Emotion theories

Emotion theories are approaches to explaining what emotions are , what causes them, and how they affect the behavior of living things. There are several ways to categorize emotions:

Classification based on the content of the emotions. Emotions have 1.) an orientation that can be described in categories, so-called basic emotions (contempt, disgust, anger, fear, sadness, shame, guilt, joy, surprise, interest, etc.). Prominent representatives of this idea are Darwin 1872 and Paul Ekman & Friesen 1970. They also have 2.) a characteristic that can be described in terms of dimensions (e.g. slight anger up to furious rage). Prominent representatives are Wilhelm Wundt (19th century); Russell (1980s); currently z. B. Green & Salovey .
Classification based on assumptions about the nature of emotions. Behavioral theories or behavioristic theories define emotions as observable behaviors that are triggered by certain occurrences (stimuli). Mentalistic theories of emotion see emotions as psychological states and syndrome theories understand emotions as syndromes of behavior and psychological states.

Classification based on the central issues of the theories. Evolution Psychological emotion theories deal with the evolutionary development and importance of emotions, as opposed to learning psychological theories of emotion that deal with it, to what extent and in what way emotions are learned. Cognitive emotion theories, on the other hand, show how emotions are caused by the interpretation of an event, while neuro- and psychophysiological theories explain what happens in the body and especially in the brain when a living being shows emotions.

Dimensional classification of emotions

It is assumed that the emotion is the result of a more or less strong expression on several specific dimensions. However, there is disagreement as to what dimensions these are.

Wilhelm Wundt assumed roughly the following three dimensions:

Tension - solution
Pleasure - displeasure
Excitement - calm

In psychophysiology , it is largely assumed that emotion is essentially composed of two orthogonal dimensions

Arousal : calm - excited
Valence : positive / pleasant - negative / uncomfortable

In the self-report, however, there are indications that two overlapping dimensions can be recorded:

Intensity of comfort: none - high
Intensity of discomfort: none - high

Categorical classification of emotions

Proponents of this theory assume that the emotions are composed of existing basic emotions . These are emotions that cannot be traced back to other emotions, or emotions from which all other - more complex - emotions are composed.

Lothar Schmidt-Atzert carried out a study in which test subjects were presented with lists of terms of emotional significance. The task was to assess the subjectively perceived similarity of the individual terms. Then these terms were subsumed into groups depending on the estimated similarity and declared as basic emotions.

Robert Plutchik finally extracted eight basic emotions, each of which could have different degrees of intensity and were arranged in a ring. In the ring, the emotions were arranged in such a way that similar emotions were as close together as possible and dissimilar emotions were far apart. Who composed emotions of two directly adjacent to this ring emotions, designated Plutchik as primary dyads (including primary emotions mentioned) that emerged those from a composition of emotions in which an emotion intervened as secondary dyads and those in which there were two emotions in between, called tertiary dyads - the latter two types are also known as secondary emotions . Here, the tertiary dyads were more complex emotions than the secondary dyads , which in turn were more complex than the primary dyads , which in turn were more complex than the basic emotions . Emotions, made up of emotions from opposing areas, were so different after all that their effect was canceled out again.

These eight basic emotions are:

They developed (according to Plutchik) from evolutionary contexts. In particular, every emotion was linked to an impulse to act - in the case of fear, for example, a tendency to flee.

The theory of basic emotions often met with criticism because different researchers did not always find the same basic emotions - in particular, not even the same number of basic emotions. It was assumed that such an empirical breadth in the results could not be traced back to a fundamental construct like that of basic emotions. Another point of criticism is that the naming of the basic emotions may well be different, but what the individual researchers understood by them could probably be the same. However, this does not change the fact that these basic emotions can actually exist - even though there is currently no solid empirical evidence for this. Cf. 10 basal affect dimension , article affect

Christof Wahner (2009) distinguishes three dimensions:

“Positive” (rather pleasant) - “negative” (rather unpleasant), here meant in a descriptive manner without a moral evaluation
"Active" - "passive" (in the sense of "there is nothing to be done")
four different reference points: objects of identification, needs, future events, self-worth

Reference points	tendency	"Positive" (pleasant)	"Negative" (uncomfortable)
Identification objects , tastes	"active"	Love, appreciation	Hatred, contempt
Identification objects , tastes	"passive"	affection	Aversion, disgust
Satisfying (basic) needs	"active"	Lust (ON something)	Anger / anger / anger; envy
Satisfying (basic) needs	"passive"	Joy (IN something) / happiness	Grief / pain / suffering
future events, opportunities / risks	"active"	Courage, readiness	Fear fear
future events, opportunities / risks	"passive"	Confidence, confidence	Despair, helplessness
Self-worth, achievement, honor	"active"	Proud	Guilt, remorse
Self-worth, achievement, honor	"passive"	Complacency	shame

The difference to other schemes is that here there are no dichotomies, but rather squares of values for each of the four reference points. (See table of values for this .)

