Mental Contrasting and Goal Commitment: The Mediating Role of Energization

Abstract

Mentally contrasting a desired future with present reality is a self-regulation strategy that leads to goal commitment in line with a person's expectations of success. One possible mediator variable of these effects is level of energization. In Study 1, energization assessed by physiological measures was found to mediate the effect of mental contrasting on goal commitment. In Study 2, feelings of energization, as assessed by self-report, mediated the effect of mental contrasting on goal commitment as gauged by performance on an acute stress paradigm (giving a talk in front of a camera). Results imply that when expectations of success are high, mental contrasting provides the level of energy needed to commit to realizing desired futures.

Full text

http://psp.sagepub.com
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
DOI: 10.1177/0146167208330856
2009; 35; 608 originally published online Feb 12, 2009; Pers Soc Psychol Bull
Gabriele Oettingen, Doris Mayer, A. Timur Sevincer, Elizabeth J. Stephens, Hyeon-ju Pak and Meike Hagenah
Mental Contrasting and Goal Commitment: The Mediating Role of Energization
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/5/608
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Society for Personality and Social Psychology
can be found at:Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Additional services and information for
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/5/608 Citations
at Staats und Universitaets on April 28, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

608608
Mental Contrasting and Goal Commitment:
The Mediating Role of Energization
Gabriele Oettingen
New York University and University of Hamburg
Doris Mayer
A. Timur Sevincer
Elizabeth J. Stephens
Hyeon-ju Pak
Meike Hagenah
University of Hamburg
not yet been accepted to the desired program. It is the
recognition that lacking study time because of excessive
partying is an obstacle to wish fulfillment that will make
the student generate the energy to fully commit to the
goal of making his or her dreams come true.
Theories of motivation (e.g., Atkinson, 1957; Bandura,
1997; Gollwitzer, 1990) suggest that people prefer to
commit to goals that are desirable and feasible. A goal is
desirable if attaining it is judged to be attractive, and a
goal is feasible if attaining it is judged to be likely (i.e.,
incentive and expectation; Bandura, 1997; Heckhausen,
1977; Klinger, 1975). Goal commitment, to the contrary,
refers to one’s attachment or determination to reach a
goal (Locke, Latham, & Erez, 1988) and is a prerequi-
site for successful goal striving, especially when goals
are difficult to achieve (summary by Klein, Wesson,
Hollenbeck, & Alge, 1999).
Although much research has examined the effects of
desirability and feasibility on goal commitment, the
Authors’ Note: Preparation of this article was supported by German
Science Foundation Grants Oe-237/5-1 and Oe-237/12-1 awarded to
the first author. We are grateful to Verena Albiez, Franziska Brunner,
and Caroline Luxenburger for helping to collect the data. We thank
the Motivation Lab at New York University and two anonymous
reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article,
and we greatly appreciate the statistical advice from Niall Bolger and
Willi Nagl. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Gabriele Oettingen, Psychology Department, New York University,
6 Washington Place, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10003; e-mail: gabriele
.oettingen@nyu.edu.
PSPB, Vol. 35 No. 5, May 2009 608-622
DOI: 10.1177/0146167208330856
© 2009 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
Mentally contrasting a desired future with present real-
ity is a self-regulation strategy that leads to goal com-
mitment in line with a person’s expectations of success.
One possible mediator variable of these effects is level
of energization. In Study 1, energization assessed by
physiological measures was found to mediate the effect
of mental contrasting on goal commitment. In Study 2,
feelings of energization, as assessed by self-report, medi-
ated the effect of mental contrasting on goal commit-
ment as gauged by performance on an acute stress
paradigm (giving a talk in front of a camera). Results
imply that when expectations of success are high, men-
tal contrasting provides the level of energy needed to
commit to realizing desired futures.
Keywords: self-regulation; fantasies; mental contrasting;
expectations; energization
It is commonly assumed that happily fantasizing about
success in realizing a dear wish or blissfully daydream-
ing about solving an upcoming challenge will be enough
to bolster energy and commitment to actually fulfill the
wish and master the challenge (Peale, 2007). Yet, people
who nourish such positive fantasies and daydreams will
often fail to evince enough energy to exert the necessary
effort and persistence. Consider the case of an under-
graduate student who blissfully dreams about entering
graduate school but fails to put in the necessary hours to
prepare for the Graduate Record Examinations (GREs).
Contrasting the happy visions about acceptance in grad-
uate school with reflections on going astray with party-
ing will help the student understand that he or she has
at Staats und Universitaets on April 28, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Oettingen et al. / MENTAL CONTRASTING AND ENERGIZATION 609
processes by which desirability and feasibility translate
into goal commitments also need consideration; oth-
erwise, one cannot understand why high desirability
and feasibility judgments do not guarantee the emer-
gence of strong goal commitments (summary by
Oettingen & Gollwitzer, 2001). Using a self-regulation
approach, fantasy realization theory (Oettingen, 2000;
Oettingen, Pak, & Schnetter, 2001) suggests that men-
tally contrasting a desired future with impeding reality is
an effective strategy to produce commitment to a feasible
goal. Specifically, when expectations of success are high,
mental contrasting enables strong goal commitments;
when expectations of success are low, mental contrast-
ing produces weak or no goal commitments. Thus,
mental contrasting produces expectancy-dependent goal
commitments (Oettingen et al., 2001).
One outstanding question in mental contrasting
research revolves around the mechanisms by which
mental contrasting translates perceived feasibility into
goal commitment. As energization is an important vari-
able fostering goal commitment (Locke & Latham,
1990), the present research introduces energization
spurred by mental contrasting as a critical motiva-
tional mediator for the effects of mental contrasting on
goal commitment. Specifically, we argue that when
feasibility (expectations of success) is high, mental
contrasting mobilizes energy that then strengthens goal
commitment. We test this idea in two studies assessing
energization via physiological indicators (Study 1) and
experiential indicators (Study 2). Thus, the present
research extends previous work on mental contrasting
showing that energization plays a key mediating role in
mental contrasting by producing goal commitments
that are in line with high or low expectations.
Mentally Contrasting Future and Reality
When people use the self-regulation strategy of mental
contrasting (Oettingen et al., 2001), they imagine a
desired future (e.g., improving academic or professional
performance) and immediately thereafter reflect on the
current situation that stands in the way of reaching this
desired future (e.g., obstacles and temptations such as
having little time or being distracted). The conjoint
elaboration of the future and reality makes both simulta-
neously accessible and links them together in the sense
that the reality impedes realization of the desired future
(i.e., obstacle). When feasibility is high, people strongly
commit to attaining the goal; when feasibility is low, they
form a weak goal commitment or none at all.
Consistent with Newell and Simon’s (1972) theory of
problem solving, for those who engage in the strategy of
mental contrasting, the subjective problem space
(defined as the internal subjective representation of the
problem at hand) matches the objective problem space
(defined as the objective task demands posed by the
environment) encompassing both the mental represen-
tation of the desired future and the impediments
obstructing its attainment. As a result, this strategy
enables one to recognize that measures need to be taken
to overcome the status quo to achieve the desired future.
Therefore, the perceived feasibility of attaining the
desired future should determine the person’s goal
commitment.
However, when the subjective problem space only
entails part of the objective problem space, as is the case
for those who either solely indulge in the positive future
or solely dwell on the negative status quo, one fails to
recognize that measures need to be taken to overcome
the status quo to achieve the desired future. As a con-
sequence, expectations are not consulted and goal com-
mitment fails to align with expectations. Instead, goal
commitment is determined by prior commitment to attain-
ing the desired future. Thus, it is only the self-regulation
strategy of mental contrasting that succeeds in raising
commitment when expectations of success are high and
in lowering commitment when expectations of success
are low.
