Dissociating the Role of Valence on Motivated Behavior and Subjective Experience Restricted; Files Only

Abstract

Although emotion is highly subjective, researchers have attempted to model it objectively; one of the most prevalent models in emotion research today is the bipolar valence-arousal model. This model posits that combinations of valence, or the pleasantness or unpleasantness produced by stimuli, and arousal, or the degree of activation, are what dictate our emotions. Valence is also crucial to reinforcement learning; positively valenced stimuli can act as rewards and negatively valenced stimuli as punishments, driving our behavior and decision-making processes. Additionally, past research suggests that humans are vulnerable to a negativity bias, in which negative entities have a greater impact than positive entities. The present study aims to elucidate how valence drives behavior and impacts subjective experience, as well as to determine whether positive and negative stimuli are represented at different levels of granularity. To this end, 179 participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk completed an assay of questionnaires, a naturalistic reward task, and a naturalistic threat task, providing measures of behavioral approach, avoidance, and emotional experience. Our results provided additional support for the bipolar valence-arousal model, confirming that combinations of valence and arousal contribute significantly to emotional experiences. However, self-report data did not provide evidence of a negativity bias, as subjective ratings for aversive, negative stimuli as compared to rewarding, positive stimuli. We found that participants adopted a strategy of altering their decision-making following errors in rewarding but not aversive contexts. This study furthers our current knowledge of the interactions between valence, decision-making, and subjective emotional experiences. Additionally, as our study results did not align with all predictions about the negativity bias, we may come closer to better understanding the controversial existence of the bias itself.

Table of Contents

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

Methods........................................................................................................................................... 5

Results............................................................................................................................................. 9

Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 11

Tables And Figures....................................................................................................................... 15

References................................................................................................................................... 24

About this Honors Thesis

Rights statement

• Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.

School	Emory College
Department	Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology
Degree	B.S.
Submission	Honors Thesis
Language	English
Research Field	Psychology, Cognitive
Keyword	Negativity Bias Decision-making Cognition Emotion Reinforcement Learning
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor	Philip Kragel, Emory University
Committee Members	Andrew Kazama, Emory University Kristen Frenzel, Emory University

Last modified

Primary PDF

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions
	File download under embargo until 24 May 2025	2024-04-10 11:27:30 -0400	File download under embargo until 24 May 2025

Supplemental Files

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions