Appraisal theories of emotion; emotion generation and

emotion regulation
Cognitive processes clearly play some role in determining when we experience emotional states
and what particular emotional state we experience in any given situation. Numerous theorists
have argued that the most important cognitive processes involve appraisal of the situation.
According to Roseman and Smith (2001, p. 7), “Appraisal theories claim that appraisals start the
emotion process, initiating the physiological, expressive, behavioural, and other changes that
comprise the resultant emotional state.” The most influential appraisal-based approach is that of
Richard Lazarus. According to Lazarus’s (1966, 1982) original theory, there are three forms of
appraisal:

• Primary appraisal: an environmental situation is regarded as positive, stressful, or irrelevant to

• Secondary appraisal: account is taken of the resources the individual has available to cope with
the situation.

• Reappraisal: the stimulus situation and the coping strategies are monitored, with the primary
and secondary appraisals being modified if necessary.

These appraisals can happen consciously or automatically, without us even realizing it. There
have been two major developments in appraisal theory since the original formulation.

First, it is now assumed that each emotion is elicited by a specific and distinctive pattern of
appraisal. Smith and Lazarus (1993) identified six appraisal components, two involving priimary
appraisal and two involving secondary appraisal:

• Primary: motivational relevance (related to personal commitments?).

• Primary: motivational congruence (consistent with the individual’s goals?).

• Secondary: accountability (who deserves the credit or blame?).

• Secondary: emotion-focused coping potential (can the situation be handled

Psychologically?).

• Secondary: future expectancy (how likely is it that the situation will change?).

According to Smith and Lazarus (1993), emotional states can be identified based on the specific
appraisal components involved and the way they function. Emotions like anger, guilt, anxiety,
and sadness all share the same primary appraisals—they are triggered when the situation is
personally significant (motivational relevance) and when it interferes with one's goals
(motivational incongruence).
However, these emotions differ in their secondary appraisals. Guilt arises when a person holds
themselves responsible for the situation (self-accountability), anxiety occurs when they feel
unsure about their ability to manage their emotions (low or uncertain emotion-focused coping),
and sadness emerges when they believe there is little hope for the situation to improve (low
future expectancy).
Early appraisal theories, including Smith and Lazarus’s (1993), primarily focused on the
structure of appraisals rather than the processes behind them. They concentrated on what
appraisals entail but overlooked the mechanisms that produce them. Smith and Kirby (2001)
addressed this gap by proposing that appraisal processes occur simultaneously through three
main mechanisms.
First, associative processing quickly and automatically activates memories and associations, but
it is rigid and lacks flexibility. Second, reasoning involves slower, more deliberate thinking that
allows for greater flexibility compared to associative processing. Lastly, appraisal detectors
constantly monitor information from both associative processing and reasoning. A person’s
emotional state is shaped by the overall information that these detectors register.
Evidence
In an early study by Speisman et al. (1964), it was demonstrated that emotional experience
could be influenced by cognitive appraisal. Participants viewed anxiety-inducing films, one
showing a Stone Age ritual involving painful circumcision and another depicting workshop
accidents. The emotional impact was manipulated through varying the soundtrack. Denial was
induced in the ritual film by claiming the procedure was not painful, and in the workshop film by
stating the individuals involved were actors. Intellectualization was induced in the ritual film by
encouraging participants to view the ritual from an anthropological perspective, and in the
workshop film, they were asked to consider the situations objectively. Both denial and
intellectualization led to substantial reductions in stress, as measured by physiological responses
like heart rate, compared to the control group with no soundtrack.
Smith and Lazarus (1993) tested the hypothesis that the specific appraisal components
activated by a situation determine which emotion is experienced. Participants were presented
with scenarios and asked to identify with the central character. In one scenario, the character
performs poorly in an exam. When the blame was placed on unhelpful teaching assistants (other-
accountability), anger was more likely to occur. In contrast, when the character blamed
themselves for mistakes (self-accountability), guilt was more likely. These manipulations
successfully influenced the emotional states of the participants, confirming the prediction.
Parkinson (2001) criticized the findings of Smith and Lazarus (1993), pointing out that only
30% of the variance in emotional ratings could be explained by the appraisal manipulations.
Kuppens et al. (2003) argued that emotions might be caused by various combinations of
appraisals. They studied four appraisals—goal obstacles, other-accountability, unfairness, and
control—that were relevant to experiencing anger. Participants described recent unpleasant
situations involving these appraisals, and the results suggested that anger could be triggered by
different combinations of appraisals, indicating flexibility in emotional responses.
Appraisal theory also helps explain individual differences in emotional reactions. For instance,
Kuppens and van Mechelen (2007) explored why individuals differ in their levels of trait
anger. They found that individuals with high trait anger reported more appraisals of threat to self-
esteem, blaming others, and frustration. These appraisals were more accessible to people with
high trait anger, making them more prone to experiencing anger.
Smith and Kirby (2001) highlighted that appraisals could occur through very rapid associative
processes, often operating below the level of conscious awareness. Supporting evidence for this
comes from Chartrand, van Baaren, and Bargh (2006), who demonstrated that automatic
appraisal processes could influence people's emotional states. Participants exposed to negative
words reported a more negative mood than those exposed to positive words, even when the
words were presented subliminally.
While much research on appraisal theory has used hypothetical scenarios, there are concerns
about the relevance of these findings to real emotional experiences. One concern is that
participants may not experience genuine emotions in response to scenarios. Robinson and Clore
(2001) addressed this by comparing reactions to slides of real emotional situations and short
verbal descriptions of those situations. They found that the appraisals and their relationship to
emotions were similar in both conditions, suggesting that findings from hypothetical scenarios
may generalize to more emotional situations.
Bennett, Lowe, and Honey (2003) tested the applicability of appraisal theory in naturalistic
settings by asking participants to recall the most stressful event they experienced over the past
month. They found that the cognitive appraisals participants reported were a good predictor of
their emotional states, confirming the predictive power of appraisal theory.
Siemer, Mauss, and Gross (2007) tackled the challenge of determining whether emotional
reactions occur directly as a result of situations or indirectly due to appraisals. They used a single
situation, where the experimenter behaved rudely toward participants, and found that appraisals
predicted the intensity of emotions. For example, the appraisal of personal control was associated
with lower levels of guilt, shame, and sadness, but not anger.
Another concern about correlational research is that it doesn't confirm whether appraisals cause
emotions. Siemer and Reisenzein (2007) tested this by comparing the time it took participants
to make emotional judgments versus appraisal judgments. They found that appraisal judgments
took longer, which they explained by the fact that appraisals are more deliberate and time-
consuming, while emotional judgments are often automatic. This suggests that appraisals might
precede emotions, but both can be highly intertwined.
Finally, Berndsen and Manstead (2007) examined the possibility that some cognitive appraisals
occur after an emotion has been experienced, as individuals might try to justify their emotional
responses. In their study, they found that responsibility increased as a function of the level of
guilt, suggesting that appraisals could follow emotions rather than cause them.
Roseman and Evdokas (2004) presented a more promising test of appraisal theory by
manipulating appraisals directly. Participants were told whether they were likely to taste a food
or drink they liked or disliked. The emotional states they reported—joy for tasting a liked item,
and relief for avoiding a disliked one—were consistent with the appraisals, providing stronger
evidence for the causal role of appraisals in emotional experience.
Evaluation of Appraisal Theory

Appraisal processes are crucial in shaping emotional experiences. They not only determine
whether we experience emotion but also influence the exact emotion felt. Individual differences
in emotional responses can often be explained by variations in how people appraise situations.
Smith and Kirby (2001) clarified the processes involved in appraisal by distinguishing between
associative processes (automatic) and reasoning (deliberate). This distinction helps explain how
emotions are formed.
Limitations:
Too Strong an Assumption on Appraisal’s Role:

The theory assumes that appraisal always plays a critical role in emotion, which may not always
be the case. For example, a person might experience strong emotions about a neutral situation if
it reminds them of a future threat, such as an important exam.
Causality Might Be Reversed:

While the theory suggests appraisal causes emotion, it’s likely that the relationship is often the
other way around—emotions may influence appraisals. Emotional experiences and appraisals are
often intertwined and can influence each other.
Overlooking Social Context:

