Universit

de Poitiers

Centre National
de la Recherche
Scientifique

Centre de Recherche
Sur la Cognition
et lApprentissage

Rapport technique : 2008/01/M.AUD

The interactive effect of achievement motivation and task

difficulty on mental effort
Rmi L. Capa, Michel Audiffren, Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition et lApprentissage, CNRS UMR 6234, Universit
de Poitiers, France and Stphanie Ragot, CIC-INSERM, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire La Miltrie, France

A paratre dans / To appear in :

Capa, R-L., Audiffren, M. & Ragot, S. (2008). The interactive effect of achievement motivation and task difficulty on
mental effort. International Journal of Psychophysiology.

Address correspondence to:

Michel Audiffren
Laboratoire Langage, Mmoire & Dveloppement Cognitif
Maison des Sciences de lHomme et de la Socit
99 avenue du recteur Pineau
86000 Poitiers FRANCE
Phone: + 33 (0)5 49 45 46 02
Fax: + 33 (0)5 49 45 46 16
e-mail: michel.audiffren@univ-poitiers.fr

KEYWORDS: Heart rate, heart rate variability, facial muscle electromyography, achievement motivation, mental effort

ABSTRACT
The interactive effect of achievement motivation and task difficulty on invested mental effort, postulated by
Humphreys and Revelle [Humphreys, M.S., Revelle, W., 1984. Personality, motivation, and performance: a theory of the
relationship between individual differences and information processing. Psychol. Rev. 91, 153184], was examined
using behavioral, subjective, and effort-related physiological measures. Eighteen approach-driven participants and 18
avoidance-driven participants were selected based on their motive to achieve success scores and their motive to avoid
failure scores. A 23 factorial design was used, with three levels of task difficulty. As expected, approach-driven
participants performed better and had a stronger decrease of midfrequency band of heart rate variability than
avoidance-driven participants, especially during the difficult task. These results support the interactive effect of
achievement motivation and task difficulty on invested mental effort.

The mobilization of mental effort represents a compensatory strategy to protect performance in the presence of
increased task difficulty (Hockey, 1997). The impact of task difficulty on invested mental effort varies between
individuals. For example, it is well known that the effect of dysphoria or depression tendency on mental effort and
related physiological reactivity is modulated by task difficulty (Brinkmann and Gendolla, 2007, 2008). This effect has
been tested in both mental concentration and memory tasks under different clarities of task difficulty levels (i.e.,
unfixed difficulty level [do your best] and fixed difficulty level). Furthermore, Humphreys and Revelle (1984) postulated
that achievement motivation interacts with task difficulty to influence mental effort mobilization. To our knowledge,
this prediction has been explicitly tested and validated in only one published study using a reaction time task (Capa et
al., in press). The purpose of the present study was to further test the interactive effect of achievement motivation and
task difficulty on effort and related physiological reactivity.
The idea that effort mobilization should be a function of the perceived difficulty is not new. It first appeared in the
difficulty law of motivation, formulated by Ach (1910) and then by Kukla (1972). Kukla (1972), for example, reasoned
that a person's intention to try to perform a task would vary with the task's perceived difficulty. Tasks that are
perceived as easy will result in an intention to try a little, tasks that are difficult will result in an intention to try hard,
and tasks that are impossible will result in an intention not to try. More recently, the motivational intensity theory
states that effort expenditure is directly dependent on perceived difficulty (see Brehm and Self, 1989; Gendolla and
Wright, 2005; Wright and Kirby, 2001; for reviews). Specifically, the amount of effort expended in performing a task is
predicted to increase proportionally with the level of perceived difficulty. The higher the subjective difficulty level, the
more the individual invests effort in the task. Disengagement occurs when the level of difficulty is perceived as
impossible. A linear relationship between perceived difficulty and invested mental effort as long as success is possible
and justified was confirmed in several studies using physiological measures. Results from a number of studies indicate
that effortrelated physiological reactivity is more pronounced and sustained under moderately difficult conditions than
under easy or impossible conditions (Aasman et al., 1987; Gendolla and Krsken, 2001; Light and Obrist, 1983; Wright
and Lockard, 2006; Wright et al., 2003). The effect of subjective difficulty on effort-related physiological reactivity is
perhaps one of the most robust findings reported in the psychophysiology literature. Recently, researchers have turned
their attention into the effect of subjective difficulty that mediates the relationship between individual differences and
mental effort mobilization.

Subjective difficulty should mediate the relationship between achievement motivation and invested mental effort. This
dispositional factor is determined by the strength of the motive to achieve success relative to the motive to avoid
failure (Atkinson and Raynor, 1974; McClelland et al., 1953). The motive to achieve success reflects a relatively stable
personality disposition to strive for success, and to desire and work toward accomplishing challenging personal and
professional goals (Atkinson and Raynor, 1974; McClelland et al., 1953). The motive to avoid failure is a relatively stable
personality disposition to avoid and anticipate negative affects of failure outcomes in terms of shame, embarrassment,
humiliation, loss of status and esteem (Atkinson and Raynor, 1974; McClelland et al., 1953). Persons high in the motive
to achieve success and low in the motive to avoid failure are considered as approach-driven individuals. Conversely,
persons lowin the motive to achieve success and high in the motive to avoid failure are considered as avoidance-driven
individuals.
Based on the description of approach and avoidance-driven individuals above, we had two primary expectations. First,
we expected that achievement motivation would interact with subjective difficulty to influence invested mental effort.
One implicationwas that approach-driven individuals are expected to mobilize more mental effort than avoidancedriven individuals, especially during difficult tasks. Second, we expected that approach-driven individuals would not
differ in perceived difficulty during the experimental task. One implication was that for the same level of perceived
difficulty, approach-driven individuals would mobilize more mental effort than avoidance-driven individuals, especially
during difficult tasks. Another assumption was that both approach and avoidance-driven individuals would disengage
when task difficulty is extremely high.

