It Force

Psychological Review Copyright **** by the American Psychological Association

****, ***. ***, **. *, 439-***-****-295X/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.439

Value From Hedonic Experience and Engagement

E. Tory Higgins

Columbia University

Recognizing that value involves experiencing pleasure or pain is critical to understanding the psychology

of value. But hedonic experience is not enough. I propose that it is also necessary to recognize that

strength of engagement can contribute to experienced value through its contribution to the experience of

motivational force an experience of the intensity of the force of attraction to or repulsion from the value

target. The subjective pleasure/pain properties of a value target influence strength of engagement, but

factors separate from the hedonic properties of the value target also influence engagement strength and

thus contribute to the experience of attraction or repulsion. These additional sources of engagement

strength include opposition to interfering forces, overcoming personal resistance, using the right or

proper means of goal pursuit, and regulatory fit between the orientation and manner of goal pursuit.

Implications of the contribution of engagement strength to value are discussed for judgment and decision

making, persuasion, and emotional experiences.

Keywords: value, motivation, pleasure and pain, engagement, decision making, emotion

What is value? Where does value come from? For centuries, sources of engagement strength that provides new insights on what

these questions have been central to understanding people s mo- is value and how it is created.

tivation and decision making. Not surprisingly, there have been What is meant by something having value to someone? Accord-

many different answers to these questions, including that value is ing to the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Vol.

the experience of pleasure and pain (for a review, see Higgins, in II (p. 3587) and the Webster s Collegiate Dictionary (p. 1303), to

press). I propose that value is, indeed, a hedonic experience, but it value something is to estimate or appraise it in respect of value.

is not only that. It is also an experience of motivational force But what is the value being estimated or appraised? These

experiencing the force of attraction toward something or repulsion dictionaries define value in two basic ways:

away from something. Because it is a motivational force and not

1. That amount of some commodity, medium of exchange,

only a hedonic experience, there can be contributions to the overall

and so forth, that is considered to be an equivalent for

experience of value other than hedonic experience. Specifically, I

something else. A fair return or equivalent in goods,

propose that strength of engagement contributes to the intensity of

services, or money. The material or monetary worth of a

the motivational force experience the intensity of attraction to or

thing; marketable price.

repulsion from something. The hedonic properties of a value target

contribute to engagement strength, but there are also other fac-

2. The relative status of a thing, or the estimate in which it

tors separate from the target s hedonic properties that influence

is held, according to its real or supposed worth, useful-

engagement strength and thus contribute to the intensity of attrac-

ness, or importance; degree of excellence.

tion or repulsion. Because their contribution derives from their

effect on engagement strength, these additional factors can con-

There is considerable agreement between these dictionaries in

tribute to a value target s attractiveness or repulsiveness regardless

their definitions of value. It is noteworthy that the first, primary

of whether they themselves are pleasant or unpleasant. For exam-

definition of value defines the value of something as its monetary

ple, the unpleasant experience of opposing an interfering force

worth or marketable price. This type of definition provides a useful

while moving toward a positive target, such as removing a barrier

operational definition of value but it does not say what value is

that is blocking the path to a goal, can intensify the target s

psychologically. What exactly is this value that people will

attractiveness. It is the contribution to value of these additional

exchange money for? The second definition of value as worth,

usefulness, and importance degree of excellence is the kind of

definition that is explored more deeply in this article.

E. Tory Higgins, Department of Psychology and Department of Busi- Value as degree of excellence has often been treated in terms of

ness, Columbia University, New York. beliefs and inferential judgments. When people talk about their

The research reported in this article was supported by Grant 39429 from personal values or the values that others hold, they usually have in

the National Institute of Mental Health to E. Tory Higgins. I am grateful to

mind value as people s personal standards or beliefs about what is

Marilynn Brewer, Joel Brockner, Per Hedberg, Peter Herman, Arie

desirable. In a clear statement of this viewpoint, Rokeach (1980, p.

