What determines a feeling's position in affective space? A case for appraisal

By Klaus R. Scherer, Elise S. Dan, Anders Flykt. 2006

142 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The location of verbally reported feelings in a three-dimensional affective space is determined by the results of appraisal processes that elicit the respective states. One group of participants rated their evaluation of 59 pictures from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) on a profile of nine appraisal criteria. Another group rated their affective reactions to the same pictures on the classic dimensions of affective meaning (valence, arousal, potency). The ratings on the affect dimensions correlate differentially with specific appraisal ratings. These results can be interpreted as showing that the reactions to the IAPS pictures are predictably produced through appraisal of picture content. The relevance of the findings for emotion induction paradigms and for emotion theory in general is discussed.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b0ce2c283b3a394c0d066d09afd546657b6e695b

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Basic Emotions, Natural Kinds, Emotion Schemas, and a New Paradigm (2007, background): “Scherer et al. (2006) showed that it was possible to predict the proposed dimensions of core affect (e.g., valence and arousal) from multiscale appraisal data and that the reverse prediction was not possible.”
Emotion Assessment: Arousal Evaluation Using EEG's and Peripheral Physiological Signals (2006, unknown): “8 correlation with evaluations performed by Europeans [14].”
The Nature and Dynamics of Relevance and Valence Appraisals: Theoretical Advances and Recent Evidence (2013, background): “Scherer, Dan, and Flykt (2006) asked two groups of participants to rate their evaluation of 59 pictures from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) on a profile of nine appraisal criteria (including impact due to relevance) and on the classic dimensions of affective meaning (valence,…”
The Geneva affective picture database (GAPED): a new 730-picture database focusing on valence and normative significance (2011, methodology): “These arousal scales were chosen according to the results of arousal ratings found in a previous study (Scherer et al., 2006).”