A series of experimental studies measuring various
indicators of goal commitment supports these hypoth-
eses. Participants either mentally elaborated both the
desired future and present reality (mental contrasting
condition), only the desired future (indulging condi-
tion), or only the present reality (dwelling condition). In
one experiment, adolescent students had to mentally
contrast the positive future of excelling in mathematics
(e.g., participants imagined feelings of pride, increasing
their job prospects) with obstacles impeding such a
desired future (e.g., participants reflected on being dis-
tracted by peers, feeling lazy). Two weeks after the
experiment, students in the mental contrasting condi-
tion who had initially felt they could achieve the desired
change (i.e., excel in math) received better course grades
and teachers rated them as exerting more effort than
those in the indulging and dwelling conditions (Oettingen
et al., 2001, Study 4). The same pattern of results
emerged in school children who started to learn a for-
eign language (Oettingen, Hönig, & Gollwitzer, 2000,
Study 1), in students wanting to solve an interpersonal
problem (Oettingen et al., 2001, Studies 1 and 3), and in
students wanting to get to know an attractive stranger
(Oettingen, 2000, Study 1). In these studies commit-
ment was measured via self-report or observations, as
well as directly after the experiment or weeks later.
However, the question of which mechanisms are respon-
sible for the effect of mental contrasting on commit-
ments remains and is examined in the two studies
presented here.
at Staats und Universitaets on April 28, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

610 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Forming Goal Commitment via Expectancy-
Dependent Energization
Assessing goal commitments. Researchers have mea-
sured goal commitment in various ways using various
indicators. For example, they have directly asked par-
ticipants to indicate the extent of their commitment
(e.g., “I am strongly committed to pursuing this goal”;
Hollenbeck, Klein, O’Leary, & Wright, 1989). However,
this approach assumes that people have insight into
their own commitment, when in fact they often do not
(Brunstein & Gollwitzer, 1996; Klinger, 1975). To cir-
cumvent this problem researchers assess goal commit-
ment indirectly by asking participants for affective,
cognitive, or behavioral indicators of actual goal striv-
ing (summaries by Klein et al., 1999; Oettingen &
Gollwitzer, 2001). For example, participants rate their
interest or enthusiasm in reaching the goal (affective/
motivational indicator), report the frequency of think-
ing about goal attainment (cognitive indicator), and
indicate the extent to which they have acted toward
goal attainment (behavioral indicator). As strongly com-
mitted people show frustration when experiencing fail-
ure, previous studies have also used the degree of
disappointment and hardship participants feel when
anticipating failure in goal attainment as a reliable indi-
cator for goal commitment (Oettingen et al., 2001;
Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982). As commitment repre-
sents the extent to which a person feels compelled to act
in the service of attaining a goal, behavioral indicators
of goal striving are considered to be particularly valid
measures of commitment (Locke et al., 1988).
Forming goal commitments. Although plenty of
research examines the beneficial consequences of goal
commitment for goal attainment, it is much less clear
how goal commitment emerges. The model of action
phases (Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987) posits a tempo-
ral perspective regarding the formation of goal commit-
ments. Only after people proceed from a precommittal
state to being committed will they show the typical fea-
tures of goal commitment such as enthusiasm, preoccu-
pation with the concern, goal-directed action, resumption
of goal-directed behavior, and anticipated disappoint-
ment. Similarly, Klinger (1975) postulates a definite onset
of a current concern, which he defines as a state where
an organism is especially responsive to respective incen-
tive-related cues. Independent of the differential use of
terminology, however, the literature has not specified the
processes that trigger the definite onset of commitment
(Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987) or current concern
(Klinger, 1975).
The present research focuses precisely on this
specification. We argue that mental contrasting provides
the energy to traverse from a precommitment to a com-
mitment state (a precurrent concern to a current con-
cern). Specifically, we postulate that mental contrasting
will produce expectancy-dependent energization. That
is, when expectations of success are high, mental con-
trasting will energize people so that they will consent to
realizing their desired future.
Energization. Energization is a variable with a long
tradition in motivation psychology. For example, Hull
(1943) described variations in behavior as a function of
two independent variables, direction and intensity. Whereas
direction specifies whether an organism approaches or
avoids a cue (Atkinson, 1957; Elliot, 2006; McClelland,
1985), intensity has been described as energization, exci-
tation, arousal, or activation. The concept of energization
arose from Cannon’s (1915) concept of energy mobiliza-
tion and is defined as “the extent to which the organism
as a whole is activated or aroused” (Duffy, 1934, p. 194).
Traditionally, energy mobilization has been assessed by
indicators of autonomic function (Duffy, 1934; Wright,
Murray, Storey, & Williams, 1997) and more recently by
self-report measures. Self-report studies have specified dif-
ferent qualities of energization, such as feelings of energy
and vigor versus feelings of tension and arousal (Thayer,
1978). Feelings of energy have also been referred to as
activity incitement (Brunstein & Gollwitzer, 1996) or
invigoration (Klinger, 1975).
Mental contrasting provides the energy to commit.
Causes of energization can be manifold: Physical exercise,
drugs, and motivation have traditionally been cited as
causes of energy mobilization. Present or anticipated
incentives have also been shown to lead to energy mobili-
zation. In the absence of resisting notions (e.g., obsta-
cles), “the mere perception of the object and the fleeting
notion of the act seem of themselves to bring the latter
about” (James, 1890, p. 422). Thus, the mere idea of
the desired future outcome is enough to produce energi-
zation in the service of goal attainment (i.e., ideo-motor
action; James, 1890).
However, if there are obstacles hindering goal attain-
ment, James (1890) postulates a “fiat, the element of
consent or resolve that the act shall ensue” (p. 418). In
the present research, we argue that mental contrasting,
by making reality appear as an obstacle to fantasy real-
ization, mobilizes energy that strengthens the transition
to goal commitment (i.e., a fiat, an element of consent to
realize the desired future). However, this “element of
consent” should only be formed if expectations of suc-
cess are high, signaling that the obstacle can be over-
come to reach the desired future. Referring to the temporal
notion of goal pursuit in Heckhausen and Gollwitzer’s
(1987) and Klinger’s (1975) work, we postulate that
at Staats und Universitaets on April 28, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Oettingen et al. / MENTAL CONTRASTING AND ENERGIZATION 611
when expectations are high, mental contrasting will
mobilize energy that guarantees the transition to com-
mitment (current concern). Now action in a particular
direction will follow. If expectations of success are low,
energy should not be mobilized and a fiat or consent to
forming goal commitment should not ensue. Thus, energy
should be saved as it can be spent on more promising
endeavors (Janoff-Bulman & Brickman, 1982).