Kruglanski, Walter Mischel, Thane Pittman, Clive Seligman, and Ed Smith

262) describes values as shared prescriptive or proscriptive be-

for their helpful comments and suggestions on a draft of this article.

liefs about ideal modes of behavior and end-states of existence.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to E. Tory

This viewpoint emphasizes shared beliefs about both desired ob-

Higgins, Department of Psychology, Schermerhorn Hall, Columbia Uni-

jectives or endstates and desired procedures or means for attaining

versity, New York, NY 10027. E-mail: ****@*****.********.***

439

HIGGINS

440

& Robinson, 2003; Eisenberger, 1972; Olds & Milner, 1954;

and maintaining them (see Merton, 1957; Rokeach, 1973, 1979;

Woodworth & Schlosberg, 1954; for a review, see Higgins, in

Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987; Seligman, Olson, &

press). Basic hedonic experiences have been emphasized in influ-

Zanna, 1996; Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Tyler & Lind, 1992).

ential models of animal learning and performance (e.g., Miller,

Value has also been conceptualized in terms of the relationship

1963; Mowrer, 1960; Spence, 1958), attitudes and moods (Eagly &

between a current state and some endstate functioning as a stan-

Chaiken, 1993; Schwarz & Clore, 1996), decision making (e.g.,

dard or reference point, where approaching desired endstates and

Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Lopes, 1987), and emotions (e.g.,

avoiding undesired endstates has value. This viewpoint is found in

Diener & Emmons, 1984; Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989;

cybernetic and control process models (e.g., Bandura, 1986;

Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988; Roseman, 1984; Russell, 1980;

Carver & Scheier, 1981, 1990; Miller, Galanter, & Pribram, 1960;

see also Spinoza 1677/1986; Wundt, 1896/1999).

Powers, 1973; Wiener, 1948), self-concept models (Boldero &

In sum, hedonic experiences of pleasure and pain have been

Francis, 2002; Duval & Wicklund, 1972; Higgins, 1987; James,

proposed by many as being basic to value. I agree that hedonic

1890/1948; Rogers, 1961), and social comparison models (Cialdini

experience makes a critical contribution to value. I also believe,

et al., 1976; Hyman, 1942; Merton & Kitt, 1952; Tesser, 1988).

however, that hedonic experience is not the whole story and that

There are also times when people infer what the value of some-

there is another variable that contributes to value strength of

thing is to them by observing their own behaviors, thoughts, or

engagement.

feelings toward it and treating these cues as evidence for its value

to them, similar to what they would do when observing the

behavior of others to infer the value of something to them

Hedonic Experience and Strength of Engagement

(Andersen, 1984; Bem, 1965, 1967; Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis,

1965; Kruglanski, 1975; Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973; Salan-

In conceptualizing value, my starting point is the position of

cik & Conway, 1975; Schachter & Singer, 1962; Schwarz & Clore,

Kurt Lewin. For Lewin (1951), value is a force that has direction

1988).

and strength. Lewin (1951) had in mind forces on a person s life

Historically, the cognitive sources of value that I have just

space that were analogous to natural physical forces on objects

described correspond to the prevalent philosophical view of value

rather than something that a person experiences. I follow Lewin s

that involves using reason and reflection to create an objective

(1951) lead but postulate a force experience that has direction and

basis for determining what is good or bad (Haidt, 2001; Williams,

strength or intensity. Experiencing something as having positive

1985). What has received less emphasis from this viewpoint is the

value corresponds to experiencing attraction toward it (i.e., trying

notion of value as experience. Indeed, value as experience is not

to move in the direction toward it), and experiencing something as

explicitly mentioned in dictionary definitions of value. Nonethe-

having negative value corresponds to experiencing repulsion from

less, conceptualizing value in terms of experience has a long

it (i.e., trying to move in a direction away from it).

history in the psychological and philosophical literatures.

