1
Motivation, Affect, and Cognition
Spring 2014
Instructor
Jason T. Siegel, ACB 203, Jason.siegel@cgu.edu
Co-Instructors
Benjamin Rosenberg ( Benjamin.Rosenberg@cgu.edu
)
Mario Navarro ( Mario.navarro@cgu.edu
)
Class Meetings
Tuesdays, 9.00–11.50, ACB 214
Overview
This 4-unit class will explore classic and contemporary research on motivational systems and processes (e.g., arousal, needs, expectations). The class will cover the bi-directional influence of affect and cognition on motivation, as well as the role goals play in the motivational system. The first three weeks are designed to provide an introduction to motivational theories. The fourth week will be a class on theory building and different ways of judging the quality of a theory.
From there, each week will explore a different topic of motivational scholarship (e.g., frustration, motivation and affect, motivation and cognition). Starting week 5, each week will begin with a quiz focused on the readings. Following the quiz, students will present three different theories each week (see description page 4). The class will end with a discussion of how each theory of discussed that week can explain a specific behavior (e.g., a bar fight at 12:15 on New Year’s
Eve). The semester will conclude with a consideration of current motivation research and future directions for the field.
Students will be expected to present on several theories throughout the semester, which will include the current status and perceived utility of the framework (see page 4). To ensure high quality presentations, students will meet with the instructor(s) one week prior to their actual presentation. Students are expected to have their presentations ready for the pre-presentation meeting. Essentially, the student will show their presentation to the instructor(s). Final projects will involve mapping the history of a motivational theory, reporting on its current status, and proposing a study that will push the literature in that domain forward (see page 5).

2
Class Policy
The preference is that you do not use your laptop during class. Not only will taking notes via pen and paper enhance your recall, but it will also remove the temptation to wander onto your favorite websites (i.e., GDTheory.com). Further, even though the tapping of keys on a keypad can be quite soothing to some, others find it distracting. If you do wish to use your laptop, you will be required to email us the notes you took during class at the end of each class period.
Final Grade
Your final grade will be computed as follows:
Minor Presentation (week 2 or week 3):
Presentation #1:
5%
15%
(7.5% pre-presentation, 7.5% actual)
15% Presentation #2:
Presentation #3 (if needed):
Final Exam:
(7.5% pre-presentation, 7.5% actual)
15%
(7.5% pre-presentation, 7.5% actual)
15%
Final Paper:
Weekly Quiz:
20%
15%
Participation and attendance is expected. You will not receive extra points for either; however, we reserve the right to reduce your overall grade if you are lacking in either of the areas.
Scientific and Professional Ethics: The work you do in this course must be your own. Feel free to build on, react to, criticize, and analyze the ideas of others but, when you do, make it known whose ideas with which you are working. You must explicitly acknowledge when your work builds on someone else's ideas, including ideas of classmates, professors, and authors you read.
In addition, all students should review the SBOS Handbook for information about plagiarism.
Plagiarism is a serious offense, even if unintentional, and is subject to sanctions. If you ever have questions about drawing the line between others' work and your own, ask the course professor who will give you guidance. Exams and quizzes must be completed independently.
All written products should be type written, prepared for this course, and should conform to APA style, along with a complete references section. Students should not submit papers that have been written for prior or concurrent courses unless they have obtained prior approval from the instructor.
Any student who has a disability that prevents the fullest expression of their abilities should contact the instructor as soon as possible to discuss the appropriate accommodations necessary to complete the course requirements.
Mental Health Resources: Graduate school is a context where mental health struggles can be exacerbated. If you ever find yourself struggling, please do not hesitate to ask for help. If I did

not ask for help as a graduate student, I would not have made it through my first year. There is help available on campus, or you can contact Ben, Mario, or Dr. Siegel. If you wish to seek out campus resources, here is some basic information about Monsour
(http://www.cuc.claremont.edu/monsour/):
“Monsour Counseling and Psychological Services (MCAPS) is committed to promoting psychological wellness for all students served by the Claremont University Consortium. Our well-trained team of psychologists, psychiatrists, and post-doctoral and intern therapists offer support for a range of psychological issues in a confidential and safe environment.”
Phone: 909-621-8202
Fax: 909-621-8482
After hours emergency: 909-607-2000
Address:
Tranquada Student Services Center
1st floor
757 College Way
Claremont, CA 91711
Disclaimer: The above schedule and procedures in this course are subject to change in the event of extenuating circumstances.
3

4
Assignment Descriptions
Minor Presentation:
On the first day of class, students will select one article to be presented in Week 2 or 3.

