In this article it is proposed that the principles of motivational intensity theory ( Brehm & Self, 1989 ) apply to effort mobilization for challenges with consequences for performers’ self-esteem and self-definition (i.e., self-involvement). Accordingly, involvement of the self makes success important and thus justifies the mobilization of high resources. However, up to this level of maximally justified resources, actual effort is mobilized in correspondence to subjective task difficulty as long as success is possible. We report a series of experimental studies that have operationalized effort intensity as cardiovascular reactivity during task performance and used multiple manipulations of self-involvement (social evaluation, self-awareness, ego involvement, personal goals) and task difficulty. The empirical evidence clearly supports the idea that the principles of motivational intensity theory apply to performance conditions that have direct consequences for self-definition and self-esteem and challenges a number of other theoretical accounts.

This chapter deals with the psychological process that determines effort intensity in instrumental behavior. According to motivation intensity theory, effort should be proportional to experienced task difficulty as long as success is possible and justified and low when success is impossible or excessively difficult, given the available benefit. When task difficulty is unspecified or unknown, effort should be proportional to the importance of success. We report a program of experimental studies that have operationalized effort intensity as cardiovascular reactivity during task performance and used multiple manipulations of variables influencing subjective task difficulty (e.g., performance standards, ability, mood) and the amount of justified effort (e.g., material incentive, instrumentality, evaluation). The empirical evidence is in clear support of the principles of motivation intensity theory and challenges a number of other theoretical accounts. Directions for future research are discussed.

Based on the mood-behavior-model (MBM; Gendolla, 2000 ), it is proposed that moods play significant roles in two central processes of self-regulation: (1) The constitution of action preferences and (2) resource mobilization in instrumental behavior. Specifically, people's interest in behaviors that facilitate hedonic experiences depends on their momentary need for well-being and the perceived instrumentality of potential acts for satisfying this need. Resource mobilization is influenced by the use of moods as diagnostic information for demand appraisals, which in turn determine the intensity of effort and the persistence of behavior. A series of experiments that quantified effort as cardiovascular response has supported these predictions. The role of personality variables in the linkage between mood states and self-regulation is discussed.

An experiment with N= 56 university students investigated the joint effects of manipulated mood state and task difficulty on cardiovascular and electrodermal reactivity during mood inductions and performance on a letter cancellation task. We tested our theory‐based prediction that moods per se do not involve autonomic adjustments whereas mood and task difficulty interact during task performance to determine autonomic reactivity with respect to active coping. Specifically, we anticipated for an easy task weaker reactivity in a positive mood (due to low subjective demand) than in a negative mood (due to high subjective demand). Conversely, we expected, for a difficult task, stronger reactivity in a positive mood (high, but not yet too high, subjective demand) than in a negative mood (too high subjective demand). Adjustments of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and tonic skin conductance level described exactly the predicted pattern. Furthermore, task performance was associated with autonomic reactivity in the difficult conditions.