The term hedonic, which derives from the Greek term for

sweet, means relating to or characterized by pleasure (Webster s Hedonic Experience and Motivational Force Experience

Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1989, p. 561). Historically, as Distinct Sources of Value

value experiences have been most often associated with hedonic

experiences. From the time of the Greeks, hedonic experiences The directional component of the value force experience (i.e.,

have been linked to the classic motivational principle that people attraction vs. repulsion) is critical to the psychology of value. This

approach pleasure and avoid pain. Our understanding of the sub- is why the hedonic experiences of pleasure or pain are so important

jective experience of pleasure and pain has deepened (e.g., Kah- (see Kahneman et al., 1999). Cognitive sources of value can also

neman & Tversky, 1979), and psychologists interest in hedonic influence the experience of direction. For example, shared beliefs

experiences has never been greater (see Kahneman, Diener, & about what is desirable and what is undesirable both social

Schwarz, 1999). values and personal ideals and oughts directly determine what

In an early statement on the importance of hedonic experiences has positive value and what has negative value. The evidence used

to value, Jeremy Bentham (1781/1988, p.1) stated: Nature has to make evaluative inferences also provides directional informa-

placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, tion about the positive or negative value of something (e.g., Bem s

pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought self-perception theory). But value experiences have more than

to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. Kahneman (2000) direction. They also vary in strength or intensity so that the

points out that the concept of utility has different meanings. One, experience of attraction can be relatively weak or strong (low or

decision utility, is like the primary dictionary definition of value high positive value), and the experience of repulsion can be rela-

described earlier in its being an operational (i.e., behavioristic) tively weak or strong (low or high negative value). The contribu-

definition utility is inferred from observed choices. The second tion of strength of engagement to the value force experience is not

meaning reflects Bentham s perspective on utility as experiences through an influence on direction but through its influence on the

of pleasure and pain and is called experienced utility by intensity of attraction or repulsion. As will be seen, the hedonic

Kahneman. nature of a value target also contributes to value intensity through

Do animals value something as a function of whether it satisfies its impact on engagement strength, but it is not the only determi-

their biological needs or will they choose something simply be- nant of engagement strength. The purpose of this article is to

cause it provides hedonic pleasure experiences? There is clear highlight the contribution to engagement strength, and thus to

evidence that animals will choose on the basis of value experiences value intensity, from sources other than the value target s hedonic

independent of any biological need being satisfied (e.g., Berridge properties.

VALUE FROM HEDONIC EXPERIENCE AND ENGAGEMENT 441

Figure 1 provides a summary of the overall proposal that I influence, such as whether it monotonic or nonmonotonic. As we

develop in this article. The purpose of the figure is simply to shall see, the relationship between hedonic experience and moti-

provide a visual representation of what I propose below regarding vational force experience is not a simple monotonic relationship.

the connections among the variables that contribute to the value My discussion of the proposal illustrated in Figure 1 will move

force experience. I wish to note a few points about the figure. from right to left. To begin with, I propose that there are two

First, not all possible relationships among the variables in the distinct sources of the value experience. One source is the hedonic

figure are shown. Only those relationships that I will emphasize pleasure/pain experience of the target. As discussed earlier, it has

and discuss below are included. For example, Figure 1 does not been recognized for centuries that pleasure has associated with it

show an influence of strength of engagement on how the pleasure/ an approach motivation and that pain has associated with it an

pain properties of a value target are experienced. This should not avoidance motivation the classic hedonic principle. I propose,

be taken as a claim that there is no such influence. It simply means however, that there is a second source of the value experience that

that the model is currently silent about what this influence might does not involve the hedonic experience of pleasure or pain per se

be. In each case, the absence of an indicated relationship in the but rather involves the experience of the motivational force to

figure should be understood in this way the model is currently make something happen (experienced as a force of attraction) or

silent about the influence. As new research evidence is collected make something not happen (experienced as a force of repulsion).

and the theory develops, new influences will be added to the Although the hedonic experience and the motivational force ex-

model. The current model, for instance, shows only strength of perience often are experienced holistically, conceptually they are

engagement and hedonic experience as factors contributing to the distinct from one another. Some activity that provides little hedo-

motivational force experience, but other factors could contribute to nic pleasure, for example, may have a strong motivational force

this experience as well. As another example, it is likely that associated with it because it is the proper thing to do or matches

hedonic outcomes themselves contribute to strength of engage- shared beliefs about appropriate procedures of goal pursuit I

ment, such as success or failure in a goal pursuit activity affecting don t enjoy doing this but I feel compelled to do it. Empirical

subsequent strength of engagement in that activity (see, e.g., Idson, evidence of the distinct contributions to value from the hedonic