The Present Research
How can mental contrasting help people form goal
commitments? Energization is hypothesized to be a key
mechanism that translates high expectations of success
into goal commitment. The present research adds to the
literature on mental contrasting in several ways: First, and
most important, to highlight the dynamic motivational
processes triggered by mental contrasting, mediation of
the expectancy–commitment relation will be addressed
(Studies 1 and 2). Second, studies have assessed distal
expectancy effects measured after completion of the men-
tal contrasting procedure; in the present research, by
focusing on mediation, we measure proximal expectancy
dependence as early as during the mental exercise itself,
immediately after individuals juxtapose their desired
future with negative reality (Study 1). Third, unlike previ-
ous research, we assess physiological indicators of expec-
tancy dependence, thus excluding social desirability and
rater bias (Study 1). Fourth, previous research has tested
other-rated performance indicators of goal commitment
in the field and days or weeks later. To exclude influences
of intervening variables, we assess other-rated perfor-
mance in the laboratory and right after the manipulation
(Study 2). Fifth, unlike previous research investigating
fantasies about relatively long-term concerns, to test for
short-term future outcomes, fantasies in the present
research pertained to an immediately impending achieve-
ment task (Study 2). Sixth, mental contrasting effects have
been observed for mundane concerns of everyday life. To
test whether the effects hold in highly stressful situations,
we employed an acute stress paradigm (Study 2). For both
studies we hypothesized that self-regulation strategy
(i.e., mental contrasting vs. indulging) will moderate the
expectancy–commitment relation and that energization
measured by change in systolic blood pressure (SBP;
Study 1) and self-report (Study 2) will mediate the pre-
dicted expectation–commitment relation in the mental
contrasting condition.
STUDY 1: THE MEDIATIONAL MECHANISM OF
ENERGIZATION: PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASURES
We assessed cardiovascular response as an indicator of
energization. Specifically, we focused on SBP, a reliable
indicator of energization (Cannon, 1915; Wright et al.,
1997). Moreover, measuring energization by its physio-
logical manifestations allows for its assessment during
the mental exercise itself.
Energization leads to an increased demand for oxy-
gen and nutrients, and the cardiovascular system sup-
plies tissue with energy in the form of oxygen and
nutrients. Therefore, energization is manifested in a
strong cardiovascular response (Brownley, Hurwitz, &
Schneiderman, 2000). The most reliable cardiovascular
response for assessing energization is SBP (the maxi-
mum pressure exerted by the blood against the vessel
walls following a heartbeat; Obrist, 1981). Other car-
diovascular responses, such as diastolic blood pressure
(DBP; the minimum pressure exerted by the blood
against the vessel walls following a heartbeat) and heart
rate (HR; the pulse or pace at which the heart pumps)
are less consistently related to energization (Obrist,
1981). Importantly, energization indicated by changes
in SBP does not only occur as a response to an immedi-
ate challenge but also as an anticipatory reaction to
thinking about an upcoming task (e.g., when people
anticipate that they will perform complex arithmetic or
memory tasks important to them; Contrada, Wright, &
Glass, 1984).
Our main objective in Study 1 was to investigate
whether mental contrasting, that is, elaborating both
the positive future and the negative reality, produces
expectancy-dependent energization that in turn mediates
subsequent expectancy-dependent goal commitment. In
line with previous research, participants in the mental
contrasting group had to alternate in their mental elabo-
rations between the positive future and the negative
reality, starting with the positive future (Oettingen,
2000; Oettingen et al., 2000; Oettingen et al., 2001). As
the comparison self-regulation strategy group we chose
to have participants elaborate solely on the positive
future (indulging) rather than have them solely elabo-
rate the negative reality (dwelling). This decision was
guided by the fact that both the mental contrasting and
indulging conditions begin the mental exercise by elabo-
rating a positive aspect of the future; that is, the two
groups were comparable to each other with regard to
their first elaboration. However, in the mental contrast-
ing group, elaboration of the positive future is followed
by elaboration of the negative reality, whereas in the
indulging group participants subsequently elaborate
another positive aspect of the future. Both groups match
again in the third elaborated aspect: another positive
future aspect. Thus, using these two groups, we could
compare the change in blood pressure from the first to
the third elaborated aspect. Alternating between a posi-
tive aspect of the future and a negative aspect of reality
occurred in the mental contrasting group but not in the
at Staats und Universitaets on April 28, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

612 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
indulging group. We hypothesized that mental contrast-
ing will mobilize expectancy-dependent energy that
subsequently translates into goal commitment, whereas
indulging will lead to expectancy-independent energiza-
tion. Finally, to measure goal commitment, after the
mental exercise we asked participants how disappointed
and how bad they would feel if their desired future
failed to come true.
Method
Participants and design. Sixty-three undergraduate
psychology students (45 female) from the University of
Hamburg participated in this study to fulfill a course
requirement. They had a mean age of 25.02 years (SD
= 4.03) ranging from 19 to 38 years. Eligible partici-
pants had to be right-handed, free from heart disease
and hypertension, and abstain from cigarettes, alcohol,
strenuous exercise, caffeine, and medication for at least
2 hr before the session. All participants were randomly
assigned to the two experimental conditions—a mental
contrasting condition and an indulging condition—and
were tested individually.
Procedure. We seated participants at a table with a
computer and a compressing cuff. The compressing cuff
was connected to a blood pressure monitor (Dinamap
PRO 100). We placed the monitor in a room adjacent to
the experimental cubicle. The apparatus used oscillom-
etry to determine SBP (millimeters of mercury [mmHg]),
DBP (mmHg), and HR (beats per minute). The individ-
ual SBP measurement periods lasted approximately 30 s.
The experimenter placed the compressing cuff over the
brachial artery of participants’ left arm, gave a brief
overview of the procedure, and informed participants
that their answers would remain confidential and that
their participation was voluntary. Thereafter, we asked
participants to rest quietly for 15 min while we familiar-
ized them with the blood pressure measurement proce-
dure (Shapiro et al., 1996). Participants completed the
experiment on the computer.
The study consisted of three parts. To begin, partici-
pants indicated their most important interpersonal con-
cern. They listed, for example, to get to know someone
or to keep up a friendship. We measured participants’
expectations of success (“How likely do you think it is
that the named concern will have a happy ending?”) and
their incentive value (“How important is it to you that
the named problem will have a happy ending?”). The
answer scales ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very).
In the second part, all participants were asked to list
four positive aspects they associated with their interper-
sonal concern coming to a happy ending (participants
named, e.g., not being lonely, having someone to talk
to). Next, we asked participants to list four negative
aspects of reality standing in the way of a happy ending
to their interpersonal concern (participants named, e.g.,
being shy, friend living far away). To prevent extensive
mental elaborations at this point, we instructed partici-
pants to only type in keywords.
In the third part of the questionnaire, we established
the two experimental conditions (i.e., mental contrast-
ing condition and indulging condition). In the mental
contrasting condition, participants mentally elaborated
and wrote about two positive aspects of the desired
future and two negative aspects of impeding reality in
alternating order beginning with a positive aspect of the
future. To accomplish this procedure, participants saw
their first positive keyword pertaining to the desired
future (i.e., Aspect 1) displayed on the computer moni-
tor with the following instructions:
Think about this aspect and depict the respective events
or experiences in your thoughts as intensively as possi-
ble! Let the mental images pass by in your thoughts and
do not hesitate to give your thoughts and images free
rein. Take as much time and space as you need to
describe the scenario.
Participants then mentally elaborated the keyword
pertaining to the positive future and typed their
thoughts and images in the designated space. A par-
ticipant whose concern was to solve a conflict with her
partner elaborated her positive future keyword “har-
mony”: “and my life becomes balanced again, I will
feel joy and warmth, and we will talk about the impor-
tant and meaningful things, feel close, we feel together.”
After elaborating the positive aspect of the future, par-
ticipants read on the next screen the first keyword
pertaining to the negative reality with the same instruc-
tions as given previously. One participant elaborated
her negative reality keyword, “my timidness”: “I feel
nervous, cannot talk, let us talk about something else,
but then WHEN will we talk, how long can I go on
like this, am I a coward?” After completing their
elaboration, participants proceeded to the subsequent
screen and elaborated the keyword labeling the second
positive aspect of the future. Thereafter, participants
elaborated the second keyword pertaining to the nega-
tive reality.