METHOD
SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS
MOTIVE MEASURES
A total of 710 (316 male, 394 female) students enrolled in psychology courses at the University of Poitiers filled out a
measure of the motive to achieve success and of the motive to avoid failure. The mean age was 21.06 years (SD=4.27).
The motive to achieve success measure focused on the preference for difficult tasks1. We referred to the
corresponding subscale of the Achievement Motivation Inventory (AMI), a multi-faceted measure of achievement
motivation developed by Schuler et al. (2004), to construct four items such as I generally prefer difficult tasks more
than easy tasks. In order to assess the motive to avoid failure, we referred to the work of Hagtvet and Benson (1997)
and formulated four items such as I dislike situations in which I am not sure of the result. Ratings were made on 5point scales ranging from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (5).

VALIDITY OF MOTIVE MEASURES

The Cronbach's alpha for the motive to achieve success and the motive to avoid failure scales were =.81 (M=3.10;
SD=.76), and =.69 (M=3.16; SD=.77), respectively. The univariate skewness of the motive to achieve success ranged
from .24 to .06 and its univariate kurtosis ranged from .72 to .24. The univariate skewness of the motive to avoid
failure ranged from .70 to .24 and its univariate kurtosis ranged from .93 to .14. In the context of analyses, based
on individual items (West et al., 1995), these results are acceptable.

SELECTION CRITERIA AND SELECTED PARTICIPANTS

Participants were classified as approach-driven, if their score (i.e., mean of the four items) of the motive to achieve
success equaled 3.75 or higher (above the 80th percentile), and if their score of the motive to avoid failure equaled 2.50
1

Fineman (1977) stated that the motive to achieve success is a multidimensional concept and that the measurement of the motive
should focus on a particular domain related to the criterion tasks under study. We chose to focus on the preference for diff icult
tasks to increase the predictive validity of the motive for engaging. This motive disposition is assumed to drive individuals to
mobilize effort particularly during difficult tasks.

or less (below the 20th percentile). Participants were classified as avoidance-driven, if their score of the motive to
achieve success equaled 2.50 or less (below the 20th percentile), and if their score of the motive to avoid failure
equaled 3.75 or higher (above the 80th percentile). Based on the selection criteria, 53 approach-driven participants and
79 avoidance-driven participants were selected from the sample of 710 participants.
Participants
Twenty three of the 53 participants selected as approach-driven and 27 of the 72 participants selected as avoidancedriven volunteered to take part in the study. The 50 participants responded again to the measures of the motive to
achieve success and of the motive to avoid failure. This procedure was an experimental precaution to ascertain of the
stability of the participants' characteristics. A selfreport motive is built on a participant's self-image. As a result, a
participant's self-image is determined by social pressures (e.g., cultural norms and parental values) which probably
yielded instability between the first and second motive measures. Instability of the participants' characteristics may
also be attributed to the poor psychometric properties of the motive measures. However, these motive measures
demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties on the previous sample of 710 participants. As a result of this
procedure, five approach-driven participants and nine avoidancedriven participants were excluded from the study
because this time they did not reach the selection criteria. Analyses were conducted on the results of 18 approachdriven participants (nine male) and 18 avoidance-driven participants (nine male).

MEASURES
A 16-item achievement motivation subscale from the French version of the Personality Research Form (PRF; Jackson,
1999) was administrated in order to measure the motive to achieve success. As there is no validated scale of the motive
to avoid failure in French, the 20-item from the French version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger
and Vagg, 1995) was used as an indicator of the motive to avoid failure2. Participants indicated their responses on 5point scales ranging from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (5). Characteristics of the participants are
presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Participants' characteristics
Group
Approach-driven
Avoidance-driven

M
SD
M
SD

Age

MAS

MAF

PRF

STAI

21.87
2.06
21.78
1.83

4.17
.49
2.24
.65

1.97
.53
3.90
.40

3.50
.62
2.51
.43

2.35
.47
2.70
.53

Note: M=mean scores; SD=standard deviations; MAS=motive to achieve success; MAF=motive to avoid failure;
PRF=personality research form; STAI=state-trait anxiety inventory
Approach-driven participants had a higher PRF score and a lower STAI score than that of avoidance-driven participants,
t(17)=4.85, p<.001, and t(17)=2.38, p<.03, respectively. Correlations among the personality scales are presented in
Table 2.

Elliot and McGregor (1999) specify that the trait anxiety and the motive to avoid failure are distinct but convergent factors .
Consequently, a trait anxiety measure can be a good indicator of the motive to avoid failure level.

