Where the Hedonic Scale gives us a scalar reference of wants (likes and dislikes, etc.), the Action Curve empowers them. In essence, the Action Curve marks how much we want something. All of us want some things more than others, and that which is most desirable motivates us to work harder to obtain it. For instance, home and family are typically high on our scale of values and we expend lots of precious TEM (time, effort, and money) to obtain a home and protect our families. At the other extreme, things which are greatly feared, though falling to the bottom of the Hedonic Scale, also have a powerful affect upon us. The loss of a limb or loss of a family member is strongly aversive, and we expend vast sums of TEM to avoid these losses. Finally, items in the middle of the Hedonic Scale have little affect upon us, and we do not react strongly to anything of neutral value. Only values at the extremes have a powerful affect - items of extreme desire and extreme aversion. Those things which we value highest are sought most fervently with the highest emotion. Those which we fear or abhor are repulsed with equal fervor. Everything else in between is toned down by varying degrees - much of which, in the middle of the scale, we deem "unemotional" and to which we seem indifferent. The Action Curve marks all of these emotional levels: desire, aversion, indifference, as well as all emotions in between.

To provide stronger support for the Action Curve requires an excursion into the psychological field of behaviorism. Founded in the late 1800s and early 1900s upon principles discovered by Ivan P. Pavlov, Edward Thorndike, and John B. Watson, behaviorism became a mainstay of 20th century psychology. B. F. Skinner, in particular, popularized the field and strove to align it with the "hard" sciences by divesting behaviorism of emotional words and replacing them with terms such as "stimuli," "positive reinforcement," "negative reinforcement," and "punishment."

Unfortunately, these terms are clear as mud. Though Skinner had some great ideas, changing our vocabulary was not one of them. For those not indoctrinated in behaviorist terminology, I will correlate Skinner's terms with some "horse sense" ideas and refer to them as forms of "motivation." Positive and negative reinforcement equate to "the carrot and the whip" method of motivation. First, offering a horse a carrot usually gets a horse moving (walking, trotting, etc.) and is considered by behaviorists as positive reinforcement. If offering a carrot fails to get the horse moving, then taking a whip to his rump can also be effective. The whip, though, is deemed negative reinforcement. Finally, to stop the horse, pulling back on his reins and saying, "Whoa!" usually works. This latter example is considered punishment since the tug on the bridle-bit is unpleasant to the horse and intended to make him stop. Hopefully, "offering a carrot," "using a whip," and yelling "whoa" are much more down to earth and understandable than the behaviorist terminology.

Of crucial importance with these terms, though, is the action involved. With the carrot OR the whip, the horse MOVES. Thus, positive and negative reinforcement both produce ACTIVE behaviors. On the other hand, with "whoa," the horse STOPS or becomes passive. Activity ceases with "Whoa!" Thus, punishment produces INACTIVITY. (NOTE: "Activity" and "inactivity" refers to outward behaviors only.)

However, though "move" and "stop" relate to a level of activity, neither of them provides insight into the horse's motivation. Though both the carrot and the whip cause the horse to move, no one would construe that the horse moved for the same reason. Our belief is that the horse "likes" carrots and "doesn't like" being whipped. Even though the general action is the same (the horse moves), we believe the motivations are different. The horse seeks carrots and avoids whips.

These various terms for activity and motivation can be built into a table as shown in Figure 3. Since the horse must move to get the reward of a carrot, we read the table down to "active" and across to "seek." The horse must actively seek the carrot (ACTIVE/SEEK). In order to escape the pain of the whip, the horse must move, but this time, the horse moves to actively avoid something (ACTIVE/AVOID). Finally, during "whoa" the pain from the bridle-bit is avoided only by the horse stopping or becoming passive (PASSIVE/AVOID). Thus, the horse actively seeks the carrot, actively avoids the whip, but passively avoids the yanked bridle-bit.

Figure 3.

Though I have only referenced horse scenarios so far, numerous examples can readily be found from everyday "human" activities. While many of us like carrots, money is usually a better motivator (also known as a conditioned reinforcer). Whether we work in an office or outdoors, we expect monetary rewards for completing our work. The money, in turn, is exchanged for essentials like food, water, clothes, and shelter as well as non-essential pleasantries such as music, movies, books, collectibles, and many others. Because all these can be purchased, money represents "carrots" to us, and we actively seek money (active/seek).

