models of emotion (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Wells & Matthews, 1994), and
cognitive models of motivation (Weiner, 2000).
Each state is associated with multiple processes, including appraisals, choice
of coping strategy, and changes in the processing of task stimuli. However,
states are nonisomorphic with the various processes that support self-regu-
lation. Multiple regressions show that state change relates to several different
predictors independently (Matthews, Derryberry, et al., 2000). The subjective
state is an outcome of the various cues to the status of self-regulation provided
by appraisals and coping (and, probably, unconscious processes also). Thus,
the higher-order structuring of awareness binds together functionally related
aspects of emotion, motivation and subjective cognition.
Further exploration of the behavioral consequences of states requires a
more detailed account of the cognitive architecture of self-regulation, which is
beyond the scope of this article (see Matthews & Desmond, 2002; Wells &
Matthews, 1994). Table 6.4 outlines in brief some consequences of states for
performance. Broadly, engagement tends to benefit performance, whereas dis-
tress and worry are detrimental, but whether performance is actually affected
by state depends on the information-processing demands of the task. Whether
performance changes induced by states are beneficial or not to the person is a
separate issue that is often hard to determine (Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996).
Thus, in many real-world situations, task-directed effort will pay off for the
performer, so that task engagement, along with concomitant task-focused cop-
ing, is adaptive. However, task engagement may also be associated with misdi-
rected effort, for example, in investing substantial time in playing a video
game. In general, the three states prepare the person for handling different
types of situational demand, but whether state change is tied to genuine adap-
tive exigencies will vary from person to person, and from context to context.
Thus, we arrive at a transactional perspective on the significance of tran-
sient states for intellectual functioning, within a bidirectional model of inter-168 MATTHEWS AND ZEIDNERTABLE 6.4
Cognitive-Adaptive Perspective on Three Fundamental StatesTask Engagement Distress WorryAppraisals High demands High workload
Challenge Threat
Failure to attain goals
Coping Task-focus Emotion-focus Emotion-focus
Low Avoidance Avoidance
Performance Enhances attentional
resources
Impairs multitasking,
executive controlImpairs high-level ver-
bal tasks
Adaptation Maintaining effort and
focused attention
Mitigating overload Reevaluating personal
relevance of task