2. T HEORETICAL PART
2.1. The estimated situational aspects of coping potential appraisal
2.1.5. Conclusions
Finding a common label for a subjective perception that is predicted to be important to further differentiate positive and negative emotions is a difficult task (cf. Lazarus, 1991;
Roseman, 1984; Roseman et al., 1990; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985; Smith & Lazarus, 1990).
The analyzed theories seem to converge about the aspects that are involved in the estimation of coping potential appraisal. They propose that the appraisal about one’s situational ability (to act on a situation to change it to the better) and the intrinsic controllability (whether an agent can influence an event) are the key aspects in the estimation of coping potential
appraisal. The theories disagree to what extent agency is involved in the estimation of coping potentials. It is predicted that it is an antecedent (e.g. Scherer, 2009) or that it is a part (e.g., Smith & Ellsworth, 1987) of coping potential appraisal. Identifying the precise role and place of agency in the estimation of coping potential is an empirical question.
CHAPTER 2:THEORETICAL PART 34
Table 1
Conceptualizations of coping potential appraisal
Appraisal aspect Appraisal operationalization Theorist
Ability (“agent-means relations”) appraisal
Ability of others to control
To what extent do you feel that someone other than yourself has the responsibility/control what is happening in this situation?
To what extend is the main actor (you or other person) able to act directly upon the situation to manage the demands of the situation?
What can you or can you not do about the situation? Frijda
(1986, 454/455)
Ability to act
When you were in this situation, how much did you think that you would be able to do something to make things better (or keep them good)? (PFCP)
Facing the situation and its possible consequences, do you think that after having done all you can, you can adjust to the consequences?
To what extend can the main actor (you or other person) regulate his/her emotional state in response to this situation?
Smith &
Lazarus (1990, p. 618)
Ability to control
To what extent do you feel that you have the
responsibility/control to influence what is happening in this situation?
To what extent are you in control of the situation? Smith &
Ellsworth (1985, p. 835)
Ability to control
Facing the situation and its possible consequences, do you think that you have enough resources to influence what was happening, i.e., to control or to modify the consequences?
Scherer (cf.
Schorr, 2001, Table 19.1)
Ability to control
To what extent can you control (but not in terms of its modifiability or changeability) this situation?
Roseman (1996, p. 262)
Lack of ability
To what extent is this outcome caused by a lack of ability of the main actor (you or another person)?
Weiner (1985, p.
561/562)
Lack of effort
To what extent is this outcome caused by a lack of effort (ability is sufficient) of the main actor (you or another person)?
Weiner (1985, p.
561/562)
CHAPTER 2:THEORETICAL PART 35 Table 1 continued…
Appraisal aspect Appraisal operationalization Theorist
Controllability (“agent-ends relations”) appraisal
Controllabil ity
Facing the situation and its possible consequences, do you think that the consequences could be controlled or
modified by human action?
Was the situation controllable or uncontrollable to you? Frijda et al.
(1989)
Controllabil ity
To what extent do you feel that circumstances beyond anyone’s responsibility/control are controlling what was happening in this situation?
Was the situation controllable by the main actor (you or another person)?
Is there potential to control the situation? Roseman
(1996, p. 262)
Certainty
Certainty about ability to act
When you were in this situation, how certain were you that you would be able to do something to make (or keep) the situation the way you wanted it to be? (PFCP)
Smith and
In this situation, how certain are you that you would be able to deal emotionally with what was happening, however it turned out? (EFCP)
To what extend are you convinced that you can act successfully on this situation (to ameliorate or eliminate its harm or threat or to bring its challenge or benefit to fruition)?
To what extend are you convinced that you cannot act successfully on this situation (to ameliorate or eliminate its harm or threat or to bring its challenge or benefit to fruition)?
Lazarus (2001, p. 56)
Note. PFCP = problem-focused coping potential, EFCP = emotion-focused coping potential.
CHAPTER 2:THEORETICAL PART 36 The conceptualizations about an ability appraisal can be classified as evaluations about
“agent-means relations” (cf. Skinner, 1996). According to Skinner’s classification of different control concepts that have derived from different fields in psychology, ability appraisal is closely related to efficacy expectations (Bandura, 1997) or personal helplessness (Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale, 1978). In comparison, the conceptualization of the intrinsic
controllability/control of a situation can be summarized as appraisals about “agent-ends relations”. Related concepts of control in other areas in psychology than appraisal theory are perceived control (Skinner, 1995) or sense of control (Skinner, 1985). The other aspects coping potential appraisal were certainty and conviction that can be classified as supplement aspects of an “agent-means relation” (cf. Skinner). Nevertheless, to what extent these aspects or classifications are empirically valid has to be investigated.
The use of “meta-labels” as suggested by Skinner (1996) can be useful to introduce a homogenous terminology across different appraisal and emotion theories as well as theories in other fields of psychology or in cognitive neuroscience. An agreement on the terms would certainly help to pursue theoretical refinement of coping potential appraisal. It would further help to design experimental studies to investigate the underlying neurocognitive processes of this appraisal objective. Likewise, the prediction about the processing of appraisal, for
example, that coping potential appraisal reaches preliminary closure after an event’s relevance and implication are assessed (e.g., Scherer, 2009) could be investigated as well as the
associated response patterning in the other emotion components (e.g., facial expressions, action tendencies, and subjective feeling).
