Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 981–994 | Cite as

Effective Challenge Regulation Coincides with Promotion Focus-Related Success and Emotional Well-Being

  • Becca FranksEmail author
  • Charlene Chen
  • Katie Manley
  • E. Tory Higgins


Beyond a hedonic model of the good life—approach pleasure and avoid pain—evidence is accumulating across species that well-being depends on potentially painful goal pursuit processes, like effort, engagement, and discovery. We hypothesized that daily challenges may provide a unique opportunity to fulfill such processes and that challenges would be more relevant within the promotion (gain-focused) than prevention (nonloss-focused) motivational system. Accordingly, we predicted that: (1) individuals who tend to be successful versus unsuccessful in achieving promotion-type goals would be better at managing daily challenges; and (2) challenge dysregulation would undermine promotion-related well-being (depressive symptoms) more than prevention-related well-being (anxiety symptoms). Across three studies, we find evidence in support of these hypotheses. Notably, as we find consistent evidence that too many and too few challenges may be damaging to mental health, we conclude that effective challenge regulation—not minimization—is likely to be a necessary component of optimal well-being.


Motivation Well-being Mental health Regulatory focus theory Biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat Positive psychology Welfare Depression and anxiety 



The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: Grant 39429 from the United States National Institute of Mental Health to E. Tory Higgins.


  1. Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the competitive context: An examination of person-situation interactions. Journal of Personality, 77, 1615–1635. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00594.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2012). The importance of challenge for the enjoyment of intrinsically motivated, goal-directed activities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(3), 317–330. doi: 10.1177/0146167211427147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bassi, M., & Delle Fave, A. (2012). Optimal experience and self-determination at school: Joining perspectives. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 425–438. doi: 10.1007/s11031-011-9268-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bassi, M., Ferrario, N., Ba, G., Delle Fave, A., & Viganò, C. (2012). Quality of experience during psychosocial rehabilitation: a real-time investigation with experience sampling method. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 35(6), 447–453. doi: 10.1037/h0094578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blascovich, J. (2008). Challenge and threat. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 431–445). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chamove, A. S., & Moodie, E. M. (1990). Are alarming events good for captive monkeys. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 27(1–2), 169–176. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(90)90016-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Croft, A., Dunn, E. W., & Quoidbach, J. (2014). From tribulations to appreciation: Experiencing adversity in the past predicts greater savoring in the present. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(5), 511–516. doi: 10.1177/1948550613512510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cskiszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 815–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2005). The investigation of optimal experience and apathy: Developmental and psychosocial implications. European Psychologist, 10, 264–274. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.10.4.264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 119–169. doi: 10.1023/a:1014411319119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13(1), 81–84. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunn, E. W., & Weidman, A. C. (2015). Building a science of spending: Lessons from the past and directions for the future. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 172–178. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2014.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1998). Person-environment fit theory: Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 28–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Franks, B., Champagne, F. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2013). How enrichment affects exploration trade-offs in rats: Implications for welfare and well-being. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e83578. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franks, B., & Higgins, E. T. (2012). Effectiveness in humans and other animals: A common basis for well-being and welfare. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 285–346). New York, NY: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Franks, B., Higgins, E. T., & Champagne, F. A. (2014). A theoretically based model of rat personality with implications for welfare. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e95135. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive Emotions Broaden and Build. In E. A. Plant & P. G. Devine (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 47), Burlington: Academic Press, pp. 1–53.Google Scholar
  19. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the gallup studies. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (p. 335). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  20. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. The American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Higgins, E. T. (2012). Beyond pleasure and pain: How motivation works. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3–23. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 515–525. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2006). Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion. Science, 312(5782), 1908–1910. doi: 10.1126/science.1129688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Korte, S. M., Olivier, B., & Koolhaas, J. M. (2007). A new animal welfare concept based on allostasis. Physiology & Behavior, 92(3), 422–428. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.10.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liberman, N., Molden, D. C., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: Implications for attributional functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 5–18. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lovibond, S., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales (2nd ed.). Sydney: Psychology Foundation.Google Scholar
  28. McNair, P. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1981). POMS manual (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.Google Scholar
  29. Meagher, R. K., & Mason, G. J. (2012). Environmental enrichment reduces signs of boredom in caged mink. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e49180. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meehan, C. L., & Mench, J. A. (2007). The challenge of challenge: Can problem solving opportunities enhance animal welfare? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 102(3–4), 246–261. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. doi: 10.1177/0963721414531598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Parker, K. J., & Maestripieri, D. (2011). Identifying key features of early stressful experiences that produce stress vulnerability and resilience in primates. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(7), 1466–1483. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. doi: 10.1177/014662167700100306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapists view of psychotherapy. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  35. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seery, M. D. (2011). Resilience: A silver lining to experiencing adverse life events? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6), 390–394. doi: 10.1177/0963721411424740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Seery, M. D., Leo, R. J., Lupien, S. P., Kondrak, C. L., & Almonte, J. L. (2013). An upside to adversity? Moderate cumulative lifetime adversity is associated with resilient responses in the face of controlled stressors. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1181–1189. doi: 10.1177/0956797612469210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seery, M. D., Weisbuch, M., & Blascovich, J. (2009). Something to gain, something to lose: the cardiovascular consequences of outcome framing. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 73(3), 308–312. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shapiro, D. N., Chandler, J., & Mueller., P. A. (2013). Using mechanical Turk to study clinical populations. Clinical Psychological Science, 1(2), 213–220. doi: 10.1177/2167702612469015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spinka, M., & Wemelsfelder, F. (2011). Environmental challenge and animal agency. In M. C. Appleby, J. A. Mench, I. A. S. Olsson, & B. O. Hughes (Eds.), Animal welfare. Cambridge, MA: CABI.Google Scholar
  43. Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1987). Automatic activation of self-discrepancies and emotional syndromes: When cognitive-structures influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1004–1014. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.53.6.1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Self-discrepancies as predicators of vulnerability to distinct syndromes of chronic emotional distress. Journal of Personality, 56(4), 685–707. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1988.tb00472.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Becca Franks
    • 1
    Email author
  • Charlene Chen
    • 2
  • Katie Manley
    • 3
  • E. Tory Higgins
    • 4
  1. 1.Animal Welfare ProgramUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Columbia Business SchoolNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Rutgers Business SchoolNewarkUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations