goals (e.g., educational achievement, morality, weight loss) tend to have less motivational urgency behind them than short-term goals (e.g., eating a delicious-looking dessert, approaching one’s romantic partner for sex, getting out of the path of a speeding car so as not to get run over). Urgent motives may be enacted without a lot of planning, so a hierarchical conception may not be applicable. The target article proposes a hierarchical understanding of approach motivation, which seems to imply that motivation is top-down rather than bottom-up. However, research on ego depletion presumes that the pursuit of long-term goals requires resisting powerful short-term impulses, an effortful process that changes the individual’s motivational state, making subsequent self-control more difficult (Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012). In other words, acting on bottom-up impulsive motivation is the predominant response tendency, whereas top-down deliberate motivation requires effort and reduces the capacity to exert such effort immediately afterward. Moreover, research on ego depletion has suggested that exerting effort in the pursuit of consciously held goals increases approach-motivational urges. For example, participants who had exerted self-control by suppressing facial expressions of emotions subsequently self-reported greater CONTACT Cindy Harmon-Jones cindyharmonjones@gmail.com The University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia. 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY 2019, VOL. 30, NO. 3, 132–135 https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2019.1646043 approach motivation (Study 1), gambled more often on a low-stakes game (Study 2), and more accurately perceived reward symbols (Study 3; Schmeichel, Harmon-Jones, & Harmon-Jones, 2010). Similarly, dieters who exerted selfcontrol showed increased activity in the nucleus accumbens to photographs of desirable foods, indicating greater reward sensitivity (Wagner et al., 2013). In addition, individuals who are high in trait approach motivation show greater increases in approach motivation following effortful selfcontrol compared to those who are low in trait approach motivation (Schmeichel, Crowell, & Harmon-Jones, 2016). These results suggest that the relationship between goal-pursuit and approach motivation is not simple, as the effortful pursuit of some goals may increase impulsive approach motivation that may undermine those goals. For the most part, the target article appeared to focus on long-term approach-oriented goals, such as educational achievement. When considering this type of goal, it may be appropriate to examine goal pursuit in terms of a hierarchy of system, strategic, and tactical levels. On the other hand, more immediate, urgent goals may be acted upon at a low level, without much conscious strategizing. However, an individual typically holds many goals, both longand shortterm, both deliberate and impulsive, and these may compete with one another. While on the topic of hierarchies in motivational theories such as the one presented in the target article and others (e.g., Lang & Bradley, 2008), we wonder if referring to the different levels in the hierarchy as all motivational is accurate (i.e., are all levels are equally motivational or motivational at all?). Motivation is often defined as an urge or an impulse to do something, and the organism’s exertion of effort (or cost) is used as evidence of motivation. In the case of rats burying noxious-smelling threats (a bleach-soaked cotton ball; Franks, Higgins, & Champagne, 2012), rats with more of an avoidance orientation may have been more likely to bury the “threat” because they “believed” they could not escape the noxious smell (even if they moved to a different but interconnected cage). Instead, they believed that the only way to escape the smell was to bury it. Sure, they had to approach it to bury it, but their moving toward the object to bury it was not approach motivated in the sense of a motivational urge. Had someone else buried it, they would have been satisfied and not motivated to try to bury it again, we suspect. On the other hand, consider a situation in which the rat is exposed to a desired piece of food. The rat is motivated to eat it, and will exert effort to acquire it. If, however, someone else starts to eat it, the rat will be unsatisfied and likely engage in aggression to regain the lost food object. Motivation is Not Always Conscious Individuals may often be unaware of the sources of motivation for their behavior, and their conscious strategies may be in the service of rationalizing their behavior. Thousands of studies on cognitive dissonance, spanning over 50 years, have demonstrated that individuals change their cognitions to match their behavior and to justify it (Harmon-Jones, 2019). Implicit motivational processes, such as those that impel dissonance reduction, are neglected in the target article, which focuses on strategies for achieving consciously held goals. However, dissonance-like implicit motivations may commonly guide behavior, as illustrated by the several psychological theories that Aronson (1992) characterized as dissonance in other guises, including self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988), symbolic self-completion theory (Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982), self-evaluation maintenance theory (Tesser, 1988), and self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1989), among others. From the wealth of theories uncovering similar psychological processes, it appears that dissonance-like implicit motivations frequently influence a host of psychological processes. Research on the action-based model of dissonance suggests that dissonance reduction is often an approach-motivated process (Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2002; Harmon-Jones, 2019; Harmon-Jones, Harmon-Jones & Levy, 2015). The action-based model proposed that the function of dissonance reduction is to facilitate effective and unconflicted action. The reasoning is that, when one holds cognitions that are in conflict, their action tendencies are also likely to conflict, providing a poor guide for action. By bringing cognitions more closely into agreement, action is facilitated because the action tendencies converge. We reasoned that dissonance reduction should thus be greater when approach motivation is high. This idea has been tested in a variety of dissonance paradigms, and the research has revealed that approach motivation is associated with more dissonance reduction, using experimental as well as correlational methods (Harmon-Jones, Gerdjikov, & HarmonJones, 2008; Harmon-Jones, Harmon-Jones, Fearn, Sigelman, & Johnson, 2008; Harmon-Jones, Price, & Harmon-Jones, 2015; Harmon-Jones, Schmeichel, Inzlicht, & Harmon-Jones, 2011; Harmon-Jones, Harmon-Jones, Serra, & Gable, 2011). Greater activity in the ventral striatum, a reward-related region, has also been shown to correlate with greater dissonance reduction (Kitayama, Chua, Tompson, & Han, 2013). These results suggest that approach motivation is mobilized when individuals rationalize their decisions, rather than being a conscious, deliberate orientation while pursuing a goal. Motivational Urges or Anticipated End-States? The target article notes, “It is also the case that