Motiv Emot (2017) 41:431–442
DOI 10.1007/s11031-017-9617-7
ORIGINAL PAPER
Where do desires come from? Positivity offset and negativity bias
predict implicit attitude toward temptations
Alethea H. Q. Koh1 · Lile Jia1   · Edward R. Hirt2 
Published online: 4 May 2017
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017
Abstract  Temptations elicit both appetitive and aversive
responses because they offer hedonic gratification on the
one hand and impede long-term goal pursuit on the other
hand (Fujita, Personality and Social Psychology Review
15(4):352–366, 2011). In this paper, we investigate how
people’s affective responses toward temptations are regu-
lated by the appetitive and aversive motivational systems.
We employ the mini Motivated Action Measure (mini-
MAM; Lang et al., Communication Methods and Measures
5(2):146–162, 2011) to measure the signature patterns with
which the two systems regulate affective activation: positiv-
ity offset and negativity bias. We found that positivity offset
and negativity bias predict unique variance (5.5%) of diet-
ers’ (N = 312) implicit attitude toward tempting foods, over
and above predictors related to behavioral regulation (BIS/
BAS: Carver, White, Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology 67:319–333, 1994; BSC: Tangney et al., Journal of
Personality 72(2):271–324, 2004). By contrast, positivity
offset and negativity bias did not predict dieters’ behavioral
intentions for tempting foods. Investigating how the appeti-
tive and aversive systems regulate affective activation apart
from behavioral responses offers unique insights into peo-
ple’s desires towards temptations.
Keywords  Temptation · Motivational systems ·
Appetitive and aversive responses · Implicit attitude ·
Desire
* Lile Jia
psyjl@nus.edu.sg
1
Department of Psychology, National University of Singapore,
Singapore, Singapore
2
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana
University, Bloomington, USA
Introduction
People struggle to resist various desires every day (Hof-
mann et  al. 2012, 2013). A majority of these desires are
temptations: short-term gains that conflict with one’s pur-
suit of long-term goals (Fujita 2011). Because tempta-
tions can elicit both appetitive and aversive responses, two
fundamental motivational systems (Cacioppo et  al. 1999;
Gray 1987, 1994; Lang 1995)—the appetitive and aver-
sive systems—regulate people’s responses to temptations.
We argue that past research investigating individual dif-
ferences related to the two systems have focused primar-
ily on the behavioral regulation of the two systems (e.g.,
BIS/BAS; Carver and White 1994). Here, we consider how
the two motivational systems interplay and regulate affec-
tive activation. Specifically, we aim to explore if the rela-
tive activation of one system over the other, captured by the
Motivated Action Measure (MAM: Lang et al. 2005, mini-
MAM: 2011), may be a better predictor for people’s spon-
taneous affective reactions toward temptations than meas-
ures related to behavioral regulation.
Appetitive, aversive motivational systems,
and temptations
Two motivational systems underlie our interactions with
the social environment (Cacioppo et  al. 1999; Gray 1987,
1994; Lang 1995). The appetitive system determines how
readily one would approach and engage with the stimulus,
deem it to be safe or appealing, and experience affective
positivity towards it. The aversive system determines how
defensively one would react and avoid the stimulus, deem it
to be harmful or threatening, and experience affective nega-
tivity towards it (Lee and Lang 2009; Potter et  al. 2006).
13
Vol.:(0123456789)

432
Both systems are evolutionarily adaptive, with the appe-
titive system promoting exploration and foraging behavior
and the aversive system enabling timely withdrawal from
danger (Ito and Cacioppo 2005; Lang and Bradley 2013).
Given the importance of the two systems in human sur-
vival, scholars have been interested in capturing individual
differences in how they regulate behavior. The predominant
measures in the literature are the behavioral inhibition and
activation system (BIS/BAS) scales (Carver and White
1994). The BIS/BAS was designed to capture the regula-
tion of approach and avoidance behavior by the appetitive
and aversive systems, respectively (Carver and White 1994;
Cooper et  al. 2007; Leone et  al. 2001). BIS measures the
degree to which the person will move away from (avoid) an
undesirable, unpleasant goal or punishment; BAS measures
the degree to which a person will act towards (approach) a
desirable goal or reward. BIS/BAS scales have been shown
to predict impulsivity (Caseras et al. 2003; Dawe and Lox-
ton 2004; Jorm et al. 1998), alcoholic tendencies (Franken
2002; Zisserson and Palfai 2007), as well as substance use
and risky health behaviors (Franken and Muris 2006a). In
general, BIS negatively and BAS positively predict impul-
sive, detrimental behaviors.
Individual differences in the activations of the two sys-
tems should contribute to people’s desires toward temp-
tations because temptations can elicit both appetitive and
aversive responses. Temptations have two key features:
short-term gains that also conflict with one’s pursuit of
long-term goals (Fujita 2011). Partaking in temptation
offers immediate gratification (e.g., consuming alcohol),
but may impede our long-term goals (e.g., being produc-
tive). Thus, temptations can activate two opposing affective
responses. First, the hedonic and often visceral gratifica-
tion associated with temptations (Loewenstein 1996) can
activate appetitive responses. Second, because temptations
are instrumentally incongruent with long-term goal pursuit
and succumbing to them also reflects negatively on one’s
self-efficacy (Rothman et al. 2011), they can activate aver-
sive responses in the forms of negative evaluation (Fergu-
son and Bargh 2004; Fishbach et  al. 2010) and negative
emotions such as regret (Abraham and Sheeran 2003) and
shame (Patrick et  al. 2009). Consequently, temptations
should evoke a strong appetitive response from people with
high BAS and a strong aversive response from people with
high BIS. How the appetitive and aversive systems regu-
late responses, thus, should predict where people’s desire
toward temptations comes from.
Evidence for this prediction, however, has been incon-
sistent. Individual differences in the affective and aversive
systems as captured by BIS/BAS have shown mixed influ-
ence on people’s responses to desires. Although individu-
als with higher BAS experience desires with more intensity
(Franken 2002; Zisserson and Palfai 2007), they are also
13
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:431–442
more likely to resist the temptation (Dholakia et al. 2006).
Hofmann and colleagues (2012) conducted the most com-
prehensive investigation of people’s daily experience and
coping of desires (i.e., food, social, leisure) to date. Their
findings suggest that BIS/BAS seemed to predict more of
how people regulate desires than how desires are origi-
nated. First, BAS predicted people’s self-reported strength,
but not frequency, of desires. Put another way, BAS had no
bearing on people’s susceptibility in experiencing desires
but only affected how intensely they experience it after the
desire had occurred. Second, people’s self-reported desire
strength may inherently encompass conscious control, for it
was also predicted, negatively, by trait self-control. Again,
BAS might have predicted self-reported desire strength by
virtue of its association with behavioral regulation rather
than affective origins of desires. Finally, BIS predicted
neither frequency nor strength of desires. Instead, BIS,
together with trait self-control, negatively predicted subse-
quent behavioral enactment of desires. This again indicates
that BIS/BAS mostly taps into the way appetitive and aver-
sive systems regulate people’s behavioral responses toward
temptations or desires.