Liberman, & Higgins, 2004). As the model becomes more dy- pleasure/pain experience and the motivational force experience is

namic and considers value creation and strength of engagement provided below.

over time, it will become important to consider the relationship Although distinct, the hedonic experience and the motivational

between outcomes and strength of engagement. force experience affect one another, as noted by the bidirectional

Second, when an influence between variables is shown, it sim- link between them in Figure 1. The precise nature of their inter-

ply reflects the proposal that one variable has an effect on the relationship is not well known, however, perhaps because the

other. No claim is being made about the precise nature of the literature has rarely distinguished between them as sources of

Figure 1. Illustration of proposed relational influences among variables contributing to the value force

experience.

HIGGINS

442

value experience. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to postulate ence itself has an intensity factor from the guiding drive stimulus

that hedonic experience would affect motivational force experi- (level of food), the energizing state (level of hunger), and their

ence, with the intensity of the force to make something happen interaction. Later I discuss how, separate from this hedonic inten-

increasing as its pleasantness increases and the intensity of the sity factor, strength of engagement makes an additional contribu-

force to make something not happen increasing as its painfulness tion to the experience of value intensity.

increases. It is also reasonable to postulate that motivational force It is not only the perceiver s need or goal state that influences

experience would affect hedonic experience, albeit perhaps not in how a target s properties are hedonically experienced. It is also

a simple way. For example, when a desire to do something be- well known that the experience of a target s properties is influ-

comes a compulsion to do it, that is, experienced too strongly as a enced by the situation or context in which they are perceived (e.g.,

motivational force to make it happen, the activity might become Kohler, 1929; Koffka, 1935; Lewin, 1951; for a review, see Ross

less enjoyable. Future research is clearly needed to investigate the & Nisbett, 1990). For example, people consider the value of

nature of this proposed bidirectional relation. something in relation to whatever factual standard is currently

In sum, what is critical here is the notion that value is not just available or accessible to them, which can vary as a function of

an experience of pleasure or pain but an experience of the force of context (Higgins, Strauman, & Klein, 1986). The value of some-

attraction toward or repulsion away from something. Value in- thing can be assimilated toward or contrasted away from the

volves an experience of the intensity of a motivational force and context of current alternatives (Helson, 1964; Higgins & Stangor,

not just a directional experience of pleasure versus pain. Although 1988). It can vary depending on which mental account the context

the hedonic nature of a value target contributes to the intensity suggests is appropriate for calculating its value (Thaler, 1999) or

experience through its influence on engagement strength, there are on what the context suggests is normal (Kahneman & Miller,

other sources of engagement strength that are independent of the 1986) or might have happened instead (Kahneman & Tversky,

value target s hedonic properties. Let us now consider in more 1982; Markus & Nurius, 1986; Roese, 1997).

detail these various sources of the value force experience. Let us now consider the sources of motivational force experi-

ences. As was discussed earlier, one source of motivational force

experience is the pleasure/pain hedonic experience. This source

Sources of Hedonic Experience and Sources of

has so dominanted analyses of motivation that other sources have

Motivational Force Experience

not received serious attention. As shown in Figure 1, a novel

feature of the present model is the proposal that strength of

Let us now move further left in Figure 1 to the sources of

engagement is another source one that contributes to the inten-

hedonic experience and the sources of motivational force experi-

sity, but not to the direction, of the motivational force experience.

