Abstract

PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY 2019, VOL. 30, NO. 3, 130–131 https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2019.1646042 a b Andrew J. Elliot and Shelly L. Gable a b Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California Approach motivation and avoidance motivation are basic conceptually represents movement away from a worse state (0) fundamental forms of energization and direction; both are and ineffective avoidance motivation represents a lack of move- crucial for describing and explaining affect, cognition, and ment away from a worse state (1; see p. 117). As such, behavior. Scholer, Cornwell, and Higgins (in press) define approach motivation is optimally positioned to facilitate approach motivation as “eagerly focusing on where one wants growth, well-being, and flourishing, whereas avoidance motiv- to go, striving for desired end-states” and avoidance motiv- ation is clearly limited in this regard, as the best-case scenario ation as “vigilantly focusing on what one wants to get away entails getting away from something undesired. from, striving to move away from undesired end-states” (p. We think bearing in mind these differential functions 111). Scholer et al. note that approach motivation is com- (and structures) helps