Participants in the indulging (positive future only)
condition elaborated only the four positive aspects of
the desired future. They started with the first keyword,
labeling the positive aspect of solving their interpersonal
concern and continued with the keywords of the sec-
ond, third, and fourth positive aspects of solving their
interpersonal concern. In sum, all participants’ Aspects
1 and 3 pertained to the positive future. However,
Aspects 2 and 4 in the mental contrasting condition
at Staats und Universitaets on April 28, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Oettingen et al. / MENTAL CONTRASTING AND ENERGIZATION 613
were obstacles, whereas in the indulging condition they
referred to the positive future.
Mediating and dependent variables. We assessed car-
diovascular responses two times for each participant:
one time while participants elaborated Aspect 1 and a
second time while participants elaborated Aspect 3. We
assessed cardiovascular responses at Aspects 1 and 3, as
these were positive future aspects in both conditions
and thus could be directly compared. Importantly,
whereas in the mental contrasting condition positive
future Aspect 3 followed a negative aspect of reality, in
the indulging condition this aspect followed a positive
aspect of the future.
Cardiovascular measures were taken 90 s after the
elaboration instructions were given. Participants could
not proceed to the next screen until an additional 30 s
had passed. Thus, participants had in total 120 s for the
elaboration of each positive future aspect. To ensure that
participants elaborated the positive future aspects and
negative reality aspects for equal amounts of time, par-
ticipants also had a minimum of 120 s for the elaboration
of each obstacle.
As all participants followed exactly the same proce-
dure when elaborating Aspect 1 (which was a positive
future aspect in both conditions); we used SBP at Aspect
1 as the baseline measure. Calculating change in SBP
allowed us to control for individual differences in base-
line SBP (Wright et al., 1997). We expected differences
between mental contrasting and indulging participants
in change of SBP from Aspect 1 (baseline) to Aspect 3.
In addition, we calculated DBP and HR change scores
similarly to change in SBP score.
To assess our dependent variable (i.e., goal commit-
ment), on the next two screens we asked participants
“How disappointed would you feel if your concern did
not come to a happy ending?” and “How bad would it
be for you if your concern did not come to a happy
ending?” The answer scales ranged from 1 (not at all)
to 7 (very). As internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s
α = .88), we combined the two items into an index of
commitment to solve the interpersonal concern. The
last screen instructed participants to call for the exper-
imenter, who then returned for the debriefing.
Results
As gender did not lead to any significant main or
interaction effects on the dependent and mediating vari-
ables, this variable is omitted from further discussion.
Descriptive analyses. Correlations and descriptive
statistics are provided in Table 1. Commitment scores
were based on 59 participants because 4 (6.3%) partici-
pants had missing values. Change in SBP was based on
58 participants because of technical difficulties. Finally,
because expectations of success correlated with incen-
tive value, to ensure that results were not due to varia-
tions in incentive value, we statistically controlled for
incentive value in all analyses.
Goal commitment. We used a general linear model
(GLM) with commitment as the dependent variable,
condition as a fixed between-subject factor, and the
continuous expectation measure as independent vari-
able entered in the first step; the interaction term of
condition by the continuous expectation measure was
entered as independent variable in the second step
(Hardin & Hilbe, 2001).
We observed no main effect of condition, F(55) = .06,
p > .80, but a main effect of expectation, F(55) = 9.25,
p < .005, which was qualified by the predicted interac-
tion effect, F(1, 54) = 7.00, p = .01. When comparing
the relation between expectation and commitment in
the mental contrasting versus indulging condition, the
relation was stronger in the mental contrasting condi-
tion, t(54) = 2.64, p = .01 (Figure 1, left graph). When
expectations of success were high, mental contrasting
participants were more committed than indulging par-
ticipants, t(54) = 2.51, p < .02; when expectations of
success were low, they tended to be less committed
than indulging participants, t(54) = 1.93, p < .06.
Change in SBP. First, we tested whether the Condition
× Expectation interaction effect observed for commit-
ment also existed for change in SBP. Accordingly, in a
GLM we specified the SBP change score as the depen-
dent variable and in Step 1 entered condition as a fixed
between-subject factor and the continuous expectation
measure as an independent variable; in Step 2 we entered
the interaction term of condition and the continuous
expectation measure as an independent variable. There
TABLE 1: Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for
Variables Used in Study 1 (N = 63)
Independent Variable 1 2
1. Expectation of success —
2. Incentive value .22 —
M 4.71 6.24
SD 1.84 0.96
Dependent Variable 1 2
1. Commitment —
2. Change in SBP .46*** —
M 5.70 –0.31
SD 1.27 8.40
NOTE. SBP = systolic blood pressure.
***p < .001.
at Staats und Universitaets on April 28, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

614 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
was neither a main effect of expectation nor of condi-
tion, Fs(1, 54) < 2.88, ps > .09, but we observed the
predicted interaction effect, F(1, 53) = 7.67, p < .01.
Again, the link between expectation and change in SBP
was stronger in the mental contrasting condition than in
the indulging condition, t(53) = 2.77, p < .01 (Figure 1,
right graph).
To investigate whether SBP increased or decreased
from baseline at Aspect 1 to Aspect 3 in mental con-
trasting participants with high versus low expecta-
tions, we conducted a repeated measures GLM with
SBP at baseline and at Aspect 3 as within-subject vari-
ables and expectations as covariate focusing only on
the mental contrasting condition. In these partici-
pants, when expectations were high, SBP increased,
t(24) = 2.99, p < .01; when expectations were low,
SBP decreased t(24) = 2.05, p = .05.
Change in SBP as a mediator of the expectancy–
commitment link in the mental contrasting condition.
According to Baron and Kenny (1986) mediation is sup-
ported if there is (a) a significant association between the
initial variable and the outcome variable and (b) a signifi-
cant association between the initial variable and the
mediator variable. The third and fourth steps require
showing (c) that the proposed mediator significantly pre-
dicts the outcome while controlling for the initial variable
and (d) that the association between the initial variable
and the outcome variable is attenuated after controlling
for the proposed mediator. Testing these four steps using
hierarchical regression analyses (Baron & Kenny, 1986)
showed that change in SBP mediated the relation
between expectancy and commitment in the mental
contrasting condition (Figure 2). Furthermore, using a
bootstrap test (Preacher & Hayes, 2008), we observed
a significant indirect effect of expectation on commit-
ment through change in SBP, 95% confidence interval
(CI) bootstrap percentile = .02, .49. These findings
imply that in the mental contrasting condition, change
in SBP partially, but significantly, mediated the relation
between expectation and commitment.
DBP and HR. To investigate whether changes in DBP
and HR do indeed fail to qualify as mediators for the
relation of mental contrasting versus indulging to com-
mitment, we repeated Step 1 of the preceding analyses
with DBP change score and HR change score, respec-
tively, as the dependent variable. As predicted, we did
not observe Condition × Expectation interaction effects,
both Fs < .19, ps > .66. This finding implies that neither
DBP nor HR qualified as a mediator for the differential
relation of mental contrasting versus indulging to
commitment.