The results of the theoretical analysis also suggest that the conceptualization of coping potential appraisal should include a specification whether it is prospective or retrospective.
For example, for the emotion of relief it might be that the appraised coping potential is retrospective, whereas it is prospective for hope.
CHAPTER 2:THEORETICAL PART 37 In the following chapters of the empirical part, the conceptualization of the appraisals about the perceived control and the perceived ability to act are experimentally operationalized in the context of monetary gambling tasks. The experiments were conducted to investigate the temporal dynamics of these appraisals with respect to the predicted sequential processing, the appraisal-driven facial expressions, the effects of self-beliefs on the appraisal process, and the plausibility of the synchronization hypothesis of emotion components.
CHAPTER 2:THEORETICAL PART 38
2.1.6. References
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49–74. doi:
10.1037//0021-843x.87.1.49
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 572–
595). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N. H. (1987). Emotion, cognitive structure, and action tendency. Cognition &
Emotion, 1, 115–143. doi: 10.1080/02699938708408043
Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Terschure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212–
228. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.57.2.212
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive motivational relational theory of emotion.
American Psychologist, 46, 819–834. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.46.8.819
Lazarus, R. S. (2001). Relational meaning and discrete emotions. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr,
& T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 37–67). New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY:
Springer.
Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within concept of internal-external control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 377–383. doi:
10.1080/00223891.1974.10119988
Miller, S. M. (1979). Controllability and human stress: Method, evidence and theory.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 17, 287-304. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(79)90001-9 Roseman, I. J. (1984). Cognitive determinants of emotion: A structural theory. In P. Shaver
(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 11–36). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Roseman, I. J. (1991). Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 5, 161–200. doi: 10.1080/02699939108411034
Roseman, I. J. (1996). Why these appraisals? Anchoring appraisal models to research on emotional behavior and related response systems. In N. H. Frijda (Ed.), Proceedings
CHAPTER 2:THEORETICAL PART 39 of the Ninth International Conference of the International Society for Research on Emotions (pp. 106-110). Toronto, Canada: International Society for Research on Emotions.
Roseman, I. J. (2001). A model of appraisal in the emotion system. In K. R. Scherer, A.
Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 68–91). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Roseman, I. J., Antoniou, A. A., & Jose, P. E. (1996). Appraisal determinants of emotions:
Constructing a more accurate and comprehensive theory. Cognition & Emotion, 10, 241–277. doi: 10.1080/026999396380240
Roseman, I. J., Spindel, M. S., & Jose, P. E. (1990). Appraisals of emotion-eliciting events:
Testing a theory of discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 899–915. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.59.5.899
Scherer, K. R. (1984). On the nature and function of emotion: A component process approach.
In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 293–317). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scherer, K. R. (1988). Criteria for emotion-antecedent appraisal: A review. In V. Hamilton, G. H. Bower & N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on emotiona and
motivation. Dordrecht: Nijhoff.
Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion:
Theory, methods, research (pp. 92–120). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Scherer, K. R. (2009). The dynamic architecture of emotion: Evidence for the component process model. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 1307–1351. doi:
10.1080/02699930902928969
Schorr, A. (2001). Subjective measurement in appraisal research: Present state and future perspectives. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 331–349). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Skinner, E. A. (1985). Action, control judgments, and the structure of control experience.
Psychological Review, 92, 39–58. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.92.1.39
Skinner, E. A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, and coping. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 549–570. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.71.3.549
CHAPTER 2:THEORETICAL PART 40 Skinner, E. A., Chapman, M., & Baltes, P. B. (1988). Control, means ends, and agency
beliefs: A new conceptualization and its measurement during childhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 117–133. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.117 Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813–838. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.48.4.813 Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1987). Patterns of appraisal and emotion related to taking an
exam. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 475–488. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.475
Smith, C. A., & Kirby, L. D. (2009a). Putting appraisal in context: Toward a relational model of appraisal and emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 1352–1372. doi:
10.1080/02699930902860386
Smith, C. A., & Kirby, L. D. (2009b). Relational antecedents of appraised problem-focused coping potential and its associated emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 481–503. doi:
10.1080/02699930802009464
Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 609–637). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Appraisal components, core relational themes, and the emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 7, 233–269. doi: 10.1080/02699939308409189 Smith, C. A., & Pope, L. K. (1992). Appraisal and emotion: The interactional contributions of
dispositional and situational factors. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 32–62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Thompson, S. C. (1981). Will it hurt less if I can control it: A complex answer to a simple question. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 89–101. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.90.1.89 Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement-motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92, 548–573. doi: 10.1037//0033-295X.92.4.548
CHAPTER 3.1:CENTRAL PROCESSING OF APPRAISAL CHECKS I 41