Ronald S. Friedman

Emotional Responses to Goal Attainment: Strength of Regulatory Focus as Moderator

Goals with a promotion focus versus a prevention focus are distinguished. Chronic ideal goals (hopes and aspirations) have a promotion focus, whereas ought goals (duties and responsibilities) have a prevention focus. The hypothesis that emotional responses to goal attainment vary as a function of promotion versus prevention goal strength (conceptualized as goal accessibility) was tested in correlational studies relating chronic goal attainment (self-congruencies or self-discrepancies) to emotional frequency and intensity (Studies 1-3) and in an experimental study relating immediate goal attainment (i.e., success or failure) to emotional intensity (Study 4). All studies found that goal attainment yielded greater cheerfulness-dejection responses when promotion focus was stronger and greater quiescence-agitation responses when prevention focus was stronger.

The effects of approach and avoidance motor actions on the elements of creative insight.

The authors propose that the nonaffective bodily feedback produced by arm flexion and extension informs individuals about the processing requirements of the situation, leading to the adoption of differential processing styles and thereby influencing creativity. Specifically, the authors predicted that arm flexion would elicit a heuristic processing strategy and bolster insight processes, whereas arm extension would elicit a systematic processing strategy and impair insight processes. To test these predictions, the authors assessed the effects of these motor actions on 3 central elements of creative insight: contextual set-breaking, restructuring, and mental search. As predicted, in 6 experiments, arm flexion, relative to arm extension, facilitated insight-related processes. In a 7th experiment, arm extension, relative to arm flexion, facilitated analytical reasoning, supporting a cognitive tuning interpretation of the findings.

Linguistic Relativity in Japanese and English: Is Language the Primary Determinant in Object Classification?

In the present study, we tested claims by Lucy (1992a, 1992b) that differences between the number marking systems used by Yucatec Maya and English lead speakers of these languages to differentially attend to either the material composition or the shape of objects. In order to evaluate Lucys hypothesis, we replicated his critical object classification experiment using speakers of English and Japanese, a language with a number marking system very similar to that employed by Yucatec Maya. Our results failed to replicate Lucys findings. Both Japanese and English speakers, who were comparable in their cultural and educational backgrounds, classified objects more on the basis of shape than material composition, suggesting that Lucys original findings may have resulted not from differences between the number marking systems of Yucatec Maya and English but rather from differences in the cultural and educational backgrounds of his experimental groups. Alternative accounts of the cognitive consequences of inter-linguistic differences in number marking systems are discussed.