Discussion
Using SBP as a cardiovascular measure of energization,
the present study showed that energization mediated the
relation between expectation and goal commitment after
Figure 1 Study 1: Regression lines depict the link between expectation and goal commitment (left) and expectation and systolic blood pressure
(SBP) change in millimeters of mercury (mmHg; right) as a function of mental contrasting and indulging.
at Staats und Universitaets on April 28, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Oettingen et al. / MENTAL CONTRASTING AND ENERGIZATION 615
mental contrasting. Specifically, we first observed that
change in SBP as a cardiovascular indicator of energiza-
tion showed expectancy dependence in the mental
contrasting condition but not in the indulging condi-
tion, just as we had observed for commitment to solve
the interpersonal concern. Moreover, in the mental con-
trasting condition, expectancy dependence of commitment
was partially mediated by change in SBP. Apparently, men-
tal contrasting produces expectancy-dependent energiza-
tion during the mental exercise itself and the energization,
in turn, influences subsequent goal commitments: When
expectations of success were high, but not when they
were low, participants formed binding goal commit-
ments. In the indulging condition, we did not observe
expectancy dependence in participants’ energization or
in their commitment.
Importantly, mental contrasting changed the level of
energization for both high-expectation and low-expec-
tation participants, albeit in opposite directions. Whereas
mental contrasting increased energization in high-expec-
tancy participants, it decreased energization in low-expec-
tancy participants. To the contrary, changes in energization
were not seen in indulging participants. Apparently, mental
contrasting evoked energization to commit to the same
degree as it evoked a loss in energization to let go, depend-
ing on expectations of success.
In Study 1, we assessed the mediating variable (ener-
gization) by its physiological manifestation (SBP).
However, the data do not speak to whether energization
goes beyond physiological measures and whether it can
be assessed via its experiential component (i.e., subjec-
tive feelings of energization). In addition, in Study 1, we
measured goal commitment using an affective indicator
(anticipated disappointment) but did not observe behav-
ioral indicators of goal commitment. Thus, Study 2
attended to these matters by using self-report measures
of energization and actual performance measures of
goal commitment.
STUDY 2: THE MEDIATIONAL MECHANISM
OF ENERGIZATION: SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS
Physiological measures of energy have been found
to strongly relate to subjective feelings of energization
(Blascovich, 1990; Contrada et al., 1984), even though
physiological indicators and self-report indicators of
energization do not consistently yield high correlations
(Fairclough & Venables, 2006). The inconsistent find-
ings might be explained by the fact that individuals
differ in their ability to perceive internal bodily states
(i.e., interoceptive sensitivity). For instance, people who
were more versus less sensitive to their heartbeats empha-
sized feelings of activation and deactivation when report-
ing their experiences of emotion (Feldman-Barrett, Quigley,
Bliss-Moreau, & Aronson, 2004). Inconsistencies may
also depend on whether people adhere to a repressive cop-
ing style (Newton & Contrada, 1992) and whether they
comply with norms that allow emotional experience and
expression (Rimé, Philippot, & Cisamolo, 1990). Despite
such methodological difficulties, researchers still endorse
the importance of investigating energization by using
both physiological and self-report indicators (Cacioppo
& Berntson, 1992).
Whereas in Study 1 we assessed participants’ com-
mitment via self-report, in Study 2 we observed partici-
pants’ actual performance. We used an acute stress
paradigm (i.e., giving a talk in front of a camera; al’Absi
et al., 1997) and assessed other- and self-rated quality of
performance. We hypothesized a moderator effect of
self-regulation strategy; specifically, participants who
contrast their positive fantasies of giving a good talk
with reflections on negative reality should persist (quan-
tity) and perform (quality) in line with their expecta-
tions of success. Participants who indulge in their
success should persist and perform in an expectancy-
independent way. Importantly, feelings of energy should
mediate the relation between expectations and goal com-
mitment in the mental contrasting condition.
Method
Participants and design. One hundred sixteen under-
graduate economics students (44 female) from the
University of Hamburg participated in this study for mon-
etary reward. They had a mean age of 25 years (SD = 2.96)
ranging from 19 to 38 years. Similar to Study 1, all par-
ticipants were randomly assigned to the two conditions—a
mental contrasting condition and an indulging condition—
and were tested individually.
Procedure. Participants took part in a study presum-
ably testing a new recruitment tool for university gradu-
ates. Their task was to give a presentation in front of a
Figure 2 Study 1: Change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) as a
mediator of the relation between expectation and goal
commitment in the mental contrasting condition.
*p < .05. ***p < .001.
at Staats und Universitaets on April 28, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

616 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
video camera and to complete a two-part questionnaire.
Participants were told that a group of human resources
experts would later analyze the videotapes to measure the
presenters’ professional skills. Participants were also
informed that their answers would remain confidential
and that participation was voluntary.
To begin, participants indicated their desired level of
performance by answering the following question:
“How well would you like to do in your presentation?”
on a scale ranging from 1 (sufficient) to 7 (excellent).
Participants then reported their expectations of success:
“How likely is it that you will do as well as you indi-
cated in question number one?” and on incentive value:
“How important is it to you that you will do as well as
you indicated in question number one?” The answer
scales ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very).
All participants then listed four positive aspects they
associated with performing at the level indicated in ques-
tion number one (participants named, e.g., good for my
self-esteem, feelings of pride). Next, they listed four
negative aspects of the reality standing in the way of
them performing at that level (participants named, e.g.,
that stupid camera, not being prepared). We established
the two experimental conditions (i.e., mental contrasting
condition and indulging condition) similar to Study 1.
Mediating and dependent variables. To obtain a mea-
sure of feelings of energization, we asked participants
immediately after the induction of the two experimental
groups: “How incited (in German: angespornt) do you
feel with respect to the upcoming talk?” and “How full
of energy (in German: voller Energie) do you feel with
respect to the upcoming talk?” The answer scales
ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very). We combined feel-
ing incited and energized (r = .50, p < .001; Cronbach’s
α = .66) to form an index of feeling energized. Thereafter,
participants had 5 min to prepare for their presentation.
When the preparation time was over, the experimenter
seated participants in front of a camera and gave them
the following instructions:
Your task is to make a presentation in approximately five
minutes about the theme “What qualifies me as a present-
day professional candidate?” During your presentation I
will leave the room and come back when the time is over.
If you do not need to use all the time just stop your pre-
sentation by saying this was the end of your presentation.
Please do not stand up and leave until you have said that
your presentation is finished. Just remain seated and wait
until I will come back. If you have no further questions,
please start right after I have left the room.
We assessed length of talk (ranging from 0 to 5 min) as
a measure of persistence. After 5 min, the experimenter
reentered the room and provided the final part of the
questionnaire. Participants rated their performance on
five items (i.e., “I was eloquent,” “I was able to make a
good impression,” “The pace of my speech was ade-
quate,” “The structure of my presentation was logical,”
and “My presentation was meaningful”). Answer scales
ranged from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true). To con-
clude, we fully debriefed participants about the purpose
of the study and encouraged them to contact us at any
time with further questions.
To obtain a measure of other-rated quality of perfor-
mance, we content analyzed the videotapes, employing a
7-point scale ranging from 1 (very poor performance) to
4 (moderate performance) to 7 (excellent performance).
A rating of 1 meant participants failed to talk about the
topic, chose inappropriate language, and presented them-
selves in an unfavorable light. For example, participants
did not explain their own qualifications or the qualities
of an applicant today. They generated loose associations,
spoke without structure, used slang words (note that the
audience was supposed to be a group of human resources
experts), and showed rakish mimics, gestures, and pos-
tures. A rating of 4 meant participants partly talked
about the topic, chose moderately appropriate language,
and presented themselves in a neutral or only partly
favorable light. For example, participants referred to their
qualifications but did not explicate them, mentioned what
qualified an applicant only in passing, loosely associated
during parts of the talk while other parts were chrono-
logically structured, used slang words only rarely, and
showed awkwardness in mimics, gestures, and postures.
