Consequences require antecedents: Toward a process model of emotion elicitation.

By Craig A. Smith, Leslie D. Kirby. 2000

172 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4182e7d996577fffe8aada56a7439c29fe07b2c6

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

Affect in Social Thinking and Behavior (2006, background): “... at least two distinct levels of processing: a slow, deliberate, likely verbally mediated form of processing, often referred to as “conceptual processing” (Leventhal & Scherer, 1987) or “reasoning” (Smith & Kirby, 2000), and a fast, automatic, memory-based mode of processing involving such things”
A domain-independent framework for modeling emotion (2004, background): “2 In fact, appraisals in humans may arise from multiple processes, some rapid and perceptual based, e.g., see Smith and Kirby (2000) Page 6”
Automatic Constructive Appraisal as a Candidate Cause of Emotion (2010, background): “…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…”
EMA: A process model of appraisal dynamics (2009, background): “…example, some appraisal researchers have postulated two-process models involving fast and automatic vs. slow and deliberate appraisals In this vein, Smith and Kirby (2000) argue for a two-process model of appraisal whereby To begin to address that challenge, we have analyzed and modeled a…”
Emotional Awareness: On the Importance of Including Emotional Aspects in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (2013, unknown): “Smith and Kirby (2000) propose that there are several forms of appraisal processes that can occur simultaneously and that involve different modes of cognitive processing.”
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).”
A systems approach to appraisal mechanisms in emotion (2005, unknown): “…now considerable research evidence, both from our own and other laboratories, for facial expression (see Kaiser & Wehrle, 2001; Wehrle, Kaiser, Schmidt, & Scherer, 2000) and physiological and vocal predictions (Johnstone, van Reekum, & Scherer, 2001; Pecchinenda & Smith, 1996; Smith & Kirby, 2000).”
Just Feelings? The Role of Affect in the Formation of Organizational Fairness Judgments (2011, background): “According to the moodcongruent recall perspective (Bower, 1981; Smith & Kirby, 2000), congruent appraisals arise because moods bring different associations to mind.”
Bringing appraisal theory to environmental risk perception: a review of conceptual approaches of the past 40 years and suggestions for future research (2012, background): “Currently, three different models are distinguished – structural, process, and relational (Smith and Kirby 2000 , 2009 ).”
Computational models of emotion (2010, background): “Indeed, until the rise of broad integrative models of cognition, the problems emotion was purported to solve, for example, juggling multiple goals, were largely hypothetical.”
Measuring emotional processes in animals: the utility of a cognitive approach. (2005, unknown): “memories and self-concepts [159,160].”
Respiratory feedback in the generation of emotion (2002, background): “Another conception, which we will label the ‘‘cognitive appraisal model’’, proposes that body changes in emotion are a function of cognitive appraisal (e.g., Pecchinenda & Smith, 1996; Scherer, 1984; Smith & Kirby, 2000) or of the direct output from appraisal, action readiness (Frijda, 1986).”
Beyond Cognitive Framing Processes: Anger Mediates the Effects of Responsibility Framing on the Preference for Punitive Measures (2015, background): “Rather, appraisal theory suggests that appraisals can also be automatic and unconscious (Leventhal & Scherer, 1987; Smith & Kirby, 2000) and that emotions can thus precede conscious thoughts (LeDoux, 1999; Zajonc, 1984).”
Inoculation Theory of Resistance to Influence at Maturity: Recent Progress In Theory Development and Application and Suggestions for Future Research (2005, methodology): “…processing strategy that eschews deliberative processing (Anderson, 1983; Fazio, 1986; Miller & Krosnick, 1996; Sanbonmatsu & Fazio, 1990; Smith & Kirby, 2001), which explains why Pfau et al. (2004a) identifi ed counterarguing and accessibility as independent paths en route to resistance.”
To feel or not to feel: The role of affect in human-computer interaction (2003, background): “Several alternatives have been hypothesized for these processes in the psychological literature (Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991b; Scherer, 1993; Ortony, Clore and Collins, 1998; Smith and Kirby, 2000).”
Putting appraisal in context: Toward a relational model of appraisal and emotion (2009, background): “2 These questions may be asked consciously, or outside of focal awareness (see Smith & Kirby, 2000).”