Studying the emotion-antecedent appraisal process: An expert system approach

Abstract

The surprising convergence between independently developed appraisal theories of emotion elicitation and differentiation is briefly reviewed. It is argued that three problems are responsible for the lack of more widespread acceptance of such theories: (1) the criticism of excessive cognitivism raised by psychologists working on affective phenomena; (2) the lack of process orientation in linking appraisal to the complex unfolding of emotion episodes over time; and (3) the lack of consensus on the number and types of appraisal criteria between theorists in this domain. Although readers are referred to recent theoretical discussions and evidence from the neurosciences with respect to the first two issues, an empirical study using computerised experimentation is reported with respect to the third issue. Data obtained with an expert system based on Scherer's (1984a) "stimulus evaluation check" predictions show the feasibility of this approach in determining the number and types of appraisal criteria needed to explain emotion differentiation. It is suggested to use computer modelling and experimentation as a powerful tool to further theoretical development and collect pertinent data on the emotion-antecedent appraisal process.

Toward an Understanding of the Determinants of Anger.

“…246-247, 262;Scherer, 1993Scherer, , 2001aSmith & Lazarus, 1993, pp. 263-264;Stein & Levine, 1989, 1990.…”

Individual differences in patterns of appraisal and anger experience

“…The appraisal of goal-obstacle or goal-blocking is generally accepted as an important determinant of anger as well as aggression. Besides its key role in the influential frustration Áaggression hypothesis (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears;1939), it has also been adopted under various forms by numerous more recent appraisal theorists as a major 1 Some appraisal theories also hypothesise that the appraisal of power or control is an important determinant of anger (e.g., Roseman et al, 1990;Scherer, 1993). This appraisal was not included in the present study because empirical evidence so far has failed to show a consistent association between this appraisal and anger (see, e.g., Kuppens, Van Mechelen, Smits, & De Boeck, 2003) and in the present study we wanted to include only those appraisals that have been proven to be predictive for anger.…”

“…This appraisal was not included in the present study because empirical evidence so far has failed to show a consistent association between this appraisal and anger (see, e.g., Kuppens, Van Mechelen, Smits, & De Boeck, 2003) and in the present study we wanted to include only those appraisals that have been proven to be predictive for anger. component of anger and anger-like emotions; the latter include frustration (Averill, 1982), perceived goal-obstacle (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988;Smith & Ellsworth, 1985), motivational incongruence (Smith & Lazarus, 1993), motive inconsistency (Roseman et al, 1990), undesirable event (Ortony et al, 1988), goal obstructiveness (Scherer, 1993), and goal blocking (Izard, 1977).…”

News With an Attitude: Assessing the Mechanisms Underlying the Effects of Opinionated News

“…Building on the "Cognitive Appraisal Theory" (Roseman, 1991;Scherer, 1993), which has also been used in other political communication studies (Aarøe, 2011;Gross & D'Ambrosio, 2004), it has been shown that evaluations and interpretations of stimuli determine emotional responses (Moors, 2013). Such appraisals, which relate to goal congruence, certainty, perceived cause (self, other, circumstantial), and coping potential, determine the kind of emotion that will be experienced.…”