Also consistent with findings reported by Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al. (2003) and Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al. (2003), a confirmatory factor analysis showed that goal disengagement items loaded on one factor with correlations ranging from .72 to .86 and goal reengagement items loaded on a second factor with values ranging from .67 to .87. Time to disengage from unsolvable anagrams was used as a measure of behavioral disengagement.
B. Messay, A.L. Marsland / Personality and Individual Differences 86 (2015) 417–421
2.4.3. Cardiovascular assessment HR was recorded continuously (i.e., every minute) throughout the session (MindWare Biolab software, Version 3.0.8 version). Oscillometric BP recordings (Critikon Dinamap 8100) were recorded every 2 min during the last 10 min of the baseline period and at minutes, 1, 3, and, when possible, 5 of each anagram set. HR and BP measures were averaged across the last 10 min of baseline, unsolvable, and solvable anagram periods. 2.4.4. Mood assessment Participants' mood was assessed at the end of the baseline and following each anagram set using the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM; Bradley & Lang, 1994). SAM is a pictographic method of assessing arousal, feelings of being in-control, and positive mood on a scale of 1 (low) to 9 (high). SAM correlates highly with paper-and-pencil report of emotional response (Bradley & Lang, 1994). Average emotional responses to the solvable and unsolvable anagrams were obtained separately using E-Prime software (E-Data Aid, version 2.0, Psychology Software Tools, Inc.). 2.4.5. Potential covariates A number of demographic and lifestyle characteristics [age, race, gender and body mass index (BMI; kg/m2)] and several trait-like factors, including trait negative and positive affectivity, perception of task difficulty, and anagram solving ability, were assessed and considered as possible covariates. 2.4.5.1. Trait negative and positive affect. An 88-item adjective rating scale comprised of items from four well-validated instruments including the POMS (Usala & Hertzog, 1989), Goldberg's Big-5 factor Scales (Goldberg, 1992, 1993), the Larsen and Diener Circumplex model (Larsen & Diener, 1992), and the Mackay Circumplex (Mackay, Cox, Burrows, & Lazzerini, 1978) was used. For each item, participants rated accuracy of trait descriptions on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all accurate) to 4 (extremely accurate). Principal component factor analyses with varimax rotation showed that the positive and negative mood items loaded on separate factors ranging from .81–.95 and .83–.85, respectively, forming our trait negative and positive affect scales. 2.4.5.2. Task difficulty appraisal (TDA). A 6-item task appraisal scale was used to assess perceived task difficulty (adapted from Segerstrom & Solberg Nes, 2007), with higher scores reflecting greater difficulty. Participants rated items such as “the task required a lot of effort” or “I had to force myself to keep going” on a Likert scale from 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree. This scale has adequate internal consistency (alpha = .81; Segerstrom & Solberg Nes, 2007). 2.4.5.3. Anagram solving ability (ASA). A 15 item standardized paperand-pencil anagram solving task was administered at the end of the task to assess expertise in anagram solving (adapted from Hicks, Hicks, & Mansfield, 1969). Participants were given ten minutes to generate solutions. 2.5. Data analyses 2.5.1. Preliminary analyses Bivariate correlations were performed to examine associations between covariates and variable of interests. Covariates that were correlated with primary variable at a p value b .1 were considered as standard covariates and controlled during subsequent analyses. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired sample t-tests were performed to examine within subject changes in emotional and cardiovascular parameters. 2.5.2. Primary analyses First, partial correlations were used to examine whether selfreported goal disengagement, as assessed by the Goal Disengagement
419
and Goal Re-engagement Scale, related to time to disengage from impossible anagrams. Age, sex, race and ASA were considered as standard covariates in these analyses. Then, a series of linear multiple regression analyses were performed to examine associations of perceived goal adjustment ability with baseline and task-related changes in affect, HR and BP. For these analyses, age, sex, race, ASA and BMI were entered in the first step as covariates, followed by our independent variables of goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and behavioral disengagement in the second step of separate models predicting affect and cardiovascular parameters. Residualized change scores were employed in these analyses to control for variance associated with baseline levels. 3. Results 3.1. Goal adjustment ability and behavioral disengagement from anagram task Bivariate associations between study variables and covariates are displayed in Table 1. As expected, participants spent significantly more time (t(78) = 15.14, p b .001) on the unsolvable sets (mean = 330.37 s, SD = 125.65 s) than solvable anagram sets (mean = 118.70 s, SD = 64.10). Contrary to expectations, self-reported goal disengagement was not significantly associated with average time to disengage from unsolvable sets (rp = .02, p = .89). Further, there was a positive relationship between self-reported goal reengagement and average time to disengage from unsolvable sets (rp = .27, p = .02), indicating that self-reported goal reengagement ability predicted persistence during unsolvable anagram sets. 3.2. Emotional and cardiovascular responses to the anagram task Arousal increased while positive mood decreased in response to both solvable and unsolvable anagram sets (arousal: t(84)'s = 10.96 and 10.60, p's b .01; positive mood: t(84)'s − 4.70 and − 11.84, p's b .01, respectively). Feelings of being in-control decreased following unsolvable, but not solvable anagram sets (t(84) = − 8.96, p b .01; t(84) = − 1.48, p = .14, respectively). Compared to baseline, HR and BP increased significantly during both solvable (HR: t(74) = 4.01; SBP: t(73) = 6.34; DBP: t(73) = 6.76, p's b .01) and unsolvable (HR: t(81) = 5.47; SBP: t(78) = 5.58; DBP: t(78) = 5.72, p's b .01) anagram sets. Surprisingly, BP responses tended to be larger in response to solvable than unsolvable sets (SBP: t(73) = 1.76, p = .082, DBP: t(73) = 2.15, p b .05). It is possible that this reflects the assessment of BP only during the first 5 min of the task periods and not for the entire time participants were engaged in anagram solving, which was longer for unsolvable than solvable sets. Table 1 Pearson correlations between study variables and covariates. Study variables
Age
Gender
Race
Na
Pa
ASA
TDA
BMI
GD GR T_SA T_UA B_SAM arousal B_SAM control B_SAM Pmood B_SBP B_DBP
−.02 −.08 .19~ −.12 −.17 −.02 −.12 .13 .23⁎
.08 .02 −.02 −.03 .19~ −.08 −.03 −.60⁎⁎ .04
−.14 −.15 .11 .07 −.12 .13 .11 −.01 −.18
.03 −.21⁎ −.14 −.04 .29⁎⁎ −.15 −.22⁎ −.15 −.02
.03 .11 .02 .03 −.08 .11 .31⁎⁎ −.07 −.11
−.15 .15 −.09 −.45⁎⁎ −.24⁎ .05 .11 −.12 .09
.19~ .10 .11 .06 .13 −.19~ .01 .11 −.02
−.12 .04 −.08 −.02 .12 −.02 .03 .24⁎ −.11
Abbreviations: GD (self-reported goal disengagement ability), GR (self-reported goal reengagement ability), T_SA (time to disengage from solvable anagram sets), T_UA (time to disengage from unsolvable anagram sets), B_ (baseline/pretask), Na (trait negative affect), Pa (trait positive affect), ASA (anagram solving ability), TDA (task difficulty appraisal), and Pmood (positive mood). ~ p b .10. ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
420
B. Messay, A.L. Marsland / Personality and Individual Differences 86 (2015) 417–421
3.3. Goal adjustment ability and baseline and task-related emotional responses As expected, self-reported goal reengagement ability was related to higher baseline positive affect, including positive mood (β = .33, p = .003) and being in-control (β = .26, p = .03). Goal reengagement also related to smaller decreases in positive mood following solvable (β = − .26, p = .03) and unsolvable anagram sets (β = − .23, p = .04). Interestingly, self-reported goal disengagement also predicted smaller declines in feelings of being in-control in response to unsolvable anagram sets (β = −.29, p = .01). Contrary to expectations, when disengagement ability was assessed behaviorally, longer time to disengage from unsolvable sets predicted higher positive mood prior to the task (β = .29, p = .014), smaller declines in positive mood (β = − .31, p = .006) and a tendency to feel more in-control (β = −.21, p = .07) following unsolvable sets. In sum, findings show that self-reported goal reengagement and persisting during unsolvable anagram sets related to both higher baseline positive mood and smaller task-related changes in positive mood following the unsolvable anagram sets. Self-reported goal disengagement also related to smaller changes in positive mood following the impossible anagrams. 3.4. Goal adjustment ability and baseline and task-related cardiovascular responses Contrary to expectations, self-reported goal disengagement was related to higher baseline HR (β = .25, p = .035). Also unexpected, persisting behavior was associated with lower baseline HR (β = −.23, p = .05) and lower task-related increase in DBP (β = −.27, p = .02) during unsolvable anagram sets. However, in line with our hypothesis, higher selfreported goal disengagement tended to associate with smaller increases in HR in response to unsolvable anagram sets (β = −.22, p = .08), an association that was independent of baseline HR. Thus, individuals who perceived themselves as more able to disengage from goals showed higher baseline HR, but tended to show smaller increases in HR during the task. However, this pattern was not observed when goal disengagement