The Latin root of the word “emotion” is emovere, which means “to move or to push”. Reflecting this definition, different groups of researchers argue that motivation and emotion are intertwined. One viewpoint argues that emotion in animals and humans have evolved from basic motivational systems concerned with approach and avoidance (Gray, 1981; Gray, 1990). Positive mood is argued to stem from the approach system, and negative mood is argued to stem from the avoidance system. A distinct but related line of research argues that feeling states arise from people’s judgments of how effective their efforts are to approach goals and avoid anti-goals (Carver & Scheier, 1998). In this theory the purpose of positive emotions/moods is to motivate one to seek out new experiences (Carver, 2003). Positive moods encourage exploration because they signal that one is performing better than necessary, whereas negative moods signal that one is performing worse than necessary (Carver, 2003). In this framework positive and negative emotions can arise from either the approach or the avoidance systems, and this will influence the kind of emotion. For instance approach-motivated positive emotions include joy, and eagerness, whereas avoidance-motivated positive emotions include relief, and calmness (Carver, 2003). In all cases, emotion is the result of a feedback signaling process that monitors one’s progress towards goals, and motivation is an integral part of emotional experience (Carver & Scheier, 1998).
Other theories argue that motivational systems exist independent of emotion, but that emotion is influenced by these systems (Higgins, 2001). For instance self-discrepancy theory is similar to control systems theory (Carver & Scheier, 1998) in that the perceived distance from ideal or ought motivational states influences emotion in predictable ways. When one perceives they are failing/succeeding at attaining a desired end state
succeeding/failing at avoiding an undesired end state (prevention), relief/anxiety results. So although the motivational states preceding these emotions are supposed to be
independent of emotion, emotion is tied to these states once the cognitive evaluative processes involved in assessing the progress being made towards reaching goals are active.
Higgins (2001) argues that:
When studies manipulate emotional experiences with music, movies, gifts, or recollections of past events, it is possible that they manipulate nonemotional motivational states as well, such as promotion and prevention motivational states, and these motivational states might influence memory independent of emotions. (p. 209)
This implies that positive mood manipulations might be confounded with promotion focus motivation. This is an interesting and plausible proposition. A promotion regulatory focus state has been argued to broaden attention (Förster & Higgins, 2005; Friedman & Förster, 2005) as has regulatory fit (Memmert, Unklebach, & Ganns, 2010). Regulatory fit has also been argued to enhance cognitive flexibility (Maddox et al., 2006; Zhang & Chan, 2012). Thus there is convergence between results obtained with positive mood manipulations (e.g. Ashby et al., 1999) and with regulatory focus and fit manipulations. In fact Zhang and Chan (2012) replicated the results of Dreisbach and Goschke (2004) with promotion and prevention regulatory focus states. In Chapter 4 the majority of participants had a dominant chronic promotion focus, a finding that is corroborated in other research using participants from individualistic cultures (Elliot, Chirkov, Kim & Sheldon, 2001; Lee, Aaker & Gardner, 2000). It is possible that if most students in North American universities and colleges have a chronic promotion focus that a positive mood manipulation could create either a strong promotion focus or a state of regulatory fit. Chapter 4 manipulated promotion and prevention regulatory focus states, but found that mood accounted for the variance in poor exemplar typicality ratings. Specifically, current self-reported negative mood was negatively related to poor exemplar typicality ratings. It seems likely that the prevention focus manipulation created increased negative
mood/anxiety in participants. It is possible that writing about “duties and responsibilities” in the future created anxiety in first year undergraduate students, for instance by
activating cognitive evaluative processes that made some students feel like they were failing at meeting their prevention-based goals, as predicted by self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987). This finding is in line with research by Mikulincer and colleagues (Mikulincer, Paz, Kedem, 1990a; Mikulincer, Kedem, & Paz, 1990b). Mikulincer et al. (1990a; 1990b), who reported that state and trait anxiety was connected to reduced poor exemplar typicality ratings. Unlike Mikulincer et al. (1990a), I did not try to create an evaluative state amongst participants. Participants in Chapter 4’s study were told there were no correct or incorrect answers. In contrast Mikulincer et al. (1990a) explicitly attempted to create an evaluative atmosphere to amplify the effects of anxiety on the rating task. My research demonstrates that an evaluative framework need not be
explicitly promoted in order for negative affectivity to influence poor exemplar typicality ratings.
Higgins (2001) argues that the high anxiety group in Mikulincer et al. (1990) were likely to have been in a prevention focus, and that it was the prevention focus, and not the anxiety that influenced the typicality ratings. This argument is made in light of the findings of Crowe and Higgins (1997), who reported that participants in a prevention focus created less inclusive category groupings than participants in a promotion focus. Further, this effect was reported to be independent of mood, as mood was measured at several times throughout the task. Although my research did not find an effect of
motivational state that was independent of mood, it is still possible that all of these results are concordant with one another, but that the varied results are due to differences in methodology and measurement. Future research should seek to disentangle nonemotional motivation from emotions resulting from success and failure.