ence. I begin with the subjective properties of a value target as a

The state of being engaged is to be involved, occupied, and

source of pleasure/pain hedonic experience. The subjective prop-

interested in something. Strong engagement is to concentrate on

erties of a value target (present or anticipated), given the current

something, to be absorbed or engrossed with it. Historically,

need or goal state of the perceiver, elicit or induce pleasure or pain

strength of engagement relates to the notion that people can be

of varying strengths. I want to highlight that when I use the phrase

interested in something independent of its hedonic valence, and

need or goal state I am referring not only to physiological needs

that this has value implications. Perry (1926), for example, said

or drives emphasized in the traditional psychological literature but

that an object is valuable when interest is taken in it. Ziff (1960)

also to goals, standards, shared values, and other desired endstates

said that good means answering to certain interests. Mandler

(see Lewin, 1935, 1951). It has long been recognized that pleasure

(1984) noted that what makes us attend to things also invests them

or pain of varying strengths to the properties of some target is not

with value and events that are interesting may or may not be

a function solely of the target s objective properties. It is the

positively valued. Berlyne (1973) also distinguished interesting

target s subjective properties that are critical. People do not simply

from pleasing or pleasant. Although no explicit distinction was

react to some property. They assign meaning or significance to an

made between pleasure/pain experience and strength of engage-

object s property as a function of their current need or goal state

ment, such discussions relating the value of things to being ab-

and then respond to that meaning or significance (Weber, 1967).

sorbed or occupied with them, independent of their valence, might

What is critical is the dynamic relationship between the specific

have reflected an implicit appreciation for the importance of

perceiver and specific target (Lewin, 1935, 1951).

strength of engagement as a source of value independent of va-

Hedonic pleasure/pain experience, therefore, derives not only

lence. More recently, discussions of people s experience of their

from the properties of something but also from the need or goal

life happiness or value have distinguished between value from

state of the perceiver. In classic theories of learning (Hull, 1943;

pleasure and pain experiences and value from strength of engage-

Miller & Dollard, 1941), for example, a distinction was made

ment (e.g., Seligman, 2004).

between the drive stimulus that guides the direction of movement

What is different between the present model and these proposals

and the perceiver s drive that energizes the movement. Discussing

is that the present model distinguishes explicitly between the

the perceiver s drive state, Hebb (1955, p. 249) said . . . drive is

impact of engagement strength on one s own personal experience

an energizer, but not a guide; an engine, but not a steering gear.

of what one is doing versus its impact on the value of something

People differ chronically in the level of their energizing drive

else (see also later discussion of flow ). In the present model, the

states, such as hunger, and a given person will vary in his or her

critical property of engagement for value creation is the strength of

energizing drives states from situation to situation or moment to

the engagement rather than whether the engagement activity itself

moment. The guiding drive stimulus, such as food, also varies in

happens to be pleasant or unpleasant. It is possible, for example, to

strength as a function of the stimulus own properties. The point I

be engaged strongly in a goal pursuit of some value target despite

want to emphasize here is that the component of hedonic experi-

VALUE FROM HEDONIC EXPERIENCE AND ENGAGEMENT 443

about their subjective response to the target s properties rather than

its being unpleasant as an activity or to disengage from the goal

some extraneous source of engagement strength like those shown

pursuit despite its being pleasant as an activity. What matters for

on the bottom left of Figure 1 (the aboutness principle; see

value creation is the strength of the engagement, which contributes

Higgins, 1998). This would make it likely that other sources of

to the intensity of the motivational force experience of the value

engagement strength would be overlooked by scholars and layper-

target. For instance, individuals could experience as unpleasant

sons alike, and that the emphasis would be on hedonic experience

their opposition to forces interfering with their pursuit of a positive

alone. Nonetheless, there are additional sources of engagement

value target (e.g., the effort needed to remove an obstacle), but this

strength that are extraneous to the value target s hedonic proper-

condition of opposition, by increasing engagement strength, could

ties, as shown on the bottom left of Figure 1. Before beginning a

intensify their attraction to the positive target. Conversely, indi-

more detailed discussion of these sources, I need to make three

viduals could feel positive about pursuing a goal in the right way,

additional points.

but this condition of regulatory fit, by increasing engagement

First, although Figure 1 shows only four factors opposition to

strength, could intensify their repulsion from a negative value

interfering forces, overcoming personal resistance, regulatory fit,

target.

