Author Reply  133

and avoidance of loss goals (as opposed to growth goals), and emotion regulation/hedonic goals (as opposed to informationseeking goals). Across adulthood, gains in resources decrease and losses increase (Baltes, 1997). In line with these changes, there is a shift from a predominant goal orientation towards gains and growth in younger adults to a stronger orientation towards maintenance and the avoidance of loss (Freund et al., 2012). Maintenance goals imply that the person has already achieved what they want to keep: there is no distance between the desired end state and the actual state, making it difficult to apply Balcetis’s framework to these goals. Given the importance maintenance goals have for middle-aged and older adults, this is a significant limitation of the framework as applied to developmental questions. According to socioemotional selectivity theory (SST; Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999), changes in time perspective lead to shifts in goals: when people perceive their time as open-ended (as young adults do) they prioritize future-oriented goals, but when time is perceived as limited (typically by older adults), they prioritize present-oriented, hedonic goals. Moreover, SST posits that chronic prohedonic goals lead older adults to show “positivity effects” in their attention and memory, such that they preferentially process positive over negative information (Reed & Carstensen, 2012). Putting these assumptions into Balcetis’s framework leads to interesting research questions that might inform both fields—motivated cognition as well as adult development: If emotional goals lead people to preferentially process positive information, how might that intersect with the goals–emotion–distance interface presented by Balcetis? Would chronic emotional goals constrain temporary goals? Might agerelated changes in how goals and emotion relate change distance perception as well? Considering which of the observed patterns from this article do (and do not) vary as a function of aging would

offer critical tests of which relationships are fundamental and which shift under varying higher order goal conditions.

Conclusions From a lifespan developmental perspective, key goals are longterm and help in the construction of meaningful lives given environmental constraints (Freund, 2007). We believe that Balcetis’s approach will prove fruitful if expanded to also apply to long-term goals and the dimension of maintenance, rather than focusing exclusively on short-term concrete approach and avoidance goals.

References Balcetis, E. A. (2016). Approach and avoidance as organizing structures for motivated distance perception. Emotion Review, 8(2): 115–128. Baltes, P. B. (1997). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. American Psychologist, 52, 366–380. Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165–181. Freund, A. M. (2007). Differentiating and integrating levels of goal representation: A life-span perspective. In B. R. Little, K. SalmelaAro, J. E. Nurmi, & S. D. Phillips (Eds.), Personal project pursuit: Goals, action and human flourishing (pp. 247–270). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Freund, A. M., Hennecke, M., & Mustafić, M. (2012). On gains and losses, means and ends: Process and outcome focus. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 280–300). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Isaacowitz, D. M. (2012). Mood regulation in real time: age differences in the role of looking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 237–242. Reed, A. E., & Carstensen, L. L. (2012). The theory behind the age-related positivity effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–9.

Author Reply: Future Tests of Motivated Distance Perception From Multiple Perspectives Emily Balcetis

Psychology Department, New York University, USA

Abstract

avoidance. Finally, I conjecture on how the motivated distance perception model can be further developed.

In response to comments, I repeat and further support the proposal that valence and arousal cannot serve as independent factors of motivated distance perception, but can be incorporated into the model as features of motivational direction. I articulate the importance of eliciting experiences to predict the direction of motivational direction, suggest additional ways to measure motivational direction, and direct the reader to extensive literatures that have illustrated conditions that give rise to approach and

Keywords approach, avoidance, distance perception, motivation

I articulated a model of the protagonistic role of approach and avoidance in perceiving distance. These expert commentaries

Corresponding author: Emily Balcetis, Psychology Department, New York University, 6 Washington Place, Meyer Hall, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by guest on March 31, 2016

134  Emotion Review Vol. 8 No. 2

inspired additional questions that may guide future research and for which I provide additional leads.

Incorporating Valence and Arousal Stefanucci and Stokes (2016) advocate for the continued inclusion of valence and arousal. And my model can accept this inclusion, so long as valence and arousal are considered features of motivational orientation. The intensity and direction of motivational orientations can be predicted, in part, by object valence and the strength of the response the object elicits. However, valence and arousal are unable to serve as exclusive predictors in models of distance perception. In fact, beyond the data already presented, four new studies show no main effects of valence on distance perception (Krpan & Schnall, 2014). Valence and arousal remain important factors for predicting perceptions of distance, in so much as they assist in predicting the strength of approach or avoidance motivations.

motivational orientations activated cognitively affected perceptions of distance; the more approach rather than inhibition/ avoidance activated, the closer valenced words appeared (Krpan & Schnall, 2014).

Considering Fight, Flight, and Freezing Storbeck (2016) suggested researchers predict perceptual bias from fight, flight, and freezing rather than from approach and avoidance. Unfortunately, his trio of behaviors merely reflects consequences of motivational orientations rather than eliciting mechanisms themselves. Organisms fight when they experience an approach orientation, they flee when they experience avoidance, and they freeze when they experience both approach and avoidance orientations simultaneously (McNaughton & Gray, 2000). Storbeck’s triadic structure lacks parsimony, as fight, flight, and freeze behaviors are consequences of motivational orientations, and not mechanism themselves.