This will be a short, 5-7 minute presentation. If your article is very long or dense, and you are struggling to get under the 7 minutes, please get in touch.

The goal of the presentation is for you to provide the class with the goal of the article, an overview of the article’s main points, and what the article says about human behavior.

Please end with one slide that takes the reading and offers an explanation for a bar fight that occurs between two people at 12:15 on New Year’s Eve.

Your goal is not to summarize everything, but to really get at the main topics.

Please upload your presentation to your dropbox on sakai prior to the start of
Presentations: class.
The presentations are expected to be 20-25 minutes each. Each presentation should have the following components:

Overview of the theory o Assumptions/Axioms/Propositions/Boundary Conditions o Constructs/Definitions o If there is a model of the theory, this is where it should also be presented
(this is typically a picture depicting how one construct leads to another construct in the theory).

History of the Theory o Who are the major players o Was there one main individual researching this theory or many? o What were the popular theories of the time when this emerged? How may have those theories influenced this one?

Where has the theory gone since it has been proposed?
o Highly cited? o Did the theory die out? If so, was there a reason why? o Has the theory been developed further? (e.g., constructs added/removed?
Relations among constructs changed?) o Any specific competition? In other words, are there other theories that are often compared to this one?

How has it been tested/measured?
o Is there a primary form of testing (i.e., paradigm) the theory?

If so, what manipulations do they use? o How are constructs typically measured? o What evidence is there to support the theory?

Correlational/Cross-sectional?

Is there sufficient experimental evidence to support the framework?

Has this theory been brought into the applied domain?

5 o Have there been studies that apply this theory to explain specific behaviors or how to change these behaviors? o Was the application of the theory successful? How much explanatory power does the theory have?

Please end with one slide that takes the reading and offers an explanation for a bar fight that occurs between two people at 12:15 on New Year’s Eve.
Weekly Quiz:

Starting Week 4, there will be a quiz each week. The quiz Week 4 will not be counted toward your grade, as we want you to get a sense of the level of questions to be asked.

The goal of the quiz is to make sure you did a reasonable job getting through the material. We will not be asking you what the third word on the fourth page said, but we will expect you to be able to describe the main points of each article.

Our goal is not to cause you harm, but to make sure everyone is coming to class prepared. If not, the person presenting will be met with blank stares rather than unbridled excitement.
Final Exam:
The final exam will cover every theory for which you were assigned readings.
Our expectation is that you will be leaving the course with vast awareness of the theories of motivation from past and present. The exam will include short answers, multiple choice, and other forms of inquiry that will allow you to convince us that you have a solid understanding of the material. There will be about 40 different theories covered throughout the semester. If, when presented with the name of a theory, you can give a basic rundown of the framework, you will be in good shape for this exam. You will have access to all the presentations that were given throughout the semester to assist in your studying.
Final Project:
This final project should be something you meet and discuss with us on numerous occasions. Ideally, you will not write this paper and never look at it again; rather, we hope you will continue to work on this paper after the class concludes with the long-term goal of publication. Regardless of your future intentions, we are expecting all work to be publication quality.
Part I

Provide an overview of the theory, including the goals of the theory as described by the theory creator.
 Provide a specific breakdown of the theoretical framework including the theory’s assumptions, axioms, propositions, and boundary conditions. This component is meant to be your perspective as to how the theory matches up to the theoretical checklist described throughout the semester.

You should describe the empirical evidence that supports or does not support the framework. This should include a breakdown of the methods used to examine the framework and your opinion on the quality of the chosen approach.

Next, you are to present theoretical developments that may have occurred.

6

You should include a description of the extent to which the theory has been well received—or not. Here, consider the number of people who have cited the article and whether the citations are in praise or in disagreement. Also, let us know whether the theory is still part of the contemporary literature.

You will score a good grade on this section if you convince us you have made yourself an expert in regards to your theory of choice. We want to see that you know everything from the seminal article to the last word written on the framework. You will score an even better grade, if your critical review of the theory based on the theory checklist is insightful and provides a fair review of the theory from this perspective. Further, we are going to be looking to see if you go beyond regurgitation and really try to understand the success or lack of success of the framework (e.g., did the theory get more/less attention than deserved?).
Likewise, we will be looking closely at your description and interpretations of the research methods used to test the framework.
Part 2

Please provide a study that will move the theoretical framework forward. You should describe why you think your study can move the framework forward and your specific hypotheses.

For this part of the paper, we will be looking to see if you found a good way to push the theory forward. We will be asking ourselves whether your proposed research investigation indeed fills a hole and whether it will be a contribution to the framework. Here, we expect to see a nice pathway from the first part of the paper to this part of the paper.

You should lay out your study as if it were a research article. Here, we will be looking very closely to see that you are leaning on the studies that have come before you. Simply, if your framework is often tested using mood inductions, you should be using mood inductions—unless your goal is to show that mood inductions are the best means of assessment, in which case you would still include mood inductions as comparisons. Every measure and method should have a myriad of citations and there should be no reasonable means for a reviewer to critique your approach.

Please include a description of the specific measures you will use, the participants you would recruit, and the analyses you will conduct.

We recommend the proposal of multiple studies (2-4). This will allow you to answer your proposed research question, replicate the study, and rule out any rival hypotheses.

Your discussion should bring together the first part and the second and make a cohesive argument as to why your proposed study will be a contribution to the field and why your experimental design is the ideal way to test your hypotheses.

For this section of the paper, we will be looking closely at the quality of your proposed research study. o First, we will also be assessing the quality of your contribution. We will consider whether we believe your proposed studies will indeed move the field forward. o Next, we will look to see if your proposed research design is in line with the prior assessments of the model. For better or worse, people who have

7 published on the theory will be the ones who review your paper if you send it out for publication. If you deviate from the common research paradigm, there will be complaints. You can build and improve on the common approach, but you must have the typical approach as part of your overall study. Beyond replicating prior designs, we will be looking to see if you added anything creative or scientifically useful to the common approach. Following prior attempts to test the theory is certainly required, but you should be thinking about how you can build off prior studies. We will also consider the quality and accuracy of the proposed analyses.

8
Course Schedule
Please read by first week
Week 1 (January 20 th
)
Introduction, Administrative Excitement, Selection of Presentation Dates
Readings due this week:
Mowrer, O. H. (1952). Motivation. Annual Review Of Psychology, 3, 419-
438. (read 419-424)
Weiner, B. (2013) Little-known truths, quirky anecdotes, seething scandals, and even some science in the history of (primarily achievement) motivation.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17 , 293-304.
Reeve, J. (2008). Understanding Motivation and Emotion. 5 th
Edition. Ch1 – Ch
2.
Week 2 (January 27 th
)
Basic Constructs: Homeostasis, Motives, Arousal, Secondary Motivation Systems,
Intervening Variables, Frustration
Readings due this week:
Bolles, R. C. (1978). Whatever Happened to Motivation?
Educational
Psychologist, 13, 1-13. 13
Brown, J. S., & Farber, I. E. (1951). Emotions conceptualized as intervening variables--with suggestions toward a theory of frustration. Psychological Bulletin,
48, 465-495. 30
Granich, L. (1932). An analysis of motivation. Psychological Review, 39, 235-
244. 10
McClelland, D. C. (1951). The effects of motivation on behavior. In
Personality (pp. 478-525). New York, NY, US: William Sloane Assoc. 50
Seward, G. J. (1939). Dialectic in the psychology of motivation. Psychological
Review, 46-61. 15
Stagner, R. (1961). Homeostasis, need reduction, and motivation . Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 7, 49-68. 20
Tolman, E. C. (1949). The nature and functioning of wants. Psychological
Review, 56, 357-369. 10

