Basic emotions: Can conflicting criteria converge?

Turner, Terence J.; Ortony, Andrew

doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.3.566

Cited by 67 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We agree with (Turner and Ortony, 1992) that the notion of "basic emotion" involves deep muddles. Searching for a small number of basic emotions from which others are composed is a bit like searching for a small number of chemical reactions from which others are composed.…”

Section: Where To Begin?supporting

confidence: 82%

The Architectural Basis of Affective States and Processes

Sloman¹,

Chrisley²,

Scheutz³

2005

Who Needs Emotions?

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much discussion of emotions and related topics is riddled with confusion because different authors use the key expressions with different meanings. Some confuse the concept of "emotion" with the more general concept of "affect", which covers other things besides emotions, including moods, attitudes, desires, preferences, intentions, dislikes, etc. Moreover researchers have different goals: some are concerned with understanding natural phenomena, while others are more concerned with producing useful artifacts, e.g. synthetic entertainment agents, sympathetic machine interfaces, and the like. We address this confusion by showing how "architecture-based" concepts can extend and refine our pre-theoretical concepts in ways that make them more useful both for expressing scientific questions and theories, and for specifying engineering objectives. An implication is that different information-processing architectures support different classes of emotions, different classes of consciousness, different varieties of perception, and so on. We start with high level concepts applicable to a wide variety of types of natural and artificial systems, including very simple organisms, namely concepts such as "need", "function", "information-user", "affect", "informationprocessing architecture". For more complex architectures, we offer the CogAff schema as a generic framework which distinguishes types of components that may be in a architecture, operating concurrently with different functional roles. We also sketch H-Cogaff, a richlyfeatured special case of CogAff, conjectured as a type of architecture that can explain or replicate human mental phenomena. We show how the concepts that are definable in terms of such architectures can clarify and enrich research on human emotions. If successful for the purposes of science and philosophy the architecture is also likely to be useful for engineering purposes, though many engineering goals can be achieved using shallow concepts and shallow theories, e.g., producing "believable" agents for computer entertainments. The more human-like robot emotions will emerge, as they do in humans, from the interactions of many mechanisms serving different purposes, not from a particular, dedicated "emotion mechanism".

show abstract

Section: Where To Begin?supporting

confidence: 82%

The Architectural Basis of Affective States and Processes

Sloman¹,

Chrisley²,

Scheutz³

2005

Who Needs Emotions?

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, ''Particular emotions are also called basic because they are assumed to have innate neural substrates, a unique and universally recognized facial expression, and a unique feeling state'' (p. 562). It should be stressed that the concept of basic emotions is still hotly contested (Ekman, 1992;Izard, 1992;Ortony and Turner, 1990;Panksepp, 1992;Solomon, 2002;Turner and Ortony, 1992;cf. Ekman and Davidson, 1994).…”

Section: Gratitude As An Emotionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Gratitude

Cohen

2006

Soc Just Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this review, I use Emmons and McCullough's excellent volume on gratitude as a platform for discussing several issues in emotion,cultural, and moral psychology. First I summarize this exceptionally rich edited book, which provides accessible reviews of the philosophy,theology, anthropology, sociology, evolutionary biology, and psychology of gratitude. I next take up four questions inspired by the book. First, I consider whether gratitude is an emotion, and how to operationally define emotions. Second, I discuss the cognitive components of gratitude, including the appraisal structure of gratitude and whether gratitude can occur without an attribution. Third, I take up the question of whether gratitude is indeed a positive emotion, and propose some complications in the nature of positive emotions. Last, I consider potential sources of individual, cultural, and religious differences in gratitude, such as whether gratitude is mostly about internal feelings or the fulfillment of social obligations.Psychology has typically viewed emotions as internal experiences that were selected for because they enhance the fitness of the individual experiencing them. But more recently, psychology has come to realize the importance of emotions that orient our concerns away from our own, narrow interests to the interests of others. While these emotions are no doubt also relevant to the individual's fitness, they can also be seen more broadly and in a more social, moral, and self-transcendent context. It is probably a confluence of several factors that promoted this broadening of interest (Emmons, 2004).

show abstract

“…The theory of basic emotions has also been cogently criticized (Turner & Ortony 1992), and new conceptions of emotion have emerged (Russell 2003). These conceptions include an emphasis on multicomponent dynamic processes laced with cognition (Scherer 2001, Smith & Kirby 2001, with a looser, more malleable and context-dependent relation among the components (Bradley & Lang 2000b) and with a role for broad primitive affective dimensions such as pleasure-displeasure and activation (Russell & Feldman Barrett 1999, Davidson 2000.…”

Section: Some Key Theoretical Advancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facial and Vocal Expressions of Emotion

Russell

Bachorowski

Fernández‐Dols

2003

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

722

426

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A flurry of theoretical and empirical work concerning the production of and response to facial and vocal expressions has occurred in the past decade. That emotional expressions express emotions is a tautology but may not be a fact. Debates have centered on universality, the nature of emotion, and the link between emotions and expressions. Modern evolutionary theory is informing more models, emphasizing that expressions are directed at a receiver, that the interests of sender and receiver can conflict, that there are many determinants of sending an expression in addition to emotion, that expressions influence the receiver in a variety of ways, and that the receiver's response is more than simply decoding a message.

show abstract

Basic emotions: Can conflicting criteria converge?

Cited by 67 publications

References 21 publications

The Architectural Basis of Affective States and Processes

The Architectural Basis of Affective States and Processes

On Gratitude

Facial and Vocal Expressions of Emotion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About