and use of proper means this is not meant to imply that these are

Studies demonstrating both of the above phenomena are re-

the only extraneous sources of engagement strength. Indeed, later

viewed later. An everyday example of these kinds of effects occurs

I will discuss the possibility that conditions that produce arousal or

when academics review papers for potential publication. The re-

activation in excitation transfer (or misattribution) studies might

viewing process itself could be experienced as pleasant or unpleas-

also increase strength of engagement in a way that is independent

ant, but in either case the reviewers could be highly engaged in

of the value target s hedonic properties. I will also discuss how

what they are doing. According to the present model, the review-

high outcome expectancy or likelihood might also increase

ers attraction to a paper they like and repulsion from a paper they

strength of engagement. Indeed, there may be still other sources of

dislike will be more intense under conditions that make the re-

engagement strength that have yet to be identified. The four factors

viewers more strongly engaged in the review process, and this will

shown in Figure 1 were selected for special attention because they

be true both when the reviewing process itself is pleasant and when

provide a challenge to traditional, purely hedonic conceptions of

the reviewing process itself is unpleasant.

value and because the conditions that induce them are relatively

Figure 1 acknowledges that one important source of strength of

well known.

engagement is the subjective pleasure/pain properties of the value

Second, like the hedonic properties of a value target, strength of

target. Generally speaking, people tend to engage with something

engagement depends on the need or goal state of the perceiver.

more strongly when it is pleasant than when it is painful. However,

Need or goal states play a role in strength of engagement just as in

if something painful requires paying more attention to it in order to

experiencing a target s hedonic properties. Third, again compara-

take effective action, as may occur with something threatening,

ble to the hedonic properties of a value target, strength of engage-

then it can produce strong engagement. Future research is needed

ment depends on the situational conditions of the target engage-

to determine the precise nature of the relationship between the

ment, as will be seen below.

subjective pleasure/pain properties of the value target and engage-

ment strength.

As shown in Figure 1, the subjective pleasure/pain properties of Sources of Engagement Strength Extraneous to the Value

the value target have two effects one on hedonic experience and

Target s Hedonic Properties

another on strength of engagement. The effect on hedonic experi-

ence involves both direction and strength, whereas the effect on I discuss in this section four sources of engagement strength

strength of engagement involves only strength. It is likely that shown in Figure 1 opposition to interfering forces, overcoming

varying the subjective pleasure/pain properties of the value target personal resistance, regulatory fit, and use of proper means. Other

will have different consequences for the magnitude of the hedonic potential sources will be discussed later.

experience than for the strength of the engagement. Consider, for

example, alternative strategic responses to something threatening Opposition to Interfering Forces

or painful, such as paying very close attention to it or looking away

from it, or the classic coping alternatives of freezing, fainting, An important way of interacting with the environment occurs

fighting, or fleeing. As value targets threatening properties in- when people oppose forces that would make something happen

crease, the magnitude of the negative hedonic experience will they do not want to happen. Woodworth (1940), for example,

increase, but engagement strength may or may not increase. High stated that a central characteristic of people and other animals is

threat could produce high engagement, such as paying more at- that they exert considerable opposition or resistance to environ-

tention or fighting, or it could produce low engagement, such as mental forces on them in order to maintain a degree of indepen-

looking away or fainting. dence. They resist wind that is trying to blow them over and

I believe that it is the fact that experiencing a target s hedonic gravity that is trying to make them fall. They have an active

properties is a major source of engagement strength, but it is not give-and-take relationship with the environment, and value

the only source, that is critical to the thesis of the present article. springs from the individual s ability to deal effectively with some

Experiencing a value target s hedonic properties not only contrib- phase of the environment (p. 396).

utes to the direction of the value force experience, which strength When individuals oppose interfering forces, they oppose some-

of engagement does not, but often it is a major determinant of thing that would hinder, impede, or obstruct a preferred state or

strength of engagement as well. It is natural for people to experi- course of action. They oppose a choice situation that would force

ence the contribution of engagement strength to value as being them to select from an impoverished set of alternatives. This

HIGGINS

444

and opposition to this force increases strength of engagement.