Affective activation of the motivational systems
The appetitive and aversive systems may, however, regulate
not only behavioral responses but also affective activation
toward temptations. The appetitive system may activate
the initial appetitive feeling toward temptations as well as
regulate the subsequent approach behavior; similarly, the
aversive system may be in charge of both activating the
initial aversive feeling and regulating the subsequent avoid-
ant behavior toward temptations. Accordingly, because the
conceptualization of BIS/BAS scales focuses on behavioral
regulation (Carver and White 1994), it might not be captur-
ing the way the two motivational systems regulate affective
activation. Our distinction between affective activation and
behavioral regulation is consistent with recent models of
desire and self-control. Most notably, Kotabe and Hofmann
(2015) distinguish between desire and control, whereby the
final behavioral outcome toward the desirable target results
from the relative potency of desire and control. High con-
trol does not necessitate abstinence if the desire is over-
whelming. Conversely, low desire may be enacted if the
control against it is weak. Here, we similarly argue that the
appetitive and aversive systems are relevant to both affec-
tive activation (or desire) and behavioral control. Under-
standing individual differences in how the interplay of the
appetitive and aversive systems regulate affective activation
would thus complement past focus on behavioral regula-
tion, painting a fuller picture of the relationship between
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:431–442 433
Fig. 1  Relative activation of
the appetitive and aversive moti-
vational systems (adapted from
Lang et al. 2005). Positivity
Activation Strength
offset is represented by a higher
activation strength of the appeti-
tive system over aversive system
at intercept (low arousal). Nega-
tivity bias is represented by the
steeper slope with which the
aversive system rises in activa-
tion than the appetitive system
as arousal increases
Positivity
Offset
the motivational systems and people’s desire toward
temptations.
Past research suggests that the two motivational systems
regulate affective activation through two signature activa-
tion patterns (Ito and Cacioppo 2005; Lang et  al. 2005).
The first signature pattern, termed the positivity offset,
focuses on the relative activation of the appetitive system
over the aversive system. This pattern of activation emerges
when the person’s appetitive system is relatively more
responsive (readily activated) than the aversive system in
emotionally neutral situations (i.e., safe, peaceful and com-
fortable contexts). The person thus assumes a positive out-
look when entering a social environment, ready to engage
and explore the environment. The second signature pattern,
termed as the negativity bias, depicts the relative activation
of the aversive system over the appetitive system. This pat-
tern emerges when the aversive system readily responds
with more intensity than the appetitive system, when the
situation increases in arousal. In other words, while the
aversive system is less ready to fire up than the appetitive
system in a neutral state, as soon as a threatening stimulus
appears in the environment, the activation of the aversive
system quickly overwhelms the appetitive system to moti-
vate avoidant responses (Fig.  1). The signature activation
patterns of the appetitive and aversive systems—positivity
offset and negativity bias—allow a person to retain both
curiosity and cautiousness about the surroundings. The per-
son is motivated to explore in safety and prepared to avoid
danger if the situation turns for the worse.
How can we measure these two signature activation
patterns? The Motivation Action Measure (MAM; Lang
et al. 2005) has been utilized to capture individual differ-
ences in positivity offset and negativity bias. In MAM,
participants view a range of positive and negative pic-
tures and report their feelings in terms of valence and
Appetitive system activation
Aversive system activation
Negativity Bias
(Steeper slope)
Arousal
arousal. Two indices, approach system activation (ASA)
and defensive system activation (DSA), can be computed
from participants’ feelings. The computation of ASA cap-
tures the signature activation pattern of the positivity off-
set, while the computation of DSA captures the signature
activation pattern of the negativity bias. Hence, individ-
ual differences in ASA would show how readily the indi-
vidual’s appetitive system activates over the aversive sys-
tem at low levels of arousal, and higher ASA predisposes
an individual with a greater likelihood of a resultant posi-
tive affective response. Conversely, individual differences
in DSA would show how readily the individual’s aversive
system activates over the appetitive system as arousal
increases, and higher DSA predisposes the individual
with a greater likelihood of a resultant negative affective
response (Lang et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2011).
Research has found that ASA and DSA exert independ-
ent and opposite effects on people’s affective responses.
Whereby high ASA has been linked to high sensation
seeking and greater alcohol use, high DSA tends to be
found among low sensation seekers (Finn 2002; Joseph
et  al. 2009; Rubenking and Lang 2015). In the context
of substance abuse, people with high ASA demonstrated
more positive physiological responses (i.e., startle reflex,
facial muscle activity) towards images of the addictive
substances, while individuals with high DSA displayed
stronger physiological responses of withdrawal from the
images (Lang and Yegiyan 2011). Even in the context of
media consumption, whereby strong physiological addic-
tion is largely absent, ASA and DSA predict people’s
preferences. People with higher ASA prefer more risqué,
competitive, and violent content such as pornography and
violent video games, while those with DSA were more
inclined towards safer, traditional forms of entertainment
13

434
such as news and puzzle games (Alhabash et  al. 2014;
Krcmar et al. 2015; Potter et al. 2011).
Despite the clear overlap in conceptualization and
empirical evidence, the MAM and BIS/BAS have not been
investigated together. In the present paper, we aim to bridge
the gap in the literature by considering affective activation
in addition to behavioral regulation. We included the MAM
for additional predictive utility, as it directly captures indi-
viduals’ affective response to temptations. Specifically,
ASA and DSA should contribute to the relative strength
of the appetitive and aversive responses elicited by temp-
tations. As discussed, temptations embody features that
respectively activate the affective and aversive systems:
hedonic positivity from immediate, often visceral gratifi-
cation (Loewenstein 1996), versus instrumental negativity
from being a detriment to one’s efforts to fulfil beneficial
long-term goals (Abraham and Sheeran 2003; Ferguson
and Bargh 2004; Fujita 2011; Patrick et al. 2009). The pro-
nounced pattern of positivity offset associated with high
ASA would signify that the hedonic positivity of a tempta-
tion activates stronger appetitive responses than instrumen-
tal negativity activates aversive responses. Hence, individu-
als with high, as compared to low, ASA should generate
a larger offset of appetitive over aversive responses from
temptations. This initial offset can be countered by the acti-
vation of the aversive system. The negativity bias allows
the instrumental negativity of temptations to activate an
intense aversive response. DSA indexes the effectiveness
of this negativity bias. People with high DSA should thus
generate a stronger aversive response to temptations than
those with low DSA, and should be better able to refrain
and withdraw from the temptation.