Expanding the Model

Eliciting Experiences Matter To predict the strength of approach or avoidance motives, researchers must consider features of eliciting experiences. When Storbeck (2016) claims that affective objects can automatically elicit motivations, he fails to note that the direction of the motivated response, be it to approach or avoid, is partially dictated by features of the eliciting situation (Shah & Kruglanski, 2008). To predict perceptual bias, one must consider the situation. For instance, aspects of the situation dictate whether a $100.00 bill activates approach or avoidance and the manner of perceptual bias; the bill is perceived as closer when the bill can be won than when it cannot (Balcetis & Dunning, 2010). A full illustration of conditions that elicit approach or avoidance, as Storbeck (2016) requested, was beyond the purview of this manuscript, as prominent motivational theories already thoroughly fleshed out these conditions. Distance perception researchers interested in such conditions might draw inspiration from evolutionary theory (Tooby & Cosmides, 1990), comparative psychology (Blanchard & Blanchard, 1988), goal gradient literatures (Brown, 1948; Förster, Higgins, & Idson, 1998), educational psychology (Elliot & Covington, 2001), state and trait differences in personality types (Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994), and feedback systems (Carver, 2006) that explicate features of eliciting situations that shift motivational orientations.

This model best explains perceptual experiences of the current environment, rather than memories of past or anticipated experiences, as Isaacowitz and Freund (2016) suggest. If researchers choose to expand beyond immediate goals, they may find utility in motivational theories that articulate how one moves to, through, and beyond each stage of goal pursuit (Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987). The manner in which motives affect perception may shift as goal pursuit evolves. As Stefanucci and Stokes (2016) advocate, the model is most useful if it applies to perceptual experiences beyond distance, and new data support its generalizability. For instance, objects and situations that elicit approach shift perceptions of size, detectability, speed, and other qualities in ways that assist with satisfaction of active motives (Radel & Clément-Guillotin, 2012; van Koningsbruggen, Stroebe, & Aarts, 2011; van Ulzen, Semin, Oudejans, & Beek, 2008).

Conclusion I appreciate the opportunity and the challenge from the commentators to propose and refine a model of motivated distance perception that synthesizes evidence, reconciles inconsistencies, and proposes falsifiable hypotheses that may spur future research but also expands the depth of processes tested.

Gathering Evidence for Mechanism

References

Researchers may find it difficult to measure approach and avoidance, as Stefanucci and Stokes (2016) note. If this is the case, they might test the proposed causal pathways using experimental chain designs (Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005), as manipulating motives is relatively easy using muscular movements (Cacioppo, Priester, & Berntson, 1993) or cognitive tasks (Friedman & Förster, 2005). Recent evidence shows

Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2010). Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as closer. Psychological Science, 21, 147–152. Blanchard, D. C., & Blanchard, R. J. (1988). Ethoexperimental approaches to the biology of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 39(1), 43–68. Brown, J. S. (1948). Gradients of approach and avoidance responses and their relation to motivation. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 41, 450–465.

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by guest on March 31, 2016

Author Reply   135

Cacioppo, J. T., Priester, J. R., & Berntson, G. G. (1993). Rudimentary determinants of attitudes: II. Arm flexion and extension have differential effects on attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 5–17. Carver, C. S. (2006). Approach, avoidance, and the self-regulation of affect and action. Motivation and Emotion, 30(2), 105–110. Elliot, A. J., & Covington, M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 73–92. Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, L. C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: Regulatory focus and the “goal looms larger” effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1115–1131. Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2005). Effects of motivational cues on perceptual asymmetry: Implications for creativity and analytical problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 263–275. Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, 11, 101–120. Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct selfregulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 276–286. Isaacowitz, D. M., & Freund, A. M. (2016). Comment: Emotion, goals, and distance: A view from the study of adult development and aging. Emotion Review, 8(2): pp. 132–133. Krpan, D., & Schnall, S. (2014). Too close for comfort: Stimulus valence moderates the influence of motivational orientation on distance perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(6), 978–993.

McNaughton, N., & Gray, J. A. (2000). Anxiolytic action on the behavioural inhibition system implies multiple types of arousal contribute to anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61(3), 161–176. Radel, R., & Clément-Guillotin, C. (2012). Evidence of motivational influences in early visual perception: Hunger modulates conscious access. Psychological Science, 23(3), 232–234. Shah, J. Y., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2008). The challenge of change in goal systems. In J. Y. Shah & W. I. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 217–229). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851. Stefanucci, J. K., & Stokes, D. (2016). Commentary on Balcetis: On some limits to the motivational direction approach. Emotion Review, 8(2): pp. 129–130. Storbeck, J. (2016). Comment: The paradox of parsimony in motivated distance perception. Emotion Review, 8(2): pp. 130–132. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 375–424. Van Koningsbruggen, G. M., Stroebe, W., & Aarts, H. (2011). Through the eyes of dieters: Biased size perception of food following tempting food primes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 293–299. Van Ulzen, N. R., Semin, G. R., Oudejans, R. R. D., & Beek, P. J. (2008). Affective stimulus properties influence size perception and the Ebbinghaus illusion. Psychological Research, 72, 304–310.

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by guest on March 31, 2016