192 Self-Regulatory Perspectives on Personality
Affect from Discrepancy-Enlarging Loops
Thus far we have restricted ourselves to issues that arise in the
context of approach. Now we turn to attempts to avoid a point
of comparison, attempts to not-be or not-do: discrepancy-
enlarging loops.
Our earlier discussion should have made it clear that be-
havior regarding avoidance goals is just as intelligible as
behavior regarding approach goals. We think the same is true
of the affective accompaniments to behavior. Our model
rests on the idea that positive affect comes when a behav-
ioral system is doing well at what it is organized to do. Thus
far we have considered only systems organized to close
discrepancies. There seems no obvious reason, however,
why the principle should not apply just as well to systems
organized to enlarge discrepancies. If the system is doing
well at what it is organized to do, positive affect should
arise. If it is doing poorly at what it is organized to do, neg-
ative affect should arise.
That much would seem to be fully comparable across the
two types of systems. But doing well at moving toward an in-
centive is not exactly the same experience as doing well at
moving away from a threat. Both have the potential to induce
positive feelings, by doing well. Both also have the potential
to induce negative feelings, by doing poorly. Yet the two pos-
itives may not be quite the same as each other, nor the nega-
tives quite the same as each other.
Our view of this difference derives partly from the insights
of Higgins and his colleagues (Higgins, 1987, 1996). Follow-
ing their lead, we suggest that the affect dimension relating to
discrepancy reduction is (in its purest form) the dimension
that runs from depression to elation (Figure 8.4). The affect
that relates to discrepancy enlargement is (in its purest form)
the dimension from anxiety to relief or contentment. As
Higgins and his colleagues have noted, dejection-related
and agitation-related affect may take several forms, but these
two dimensions capture the core qualities behind those two
classes of affect. Similarly, Roseman (1984) has argued that
joy and sadness are related to appetitive (moving-toward)
motives, whereas relief and distress are related to aversive
(moving-away-from) motives.Merging Affect and ActionTheories about emotion typically emphasize the idea that
emotion is related to action. How do affect and action relate
in this model? We see the regulation provided by these sys-
tems as forming a two-layered array, with both simultane-
ously at work (Carver & Scheier, 1998, 1999a, 1999b). The
two layers are analogous to position and velocity controls in
a two-layered engineering control system (e.g., Clark, 1996).
Such a two-layered system in engineering has the quality of
responding both quickly and accurately (without undue oscil-
lation). There is reason to believe that the simultaneous func-
tioning of the two layers has the same broad consequence for
human behavior.
Another way of addressing the relation between affect and
action is to ask about the nature of the output of the affect
loop. Earlier we described affect as reflecting the error signal
of a loop that has as input a perception of rate of progress.
The resulting output thus must be an adjustment in rate of
progress. This output therefore has a direct link to behavior
because it means changing its pace.
What does it mean to adjust the rate of progress? In some
cases it means literally changing velocity. If you are behind,
go faster. Some adjustments are less straightforward. The
rates of many behaviors in which personality–social psy-
chologists are interested are not defined in terms of literal
pace of motion. Rather, they are defined in terms of choices
among actions, even potentialprogramsof action. For ex-
ample, increasing your rate of progress on a reading assign-
ment may mean choosing to spend a weekend working
rather than playing. Increasing your rate of manifestation of
kindness means choosing to perform an action that reflects
that value. Thus, adjustment in rate must often be translated
into other terms, such as concentration or reallocation of
time and effort.
Despite this complexity in implementing changes in rate,
it should be apparent from this description that the action sys-
tem and the velocity system are presumed to work in concert
with one another. Both are involved in the flow of action.
They influence different aspects of the action, but both areFigure 8.4 Two affect-creating systems and the affective dimensions we
believe arise from the functioning of each. Discrepancy-reducing systems
are presumed to yield affective qualities of sadness or depression when
progress is well below standard and happiness or elation when progress is
above standard. Discrepancy-enlarging systems are presumed to yield anxi-
ety when progress is below standard and relief or contentment when progress
is above standard. Source:From C. S. Carver and M. F. Scheier,On the
Self-Regulation of Behavior, copyright 1998, Cambridge University Press.
Reprinted with permission.