Emotion Sept. 8th

Appraisal Theories: Overview

  • Appraisals can be learned, innate, or biologically prepared-to-be-learned.
  • Behaviorists emphasized stimulus–response (S–R) pairings and treated the mind as a “black box.”
  • Appraisal theorists kept alive the idea that cognition (thoughts) happening in the mind are important to understanding emotion.
  • Richard Lazarus (1970s–1991) built on Arnold: appraisal causes emotion and is more complex than just good/bad; appraisal is cognitive and reportable.
  • Not everyone agreed: Robert Zajonc argued for the “primacy of affect” — cognition and feeling are separate and feeling can come first (e.g., mere exposure effect; unconscious processes).
  • Today, the view is that evaluation must occur and can be unconscious, but thoughts relate to emotions and can be reported.
  • Aside from appraisal emphasis, there is a distinction between Affect and Effect (terminology) which clarifies when we refer to mood/feelings vs. causal influence on mood.

Affect vs. Effect (terminology) – quick reference

  • Effect (n): e.g., "The coffee had a positive effect on my mood."
  • Affect (v): e.g., "The coffee affects my mood in a positive way."
  • Affect (n): e.g., "The coffee elicited positive affect."
  • Effect (v): e.g., "The coffee effected a positive mood."
  • Affective (adj): related to moods/feelings; broader than discrete emotions.
  • Examples: "We measured affective responses"; "Affective symptoms are seen in many disorders, and they are a central feature of mood disorders like major depressive disorder."

Magda Arnold (1960) – appraisal first

  • Emotions are not reflexes; appraisal comes first.
  • Sense judgments: evaluate a stimulus as beneficial or harmful.
  • The sense judgment (appraisal) leads to a felt tendency (emotional motivation) to approach or avoid.
  • The appraisal is the emotion itself: e.g., labeling something as bad for me produces fear.
  • Arnold’s view contrasted with earlier theories that the bodily sensations (e.g., pounding heart, dry mouth) are the direct feeling of fear.

Lazarus – the Appraisal Process

  • Two-stage process: sensation/perception leads to appraisal, which then yields emotion.
  • Primary appraisal (first step): assess the stimulus for personal relevance to goals.
    • Goal relevance: does it matter to my goals?
    • Goal congruence (aka goal conduciveness, motive consistency): if it matters, is it good or bad?
    • Outcomes: leads to positive affect or negative affect depending on relevance and congruence.
  • Secondary appraisal (after primary): more specific appraisals that shape the precise emotional response.
    • Agency/Cause/Responsibility: who caused this?
    • Coping potential/Control/Power: can I cope with it?
    • Certainty: how certain are judgments and outcomes?
  • Key appraisal dimension theorists: Richard Lazarus, Craig Smith, Phoebe Ellsworth.
  • Practical takeaway: appraisal is cognitive and can be reported; emotions are not merely bodily sensations but meaningful evaluations.

Zajonc – primacy of affect (contrast to Lazarus)

  • Proposes that cognition and feeling are separable and that feeling can come first.
  • Example: mere exposure effect — repeated exposure increases liking without conscious appraisal.
  • Current stance: aspects of evaluation can be unconscious, but cognitive processing often occurs and influences emotion; the primacy debate is nuanced rather than absolute.

Appraisal Dimensions – core and expanded set

  • Primary appraisal dimensions (classic Lazarus model):
    • Relevance to goals (goal relevance)
    • Congruence with goals (goal conduciveness)
  • Theoretically related to positivity/negativity of affective response (positive affect if congruent with goals; negative affect if incongruent).
  • Theories have proposed additional dimensions to capture more nuance:
    • Novelty / familiarity / attentional activity / unexpectedness / change
    • Expectancy (outcome)
    • Urgency
    • Intentionality
    • Norm compatibility / morality
    • Self-compatibility / feelings about self
    • Fairness
    • Anticipated effort / activation
  • Self-consistency is noted in some appraisal profiles (alignment with self-image or moral self-concept).
  • The appraisal framework allows a wide array of evaluative criteria to generate distinct emotions.

