Four best-practice recommendations for improving the conceptualization and operationalization of motivational intensity: Reply to Kaczmarek and Harmon-Jones.

Replies to the comments made by Kaczmarek and Harmon-Jones (see record 2024-44184-002) on the current authors original article (see record 2021-21096-001). Kaczmarek and Harmon-Jones (2023) provide a commentary on our original empirical piece, does motivational intensity exist distinct from valence and arousal? (Campbell et al., 2021). In this response, we articulate the motivation behind our work, including the major issues with the conceptualization and operationalization of motivational intensity in prior literature. For example, while motivational intensity was proposed to replace valence as the determinant of cognitive scope more than a decade and a half ago, in both this original work and ongoing work since then, motivational intensity has been operationalized in a variety of questionable ways, including via participants' ratings of valence, rather than motivational intensity. That is, in multiple studies, differences in cognitive processes measured in two conditions have been attributed to motivational intensity which was not explicitly measured, while the conditions do demonstrably differ in the valence participants experienced. We explain exactly what we found in Campbell et al. (2021) and our subsequent follow-up work (Campbell et al., 2023), and what aspects of our interpretation converge versus diverge with the views offered in Kaczmarek and Harmon-Jones' commentary. We also identify four important recommendations for best-practice research going forward. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).