was assessed behaviorally. Here, individuals who persisted during unsolvable sets displayed lower baseline HR and smaller task-related increases in DBP. 4. Discussion 4.1. Validation of the Goal Disengagement Subscale In an effort to examine criterion-related validity of the Goal Disengagement and Goal Reengagement Scale (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003), the present study investigated whether scores on the goal disengagement subscale relate to time to disengage from an unsolvable anagram task. Findings do not support a significant association of self-reported goal disengagement ability with this behavioral measure of disengagement. Several possible explanations can be offered for this failure to behaviorally validate the self-report measure. First, while the subscale shows internal reliability (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003 and the current sample), it is possible that what is being measured is not the ability to disengage from goals. In fact, our finding that goal reengagement ability was associated with greater likelihood of persisting when confronted with an impossible anagram solving task, raises the possibility that the scale may be measuring other facets of positive disposition that relate to goal perseverance. For instance, a growing number of studies show that positive traits, such as conscientiousness or optimism, predict persistence behavior in real life and in a laboratory setting (Ozer and Benet-Martínez, 2006; Segerstrom & Solberg Nes, 2007; Solberg Nes, Carlson, Crofford, de Leeuw, & Segerstrom, 2011). Indeed, it is suggested that positive dispositional traits may maintain positive emotional experiences during goal pursuit
and motivate individuals to persevere (Solberg Nes et al., 2011). Consistent with this possibility, we found that individuals who persisted during unsolvable anagram sets showed higher positive mood at baseline and tended to experience a smaller reduction in positive mood while working on the task. Of note, while self-reported goal disengagement or goal reengagement ability was not significantly related to the trait positive affectivity measure used in the current study (see Table 1), it is possible this reflects our use of an index of mood tendencies rather than of positive behavioral dispositions. Another potential explanation for why we were unable to behaviorally validate the self-report measure of goal disengagement is the laboratory setting of our study. It is possible that participants' knowledge that they are being observed or social desirability factors (i.e., a “good” participant will display continuous effort on a study task) obscured inter-individual variation in goal adjustment that would be observed in more natural settings. It is also possible that the laboratory anagram solving task is qualitatively different from goals pursued by individuals in ‘real-life’. Finally, our failure to behaviorally validate this measure may indicate that scores on the goal disengagement subscale are unrelated to goal disengagement behavior. Regardless of these possibilities, our failure to behaviorally validate the widely-used goal disengagement measure raises questions about the validity of the measure which should be taken into consideration in the interpretation of findings presented below. 4.2. Goal adjustment ability and emotional and cardiovascular response to an unattainable goal Contrary to our expectations, we found both goal disengagement and goal reengagement positively related to feelings of being in control and general positive mood before and during the anagram task. This finding provides additional support for the possibility that responses on the goal disengagement and reengagement scale are tapping positive dispositional factors rather than something specific to goal adjustment ability. In terms of cardiovascular response, we observed that goal disengagement was associated with higher resting HR but a tendency toward lower increases in HR during unsolvable anagram sets, possibly reflecting reduced effort. Our finding that goal disengagement and goal reengagement relate in an expected manner with task-related changes but not with baseline measures of HR is interesting. Perhaps individuals who perceive themselves as higher in goal adjustment ability are more physiological activated in anticipation of the task. However, consistent with theory, they may reduce effort or disengage from the task thus displaying smaller increases in HR. No associations of goal adjustment ability, as measured by self-report or observed behaviors, with baseline or task-related changes in BP were observed. This may reflect timing of the task assessment of BP, which was only collected for the first 5 min of each anagram set. A number of participants took longer than 5 min on the unsolvable sets and we may have missed relevant task-related BP reactivity. Still, the lack of a clear pattern in our findings suggests a need for future studies to replicate and further examine the psychophysiological correlates of goal adjustment ability. 