Most basic emotions can be captured with this scheme. In some cases there are sure to be semantic issues.

For example, the author of this 16-field scheme takes the view that hope is a kind of confidence, but is by no means a basic emotion in itself, because of the aspect of limitation ("still hoping for something").

Ortony, Clore and Collins developed a structure of emotions in 1988, which they published under the title of valented emotions (valued emotions) in their work "The Cognitive Structure of Emotions". They named three categories, which were then subdivided again. The first category of this structure are the consequences of an event that the individual may or may not be happy about. It is important here whether it is about consequences for the individual himself, here he would feel hope / fear or joy / suffering, or whether it is about consequences for another person, here the consequences would be desirable or undesirable describe.

The second category concerns the actions of an agent that the individual either opposes or approves. If it is about an individual's own act, he or she feels pride or shame. If he judges the action of another person, he will find admiration or blame.

The third category includes the evaluation of an object; the individual perceives this as attractive or not. Ortony, Clore, and Collins postulated that the intensity of an emotional sensation is controlled by these three intensity variables, happy / not happy, disapprove / advocate, and like / dislike. This structuring makes it clear that, according to Ortony et al. there are three main groups of feelings. The event-based feelings, which are influenced by the expectability of the event, the actor-based feelings and the object-based feelings. These three main groups can be linked to one another and thus, according to Ortony et al., Evoke one of the 22 main feelings from which the other emotional states can be derived.

Two-component theory (Schachter & Singer)

Stanley Schachter and Jerome E. Singer developed the two-factor theory of emotion in 1964 . According to this theory, emotional experience is the result of a perceptual process. Based on the perception of a physiological arousal , an appropriate explanation is sought for it ( causal attribution ), with situation-related information being taken into account, i.e. H. the same physiological arousal can lead to different emotions being experienced in different situations.

Subsystem theory (Scherer)

Klaus R. Scherer developed the theory of subsystems. This should mean that five subsystems are involved in emotional processes, each of which is still functionally defined.

There is an information-processing subsystem which evaluates the stimulus through perception, memory and / or prediction.
The supporting subsystem regulates the internal state by controlling neuroendocrine, somatic and autonomic states.
The choice between two competing motifs and the preparation of these motifs is made by a guiding subsystem.
Motor expressions and visible behavior are made possible by the acting subsystem.
The information disseminating subsystem, on the other hand, is based on the assessments that are made.

Scherer also assigned three levels to information processing in his joint work with Leventhal.

the schematic level
the sensorimotor level
the conceptual level.

Which level is ultimately used depends on the medium of representation.

Cognitive assessment theories

Psychological research suggests that human behavior is evoked from automated, rapid, and emotional assessments. Cognitive assessment theories (also appraisal theory) explain emotions as a result of the interpretation and explanation of the event, if no physiological arousal is involved. Representatives of the cognitive evaluation theories are Magda Arnold (1960); Richard Lazarus (1966); Andrew Ortony , Clore and Collins (1988). The emotional reaction to an event depends above all on whether we expect a positive or negative effect from it and, as with Schachter, what cause we attribute to the event.

