Archive for the ‘ Tez ’ Category

“Ideal Affect” – Tsai (2007)

Ideal affect

  • ‘‘attitudes toward emotion’’ (Ellsworth, 1994; Izard, 1971; Mesquita, Frijda, & Scherer, 1997) – both valence, + preference, motivation
  • ‘‘norms regarding emotional experience’’ (Diener & Suh, 1999; Eid & Diener, 2001) – both comparison reference, + personal preference
  • ‘‘feeling rules’’ (Hochschild, 1983; Wierzbicka, 1994) – both comparison reference, + personal preference
  • discrepancy between ideal and actual
  • not temperament, learnt

Ideal affect & culture

  • daily communicative exchanges – scripts (e.g. American “fun morality”, Wolfenstein, 1953), exchange bw. parent & child (e.g. vocalization), exchange bw. peers (e.g. affect sharing)
  • religion (e.g. texts)
  • media – magazines, children’s books
  • influence vs. adjustment goals
  • recreational activities
  • music preferences
  • substance use

The theory (AVT)

  • “ideal affect differs from actual affect” – goal is affective state itself; affect + mood regulation
  • “cultural factors shape ideal affect more than they shape actual affect”
  • “discrepancies between actual and ideal affect motivate moodproducing behavior” (p. 251).

Tools

  • AVI
  • Facial Action Coding System (Ekman & Friesen, 1978)

Tez Günlüğü

  • Never gonna happen. (05.04.2011 16.19)
  • No alarms and no surprises please. (05.04.2011 16.48)

“Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect” – Higgins (1987)

Multiple selves (review)

  • James (1890) – spiritual self vs. social self
  • Rogers (1960) – normative standard vs. ideal self
  • Schafer (1967), Piers & Singer (1971) – superego vs. ideal self (based on Freud)
  • Cooley (1902) – ideal self
  • Colby (1968) – wish-beliefs vs. value-beliefs

Self-discrepancy theory (Higgins)

Domains of self

  • actual self
  • ideal self
  • ought self

Standpoints on self

  • own
  • other

Self-state representations

  • actual/own – self-concept
  • actual/other – self-concept
  • ideal/own – self-guide
  • ideal/other – self-guide
  • ought/own – self-guide
  • ought/other – self-guide

Self-discrepancy types

  • actual/own vs. ideal/own – dejection* (disappointment, dissatisfaction, frustration)
  • actual/own vs. ideal/other – dejection (shame, embarrassment, downcast)
  • actual/own vs. ought/own – agitation** (fear, threatened, resentment)
  • actual/own vs. ought/other – agitation (guilt, self-contempt, uneasy)

Availability vs. accessibility

Tools/Methods (note to self)

  • Selves questionnaire (Higgins)
  • Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965)
  • Mood questionnaire w/ dejection & agitation
  • Socialization questionnaire w/ living up to parent ideals
  • Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (Watson & Friend, 1969)
  • Social Avoidance and Distress Scale (Watson & Friend, 1969)
  • Priming w/ imagining reaching/failing common standard
  • Ideal priming w/ describing parents’ ideal, change in hopes & aims
  • Ought priming w/ describing parents’ ought, change in beliefs
  • Non-matching priming w/ self-guide traits not matching self-concept
  • Mismatching priming w/ self-guide traits discrepant from self-concept
  • Yoked priming w/ self-guide/self-concept traits not appearing
  • Total verbalization time
  • Skin conductance (PHYSIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE)

*dejection-related emotion: no real/possible +ive outcome

**agitation-related emotion: real/possible -ive outcome

“Fear and Loving in Las Vegas: Evolution, Emotion, and Persuasion” – Griskevicius et al. (2009)

Perspectives on persuasion:

  • General arousal model – “arousal should inhibit deep processing & increase effectiveness of diagnostic heuristics”
  • Affective valence model- “effectiveness should depend on whether the context elicits positive or negative affect”
  • Evolutionary model (own) – “persuasiveness should depend on both the specific emotion that is elicited and the content of the particular heuristic”

Evolutionary model:

  • Functionality
  • Domain-specificity
  • “From an evolutionary perspective, emotions are conceived as activators of executive motivational sub-systems that direct energy in ways designed to deal with particular kinds of adaptive problems (Cosmides and Tooby 2000; Keltner et al. 2006)”.

Hypotheses (quoted):

  • H1: Fear should lead social proof appeals to be more persuasive compared to when such appeals are not used.
  • H2: Fear should lead scarcity appeals to be less persuasive compared to when such appeals are not used.
  • H3: Romantic desire should lead scarcity appeals to be more persuasive compared to when such appeals are not used.
  • H4: Romantic desire should lead social proof appeals to be less persuasive compared to when such appeals are not used.
  • H5: Although behavioral social proof appeals (“everybody’s doing it”) should be more persuasive under fear (H1) and less persuasive in a state of romantic desire (H4) relative to a neutral emotion control, the persuasiveness of attitudinal social proofappeals (“everybody’s talking about it”) should not differ as a function of emotion.
  • H6: Although distinctiveness-based scarcity appeals (“stand out from the crowd”) should be more persuasive in a state of romantic desire (H3) and less persuasive under fear (H2) relative to a neutral emotion control, the persuasiveness of limited opportunity scarcity appeals (“limited time offer”) should not differ as a function of emotion.

* Evolutionary approach to marketing.