4.3. Limitations and future directions There were several limitations of the current study that warrant consideration in future research. First, our sample was primarily comprised of healthy, young, Caucasian college students from middle to high SES households (median annual parental income was between 100,000 and 120,000 dollars), which limits our ability to generalize our findings to other populations, and may also explain some of the null findings. A possibility for future studies is to examine if the association of GD and GR ability with behavioral disengagement, affect, and cardiovascular makers would differ using a different demographic. Second, behavioral validation was tested for the disengagement scale only. Disengagement and reengagement are proposed to be distinct factors (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver
B. Messay, A.L. Marsland / Personality and Individual Differences 86 (2015) 417–421
et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003) and construct validity of the reengagement scale was not examined in the current study. Third, as noted above, BP was only collected for the first five minutes of each anagram set which may resulted in our missing reactivity related to prolonged effort on the unsolvable sets for some participants. Future studies would benefit from continuous assessment of BP throughout the task period. Future work examining goal adjustment ability should also consider the possibility that goal disengagement and reengagement may interact to predict distress and physiological response. Studies have found that individuals who endorse high goal disengagement but low goal reengagement ability may be particularly susceptible to distress in the face of challenge (O'Connor, Fraser, Whyte, Machale, & Masterton, 2009; Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003). It is possible that these individuals experience increased negative emotions due to absence of positive emotional consequences that comes from pursuing new meaningful goals (Wrosch & Scheier, 2003). It is also possible that individuals who easily give-up on their goals and fail to reengage in alternative goals may be exhibiting some form of learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975), which may place them at risk for experiencing negative emotions and long term mental and physical health consequences. Lastly, while all our analyses were guided by a priori hypotheses, it is possible that the number of analyses that were conducted resulted in chance findings. Despite these limitations, we believe that the presented findings make several valuable contributions to the literature. To our knowledge, we present the first study to examine goal disengagement ability using both self-reported and behavioral methods. Our findings raise questions about the validity of the widely used Goal Disengagement and Goal Reengagement Scale (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003) as a measure of tendency to disengage from unattainable goals. Inconsistent with current goal adjustment theory, we also show that perceived goal reengagement ability predicts persistence behavior in the face of unattainable/unsolvable task. We also provide further evidence linking perceived goal adjustment ability to positive dispositional characteristics. Finally, we present the first study to use an experimental paradigm (i.e., a laboratory goal pursuit) to examine the emotional and physiological correlates of goal adjustment ability. Acknowledgments The authors want to thank Dr. Pete Gianaros for contributing to study design and data acquisition, Dr. Lei Sheu for her assistance in data analysis, and Dr. Carissa Lowe for reviewing an early draft of the manuscript. References Aspinwall, L. G., & Richter, L. (1999). Optimism and self-mastery predict more rapid disengagement from unsolvable tasks in the presence of alternatives. Motivation and Emotion, 23, 221–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021367331817. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental, Psychiatry, 25, 49–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9. Carroll, D., Ginty, A. T., Der, G., Hunt, K., Benzeval, M., & Phillips, A. C. (2012). Increased blood pressure reactions to acute mental stress are associated with 16‐year cardiovascular disease mortality. Psychophysiology, 49(10), 1444–1448. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01463.x. Cohen, S., Janicki-Deverts, D., & Miller, G. E. (2007). Psychological stress and disease. JAMA, 14, 1685–1687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.14.1685. Cohen, S., & Manuck, S. B. (1995). Stress, reactivity, and disease. Psychosomatic Medicine, 57, 423–426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006842-199509000-00002. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087–1101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087.
