Overall effect: these dimensions shape which emotion is felt (e.g., anger, guilt, sadness, fear, etc.)
Remember the fun appraisal game
After primary appraisal (negative affect) and secondary appraisal of:
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)
These combinations predict what emotion might arise; illustrates how appraisal patterns map onto emotions
Emotion and Appraisals: core ideas
If we know the person’s appraisal, we should be able to predict their emotion
Whether using all appraisal dimensions or core relational themes
Does it work? Cross-check with appraisal activities and scenarios
Three practical ways to influence emotional responses:
1) Change the situation
2) Change the person’s goals
3) Change the interpretation of the situation for the person’s goals (their appraisal)
Appraisal categories and core relational themes
Core idea: Lazarus proposed core relational themes that link appraisals to emotions
Relational = how the environment relates to my motivation
Examples of core relations (how the situation is appraised to trigger specific emotions):
Immediate, concrete, overwhelming physical danger → fear
A demeaning offense against me and mine → anger
Wanting something someone else has → envy
This is a Gestalt view of appraisal: the whole pattern matters more than any single dimension
Craig Smith & Richard Lazarus (1993): aligned core relational themes with appraisal dimensions
Appraisal components and core relational themes for harm-related emotions
If we know someone’s appraisal, we should know what emotion they will feel
This holds whether we consider all appraisal dimensions or core relational themes
Usefulness validated by appraisal activities and cross-cultural studies (e.g., Scherer 1997) that map appraisal patterns to emotions
Examples of appraisal in everyday scenarios (scenarios A–E)
A. His friends have come to visit.
1. Goal conduciveness: how important is the event for your goals/needs at the time? (a) It helped (b) It didn’t matter (c) It hurt)
2. Agency: who was responsible for the event? (a) Myself (b) Close person (c) Other person (d) Impersonal external agency)
3. Coping potential / control: how able were you to cope or act? (a) Powerless (b) Escape possible (c) Pretend nothing happened (d) No action necessary (e) Could positively influence event and change consequences)
4. What emotion would you expect the person to feel?
B. Her child has died.
1. Goal conduciveness: importance to goals/needs, did it help or hinder plans? (It helped / It didn’t matter / It hurt)
2. Agency: who caused the event? (Myself / Close person / Other person / Impersonal external agency)
3. Coping potential / control: how you could cope at first confrontation? (Powerless / Escape possible / Pretend nothing happened / No action necessary / Could positively influence event and change consequences)
4. What emotion would you expect?
C. He is about to fight someone who insulted him.
1. Goal conduciveness: importance to goals/needs, did it help or hinder plans?
2. Agency: who caused the event? (Myself / Close person / Other person / Impersonal external agency)
3. Coping potential / control: how you could cope? (Powerless / Escape possible / Pretend nothing happened / No action necessary / Could positively influence event and change consequences)
4. What emotion would you expect?
D. She is looking at something that smells bad.
1. Goal conduciveness: importance to goals/needs, did it help or hinder plans?
2. Agency: who caused the event? (Myself / Close person / Other person / Impersonal external agency)
3. Coping potential / control: how you could cope? (Powerless / Escape possible / Pretend nothing happened / No action necessary / Could positively influence event and change consequences)
4. What emotion would you expect?
E. He is sitting in his house alone; a wild pig stands at the door; the pig seems dangerous.
1. Goal conduciveness: importance to goals/needs; did it help or hinder plans?
2. Agency: who caused the event? (Myself / Close person / Other person / Impersonal external agency)
3. Coping potential / control: how you could cope at first confrontation? (Powerless / Escape possible / Pretend nothing happened / No action necessary / Could positively influence event and change consequences)
4. What emotion would you expect?
Some things to notice about emotion, nature, and nurture
General pattern: when appraisals line up, the emotion is typically predictable; same situation can produce the same emotion across people when appraisals align
If you change an appraisal dimension, the emotion would change
Core relational themes help focus on the most important appraisals for that emotion
Measurement issues: the theory can explain stories, but translating to concrete measures can be challenging
Innateness questions:
Are emotional responses to stimuli innate? Not many innate responses to specific stimuli; meanings of stimuli are learned from environments, though humans may be biologically predisposed to learn some meanings quickly
Are emotional responses to appraisals innate? Cross-cultural patterns exist; different cultures may pattern appraisals similarly for certain emotions, but individuals may judge situations differently; however, those with similar appraisals tend to report similar emotions
Are expressions of emotion innate? Emotions are expressed through facial muscle contractions; expressions are learned rather than innate in terms of the words we use to describe them
Expressions of emotion
Facial expressions are combinations of muscle contractions
When self-reporting emotions, the terms we use are learned rather than innate
Duchenne perspective (1800s):
Duchenne de Boulogne studied the muscle contractions that create facial expressions using electrophysiology
Demonstrated that certain facial movements are linked to genuine emotional states
Innateness of facial expressions vs. learned labeling
How would we test innateness of facial expressions? Experimental design comparing cultures, cross-cultural recognition, and neurophysiological correlates
Practical implications and connections
Core idea: appraisal theory links perception, motivation, and emotion in a structured way, enabling prediction and intervention
Connections to gestalt thinking: the whole pattern matters; you don’t need to map every appraisal dimension to know the emotion
Real-world relevance: predicting responses in counseling, negotiation, and education; designing interventions to alter emotions by changing appraisals, goals, or the situation
Quick reference: core terms
Primary appraisal: relevance and valence of the event for the individual’s goals
Secondary appraisal: perceived coping potential, agency, and other evaluative dimensions
Core relational themes: the fundamental relational patterns that tie appraisals to emotions (e.g., other-blame → anger, self-blame → guilt, danger/threat → fear, irrevocable loss → sadness)
Coping potential / control: perceived ability to influence or cope with the event
Emotion mapping: anger, guilt, fear/anxiety, sadness as primary harm-related emotions tied to specific relational themes
Duchenne: foundational work on genuine facial expressions and their muscle basis
Summary takeaway
Emotions are predicted by the meaning an event has for a person’s goals and the perceived ability to cope with it, mediated by who caused the event, how controllable it is, and other evaluative judgments
Core relational themes provide a robust shorthand for predicting emotions without exhaustively listing every appraisal dimension
Cross-cultural patterns exist, but individual judgments vary; the appraisal framework still accounts for common emotional responses to similar situations
Expressions of emotion are learned in labeling and interpretation, while some facial expressions have strong physiological bases (Duchenne) explaining genuine displays of emotion