Science of Emotion
THEORIES OF EMOTION
What Is An Emotion?

The simple answer is that emotion emotion researchers largely agree on some features of emotion.
o
Emotion is a distinct affective state1.
AFFECT
Emotion
Mood
the very brief feeling state in response
to an event
Triat
a relatively long-lasting feeling not
necessarily associated with an event
the general emotional style of a
person
o
Emotions also have some largely (but not totally) agreed upon features2:
1.
Emotions are brief. They do not last long periods of time. Emotions lasts are brief bursts
of psychological and physiological activity. They are better measured in seconds, rather
than minutes.
2. Emotions are involve goals. Emotions can serve as a motivational force (e.g., guilt is
associated with the desire to apologize3) and they are responses to meeting goals
(positive emotions, like happiness) or failing to meet goals (negative emotions, like
sadness).
3. Emotions are reactions. An emotion is a response to self-relevant events. Embedded
within the previous element is the idea that emotions can only occur in response to
events that are meaningful to the person experiencing the emotion. This principle shows
that emotions are meaningful; they function to serve as a way to identify and respond to
self-relevant (important) events.
4. Emotions are a process. The process of emotion is outlined in several theories of
emotion, which do not agree. We might say, though, that emotions involve cognitive,
physiological, and behavioral components. Each theory stresses (and/or deemphasizes
other elements). In general, a summary review of the emotion process might be visually
represented like this:
1
th
Gazzaniga et al. (2011). Psychological Science (4 ed.), p. 422
some of these are found in Shiota & Kalat (2012). Emotion, pp. 4-5
3
Tangney & Dearing (2002). Shame and Guilt
2
Notes developed by Michael B. Kitchens, Ph.D.
Page | 1
Science of Emotion
THEORIES OF EMOTION
Physiological
Response
Stimulus
Cognitive
Appraisal
Emotion
Subjective
Experience
Behavioral
Response
THEORIES OF EMOTION
William James’ Theory of Emotion
To understand James, it is helpful to begin by laying out the
common sense view of emotion:
“Common sense says we lose our fortune, are sorry and weep; we
meet a bear, are frightened and run; we are insulted by a rival,
are angry and strike4.”
James proposed a counterintuitive theory (by contrast):
“The hypothesis here to be defended says that this order of
sequence is incorrect, that the one mental state is not
immediately induced by the other, that the bodily
manifestations must first be interposed between…Bodily
changes follow directly the PERCEPTION of the exciting fact,
and our feeling of the same changes as they occur IS the
emotion5.”
The key to understanding this theory is understanding what
James meant by each ‘piece’ of this theory.
[For now, we will skip “perception” to come back to this
when we cover appraisal theory]
The key point here was that bodily reactions proceeded the conscious recognition of the emotional
experience. By “bodily reaction,” James appeared to be referring to three things:
4
5
From James’ What is an emotion?, taken from Solomon (2003). What is an emotion?, p. 67.
From James’ What is an emotion? taken from Solomon (2003). What is an emotion?, p. 67.
Notes developed by Michael B. Kitchens, Ph.D.
Page | 2
Science of Emotion
THEORIES OF EMOTION
1.


Expressive Action (facial expressions, like smiling, frowning, etc.)
Studies have shown that inducing subjects to smile causes people to feel happier and rate cartoons
funnier than people who are induced to frown6.
This work has led to the facial feedback hypothesis, which proposes that facial expressions induce
or intensify the experience of emotion.

The Vascular Theory of Emotion
offers an explanation for the
mechanism of action by asserting that
facial expressions influence the
constriction of sinus cavity, which in
turn, influences temperature changes
in the brain, which influences the
experienced emotion7.

For example, smiling (frowning) opens
(closes) the sinus cavity, which cools
(heats) the brain, which influences the
emotion experience.
8
In an elegant study to support this,
Robert Zajonc had participants either read
a story written in German that contained
a particular sound that ‘forced’
participants to frown (constrict their sinus cavity) or read a story that did not contain this sound. The
researchers detected a quick and greater temperature change in those that had this sound than those
that did not have this sound. Those with the sound disliked the story more than those without the
sound, suggesting that the temperature influenced the emotional experience.
2. Instrumental Action (running away, etc.)