In the last 15 years, research on emotions has concentrated more and more on the cognitive level of emotion generation and turned away from the physiological level. The idea of assessment theories was developed (a translation of the English term "appraisal theory", which goes back to Magda Arnold) and tried to explain the origin of emotions. It is assumed that emotions in their strength, quality and manner depend on the interpretation of a specific interpretation of the individual and are formed. In formal psychological and philosophical language, an emotion is referred to as “a desirability (D) of an event (e) for a person (p) at a certain point in time (t) → D (e, p, t)”. Depending on how the result of this equation turns out, the intensity of the emotion is classified. It was decided that different emotions arise from different assessments and that different assessment components, which consist of qualitative and quantitative assessment dimensions, result in the assessment pattern. Postulates were established for the components of the assessments, which state that there are structural assumptions (assumptions about the number / identities of the assessment dimensions relevant to the assessment), process assumptions (assumptions about the nature of the assessment processes) and assumptions about the relationship between emotion and cognition. The structure of valuation theories always depends on whether a situation (is it desirable or undesirable?), An object (does it seem attractive or not?) Or the consequences (are they pleasing or not? For whom are the consequences?) The event. There are also different types of assessments (valence, probability, causality or fairness). The question of the origin of the assessments, the process of creation was asked again and again. It has been clarified that the assessments are cognitive processes that are related to the processing of processes. But this includes three subtasks that are necessary for the assessment process: 1) the recording of the medium of representation in which the object that is being assessed is present 2) the processing of the symbol / object 3) the relationship between the different assessment processes; In other words, the clarification of the question of the extent to which the assessment processes are integrated into the cognitive process

The question still has to be clarified whether the processes run sequentially or in parallel. However, this question has not yet been clarified in research.

Cognitive evaluation theories according to Scherer

Evaluation theories of emotion assume that emotions are evoked by specific situational evaluations. It is crucial that our thinking and feeling are closely linked and that our individual cognitive assessments of a situation influence our emotions. Evaluation theories of emotion thus help to understand why people react to similar situations with different emotions.

An example of this are emotions before important exams. Some people rate an upcoming exam as a threatening event over which they have no control and are likely to fail. Exam anxiety is the result. Other people see such an exam as a challenge in which to prove themselves. These people are more likely to experience positive tension. Evaluation theories can thus explain between people in their emotional reactions to an identical situation - even across cultures.

Klaus R. Scherer focused his research specifically on the origin of different emotions. He wanted to research how and why the patterns are created. For this purpose, he developed the SEC (Stimulus Evaluation Check), which should clarify 1) the extent to which theoretical predictions / theses can be empirically proven, 2) the number of evaluation theories should be reduced and their statements improved, 3) different cultures should be matched and differences are examined.

According to Scherer, every emotion can be determined on the basis of the so-called “stimulus evaluation checks”, ie the evaluation dimensions. He decided to examine seven emotions, from which, according to Scherer, all other emotions can be derived. These were joy, disgust, fear, anger, sadness, shame and guilt. Using questionnaires, which he had given out to students at universities in 37 countries (1984–1992), he wanted to reconstruct the origin of emotions. The subjects were asked to put themselves back in a situation in which they felt one of the seven certain emotions and were then asked to answer these questions:

a subjective description of feelings,
physical effects or other external signs,
assess whether the situation was to be expected,
assess whether it was desirable
estimate whether the emotion was justified,
name what the trigger of the emotion was,
state whether the situation was under control,
assess whether the emotion was morally justifiable,
explain how the person perceived themselves in this situation.

Scherer also recorded the age, gender, subject, religion and language of the test subjects as well as the country of origin, education and occupation of the parents. However, he found no significant effects for these variables.

The results of this study showed that people react differently to events, depending on whether it is an object, an action by an agent or the consequences of an event. In this cross-border study, Klaus Scherer was able to show, for example, that a high degree of predictability of a situation tends to lead to joy, while fear arises in unexpected situations. He also examined the effect of various emotions on self-esteem and showed that shame and guilt, as well as sadness, have a negative effect on self-esteem, while joy increases self-esteem. In general, it could be shown that emotions are universal psychological phenomena, but also have cultural peculiarities. However, the existence of evaluation processes can be considered universal. By comparing the various countries, Scherer was able to make it clear that emotion-specific evaluation profiles are highly correlated across geopolitical cultures, but that there are also consistent differences. In conclusion, Scherer made it clear that the differentiation of emotions is a fast, automatic and largely unconscious process. This research supported the idea of a strong cognitive component of emotion.

Scherer's study is also fraught with difficulties. For example, the theoretically postulated assessment dimensions were not always clearly implemented, there were some deficiencies in the translations of the questionnaires and the participants were predominantly students from large city universities, so the sample was very homogeneous and not representative.

Arnold's Cognitive Emotion Theory

Emotions arise due to two cognitions: the factual cognition (conviction that a state of affairs exists or will exist) and the evaluative cognition (evaluation of a state of affairs in positive / negative). The belief that a situation is present or is imminent causes the individual to evaluate the situation on the basis of his wishes. Thus, facts are evaluated positively if they correspond to the wishes or are beneficial, whereas facts are evaluated negatively if they are contrary to the wishes. The emotion itself consists in experiencing an impulse to act which approaches or avoids the emotion object and which is caused by the assessment.

Arnold found that emotionally relevant assessments vary on at least 3 factors:

Evaluation: positive / negative?
Presence / absence: is an issue present and certainly present or is it in the future and is uncertain?
Manageability: easy / difficult / not at all manageable?
- for future events: assessed abilities to produce a positive issue or to avoid a negative issue
- in current events: assessed ability to maintain a positive issue, or to end a negative issue or adjust

Examples

Fact is present / it is positive / easy to maintain → joy
The issue is present / it is negative / cannot be dealt with. → sadness
To bring about future facts / positive / with effort → hope
Future facts / negative / cannot be prevented with certainty → fear
Current situation / negative / can only be eliminated with effort → anger

Counter-draft by Zajonc

An alternative view according to Robert Zajonc suggests that contrary to the view of Richard Lazarus, emotions rather than cognitions form the basis for evaluating causes. This means that we do not develop certain emotions based on the attribution of causes, but that emotions cause us to assume certain reasons for events. This effect is said to be evident even with subliminal stimuli, i.e. stimuli below the conscious perception threshold. In a study by Yang and Tong from the National University of Singapore, the subjects were presented with subliminal angry and sad faces, respectively. In the subsequent evaluations of negative events, but not in the evaluation of positive events, the people who were primed using angry faces tended to attribute the cause of the events to other people. However, people who were primed by sad faces tended to see situational factors as the cause. The people reported no conscious changes in mood. This could be interpreted as an indication that the assessments of situations are not always individual, as there may be automatic and / or social processes (triggered by other people's emotions) that are activated when people make judgments. The implications that these findings have on our everyday lives remain to be explored.

Roseman cognitive evaluation theory

Emotions arise, among other things, from the interaction of two cognitive evaluations

Depending on whether a situation is considered motive-consistent , i.e. H. compatible with one's own goals or as 'motive-inconsistent' , d. H. If it is perceived as incompatible with one's own goals, a positive or negative emotion arises . This will also be influenced by the type of motivational state :
- Appetitive motivation
- Aversive motivation
The probability of the outcome of the situation in which the emotion is experienced also plays a role :
- For sure
- Unsure

Excerpt from the cognitive evaluation theory according to Roseman

Different combinations of these ratings lead to different emotions. In a study by Roseman and Evdokas, in which both the motivational state and the initial probability of the situation were manipulated, it could be shown that people ...

... feel joy in appetizing states.
… Feel relief when an aversive condition has definitely been prevented.
… Feel hope when you think that an appetite state is likely to be reached.

The feeling of hope in avoiding an aversive state could not be proven . The difference in the perceived pleasure between the appetite-unsafe and the appetite-safe condition postulated by the model was also not observed.

Role of valuation theory

At the moment there is no real alternative to valuation theory in emotion research; it has become the central explanatory pattern in psychology in the field of emotions. It dominates all research as it provides an explanation on several questions. It offers an explanation for the different emotions, establishes a relationship between the individual and the emotion, as well as between emotion and mood. This led to the general acceptance of valuation theory among emotion researchers. It offers a framework of explanations and answers to questions that are in a coherent system and that can now be built upon in future research.

literature

A. Ortony, GL Clore, A. Collins: The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1988.
U. Schimmack, SL Crites: The origin and structure of affect. In: D. Albarracin, BT Johnson, MP Zanna (Eds.): The Handbook of Attitudes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah 2005.
Dominik Perler : Transformations of Emotions. Philosophical Theories of Emotion 1270–1670. S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2011, ISBN 978-3-10-061211-3 .
R. Reisezein: Assessment Theory Approaches. In: J. Otto, HA Euler, H. Mandl (Ed.): Emotionspsychologie. A manual. Psychologie Verlag Union, Weinheim 2000.
KR Scherer: Profiles of emotion-antecedent appraisal: Testing theoretical predicitions across cultures. In: Cognition & Emotion. Vol. 11, No. 2, 1997.
KR Scherer, A. Shorr, T. Johnstone (Eds.): Appraisal processes in emotion: theory. methods, research. Oxford University Press, Canary, NC 2001.
Gesine Lenore Schiewer : Study book on emotion research. Theory, fields of application, perspectives. WBG, Darmstadt 2014.
Frans de Waal: Morality as a result of evolution. In: Primates and Philosophers. 2006.