Appraisal theory tends to focus on individuals alone, ignoring the social context in which
emotions often arise. Emotions are typically experienced in the context of social interactions, not
just as individual reactions to stimuli.
Lack of Clarity on Automatic vs. Controlled Appraisals:
While there is a distinction between automatic and controlled appraisal processes, there's still
limited research on when and how these processes happen. Many studies assume automatic
appraisals without providing direct evidence that participants actually use them.
Unclear Emotion Categories:

Lazarus’ classification of emotions is not always well-justified. For example, anxiety and fright
are seen as separate emotions, despite sharing similar appraisals and being closely related to fear.
Similarly, envy and jealousy are distinct in Lazarus’ model, though they overlap significantly.
Emotion Generation
Refers to the process by which individuals experience emotions in response to internal or
external stimuli. It occurs when a person encounters a situation and responds emotionally, often
without a deliberate sense of control. This process typically arises spontaneously, distinguishing
it from emotion regulation, which involves intentional efforts to influence the onset, intensity,
or duration of emotional responses. As proposed by Gross (1998), emotion generation happens
naturally and precedes regulation, which requires agency and self-reflection. For instance, one
may feel sudden fear at the sight of a snake, before having time to cognitively assess whether the
snake is real or dangerous.
Emotion generation can occur through bottom-up and top-down processes. Bottom-up
emotion generation is primarily stimulus-driven and relies heavily on the sensory features of the
environment. It represents an automatic and immediate emotional reaction to stimuli. For
example, hearing a sudden loud noise may instantly trigger a startle or fear response. This
reaction occurs quickly and without conscious processing. From a neuroscientific perspective,
bottom-up processes are associated with the activation of subcortical structures, particularly the
amygdala, which plays a key role in detecting emotionally salient stimuli and preparing the
body for appropriate action (LeDoux, 1996). These processes ensure rapid responses to
potentially threatening or novel situations, allowing for survival-focused behavior.
In contrast, top-down emotion generation is guided by cognitive appraisal and interpretation.
This process involves evaluating the meaning of a situation based on one’s goals, beliefs, past
experiences, and expectations. For example, two individuals might interpret the same situation
differently—one may feel joy at receiving a job offer, while another may feel anxious about the
responsibilities it entails. According to Lazarus’s cognitive appraisal theory (1991), such
emotions are not simply reactions to events but are shaped by how the events are mentally
evaluated. Top-down processing engages higher brain regions, particularly the prefrontal
cortex, which is involved in planning, reasoning, and conscious decision-making (Ochsner &
Gross, 2005).
In real-world scenarios, emotion generation often results from a combination of both bottom-up
and top-down processes. A person might initially react with fear to a loud bang (bottom-up), but
then quickly reinterpret the sound as harmless fireworks (top-down), leading to a sense of relief.
This interplay allows for both rapid emotional responsiveness and the flexibility to adapt based
on context and personal interpretation.

