![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper is a part of a line of research designed to develop and validate a reliable easy-to-administer self-report indicator of individual differences in motivational activation. Previous research began the process with the development of the Motivational Activation Measure (MAM) (A. CitationLang, Shin, & Lee, 2005; A. CitationLang, Bradley, Sparks, & Lee, 2007). To calculate MAM, participants view and rate 90 emotional images selected from the International Affective Picture System. The ratings from 35 of those 90 pictures are used to calculate MAM. In this paper, two short versions of the MAM measure, called miniMAM, are developed and their validity assessed. In the first version, participants viewed and rated only the 35 pictures used to calculate MAM. In the second version, participants viewed the 35 pictures used to calculate MAM plus three high arousing negative and three moderately arousing positive pictures chosen from the original MAM measure. The second version is found to be a suitable substitute for MAM when time matters. A third experiment assesses the test re-test reliability of the measure. The results show that motivational reactivity remains stable over time within individuals over a several month period and appears to assess a trait not a state level.
Notes
1Originally the appetitive activation indicator was called positivity offset (PO) and the aversive activation indicator was called negativity bias (NB) (CitationLang, et al., 2005). However, this was confusing since the names of the measures had the same names as the theoretical constructs in Cacioppo's dual activation model (CitationCacioppo et al., 1997). Therefore, these names have been changed.
This article was accepted for publication by David Ewoldsen, prior editor of this journal.
2These changes were made because, compared to the other pictures used in MAM, these were rated very differently by men and women respondents in early MAM studies. We replaced them with pictures that we hoped (based on the gender norms published with the IAPS) would be rated more similarly across gender.