Table 2
Correlations between scores from MAS, PRF, MAF, and STAI Scales

MAS
PRF
MAF
STAI

MAS

PRF

MAF

STAI

.77*
.82*
.55*

.60*
.40*

.52*

Note: MAS=motive to achieve success; PRF=personality research form; MAF=motive to avoid failure; STAI=state-trait
anxiety inventory.
* p<.05.

In the present study, invested mental effort is measured based on a behavioral, a subjective, and a physiological
approach. Performance (i.e., reaction time and reaction time variance) in an information transfer task is assumed to be
a monotonically increasing function of the amount of allocated resources (Humphreys and Revelle, 1984).We used
three common subjective measures: (a) the perceived difficulty scale (e.g., Eccles and Wigfield,1995); (b) the task load
index (Hart and Staveland, 1988); (c) and the rating scale for mental effort (Zijlstra, 1993)3. Beside behavioral and
subjective measurement methods, cardiovascular reactivity is used to investigate invested mental effort. In the present
study, we used heart rate and heart rate variability. Studies showed that an increase in invested mental effort is related
to an increase of heart rate (e.g., Gellatly and Meyer, 1992). However, heart rate is influenced by both sympathetic and
parasympathetic nervous system and should only respond to effort mobilization when the sympathetic impact is
stronger (Berntson et al., 1993). Askelrod et al. (1981) introduced power spectral analysis of heart rate fluctuations to
quantitatively evaluate beat-to-beat cardiovascular control. The sympathetic nervous system reacts rather slowly and
therefore is reflected mainly in the midfrequency band ranging from .07 to .14 Hz. Fluctuations in this band are
associated with short-term regulation of blood pressure which causes a resonance in the veins with a frequency of
about .10 Hz (Mulder et al., 1995). Variability in this band has been shown to decrease during effortful mental
processing in both laboratory (Mulder et al., 1995) and operational environments (e.g., Veltman, 2002). The amplitude
of the midfrequency band is reduced during effortful mental processing because heart rate variability is less
determined by changes in blood pressure. The midfrequency band is a good index of invested mental effort under the
condition that this band is not influenced by respiratory activity (Mulder et al., 1995). Respiratory activity influences
heart rate by rhythmically attenuating the vagal influence and thus producing a rhythmic increase and decrease in heart
rate at the same frequency as respiration. Variations in the high-frequency band ranging from .15 to .40 Hz mainly
reflect respiratory activity (Askelrod et al., 1981). The amplitude of the high-frequency band is reduced during effortful
mental processing by an increase in respiration activity. The third effort-related physiological index used is facial
electromyographic (EMG) activity. Increasing facial EMG activity, especially for the corrugator supercilii, is an expression
of growing compensatory effort necessary for counteracting decrement in performance efficiency caused by

The exact amount of mobilized resources is often predicted in literature by a subjective workload or task difficulty instrument (e.g.,
Ryu and Myung, 2005). However, invested mental effort and task difficulty are distinct factors. Effort refers to mental energy or
attentional resources voluntarily allocated to a task. Task difficulty or workload refers to the quantity of mental energy or attentional
resources necessary to perform a task (Kahneman, 1973). In the present study, we used subjective difficulty measures to ascertain of
the task difficulty manipulation.

habituation, boredom, and fatigue (Van Boxtel and Jessurun, 1993; Veldhuizen et al., 2003; Waterink and van Boxtel,
1994)4.

TASK
The experimental task was a visual memory search task. There were three blocks of different levels of difficulty. Each
block was composed of 64 trials. Participants had to memorize either 1, 2, or 4 letter(s) (memory set) and compare with
4 letters in a recognition set. The time course of a trial is presented in Fig. 1.

Figure 1. Time course of a trial of the visual memory search task. Example of a relevant target trial with a correct
response and a response time feedback of 512 ms. A first warning signal was presented before the memory set. A
second warning signal was presented before the recognition set. The recognition set consonants were presented at the
corners of a 2.5 cm by 2.5 cm square centered on the middle of the computer screen. At the end of each trial,
participants received knowledge of result concerning the speed in milliseconds of their response.

The task was to indicate if any letter in the memory set was in the recognition set by pressing the yes key on the
joystick with the right index. If none of the memory letters were in the recognition set, participants pressed the no
key on the joystick with the right thumb. The probability that a letter in the recognition set appeared or not was equal.
At the end of each trial, participants received feedback on their reaction time (Fig.1) which concerned the response
speed or the type of error (i.e., anticipation [reaction time<150 ms], too slow response [reaction time>3000 ms], and
decision error). Difficulty was also manipulated by presenting the recognition set in two different colors (red or green).
Participants were asked to count the number of red recognition sets while carrying out the visual memory search task 5.
The three memory conditions with 1, 2, and 4 consonants are composed of 28, 32, and 44 red recognition sets,
respectively. Participants were instructed to react as quickly as possible without making errors and to count the
number of red recognition sets. At the end of each block, participants indicated the number of red recognition sets.
They received feedback on average reaction time and number of errors for the visual memory search task and the
correct number of red recognition sets for the counting task.
4

EMG activity of frontalis and orbicularis oris inferior are also used as an expression of growing compensatory effort (Van Boxtel and
Jessurun, 1993; Waterink and vanBoxtel, 1994). Activity of frontalis was not measured because of the practical and technical
difficulties associated with simultaneously recording EMG signals from different closely spaced locations on the face of each
participant. In previous study, activity of orbicularis oris inferior was contaminated by motion artifacts associated with lips
movements (the participants have to perform a counting task). We decided, consequently, not to measure orbicularis oris inferior
activity.
5

The dual-task condition was used for a main reason. Aasman et al. (1987), using a similar task, found no effect of increased
difficulty on heart rate variability when this task was performed under single-task conditions (i.e., visual memory search task).
However, the effects on heart rate variability were evident under dual-task conditions (i.e., visual memory search task and counting
task).

