Appraisal theory: Overview, assumptions, varieties, controversies.

By Ira J. Roseman, Craig A. Smith. 2001

710 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3dbe77fd0685a97413958d555be1d7110f838969

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

Beat them or ban them: the characteristics and social functions of anger and contempt. (2007, background): “…contempt, because they commonly occur in negative social interactions, and they both imply a negative appraisal of the intentions of the other person (e.g., Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989; Kuppens, Van Mechelen, Smits, & De Boeck, 2003; Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988; Roseman & Smith, 2001).”
Are Emotions Natural Kinds? (2006, unknown): “There is a good deal of variation in how appraisal models implement the law of situated meaning (for reviews, see Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003, and Roseman & Smith, 2001).”
Emotions are emergent processes: they require a dynamic computational architecture (2009, background): “They were actively developed in the early 1980s (see the historical reviews by Scherer 1999, 2001) by Ellsworth and Scherer and their students (Scherer 1984, 2001; Smith & Ellsworth 1985; Roseman & Smith 2001; Sander et al. 2005).”
The dynamic architecture of emotion: Evidence for the component process model (2009, methodology): “The elements of the model described so far are highly comparable to other appraisal theories, although some of the labels for particular appraisal criteria and details of the assumed mechanisms may vary (see Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003; Roseman & Smith, 2001).”
Are the sources of interest the same for everyone? Using multilevel mixture models to explore individual differences in appraisal structures (2009, background): “Some appraisal theories imply that appraisal structures should be the same for everyone (e.g., Roseman & Smith, 2001); other theories presume widespread individual differences in appraisal processes (e.g., Scherer, 2001).”
Putting appraisal in context: Toward a relational model of appraisal and emotion (2009, background): “…approach to perception (e.g., Bruner, 1957), and, in line with the assumptions of appraisal theory, it illustrates that it is not the objective circumstances, but rather how those circumstances are perceived and evaluated, that determines one’s emotional state (see, e.g., Roseman & Smith, 2001).”
Antecedents of everyday positive emotions: An experience sampling analysis (2010, background): “Accordingly, psychological research efforts have also consistently underscored the importance of individuals’ evaluations of events, actions, or objects as primary eliciting factors with respect to emotional experiences (Clore 1994; Roseman and Smith 2001).”
A meta-analysis of instructed fear studies: Implications for conscious appraisal of threat (2010, background): “The appraisal of stimuli in terms of their emotional–motivational significance to the organism is thought to be causal in the generation of emotional responses (Roseman and Smith, 2001).”
Emotion Display Rules, Emotion Regulation, and Teacher Burnout (2020, background): “Cognitive 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.”
Theories of emotion causation: A review (2009, background): “They have emphasised that there are few if any one-to-one relations between specific stimuli and specific emotions (Roseman & Smith, 2001).”
Just Feelings? The Role of Affect in the Formation of Organizational Fairness Judgments (2011, background): “…use different terms, they all agree that some core set of features of noticeable events must be considered to produce an emotion or to determine how fairly a person is being treated (e.g., Colquitt, 2001; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998; Leventhal, 1980; Roseman & Smith, 2001; Thibaut & Walker, 1975).”
Appraisal Theories of Emotion: State of the Art and Future Development (2013, background): “Appraisal determines the intensity and quality of action tendencies, physiological responses, behavior, and feelings (Clore & Ortony, 2000; Frijda, 2007; Lazarus, 1991; Reisenzein, 1994; Roseman & Smith, 2001; Scherer, 2001).”