Emotion Review http://emr.sagepub.

com/

Comment: The Why, When, and How of Appraisal

Nico H. Frijda
Emotion Review 2013 5: 169
DOI: 10.1177/1754073912468905

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://emr.sagepub.com/content/5/2/169

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Society for Research on Emotion

Additional services and information for Emotion Review can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://emr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://emr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Mar 20, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by Elena Iorga on October 14, 2013

468905
2013
EMR5210.1177/1754073912468905Emotion ReviewFrijda The Why, When, and How of Appraisal
Comment
Comment: The Why, When, and How of Appraisal
Nico H. Frijda
Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract
This comment argues that appraisals result from the almost incessant
predictive activity of the awake brain, using its incoming and stored
information. It explores how appraisal operates when it does. It argues
that the analysis of the processes that lead to appraisals currently is still
at an early stage.
Keywords
emotions as multicomponential responses, hierarchical organization of
processed information, prediction
No perception of an isolated object or event exists. Any percep-
tion or thought of an object or event occurs in a situational and
temporal context. It thereby carries some meaning, which may
influence the next moment of mental activity. It evokes expecta-
tions on the consequents of the currently perceived object or
event, its sequels or concomitants, the category it may fall into,
and the properties that other exemplars of that category may
possess, such as what the object is generally used for (as is
evident from the automatic “utilization behavior” in certain
brain-damaged patients).
The brain’s information processing evidently does not stop
after an object or event has been perceived and recognized. It
continues with processing associated information available
within the brain itself. Information is extracted from incoming
information and supplemented by information from context and
associated information stored in memory. This largely explains
the “why” of what we call “appraisal.” It follows from the basic
mode of information processing in at least higher animals. Their
brains may well be active in processing the information availa-
ble to them whenever they have an opportunity to do so, and
whenever they are not in dreamless sleep.
Processed information is hierarchically organized (Edelman
& Tononi, 2000). Brains thereby are “prediction machines”
(Clark, in press; Friston, 2012). They generate predictions,
which may lead to corrections when these predictions turn out
wrong. Appraisal is just part of the cloud of associates that each
perceived or thought of informational element stirs, and in
which it is embedded. It is that part of meanings attached to
Corresponding author: Nico H. Frijda, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1017WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Email: N.H.Frijda@uva.nl
Emotion Review
Vol. 5, No. 2 (April 2013) 169­–170
© The Author(s) 2013
ISSN 1754-0739
DOI: 10.1177/1754073912468905
er.sagepub.com
perceived or thought-of objects which affects the individual, by
what it allows or instigates him or her to do, prevents him or her
from doing, and allows his or her processing to continue or to be
interrupted. It activates one or several of the multiple response
components whereby “emotions” are defined (Scherer, 1984).
This explains the “when” of appraisal. “Appraisals” are those
associates (in the wide sense of linked contents) of an object or
event that contribute to the elicitation of emotional response
components. Note that, brain-wise as well as content-wise, the
associates may come from very far, and still come up in a matter
of milliseconds. A remark, a perceived face, may evoke an
unpleasant feeling instantly. Also, upon any event, almost the
entire brain may be engaged, if we follow the analysis of neural
function by Edelman and Tononi (2000).
The “how” of appraisal may be equally clear. The moment’s
relevant associates stand out in the moment’s cloud of activa-
tions. These moments correspond with what the appraisal litera-
ture has identified as “appraisal dimensions,” about which
researchers tend to have obtained a fair amount of consensus.
Scherer (2013), for instance, presented such a list of dimen-
sions. He proposed a model in which each incoming perceived
object or event is checked for the presence and strength of each
of the corresponding “stimulus evaluation checks” or SECs.
The string of outcomes represents how the current object or
event has been appraised.
That model is not quite plausible. For one thing, checking
some input against a set of checks gives appraising a more goal-
directed character than appears justified. It also would appear to
disturb the information process proper. For another thing, the
various event aspects can be expected to speak for themselves in
the predictions they generate, without such prior checking. For