SUBJECTIVE MEASURES
To measure perceived difficulty, we referred to Eccles and Wigfield (1995) scale in order to construct four items. One
such example is the following: How hard is this task for you? Participants responded on a scale of 1 (very easy) to 5
(very difficult) scale6.
The task load index (Hart and Staveland,1988) used six dimensions (i.e., mental demand, physical demand, temporal
demand, performance, effort, and frustration) to assess perceived workload. A score from 0 to 10 is obtained on each
dimension. A weighting procedure was used to combine the six dimension ratings into a global score. The weighting
procedure required the participants to choose which dimension was more relevant to workload across all pairs of six
dimensions.
The rating scale for mental effort (Zijlstra, 1993) was used to assess the participants' perceived level of invested mental
effort. The rating scale for mental effort was a univariate scale. This scale ranged from 0 to 150 and had nine descriptive
indicators along its axis (e.g., not effortful, awfully effortful).

PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASURES
A POLAR Heart Rate Monitor (POLAR Vantage NV, Kempele, Finland) was used to measure heart rate. The heart rate
signal was digitized at 1000 Hz. The RR interval sequences were visually inspected, and the data considered as
artifactual were manually replaced by interpolated or extrapolated data (mean of the three values preceding). The
amount of abnormal beats, due to the RR recording device used,was less than 2%. Then, suitable series of 256 RR
intervals were chosen for analysis. The heart rate (beats per minute [bpm]) was obtained from each 256 RR interval.
The fast Fourier transform spectra were also calculated from this 256 RR interval with HRV analysis software 1.1 for
Windows (Niskanen et al., 2004). The default values of the HRV analysis software were set for the detrending
procedure (smoothness prior to trend and eye model) and for the interpolation rate (2 Hz). To approach normal
distribution of the data for statistical analysis, the spectral power values were transformed into logarithmic values.
EMG activity of the corrugator supercilii muscle pertaining to the left side of the face was recorded. Electrode locations
were chosen according to the guidelines presented by Fridlund and Cacioppo (1986). EMG activity was recorded by
Ag/AgCl surface electrodes with electrode size, contact area, and housing of 3, 5, and 13 mm diameter, respectively.
Electrodes were attached to the skin with centers 15 mm apart. The reference electrode was an anti-static bracelet
placed on the non-dominant ankle. The EMG was continuously monitored (gain 1000), filtered (3 Hz1 kHz) (Model
P511K, Grass Instrument Co., USA), and digitized on-line (A/D rate: 500Hz). Artifacts such as coughing, yawing,
stretching or other gross movements detected by the experimenterwere omitted for the analysis. The mean EMG
amplitude score was calculated and presented in microvolts.

PROCEDURE
Before the experimental task, participants received specific behavioral instructions which informed them to resist the
consummation of psychoactive substances (e.g., tobacco, coffee, tea, or alcohol) and also to avoid stressful events or
physical exercise during 4 h prior to the experimental session. Upon entering the laboratory, participants received
information on the experimental protocol and were required to give written consent. Two EMG electrodes and the
POLAR Heart Rate Monitor were attached to the participants who sat quietly for 10 min whilst baseline data were
collected. Following the baseline period, participants filled out the achievement motivation subscale of the PRF, the
STAI, as well the motive to achieve success scale and the motive to avoid failure scale. Results are presented in Tables 1
and 2. At the end of this period and after receiving 32 practice trials for each memory load, participants were randomly

On a sample of 469 participants who performed a mental rotation test, the reliability for the perceived difficulty scale was =.87
(M=3.48; SD=.83). The univariate skewness ranged from -.11 to .19 and the univariate kurtosis ranged from .14 to .48.

assigned to one of the three experimental conditions. After each task block, participants filled out the perceived
difficulty scale, the task load index, and the rating scale for mental effort.

DATA ANALYSIS
All the data were entered into a repeated-measures ANOVA design with one between-participant variable (i.e.,
approachdriven and avoidance-driven participants) and one within-participant variable (i.e., three levels of memory
load conditions: 1, 2, or 4 consonants). The GreenhouseGeisser correction, an adjustment used in univariate repeated
measures when the sphericity assumption is violated, was applied to study the effect of task difficulty and interaction.
Reactivity was calculated by subtracting values for each baseline period from the values of each corresponding
condition.

