Emofion is not just construed as a phenomenological

0 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size Report
Mo>ves are affect-amplifiers. The intensity of emo>onal experience is greater for strongly mo>vated individuals. Personality perspec>ve. Atkinson, 1957 ...
Emo$on is not just construed as a phenomenological experience, but is seen as a process that has implica$ons for the way in which organisms are both energized and directed, the two fundamental defini$onal components of mo$va$on. Elliot, Eder, & Harmon-Jones, 2013, p. 308

Notes. •  Nomenclature: ….affect…emo@on… •  Scope: limited •  Perspec@ve: from implicit mo@ve research a la McClelland •  Assessment: the emo@onal experience rather than the evalua@ve process underlying the experience

Mo@ves are affect-amplifiers The intensity of emo@onal experience is greater for strongly mo@vated individuals Personality perspec@ve Atkinson, 1957

The (e)mo@vated sequence Mo@vated behavior is defined by an appe@@ve phase and a consummatory phase Emo@ons provide a mo@va@onal kick Incen@ves have hedonic value McClelland et al. Atkinson’s expectancy-value theory Hull

Self-regula@on Goal progress is linked to posi@ve emo@on and goal frustra@on to nega@ve emo@on A tradi@onal view Sheldon & Schuler, 2011 Pueschel et al, 2011 Barbara Woike

Approach-avoidance Approach mo@ves are linked to posi@ve emo@ons and avoidance mo@ves to nega@ve emo@ons The hedonic principle Hullian drive theory Gray; RST

The specificity hypothesis Specific mo@ves are associated with specific emo@ons McClelland, 1985 Zurbriggen & Sturman, 2002 Research on FEEs; Mo@va@onal Field Theory Mowrer, 1960; Higgins, 2000; Rolls, 2013

The present research Addresses these gaps •  The specificity hypothesis has not been sufficiently studied –  Approach and avoidance –  Achievement mo@va@on

•  The link between mo@ves and emo@ons during the appe@@ve versus the consummatory phases has not been systema@cally examined

Adopts this approach •  From the perspec@ve of the emo@onal experience, not the evalua@ve/appraisal process •  Implicit mo@ves affected more strongly by nonverbal s@muli. Their effects on emo@onal experience should be assessed using non declara@ve measures

We study the specificity hypothesis (McClelland) by looking at the different ra@ngs of specific emo@ons and dimensions of affect during the an@cipatory and the consumma@ve stages of approach versus avoidance achievement mo@ves.

We also describe the difference between the affec@ve experiences of the expectancy versus the consummatory phases by comparing ra@ngs during goal pursuit and acer goal consump@on.

McClelland et al. (1953) McClelland, 1985 Mowrer; Higgins; Rolls Harmon-Jones Flow

Interest/surprise? Happiness Relief G+ G- Dejec@on Anxiety/agita@on?

Quiescence Anger?...agita@on/excitement

GA+ GA- Anxiety/agita@on

Approach or HS Visualizing goal pursuit

Visualizing goal akainment

Consummatory emo@on

An@cipatory emo@on

IPANAT or SAM

Avoidance or FF Visualizing goal pursuit

Visualizing goal akainment

Consummatory emo@on

An@cipatory emo@on

IPANAT or SAM

Approach

Adapted from Chan & Cameron, 2012

Visualizing goal pursuit

Avoidance Visualizing goal pursuit

2-minute long visualiza@on instruc@ons were followed by a 4-minute free wri@ng task

Free-wri@ng tasks coded for implicit approach and avoidance mo@ves and ac@vity inhibi@on

Approach Visualizing goal akainment

Avoidance Logic-based filler task administered as an emo@onreset tool

Visualizing goal akainment

Approach

Quick dissipa@on of affect Avoid direct self-report

Consummatory emo@on

An@cipatory emo@on

IPANAT or SAM

Avoidance Consummatory emo@on

An@cipatory emo@on

IPANAT or SAM

IPANAT-DE •  Bode & Quirin, 2013; Quirin & Bode, 2014 •  Modified version –  Specific emo@ons selected based on Higgins; Rolls; Mowrer; etc. theore@cal relevance •  Happiness, dejec@on, quiescence, agita@on

–  Two versions repeat administra@on; addi@onal non-words selected from Yap, Balota, & Tan, 2013

SAM •  Dimensions of affect –  Valence –  Arousal –  (Social) dominance/ independence

N = 38

IPANAT

•  During goal pursuit and acer goal consump@on –  For HS condi@on: Significant increases in happiness ra@ngs and decreases in both acquiescence and agita@on –  For FF condi@on: Significant decreases in both happiness and dejec@on –  MANCOVA revealed (condi@on x @me x emo@on) effect: drama@c drop in agita@on for HS condi@on and slight increase for FF condi@on •  During pursuit –  Agita@on significantly posi@vely predicted by amount of approach imagery in visualiza@on –  2-way interac@on (condi@on x HS imagery) •  Acer consump@on –  Agita@on significantly nega@vely predicted by avoidance imagery in visualiza@on and posi@vely predicted by ac@vity inhibi@on

N = 29

SAM results

•  During goal pursuit and acer goal consump@on –  For HS condi@on: Significant increases in happiness and decreases in dominance –  For FF condi@on: Significant increases in happiness

•  During pursuit –  Significant 2-way interac@on (condi@on x FF) for arousal

•  Acer consump@on –  Valence •  Significantly nega@vely predicted by FF imagery in pursuit visualiza@on •  Significant 2-way interac@on (condi@on x FF)

Some comments •  Levels of processing valuable for inves@ga@ng link •  Agita@on for more implicit level of assessment could be picking up “emo@onal kick”

•  •  •  • 

In progress Appraisal Specific emo@ons, e.g., interest Expectancy x value –  Expect nega@ve outcomes –  Does incen@ve value maker?