Toward delivering on the promise of appraisal theory.

By Craig A. Smith, Leslie D. Kirby. 2001

217 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/30a99952986af7b9cc4b8b305f8a27ebde60b02b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Putting appraisal in context: Toward a relational model of appraisal and emotion (2009, methodology): “…from the structural appraisal model we helped develop and continue to work with (for a more complete description of this model see Smith, 1991; Smith & Kirby, 2001; Smith & Lazarus, 1990), and for each, we review our efforts, to date, toward developing a relational appraisal model.4 The three…”
Toward a theoretical model to understand teacher emotions and teacher burnout in the context of student misbehavior: Appraisal, regulation and coping (2013, background): “Further, emotion is relational to the situation and to the participants who are involved in the emotional encounter (Lazarus 2006; Smith and Kirby 2001).”
Theories of emotion causation: A review (2009, background): “They put forward two (sometimes three) mechanisms for emotion elicitation: one is rule based, the other is associative (e.g., Clore & Ortony, 2000; Smith & Kirby, 2000, 2001; Teasdale, 1999; van Reekum & Scherer, 1997; see Smith & Neumann, 2005, for a review).”
Solving the Emotion Paradox: Categorization and the Experience of Emotion (2006, background): “An object is valuable when it is potentially important to survival (Davis & Whalen, 2001), salient and meaningful (Phan et al., 2002), or relevant to immediate goals (Rogers, 1959; C. A. Smith & Kirby, 2001).”
Silenced by fear:: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work (2009, background): “This is consistent with the appraisal feedback loop (e.g., Power & Dalgleish, 2008; Smith & Kirby, 2001) and recursive relationship of emotions (Lerner & Tiedens, 2006) described earlier.”
Emotions are emergent processes: they require a dynamic computational architecture (2009, background): “Major summaries of the empirical studies that have empirically tested elements of the CPM can be found in the chapters by Johnstone, Van Reekum & Scherer, Kaiser & Wehrle, Pecchinenda, in Scherer et al. (2001) and in Scherer (in press a).”
Appraisal Theories of Emotion: State of the Art and Future Development (2013, background): “It is possible that rule-based mechanisms can also be automatic (Anderson, 1992; Clore & Ortony, 2000; Moors, 2010) and that the associative mechanism can also operate on conceptual codes (Smith & Kirby, 2001).”
Individual differences in patterns of appraisal and anger experience (2007, background): “As such, we hope to contribute to delivering on the promise of appraisal theory of ‘‘explaining individual differences in emotional reactions, as well as how emotional reactions can be highly context sensitive’’ (Smith & Kirby, 2001, p. 124).”
TARGET ARTICLE: "Putting the Self Into Self-Conscious Emotions: A Theoretical Model" (2004, unknown): “Events appraised as relevant to an individual’s survival goals will lead to one of the basic emotions, according to appraisal and functionalist theories of the basic emotion process (e.g., Lazarus, 1991; Nesse, 1990; Roseman, 2001; Scherer, 2001; Smith & Kirby, 2001).”
Cognitive Appraisals and Interest in Visual Art: Exploring an Appraisal Theory of Aesthetic Emotions (2005, background): “To the contrary, appraisal processes are presumed to typically be nonconscious and automatic (Smith & Kirby, 2001).”
Artistic Training and Interest in Visual Art: Applying the Appraisal Model of Aesthetic Emotions (2006, background): “People can consciously reason through a set of appraisals, but typically the appraisals quickly unfold outside of awareness (Smith & Kirby, 2001).”
Emotion Display Rules, Emotion Regulation, and Teacher Burnout (2020, background): “…appraisal theories of emotions suggest that emotions are elicited by evaluations (appraisals) of events and situations (Lazarus, 1991; Roseman and Smith, 2001) and that our beliefs influence the ways we appraise or judge situations that we encounter (Tamir et al., 2007; Chang, 2009b).”
Automatic Constructive Appraisal as a Candidate Cause of Emotion (2010, unknown): “…is that there are (at least2) two modes of appraisal: one is rule-based, the other is associative (Clore & Ortony, 2000; Leventhal & Scherer, 1987; Smith & Kirby, 2000, 2001; Teasdale, 1999; van Reekum & Scherer, 1997; for a review, see Smith & Neumann, 2005).3 Dual mode models of appraisal draw…”
Appraisal Patterns of Emotions in Human-Product Interaction (2009, background): “Smith and Kirby (2001) identified three levels of processing in appraisals: appraisals that involve (1) direct perceptions (such as pain sensations) that do not require the activation of mental representations (visceral level), (2) automatic associative processes that activate memories of previous…”