Finally, a rating of 7 meant participants focused on the
topic, chose appropriate language, and presented them-
selves in a most favorable light. For example, participants
described their background in detail and tailored their
qualifications to what they thought would be expected
from applicants today. They structured their talk by pro-
viding overviews and summaries, showed perspective
taking with the audience by choosing sophisticated and
professional language, and were friendly in their mimics,
as well as confident and assertive in their gestures and
postures. Two raters blind to conditions scored 45% of
the sample to assess interrater reliability (r = .88, p < .01).
One rater scored the remaining 55%.
Results
As gender did not lead to any significant main or
interaction effects on the dependent and mediating
variables, it will not be mentioned any further.
Descriptive analyses. Correlations and descriptive
statistics are provided in Table 2. Length of talk was
at Staats und Universitaets on April 28, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Oettingen et al. / MENTAL CONTRASTING AND ENERGIZATION 617
based on 111 participants and other-rated quality of
performance on 106 participants because 5 (4.3%) and
10 (8.6%) participants, respectively, could not be ana-
lyzed because of recording difficulties. Finally, to ensure
that the results were not due to variations in incentive
value and desired level of performance, we statistically
controlled for both of these variables.
Goal commitment variables. As in Study 1, we speci-
fied a set of GLM analyses in which in Step 1 we entered
condition as a fixed between-subject factor and the con-
tinuous expectation measure as an independent vari-
able; in Step 2 we entered the interaction term of
condition and the continuous expectation measure as an
independent variable.
With respect to the dependent variable of other-rated
quality of performance, there were no main effects of
condition or expectation, Fs(1, 101) < 1.31, ps > .24. The
predicted interaction effect was significant, F(1, 100) =
7.82, p < .01. The link between expectation and other-
rated quality of performance in the mental contrasting
condition was stronger than in the indulging condition,
t(100) = 2.80, p < .01 (Figure 3, left graph). When
expectations of success were high, mental contrasting
participants performed better than indulging partici-
pants, t(100) = 3.05, p < .005; when expectations of
success were low, they performed worse than indulging
participants, t(100) = 2.22, p < .03.
We observed the same data pattern for self-rated
quality of performance. There was no main effect of
condition, F(1, 111) = .01, p > .98, but a main effect for
expectation, F(1, 111) = 31.54, p < .001, which was
qualified by the predicted interaction effect, F(1, 110) =
16.02, p < .001. The link between expectation and self-
rated quality of performance was stronger in the mental
contrasting condition than in the indulging condition,
t(110) = 4.00, p < .001 (Figure 3, middle graph). When
expectations of success were high, participants in the
mental contrasting condition evaluated their perfor-
mance as being better than did those in the indulging
condition, t(110) = 3.63, p < .001, whereas the reverse
was true when expectations of success were low, t(110) =
3.78, p < .001.
Finally, with respect to length of talk, the data pattern
was the same but only approached significance. We
observed no main effects of both condition and expecta-
tion, Fs(1, 106) = 2.29, ps > .13. There was a nearly
significant interaction effect, F(1, 105) = 3.48, p < .07.
The link between expectation and length of talk only
tended to be stronger in the mental contrasting condition
than in the indulging condition, t(105) = 1.87, p < .07.
Mediator variable: Feeling energized. First, we tested
whether the Condition × Expectation interaction effect
observed for the goal commitment variables existed for
feelings of energization. Accordingly, in a GLM we speci-
fied feeling energized as the dependent variable and in
Step 1 entered condition as a fixed between-subject factor
and the continuous expectation measure as an independ-
ent variable; in Step 2 we entered the interaction term of
condition and the continuous expectation measure as an
independent variable. We observed no main effect of con-
dition, F(1, 111) = .24, p > .62, but a main effect of expec-
tation, F(1, 111) = 6.33, p < .02, which was qualified by
the predicted interaction effect, F(1, 110) = 7.39, p < .01.
Again, the link between expectation and feeling energized
was stronger in the mental contrasting condition than in
the indulging condition, t(110) = 2.72, p < .01 (Figure 3,
right graph). Also, when perceived chances of success
were high, mental contrasting participants felt more ener-
gized than indulging participants, t(110) = 2.26, p < .03;
when perceived chances of success were low, mental
TABLE 2: Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Variables Used in Study 2 (N = 116)
Independent Variable 1 2 3
1. Expectation of success —
2. Incentive value .39*** —
3. Desired level of performance .01 .34*** —
M 4.36 4.89 5.42
SD 1.21 1.44 1.27
Dependent Variable 1 2 3 4
1. Other-rated quality of performance —
2. Self-rated quality of performance .42*** —
3. Length of talk .53*** .37*** —
4. Feeling energized .40*** .44*** .30** —
M 4.50 3.73 3.56 3.56
SD 1.30 1.12 1.35 1.33
**p < .01, ***p < .001.
at Staats und Universitaets on April 28, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

618 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
contrasting participants felt less energized than indulging
participants, t(110) = 2.73, p < .01.
Feeling energized as a mediator of the expectancy–goal
commitment link in the mental contrasting condition.
Mediation analyses (Baron & Kenny, 1986) conducted
as in Study 1 showed that in the mental contrasting
condition, feeling energized mediated the relation
between expectancy and other-rated quality of perfor-
mance and self-rated quality of performance (Figure 4).
Furthermore, bootstrap tests (Preacher & Hayes, 2008)
showed that the indirect effects of expectation on other-
rated quality as well as self-rated quality of performance
through feeling energized were significant, 95% CI
bootstrap percentiles = .02, .33 and .07, .33. These find-
ings imply that in the mental contrasting condition,
feeling energized partially, but significantly, mediated
the relation between expectation and performance as
rated by independent raters as well as by the partici-
pants themselves.
Discussion
Participants gave a talk after engaging in mental con-
trasting or indulging. Mental contrasting, as compared to
indulging, produced a stronger link between expectations
of success and goal commitment, measured by other- and
self-rated quality of performance. In addition, feelings of
energization showed the same pattern of results as the
performance indicators of goal commitment. Importantly,
a closer look at the mental contrasting condition revealed
that expectancy dependence of other-rated and of self-
rated quality of performance was mediated by feelings of
energization. Accordingly, in line with Study 1, energiza-
tion qualifies as a mediator between expectations and
commitment. Commitment in Study 2 was measured by
performance, a particularly accurate measure of com-
mitment (Locke et al., 1988).
Different from past research on mental contrasting that
measured performance in the field as well as days and
weeks after the manipulation, in this study we measured
other-rated performance in the lab, immediately after the
manipulation. We thus interpret the moderator effect of
self-regulation strategy on the expectancy–commitment
link as direct and not needing an intermediate variable.
For example, past research in which performance was
measured days and weeks after the manipulation could
not rule out that the moderator effects were caused by
the use of different behavioral means (e.g., differential
seeking of social support, differential ways of procrasti-
nation). The present research shows that performance
differences arise directly from differential feelings of
energization in the mental contrasting versus indulging
conditions.