Emotion Regulation:
Emotion regulation refers to the processes by which people manage and modify their emotional
experiences. According to Koole (2009), emotion regulation is primarily a deliberate, effortful
process where individuals attempt to override their spontaneous emotional responses. This
concept encompasses a range of strategies that people use to manage their emotions.
Examples of emotion-regulation strategies include cognitive appraisal, controlled breathing,
progressive muscle relaxation, stress-induced eating, and distraction. Cognitive appraisal, as
discussed earlier, is one way to modify emotional experiences.
Gross and Thompson (2007) proposed a process model to categorize different emotion-
regulation strategies. The key idea is that emotion-regulation strategies can be employed at
various stages of emotional experience. For instance, someone with social anxiety might regulate
their emotions by avoiding stressful social situations, or they could modify these situations by
asking a friend to accompany them for support.
Another strategy is attentional deployment, where individuals distract themselves with pleasant
thoughts to reduce stress. We've already discussed how appraisal can be used to regulate
emotions as well. Lastly, there is response modulation, where people might try to manage their
emotions by expressing them. For example, it's often thought that expressing anger helps release
it, but research by Bushman (2002) shows that expressing anger can actually intensify it, as it
activates further angry thoughts.
Attentional Deployment
It is often suggested that distraction is an effective method for reducing negative mood states,
and research supports this idea (Van Dillen & Koole, 2007). How does distraction work to
alleviate negative emotions? According to Van Dillen and Koole, the key lies in the working
memory system, which is responsible for processing and storing information but has limited
capacity. If most of the working memory is used to process distracting stimuli, there is less
capacity left to process negative emotions.
Van Dillen and Koole (2007) tested this hypothesis by presenting participants with either
strongly negative, weakly negative, or neutral photos. They then had participants complete a high
or low-demand arithmetic task before measuring their mood. As expected, those who performed
a task with high working memory demands had less negative mood after viewing the strongly
negative images than those who did a low-demand task.
In another study by Van Dillen, Heslenfeld, and Koole (2009), brain activity was also assessed.
The results showed that when participants performed a demanding task, there was increased
activity in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, reduced activity in the amygdala, and lower
self-reported negative emotion. This suggests that challenging tasks activate areas of the working
memory system, leading to reduced negative emotion both physiologically (i.e., amygdala) and
experientially (i.e., self-report).
Rothermund, Voss, and Wentura (2008) identified another emotion-regulation strategy called
attentional counter-regulation. This strategy involves focusing attention on information that
contrasts with one's current emotional state. For instance, when feeling down, focusing on
positive stimuli can help shift one's mood. Rothermund et al. (2008) provided evidence for this
by showing that participants in a negative mood paid more attention to positive faces and vice
versa when in a positive mood.
While attentional deployment generally has positive effects on emotional states, it’s not always
beneficial. For instance, individuals with anxiety tend to have an attentional bias toward negative
stimuli, which can exacerbate their anxiety.
Cognitive Reappraisal
Cognitive reappraisal, which involves changing the interpretation of a stimulus to alter the
emotional response, has gained attention in recent research. Functional neuroimaging studies
have highlighted its role in emotion regulation. Reappraisal often involves higher-level cognitive
processes within the prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate (Ochsner & Gross, 2005).
Two main types of reappraisal strategies are identified:
1. Reinterpretation: Changing the meaning of a context (e.g., viewing a picture as being
fake).
 2. Distancing: Taking a detached, third-person perspective.
Ochsner and Gross (2008) reviewed functional neuroimaging studies and found that both
reappraisal strategies activate the prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate. These areas are
involved in executive processes and help regulate emotion. The evidence suggests that the
success of reappraisal is related to prefrontal cortex activity and the reduction of amygdala
activation, which is linked to emotional responses.
Wager et al. (2008) extended these findings, showing that successful reappraisal not only
reduced amygdala activity but also increased activity in areas related to positive emotions, like
the nucleus accumbens. This suggests that reappraisal can increase positive affect while reducing
negative emotions.
In contrast, expressive suppression (suppressing emotional expression) leads to late activation of
the prefrontal cortex and increased amygdala activity, which may explain why this strategy is
less effective in reducing negative emotions.
Although both reinterpretation and distancing can regulate emotions, functional neuroimaging
shows that they involve different brain mechanisms. Reinterpretation activates the dorsal
prefrontal cortex and areas associated with language, while distancing activates the medial
prefrontal cortex, likely related to evaluating self-relevance.
Evaluation
Functional neuroimaging studies have advanced our understanding of how reappraisal works to
reduce negative emotions. Cognitive control processes in the prefrontal cortex are activated
quickly, followed by a decrease in emotional responses in the amygdala. This suggests that both
cortical and subcortical processes are crucial for successful reappraisal.
While these studies provide insight into the complexity of emotion regulation, more research is
needed to determine whether the cognitive processes involved in reappraisal are the same as
those used in complex cognitive tasks. Additionally, stronger evidence is needed to establish
causal links between prefrontal activation and reduced amygdala activity. For example, using
transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to inhibit prefrontal cortex activity could help test this
causal relationship.
References:
• Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. (2010). Cognitive psychology: A student’s handbook.
• Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review.
Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299.
• Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford University Press.