This is, perhaps, the most controversial part of James’ theory because it is the most counterintuitive. (People would run from a bear and then realize they were afraid?!)
Self-Perception Theory is a social psychological theory that proposes that (in some situations), people
observe their own actions to determine their attitudes. This theory is similar to James’ proposed emotion
process.
6
Laird, J. (1974). Self-attribution of emotion: The effect of expressive behavior on the quality of emotional experience. JPSP, 29,
475-486. • Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: A
nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. JPSP, 54, 768-777.
7
Figure embedded within slide is from: 7 Zajonc, R. B., Murphy, S. T., & Inglehart, M. (1989). Feeling and facial
efference: Implications of the vascular theory of emotion. Psychological Review, 96, 395-416.
8
Zajonc, R. B., Murphy, S. T., & Inglehart, M. (1989). Feeling and facial efference: Implications of the vascular theory of
emotion. Psychological Review, 96, 395-416.
Notes developed by Michael B. Kitchens, Ph.D.
Page | 3
Science of Emotion
THEORIES OF EMOTION
Quest: How is self-perception like James’ theory? How do studies9 on self-perception theory support a
Jamesian view of emotion?
3. Physiological Arousal (the feeling state of emotion, autonomic nervous system activity)

This aspect of James’ theory asserts that there are specific, unique physiological signatures that
are associated with each emotion, known as autonomic specificity.
[Technically, this aspect of James’ theory is more closely aligned with Carl Lange—as in the JamesLange theory—but it is often attributed to James. James also received a lot of criticism for this
aspect10]
In an entertaining study, Ax (195311) set up an elaborate experiment, in which participants were
shown and hooked-up to an intimidating set of equipment that was purportedly meant to provide a
small electrical shock. In reality, this measured physiological activity. After hooking the participants
up, the equipment began to spark. Participants were terrified. Following this, the experimenter
began to insult and demean the participants, as though the equipment mishap was their fault. This
elaborate plot was meant to induce the experiences of anger and fear—two emotions conceptually
similar, but presumably distinct. Indeed, Ax found that these emotions had distinct emotion
signatures12.
Walter Cannon’s Criticisms of James’ Theory
Walter Cannon was a student of William James’. He raised five challenges to James’ theory of emotion13:
1.
9
See Bandler, R. J., Madaras, G. R., & Bem, D. J. (1968). Self-observation as a source of pain perception. JPSP, 9, 205-209.
10
11
Total separation between the ANS & CNS does not alter emotion
See Cornelius, R. R. (1996). The Science of Emotion, pp. 65-67.
Ax, A. F., (1953). The physiological differentiation between fear and anger in humans. Psychosomatic Medicine, 15, 433-442.
12
13
Figure is taken from Ax (1953).
Adapted from Cannon’s Bodily changes in pain, hunger, fear and rage found in Solomon (2003). What is an emotion?, pp.
78-83.
Notes developed by Michael B. Kitchens, Ph.D.
Page | 4
Science of Emotion
THEORIES OF EMOTION
2.
3.
4.
5.
Changes in ANS occur in non-emotional states
ANS is insensitive
ANS is slow
Artificial stimulation of ANS does not produce emotion
Quest: What does Cannon mean by each of these? As a whole, which aspect(s) of James’ theory is Cannon
criticizing?
Walter Cannon’s Theory of Emotion