Figure 3 Study 2: Regression lines depict the link between expectation and other-rated quality of performance (left), self-rated quality of per-
formance (middle), and feeling energized (right) as a function of mental contrasting and indulging.
at Staats und Universitaets on April 28, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Oettingen et al. / MENTAL CONTRASTING AND ENERGIZATION 619
Finally, because we used an acute stress paradigm,
we know that self-regulation strategy moderates the
expectancy–commitment link, even under highly stressful
conditions. Importantly, mental contrasting in high-ex-
pectancy participants led to strong goal commitment to
solve a very taxing problem: giving a good talk in front
of an evaluative audience. As a result, mental contrasting
can be considered a strategy that not only produces bind-
ing goal commitments to feasible wishes but, when
expectations of success are high, also fosters successful
mastery of an acute stressor.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
In two studies, mentally contrasting positive fantasies
about the future with negative reality produced expectan-
cy-based goal commitment via the motivational mecha-
nism of energization. Specifically, using SBP as a
physiological indicator of energization in Study 1, men-
tal contrasting participants exhibited energization in line
with their expectations of success. Energization emerg-
ing during the thought process of mental contrasting
itself in turn predicted participants’ commitment to
resolve their interpersonal concern. In Study 2, mental
contrasting participants indicated feeling energized in
line with their expectations of success. These feelings of
energization in turn predicted other- and self-rated qual-
ity of performance when giving a presentation in front
of a video camera.
Energization instigated in line with expectations of
success emerges when individuals contrast positive fan-
tasies with thoughts about obstacles of present reality.
This energization in turn directly fuels individuals’ goal
commitment as measured by affective and behavioral
indicators. Thus, engaging in mental contrasting as a
self-regulation strategy provides those with high expec-
tations of future success necessary energy to commit
and strive to realize the desired future. Adopting a tem-
poral perspective, our results imply that energization
resulting from mentally contrasting future and reality
helped high-expectancy participants consent to realizing
their positive fantasies (form a goal commitment, Heckhausen
& Gollwitzer, 1987; form a current concern, Klinger,
1975).
Mental Contrasting and
the Cardiovascular System
In line with previous findings, our research points to
the importance of the cardiovascular system for the
preparation of action. The function of the cardiovascu-
lar system is to supply cells with energy in the form
of oxygen and nutrients. Thus, an increased energy
demand due to physical or mental effort results in a
stronger cardiovascular response.
However, cardiovascular adjustments not only occur
as a reaction to increased effort investment but may also
occur in preparation of an immediate challenge (Contrada
et al., 1984). Because initial energization level strongly
predicts successful performance (Matthews, Davies, &
Lees, 1990), it is important to know how an anticipatory
mobilization of physiological resources can be triggered.
Our research points to mental contrasting future and
reality as a cognitive strategy that elicits a cardiovascular
response in preparation for goal commitment and effec-
tive goal striving.
Our results are in line with theory and findings from
the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat
(Blascovich, 1990; Seery, Blascovich, Weisbuch, & Vick,
2004). This theory postulates that in the case of challenge
(i.e., resources seem greater than the demand), physiolog-
ical, cognitive, and behavioral changes are observed that
indicate activation; to the contrary, in the case of threat
(i.e., demand seems greater than resources), changes are
observed that indicate inhibition. Note that Blascovich
and colleagues (Blascovich, 1990; Seery et al., 2004) use
physiological indices of cardiac output that differ from
our measures of SBP change; also, the model and research
pertains to participants who are already engaged in a task,
whereas our participants start out precommittal. Still, one
Figure 4 Study 2: Feeling energized as a mediator of the relation between expectation and other-rated quality of performance (left) and expec-
tation and self-rated quality of performance (right) in the mental contrasting condition.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
at Staats und Universitaets on April 28, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

620 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
could speculate that high-expectancy mental contrasting
participants behaved in line with a challenge interpreta-
tion, as the activation of physiological processes readied
them for energy expenditure. To the contrary, low-expect-
ancy mental contrasting participants showed deactivation
of physiological processes of energy expenditure, leading
to low commitment. This deactivation response in men-
tally contrasting low-expectancy participants differs from
the threat response postulated by Blascovich (1990), who
assumes that people already engaged in the task interpret
overwhelming demands as threat.
Mental Contrasting and Approach
Versus Avoidance Motivation
Our results also have implications for the hierarchi-
cal model of approach and avoidance motivation (Elliot,
2006; Elliot & Church, 1997), which distinguishes
motivation and goals as different entities of goal pur-
suit. Whereas the underlying motivation provides the
energy, goals provide the direction to act. In the frame-
work of the hierarchical model, one might speculate
that mental contrasting of a positive future with the
negative reality would provide the underlying motiva-
tion, but only if expectations of success are high. After
mental contrasting, expectations provide the assurance
and energy for the organism to commit (consent). As
positive fantasies show the direction by pointing to the
desired outcomes, an approach goal is formed.
However, fantasies about the future may also pertain
to negative, feared outcomes. Such a negative future
may be contrasted with a positive present reality that
needs to be preserved. Indeed, in a study on smoking
cessation, mental contrasting of a negative future (e.g.,
lung disease) with the positive reality that needs to be
preserved (e.g., healthy breathing) effectively committed
high-expectancy participants to goals of avoiding the
negative future (e.g., participants reported to have
promptly acted to avoid cigarette consumption; Oettingen,
Mayer, & Thorpe, 2009). Importantly, fantasizing about
the (negative) feared future alone, without juxtaposing
the positive reality, did not activate expectations. After
such one-sided thinking about the negative future, efforts
to avoid the dreaded future were moderate and expect-
ancy independent.
Avoidance-based energization can be detrimental for
performance and well-being, whereas approach-based
energization is beneficial. People with an avoidance moti-
vation suffer from test anxiety (Covington & Roberts,
1995), from a lack of intrinsic interest in the subject mat-
ter, and from relatively poor performance (Elliot &
Church, 1997). Thus, we recommend mental contrasting
of a negative future with the positive reality only when
people are not able to generate positive fantasies about
the future and therefore mentally contrasting a positive
future with negative reality is not possible. For example,
depressive affect might prevent people from fantasizing
positively about the future in general, or a strong addic-
tion might prevent them from fantasizing about the posi-
tive consequences of abstaining. In the case of addictions,
building avoidance goals by mentally contrasting a nega-
tive future with a positive reality may be an adequate way
to commit people to change their detrimental behaviors.
Limitations of the Present Research
Mentally contrasting the future with the reality is
conducive to forming expectancy-dependent goal com-
mitments, irrespective of whether the future is positive
or negative (i.e., commitment to approach or avoidance
goals are formed; Oettingen et al., 2009). As for the
mediating role of energization, the present research
speaks to mental contrasting of the positive future with
the negative reality (i.e., forming expectancy-dependent
commitment to approach goals). Research still needs to
test the mediating role of energization in mental con-
trasting of a negative future with positive reality, that is,
its role in forming expectancy-dependent commitment
to avoidance goals.
We measured energization via SBP and self-reported
feelings of energization. Future research needs to estab-
lish whether energization as measured via other param-
eters would show similar patterns of results. For example,
one could measure energization via nonverbal behavior
such as facial expression, posture, or speech modulation.
Moreover, we found significant but partial mediation in
both studies. It is important to know which other mech-
anisms mediate the expectancy–commitment link after
mental contrasting. For example, it might be that mental
contrasting not only changes the level of energization
but also cognitive variables such as memory processes
(e.g., working memory, episodic memory), attention
processes (salience of relevant stimuli), or vividness of
imagery (Achtziger, Fehr, Oettingen, Gollwitzer, &
Rockstroh, 2009).
Furthermore, we do not know how long the observed
energization will last. Maybe it vanishes quickly but
leaves commitment intact; maybe it is conjured up each
time a person thinks about the positive future that was
elaborated in the mental contrasting exercise. How
exactly expectancy-dependent commitment is sustained
over time and across obstacles and what the role of
energization is still needs to be explored.
