The aim was to create and study a possible behavioural measure for trait(s) in humans that reflect the ability and motivation to continue an unpleasant behaviour, i.e., behavioural perseverance or persistence (BP). We utilised six different tasks with 54 subjects to measure the possible BP trait(s): cold pressor task, hand grip endurance task, impossible anagram task, impossible verbal reasoning task, thread and needle task, and boring video task. The task performances formed two BP factors. Together, the two-factor solution is responsible for the common variance constituting 37.3% of the total variance in the performances i.e., performance times. Excluding the impossible anagram task, the performance in any given task was better explained by performances in the other tasks (i.e., “trait”, η² range = 0.131–0.253) than by the rank order variable (“depletion”, i.e., getting tired from the previous tasks, η2 range = 0–0.096).

The aim of this exploratory study was to create a behavioural measure for trait(s) that reflect the ability and motivation to continue an unpleasant behaviour, i.e. perseverance or persistence, and to measure its correlates to several variables. We utilised six different tasks with 54 subjects to measure the perseverance-trait: cold pressor task, hand grip endurance task, impossible anagram task, impossible verbal reasoning task, thread and needle task and boring video task. According to our results, the task performances formed two perseverance factors that could be roughly described as “physical” and “mental” perseverance. Together, the two-factor solution is responsible for the common variance constituting 37.3 % of the total variance in the performances i.e. performance times. Excluding the impossible anagram task, the performance in any given task was better explained by performances in the other tasks (i.e. “trait”, η ² range = 0.131–0.253) than by rank order variable (“depletion”, i.e. getting tired from the previous tasks, η ² range = 0–0.096). Highlights: Behavioural perseverance of individuals can be measured behaviourally Behavioural perseverance forms a two-factor structure Perseverance trait is better predictor of performance than depletion of individuals’ personal resources in a task

We introduce and describe a new risk-taking game, Helsinki Aiming Task (HAT), and test its construct (internal) and convergent (external) validity. HAT is a shooting game, in which the participants aim at a target under varying levels of “gun” inaccuracy and penalty for missing the target. It allows fine-grained examination of risk-taking behaviour, as it contains information on the effects of penalties and rewards on single, isolated decisions, immediately after each isolated event outcome. We validate HAT by studying individual responses to changing penalty levels and the accuracy of the “gun”, and by comparing it to behavioural and self-reported risk measures, personality traits, and socioeconomic variables. In study one (n = 51), we evaluated risk-taking responses (measured by aiming point) and their relation to other task variables (such as penalty levels and “gun” inaccuracy). In studies two to four (Ns = 66, 21, and 50), we evaluated the associations between risk-taking (measured by aiming point and accrued penalties) and sensitivity to punishment and reward (measured by shift in aiming after reward or punishment), and contrasted performance in HAT with performance in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) and self-reported risk variables. The game worked as expected: the participants became more cautious with increasing penalty levels and inaccuracy. The HAT risk-taking indicators (aiming point and accrued penalties) were weakly correlated with those of BART. HAT reward and punishment sensitivity was associated with extraversion, socioeconomic variables, and self-reported risk-taking. In combined analyses, HAT reinforcement sensitivity explained self-reported risk-taking rather well, whereas BART did not. HAT provides a new way to measure behavioural risk-taking, especially responses to positive and negative outcomes that could be interpreted as reward and punishment sensitivities.

Purpose: This study examines how using music-based mood regulation is associated with school principals’ work demands and stress. Although music has been identified as a resource for mood regulation, its use among educational leaders remains unexplored. Design/methodology/approach: Using cross-sectional survey data from the Finnish Principal Barometer (N = 323), the study assessed work demands, stress, and burnout with selected scales from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Music-based mood regulation was assessed with the Brief Music in Mood Regulation scale, both as a composite score and as separate strategies. Associations were examined using stepwise regression analyses, and hierarchical cluster analysis was applied to identify distinct music use profiles. Findings: Higher emotional demands at work and greater somatic stress were associated with more frequent use of music for mood regulation. Principals’ music use was more strongly aligned with constructive mood regulation than with emotional venting or distraction. Notably, this pattern was also common among principals reporting higher stress. Practical implications: The findings suggest that music may represent an accessible, low-threshold coping resource for educational leadership professionals. Originality/value: This study contributes to the literature in two ways. First, it examines music-based mood regulation among educational leaders, a professional group not previously studied in this context. Second, it complements previous work by analysing seven distinct mood-regulation strategies in relation to work demands and stress, providing a differentiated picture of how music use is embedded in demanding professional roles.