RESULTS
Means and standard deviations of the baseline of physiological measures, the behavioral data, the subjective data, and
the physiological data across stimuli conditions are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Means and standard deviations of the baseline of physiological measures, the behavioral data, the subjective data, and
the physiological data across stimuli conditions
Baseline

MRT
RTV
EVMS
EC
PD
TLX
RSME
HR
MFB
HFB
CS

Memory load

76.18 (12.50)
1.6 (.17)
1.49 (.22)
89.66 (28.92)

872.94 (211.57)
51,986.13 (25,648.90)
.40 (.20)
2.77 (.56)
10.19 (2.51)
5.63 (1.07)
62.36 (15.70)
75.77 (12.06)
1.55 (.20)
1.57 (.20) 1
92.80 (37.94)

1070.50 (213.96)
75,417.87 (29,511.26)
.52 (.26)
2.62 (.70)
11.92 (2.60)
6.17 (1.07)
69.64 (16.98)
75.94 (11.50)
1.52 (.16)
.58 (.20)
103.44 (78.29)

1381.01 (316.02)
151,541.32 (81,553.25)
.73 (.20)
2.63 (.42)
14.56 (2.09)
6.71 (1.19)
78.39 (16.53)
77.91 (12.12)
1.48 (.15)
1.62 (.17)
106.39 (79.44)

Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses. MRT=mean reaction time; RTV=reaction variance; EVMS=error in visual
memory search; EC=error in counting; PD=perceived difficulty; TLX=task load index; RSME=rating scale for mental
effort; HR=heart rate; MFB=midfrequency band; HFB=high-frequency band; CS=corrugator supercilii.

BEHAVIORAL DATA
In order to detect potential changes in speed-accuracy trade-off between groups, a 23 ANOVA was carried out on the
arcsinustransformed proportion of errors in the visual memory search task and in the counting task. Since no group
differences were found for the proportion of errors in the visual memory search task and in the counting task (all p
values >.12), we compared the mean reaction time and reaction time variance of the approach-driven participants with
those of the avoidance-driven participants.

A 23 ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between groups and task difficulty in the mean reaction time,
F(1.34,45.60)=4.33, p<.03, 2p =11 (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Mean reaction times (ms) as a function of approach-driven vs. avoidance-driven participants and memory
load. Error bars give standard errors of cell means.

As expected, approach-driven participants had a faster mean reaction time, especially during the difficult task.
Students' t tests revealed significant differences between the approach-driven and the avoidance-driven groups in the
memory load of 1, 2, and 4 consonants, t(17)=2.70, p<.01, d=.39, t(17)=2.46, p<.02, d=.28, and t(17)=3.61, p<.002,
d=.41, respectively. A 23 ANOVA revealed the predicted effect of group, and task difficulty based on the mean
reaction time and reaction time variance.
Specifically, approach-driven participants showed faster mean reaction time and lower reaction time variance
(M=994.91 ms and M=75,550.32 ms2, respectively) than avoidance-driven participants (M=1221.39 ms and
M=110,413.23 ms2, respectively), F(1,34)=11.23, p<.002, 2p = 11, and F(1,34)=8.30, p<.007, 2p =.20, respectively. Mean
reaction time and reaction time variance increased as task difficulty increased, F(1.34,45.60)=166.36, p<.001, 2p =83,
and F(1.16,39.38)=58.17, p<.001, 2p = 63, respectively. Mean reaction time and reaction time variancewere higher in
thememory load of 2 consonants compared to the 1 consonant load, t(35)=10.7, pb.001, d=1.31, and t(35)=5.42,
pb.001, d=1.20, respectively.Mean reaction time and reaction time variancewere higher in thememory load of 4
consonants compared to the 2 consonants, t(35)=10.47, p<.001, d=1.63, and t(35)=7.34, p<.001, d=1.76, respectively.
The proportion of errors in the visual memory search task increased as task difficulty increased, F(1.91,65.10)=35.74,
pb.001, 2p = 51. The proportion of errors was lower for the 1 consonant load compared to the 2 consonants load,
t(35)=2.63, pb.01, d=.69, and higher for the 4 consonants load compared to the 2 consonants load, t(35)=5.48, p<.001,
d=1.36. No other effect was significant.

SUBJECTIVE DATA
Before testing the interactive effect of achievement motivation and task difficulty on the effort scale of the rating scale
for mental effort, the effect of task difficulty on the sum of perceived difficulty scores and the workload score of the
task load index was examined with a 23 ANOVA. Perceived difficulty and workload scores increased as task difficulty
increased, reflecting a successful task difficulty manipulation, F(1.83,62.40)=62.40, p<.001, 2p =.65, and
F(1.66,56.52)=23.33, p<.001, 2p =41, respectively. The sum of perceived difficulty scores was lowest for the 1 consonant
load compared to the 2 consonants load, t(35)=5.30, p<.001, d=.95, and highest for the 4 consonants load compared to
the 2 consonants load, t(35) =6.65, p<.001, d=1.58. The workload score of the task load index was lowest for the 1
consonant load compared to the 2 consonants load, t(35) =3.64, p<.001, d=.71, and highest for the 4 consonants load
compared to the 2 consonants load, t(35)=4.20, p<.001, d= .58.
A 23 ANOVA revealed that the effort score of the rating scale for mental effort was only sensitive to the task difficulty
manipulation and increased as memory load increased, F(1.73,58.76)=34.75, p<.001, 2p =.51. The effort score of the
rating scale for mental effort task was lowest for the 1 consonant load compared to the 2 consonants load, t(35)=2.63,
p<.01, d=.69, and highest for the 4 consonants load compared to the 2 consonants load, t(35)=5.48, p<.001, d=1.36. No
other effect was significant.

PHYSIOLOGICAL REACTIVITY
The first step in the analysiswas to examinewhether the two groups differed between rest periods. AMANOVAwas
conductedwith group as between-subject factor and baseline of high-frequency band, midfrequency band, heart rate,
and corrugator supercilii activity as dependent variables. There were no baseline differences between groups, Wilks'
=.82, F(4,31)=1.69, p=.18, 2p =.18. Since no group differences were found, we compared the reactivity score of the
approach-driven participants with those of the avoidance-driven participants.
In order to detect differences of respiratory activity between groups and/or across stimuli conditions, a 23 ANOVA was
carried out on the high-frequency band. Since no effect was significant (all p values >.14), we can use the midfrequency
band as a good index of invested mental effort. A 23 ANOVA of midfrequency band revealed a significant interaction
2
between groups and task difficulty, F(1.75,59.42) =3.53, p<.04, p=.09 (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Cell means and standard errors of midfrequency band reactivity as a function of approach-driven vs.
avoidance-driven participants and memory load.
10

Approach-driven participants showed a decrease of midfrequency band reactivity when task difficulty increased but not
avoidance-driven participants. Students' t tests revealed a significant difference between approach-driven and
avoidance-driven groups in the memory load of 4 consonants, t(17)=3.06, p<.008, d=1.55. Only the midfrequency band
of the approach-driven group seems to be affected by the task difficulty. Thiswas confirmed by a supplementary
analysis. Scores of the midfrequency band reactivity were analyzed with a linear polynomial contrast. Contrasts weights
were +1 for the approach-driven group and 0 for the avoidance-driven group.A significant linear trend between task
difficulty and midfrequency band reactivity emerged, F(1,34)=10.02, p<.003, 2p =.38. No other effect was significant.
A 2 3 ANOVA revealed the predicted effect of group on midfrequency band reactivity, F(1,34)=4.83, p<.03, 2p =.12.
Specifically, approach-driven participants had a stronger decrease of midfrequency band reactivity than (M=.18) the
avoidance-driven participants (M=.07). A 23 ANOVA of the midfrequency band, and heart rate reactivity revealed the
experimental effect of task difficulty, F(1.75,59.42)=3.49, p<.04, 2p =.09, and F(1.91,64.95)=7.76, p<.001, 2p =.19,
respectively. Heart rate reactivity was higher in the 2 consonants load compared to the 4 consonants load, t(35)=3.88,
p<.004, d=.46. No other effect was significant. A 2 (group)3 (task difficulty)ANOVAof corrugator supercilii revealed no
significant effect.

DISCUSSION
In the present study, the interactive effect of achievement motivation and task difficulty on effort mobilization,
postulated by Humphreys and Revelle (1984), was investigated using behavioral, subjective, and physiological
measures. We assumed that approachdriven participants would invest more effort than avoidance-driven participants
as task difficulty increased.

BEHAVIORAL AND SUBJECTIVE RESULTS

The performance deterioration (i.e., mean reaction time) was less for approach-driven participants than for avoidancedriven participants, especially during the difficult condition (i.e., the memory load of 4 consonants). Analyses of the
proportion of errors in the visual memory search and counting tasks revealed no significant difference between groups.
In consequence, we can conclude there was no speed-accuracy trade-off between groups. The better performance
showed by approach-driven participants compared to avoidancedriven participants is interpreted as a higher
mobilization of effort. It is possible that approach-driven participants had greater ability to perform the experimental
task than avoidance-driven participants. Correspondingly, for the same level of invested mental effort, approach-driven
participants showed better performance than avoidance- driven participants. However, if approach-driven participants
had greater ability to perform the task, then they should have perceived the task as more easy than avoidance-driven
participants. In the present study, no group difference was found for the perceived difficulty scale and the task load
index.We concluded that as no group difference was found for the perceived difficulty scale and the task load index
that there was likely no significant difference of perceived difficulty between groups.

MIDFREQUENCY BAND REACTIVITY

The better performance showed by approach-driven participants compared to avoidance-driven participants can also
be interpreted as a greater mobilization of mental effort because approach-driven participants had a stronger decrease
of midfrequency band reactivity than avoidance-driven participants during the difficult condition. In several studies it
was found that midfrequency band diminished during mental task performance (Miyake, 2001; Mulder et al., 1995; Ryu
and Myung, 2005). This decrease is related to the amount of effort that is invested in task performance. We concluded
that approachdriven participants invested more mental effort than avoidancedriven participants, especially during the
difficult task. This interpretation is in accordance with the interactive effect of achievement motivation and task
difficulty on mental effort postulated by Humphreys and Revelle (1984). Another interpretation of the results is that
achievement motivation has influenced potential motivation. The importance of success determines the level of
potential motivation which is the amount of resources that is maximally justified for goal attainment (see Brehm and
11

Self, 1989; Gendolla and Wright, 2005; Wright and Kirby, 2001; for reviews). Puca and Schmalt (1999) postulated that
approach-driven participants should focus on the positive emotional consequences of success, whereas
avoidancedriven participants should focus on the negative emotional consequences of failure. One possible implication
is that approach-driven participants should have a high potential motivation. This hypothesis is in accordance with the
results obtained. Approach-driven participants showed a linear decrease of midfrequency band reactivity when task
difficulty increased. Potential motivation was probably so high that even for the highest difficulty level effort was
justified. Another possible implication is that avoidance-driven participants should have a low potential motivation. This
hypothesis is in accordance with the absence of effect of task difficulty on the midfrequency band for the approachdriven participants. Potential motivation was probably so low that even for the lowest difficulty level effort was not
justified.