Hence, the MAM and the BIS/BAS differ in that the
MAM measures the trait affective reaction toward the
temptation targets, while the BIS/BAS measures the trait
propensity to behaviorally consume those objects. Though
they both deal with trait level motivational systems, MAM
is uniquely suited in determining if a temptation target
will elicit desire. It gauges the allure of the temptation
object through the combined activations of appetitive and
approach motivations to determine the resultant affective
experience. In contrast, the BIS/BAS measures the propen-
sity to act on the temptation. In sum, we predict that ASA
and DSA guide people’s spontaneous desire towards temp-
tations, albeit in opposite directions. On the other hand, we
expect the BIS/BAS to be less instrumental in predicting
such spontaneous responses, but more predictive of peo-
ple’s behavioral tendency to indulge in temptations.
To examine whether the MAM has any predictive utility
over the BIS/BAS, we measure both affective and behav-
ioral responses to temptation. We aim to capture people’s
spontaneous affective responses to temptations in the form
of implicit attitude. Attitude is the evaluative summary of
13
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:431–442
affective responses (Fazio and Olson 2014), and implicit
attitude in particular may represent the computational
outcome from affective activations of the appetitive and
aversive systems. The dual-process models of self-reg-
ulation (e.g., Strack and Deutsch 2004) make the distinc-
tion between an association-based, resource-independent
impulsive system and a rule-based, resource-dependent
reflective system. The affective systems are thought to exert
direct influence in the impulsive system; the reflective sys-
tem, when the person has adequate cognitive resources and
motivation, may further modulate the behavioral outcome.
Implicit attitude has been deemed to represent the evalu-
ative summary in the impulsive system. Indeed, implicit
attitude predicts behavior especially when one’s ability for
controlled processing is diminished (Hofmann et al. 2007,
2008). Hence, we posit that people’s implicit attitudes
reflect the outcome of their impulsive affective activations
of the two motivational systems. In addition, we measure
people’s behavioral responses toward temptations through
a preference task, where they choose between tempting or
non-tempting options. We argue that like previous studies
(Hofmann et al. 2012), people’s responses on such explicit
measures may be the result of behavioral regulation rather
than affective activation.
Overview of current research
We test our predictions in a dieting context. Dieting
revolves around achieving an ideal body appearance or
healthy body in the long run, but dieters often meet with
temptations in the form of tasty, unhealthy food. The con-
sumption of such food gives immediate pleasure, but holds
negative consequences such as weight gain or health issues
contrary to the individual’s long-term goal. As such, we are
interested in how dieters regulate their affective activation
and behavioral responses toward tasty, unhealthy food.
We employed the miniMAM, a brief and validated
version of the MAM (Lang et  al. 2011), and the BIS/
BAS (Carver and White 1994) to index affective acti-
vation and behavioral regulation of the appetitive and
aversive systems, respectively. As another index of
behavioral regulation to contrast with the MAM, we
measured participants’ trait self-control using the Brief
Self-Control scale (BSC: Tangney et  al. 2004). Trait
self-control has been construed as the ability to over-
come instinctual response tendencies for self-regulatory
purposes (Metcalfe and Mischel 1999; Baumeister and
Vohs 2004), focusing on the effortful promotion of desir-
able responses and inhibition of undesirable responses
(Baumeister et al. 1994; Muraven and Baumeister 2000;
Tangney et  al. 2004). Past research has shown that the
BSC, like the BIS/BAS, is strongly related to behavioral
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:431–442 435
regulation (e.g., Hofmann et al. 2012). As such, showing
that MAM predicts implicit attitude toward temptations
over and above both the BIS/BAS and BSC, two trait
individual differences of behavioral regulation, would
lend strong support to our prediction that the MAM
uniquely indexes affective activation. Conversely, if both
the BIS/BAS and BSC are more predictive of partici-
pants’ behavioural responses than the MAM, we would
be more confident that the MAM is much less involved
in behavioural regulation. Hence, the BSC would allow
us to better elucidate how MAM accounts for the affec-
tive origin of temptations.
Participants’ implicit attitude towards tempting foods
(e.g., cakes, burgers) was measured using an Affect
Misattribution Procedure (Payne et  al. 2005). Partici-
pants’ behavioral intention was measured through a
food choice task. They had to choose between receiv-
ing healthy or unhealthy foods as possible parting gifts.
The choice of an unhealthy food indicates indulgence
in temptation, against the dieting goal. We predict that
participants’ implicit attitude toward tempting foods is
positively predicted by ASA and negatively predicted by
DSA, over and above BIS/BAS and BSC. ASA and DSA,
however, should be less effective with regard to partici-
pants’ behavioral intention towards temptation.
Method
Participants
From a mass survey during a university lecture, 358 stu-
dents who indicated they had a dieting goal were
recruited for the current study. Forty-two participants did
not complete the full study and four additional partici-
pants had computer errors. They were hence excluded
from the analyses. Of the remaining 312 participants
(M = 18.9 years, SD  = 1.3 years), 213 were female.
Because correlations between individual differences sta-
bilize as the sample size approaches 250 (Schönbrodt and
Perugini 2013), our sample size is appropriate for our
investigation. Similarly, power analysis1 indicates that we
have high power to detect small to medium effect sizes
(Cohen 1988).
1
  G*Power software (Faul et  al. 2009) was employed to investigate
the kind of power our study has in detecting the effects of ASA and
DSA. The sensitivity analysis suggests that our study has 80% power
to detect an effect size of f2 = 0.032. The post hoc power analysis indi-
cated an observed power of 0.974 (effect size, f2 = 0.058). Hence, the
study has high power to detect small to medium effect sizes (Cohen
1988).
Procedure
Participants turned up for two sessions, separated by about
a week (5–9 days). During the first session, participants
completed the mini Motivation Activation Measure (Lang
et  al. 2011). Participants were presented with 35 pictures
(none of the pictures are about food) of varying arousal
(categorized into 6 arousal levels), selected from the Inter-
national Affective Picture System (IAPS). For each picture,
they rated its arousal first, followed by positive and nega-
tive content in random order using a 9-point scale, 1 (not at
all) to 9 (extremely). The pictures were randomly presented
to prevent order-effects.
We computed ASA and DSA according to Lang et  al.
(2005, 2011). The computation of ASA follows the char-
acterization of the positivity offset: the readiness of activa-
tion of the appetitive over the aversive system in a neutral
setting. Two mean positivity ratings were calculated. First,
participants’ mean positivity rating for the seven positive
images highest in arousal (level 6) was calculated. These
mean positivity ratings indicated the maximum activation
of the appetitive system towards highly arousing pleasant
stimuli. Second, participants’ mean positivity ratings for
all 14 positive and negative images lowest in arousal (level
1) were calculated. These mean positivity ratings indicated
the resting activation of the appetitive system. The differ-
ence between the first and second mean positive ratings is
then taken as the readiness of activation of the appetitive
system.
The computation of DSA follows the characterization of
the negativity bias: the readiness of activation of the aver-
sive over the appetitive system at rising levels of arousal.
Two mean negativity ratings were calculated. First, partici-
pants’ mean negativity rating for the seven negative images
of medium level of arousal (level 3/4) was calculated.
These mean negativity ratings indicated the activation of
the aversive system towards stimuli which are slightly more
negative than neutral. Second, participants’ mean negativ-
ity ratings for all 14 positive and negative images lowest
in arousal (level 1) were calculated. These mean negativ-
ity ratings indicated the resting activation of the aversive
system. The difference between the first and second mean
negative rating for negative images is taken as the readiness
of activation of the aversive system.
Participants’ activations of the behavioral inhibition
and approach systems were measured using the BIS/BAS
scale (Carver and White 1994). For the current study, 13
items (α  = 0.80) measuring BAS-related factors; drive,
fun seeking, and reward responsiveness were averaged for
each factor and summed together as participants’ overall
BAS. The correlations for these subscales can be found in
Table  1. Seven items were averaged as participants’ BIS
(α = 0.72), following the normal procedure. Participants
13

436 Motiv Emot (2017) 41:431–442

Table 1  Correlations between ASA, DSA, other predictor variables and food primes

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. ASA
2. DSA 0.08
3. BIS −0.10 0.15**
4. BAS 0.16** 0.10 −0.053
5. Reward 0.07 0.15** 0.22** 0.65**
6. Drive 0.14* 0.08 −0.05 0.83** 0.45**
7. Fun 0.15** 0.02 −0.19** 0.77** 0.23** 0.39**
8. BSC −0.22** 0.03 −0.00 −0.24** −0.09 −0.07 −0.36**
9. Grey primes 0.02 −0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 −0.03 −0.033
10. Neutral primes 0.10 0.02 −0.00 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.06 −0.06 0.44**
11. Food primes 0.24** −0.11* −0.06 0.11* 0.07 0.11 0.07 −0.02 0.19** 0.47**

**Sig. at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

*Sig. at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

also completed the brief self-control scale (α = 0.81, BSC:
Tangney et  al. 2004), and other unrelated measures that
included demographic questions.
During the second session, participants completed the
Affect Misattribution Procedure (Payne et  al. 2005) to
examine their implicit attitudes towards tempting foods.
Participants were presented with pairs of images flashed
sequentially, first with an image of the attitude object
(prime stimuli) followed by a Chinese pictograph. They
were asked to do nothing with the first image and only
judge the visual pleasantness of the Chinese pictograph.
For each pictograph, they were instructed to press keys to
indicate if the pictograph was more or less visually pleas-
ant than average. Their judgments are assumed to reflect
the (misattributed) affective response to the prime (i.e.,
attitude object) presented before (Blaison et al. 2012). The
prime stimuli in the present study were images of tempting
foods (e.g., pizza, chocolate, cake), which have been shown
to be adequate in eliciting consumption responses (Bailey
2014), and images of gray squares and neutral objects (e.g.,
buildings, trees) were used as controls. The inter-stimulus
interval (ISI) between the prime and the pictograph was
varied to be 100 and 1000  ms for each half of the stim-
uli respectively, as this ensured the spontaneity of each
response (Davis 1970; Kornmeier et al. 2007). Participants’
proportion of “pleasant” responses to the pictographs fol-
lowing the food primes was taken to be their implicit atti-
tude towards foods. Participants’ proportion of “pleasant”
responses to the pictographs following the gray and neutral
images was also measured.
Next, participants underwent a gift-choosing task as an
explicit measure of participants’ behavioral intention to
indulge or resist the temptation of unhealthy food. As a
cover story, participants were told that the experimenters
were thinking of giving presents to subsequent par-
ticipants of future experiments and were asked to aid in
choosing one out of two possible gifts for ten different
pairs of gifts. Participants were asked to indicate which
gift they would take, should they be presented with each
pair at the end of the experimental session. Out of the ten
pairs, three choices pitted unhealthy foods with healthy
ones: apple versus chips, tea versus soda, chocolate ver-
sus granola bar (reverse scored).
Participants completed other unrelated tasks before
going through funneled debriefing (Bargh and Chartrand
2000), and no one guessed the purpose of the experiment.
Results
The correlations between all other variables can be found
in Table  1.2 ASA and DSA were not significantly corre-
lated, r(310) = 0.08, p = .17, suggesting that they were
distinct and orthogonal constructs (Gable et  al. 2003).
ASA was positively correlated with BAS, r(310) = 0.15,
p = .008, and DSA was positively correlated with BIS,
r(310) = 0.16, p = .005, consistent with the notion that
ASA/DSA and BAS/BIS are conceptually related. The
modest correlations also indicate that ASA/DSA and
BAS/BIS are distinct constructs.
2
  While a median-split approach have been used in the past to sepa-
rate participants into groups with high/low combinations of ASA/
DSA (Lang et  al. 2005), the current results were analyzed and dis-
cussed in a regression approach. As we are focusing on the unique
contribution of ASA and DSA in predicting participants’ response to
temptations, maintaining them as continuous predictors should have
more validity (Irwin and McClelland 2003).

13
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:431–442 437
Impulsive desire
In order to examine the unique effect of ASA and DSA on
implicit attitudes toward the tempting food primes, a hier-
archical regression was performed. Participants’ ratings
for neutral and grey primes were first entered in Block 1,
R2 = 0.22, F(2, 309) = 43.77, p < .001. Participants’ rat-
ings of neutral primes positively predicted ratings of the
food primes, B = 0.18, t(309) = 8.55, p < .001, 95% CI
[0.137, 0.219], but the grey primes did not, B = −0.02,
t(309) = −0.39, p = .70, 95% CI [−0.114, 0.076]. In Block
2, measures related to behavioral regulation: BIS, BAS,
and trait self-control (BSC), were added, R2 change = 0.01,
F(3, 306) = 1.39, p = .25. They did not yield any significant
effects, ps > 0.103. In Block 3, ASA and DSA were added,
R2 change = 0.055, F(2, 304) = 11.62, p < .001. Consistent
with predictions, ASA positively predicted implicit atti-
tudes towards food primes, B = 0.03, t(304) = 4.09, p < .001,
95% CI [.014, 0.039]. Participants with higher affective
activation of the appetitive system found tempting food to
be more pleasant. DSA negatively predicted implicit atti-
tudes towards food primes, B = −0.02, t(304) = −2.91,
p = .004, 95% CI [−0.040, −0.008]. Participants with
higher affective activation of the aversive system found
tempting food to be less pleasant. BIS, BAS, and BSC
measures remained non-significant, ps > 0.114.
Behavioral intent
Hierarchical regression was also conducted on participants’
unhealthy food choices (M = 1.36, SD = 0.92). In Block
1, the regression model containing BIS, BAS and BSC
achieved significance, R2 = 0.03, F(3, 307) = 2.89, p = .035.
Specifically, BSC significantly predicted participants’
behavioral intention, B = −0.22, t(307) = −2.71, p = .007,
95% CI [−0.384, −0.061]. BIS and BAS did not yield any
significant effects, ps > 0.519. In Block 2, ASA and DSA
were added, R2 change = 0.001, F(2, 305) = 0.22, p = .80,
indicating that ASA and DSA offered little predictive util-
ity with regard to participants’ behavioral intentions. Other
than BSC, all predictors were non-significant, ps > 0.500.
Discussion
In this paper, we distinguish affective activation from
behavioral regulation as a distinct way appetitive and aver-
sive systems regulate people’s responses. In accordance to
past research, affective activation involves the relative acti-
vation patterns of the two motivational systems, the posi-
tivity offset and negativity bias (Ito and Cacioppo 2005).
The key question is whether these relative patterns of acti-
vation, as measured by ASA and DSA in the MAM (Lang
et al. 2005, 2011), provide additional predictive utility over
and above measures related to behavioral regulation (i.e.,
BIS/BAS, BSC) in people’s response towards temptation.
We measured participants’ implicit attitudes towards
the temptation as an indication of their spontaneous affec-
tive responses towards the tempting stimuli. As hypoth-
esized, the individuals’ positivity offset, as captured by
ASA, positively predicted participants’ implicit attitudes
towards tempting foods. At the default level of processing,
the hedonic gratification of indulgent foods (Loewenstein
1996) elicits a stronger appetitive response than the instru-
mental negativity (Ferguson and Bargh 2004; Fishbach
et al. 2010) does an aversive response. The more easily acti-
vated one’s appetitive over the aversive system is, the larger
the positivity offset it generates, and the more positive the
person evaluates temptations. On the other hand, the indi-
viduals’ negativity bias, captured by DSA, negatively pre-
dicted participants’ implicit attitudes towards temptations.
As predicted, an easily activated aversive (than appetitive)
system diminishes the appetitive responses towards tempt-
ing foods by activating an intense response to the instru-
mental negativity of unhealthy foods. The more activated
the aversive system is relative to the appetitive system,
the greater the aversive response that is generated, and the
more negative the person views temptations. Thus, affective
activation, involving the relative patterns of appetitive and
aversive activation, independently determine the strength of
affective responses toward temptations.
More importantly, these relative patterns of activation
predicted implicit attitudes over and beyond the BIS/BAS
and the BSC scale, testifying to the importance of measur-
ing affective activation in addition to behavioral regulation.
As predicted, the non-significant finding of the BIS/BAS
suggests that unlike the positivity offset and negativity
bias, the BIS/BAS is less involved in the affective origin of
desires. This corroborates past research indicating its con-
ceptualization of and involvement in behavioral regulation
instead (Carver and White 1994; Dholakia et al. 2006; Hof-
mann et al. 2012). It concurs with the similarly non-signif-
icant findings for BSC, suggesting that unlike past research
assessing desires in an explicit manner, implicit attitude
more purely captures the spontaneous affective responses
or instinctual desires toward temptations.
We also compared the predictive utility of consider-
ing affective activation with BIS/BAS and BSC towards
explicit behavioral intention to indulge in temptation. We
posited that MAM, which primarily indices spontaneous
affective activation, would have less predictive power over
participants’ behavioral intention, compared to the BIS/
BAS and BSC. Our findings were consistent with expec-
tations in that individuals’ positivity offset and negativity
bias did not predict participants’ tempting food choices. On
the other hand, BSC predicted their food choices, validating
13

438
the task as an indicator of participants’ behavioral intention
towards temptation. However, despite its theoretical rel-
evance, the BIS/BAS was not significant in predicting regu-
latory behavior towards temptations.
We offer possible explanations for why the BIS/BAS,
compared to BSC, was not predictive of the food choice
task. First, the BIS/BAS may not be as sensitive as BSC
when the temptation is not salient. A recent meta-analysis
suggests that BSC is uniquely related to long-term forma-
tion of good habits (de Ridder et al. 2012), which may be
effectively activated even with minimal salience of the
temptation. The food choice task was fairly indirect in tap-
ping into participants’ indulgence in tempting foods, as it
was designed to reduce demand characteristics regarding
the temptation. The cover story and filler options should
have diluted the salience of tempting foods. Hence, tempt-
ing food options might not have elicited strong responses
from the BIS/BAS. If the task had been framed such that
participants were to make a choice using information pro-
vided about the gifts, in this case, all the nutritional value
(etc., calories) of each food item, both the BSC and the
behavioral regulatory measure of BIS/BAS may have
emerged as significant predictors. Second, the present way
of indexing participants’ behavioral intention may be meth-
odologically suited to the BSC. The meta-analysis showed
that the self-control scale is particularly predictive when
behavior is measured in hypothetical terms and through
self-report (de Ridder et  al. 2012). This is similar to the
current food choice task, where participants have to project
their gift preferences and list them down.
Although the BAS, as a unitary construct, was not pre-
dictive of participants’ implicit attitudes and food choice,
we do not rule out the possibility that its subscales (drive,
fun-seeking and reward responsiveness) may capture cer-
tain aspects of behavioral regulatory activation toward
temptations. Past studies have employed BAS as a unitary
construct to investigate temptation and desires (Hoffman
et  al. 2012; Zisserson and Palfai 2007) and we retained
the same approach for the ease of comparison. However,
there can be meaningful distinctions between its sub-
scales (Voigt et al. 2009). Fun-seeking, for example, has
been linked to impulsivity, while reward responsiveness
and drive have been tied to sensitivity for reward (Dawe
et  al. 2004; Dawe and Loxton 2004; Franken and Muris
2006b). In particular, the drive subscale has been shown
to correlate strongly with neural activity in response to
pictures of appetitive food (Beaver et  al. 2006), which
suggests that it may be particularly sensitive to the
13
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:431–442
presence of temptations. However, additional analyses
using the BAS subscales instead of the BAS composite
yielded no novel insights.3 Our present study design may
not be sensitive enough to detect such differences, and
certain BAS subscales may emerge important in a differ-
ent context. Even so, it is clear from our findings that the
MAM remains the stronger predictor of implicit attitudes
towards temptation beyond the BIS/BAS. Though the
diversity in BAS taps into different aspects of behavioural
activation, we reason that they still operate on a different
level than the MAM (behavioural and not affective acti-
vation). The associated impulsivity, motivations, and
neural correlates with these subscales, though operating
in an implicit manner, may still be directed more towards
regulating action than affect. Future research is encour-
aged to further differentiate the roles of the BAS sub-
scales in affective and behavioral regulation.