Cross-cultural testing of appraisal patterns – Scherer (1997)

  • Focus: the role of culture in emotion-antecedent appraisal.
  • Question: Are similar appraisal profiles associated with the same emotions across cultures?
  • Study design: recall a recent situation in which one experienced a strong emotion, and vividly remember the circumstances and reactions.
  • Sample: 7 emotions across 37 countries; broad geographic coverage.
  • Findings: rather high convergence across geopolitical regions with respect to emotion-specific profiles; results largely matched theoretical predictions, suggesting universality in the appraisal mechanism.
  • Conclusion: while cultural variation exists, core appraisal patterns appear to be largely universal for many emotions.

Large-scale appraisal research – Figure 1 (summary)

  • Figure displays predicted and empirically obtained appraisal profiles for seven emotions across 66 geopolitical regions, using z-scores (i.e., standardized deviations).
  • Elements captured: appraisal activity across regions and emotions, illustrating how different emotions map onto the same set of appraisal dimensions.
  • Caption notes:
    • Predicted values are represented as rectangles.
    • Empirical deviations from the mean across regions are shown as circles.
  • Interpretation: the figure demonstrates the degree to which theoretical appraisal profiles align with observed data across diverse regions.
  • Note: the transcription contains garbled labels (e.g., "Foad", "Untair", etc.) in the slide text; the intended content depicts Emotion–Region profiles with standardization.

Example activity: Fun appraisal game (thought experiment)

  • Task: determine which specific emotion would result from a combination of negative affect after primary appraisal plus various secondary appraisals:
    1) Other-blame
    2) Self-blame
    3) Danger/threat (uncertain coping potential)
    4) Irrevocable loss and helplessness about the loss (low coping potential and low future expectancy)
  • Purpose: illustrate how different secondary-appraisal cues shape the final emotional label.

Key takeaways and connections

  • Appraisal theories offer a process account of how thoughts and evaluations give rise to specific emotions, beyond crude good/bad labels.
  • The primary appraisals determine whether an event matters to goals and whether it helps or hinders goal achievement; secondary appraisals determine the particular emotion by specifying agency, coping potential, and certainty.
  • There is debate about how conscious these appraisals are; evidence supports both conscious reporting and unconscious evaluation.
  • Cross-cultural research suggests many appraisal processes are universal, though culture modulates the content and strength of appraisals in some contexts.
  • The framework provides practical implications for emotion regulation, psychotherapy, and understanding how people interpret real-world events (e.g., stress, moral judgments, social outcomes).

Ethical, philosophical, and practical implications

  • Universality vs cultural variation: appraisal mechanisms appear broadly universal, but interpretations of responsibility, fairness, and morality differ, affecting emotional experience and regulation.
  • Moral emotions: dimensions like fairness, morality, and self-consistency highlight the ethical dimension of emotions and how social norms shape emotional responses.
  • Real-world relevance: appraisal concepts underpin emotion regulation strategies, conflict resolution, and cross-cultural communication.
  • Methodological note: reliance on self-reports for appraisal emphasizes subjective experience; cross-cultural methods combine recall tasks with comparative analyses to infer universal patterns.

Summary of key references and terms

  • Arnold (1960): Emotions arise from appraisal; sense judgments drive approach/avoidance tendencies; appraisal equals emotion.
  • Lazarus (1970s–1991): Primary appraisal (goal relevance/congruence) and Secondary appraisal (agency, coping, certainty); appraisal processes can be conscious or unconscious; emotions are cognitive evaluations.
  • Zajonc: Primacy of affect; cognition and affect can be independent; some emotions arise without conscious appraisal.
  • Scherer (1997): Cross-cultural appraisal profiles for multiple emotions; evidence for universality with cultural variation.
  • Core terms: appraisal, primary appraisal, secondary appraisal, goal relevance, goal conduciveness, agency, coping potential, certainty, novelty, expectancy, urgency, intentionality, fairness, morality, self-consistency.