instance, event-instigated predictions that an action that one is
set to undertake will fail (one approaches an attractive person
who, however, turns away) directly generate unpleasant feeling
response. No need to check anything else.
It is in fact an open problem whether there exists a fixed and
restricted set of SECs or whether their number is open, and
depends upon the individual’s attentional focus and capacities
of discrimination. The latter option appears the more likely. For
instance, there exists a multitude of appraisal values that are
170  Emotion Review Vol. 5 No. 2
referred to as “affordances” (Gibson, 1979): event or object
features that allow, invite, or prime actions. Affordances may
contribute to appraisal of coping power with respect to the cur-
rent event. Such affordances have considerable appraisal value
in interpersonal encounters, where appraising another individ-
ual’s openness, closedness, aloofness, reservation, or hostility
can be decisive for how the encounter proceeds (Rietveld,
2012). But an affordance may also instigate a motivation to
interact in the first place. One more readily (I assume) nods to
someone passing who smiles than to just anyone.
Patterns of appraisal shaped by an event can be said to enrich
the perception of that event into the perception of a meaningful
event, an event-as-appraised. It has been argued that it causes a
representation of that appraisal that is stored in an “appraisal
register” (Smith & Kirby, 2001). Of course, one can form such
a representation, and ponder a past event, but these information
processes are not necessary for the progression of the emotion-
generating process. In fact, the usual case may well be that the
appraisal outcome has no self-standing existence, but dissolves
into the predictions that have enriched the perception of the
event, and the multicomponential response pattern that repre-
sents the given moment’s emotion. I in fact argue that the rela-
tionship between patterns of appraisal and at least one of the
response components (namely the particular moment’s mode of
action readiness; Frijda, 2007) makes the latter reasonably pre-
dictable from the former. But the relationship is obscured by the
influence of genetic individual differences in, for instance, basic
sensitivities (Fox & Standage, 2012; Kuppens, 2013).
Appraisal is usually studied by analyzing the appraisals of
fairly unambiguous events. However, events are often complex.
They may carry several meanings at the same time, and thus give
rise to several appraisals at the same time. They thus involve
“mixed emotions.” One example is nostalgia, in which there is
the memory of something wonderful, together with the sadness
that it has gone by. Another is grief about the death of a friend,
simultaneously with the relief that he or she is delivered from his
or her misery, and oneself from the worries and cares. Such
mixed emotions include several modes of action readiness, such
as positive together with negative evaluation or ambivalence,
and any strong emotion together with strong emotion control, out
of the desire to be considerate towards others. Such complexity
forms one of the explanations of emotion control (Frijda, 2012;
Mesquita & Frijda, 2011).
References
Clark, A. (in press). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and
the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
Edelman, G. M., & Tononi, G. (2000). Consciousness: How matter becomes
imagination. London, UK: Penguin.
Fox, E., & Standage, H. (2012). Variation on the serotonin transporter
gene and bias in the interpretation of ambiguity. Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 24, 106–114.
Frijda, N. H. (2007). The laws of emotion. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frijda, N. H. (2012). Emotion regulation: Two souls in one breast? In
D. Hermans, B. Rimé, & B. Mesquita (Eds.), Changing emotions
(pp. 137–143). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Friston, K. (2012). Prediction, perception, and agency. International
Journal of Psychophysiology, 83, 248–252.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kuppens, P. (2013). Comment: Appraisal affords flexibility to emotion in
more ways than one. Emotion Review, 5, 176–179.
Mesquita, B., & Frijda, N. H. (2011). An emotion perspective on emotion
regulation. Cognition & Emotion, 25, 782–784.
Rietveld, E. (2012). Bodily intentionality and social affordances in con-
text. In F. Paglieri (Ed.), Consciousness in interaction (pp. 207–226).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Scherer, K. R. (1984). On the nature and function of emotions: A component
process approach. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to
emotion (pp. 293–317). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scherer, K. R. (2013). The nature and dynamics of relevance and valence
appraisals: Theoretical advances and recent evidence. Emotion Review,
5, 150–162.
Smith, C. A., & Kirby, L. D. (2001). Toward delivering on the promise of
appraisal theory. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone, Appraisal
processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 121–138). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.