As for human negative reinforcers, raising children reveals a few. For example, a parent may threaten a child to "Come here ... NOW!" If the child does not move quickly, the parent may provide a restriction ("Go to your room!") or provide an unpleasant stimulus to the child's backside (spanking). Both are negative reinforcement. On a more adult level, merging into traffic on the highway can have similar consequences. However, the urging now is to move quickly to avoid something unpleasant such as a vehicular accident. Creditors also use this "whip" technique by threatening to sue you, repossess whatever was purchased, damage your credit rating, or all of the aforementioned. In these various situations, we must DO something to avoid the consequences. We must actively avoid an aversive consequence (active/avoid).

The last behaviorist reinforcer, punishment (or "whoa"), is easily seen across the world in traffic lights. When the red light turns on, you had better stop your vehicle lest you get broadsided in the intersection ahead. Most of us yield to such a dangerous threat. In fact, most laws are enforced through some form of threat - monetary loss, bodily harm, imprisonment, etc. Behavior unacceptable to society is reduced or eradicated through the third motivator, punishment. Again, we avoid punishment by avoiding the pertinent behavior (passive/avoid).

One block in the table of Figure 3 still remains nameless, the passive/seek motivator. Though never clarified by B.F. Skinner, ironically, he alluded to this reinforcer himself when he mused:

"... 'I like Brahms,' 'I love Brahms,' 'I enjoy Brahms,' and 'Brahms pleases me' may easily be taken to refer to feelings, but they can be regarded as statements that the music of Brahms is reinforcing. A person of whom the expressions are true will listen to the radio when it plays Brahms rather than turn it off, buy and play records of Brahms, and go to concerts where Brahms is played. ..." (Skinner, 1974, p. 53-54)

The expanded table is now revealed in the Motivation Table of Figure 4. Given this portrayal, the four major reinforcers of behaviorism (what I term motivators) should not be far-fetched or incomprehensible. Hopefully, they should be fairly familiar and appreciated by anyone with a little "horse sense." We actively seek "carrots." We actively avoid "whips." We passively seek rest. And we passively avoid punishment.

Figure 4.

Before continuing, it might be useful to briefly clarify the term "motivation" and relate it to Figure 4. "Motivation may be defined broadly as the cause of behavior ... (and is) concerned with three major aspects of behavior: the inititiation and orientation of a behavior toward a specific goal, the intensity or strength of a behavior, and the cessation of behavior." (Buskist and Gerbing, 1990, p. 332) Clearly, the active/passive split of the Figure 4 table describes behavior intensity. Cessation would also be included as an extreme lack of intensity and would represent one end of an intensity scale. The seek/avoid part of the table describes an orientation toward a specific goal - a goal to seek or a goal to avoid. Thus, the table adheres to the definition of motivation by providing factors for intensity and orientation.

SKINNER-KEERAN Conversion

Refering back to Figure 2-2, though both the positive valued "home" and "steak" would fall into the "positive reinforcers" block, the Motivation Table does not reflect their relationship to each other; their is no means to show that home is preferred over steak. To do so requires a scalar reference. If we place the Hedonic Scale underneath the behaviorist table with the positive end under the "seek" column and the negative end under the "avoid" column, suddenly a scalar reference is available to each column (refer to Figure 5). Positive "wants" will align under the active/seek (carrot) and passive/seek (rest) blocks. Negative "unwants" will fall under the active/avoid (whip) and passive/avoid (whoa) blocks.

The Motivation Table also lacks a scalar reference for intensity. We readily recognize that we tend to work hardest to obtain things we want most (happiness, health, life, etc.). We also tend to work equally hard to avoid things most dreaded (disease, death, etc.). Other items, such as buying shoes or getting caught in the rain, bring forth lesser effort from us even though we definitely act upon them. In addition to working hard to obtain or avoid some things, we generally have emotional intensity corresponding to the valued item. The more we value something, the more excited we are to obtain it. The more we reject something, the more anxious we are to avoid it. Basically, our emotional intensities vary depending upon what we want:

"The intensity problem refers to the fact that emotions can exist in varying degrees of intensity ... (and it) implies the need to identify and scale this intensity dimension." (Plutchik, 1980, p. 47)

If we look at the Motivation Table as spatial fields and begin plotting our wants and desires within them, then anything high on the Hedonic Scale (farthest to the left) will have a point of high energy plotted in the upper left-hand corner of the ACTIVE/SEEK field of our table; we expend the most TEM for what is valued highest. As our want level decreases (moves to the right), the points will plot downward reflecting the lesser amounts of TEM which we are willing to expend. This will continue to a point of indifference where we expend no energy to either seek or avoid these items. As we move to lower levels on the Hedonic Scale (further right), we begin expending more resources again but now to avoid things unwanted. As we move progressively to the right, not only does our aversion increase, but so does our energy level of avoidance, and our line climbs higher. Eventually, as we reach the right side of the diagram, the plots end up in the upper right-hand corner to mark extreme aversion. With this last plot, looking at all of our points reveals a "V" shaped line as shown in Figure 5.