opposition can create value. Lewin (1935), for example, described

Given that the participants may be assumed to begin with a

how it was natural for children to assert themselves in an opposi-

positive attitude toward their own belief, the increase in strength of

tional way to an adult prohibition or command that would interfere

engagement should increase the intensity of this positively valued

with their free movement, thereby increasing the value of their

belief.

activity. Indeed, Lewin (1935) considered such value creation

One variable that can be conceptualized as an interfering force

from opposition to interfering forces to be a realm of fundamental

is difficulty. Lewin (1935, 1951) described a force that impedes or

psychological significance.

obstructs locomotion or progress to a goal as a barrier or dif-

Value creation from opposition to interfering forces or pressure

ficulty. The difficulty can be an actual physical object blocking

is illustrated in social psychological research on reactance theory

progress, such as a bench blocking a child s path toward obtaining

(Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Wicklund, 1974). Reac-

a toy (e.g., Lewin, 1935), or it can be an authority figure s

tance theory concerns people s belief that they can significantly

prohibition of some act, or it can be the complexity of some task,

control their own destiny, and that they are free to act, believe, or

and so on. As Lewin (1935) points out, psychologically such a

feel as they see fit. It states that when a (subjectively important)

difficulty, be it physical or social, constitutes a barrier in our

freedom is threatened with elimination or is actually eliminated,

terms an interfering force.

people will react so as to protect or restore that freedom. In a study

It is important to emphasize that individuals may or may not

by Brehm, Stires, Sensenig, and Shaban (1966), participants lis-

oppose such interfering forces. Individuals sometimes choose not

tened to a taped selection from four different records for which

to engage in a difficult activity, or if they choose to engage, they

they then provided a preference ranking. They were told that they

may quit or give up at some point. In such cases, difficulty does

would receive a complimentary record when the actual records

not increase strength of engagement. Thus, one would not predict

arrived the next day, either randomly selected (for half the partic-

a simple monotonic positive relationship between difficulty and

ipants) or selected by themselves (for the other half). When they

strength of engagement. One might be tempted to predict a bell-

later arrived to pick up the complimentary record, half of the

shaped relation between difficulty and strength of engagement, but

participants learned that their third-ranked record was not included

such a prediction would overlook what it is about difficulty that

in the shipment and was thus eliminated from the choice set (the

influences strength of engagement. It is not the difficulty per se but

Choice-Elimination condition). The participants were then asked

the opposition to it that is critical. It is opposing difficulty as an

to rate again the attractiveness of all the records. The attractiveness

interfering force that increases strength of engagement. The

of the third-ranked record increased in the Choice-Elimination

amount of opposition can vary. As Brehm and Self (1989) point

condition only.

out, the effort that people put into a task depends in part on how

According to reactance theory, the underlying mechanism for

much effort is actually required to achieve their goal. Thus, dif-

value creation in this and similar studies is a motivation to reassert

ferent individuals with varying abilities will expend different

or restore a freedom that has been eliminated or threatened with

amounts of effort when engaging in a task as a function of the

elimination. In addition to this mechanism, the situation might also

amount of effort required in order to achieve success.

create value in another way. The elimination of a choice alternative

In sum, although the precise relationship between difficulty and

and the resultant pressure to make a selection from an impover-

strength of engagement is not simple, difficulty may be considered

ished option set interferes with participants preferred course of

generally as an interfering force that people will sometimes op-

action, and participants oppose this interfering force. This oppo-

pose, and when there is such opposition to difficulty as an inter-

sition should increase strength of engagement in what they are

fering force, then strength of engagement will increase. Under

doing. To the extent that receiving the to-be-eliminated record as

these conditions, difficulty will affect value. If the value target is

a gift was a positive outcome to the participants at the beginning

positive to begin with, then difficulty will intensify its positivity;

of the study, that is, their initial responses to that record were

if the value target is negative, then difficulty will intensify its

positive, then the increase in strength of engagement from oppos-

negativity. There are various studies in the psychological literature

ing an interfering force should increase that record s positive

in which the situational conditions appear to meet these criteria.