Walter Cannon’s Theory of Emotion: For Cannon, the seat of emotion was not in the body, as
James posited; instead, Cannon argued that the seat of emotion as the brain. Cannon’s theory of
emotion was that the stimulus activated both the body (the ANS) and the brain (in particular, the
thalamus) simultaneous to produce the emotion and the conscious experience of emotion. One
important aspect of Cannon’s theory is an important marker for examining the brain to learn
about emotion.
The Emotional Brain
[We will not cover, in these notes, the details of the physiological processes in the brain in
producing emotion. Instead, these notes identify a few key structures and a process that helps to
explain the emotion-generation process on a physiological level]
14,15
Joseph Ledoux
proposes that the emotion-generation process travels through two routes:
the high-road and the low-road.
LeDoux proposes…
Step #1: emotional information is sent to the
thalamus, which is sent simultaneously two routes
Step #2: the thalamus signals the cortex (high road)
and the amygdala (low road)
Step #3a: the amygdala activates the emotional
system, producing the emotional feeling (i.e., ANS
activity)
Step #3b: the cortex provides deeper processing of the
stimulus and then sends that information to the
amygdala and onto activating the appropriate
emotional response
Obviously, the high-road (step 3b) takes longer than the low-road (step 3a), but it allows for greater
processing of the information and integration with other information for a more fine-tuned, appropriate
response.
14
15
LeDoux, J. (1996). The Emotional Brain. Graphic is adapted from this work, p. 241.
LeDoux, J. & Phelps, E. A. (2000). Emotional networks in the brain. In Lewis & Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions
nd
(2 ed; pp. 157-172).
Notes developed by Michael B. Kitchens, Ph.D.
Page | 5
Science of Emotion
THEORIES OF EMOTION
To understand this process a bit more, it might be helpful to have a sketch-book idea of what each of these
structures do.

Thalamus: Is the primary routing system in the brain. Almost all sensory information passes through the
thalamus, which in turn, sends the signal to the appropriate parts of the brain (e.g., visual information is
processed in the visual cortex, auditory information is processed in the auditory cortex, and so forth).

Amygdala: Is a complex structure, but might be summarized to have two functions. “First, the amygdala
helps to direct our attention toward stimuli we already know to have emotional implications.” “Second,
amygdala activation associated with the experience of strong emotion facilitates the consolidation of longterm episodic memories by the hippocampus. In this way, amygdala activation might ‘tag’ particular
memories as having strong emotional significance, and instigate processes that enhance these memories
16
for future reference. ” In short, the amygdala is involved in emotion processing, in that it signifies the
emotional significance of events. It might be useful to think of the amygdala as the physiological point in
which appraisal takes place, even if that is not a complete picture of the appraisal process.

Cortex: The cortex is not one structure, but many--the prefrontal cortex (PFC), the ventromedial
prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) etc. The “PFC regions work together with the amygdala to learn and represent
relationships between new stimuli (secondary reinforcers) and primary reinforcers such as food, drink and
17
sex .” The VMPFC is involved in the Somatic Marker Hypothesis, which proposes that gut-level feelings
guide decision making, such that subtle positive and negative feelings provide ‘unconscious’ inputs into
the decision. The VMPFC is proposed to process these somatic markers (gut feelings). Antonio Damasio
(the author of this hypothesis) proposes that the famous Phineas Gage suffered from damage to this area,
18
following his accident, which impaired his ability to make good decisions .

Hypothalamus: Is involved in the fight-flight response. It activates adrenal glands and such to produce
the adrenaline that one might feel in an emergency situation. Ultimately, it activates the Autonomic
Nervous System (ANS), which controls these processes through the sympathetic and parasympathetic
nervous systems.

Hippocampus: Is involved in the formation of memories. In terms of emotion, this is important to attach
meaning to events and learn (remember) emotional (important) events.
Appraisal Theory
(The Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory of Emotion)
There are a number of appraisal theories. These notes will focus on one of those—Richard Lazarus’
Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory of Emotion.
[As somewhat of a side-note, appraisal theory, in part, comes from a critique of James’ idea of
“perception.” Critics, particularly Magna Arnold, suggested that James focused on what she referred to
as mere perception—the simple perception of a stimulus (e.g., “That is a bear.”) instead of the more
appropriate emotional perception—a stimulus perception that involves an evaluation of how this
stimulus affects one personally19.]
To understand this theory, it is useful to understand what each of the words in the theory mean in the
context of this theory:
16
nd
Shiota & Kalat (2012). Emotion (2 ed.), pp. 122-123.
Dalgleish, T. (2004). The emotional brain. Nature, 5, 582-589. (Quote from p. 586)
18
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ Error.
19
Cornelius, R. R. (1996). The science of emotion, pp. 115-118.
17
Notes developed by Michael B. Kitchens, Ph.D.
Page | 6
Science of Emotion
THEORIES OF EMOTION
1. Cognition:
 Cognition is a necessary and sufficient for the production of emotion20. The primary principle is
that emotion is a product of a cognitive event—specifically appraisal.

