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?