This revised diagram reflects the joining of humanist and behaviorist views. The "V" plot marks energy usage which is objective and measurable by behaviorists. But the high energy usage of the extreme left and right also equates to high emotion as well. Meanwhile, as energy usage drops toward the middle, so does emotion decline to the neutral zone representing emotional indifference and minimal energy use.

Figure 5.

Applying some concrete examples to Figure 5, the desire for a home, again, is usually very strong. Typically, we expend a lot of TEM to have one, so it would be high in terms of our activity to obtain it and far to the left on the Hedonic Scale reflecting a strong positive value. Similarly, we would fervently avoid losing our homes. Such a situation would be strongly aversive and show up far to the right on the Hedonic Scale, deep into the negative range. Meanwhile, buying a new jacket would be mildly desired, and avoiding staining it with food would be mildly aversive. Each of these, whether distinctly left or right of center on the Hedonic Scale, are not nearly as powerful in affecting our behavior as concern for a home, so their activity level (level of TEM expenditure) is much lower than obtaining or protecting a home. The lesser desire (and lesser aversion) brings them closer to the center point of the Hedonic Scale and to the lower portion of the intensity scale.

Actually, I suspect that the "V" shape is more of a "U" shape. Since the avoidance system is effectively the sympathetic nervous system (SNS), and the approach ("seek") system is effectively the parasympathetic nervous system (PNS), then we know that the two tend to trade-off: as one shuts down, the other cranks up. Only at the extremes do either dominate. While in the neutral zone, it is likely that both are somewhat active: the SNS keeps us awake and the PNS maximizes internal balance. Because both are active, it is not likely that emotional energy has "bottomed out" at a single point (the bottom of the "V"). The most likely configuration is represented in Figure 6 where both systems are never completely turned off. As one moves from a minimal energy level at one side of the diagram and to a maximum energy potential at the other side, the other system reciprocates by moving from a maximum to a minimum energy level. Inevitably, the two lines converge and crisscross in the middle of the diagram. By cutting away the two "tails" that fall below the point of convergence, the more likely "U" shape can be recognized.

Figure 6.

Another point of interest is the "mirror" quality of the Action Curve. If seeking "life" is at the extreme left of the table and avoiding "death" at the extreme right, then which value is activated in a "life and death" struggle?" Are we seeking life or avoiding death? I contend that any "want" is a singular value with two faces. When attacked by life's circumstances, the "value" will defend itself and be expressed through the negative side of the Action Curve. The value will enact behaviors to avoid or destroy the threat. Conversely, if a value has an opportunity to be nourished, then it spurs approach behaviors and seeks nourishment. At such times, the value expresses itself through the positive portion of the Action Curve.

The concept of a singular, underlying value is important because frequently it is not clear whether we are running towards or running away from something. Do we read because we seek knowledge or because we avoid ignorance? Or both? Do we eat because we seek food or avoid hunger? Or both? Do we socialize because we seek friendship or because we avoid loneliness? Or both? Emotive energy asserts that the strength of the underlying value determines how fiercely we avoid or how intensely we seek anything within the environment. But how a situation is posed to the underlying "value" determines the response. If threatened, the "value" will express itself through avoidance. If nourished, the "value" will express itself by seeking. Also, the strength of the avoiding or seeking behaviors will be roughly equal since the value producing both responses is the same one. Your desire for life will be equally as strong as your avoidance of death since the same value empowers both. Similarly, your desire for knowledge will as powerful as your avoidance of ignorance. Your desire for friendship will match your avoidance of loneliness. All values act in this manner and create the "mirror" effect of the left and right portions of the Action Curve.

Another reason to support a singular, underlying value is efficiency. It should be cheaper (Law of Life Efficiency) to store one value rather than two. Since we know that values are also dynamic and can be adjusted multiple times, it would seem simplest and most efficient to update only one location rather than two.

Briefly summarizing, where the Hedonic Scale provides a scale of values, the Action Curve empowers them. Depending upon how high or low a value sits on the Hedonic Scale, a corresponding maximum power level (power ceiling) exists within the Action Curve. Thus, what is most important to us on the Hedonic Scale (things ardently sought or things fervently avoided) is empowered to the greatest degree on the Action Curve. That which is of lesser importance is less empowered. That which draws indifference is least empowered and deemed "unemotional."

Back to Top

Previous Page

Next Page

Emotive Energy Home