Implications for Goal Research
The results of the two studies presented here allow
for speculation regarding the transfer of energization
resulting from mental contrasting in one domain to
at Staats und Universitaets on April 28, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Oettingen et al. / MENTAL CONTRASTING AND ENERGIZATION 621
other unrelated domains. For example, when one engages
in mental contrasting with regard to an interpersonal
concern, energization resulting from this process could
transfer to an unrelated task, such as studying for an
upcoming test, thus potentially influencing subsequent
commitment and action toward an unrelated desired
outcome.
However, energization as a result of mentally con-
trasting a particular desired future (e.g., increased energy
to work toward improving a relationship with a signifi-
cant other) could have the opposite effect by distracting
or even inhibiting energy mobilization toward other
endeavors, thereby impeding progress (e.g., decreased
energy dedicated to building relationships with friends).
Energization, in this sense, could shield goals from
derailment. Future studies should consider both kinds
of transfer effects of energization as a result of engaging
in mental contrasting.
Implications for Applied Research
Training programs in achievement, health, and inter-
personal communication commonly focus on the strength-
ening of efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 1989).
Such programs could enhance their benefits by comple-
menting their efficacy-heightening procedures with men-
tal contrasting, thus providing those with high efficacy
expectations with the necessary energy to commit to and
pursue their goals. To the contrary, when expectations of
success are low and cannot be strengthened, mental con-
trasting is an advisable strategy as it opens up creative
re-engagement to more feasible projects. Only when
more promising alternatives are not available, indulging
is expedient as it keeps people engaged at least to a mod-
erate degree.
Conclusion
The study of motivation is concerned with the proc-
esses that give behavior energy and direction. How
people treat their fantasies about a desired outcome
determines the energy that will be mobilized to commit
and pursue goals. The present research suggests that
using the strategy of mental contrasting enables those
with high expectations to deploy the necessary energy
to make their dreams come true.
REFERENCES
Achtziger, A., Fehr, T., Oettingen, G., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Rockstroh,
B. (2009). Strategies of intention formation are reflected in con-
tinuous MEG activity. Social Neuroscience, 4, 11-17.
al’Absi, M., Bongard, S., Buchanan, T., Pincomb, G. A., Licinio, J., &
Lovallo, W. R. (1997). Cardiovascular and neuroendocrine adjust-
ment to public speaking and mental arithmetic stressors.
Psychophysiology, 34, 266-275.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking
behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator vari-
able distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Blascovich, J. (1990). Individual differences in physiological arousal
and perception of arousal: Missing links in Jamesian notions of
arousal-based behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 16, 665-675.
Brownley, K. A., Hurwitz, B. E., & Schneiderman, N. (2000).
Cardiovascular psychophysiology. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary,
& G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (2nd ed.,
pp. 224-264). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brunstein, J. C., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). Effects of failure on
subsequent performance: The importance of self-defining goals.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 395-407.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1992). Social psychological con-
tributions to the decade of the brain: Doctrine of multilevel analy-
sis. American Psychologist, 47, 1019-1028.
Cannon, W. B. (1915). Bodily changes in pain, hunger, fear and rage:
An account of recent researches into the function of emotional
excitement. New York: Appleton.
Contrada, R. J., Wright, R. A., & Glass, D. C. (1984). Task difficulty,
Type A behavior pattern, and cardiovascular response.
Psychophysiology, 21, 638-646.
Covington, M. V., & Roberts, B. W. (1995). Self-worth and college
achievement: Motivational and personality correlates. In P. Pintrich,
D. Brown, & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition,
and learning (pp. 157-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Duffy, E. (1934). Emotion: An example of the need of reorientation in
psychology. Psychological Review, 41, 184-198.
Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance
motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 111-116.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of
approach and avoidance motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.
Fairclough, S. H., & Venables, L. (2006). Prediction of subjective
states from psychophysiology: A multivariate approach. Biological
Psychology, 71, 100-110.
Feldman-Barrett, L., Quigley, K. S., Bliss-Moreau, E., & Aronson, K. R.
(2004). Interoceptive sensitivity and self-reports of emotional expe-
rience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 684-697.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins
& R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition
(Vol. 2, pp. 53-92). New York: Guilford.
Hardin, J. W., & Hilbe, J. M. (2001). Generalized linear models and
extensions. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Heckhausen, H. (1977). Achievement motivation and its construct: A
cognitive model. Motivation and Emotion, 1, 283-329.
Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and
cognitive functioning in motivational vs. volitional states of mind.
Motivation and Emotion, 11, 101-120.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Klein, H. J., O’Leary, A. M., & Wright, P. M.
(1989). An investigation of the construct validity of a self-report
measure of goal commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,
951-956.
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behaviour. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Brickman, P. (1982). Expectations and what
people learn from failure. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and
actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology (pp. 207-237).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. (1999).
Goal commitment and the goal setting process: Conceptual clari-
fication and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84, 885-896.
Klinger, E. (1975). Consequences of commitment to and disengage-
ment from incentives. Psychological Review, 82, 1-25.
at Staats und Universitaets on April 28, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

622 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and
task performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988) The determinants of
goal commitment. Academy of Management Review, 13, 23-39.
Matthews, G., Davies, D. R., & Lees, J. L. (1990). Arousal, extraver-
sion, and individual differences in resource availability. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 150-168.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine
what people do. American Psychologist, 41, 812-825.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Newton, T. L., & Contrada, R. J. (1992). Repressive coping and verbal-
autonomic response dissociation: The influence of social context.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 159-167.
Obrist, P. A. (1981). Cardiovascular psychophysiology: A perspective.
New York: Plenum.
Oettingen, G. (2000). Expectancy effects on behavior depend on self-
regulatory thought. Social Cognition, 18, 101-129.
Oettingen, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2001). Goal setting and goal striv-
ing. In A. Tesser & N. Schwarz (Eds.) & M. Hewstone & M. Brewer
(Series Eds.), Blackwell handbook in social psychology: Vol. 1.
Intrindividual processes (pp. 329-347). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Oettingen, G., Hönig, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2000). Effective self-
regulation of goal attainment. International Journal of Educational
Research, 33, 705-732.
Oettingen, G., Mayer, D., & Thorpe, J. (2009). Promotion and pre-
vention fantasies and the self-regulation of goal commitments.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Oettingen, G., Pak, H., & Schnetter, K. (2001). Self-regulation of goal
setting: Turning free fantasies about the future into binding goals.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 736-753.
Peale, N. V. (2007). The power of positive thinking. New York:
Random House.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple
mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-871.
Rimé, B., Philippot, P., & Cisamolo, D. (1990). Social schemata of
peripheral changes in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 38-49.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learn-
ing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated
learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and prac-
tice. Progress in cognitive development research (pp. 83-110).
New York: Springer.
Seery, M. D., Blascovich, J., Weisbuch, M., & Vick, S. B. (2004). The
relationship between self-esteem level, self-esteem stability, and
cardiovascular reactions to performance feedback. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 133-145.
Shapiro, D., Jamner, L. D., Lane, J. D., Light, K. C., Myrtek, M.,
Sawada, Y., et al. (1996). Blood pressure publication guidelines.
Psychophysiology, 33, 1-12.
Thayer, R. E. (1978). Toward a psychological theory of multidimen-
sional activation (arousal). Motivation and Emotion, 2, 1-34.
Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1982). Symbolic self-completion.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wright, R. A., Murray, J. B., Storey, P. L., & Williams, B. J. (1997).
Ability analysis of gender relevance and sex differences in cardio-
vascular response to behavioral challenge. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73, 405-417.
Received November 24, 2007
Revision accepted November 18, 2008
at Staats und Universitaets on April 28, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from