Motivationally Driven Goals

Work done by Jones and Thibaut (1958) indicates that a perceier’s goal for social interaction, motivation and situation more generally be used. Two primary assumptions underlie their theory of interpersonal perception, one being that the strategic focus in social perception will vary as a function of the type of social interaction it supports, the second being that the perceiver in any social situation will act in such a way as to reduce the need for information to sustain the interaction process. In contrast to broadly defined motives, personal goals constitute individualized and cognitively elaborated representations of what a person wants to achieve (Brunstein 1993; Brunstein, Schulthesis and Grassman 1998).

Tomkins (1963) and Izard (1971, 1977)

Assert that emotions constitute the primary motivational system of human beings. Similarly, Young (1961) states that emotion regulates and directs behavior according to the principle of maximizing the positive and minimizing the negative. Also, Schwarz and Clore (1983) and Pham (1998) convey mood as a source of information in evaluative judgments. Further, Luce (1998) says that about consumers desire to cope with or minimize negative emotion in a given decision task. Thus, the present research aims to examine the arousal of-specific emotions associated with. specific motivational influences.

Westbrook, 1987 and Oliver, 1991
Predict that emotions are mental reaction consciously experienced as a subjective feeling state. Principally, consumption emotion refers to “the set of emotional response elicited specifically during product usage or consumption experiences. Emotions are distinguishable from the related affective state of mood based on their great psychological urgency, motivational potency, and situational specificity. According to Oiver (1997), emotions encompass both arousal and broader forms of affect including its cognitive domain. Yet, the concepts of emotions and affect are frequently used interchangeably in the literature.

Heckhausen, 1986; Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987

Note that the effects of deliberative thinking have not been examined in the context of ongoing selfregulation, and it is possible that prolonged deliberation may have costs as well as benefits.

Shakespeare’s Hamlet, after all, was only the Prince of Denmark, but he was the king of deliberation; yet, few would applaud him for his decision-making prowess or for his initiative. William James heaped further scorn on those for whom deliberation was an enduring state rather than a finite process stepped through en route to a goal: “There is no more miserable human being than one in whom nothing is habitual but indecision” (James, 1890). . According to the Rubicon model of action, there is a sharp distinction between this pre decisional, deliberative frame of mind and a post decisional frame of mind marked by thoughts about how a given decision might be implemented (yielding an ‘”implemental mindset”; Gollwitzer, 1990; Gollwitzer & Bayer, 1999).