Our paper demonstrates the predictive utility of indi-
vidual differences in affective activation, as charted by
the relative activation of the appetitive and aversive sys-
tems. This has important implications. Past research has
focused on how implicit attitudes towards temptations,
once formed, are especially potent in guiding consump-
tion behaviors (Hofmann et al. 2007, 2008). Less research
is devoted to what underlies implicit attitudes toward
temptations in the first place. By showing that dieters’
implicit attitudes towards tempting foods are predicted by
affective activation as fundamental as the appetitive and
aversive systems (Elliot and Covington 2001; Gable et al.
2003), we can begin to make novel predictions about
individuals’ reactions to temptations across domains. For
example, we can predict that individuals with an easily
activated appetitive system relative to the aversive system
(i.e. high trait positivity offset), are particularly prone to
experiencing strong desires for temptations. These strong
desires would apply across multiple life domains such as
dieting, monetary spending, and indulging in leisure and
have behavioral consequences. Past research has shown
that the more frequently people feel and inhibit unwanted
desires, the more likely they were to experience self-con-
trol failures in the later parts of the day (Hofmann et al.
2012), perhaps due to a depletion of limited self-control
resources (Baumeister et  al. 2007). An easily activated
appetitive system may thus dispose the individual to
exercise more self-control to handle the allure of tempta-
tions and leave him/her too depleted to cope with other
important tasks. On the other hand, individuals who are
3
 Replacing BAS with its three subscales (drive, fun-seeking and
reward responsiveness) yielded the same pattern of results. Only ASA
(p < .001) and DSA (p = .004) predicted participants’ implicit atti-
tudes, and BSC (p = .006) predicted participants’ behavioral intent.
All other predictors were non-significant, ps > 0.185.
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:431–442 439
equipped with an easily activated aversive system relative
to the appetitive system (i.e. high trait negativity bias)
may experience less unwanted desires. Without the need
to expand much effort to resist temptations, they could
focus their cognitive resources on important pursuits in
life.
In addition, although previous research using fMRI has
examined the process underlying the desire for temptations,
they focused on the neural correlates of self-control fail-
ures as the basis of how people fall to temptation (Lopez
et al. 2014). The study found that greater reactivity of brain
regions associated with rewards predicted the strength and
enactment of desire, while activation of the brain region
associated with self-regulation predicted less susceptibil-
ity to the temptation. However, unlike the current study,
their findings shed light on people’s differential response in
handling the desire, and not the origin of desire in the first
place. Hence, our findings offer unique contribution in that
the MAM captures the trait-level reactivity of the appeti-
tive and aversive systems that predispose individuals to the
extent of desires they will feel, independent of their ability
to exert conscious self-control.
Our research also contributes to existent literature, by
focusing on the conceptualization of the positivity offset
and negativity bias as the relative activation of one motiva-
tion system over another, rather than a linear relationship
between each system and response. Past studies concerning
the neural correlates of BIS/BAS have discovered a consist-
ent link of BAS with brain areas associated with appetitive
responses and BIS with brain areas involved with aversive
responses (Balconi et  al. 2009; Herwig et  al. 2006; Reu-
ter et  al. 2004), signalling a biological predisposition in
approach and withdrawal behavioral activations. However,
these activations of specific brain structures in isolation do
not shed light on how the systems interplay, and how the
interaction guides one’s experience and response to temp-
tation. Our findings suggest that the relative activation of
the motivational systems may be more relevant in under-
standing one’s affective response to temptations, as the
joint influence of the hedonic gratification and instrumental
negativity will activate both appetitive and aversive motiva-
tions. Hence, the relative degree each motivational system
is activated will ultimately guide the individual’s eventual
affective response towards the temptation. This concept
of relative activation has not been applied to temptation
in past research, nor captured in the traditional BIS/BAS
measure.
We also encourage future research to explore the ways
in which situational factors modulate the relative activa-
tion of the appetitive and aversive systems. Although the
present paper focuses on individual differences in positiv-
ity offset and negativity bias, we believe that situational
factors can differentially activate the two systems to
influence implicit attitudes. This is in line with the view
that while certain attitudes may be relatively stable and
unchanging across contexts (Fazio 1995), many attitudes
are constructed on the spot based on relevant input from
the surrounding circumstances (Schwarz 2007). Accord-
ing to the constructionist view, how the relative activa-
tion of the appetitive and aversive systems contribute to
one’s construction of attitude toward temptations depends
on the specific context.
This perspective sheds new light on how people’s
implicit attitude towards temptations is altered by situ-
ational factors. For example, past research finds that when
an abstract mindset is induced (Fujita et  al. 2006) or the
long-term goal is made salient (Fishbach et al. 2010), peo-
ple’s implicit attitude towards temptations become more
negative. Our findings suggest that this common outcome
of devalued temptations from the two situational factors
may work through different mechanisms. When an indi-
vidual focuses on abstract, high-level concepts, the hedonic
positivity of temptations may become less salient (Mischel
et al. 1996). Consequently, the temptations are less able to
activate the appetitive system to generate a large positiv-
ity offset, hence reducing the allure of temptations. On the
other hand, a long-term goal (e.g., academic achievement)
may increase the salience of the negative instrumentality
of temptations and upregulate the activation of the aversive
system. The intense aversive response from the negativity
bias then undermines or overwhelms any initial appetitive
response to reduce the overall attitude towards temptations.
In sum, our findings highlight that the addition of affec-
tive activation to behavioral regulation of the two motiva-
tional systems provides a fuller understanding of people’s
responses towards temptations. The relative activation pat-
terns of the appetitive and aversive systems, in the form of
positivity offset and negativity bias, may allow better pre-
dictions on how desires originate, rather than based on the
activation strength of each system alone. We suggest that
a more inclusive and nuanced conceptualization of the
appetitive and aversive systems is in order and future stud-
ies should consider including MAM as an index for affec-
tive activation in addition to BIS/BAS measures in their
investigations.
Funding  This research is partly supported by Grant R-581-000-
165-133 from National University of Singapore, awarded to the sec-
ond author.
Compliance with ethical standards 
Conflict of interest  All authors declare that they have no conflict
of interest.
Ethical approval  All  procedures performed in studies involving
human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of
the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964
13

440
Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical
standards.
Informed consent  Informed consent was obtained from all individ-
ual participants included in the two studies.
References
Abraham, C., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Acting on intentions: The role of
anticipated regret. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(4),
495–511. doi:10.1348/014466603322595248.
Alhabash, S., Chiang, Y.-h., & Huang, K. (2014). MAM & U&G in
Taiwan: Differences in the uses and gratifications of Facebook
as a function of motivational reactivity. Computers in Human
Behavior, 35, 423–430. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.033.
