David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Psychology 22 (2):167 – 186 (2009)
Appraisal theories of emotion generally presuppose that emotions are “directed at” various items. They also hold that emotions have motivational properties. However, although it coheres well with their views, they have yet to seriously develop the idea that the function of emotional direction is to guide those properties. I argue that this “guidance hypothesis” can open up a promising new field of research in emotion theory. But I also argue that before appraisal theorists can take full advantage of it, they must drop their further assumption that to determine an emotion's direction, one need only retrace the process that caused it. Contrary to this “retracing view,” I argue for an “independence thesis”: directed emotions are produced by two functionally independent sub-processes. The first, “affect-causation,” functions in part to produce a state with certain motivational properties given certain representations. The second, “affect-direction,” has the function of optimally guiding those motivational properties by associating them with representations that may properly be quite dissimilar from the causal ones. By provisionally adopting the independence thesis and empirically testing the guidance hypothesis, I argue that appraisal theorists stand a good chance of significantly increasing the explanatory power of their theories.
|Keywords||Emotion Appraisal Causation Direction Lazarus Prinz|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Antonio Damasio (2004). William James and the Modern Neurobiology of Emotion. In Dylan Evans & Pierre Cruse (eds.), Emotion, Evolution and Rationality. OUP Oxford
John Deigh (1994). Cognitivism in the Theory of Emotions. Ethics 104 (4):824-54.
Fred Dretske (1986). Misrepresentation. In R. Bogdan (ed.), Belief: Form, Content, and Function. Oxford University Press 17--36.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jing Zhu & Paul Thagard (2002). Emotion and Action. Philosophical Psychology 15 (1):19 – 36.
Jason T. Ramsay & Marc D. Lewis (2000). The Causal Status of Emotions in Consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (2):215-216.
Kathryn E. Patten (2011). The Somatic Appraisal Model of Affect: Paradigm for Educational Neuroscience and Neuropedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory 43 (1):87-97.
Paul E. Griffiths (2004). Toward a "Machiavellian" Theory of Emotional Appraisal. In D. Evans & Pierre Cruse (eds.), Emotion, Evolution, and Rationality. Oxford University Press
David Sander & Klaus R. Scherer (2005). Amalgams and the Power of Analytical Chemistry: Affective Science Needs to Decompose the Appraisal-Emotion Interaction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):216-217.
Aaron Ben-Ze’Ev (1997). Appraisal Theories of Emotions. Journal of Philosophical Research 22:129-143.
Giovanna Colombetti (2007). Enactive Appraisal. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6 (4):527-546.
Nico H. Frijda (2009). Emotion Experience and its Varieties. Emotion Review 1 (3):264-271.
Nick Zangwill (2007). Music, Metaphor, and Emotion. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 65 (4):391–400.
Added to index2010-05-07
Total downloads28 ( #97,310 of 1,699,558 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #128,702 of 1,699,558 )
How can I increase my downloads?