Individual evidence

↑ emotion. ( Memento from June 13, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
↑ W. Wundt: Basic features of physiological psychology. Engelmann, Leipzig 1874, p. 800f.
^ P. Lang, M. Bradley: Emotion and the motivational brain. In: Biological Psychology. Volume 84, No. 3, 2010. doi: 10.1016 / j.biopsycho.2009.10.007
↑ CD Wilson-Mendenhall, LF Barrett, LW Barsalou: Neural Evidence that human emotions share core affective properties. In: Psychological Science. Volume 24, No. 6, 2013, pp. 947-956.
↑ U. Schimmack: Pleasure, displeasure, and mixed feelings: Are semantic opposites mutually exclusive? In: Cognition & Emotion. Volume 15, No. 1, 2001, pp. 81-97.
^ A. Kron, A. Goldstein, DH-J. Lee, K. Gardhouse, AK Anderson: How are you feeling? Revisiting the quantification of emotional qualia. In: Psychological science. Volume 24, No. 8, 2013, pp. 1503-1511.
↑ S. Schachter: The interaction of cognitive and physiological determinants of emotional states. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.): Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York 1964, pp. 49-80.
^ Achim Stephan, Sven Walter: Handbuch Kognitionswissenschaft . Springer-Verlag, 2013, ISBN 978-3-476-05288-9 ( limited preview in Google Book Search [accessed November 21, 2019]).
↑ KR Scherer et al .: What determines a feeling's position in affective space? A case for appraisal. In: Cognition and Emotion. Volume 20, 2006, pp. 92-113.
^ E. Aronson , TD Wilson, RM Akert: Social Psychology. 6th edition. Pearson Studium, 2008, ISBN 978-3-8273-7359-5 , p. 149.
^ Z. Yang, EMW Tong: The Effects of Subliminal Anger and Sadness Primes on Agency Appraisals. In: emotion. Volume 10, No. 6, 2010, pp. 915-922.
↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d I. J. and A. Evdokas: Appraisals cause experienced emotions: Experimental evidence. In: Cognition and Emotion. Volume 18, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1-28.

[1] emotion. ( Memento from June 13, 2007 in the Internet Archive )

[2] W. Wundt: Basic features of physiological psychology. Engelmann, Leipzig 1874, p. 800f.

[3] P. Lang, M. Bradley: Emotion and the motivational brain. In: Biological Psychology. Volume 84, No. 3, 2010. doi: 10.1016 / j.biopsycho.2009.10.007

[4] CD Wilson-Mendenhall, LF Barrett, LW Barsalou: Neural Evidence that human emotions share core affective properties. In: Psychological Science. Volume 24, No. 6, 2013, pp. 947-956.

[5] U. Schimmack: Pleasure, displeasure, and mixed feelings: Are semantic opposites mutually exclusive? In: Cognition & Emotion. Volume 15, No. 1, 2001, pp. 81-97.

[6] A. Kron, A. Goldstein, DH-J. Lee, K. Gardhouse, AK Anderson: How are you feeling? Revisiting the quantification of emotional qualia. In: Psychological science. Volume 24, No. 8, 2013, pp. 1503-1511.

[7] S. Schachter: The interaction of cognitive and physiological determinants of emotional states. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.): Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York 1964, pp. 49-80.

[8] Achim Stephan, Sven Walter: Handbuch Kognitionswissenschaft . Springer-Verlag, 2013, ISBN 978-3-476-05288-9 ( limited preview in Google Book Search [accessed November 21, 2019]).

[9] KR Scherer et al .: What determines a feeling's position in affective space? A case for appraisal. In: Cognition and Emotion. Volume 20, 2006, pp. 92-113.

[10] E. Aronson , TD Wilson, RM Akert: Social Psychology. 6th edition. Pearson Studium, 2008, ISBN 978-3-8273-7359-5 , p. 149.

[11] Z. Yang, EMW Tong: The Effects of Subliminal Anger and Sadness Primes on Agency Appraisals. In: emotion. Volume 10, No. 6, 2010, pp. 915-922.

[Roseman-12] I. J. and A. Evdokas: Appraisals cause experienced emotions: Experimental evidence. In: Cognition and Emotion. Volume 18, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1-28.