HEART RATE REACTIVITY

No significant interactive effect of achievement motivation and task difficulty on heart rate reactivity was found.
Moreover, no difference between the 1 consonant load in comparison with the 2 consonants loadwas significant. Heart
rate reactivity increased only in the memory load of 4 consonants compared to the 2 consonants load. The
experimental task was probably too easy to highlight the interactive effect of achievement motivation and task
difficulty on heart rate reactivity. A relatively weak sympathetic (beta-adrenergic) reactivity may not affect heart rate
reactivity significantly under conditions of low to moderate effort demand (Berntson et al., 1993). Subjective measures
confirmed this possibility. Participants perceived the 1 and 2 consonants load as relatively easy and the 4 consonants
load as a moderate level of difficulty. In future studies, the test of the interactive effect of achievement motivation and
task difficulty on heart rate reactivity requires comparing tasks perceived as highly difficult to tasks perceived as weakly
difficult rather than comparing tasks of moderate difficulty to tasks of low difficulty. Moreover, as difficulty of the 4
consonant load was moderate, we could not test the hypothesis that both approach and avoidance-driven participants
should disengage when task difficulty is extremely high. In future studies, to test this hypothesis, participants will have
to perform an extremely difficult task.

CONCLUSION
In a previous study, Capa et al. (in press) provided the first evidence for the interactive effect of achievement
motivation and task difficulty on effort-related physiological reactivity in a sensory-motor processing task. In the
present study, we wished to conceptually replicate and extend the Capa et al. (in press) experiment. In contrast to Capa
et al. (in press),whowere concerned by the effect of achievementmotivation, as well as task and goal difficulty, we
exclusively focused on the interactive effect of achievement motivation and task difficulty on invested mental effort.
Consequently, we opted for a less complex and more direct experimental design. We chose an experimental task
containing three levels of task difficulty (rather than two). This allowed us to extend the effect of achievement
motivation on the linear relationship between subjective difficulty and invested mental effort. The interaction between
groups and task difficulty on mean reaction timeandmidfrequency bandwas only significantwhen the difficult task (i.e.,
memory load of 2 consonants) was compared to the very difficult task (i.e., memory load of 4 consonants). However, no
interactive effect was significant when the easy task (i.e., memory load of 1 consonant) was compared to the difficult
task. In conclusion, the test of the interactive effect of achievement motivation and task difficulty requires comparing
very difficult tasks to difficult or easy tasks rather than comparing difficult tasks to easy tasks. Moreover, a new
experimental taskwas used. Contrary to the sensory-motor processing task used in the previous study,we chose a
cognitive task that demanded a minimumof motor movement from the participants to ensure that physiological
reactivity could be attributed to the mobilization of mental effort rather than to metabolic movement effects. In
addition, in the present experiment, the cognitive task was a visual memory search task with counting that involved
executive functions such as updating ofworking memory. Thus, the present study has for the first time established a link
between cardiovascular reactivity, performance task that taxed executive functions, and achievement motivation. In

12

conclusion, the fact that this interactive effect on cardiovascular reactivity and mean reaction time holds true for two
different types of cognitive tasks and experimental designs makes us confident that the findings can be generalized.

