Emotion Review 2 (2):117-119 (2010)
AbstractThe nodes of controversy detected by the commentators on “Once More into the Breach” center on the meanings of words and the strategies for classifying observations rather than on empirical facts. This rejoinder explains why I continue to believe that: (1) consequences are not a useful criterion for classifying emotions, (2) the utility of the concept of basic emotions remains ambiguous, and (3) psychologists should spend more time probing the conditions that contribute to robust phenomena rather than trying to affirm the validity of popular emotional words that fail to specify the agent, the incentive, or the local setting
Similar books and articles
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
No citations found.
References found in this work
Beyond Breaches and Battles: Clarifying Important Misconceptions About Emotion.Joseph J. Campos, Audun Dahl & Minxuan He - 2010 - Emotion Review 2 (2):100-104.
Defending the Validity of Pragmatism in the Classification of Emotion.Peter Zachar - 2010 - Emotion Review 2 (2):113-116.
Emotion, Motive States, Appraisal, and Kagan: Commentary to Jerome Kagan, What is Emotion?Nico H. Frijda - 2010 - Emotion Review 2 (2):107-108.