In the context of this theory, cognition refers to knowledge (“consists of established ideas and
beliefs about ourselves and the world, whereas contextual or situational knowledge consists of the
way we understand what is going on in any particular encounter21”) and appraisal (“an evaluation
of the significance of knowledge about what is happening for our personal well-being.”)22

Lazarus proposed that every emotion is associated with a core relational theme, which “is
simply the central (hence core) relational harm or benefit in adaptational encounters that
underlies each specific kind of emotion. …Each individual emotion or emotion family is defined
by a specific core relational theme.23” Below are some examples of core relational themes24:
Anger
Anxiety
Guilt
Shame
Happiness
Love
Compassion
A demeaning offense against me and mine.
Facing uncertain, existential threat.
Having transgressed amoral imperative.
Having failed to live up to an ego-ideal.
Making reasonable progress toward the realization of a goal.
Desiring or participating in affection, usually but not necessarily reciprocated.
Being moved by another’s suffering and wanting to help.
Core relational themes operate on a macro-level. At the micro-level, the core relational themes are made up of
more elemental processes:
25
a.
“Primary Appraisal concerns whether something of relevance to the well-being has occurred .” It
involves goal-relevance (which is concerned with whether the event is relevant to the person), goalcongruence (which is concerned with whether the event is helpful or harmful to achieving goals),
and type of eg0-involvement (which is a determination of whether the motive to preserve and
enhance the self is involved)
b. “Secondary Appraisal concerns coping options—that is, whether any given action might prevent
26
harm, ameliorate it, or produce additional harm or benefit .” It involves blame/credit (which is an
assessment of whom is responsible), coping potential (which refers to an assessment of how well
27
one can cope with or “protect the person-environment relationship ”), and future expectancy
(which refers to an assessment that the future will change in relation to goal-congruence).
Together, these processes produce the primary meaning of any situation that result (or could result) in the core
relational theme that will produce any particular emotion. While these are referred to as primary and secondary,
Lazarus asserts that this is not a decision tree process nor does one go through this consciously or every time an
encounter occurs.
20
Lazarus, R. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 352-367.
Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and adaptation, p. 144.
22
Quote from p. 354 of Lazarus, R. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 352-367.
23
Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and adaptation, p. 121.
24
This is select examples quoted from a table in Lazarus’ (1991) book, Emotion and adaptation, p. 122.
25
Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and adaptation, p. 133.
26
Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and adaptation, p. 133.
27
Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and adaptation, p. 150.
21
Notes developed by Michael B. Kitchens, Ph.D.
Page | 7
Science of Emotion
THEORIES OF EMOTION
2. Motivation:
 The theory emphasizes motivation because this refers to the idea that an emotion cannot be generated if
it is not significant or goal-relevant.
3. Relational:
 The theory emphasizes relational because it suggests that emotion arises from changes in the personenvironment relationship. Any change between the person (you) and the environment directs attention to
that event. Sometimes the change is meaningful (goal-relevant) or not (goal-irrelevant). As noted in the
discussion of motivation, this analysis will determine whether one will actually experience an emotion.
Schachter Two-Factor Theory of Emotion
(Arousal + Appraisal = Emotion)
The Schacter Two-Factor Theory of Emotion proposes that (at least, practically) undifferentiated
arousal is identified as a particular emotion by cognitive activity that is based on situational information.
Said differently:
Feelings
(largely undifferentiated)
+
Situationally-Appropriate Cognition
(i.e., interpreted feeling based on the context)
_______________________________________________________
= Emotional Experience

