The integrated theory of emotional behavior follows a radically goal-directed approach

status: publishe

On the automaticity of language processing

People speak and listen to language all the time. Given this high frequency of use, it is often suggested that at least some aspects of language processing are highly overlearned and therefore occur “automatically”. Here we critically examine this suggestion. We first sketch a framework that views automaticity as a set of interrelated features of mental processes and a matter of degree rather than a single feature that is all-or-none. We then apply this framework to language processing. To do so, we carve up the processes involved in language use according to (a) whether language processing takes place in monologue or dialogue, (b) whether the individual is comprehending or producing language, (c) whether the spoken or written modality is used, and (d) the linguistic processing level at which they occur, that is, phonology, the lexicon, syntax, or conceptual processes. This exercise suggests that while conceptual processes are relatively non-automatic (as is usually assumed), there is also considerable evidence that syntactic and lexical lower-level processes are not fully automatic. We close by discussing entrenchment as a set of mechanisms underlying automatization

The role of appraisal in emotion

status: publishe

Author reply: appraisal is transactional, not all-inclusive, and cognitive in a broad sense

I reply to the comments of Parkinson (2013), and de Sousa (2013), discussing the transactional nature of appraisal, the presumably overinclusive definition of appraisal, and the cognitive nature of appraisal

Theories of emotion causation: A review

I present an overview of emotion theories, organised around the question of emotion causation. I argue that theories of emotion causation should ideally address the problems of elicitation, intensity, and differentiation. Each of these problems can be divided into a subquestion that asks about the relation between stimuli and emotions (i.e., the functional level of process description, cf. Marr, 1982) and a subquestion that asks about the mechanism and representations that intervene (i.e., the algorithmic level of process description). The overview reveals that theories of emotion causation sometimes differ with regard to the kind of process that they hold responsible for emotion causation. More precisely, they hold different assumptions regarding the conditions under which the process is supposed to operate (optimal versus suboptimal), the format of the representations involved (propositional versus perceptual), and the object or input of the central process (stimulus versus responses/experience). Further, the overview reveals that theories of emotion causation sometimes differ with regard to the level of process description that they focus on. Finally, the overview brings to light several similarities among the theories discussed

Flavors of appraisal theories of emotion

Appraisal theories of emotion have two fundamental assumptions: (a) that there are regularities to be discovered between situations and components of emotional episodes, and (b) that the influence of these situations on these components is causally mediated by a mental process called appraisal. Appraisal theories come in different flavors, proposing different to-be-explained phenomena and different underlying mechanisms for the influence of appraisal on the other components

Author reply: toward a multilevel mechanistic explanation of complex regularities between environment and emotional components

In reply to the commentaries of Clay-Warner (2014), Gendolla (2014), Nesse (2014), Shweder (2014), and Zachar (2014), I repeat the essential features of appraisal theories of the second flavor: They take emotional components (and not specific emotions) as the phenomenon to be explained, and they strive for a multilevel mechanistic explanation that leaves room for complex and dynamical processes or mechanisms. Every mechanistic explanation starts with an accurate description of regularities between inputs and outputs. Regularities do not preclude context-dependent variety, because there is no limit to the number of input factors that can influence the output, and back

Exploring the relations between regret, self-agency, and the tendency to repair using experimental methods and structural equation modeling

Previous studies suggest that feelings of regret are elicited by events appraised as goal incongruent and caused by the self, and that they are characterized by a tendency to repair the event. Study 1 investigated whether the appraisal of self-agency increases the tendency to repair. Participants played a game in which goal-congruent and goal-incongruent events were caused by themselves (self-agency) or by a die (circumstances-agency). The tendency to repair was measured via behavior and self-reports. Self-agency increased feelings of regret but not the tendency to repair. Moreover, our data rejected the idea that regret is more than other negative feelings associated with the tendency to repair. Study 2 confirmed the findings of Study 1 using autobiographical recall. Both studies provide support for a relation between self-agency and feelings of regret, but not between self-agency and the tendency to repair, nor between the tendency to repair and feelings of regret

Unexpected and just missed : the separate influence of the appraisals of expectancy and proximity on negative emotions

Previous research has suggested that a goal-incongruent outcome leads to more intense negative emotions when it is unexpected and close to a goal-congruent outcome. Until now, however, no studies have disentangled the influence of the appraisals of expectancy and proximity on emotions. We experimentally manipulated each of these variables in 3 slot machine experiments and measured emotions via differences in motivation (i.e., the tendency to repair the goal incongruence) and feelings (i.e., disappointment, frustration, and anger). The experiments consisted of a series of trials that each started with the sequential presentation of 3 symbols. In case of a win trial, all symbols were equal (e. g., AAA) and the participant gained 10 cents; in case of a loss trial, one or more of the symbols differed and the participant gained 0 cents. Three different loss trials were compared: unexpected proximal ones (e. g., AAB), expected proximal ones (e. g., ABA), and expected distal ones (e. g., ABC). The tendency to repair was measured online via behavior as well as retrospectively via self-reports; feelings were measured retrospectively (Experiments 1 and 2) or online (Experiment 3). Unexpected losses seemed to increase the tendency to repair as well as feelings of disappointment (in all experiments) and feelings of frustration and anger (in Experiments 1 and 3). Proximal losses increased only the tendency to repair (in all experiments). This suggests that the appraisals of expectancy and proximity have a distinct influence on emotions