Bailey, R. L. (2014). Processing food advertisements: Initial biologi-
cal responses matter. Communication Monographs, 82(1), 163–
178. doi:10.1080/03637751.2014.971417.
Balconi, M., Brambilla, E., & Falbo, L. (2009). BIS/BAS, corti-
cal oscillations and coherence in response to emotional cues.
Brain Research Bulletin, 80(3), 151–157. doi:10.1016/j.
brainresbull.2009.07.001.
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A
practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T.
Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in
social and personality psychology (pp.  253–285). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing
control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego:
Academic Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of self-
regulation: Research, theory, and applications. New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength
model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-
ence, 16(6), 351–355. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x.
Beaver, J. D., Lawrence, A. D., van Ditzhuijzen, J., Davis, M. H.,
Woods, A., & Calder, A. J. (2006). Individual differences
in reward drive predict neural responses to images of food.
The Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 5160–5166. doi:10.1523/
JNEUROSCI.0350-06.2006.
Blaison, C., Imhoff, R., Hühnel, I., Hess, U., & Banse, R. (2012).
The affect misattribution procedure: Hot or not? Emotion, 12(2),
403–412. doi:10.1037/a0026907.
Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect
system has parallel and integrative processing components form
follows function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76(5), 839–855.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavio-
ral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and
punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.
Caseras, X., Avila, C., & Torrubia, R. (2003). The measurement of
individual differences in behavioural inhibition and behavioural
activation systems: A comparison of personality scales. Person-
ality and Individual Differences, 34(6), 999–1013. doi:10.1016/
S0191-8869(02)00084-3.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-
ences (2nd edn.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cooper, A., Gomez, R., & Aucote, H. (2007). The Behavioural Inhi-
bition System and Behavioural Approach System (BIS/BAS)
Scales: Measurement and structural invariance across adults and
13
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:431–442
adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(2), 295–
305. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.023.
Davis, M. (1970). Effects of interstimulus interval length and vari-
ability on startle-response habituation in the rat. Journal of
Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 72(2), 177–192.
doi:10.1037/h0029472.
Dawe, S., Gullo, M. J., & Loxton, N. J. (2004). Reward drive and
rash impulsiveness as dimensions of impulsivity: Implications
for substance misuse. Addictive Behaviors, 29(7), 1389–1405.
doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.06.004.
Dawe, S., & Loxton, N. J. (2004). The role of impulsivity in the
development of substance use and eating disorders. Neurosci-
ence & Biobehavioral Reviews, 28(3), 343–351. doi:10.1016/j.
neubiorev.2004.03.007.
de Ridder, D. T., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F.
M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Taking stock of self-control a
meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range
of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1),
76–99. doi:10.1177/1088868311418749.
Dholakia, U. M., Gopinath, M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Nataraajan, R.
(2006). The role of regulatory focus in the experience and self-
control of desire for temptations. Journal of Consumer Psychol-
ogy, 16(2), 163–175. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1602_7.
Elliot, A. J., & Covington, M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance
motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 73–92. doi:
10.1023/A:1009009018235.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statisti-
cal power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and
regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–
1160. doi:10.3758/brm.41.4.1149.
Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations:
Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessi-
bility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength:
Antecedents and consequences (pp.  247–282). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2014). The MODE model: Attitude-
behavior processes as a function of motivation and opportunity.
In J. W. Sherman, B. Gawronski & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process
theories of the social mind (pp.  155–171). New York: Guilford
Press.
Ferguson, M. J., & Bargh, J. A. (2004). Liking is for doing:
The effects of goal pursuit on automatic evaluation. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 557–572.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.557.
Finn, P. R. (2002). Motivation, working memory, and decision mak-
ing: A cognitive-motivational theory of personality vulnerability
to alcoholism. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews,
1(3), 183–205. doi:10.1177/1534582302001003001.
Fishbach, A., Zhang, Y., & Trope, Y. (2010). Counteractive evalu-
ation: Asymmetric shifts in the implicit value of conflicting
motivations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1),
29–38. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.008.
Franken, I. H. (2002). Behavioral approach system (BAS) sensitivity
predicts alcohol craving. Personality and Individual Differences,
32(2), 349–355. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00030-7.
Franken, I. H., & Muris, P. (2006a). BIS/BAS personality char-
acteristics and college students’ substance use. Personality
and Individual Differences, 40(7), 1497–1503. doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2005.12.005.
Franken, I. H., & Muris, P. (2006b). Gray’s impulsivity dimension:
A distinction between reward sensitivity versus rash impulsive-
ness. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1337–1347.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.016.
Fujita, K. (2011). On conceptualizing self-control as more than the
effortful inhibition of impulses. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Review, 15(4), 352–366. doi:10.1177/1088868311411165.
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:431–442 441
Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Con-
strual levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90(3), 351–367. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.351.
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Elliot, A. J. (2003). Evidence for bivari-
ate systems: An empirical test of appetition and aversion across
domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(5), 349–372.
doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00580-9.
Gray, J. A. (1987). The neuropsychology of emotion and personality.
Cognitive Neurochemistry. 395xiv, 171–190.
Gray, J. A. (1994). Personality dimensions and emotion systems. In P.
Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Funda-
mental questions (pp.  329–331). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Hewig, J., Hagemann, D., Seifert, J., Naumann, E., & Bartussek, D.
(2006). The relation of cortical activity and BIS/BAS on the
trait level. Biological Psychology, 71(1), 42–53. doi:10.1016/j.
biopsycho.2005.01.006.
Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R. F., Förster, G., & Vohs, K. D. (2012).
Everyday temptations: an experience sampling study of desire,
conflict, and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 102(6), 1318–1335. doi:10.1037/a0026545.
Hofmann, W., Gschwendner, T., Friese, M., Wiers, R. W., & Schmitt,
M. (2008). Working memory capacity and self-regulatory behav-
ior: Toward an individual differences perspective on behavior
determination by automatic versus controlled processes. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 962–977.
doi:10.1037/a0012705.
Hofmann, W., Kotabe, H., & Luhmann, M. (2013). The spoiled pleas-
ure of giving in to temptation. Motivation and Emotion, 37(4),
733–742. doi:10.1007/s11031-013-9355-4.
Hofmann, W., Rauch, W., & Gawronski, B. (2007). And deplete us
not into temptation: Automatic attitudes, dietary restraint, and
self-regulatory resources as determinants of eating behavior.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 497–504.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.004.
Irwin, J. R., & McClelland, G. H. (2003). Negative consequences of
dichotomizing continuous predictor variables. Journal of Market-
ing Research, 40(3), 366–371. doi:10.1509/jmkr.40.3.366.19237.
Ito, T. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2005). Variations on a human
universal: Individual differences in positivity offset and
negativity bias. Cognition and Emotion, 19(1), 1–26.
doi:10.1080/02699930441000120.
Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Henderson, A. S., Jacomb, P. A., Korten,
A. E., & Rodgers, B. (1998). Using the BIS/BAS scales to meas-
ure behavioural inhibition and behavioural activation: Factor
structure, validity and norms in a large community sample. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 26(1), 49–58. doi:10.1016/
S0191-8869(98)00143-3.
Joseph, J. E., Liu, X., Jiang, Y., Lynam, D., & Kelly, T. H.
(2009). Neural correlates of emotional reactivity in sen-
sation seeking. Psychological Science, 20(2), 215–223.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02283.x.
Kornmeier, J., Ehm, W., Bigalke, H., & Bach, M. (2007). Discontinu-
ous presentation of ambiguous figures: How interstimulus-inter-
val durations affect reversal dynamics and ERPs. Psychophysiol-
ogy, 44(4), 552–560. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00525.x.
Kotabe, H. P., & Hofmann, W. (2015). On integrating the components
of self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(5),
618–638. doi:10.1177/1745691615593382.
Krcmar, M., Farrar, K. M., Jalette, G., & McGloin, R. (2015). Appe-
titive and defensive arousal in violent video games: Explaining
individual differences in attraction to and effects of video games.
Media Psychology, 18(4), 527–550. doi:10.1080/15213269.2014
.888007.
Lang, A., Bradley, S. D., Sparks, J. V., & Lee, S. (2007).
The Motivation activation measure (MAM): How well
does MAM predict individual differences in physiologi-
cal indicators of appetitive and aversive activation? Com-
munication Methods and Measures, 1(2), 113–136.
doi:10.1080/19312450701399370.
Lang, A., Kurita, S., Rubenking, B., & Potter, R. F. (2011). Mini-
MAM: Validating a short version of the motivational action
measure. Communication Methods and Measures, 5(2), 146–
162. doi:10.1080/19312458.2011.568377.
Lang, A., Shin, M., & Lee, S. (2005). Sensation seeking, motivation,
and substance use: A dual system approach. Media Psychology,
7(1), 1–29. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0701_1.
Lang, A., & Yegiyan, N. (2011). Individual differences in motiva-
tional activation influence responses to pictures of taboo prod-
ucts. Journal of Health Communication, 16(10), 1072–1087. doi:
10.1080/10810730.2011.571336.
Lang, P. J. (1995). The emotion probe: Studies of motiva-
tion and attention. American Psychologist, 50(5), 372–385.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.5.372.
Lang, P. J., & Bradley, M. M. (2013). Appetitive and defensive moti-
vation: Goal-directed or goal-determined? Emotions Review,
5(3), 230–234. doi:10.1177/1754073913477511.
Lee, S., & Lang, A. (2009). Discrete emotion and motivation: relative
activation in the appetitive and aversive motivational systems
as a function of anger, sadness, fear, and joy during televised
information campaigns. Media Psychology, 12(2), 148–170.
doi:10.1080/15213260902849927.
Leone, L., Perugini, M., Bagozzi, R. P., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L.
(2001). Construct validity and generalizability of the Carver–
White behavioural inhibition system/behavioural activation sys-
tem scales. European Journal of Personality, 15(5), 373–390.
doi:10.1002/per.415.
Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behav-
ior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
65(3), 272–292. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0028.
Lopez, R. B., Hofmann, W., Wagner, D. D., Kelley, W. M., & Heath-
erton, T. F. (2014). Neural predictors of giving in to tempta-
tion in daily life. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1337–1344.
doi:10.1177/0956797614531492.
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of
delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological
Review, 106(1), 3. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3.
Mischel, W., Cantor, N., & Feldman, S. (1996). Principles of self-reg-
ulation: The nature of willpower and self-control. In E. T. Hig-
gins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook
of basic principles (pp. 329–360). New York: Guilford.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and
depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resem-
ble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247–259.
doi:10.1037//0033-2909.126.2.247.
Patrick, V. M., Chun, H. H., & Macinnis, D. J. (2009). Affective fore-
casting and self-control: Why anticipating pride wins over antici-
pating shame in a self-regulation context. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 19(3), 537–545. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.05.006.
Payne, B. K., Cheng, C. M., Govorun, O., & Stewart, B. D. (2005).
An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit meas-
urement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3),
277–293. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277.
Potter, R. F., LaTour, M. S., Braun-LaTour, K. A., & Reichert, T.
(2006). The impact of program context on motivational sys-
tem activation and subsequent effects on processing a fear
appeal. Journal of Advertising, 35(3), 67–80. doi:10.2753/
joa0091-3367350305.
Potter, R. F., Lee, S., & Rubenking, B. E. (2011). Correlating a moti-
vation-activation measure with media preference. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55(3), 400–418. doi:10.1080/
08838151.2011.597468.
13

442
Reuter, M., Stark, R., Hennig, J., Walter, B., Kirsch, P., Schienle, A.,
& Vaitl, D. (2004). Personality and emotion: Test of Gray’s per-
sonality theory by means of an fMRI study. Behavioral Neuro-
science, 118(3), 462–469. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.118.3.462.
Rothman, A. J., Baldwin, A. S., Hertel, A. W., & Fuglestad, P. T.
(2011). Self-regulation and behavior change: Disentangling
behavioral initiation and behavioral maintenance. In K. D.
Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation:
Research, theory, and applications (2  edn., pp.  106–124). New
York: Guilford Press.
Rubenking, B., & Lang, A. (2015). Appetitive and impulsive: Exam-
ining alcohol use via the motivational and self-control systems.
The Social Science Journal, 52(2), 258–265. doi:10.1016/j.
soscij.2014.12.001.
Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do
correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47,
609–612. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009.
Schwarz, N. (2007). Attitude construction: Evaluation in con-
text. Social Cognition, 25(5), 638–656. doi:10.1521/
soco.2007.25.5.638.
13
Motiv Emot (2017) 41:431–442
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determi-
nants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 8(3), 220–247. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-
control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades,
and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–
324. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x.
Voigt, D. C., Dillard, J. P., Braddock, K. H., Anderson, J. W., Sopory,
P., & Stephenson, M. T. (2009). Carver and White’s (1994) BIS/
BAS scales and riskyhealth behaviors. Personality and Individ-
ual Differences, 47, 89–93. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.003.
Wang, Z., Lang, A., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011). Motivational pro-
cessing and choice behavior during television viewing: An inte-
grative dynamic approach. Journal of Communication, 61(1),
71–93. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01527.x.
Zisserson, R. N., & Palfai, T. P. (2007). Behavioral Activation Sys-
tem (BAS) sensitivity and reactivity to alcohol cues among
hazardous drinkers. Addictive Behaviors, 32(10), 2178–2186.
doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.02.016.