1 / 56

Marcel Zeelenberg

On the Motivational Function of Emotion and its impact on Behavior: A Feeling-is-for-Doing Approach. Marcel Zeelenberg. It has been known for centuries that:. Emotions influence decision making Emotions may outperform calculation. Blaise Pascal ( 1623 - 1662 ).

rhiannon-alexander
Download Presentation

Marcel Zeelenberg

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. On the Motivational Function of Emotion and its impact on Behavior:A Feeling-is-for-Doing Approach Marcel Zeelenberg

  2. It has been known for centuries that: • Emotions influence decision making • Emotions may outperform calculation

  3. Blaise Pascal(1623- 1662) The heart has its own reason which reason does not know. A man of intelligence feels what others can only know. Montesquieu(1689-1755)

  4. William StanleyJevons(1835-1882) I hesitate to say that men will ever have the means of measuring directly the feelings of the human heart. […] so we may estimate the equality or inequality of feelings by the decisions of the human mind.

  5. Emotion = Affect = Valence

  6. Negative versus Positive

  7. Good versus Bad

  8. Happy versus Sad

  9. Emotion = Affect = Valence • Emotions can easily be integrated in evaluative judgments (utility / satisfaction) • Expressed on a single scale • No need to radically change theory

  10. Emotion = Affect = Valence The analysis of emotions in terms of “valence,” while it recognizes something essential about emotions … is an idea that we should abandon and leave behind. It serves no purpose but confusion and perpetrates the worst old stereotypes about emotion, that these are simple phenomena unworthy of serious research and analysis. Solomon, R. C., & Stone, L. D. (2002). On “positive” and “negative” emotions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 32, 417-443.

  11. Problems with Valence

  12. Problems with Valence

  13. Problems with Valence What is a positive emotion? -one that feels good? (how about Pride & Schadenfreude?) -one that helps us to reach our goals? (Anger?) -one that makes us do good things? (Guilt?)

  14. Problems with Valence • There is ambiguity about the meaning of valence • There is a large number of distinct emotions • Each emotion has its own idiosyncratic experiential content, and hence motivates different behaviors

  15. The Emotion Process EmotionalExperience Affect Feelings Thoughts Action Tendecies Emotivations Appraisals of precipitating events Behavioral responses

  16. William James (1842-1910) My thinking is first and last and always for the sake of my doing.

  17. EmotionalExperience Affect Feelings Thoughts Action Tendecies Emotivations Appraisals of precipitating events Behavioral responses Feeling-is-for-doing The key to future behavior resides in the experience of current specific emotions

  18. Feeling-is-for-doing Emotions are signals!! • Informational function (mostly affect-based) • Motivational function (mostly emotion-based)

  19. The Psychology of Regret

  20. Regret vs. Disappointment • Different Appraisals (Van Dijk & Zeelenberg, 2000, M&E) • Different Counterfactuals (Zeelenberg et al., 1998a, OBHDP) • Different Experiences (Zeelenberg et al., 1998b, C&E)

  21. Regret vs. Disappointment

  22. Regret vs. Disappointment • Different Appraisals (Van Dijk & Zeelenberg, 2000, M&E) • Different Counterfactuals (Zeelenberg et al., 1998a, OBHDP) • Different Experiences (Zeelenberg et al., 1998b, C&E) • Different Behaviors?

  23. Zeelenberg & Pieters (1999) Behaviors Switch regret Bad Service Encounter Complain Dissatisfaction Disappointment Negative Word-of-Mouth

  24. Regret vs. Disappointment • Different Appraisals (Van Dijk & Zeelenberg, 2000, M&E) • Different Counterfactuals (Zeelenberg et al., 1998a, OBHDP) • Different Experiences (Zeelenberg et al., 1998b, C&E) • Different Behaviors!! (but same valence!!)

  25. Moral Emotions “Nature has implanted in the human breast, that conscious of ill-desert, those terrors of merited punishment which attend upon its violation, as the great safe-guards of the association of mankind, to protect the weak, to curb the violent, to chastise the guilty.” Adam Smith (1723 – 1790) Feelings related to the welfare of others rather than one’s own (Haidt, 2003).

  26. Moral Emotions Feelings related to the welfare of others rather than one’s own (Haidt, 2003). “Moral sentiments compete with feelings that spring from rational calculations of material payoffs… Consider a person capable of strong guilt feelings. This person will not cheat even when it is in her material interest to do so. The reason is not that she fears getting caught but that she simply does not want to cheat.” Robert Frank

  27. MORAL SENTIMENTS ANDCOOPERATION(De Hooge, Zeelenberg & Breugelmans, 2007, C&E.) Guilt I have done something bad to another person  reparation Shame I am a bad person (prevent more damage to the self)  ??

  28. Experiment 1 • Autobiographical recall guilt/shame/control • Cooperation measure: 10-coin give-some dilemma game(Van Lange & Kuhlman, 1994) • Emotion manipulation check • Social Value Orientation (Van Lange et al., 1997)

  29. 10-coin give-some dilemma game(Van Lange & Kuhlman, 1994)

  30. Results Experiment 110-coin give-some dilemma game

  31. Results Experiment 2:The Everyday Cooperation Scale

  32. The Feeling-is-for-Doing approach Emotions can be either endogenous or exogenous to the goal striving process, their effect on behavior being contingent on their perceived relevance to the current goal.

  33. Not So Ugly After All:Endogenous ShameActs as a Commiment Device(De Hooge, Breugelmans & Zeelenberg, under review.) Shame  I am a bad person  protect/restore self-image

  34. Shame • Ugly emotion with no apparent function Vs • Moral Emotion that acts as commitment device.

  35. Exogenous Shame Endogenous Shame = Withdrawal Withdrawal not possible Shame motivation ↓ Prosocial behavior No influence cooperation Cooperation Hypotheses

  36. Hypotheses • Exogenous Shame  no influence: Prosocials  Cooperation Proselfs  No Cooperation • Endogenous Shame  Prosocial beh: Prosocials  Cooperation Proselfs  Cooperation

  37. Study 3 Induction of shame: • 4-pp groups • 2 “intelligence” tasks academic ability • Public Feedback on performance • Shame: worst of all pp Control: normal

  38. Study 3 DV: 10-coin give-some dilemma game • Exogenous: interact with partner from other group (doesn’t know intelligence score) • Endogenous: interact with partner from own group (who knows intelligence score)

  39. Emotion Manipulation Check

  40. Study 3 – Prosocials

  41. Study 3 – Proselfs

  42. Why We Punish Emotional Determinants of Altruistic Punishment (Nelissen & Zeelenberg, under review)

  43. Moral Emotions “Nature has implanted in the human breast, that conscious of ill-desert, those terrors of merited punishment which attend upon its violation, as the great safe-guards of the association of mankind, to protect the weak, to curb the violent, to chastise the guilty.” Adam Smith (1723 – 1790) Feelings related to the welfare of others rather than one’s own (Haidt, 2003).

  44. Altruistic Punishment Costly sanctioning of norm violations with no apparent benefits to the punisher.

  45. Altruistic Punishment Costly sanctioning of norm violations with no apparent benefits to the punisher. Average investment in public good (Fehr & Gächter, 2002).

  46. Altruistic Punishment Costly sanctioning of norm violations with no apparent benefits to the punisher.

  47. Altruistic Punishment Costly sanctioning of norm violations with no apparent benefits to the punisher. Thursday, august 17, 1996 Four drunk, worked-up guys come to the Voetboogstraat to pick a fight. They start beating people up. Pub crowds eating chips, a bum, bystanders that try to stop the violence. Joes Kloppenburg shouts: “Cut it out!”. He is beaten to dead. He is 26 years old. It’s four-thirty on a Friday night.

  48. Anger & Guilt: Study 1 • Third-Party Punishment Game (cf. F&F’04) • All ppn. “randomly” assigned as 3rd party. • Witness unfair allocation (80/20) in dictator game between 2 “other participants”. • Option to assign “reduction points” (out of 50) to dictator. • Measures • Angerat dictator • Guilty over not punishing

More Related