The affect system has parallel and integrative processing components: Form follows function.

Cacioppo, John T.; Gardner, Wendi L.; Berntson, Gary G.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.839

Cited by 1,043 publications

(858 citation statements)

References 189 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

770

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, if the connection stems from outcome valence and affect being processed by the same brain systems, as proposed by Gray (1990), disentanglement may be impossible (cf. Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999). Thus, whenever researchers draw conclusions on the basis of reference-point measures, they must be mindful of the fact that their findings will contain significant variation in affectivity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note

Summerville

Roese

2008

Journal of Research in Personality

189

200

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regulatory focus theory distinguishes between two independent structures of strategic inclination, promotion versus prevention. However, the theory implies two potentially independent definitions of these inclinations, the self-guide versus the reference-point definitions. Two scales (the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire, Higgins al., 2001, and the General Regulatory Focus Measure, Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002) have been widely used to measure dispositional regulatory focus. We suggest that these two scales align respectively with the two definitions, and find that the two scales are largely uncorrelated. Both conceptual and methodological implications are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note

Summerville

Roese

2008

Journal of Research in Personality

189

200

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The crossing point in this diagram is the midpoint on each dimension, rather than neutral-affect points; absence of each class of affect occurs at the low end of each dimension. (B) Dimensions of positivity and negativity, adapted from Cacioppo et al (1999), that are presumed to form evaluative space. The neutral point here is the point where the dimensions intersect, with both affects at low levels.…”

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications.

Carver¹,

Harmon‐Jones²

2009

Psychological Bulletin

1,404

1,165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors review a range of evidence concerning the motivational underpinnings of anger as an affect, with particular reference to the relationship between anger and anxiety or fear. The evidence supports the view that anger relates to an appetitive or approach motivational system, whereas anxiety relates to an aversive or avoidance motivational system. This evidence appears to have 2 implications. One implication concerns the nature of anterior cortical asymmetry effects. The evidence suggests that such asymmetry reflects direction of motivational engagement (approach vs. withdrawal) rather than affective valence. The other implication concerns the idea that affects form a purely positive dimension and a purely negative dimension, which reflect the operation of appetitive and aversive motivational systems, respectively. The evidence reviewed does not support that view. The evidence is, however, consistent with a discrete-emotions view (which does not rely on dimensionality) and with an alternative dimensional approach.Keywords: anger, approach, appetitive system, avoidance, threat system Recent years have seen a surge of interest in emotional experience (e.g., Barrett, Niedenthal, & Winkielman, 2005;Dalgleish & Power, 1999;Davidson, Scherer, & Goldsmith, 2003;Frijda, 2007; Lane & Nadel, 2000;Lewis & Haviland-Jones, 2000;Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988;Panksepp, 1998; Rottenberg & Johnson, 2007; Scherer, Schorr, & Johnstone, 2001). Views of emotion vary considerably, in several respects. As one example, some people view emotions as a set of distinct modular entities, often considered basic emotions (e.g., Ekman, 1992;Izard, 1991;Izard & Ackerman, 2000;Levenson, 1994Levenson, , 1999Panksepp, 1998;Roseman, 1991). Others hold that affects are best understood by reference to underlying dimensions (e.g., Barrett, 2006;Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999;Carver & Scheier, 1998;Davidson, 1998;Gray, 1994a;Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1992Russell, 2003;Russell & Carroll, 1999a, 1999bWatson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999;Yik, Russell, & Barrett, 1999). AngerThis article focuses on one specific affect-anger. Specifically, it addresses the relationship of this affect to broad motivational tendencies of approach and avoidance, and it considers implications of that relationship for two areas of thought and research. We begin with a few words about definitions.Sometimes the terms affect, feeling, and emotion are treated as interchangeable (e.g., Isen, 2000); sometimes they are distinguished from each other (e.g., Fredrickson, 2001;. Affect is generally used to imply a hedonic experience, a sense of valence, a subjective sense of positivity or negativity arising from an event. When many use the word emotion, it is with that sense in mind. As Frijda (2000) put it, "For many theorists, the essence of emotion is feeling, and notably 'affect,' here used in the sense of a feeling of pleasure or pain . . . ." (p. 63). As Ortony et al. (1988) put it, emotions are ". . valenced reactions to events, agents, or objects . ." (p. 13). T...

show abstract

“…(Watson, 2000, pp. 22-23) These conceptual ideas are reflected in other theories (e.g., Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999;J. A.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

PANAS positive activation is associated with anger.

Harmon‐Jones

Abramson

et al. 2009

Emotion

154

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a prototypic negative emotion, anger would seem to have little in common with positive activation, as measured by the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; D. Watson, L. A. Clark, & A. Tellegen, 1988). However, growing evidence suggests that both anger and positive affect are associated with approach motivation. This suggests the counterintuitive hypotheses that positive affect should be increased by anger-evoking situations, and that positive affect and anger should be directly correlated in such situations. Four studies tested and supported these hypotheses. Discussion focuses on the implications of these results.Keywords: anger, approach motivation, positive affect, PANAS Some dimensional models of emotion postulate that positive affect is directly associated with approach motivation, whereas negative affect is directly associated with withdrawal motivation (e.g., Watson, 2000). In this article, we examine how anger, an approach-oriented, negatively valenced affect, relates to positive activation (PA), which has also been linked to approach motivation (Watson, 2000). PA is measured by the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), one of the key measures used in tests of these dimensional models. More important, we tested the relationship during the experience of anger. If anger relates directly to PA, this would have implications for the structure of emotion and motivation. It would also suggest that the PANAS does not provide a pure measure of positivity, and this would have implications for the interpretation of research using the PANAS.The linking of affective valence with motivational direction may be appropriate for most affects. Joy, interest, and enthusiasm are positive affects that appear to be associated with approach motivation. Similarly, disgust, fear, and anxiety are negative affects that appear to be associated with withdrawal motivation. Most past research has examined these affects.Far less research has been conducted on anger, an affect that violates the direct linking of affective valence and approach motivation. Indeed, according to recent research, anger is a negative affect associated with approach motivational tendencies (for review, see Carver & Harmon-Jones, in press). Thus, in contrast to the theoretical idea that approach motivation is only associated with positive affect, we propose that approach motivation also involves certain negative affects, particularly anger. Consequently, if the PA measure of the PANAS taps approach motivation rather than purely positive activation, it should be related to anger even though PA and anger seem to have different valences. Watson (2000) suggested that positive activation reflects activation of the approach motivational system. He wrote, . . . a growing body of evidence has suggested that negative mood experience is part of a larger Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), whereas positive mood experience is linked to what has variously been called the Behavioral Activation System, Behavioral Engagement...

show abstract

The affect system has parallel and integrative processing components: Form follows function.

Cited by 1,043 publications

References 189 publications

Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note

Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note

Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications.

PANAS positive activation is associated with anger.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About