value. Studies testing Brehm s (1966) theory of reactance have

Wright (1937), for example, reports an intriguing series of studies

typically involved interfering with something participants initially

in which access to food was made more difficult by adding a

accept or like. An alternative situation would be to interfere with

barrier. In one study, the experimenter arranged plates of the same

something that individuals initially dislike and want to reject.

dessert on a serving table at various distances from where the

Opposition to the interference should once again increase strength

waitresses stood to pick them up to serve. As long as the distance

of engagement, but because the initial response to the value target

was not too great, that is, not so difficult as to make the waitresses

is negative, this time it is the negative value of the target that

not bother to try, the dessert plates further away were selected

should increase.

more than those that were closer. Another study found that kin-

There are other kinds of social psychological studies in which

dergarten children chose a more distant candy with a wire sieve

individuals oppose interfering forces. For example, in a study by

over it instead of one closer with no sieve.

Batson (1975), participants first publicly expressed a genuinely

As Lewin (1935) points out, opposition to interfering forces

held religious belief and then received information that seemed to

naturally occurs when goal-oriented activity is blocked. An espe-

disconfirm that belief. The participants who accepted the informa-

cially interesting form of such opposition is the Zeigarnik effect in

tion as accurate increased the intensity of their original religious

which a task is interrupted before completion (Lewin, 1935;

attitudes. Once again, more than one possible mechanism could

Zeigarnik, 1938). Consistent with the notion that opposition to

contribute to such an effect, but one possibility is that receiving

goal blockage as an interfering force would increase strength of

disconfirming information is experienced as an interfering force,

VALUE FROM HEDONIC EXPERIENCE AND ENGAGEMENT 445

engagement and thus enhance the value of achieving the (positive) Overcoming Personal Resistance

goal, such interruption has been found to increase the attractive-

Increased strength of engagement from opposition to interfering

ness of the interrupted task (Cartwright, 1942). Mischel and Mas-

forces occurs when individuals want to do something and yet

ters (1966) provide another early illustration of how opposition to

experience external interference when trying to do it. There are

interruption as an interfering force may intensity a positive value

also conditions when individuals themselves initially resist doing

target. In their study, an entertaining movie was interrupted by

something because it is aversive in some way, and they must

projector failure at an exciting point. A confederate posing as an

overcome their own personal resistance in order to proceed with

electrician provided different information about whether the inter-

the activity. They do something despite not wanting to do it.

ruption was or was not just temporary. When participants believed

Overcoming personal resistance also increases strength of

that the movie was unlikely to resume (i.e., their goal was

engagement.

blocked), they valued the movie more.

Value creation from overcoming personal resistance is illus-

Other kinds of opposition to interfering forces that occur during

trated in social psychological research testing cognitive dissonance

goal pursuit may also create value. For example, certain circum-

theory (Brehm & Cohen, 1962; Festinger, 1957; Wicklund &

stances surrounding an activity have the potential to disrupt (or

Brehm, 1976). According to Festinger (1957), two cognitive ele-

distract one from) completing the activity. To carry out or pay full

ments, x and y, are in a dissonant relationship to one another if

attention to the focal activity, these interfering circumstances must not-x would follow from y. According to this definition, then, the

be opposed, and the opposition can create value by increasing situational conditions in which people overcome personal resis-

strength of engagement. Importantly, the interfering circumstances tance would produce a state of dissonance because the belief that

may themselves be either pleasant or unpleasant. Regardless of the doing something is aversive, y, predicts the decision not to do it

hedonic experience of the situational conditions themselves, as (not-x), but instead people overcome their resistance and do it

strength of engagement is increased by opposing these conditions, anyhow. Instead of y and not-x occurring together, which would

then the positive or negative evaluative response to the value target make sense and should happen, y and x occur together. Dissonance

itself will intensify. The classic case of this is the pleasant distrac- theory concerns people s motivation to reduce such states of

tor resistance to temptation. In studies on resistance to tempta- dissonance in order to achieve cognitive consistency (i.e., make

tion, the participants goal is to concentrate on some focal activity sense of the world), and it considers the different ways that such

and resist paying attention to an at

Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association

Contact this candidate