Ira J. Roseman

Phenomenology, Behaviors, and Goals Differentiate Discrete Emotions

Prior research has typically attempted to distinguish one emotion from another by identifying distinctive expressions, physiology, and subjective qualities. Recent theories claim emotions can also be differentiated by distinctive action tendencies, actions, and emotivational goals. To test hypotheses from both older and more recent theories, 100 Ss were asked to recall experiences of particular negative emotions and answer questions concerning what they felt, thought, felt like doing, actually did, and wanted. Results support hypotheses specifying characteristic responses for fear, sadness, distress, frustration, disgust, dislike, anger, regret, guilt, and shame. The findings indicate that discrete emotions have distinctive goals and action tendencies, as well as thoughts and feelings. In addition, they provide empirical support for hypothesized emotion states that have received insufficient attention from researchers.

Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions

Abstract A theory specifying how appraisals of a situation determine ones emotional responses (Roseman, 1979) was subjected to an experimental test. According to the theory, particular combinations of 5 appraisals determine which of 13 qualitatively different emotions will be experienced in any given situation. The appraisals are: motivational state (rewarding/punishing), situational state (presendabsent), probability (certaiduncertain), legitimacy (positivehegative outcome deserved), and causal agency (circumstanced other person/self). The emotions whose occurrence they determine are joy, relief, hope, liking (“warmth-friendliness”), pride, distress, sorrow, fear, frustration, disliking (“coolness-unfriendliness”), anger, regret, and guilt. In the experiment, 120 college students read brief stories in which these appraisals were manipulated, and rated the intensities of various emotions felt by story protagonists. Results showed that each appraisal had a significant effect upon emotions, and that the pa...

Appraisal Determinants of Emotions: Constructing a More Accurate and Comprehensive Theory

In order to move toward a more accurate, complete, and integrative theory of the causes of emotions, empirical evidence relevant to a recently proposed appraisal theory was examined, and hypotheses from several alternative appraisal theories were compared and tested. Given questions that focused on the cognitive causes of emotions rather than their phenomenological contents, 182 subjects rated the appraisal determinants of emotion experiences that they recalled. Results suggest that appraisals of unexpectedness (not unexpected/unexpected), situational state (motive-inconsistent/motiveconsistent), motivational state (aversive/appetitive), probability (uncertain/ certain), control potential (low/high), problem source (non-characterological/characterological factors), and agency (circumstances/other person/self), differentiate a large number of widely-discussed emotions. These results are used to formulate a revised, empirically grounded, and more comprehensive model that specifies which appraisals cause 17 ...

Appraisals of emotion-eliciting events : testing a theory of discrete emotions

A recent theory (Roseman, 1979,1984) attempts to specify the particular appraisals of events that elicit 16 discrete emotions. This study tested hypotheses from the latest version of the theory and compared them with hypotheses derived from appraisal theories proposed by Arnold (1960) and by Scherer (1988), using procedures designed to address some prior methodological problems. Results provided empirical support for numerous hypotheses linking particular appraisals of situational state (motive-inconsistent/motive-consistent), motivational state (punishment/reward), probability (uncertain/certain), power (weak/strong), legitimacy (negative outcome deserved/positive outcome deserved), and agency (circumstances/other person/self) to particular emotions. Where hypotheses were not supported, new appraisal-emotion relationships that revise the theory were proposed.

Beat them or ban them : The characteristics and social functions of anger and contempt

This article reports 3 studies in which the authors examined (a) the distinctive characteristics of anger and contempt responses and (b) the interpersonal causes and effects of both emotions. In the 1st study, the authors examined the distinction between the 2 emotions; in the 2nd study, the authors tested whether contempt could be predicted from previous anger incidents with the same person; and in the 3rd study, the authors examined the effects of type of relationship on anger and contempt reactions. The results of the 3 studies show that anger and contempt often occur together but that there are clear distinctions between the 2 emotions: Anger is characterized more by short-term attack responses but long-term reconciliation, whereas contempt is characterized by rejection and social exclusion of the other person, both in the short-term and in the long-term. The authors also found that contempt may develop out of previously experienced anger and that a lack of intimacy with and perceived control over the behavior of the other person, as well as negative dispositional attributions about the other person, predicted the emergence of contempt.

Appraisals cause experienced emotions: Experimental evidence

Recent theories claim appraisals cause emotions. But supporting evidence has been correlational or simulational, leaving doubt about direction of causality and the generalisability of these findings to actual emotional experiences. This study manipulated appraisals of motivational state (relating an event to appetitive vs. aversive motivation) and outcome probability (certain vs. uncertain), and found evidence for some (though not all) hypothesised effects on actual experiences of joy, relief, and hope: Events consistent with pleasure‐maximising goals gave rise to joy; events consistent with pain‐minimising goals and certain to occur produced relief; and events consistent with pleasure‐maximising goals but uncertain led to hope. These findings provide experimental evidence that appraisals do cause experienced emotions.

Self-Concepts Across Two Cultures India and the United States

This study compared the self-concepts of college students in India to those in the United States by administering the Twenty Statements Test. Self-statements were analyzed in terms of five categories (social identity, ideological beliefs, interests, ambitions, and self-evaluations) and a numberof subcategories (e.g., self-identity, group identity, gender role identity). Results indicated differential use of the categories and subcategories in the two cultures. For example, Americans made more self-evaluation statements, whereas Indians responded more in terms of social identity. Women in both cultures made more frequent use of stereotypical gender characteristics in describing themselves; men had a larger proportion of responses in the self-identity category. However, cross-cultural differences were much greater than gender differences. These findings shed light on major components of the self-concept and underline its culture-specific determinants.

Emotional Behaviors, Emotivational Goals, Emotion Strategies: Multiple Levels of Organization Integrate Variable and Consistent Responses

Researchers have found undeniable variability and irrefutable evidence of consistencies in emotional responses across situations, individuals, and cultures. Both must be acknowledged in constructing adequate, enduring models of emotional phenomena. In this article I outline an empirically-grounded model of the structure of the emotion system, in which relatively variable actions may be used to pursue relatively consistent goals within discrete emotion syndromes; the syndromes form a stable, coherent set of strategies for coping with crises and opportunities. I also discuss a framework that can integrate dimensional and discrete perspectives on emotions.

Cultural Differences and Cross-Cultural Similarities in Appraisals and Emotional Responses

To conduct a cross-cultural test of a theory specifying the appraisals that elicit particular emotions, undergraduates from India and the United States were asked how they appraised events that caused them to feel sadness, fear, or anger. In both cultures there was evidence that an appraisal of powerlessness characterized incidents leading to sadness and fear, rather than anger; and an appraisal that other persons caused negative events characterized incidents leading to anger, rather than sadness or fear. Also, Indians appraised events as less discrepant from what they had wanted than Americans did; this accounted for lower sadness and anger among Indians. Overall, cultural differences in appraisal explained cultural differences in emotion, due to underlying cross-cultural similarities in appraisal-emotion relationships.

Appraisal in the Emotion System: Coherence in Strategies for Coping

Emotions can be understood as a coherent, integrated system of general-purpose coping strategies, guided by appraisal, for responding to situations of crisis and opportunity (when specific-purpose motivational systems may be less effective). This perspective offers functional explanations for the presence of particular emotions in the emotion repertoire, and their elicitation by particular appraisal combinations. Implications of the Emotion System model for debated issues, such as the dimensional vs. discrete nature of appraisals and emotions, are also discussed.