421
Dunne, E., Wrosch, C., & Miller, G. E. (2011). Goal disengagement, functional disability, and depressive symptoms in old age. Health Psychology, 30, 763–770. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/a0024019. Gerin, W., Davidson, K. W., Christenfeld, N. J., Goyal, T., & Schwartz, J. E. (2006). The role of angry rumination and distraction in blood pressure recovery from emotional arousal. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68, 64–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000195747. 12404.aa. Glynn, L. M., Christenfeld, N., & Gerin, W. (2002). The role of rumination in recovery from reactivity: Cardiovascular consequences of emotional states. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 714–726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.PSY.0000031574.42041.23. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.4.1.26. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.48.1.26. Hicks, R. A., Hicks, M. J., & Mansfield, H. (1969). A multi-solution anagram task. Psychological Reports, 24, 671–674. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1969.24.2.671. Klinger, E. (1975). Consequences of commitment to and disengagement from incentives. Psychological Review, 82, 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076171. Krantz, D. S., & Manuck, S. B. (1984). Acute psychophysiologic reactivity and risk of cardiovascular disease: A review and methodologic critique. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 435–464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.435. Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and problems with the circumplex model of emotion. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 25–59. Mackay, C., Cox, T., Burrows, G., & Lazzerini, T. (1978). An inventory for the measurement of self-reported stress and arousal. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 283–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1978.tb00280.x. Matthews, K. A., Zhu, S., Tucker, D. C., & Whooley, M. A. (2006). Blood pressure reactivity to psychological stress and coronary calcification in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study. Hypertension, 47(3), 391–395. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1161/01.HYP.0000200713.44895.38. Miller, G. E., & Wrosch, C. (2007). You've gotta know when to fold 'em: Goal disengagement and systemic inflammation in adolescence. Psychological Science, 18, 773–777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01977.x. O'Connor, R. C., Fraser, L., Whyte, M. C., Machale, S., & Masterton, G. (2009). Selfregulation of unattainable goals in suicide attempters: The relationship between goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and suicide ideation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 164–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.11.001. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.psych.57.102904.190127. Rasmussen, H. N., Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (2006). Self-regulation processes and health: The importance of optimism and goal disengagement. Journal of Personality, 74, 1721–1748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00426.x. Segerstrom, S. C., & Solberg Nes, L. (2007). Heart rate variability indexes self-regulatory strength, effort, and fatigue. Psychological Science, 18, 275–281. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01888.x. Seligman, M. E. (1975). Helplessnesss: On depression, development, and death. WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co. Solberg Nes, L., Carlson, C. R., Crofford, L. J., de Leeuw, R., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2011). Individual differences and self-regulatory fatigue: Optimism, conscientiousness, and selfconsciousness. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 475–480. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.paid.2010.11.011. Treiber, F. A., Kamarck, T., Schneiderman, N., Sheffield, D., Kapuku, G., & Taylor, T. (2003). Cardiovascular reactivity and development of preclinical and clinical disease states. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(1), 46–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ 00006842-200301000-00007. Usala, P. D., & Hertzog, C. (1989). Measurement of affective states in adults: Evaluation of an adjective rating scale instrument. Research on Aging, 11, 403–426. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0164027589114001. Wrosch, C., Amir, E., & Miller, G. E. (2011). Goal adjustment capacities, coping, and subjective well-being: The sample case of caregiving for a family member with mental illness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 934–946. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037/a0022873. Wrosch, C., Miller, G. E., Scheier, M. F., & Brun de Pontet, S. (2007). Giving up on unattainable goals: Benefits for health? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 251–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294905. Wrosch, C., & Sabiston, C. M. (2012). Goal adjustment, physical and sedentary activity, and well-being and health among breast cancer survivors. Psycho-Oncology, 21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pon.3037 (online early issue). Wrosch, C., & Scheier, M. F. (2003). Personality and quality of life: The importance of optimism and goal adjustment. Quality of Life Research, 12, 59–72. Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Schulz, R. (2003a). The importance of goal disengagement in adaptive self-regulation: When giving up is beneficial. Self and Identity, 2, 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860309021. Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Miller, G. E., Schulz, R., & Carver, C. S. (2003b). Adaptive selfregulation of unattainable goals: Goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1494–1508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203256921.