Stanley Schachter and Jerome Singer build on the work of James, and in particular, the idea that by
“bodily arousal,” James was referring to autonomic specificity. (Recall, this was actually more of Carl
Lange’s idea that has been attributed to James.)
Schachter and Singer say “granted a general pattern of sympathetic excitation as characteristic of
emotional states, grated that there may be some differences in pattern from state to state, it is suggested
that one labels, interprets, and identifies this stirred-up state in terms of the characteristics of the
precipitating situation and one’s apperceptive mass. This suggests, then, that an emotional state may be
considered a function of a state of physiological arousal and of a cognition appropriate to this state of
arousal. … Cognitions arising from the immediate situation as interpreted by past experience provide the
framework within which one understands and labels his feelings. It is the cognition which determines
28
whether the state of physiological arousal will be labeled as ‘anger,’ ‘joy,’ ‘fear,’ or whatever. ”

This theory, then, seeks to expand upon James’ idea in terms of explaining how arousal is interpreted as a
conscious experience of emotion.

Their famous study used to assess this theory has failed to be replicated and major reviews of this body of
work have concluded that the theory originally proposed does not stand; however, coming from this work
is a series of interesting studies showing a misattribution effect, in which people misattribute
the source of their arousal29. In one of the more powerful and entertaining studies30 to
28
29
30
From Schachter’s and Singer’s (1962) Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state, as quoted in
Solomon’s (2003) What is an emotion?, pp. 111-112.
See Cornelius, R. R. (1996). The science of emotion, pp. 87-94
Dutton, D. G., & Aron, A. P. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. JPSP,
30, 510-517.
Notes developed by Michael B. Kitchens, Ph.D.
Page | 8
Science of Emotion
THEORIES OF EMOTION
demonstrate this, the researchers found that participants who had just crossed a swinging
bridge over a high ravine (presumably producing some arousal) were more likely to be sexually
aroused and call an experimental confederate for a date than participants that crossed the ravine
on a more stable bridge.
Social Constructivist View of Emotion
“An emotion is a transitory social role (a socially constituted syndrome) that includes an individual’s
appraisal of the situation and that is interpreted as a passion rather than as an action31.”
To understand this theory more fully takes several examples (looking at anger is a useful way), but for
starters, it is important to understand some key phrases and terms in this theory:

“syndrome:” The key here is that emotion involves many components that may or may not
appear with any particular instance of emotion. “A syndrome is a set of events that occur
together in a systematic manner. … Like diseases, [James] Averill argues, emotions have a variety
of more or less easily identifiable components that tend to occur together. These include
subjective experiences, expressive reactions, patterns of physiological response, and coping
reactions…. A moment’s reflection about even a small set of your own emotional experiences will
tell you that this list includes most of the phenomena associated with emotion. it should also
tell you, however, that not every emotion is associated with all the components32.”

“an individual’s appraisal of the situation:” As a student of Richard Lazarus, we can
understand that Averill’s theory includes the appraisal process. Averill’s addition to this is that
the appraisal of any particular situation is culturally influenced33.

a transitory social role: Emotions are responses; indeed, they are culturally-learned responses.
“Part of what we learn by virtue of our being socialized into a particular culture are sets of rules
that implicitly govern our emotional performance…34”. These roles provide a set of expectations
or approved behavior under the cover of the idea that emotions are “interpreted as a passion
rather than as an action:” This means, despite that emotions are intentional actions—social
roles—they are interpreted as passions, such that we are passive recipients of our behavior in
emotional states. Together, these two aspects see emotion as part of the ‘theater of life,’ in that
everyone is able to see the emotional person play out a particular set of responses expected by
that culture, and the person experiencing those interprets their actions as out of their control.
31
Quote is taken from p. 312 of Averill, J. R. (1980). A constructivist view of emotion. In R. Plutchick & H. Kellerman (Eds.),
Emotion: Theory, research and experience (Vol. 1.; pp. 305-3339).
32
Cornelius, R. R. (1996). The science of emotion, p. 153
33
Cornelius, R. R. (1996). The science of emotion, p. 155
34
Cornelius, R. R. (1996). The science of emotion, p. 153
Notes developed by Michael B. Kitchens, Ph.D.
Page | 9