Theories of emotion causation: A review

Abstract

I present an overview of emotion theories, organised around the question of emotion causation. I argue that theories of emotion causation should ideally address the problems of elicitation, intensity, and differentiation. Each of these problems can be divided into a subquestion that asks about the relation between stimuli and emotions (i.e., the functional level of process description, cf. Marr, 1982) and a subquestion that asks about the mechanism and representations that intervene (i.e., the algorithmic level of process description). The overview reveals that theories of emotion causation sometimes differ with regard to the kind of process that they hold responsible for emotion causation. More precisely, they hold different assumptions regarding the conditions under which the process is supposed to operate (optimal versus suboptimal), the format of the representations involved (propositional versus perceptual), and the object or input of the central process (stimulus versus responses/experience). Further, the overview reveals that theories of emotion causation sometimes differ with regard to the level of process description that they focus on. Finally, the overview brings to light several similarities among the theories discussed.

Keywords:

• Emotion theory
• Causation
• Elicitation
• Appraisal
• Constructivist

Acknowledgements

Agnes Moors is a fellow of the Scientific Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO).

I thank Klaus Scherer who acted as a reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions.

Notes

¹Following Searle (1983), I write Intentionality in philosophical use with a capital I and intentionality in ordinary use with a lower case i.

²A state can be directed at something by forming a representation of it. Thus, in this view, cognitive processes also correspond to representation-mediated processes. Note that according to this view, the mental is broader than the representational; it also includes phenomenal states that are non-representational.

³In the present paper, the distinction between philosophical and psychological theories is based on the background of their authors and on a difference in approach that can be traced back to a difference in starting point. Philosophers often start from the structure of language in the hope of learning something about the structure of reality. Psychologists often start from the observation of reality. I further wish to note that I use the term theory in a liberal sense to indicate any internally coherent collection of hypotheses, regardless of whether these hypotheses have been submitted to empirical testing.

⁴The theories of Schachter (1964) and Barrett (2006b) have often been grouped together in the family of two-factor or constructivist theories, and James’ (1890) theory has sometimes been added as the precursor of this tradition. In the present paper, I chose to discuss these theories separately because they occupy radically different positions on the criteria that I have set out to organise this review. James can indeed be considered as a precursor of Schachter, but both propose different components for the differentiation of emotions. Barrett's theory is undeniably a two-factor theory like Schachter's, but Barrett also builds on insights developed by appraisal theories. As a result, the processes that Barrett proposes for the elicitation of emotions differ from those proposed by Schachter in several important respects (see below).

⁵Two different meanings of the term arousal circulate in emotion literature. In the first sense, arousal refers to physical arousal (i.e., the somatic component). In the second sense, arousal refers to intensity (activation–deactivation) and can be a property of several components (e.g. the feeling component).

⁶Zajonc (1980) claimed that cognition is unnecessary for affect (by which he meant raw positive–negative quality or valence), but not that cognition is unnecessary for full-blown specific emotions. His data are nevertheless relevant for theories concerned with emotion causation, at least for those theories that conceive of affect as a minimal form of emotion or as an early step in emotion causation (e.g., Barrett, 2005; Scherer, 1984).

⁷It is potentially confusing to say, on the one hand, that category knowledge is conceptual, and on the other hand, that it is not stored in propositional form. Other scholars tend to group conceptual and propositional representations.

⁸Barrett's (2006b) theory can explain but does not predict cultural variation. If research could reveal that fear is universally linked to danger, this would demonstrate that this link exists in the conceptual knowledge of all individuals of all cultures.