Week 3 (February 3 rd
)
Drives and Needs
Appley, M. H. (1970). Derived Motives. Annual Review of Psychology, 21 , 485-
518.
Baumeister, A., Hawkins, W. F., & Cromwell, R. L. (1964). Need states and activity level. Psychological Bulletin, 61, 438-453 .
Brown, J. S. (1955). Pleasure-seeking behavior and the drive-reduction hypothesis. Psychological Review, 62, 169-179.
James, W. (1904). Psychology . Chapter XXVI: Will. (pp. 352-368). New York:
H.Holt & Company.
Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Integrating behavioral-motive and experientialrequirement perspectives on psychological needs: A two process perspective.
Psychological Review, 118, 552-569.
Tolman, E. C. (1926). The nature of the fundamental drives. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 20, 349-358.
Tolman, E. C. (1943). A drive-conversion diagram. Psychological Review, 50,
503-513.
Week 4 (February 10 th
)
Theory
Start with…
Gabrenya, W. K. (2003). Theories and models in psychology. Retrieved from http://my.fit.edu/~gabrenya/IntroMethods/eBook/theories.pdf
Cohen, B. P. (2003). Creating, testing, and applying social psychological theories. Social Psychology Quarterly , 66, 5-16.
Then read…
Holton, E. F., & Lowe, J. S. (2007). Toward a general research process for using
Dubin's theory building model. Human Resource Development Review , 6 , 297-
320.
Locke, E. A. (2007). The Case for Inductive Theory Building. Journal of
Management , 33 , 867-890.
9

10
Smith, E. R., & Conrey, F. R. (2007). Agent-based modeling: A new approach for theory building in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology
Review , 11 , 87-104.
Optional…
Fine, G. A., & Elsbach, K. D. (2000). Ethnography and experiment in social psychological theory building: Tactics for integrating. Journal Of Experimental
Social Psychology , 36 , 51-76.
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building.
Academy of management review , 15 , 584-602.
Serlin, R. C. (1987). Hypothesis testing, theory building, and the philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 34 , 365.
Wacker, J. G. (1998). A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal of operations management , 16 , 361-385.
Week 5 (February 17 th
)
Classic Theories (Part 1)
General Reading(s):
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Toward a Theory of Exploratory Behavior: I.
Arousal and Drive. In Conflict, arousal, and curiosity (pp. 163-192). New
York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Theory 1: Drive Reduction Theory
Hull, C. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts Inc. (p. 16 – 49).
Theory 2: Humanistic Theory (Maslow’s theory of motivation)
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological
Review , 50 , 370-396.
Theory 3: Psychoanalytic Theory
Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the Pleasure Principle. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XVIII
(1920-1922). London, England: Penguin. (p. 1-37).
Rubinstein, B. B. (1980). On the psychoanalytic theory of unconscious motivation and the problem of its confirmation. Noûs , 14, 427-442.
Week 6 (February 24 th
)
Classic Theories (Part 2)

11
General Reading(s):
McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. American Psychologist, 41 , 812-825.
Theory 1: Purposive Behavior Theory
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men . Oakland,
Ca: University of California Press. (Chapter 1: pp. 4-22; Chapter 4: 71-83)
Theory 2: Field Theory
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers (Edited by Dorwin Cartwright.). Oxford, England: Harpers.
30-59, 87-129.
Theory 3: McClelland's Human Motivation Theory
McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation . Cambridge, England: CUP
Archive.
Pages: 246-255 (achievement motive) 280-296 (power motive) 346-358
(affiliation motive) 374-381 (avoidance motive)
McClelland, David C. (1978). Managing motivation to expand human freedom. American Psychologist , 33 , 201–210.
Week 7 (March 3 rd
)
Motivation and Affect
General Reading(s):
Lazarus, R.S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition.
American Psychologist, 37 , 1019-1024.
Brehm, J. W. (1999). The intensity of emotion. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 3, 2-22.
Izard, C. E., & Ackerman, B. P. (2000). Motivational, Organizational, and
Regulatory Functions of Discrete Emotions. In M. Lewis, & Haviland-Jones, J.
M. (Ed.), Handbook of Emotion (Vol. II, pp. 253-264). New York: Guilford
Publications, Inc.
Three students will present this week. Each will choose one theory from this list. All students are required to read the reading(s) associated with the three selected theories.
Theory 1: Affect-Infusion Model
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The Affect Infusion Model
(AIM). Psychological Bulletin , 117 , 39-66.
Theory 2: Appraisal Theory

12
Roseman & C. A. Smith (2001). Appraisal theory: Overview, assumptions, varieties, controversies . In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T.
Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal Processes in Emotion, pp. 3-19. Oxford
University Press.
Theory 3: Izard’s Differential Emotion Theory
Izard, C. E. (1993). Four systems for emotion activation: Cognitive and noncognitive processes. Psychological Review , 100 , 68-90.
(Optional) Abe, J. A., & Izard, C. E. (1999). The developmental functions of emotions: An analysis in terms of differential emotions theory. Cognition And Emotion , 13 , 523-549.
Theory 4: The Somatic Marker Hypothesis
Damasio, A. R., Everitt, B. J., & Bishop, D. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex [and discussion].
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.
Series B: Biological Sciences , 351 , 1413-1420.
(Optional) Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision. Games And Economic
Behavior , 52 , 336-372.
Theory 5: Cannon-Bard Theory
Cannon, W. B. (1927/1987). The James-Lange theory of emotions: A critical examination and an alternative theory. The American Journal of
Psychology , 100, 567-586.
Theory 6: Affective-Forecasting
Wilson,T.D.,& Gilbert, D.T. (2003). Affective forecasting. In M.P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp.
345–411). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
(Optional) Wilson, T. D., Wheatley, T. P., Meyers, J. M., Gilbert, D. T., &
Axsom, D. (2000). Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 821-836.
(Optional) Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., &
Wheatley, T. (1998). Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
617-638.
These are not eligible for selection. Might be fun to read if you are interested.
Theory 7: Prime Theory
Buck, R. (1985). Prime theory: An integrated view of motivation and emotion. Psychological Review , 92 , 389-413.

13
Theory 8: Opponent-Process Theory
Solomon, R. L. (1980). The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: the costs of pleasure and the benefits of pain. American
Psychologist , 35 , 691-712.
Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. (1978). An opponent-process theory of motivation. The American Economic Review , 35, 12-24.
Week 8 (March 10 th
)
Motivation and Cognition
General Reading(s):
Henle, M. (1955). Some effects of motivational processes on cognition.
Psychological Review, 62, 423-432.
Molden, D. C., & Higgins, E. (2005). Motivated thinking. In K. J. Holyoak, R. G.
Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 390-409).
New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
Theory 1: Attribution Theory
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D.
Levine (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Volume 15, pp. 192-
238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Weiner, B. (1980). A cognitive (attribution) – emotion – action model of motivated behavior: An analysis of judgments of help-giving. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 186-200.
Theory 2: Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, Ill. Row
Peterson. (p. 1-47, 84-97).
Greenwald, A. G., & Ronis, D. L. (1978). Twenty years of cognitive dissonance: Case study of the evolution of a theory. Psychological Review,
85 , 53-57.
Theory 3: Self-Determination Theory
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology , 53 ,
1024–1037.
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the
Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being.
American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

14
These are not eligible for selection. Might be fun to read if you are interested.
Theory 4: Social Learning/Cognitive Theory
Albert Bandura (1971). "Social Learning Theory." General Learning
Corporation.
Theory 5: Construal Level Theory
Trope Y, & Liberman N. Temporal construal. (2003). Psychological
Review, 110, 403–421.
Trope Y, & Liberman N. (2010). Construal-Level Theory of Psychological
Distance, Psychological Review , 117, 440–463.
Theory 6: Social Learning theory (Rotter)
Rotter, J.B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology . New York,
Prentice-Hall. (p. 105-183). Recommend to also read (p. 223-242)
Week 9 (March 17 th —SPRING BREAK)
Week 10 (March 24 th
)
Expectations
General Reading(s):
Olson, J. M., Roese, N. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1996). Expectancies. In E. T. Higgins
& A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.) Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. (pp.
211-238). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Feather, N. T. (1963). Mowrer's revised two-factor theory and the motiveexpectancy-value model. Psychological Review , 70 , 500-515.
Three students will present this week. Each will choose one theory from this list. All students are required to read the reading(s) associated with the three selected theories.
Theory 1: Expectancy Theory (Vroom)
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. (pp. 3-28)
Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996) Vroom's expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81 , 575-586.
Theory 2: Expectancy Value Theory
Atkinson, J.W. (1964). An introduction to motivation . Oxford, England:
Theory 3: Regulatory Focus Theory. Higgins, E. T. (1997) Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300
Van Nostrand. (pp. 274-283)

15
Theory 4: Temporal motivation theory
Steel, P., Konig, C. J. (2006). "Integrating Theories of Motivation".
Academy of Management Review 31, 889–913.
Theory 5: Energization theory
Brehm, J. W., Wright, R. A., Solomon, S., Silka, L., & Greenberg, J.
(1983). Perceived difficulty, energization, and the magnitude of goal valence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 21–48.
Week 11 (March 31 st
)
Goals
General Reading(s):
Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2010). Motivation. In S. T.
Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, G. Lindzey (Eds.) , Handbook of social psychology , Vol 1
(5th ed.) (pp. 268-316). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. (pp. 268-288)
Three students will present this week. Each will choose one theory from this list. All students are required to read the reading(s) associated with the three selected theories.
Theory 1: Rubicon Model of Action Phases
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior , 2 , 53-92.
Theory 2: Cognitive Energetics Theory
Kruglanski, A. W., Bélanger, J. J., Chen, X., Köpetz, C., Pierro, A., &
Mannetti, L. (2012). The energetics of motivated cognition: a force-field analysis. Psychological review , 119 , 1-20.
Theory 3: Locke’s Goal Theory
Locke, E. A., & Bryan, J. F. (1967). Performance goals as determinants of level of performance and boredom. Journal of Applied Psychology , 51 ,
120-130.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American
Psychologist , 57 , 705-717.
Theory 4: Hope Theory
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M.,
Sigmon, S. T., & ... Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways:
Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology , 60 , 570-585.
Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological
Inquiry , 13 , 249-275.

16
These are not eligible for selection. Might be fun to read if you are interested.
Theory 5: Achievement Goal Theory
Pintrich, P. R., Conley, A. M., & Kempler, T. M. (2003). Current Issues in
Achievement Goal Theory and Research. International Journal Of
Educational Research , 39 , 319-337.
Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing Achievement Goal Theory: Using Goal
Structures and Goal Orientations to Predict Students' Motivation,
Cognition, and Achievement. Journal Of Educational Psychology , 96 ,
236-250.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review , 95 , 256-273.
Theory 6: Goal Disengagement
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Miller, G. E., Schulz, R., & Carver, C. S.
(2003). Adaptive self-regulation of unattainable goals: Goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 29 , 1494-1508.
Klinger, E. (1975). Consequences of commitment to and disengagement from incentives. Psychological Review , 82 , 1-25.
Theory 6: Implicit Theories of Motivation
Hong, Y., Dweck, C. S., Chi-yue, C., Lin, D. M., & Wan, W. (1999).
Implicit Theories, Attributions, and Coping: A Meaning System
Approach. Journal Of Personality & Social Psychology , 77 , 588-599.
Theory 7a: Incentive Theory of Motivation
Killeen, P. R. (1981). Incentive theory. Nebraska Symposium On
Motivation , 29, 169-216
Skinner, B. F. (1936). Thirst as an arbitrary drive. Journal Of General
Psychology , 15, 205-210.
Theory 7b: Reinforcement Theory
Skinner, B. F. (1958). Reinforcement today. American Psychologist , 13 ,
94-99.
Week 12 (April 7 th
)
Goal Systems
Hilgard, E. R., & Marquis, D. G. (1961). General theories of reinforcement. In , Hilgard and Marquis' conditioning and learning (2nd ed.) (pp. 203-237). East Norwalk, CT, US: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

17
General Reading(s):
Heider, F. (1960, January). The gestalt theory of motivation. In Nebraska symposium on motivation.
(pp. 145-172)
Theory 1: Goal Systems Theory
Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W. Y.,
& Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 34 , 331-378.
Theory 2: Goal Shielding
Shah, James, Friedman, R., Kruglanski, A.W. (2002). Forgetting all else:
On the antecedents and consequences of goal shielding. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83 , 1261-1280.
Theory 3: Goal Disruption Theory
Siegel, J. T. (2013). Illuminating the psychological processes associated with renal failure diagnosis and living donation considerations: An application of goal disruption theory. In M. Lauri (Ed.), Organ donation and transplantation: An interdisciplinary approach . Hauppauge, NY:
Nova Science.
Week 13 (April 14 th
)
Frustration, Uncertainty, Stress, Anxiety, Inconsistency, Discrepancy, and
Disruption. (PART 1 of 2)
General Reading(s):
Proulx, T., Inzlicht, M., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2012). Understanding all inconsistency compensation as a palliative response to violated expectations.
Trends in cognitive sciences , 16 , 285-291.
Theory 1: Frustration Aggression Hypothesis
Dollard, J., Miller, N. E., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R.
(1939). Definitions. In , Frustration and aggression (pp. 1-26). New
Haven, CT, US: Yale University Press.
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin , 106 , 59-73.
Theory 2: Balance Theory
Heider, Fritz (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations .
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. (p. 125-163).

18
Crandall, C. S., Silvia, P. J., N'Gbala, A. N., Tsang, J., & Dawson, K.
(2007). Balance theory, unit relations, and attribution: The underlying integrity of Heiderian theory. Review Of General Psychology , 11 , 12-30.
Theory 3: Self-Discrepancy Theory
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy; A theory relating self and affect,
Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.
Week 14 (April 21 st
)
Frustration, Uncertainty, Stress, Anxiety, Inconsistency, Discrepancy, and
Disruption. (PART 2 of 2)
General Reading(s):
Hirsh, J. B., Mar, R. A., & Peterson, J. B. (2012). Psychological entropy: A framework for understanding uncertainty-related anxiety. Psychological Review,
119, 304-320.
Theory 1: Decision Affect Theory
Mellers, B. A., Schwartz, A., Ho, K., & Ritov, I. (1997). Decision affect theory: Emotional reactions to the outcomes of risky options. Psychological Science , 8, 423-429.
Theory 2: Uncertainty Identity Theory
Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.)
, Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol 39 (pp. 69-126). San
Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press.
Theory 3: Psychological Reactance Theory
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance.
New York,
NY: Academic Press
Miron, A. M., & Brehm, J. W. (2006). Reactance theory-40 years later.
Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie , 37 , 9-18.
Week 15 (April 28 th
)
Self-Control/Self-Regulation
General Reading(s):
Aldao, A., & Christensen, K. (2014). Linking the expanded process of emotion regulation to psychopathology by focusing on behavioral outcomes of regulation.
Psychological Inquiry, in press.
Theory 1: Perceptual-cognitive theory of self-regulation
Leventhal, H., Leventhal, E. A., & Contrada, R. J. (1998). Self-regulation, health, and behavior: A perceptual–cognitive approach. Psychology &
Health , 13 , 717-733.

19
Theory 2: Self-Control Theory
Mischel, W. (2012). Self-control theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A.
Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social
Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1-22) .
Washington, DC: Sage.
Theory 3: Self-Affirmation Theory
Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 21: Social psychological studies of the self:
Perspectives and programs (pp. 261-302). San Diego, CA, US: Academic
Press.
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense:
Self-affirmation theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.) , Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol 38 (pp. 183-242). San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier
Academic Press.
These are not eligible for selection. Might be fun to read if you are interested.
Theory 4: Reversal theory
Apter, M. J. (1989). Reversal theory: A new approach to motivation, emotion and personality. Anuario De Psicología , 42 , 17-29.
Theory 5: Regulatory mode complementarity hypothesis
Pierro, A., Presaghi, F., Higgins, E., Klein, K. M., & Kruglanski, A. W.
(2012). Frogs and ponds: A multilevel analysis of the regulatory mode complementarity hypothesis. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin,
38, 269-279.
Week 16 (May 5)
Specific Topics: Sex Drive, Justice, Morality
Three students will present this week. Each will choose one theory from this list. All students are required to read the reading(s) associated with the three selected theories.
Theory 1: Implementation Intentions
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstatter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73, 186-199.
Gollwitzer, P. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493-503.
Theory 2: Flow
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. Csikszentmihalyi

20
(Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 15-35). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University
Press.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow theory and research.
In S. J. Lopez, C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 195-206). New York, NY, US: Oxford
University Press.
Theory 3: Terror Management Theory
Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M.,
Kirkland, S., & Lyon, D. (1990). Evidence for terror management theory
II: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. Journal Of Personality And Social
Psychology , 58 , 308-318.
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (1997). Why do we need what we need? A terror management perspective on the roots of human social motivation. Psychological Inquiry , 8 , 1-20.
Theory 4: Attachment Theory
Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child's tie to his mother. The
International Journal Of Psychoanalysis , 39, 350-373.
Week 17 (May 12 th
)
FINAL EXAM
Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs Of The Society For Research In Child
Development , 50 , 3-35.