REFERENCES
Aasman, J., Mulder, G., Mulder, L.J.M., 1987. Operator effort and the measurement of heart-rate variability. Hum. Factors 29, 161
170.
Ach, N., 1910. Uber den Willensakt und das Temperament. Quelle und Meyer, Leipzig.
Askelrod, S., Gordon, D., Ubel, F.A., Shannon, D.C., Barger, A.C., Cohen, R.J., 1981. Power spectrum analysis of heart rate fluctuations:
a quantitative probe of beat-to-beat cardiovascular control. Science 213, 220222.
Atkinson, J.W., Raynor, J.O., 1974. Motivation and Achievement. V. H. Winston, Washington D.C.
Berntson, G.G., Cacioppo, J.T., Quigley, K.S., 1993. Cardiac psychophysiology and autonomic space in humans: empirical perspectives
and conceptual implications. Psychol. Bull. 114, 296322.
Brehm, J.W., Self, E.A.,1989. The intensity of motivation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 40,109131.
Brinkmann, K., Gendolla, G.H.E., 2007. Dysphoria and mobilization of mental effort: effects on cardiovascular reactivity. Motiv. Emot.
31, 7182.
Brinkmann, K., Gendolla, G.H.E., 2008. Does depression interfere with effort mobilization? Effects of dysphoria and task difficulty on
cardiovascular response. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 146157.
Capa, R.L., Audiffren, M., Ragot, S., in press. The effects of achievement motivation, task difficulty, and goal difficulty on
physiological, behavioral, and subjective effort. Psychophysiology.
Eccles, J.S., Wigfield, A., 1995. In the mind of the actor: the structure of adolescents' achievement task values and expectancy-related
beliefs. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 21, 215225.
Elliot, A.J., McGregor, H.A., 1999. Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76, 628644.
Fridlund, A.J., Cacioppo, J.T., 1986. Guidelines for human electromyographic research. Psychophysiology 23, 567589.
Fineman, S., 1977. The achievement motive construct and its measurement: where are we now? Br. J. Psychol. 68, 122.
Gellatly, I.R., Meyer, J.P., 1992. The effects of goal difficulty on physiological arousal, cognition, and task performance. J. Appl.
Psychol. 77, 694704.
Gendolla, G.H.E., Krsken, J., 2001. The joint impact of mood state and task difficulty on cardiovascular and electrodermal reactivity
in active coping. Psychophysiology 38, 548556.
Gendolla, G.H.E., Wright, R.A., 2005. Motivation in social settings studies of effortrelated cardiovascular arousal. In: Forgas, J.P.,
Williams, K.D., Laham, S.M. (Eds.), Social Motivation: Conscious and Unconscious Processes. Cambridge University
Press, New York, pp. 7190.
Hagtvet, K.A., Benson, J., 1997. The motive to avoid failure and test anxiety responses: empirical support for integration of two
research traditions. Anxiety Stress Coping 10, 3557.
Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E., 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In:
Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N. (Eds.), Human Mental Workload. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 139178.
Hockey, G.R.J., 1997. Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: a cognitiveenergetical framework. Biol. Psychol. 45, 7393.
Humphreys, M.S., Revelle,W., 1984. Personality, motivation, and performance: a theory of the relationship between individual
differences and information processing. Psychol. Rev. 91, 153184.
Jackson, D.N., 1999. PRF-Formule E. Research Psychologists Press. Kahneman, D., 1973. Attention and Effort. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs. Kukla, A., 1972. Foundations of an attributional theory of performance. Psychol. Rev. 79, 454470.
Light, K.C., Obrist, P.A., 1983. Task difficulty, heart rate reactivity, and cardiovascular responses to an appetitive reaction time task.
Psychophysiology 20, 301312.
McClelland, D.C., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R.A., Lowell, E.L., 1953. The achievement motive. Appleton Century Crofts, East Norwalk, CT.
Miyake, S., 2001. Multivariate workload evaluation combining physiological and subjective measures. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 40, 233
238.
Mulder, L.J.M., Van Roon, A.M., Veldman, J.B.P., Elgersma, A.F., Mulder, G., 1995. Respiratory pattern, invested effort, and variability
in heart rate and blood pressure during the performance of mental tasks. In: Di Rienzo, M., Mancia, G., Parati, G., Pedotti, A.,
Zanchetti, A. (Eds.), Computer analysis of Cardiovascular Signals. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 219233.
Niskanen, J.P., Tarvainen, M.P., Ranta-Aho, P.O., Karjalainen, P.A., 2004. Software for advanced HRV analysis. Comput. Methods
Programs Biomed. 76, 7381.
Puca, R.M., Schmalt, H.D., 1999. Task enjoyment: a mediator between achievement motives and performance. Motiv. Emot. 23, 15
29.
Ryu, K., Myung, R., 2005. Evaluation of mental workload with a combined measure based on physiological indices during a dual task
of tracking and mental arithmetic. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 35, 9911009.

13

Schuler, H., Thornton III, G.C., Frintrup, A., Mueller-Hanson, R., 2004. AMI: achievement motivation inventory. Technical and User's
Manual. Hogrefe, Goettingen.
Spielberger, C.D., Vagg, P.R., 1995. Test Anxiety: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. Taylor and Francis, Washington.
Van Boxtel, A., Jessurun, M., 1993. Amplitude and bilateral coherency of facial and jawelevator EMG activity as an index of effort
during a two-choice serial reaction task. Psychophysiology 30, 589604.
Veldhuizen, I.J.T., Gaillard, A.W.K., de Vries, J., 2003. The influence of mental fatigue on facial EMG activity during a simulated
workday. Biol. Psychol. 63, 5978.
Veltman, J.A., 2002. A comparative study of psychophysiological reactions during simulator and real flight. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 12,
3348.
Waterink, W., van Boxtel, A., 1994. Facial and jaw-elevator EMG activity in relation to changes in performance level during a
sustained information processing task. Biol. Psychol. 37, 183198.
West, S.G., Finch, J.F., Curran, P.J., 1995. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables. In: Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Structural
Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 5675.
Wright, R.A., Kirby, L.D., 2001. Effort determination of cardiovascular response: an integrative analysis with applications in social
psychology. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 33, 255307.
Wright, R.A., Lockard, S., 2006. Sex, outcome expectancy, and cardiovascular response to a masculine challenge. Psychophysiology
43, 190196.
Wright, R.A., Martin, R.E., Bland, J.L., 2003. Energy resource depletion, task difficulty, and cardiovascular response to a mental
arithmetic challenge. Psychophysiology 40, 98105.
Zijlstra, F.R.H., 1993. Efficiency in work behavior. a design approach for modern tools. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology.
Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University Press. Book Citation.

14