Higgins, E. ToryMarguc, JaninaScholer, Abigail A.2018-02-022018-02-022012-07-01http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.012http://hdl.handle.net/10012/12982The final publication is available at Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.012 © 2012. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Participants in our study worked on an anagram task to win a prize while aversive noise played in the background. They were instructed to deal with the noise either by “opposing” it as an interference or by “coping” with the unpleasant feelings it created. The strength of attention to the opposing or coping response to adversity was measured by poorer recognition of the content of the background noise. For the “opposing” participants, it was predicted that the more they attended to opposing the interference, the stronger they would engage in solving the anagrams to win the prize, which would increase the prize's value. For the “coping” participants, it was predicted that the more they attended to coping with their unpleasant feelings, the weaker they would engage in solving the anagrams to win the prize, which would decrease the prize's value. The results supported both predictions.enAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 InternationalEngagementMotivationAdversityDifficultyRegulatory Engagement TheoryValueArticle