whether the focus on undesired versus desired end-states is a more powerful motivational force may depend on the nature of the goal domain and the time horizon examined” (Scholer et al., 2019, p. 113). However, we question whether organisms are usually focused on end-states while behaving in a motivated fashion. Let us take as an example the behavior of angry aggression. Is the individual who aggresses against another person attempting to bring about a desired endstate? Or is he or she simply responding to an urgent impulse to attack the source of the anger? Suggestive evidence that the latter is the case is provided by reports that individuals have been observed to attack and destroy COMMENTARIES 133

中文翻译：

---

广泛考虑动机，重点关注方法动机

目标（例如，教育成就、道德、减肥）的动机紧迫性往往低于短期目标（例如，吃看起来美味的甜点、接近自己的浪漫伴侣进行性行为、避开超速行驶的道路）车以免被碾压）。紧急动机可能在没有大量计划的情况下制定，因此等级概念可能不适用。目标文章提出了对方法动机的分层理解，这似乎意味着动机是自上而下的而不是自下而上的。然而，关于自我耗竭的研究假设追求长期目标需要抵制强大的短期冲动，这是一个改变个人动机状态的努力过程，使随后的自我控制更加困难（Inzlicht & Schmeichel，2012）。换句话说，对自下而上的冲动动机采取行动是主要的反应趋势，而自上而下的刻意动机需要努力，并降低了随后立即发挥这种努力的能力。此外，关于自我耗竭的研究表明，为追求有意识的目标而付出努力会增加接近动机的冲动。例如，通过抑制情绪的面部表情来施加自我控制的参与者随后自我报告了更大的联系 Cindy Harmon-Jones cindyharmonjones@gmail.com 新南威尔士大学，悉尼 2052，澳大利亚。2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY 2019, VOL. 30，没有。3, 132–135 https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2019.1646043 接近动机（研究 1），在低风险游戏中更频繁地赌博（研究 2），以及更准确地感知奖励符号（研究 3；Schmeichel、Harmon-Jones 和 Harmon-Jones，2010 年）。同样，进行自我控制的节食者在看到理想食物的照片时，伏隔核的活动增加，表明奖励敏感性更高（Wagner 等人，2013 年）。此外，与特质接近动机低的人相比，特质接近动机高的人在努力自我控制后表现出接近动机的更大增加（Schmeichel，Crowell，＆Harmon-Jones，2016）。这些结果表明，目标追求和接近动机之间的关系并不简单，因为对某些目标的努力追求可能会增加可能破坏这些目标的冲动接近动机。大多数情况下，目标文章似乎侧重于以方法为导向的长期目标，例如教育成就。在考虑此类目标时，根据系统、战略和战术层次的层次结构来检查目标追求可能是合适的。另一方面，更直接、更紧迫的目标可能会在低层次上采取行动，而无需有意识地制定战略。然而，一个人通常有许多目标，既有长期的也有短期的，有刻意的也有冲动的，这些目标可能会相互竞争。虽然关于动机理论中的层次结构主题，例如目标文章和其他文章中介绍的层次结构（例如，Lang & Bradley，2008），我们想知道将层次结构中的不同级别称为所有动机是否准确（即，所有级别都同样具有激励作用或完全具有激励作用？）。动机通常被定义为做某事的冲动或冲动，有机体的努力（或成本）被用作动机的证据。在老鼠掩埋恶臭威胁（漂白剂浸泡的棉球；弗兰克斯、希金斯和香槟，2012 年）的情况下，具有更多回避倾向的老鼠可能更有可能掩埋“威胁”，因为他们“相信” ”他们无法摆脱恶臭（即使他们搬到了一个不同但相互关联的笼子里）。相反，他们认为摆脱气味的唯一方法就是将其掩埋。当然，他们必须接近它才能埋葬它，但是他们走向目标以埋葬它并不是出于动机冲动意义上的接近。我们怀疑，如果其他人把它埋了，他们会很满意并且没有动力尝试再次埋葬它。另一方面，考虑一种情况，其中大鼠暴露于所需的食物。老鼠有动力去吃它，并会努力去获得它。然而，如果其他人开始吃它，老鼠会不满意，并可能会采取攻击行为来重新获得丢失的食物。动机并不总是有意识的个人可能常常不知道他们行为的动机来源，他们有意识的策略可能是为了使他们的行为合理化。跨越 50 多年的数千项关于认知失调的研究表明，个人会改变他们的认知以匹配他们的行为并为其辩护（Harmon-Jones，2019）。目标文章中忽略了隐含的动机过程，例如那些促使减少不和谐的过程，它侧重于实现有意识的目标的策略。然而，如 Aronson (1992) 将其描述为其他形式的失调的几种心理学理论，包括自我肯定理论 (Steele, 1988)、象征性自我完成理论 (Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982)、自我评价维持理论 (Tesser, 1988) 和自我差异理论 (Higgins, 1989) 等。从揭示类似心理过程的大量理论来看，类似不和谐的内隐动机似乎经常影响许多心理过程。对基于行动的不和谐模型的研究表明，减少不和谐通常是一种方法驱动的过程（Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones，2002；Harmon-Jones，2019；哈蒙-琼斯、哈蒙-琼斯和利维，2015 年）。基于行动的模型提出减少不和谐的功能是促进有效和无冲突的行动。理由是，当一个人持有冲突的认知时，他们的行动倾向也很可能发生冲突，从而提供了一个糟糕的行动指南。通过使认知更接近一致，行动会变得更容易，因为行动倾向会趋同。我们推断，当接近动机很高时，失调减少应该更大。这个想法已经在各种不和谐范式中进行了测试，研究表明，使用实验和相关方法，接近动机与更多的不和谐减少相关（Harmon-Jones, Gerdjikov, & HarmonJones, 2008; Harmon-Jones, Harmon-Jones、Fearn、Sigelman 和 约翰逊，2008 年；哈蒙-琼斯，普莱斯和哈蒙-琼斯，2015 年；Harmon-Jones、Schmeichel、Inzlicht 和 Harmon-Jones，2011 年；哈蒙-琼斯、哈蒙-琼斯、塞拉和盖博，2011 年）。腹侧纹状体（一个与奖赏相关的区域）的更大活动也被证明与更大的失调减少相关（Kitayama、Chua、Tompson 和 Han，2013）。这些结果表明，当个人将他们的决定合理化时，接近动机就会被调动起来，而不是在追求目标时有意识地、深思熟虑的方向。动机性冲动还是预期的最终状态？目标文章指出，“同样的情况是，关注不想要的和想要的最终状态是否是一种更强大的动力可能取决于目标域的性质和检查的时间范围”（Scholer 等人，2019 年） ，第 113 页）。然而，我们质疑生物体在以一种有动机的方式行事时是否通常专注于最终状态。让我们以愤怒攻击的行为为例。攻击他人的人是否试图带来理想的结局？或者，他或她只是对攻击愤怒根源的紧急冲动做出反应？有报道称有人攻击和摧毁了这些人，这暗示了后者是这种情况的证据 评论 133 攻击他人的人是否试图带来理想的结局？或者，他或她只是对攻击愤怒根源的紧急冲动做出反应？有报道称，有人被观察到攻击和摧毁评论 133 的报告提供了后一种情况的暗示性证据 攻击他人的人是否试图带来理想的结局？或者，他或她只是对攻击愤怒根源的紧急冲动做出反应？有报道称，有人被观察到攻击和摧毁评论 133 的报告提供了后一种情况的暗示性证据