Motivation, Emotion, Stress and Coping

Theories of emotion

Classic theories of emotion differ mainly in the order of, and the relationship between, cognition, bodily arousal and felt experience. The James-Lange theory holds that bodily reactions to a stimulus come first, and the felt emotion follows from the perception of those reactions, so the body causes the feeling. The Cannon-Bard theory rejects this sequence: the emotion-eliciting stimulus is processed by the thalamus, which sends signals at the same time to the cortex, producing the felt emotion, and to the autonomic nervous system, producing bodily arousal. The two are therefore independent of each other yet occur simultaneously. The Schachter-Singer two-factor theory states that an emotion requires both a state of physiological arousal and a cognitive label for that arousal, and the label is chosen from cues in the surrounding environment. The same arousal can thus be experienced as different emotions depending on context. Lazarus's cognitive appraisal theory holds that an evaluation of the meaning of a situation precedes and determines the emotion, which differs from the simultaneous and independent triggering proposed by Cannon-Bard.

Useful contrasts:

• James-Lange — body first, then feeling (sequential).
• Cannon-Bard — parallel and independent processes.
• Schachter-Singer — arousal plus an environmentally based cognitive label.
• Appraisal theory — cognition first.

The term conceptualization of emotions also covers other traditions. Paul Ekman proposed the theory of basic emotions, a small set of universal emotion categories expressed through facial displays. Rom Harré developed the social constructionist account, in which emotions are culturally learned social practices. Leon Festinger, known for cognitive dissonance theory, and E. B. Titchener, a structuralist who studied the elements of conscious experience, are not associated with this conceptualization.

Conflict types and coping strategies

Kurt Lewin classified psychological conflicts by the valence of the goals involved. An approach-approach conflict involves two attractive goals, and an avoidance-avoidance conflict involves two aversive alternatives. An approach-avoidance conflict involves a single goal that is both attractive and aversive, and a multiple approach-avoidance conflict involves several goals that each have both positive and negative features. In an avoidance-avoidance conflict, both options are unpleasant, so the person typically vacillates between them, and escape responses, such as withdrawing from the situation altogether, are also possible. Approach-avoidance and multiple approach-avoidance conflicts require at least one attractive goal, so they do not fit a situation in which every alternative is aversive.

Coping strategies are classified by their target. Problem-focused coping aims to change the stressful situation itself. Emotion-focused coping, proposed by Lazarus and Folkman within the transactional stress model, aims to regulate the emotional response so that the distress is reduced. Two related concepts are often confused with coping. The General Adaptation Syndrome describes the physiological stages of the body's response to prolonged stress, not the regulation of emotion. Cognitive appraisal is the evaluation of a situation's significance and comes before coping rather than being a coping strategy.

• Avoidance-avoidance — choice between two aversive options.
• Approach-avoidance — one goal with both pull and push.
• Emotion-focused coping — managing feelings about the stressor.
• Problem-focused coping — managing the stressor itself.

Arousal and drive theories of motivation

Arousal and drive theories explain behaviour in terms of internal activation. Drive theory holds that biological needs create drives, which are aroused states of tension that push the organism to action in order to restore physiological equilibrium. Arousal theory holds that organisms seek an optimal general level of activation, so behaviour is organized to keep activation at a comfortable level rather than to reduce a specific need. The difference is that drive theory begins from a biological deficit, whereas arousal theory begins from the desire to maintain an optimal level of stimulation.

The relationship between arousal and performance is described by the Yerkes-Dodson law. Performance improves as arousal increases up to an optimal point, and beyond that point further arousal impairs performance, producing an inverted-U curve. The optimal level of arousal is lower for complex tasks than for simple tasks.

Cognitive theories of motivation are distinct from these internal-state accounts. Expectancy theory holds that behaviour is determined by the expected desirability of outcomes. Goal-setting theory holds that specific and challenging goals improve motivation and performance.

Example: a student who studies more when a test feels moderately exciting, but freezes when anxiety is extreme, illustrates the inverted-U relationship described by the Yerkes-Dodson law.

Categories of stressful events

Stressors are classified by their intensity and duration. A traumatic event is an overwhelming experience that threatens life or physical safety, and it can produce lasting symptoms such as recurrent intrusive memories. A chronic stressor is a persistent, ongoing condition that continues over a long period, such as a prolonged difficulty at work or in a family setting. A major life event is a significant change in a person's circumstances, such as marriage, bereavement or the birth of a child, which requires adjustment. A daily hassle is a minor, everyday irritation, such as a small inconvenience or a lost item, that is brief and low in intensity.

• Traumatic event — high intensity, threat to safety, sudden.
• Chronic stressor — low to moderate intensity, long duration.
• Major life event — significant change, requires readjustment.
• Daily hassle — minor, frequent, short-lived.

Categories are distinguished by magnitude and time course, so a single situation can be a daily hassle for one person and a major life event for another, depending on its meaning and impact.

Need for achievement (n-Ach)

The need for achievement, or n-Ach, is McClelland's motive to excel against a standard of excellence. People high in this motive show distinctive preferences and behaviours. They prefer situations in which they bear personal responsibility for outcomes, and they like to receive concrete feedback on their performance. They persist on tasks that reflect their personal characteristics, such as intelligence, or that are relevant to their careers, because success on such tasks carries personal meaning. They prefer moderately difficult tasks in which success depends on their own effort, and they avoid extremely difficult tasks where success is largely a matter of chance. They also adjust their aspiration levels realistically in response to past success and failure, rather than keeping them fixed.