Advanced search
1 file | 57.15 KB Add to list

Automatic constructive appraisal: a reply to the commentaries of Parkinson and Kuppens

Agnes Moors (UGent)
(2010) EMOTION REVIEW. 2(2). p.161-162
Author
Organization
Abstract
My reply to the comments of Parkinson (2010) and Kuppens (2010) is organized in three parts. The first part deals with Parkinson's claim that the scope of our research is limited because no real emotions were elicited. I suggest that the outcomes in our studies are structurally similar to real emotions but that they lack intensity. In the second part, I try to correct three potential misunderstandings regarding the nature of the comparison process that I proposed. In the third part, I respond to Kuppens' suggestion that we also need to consider the transition of appraisal values into the other components of emotion (actions tendencies, responses, and subjective experience).
Keywords
emotion, constructive, appraisal, automatic

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 57.15 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Moors, Agnes. “Automatic Constructive Appraisal: a Reply to the Commentaries of Parkinson and Kuppens.” EMOTION REVIEW 2010 : 161–162. Print.
APA
Moors, A. (2010). Automatic constructive appraisal: a reply to the commentaries of Parkinson and Kuppens. EMOTION REVIEW.
Chicago author-date
Moors, Agnes. 2010. “Automatic Constructive Appraisal: a Reply to the Commentaries of Parkinson and Kuppens.” Emotion Review.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Moors, Agnes. 2010. “Automatic Constructive Appraisal: a Reply to the Commentaries of Parkinson and Kuppens.” Emotion Review.
Vancouver
1.
Moors A. Automatic constructive appraisal: a reply to the commentaries of Parkinson and Kuppens. EMOTION REVIEW. 2010. p. 161–2.
IEEE
[1]
A. Moors, “Automatic constructive appraisal: a reply to the commentaries of Parkinson and Kuppens,” EMOTION REVIEW, vol. 2, no. 2. pp. 161–162, 2010.
@misc{923776,
  abstract     = {My reply to the comments of Parkinson (2010) and Kuppens (2010) is organized in three parts. The first part deals with Parkinson's claim that the scope of our research is limited because no real emotions were elicited. I suggest that the outcomes in our studies are structurally similar to real emotions but that they lack intensity. In the second part, I try to correct three potential misunderstandings regarding the nature of the comparison process that I proposed. In the third part, I respond to Kuppens' suggestion that we also need to consider the transition of appraisal values into the other components of emotion (actions tendencies, responses, and subjective experience).},
  author       = {Moors, Agnes},
  issn         = {1754-0739},
  keywords     = {emotion,constructive,appraisal,automatic},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {161--162},
  series       = {EMOTION REVIEW},
  title        = {Automatic constructive appraisal: a reply to the commentaries of Parkinson and Kuppens},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1754073909355012},
  volume       = {2},
  year         = {2010},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: