can someone complete this assignment for me?

Emotion Review Additional services and information for           http://emr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:   http://emr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:   http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:   http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:   http://emr.sagepub.com/content/2/4/363.refs.html Citations:   What is This?  - Oct 12, 2010 Version of Record >> by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from Emotion Review Vol. 2, No. 4 (October 2010\)) \f6\f–\f70 \b 2010 SAGE Publications and The International Society for Research on Emotion ISSN 1754-07\f9 DOI: 10.1177/175407\f9\)10\f74661 er.sagepub.com The Many Meanings/Aspects of E\fotion: Definitions, \bunctions, Activation, and Regulation Carroll E. IzardDepartment of Psy\fhology\b University of Delaware\b USA Abstract Many psychological scientists and behavioral neuroscientists affirm that “emotion” influences thinking, decision-making, actions, social relationships, well-being, and physical and mental health. Yet there is no consensus on a definition of the word “emotion,” and the present data suggest that it cannot be defined as a unitary concept. Theorists and researchers attribute quite different yet heuristic meanings to “emotion.” They show considerable agreement about emotion activation, functions, and regulation. The cen- tral goal of this article is to alert researchers, students, and other consumers of “emotion” research to the multiple meanings or aspects that distinguished scientists attribute to ”emotion,” increase appreciation of its interesting and challenging complexity, and sharpen perspectives on “emotion” and the associated body of literature that is of critical significance to science and society.

Keywords activation, emotion, functions, regulation Over the past three decades, emotion, its neural su\fstrates, activation, regulation, and functions have \fecome hot topics in many areas of psychology and related disciplines\b Only three decades ago, however, it was difficult to find \fooks and empir - ically \fased journal articles on emotion\b Now we have a cornu - copia of emotion \fooks—amazon\bcom has 347,272 titles, and it is not unusual for a university li\frary to have more than 400 scholarly \fooks on the topic\b Today there are at least five scien- tific journals with “emotion” 1 in their titles and there are many more that pu\flish research on emotion, resulting altogether in 2,732 articles in the past decade\b There appears to \fe more agreement on the significance of emotion and much greater acceptance of its place in science than was evident 25 years ago\b Yet there is still no consensus on a definition of “emotion,” and theorists and researchers use “emotion” in ways that reflect different meanings and functions\b Over a quarter of a century ago, researchers compiled a list of 92 definitions of “emotion” and nine skeptical statements a\fout “emotion” from text\fooks and journals (Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981)\b On the \fasis of the prominence of identified phenomena or theoretical issues, they sorted the definitions into 11 catego - ries: affective (phenomenal) experience, cognitive, physiological, emotion/expressive \fehavior, disruptive, adaptive, multiaspect, restrictive, motivational, and skeptical statements a\fout the util - ity and status of the word “emotion” in science\b Though some skepticism may always \fe useful, it cannot negate the progress scientists have made during the 56 years since Skinner (1953) declared that emotions are among the fictional causes to which we commonly attri\fute \fehavior\b Though incompati\fle with some interpretations of Skinner’s stance, the data presented in this article raise questions a\fout the possi\fle inconsistencies, confusion, and costs to science and society should researchers fail to specify the meaning that they attri\fute to the word “emo - tion” or to the aspect of emotion under consideration\b To accomplish the goals of this article, the author \fegan \fy asking outstanding scientists who have done significant research Author note: I am grateful to \f5 distinguished scientists who provided the data for this article and some helpful comments. Thanks to Brian Ackerman, Roger Kobak, Julie Hubbard, Richard Feltman, Judith Morgan, and Kristy Finlon, who participated in the qualitative analyses of the data, to Jeffrey Rosen for many conversations on brain and emotion, and to Fran Haskins, Stephanie Kraut-Hammer Ewing, Sarahfaye Heckler, and Jenny Anderson for their help in organizing the data and in the preparation of this article. Elizabeth Woodburn and Kristy Finlon were especially helpful in suggesting clarifications for the text. Special thanks to Phoebe Ellsworth for a very helpful response to an overview of the manuscript. This work was supported by grants 5R21MH06844\f and R01MH080909 from the National Institute of Mental Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Mental Health or the National Institutes of Health.

Corresponding author: Carroll E. Izard, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA. Email: [email protected] SPECIAL\fSECTION\b\fON\fDEFINING\fEMOTION by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from \f64 Emotion Review Vol. 2 No. 4 on emotion to answer six questions on its nature\b Hopefully, highlighting their different conceptualizations \l of “emotion” will sharpen our understanding of the construct and its aspects, and help in understanding the extant literature and framing future research\b Method Four sets of data were o\ftained\b The first set consists of scien- tists’ answers to a six-item survey on the definition, activation, and functions of emotion and topics for future research\b The second set is the author’s qualitative analysis of the scientists’ responses\b The third set consists of qualitative analyses of the scientists’ responses \fy two to five independent judges \flind to the identity of the participants\b The fourth data set consists of the scientists’ ratings on a three-item questionnaire on the status and future of the unmodified and noncontextualized 2 noun “emotion\b” Communications with participating scientists and the collection of data were via email\b Parti\fipants Distinguished scientists were selected to represent each of the various disciplines and specialties concerned with emotion theory and research\b Of those who agreed to participate (35 of the 37 who were selected), eight are female, and the group as a whole represents four nationalities\b They include a mem\fer of the National Academy of Sciences, winners of the APA Award for Distinguished Scientific Contri\fution, past presidents of APS, two scientist philosophers, and holders of endowed chairs at leading universi\lties\b They represent \fehavioral and cognitive neuroscience, computational cognitive science (artificial intelligence/ro\fotics), \l and clinical, cognitive, developmental, and social psychological science\b All of them have international reputations and have made significant contri\futions to research in the emotion domain\b They include authors of several fre - quently cited emotion theories\b Although they represent multi- ple disciplines, theoretical positions, and lines of research, they are \fy no means a statistically representative sample or an exhaustive list of distinguished emotion researchers\b The judges who did the qualitative analyses of the scien - tists’ statements on the definition, activation, and primary function of “emotion” are one cognitive scientist, two clinical scientists, one clinical psychologist practitioner, and a postdoc - toral fellow and two doctoral candidates in the author ’s emotions research la\foratory\b Pro\fedure The author sent the following six-question survey to the 35 distinguished scientists: 1\b What is an emotion\l? 2\b What is the primar\ly function of emotio\ln? 3\b What activates an \lemotion? 4\b How is emotion mos\lt ef fectively regulated?\l 5\b Are there rapid, automatic, and unconscious connections among emotion, cog\lnition, and action\l? 6\b What is another question that we should raise for research and discussion? The author did an initial qualitative analysis looking for common structural and functional aspects attri\futed to “emotion” in the 34 scientists’ definitions\b In a follow-up question to the participating scientists, the author asked them to select a num- \fer on a scale from \l1 (Not at all) to 1\l0 (Completely) to in\ldicate the extent to which they agreed that each aspect identified was a structure or function of emotion\b A panel of two clinical scientists, one cognitive scientist, a clinical psychologist practitioner, a postdoctoral fellow, and two clinical science graduate students independently categorized the scientists’ definitions of “emotion\b” After the judges completed their initial qualitative analyses of the definitions, two of them completed a checklist that measured the extent to which the struc - tural and functional aspects of emotion identified \fy the author matched the contents of their categorical analyses\b The checklist items consisted of the aspects of emotion identified \fy the author plus three pseudo aspects\b These two judges were asked to place a plus sign \fy each author-identified aspect they could find in the scientists’ definitions, a second plus sign if they could find it in their own analysis of the scientists’ definitions, and a minus sign if they could not find the aspect\b Similar procedures were used in the qualitative analyses of the scientists’ answers to the questions on the activation and function of emotion\b Finally, the author sent an early draft of this article to all participating scientists and asked them to answer a three-item questionnaire on the current status and future use of the stand-alone noun “emotion” in the scientific literature\b Results Thirty-four of the invited scientists responded to the first three questions on the 2006 six-item questionnaire, 33 to the fourth, 35 to the fifth, and 31 to the sixth\b (A Microsoft Word docu- ment containing their ver\fatim responses to each question is availa\fle from the author\b) Several of the scientists expressed reluctance in attempting to answer the question calling for a definition of “emotion\b” Twenty-seven of the participants responded to the 2008 three-item follow-up questionnaire on the status and future of the unmodified and noncontextualized noun “emotion” in scientific literature\b Stru\ftures and Fun\ftions of Emotion in the Parti\fipating S\fientists’ Definitions The author’s initial qualitative analysis of common aspects in the 34 scientists’ definitions identified six concepts which he conceived as representing relatively more structural aspects and nine considered as relatively more functional aspects\b The par - ticipating scientists’ ratings showed moderate to high agree - ment that the structural and functional aspects identified \fy the author’s qualitative analysis of all 34 definitions were indeed structures and functions of emotion\b Ta\fles 1 and 2 display the results for the 24 who completed the ratings\b Independent Judges’ Qualitative Analysis of the S\fientists’ 34 Definitions Seven judges independently categorized the various aspects of the scientists’ definitions of emotion\b The results in Ta\fle 3 by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from Izard The Many Meanings/Aspe\fts of Emotion \f65 reveal little agreement among faculty mem\fers of a clinical sci- ence program on the num\fer and su\fstance of definitional aspects in the participating emotion scientists’ definitions\b There was su\fstantial agreement among the clinical science faculty mem\fer who generated the longest list of definitional aspects, the postdoctoral fellow, two graduate students in the author’s la\foratory, and the practicing clinical psychologist\b The num\fer of categories that these judges identified ranged from three to 11\b Using the list of categories derived \fy the judge who generated the largest num\fer of categories (11) as an ar\fi - trary \fase for comparison, the percentage of agreement \fetween the target list and the list of each of the other judges ranged from 0% to 54%\b The mean percentage agreement was 25%\b One of the two judges who checked whether the 15 structures and functions (see Ta\fles 1 and 2) of “emotion” identified in the author’s qualitative analysis of the scientists’ definitions (Ta\fles 1 and 2) were represented in the contents of her own qualitative analysis found complete agreement on 14 of those structures and functions and partial agreement on the 15th\b The other judge showed complete agreement on 13 of the 15 elements\b The S\fientists’ Des\friptions of the Fun\ftions of “Emotion” The author’s qualitative analysis of the 34 scientists’ responses led to the identification of six \froad and relatively distinct functions of “emotion” and a statement indicating that different emotions have different functions\b 1\b Interrupts/changes\l ongoing processing and focuses attention and dire\lction of responses\b\l 2\b M otivates cognition and action and provides emo - tion information (including evolutionarily conserved communi-cative signals) to guide and coordinate the engagement of the individual in the physical and social environment for coping, adaptation, affiliation, and well-\feing\b 3\b Increases (or decreases) salience or value of an event to facilitate adaptive (or maladaptive) associations \fetween context, event, em\lotion feeling, and \lresponse\b 4\b Contri\futes to emotion and \fehavior regulation, well- \feing, and the safeguarding of sensitivities and concerns\b 5\b Social signaling, c\lommunication\b 6\b Provides a neural (often conscious) workspace for assem\fling solutions under the influence of emotion feelings that may ra\lnge from mild to ur\lgent\b 7\b Dif ferent emotions and different structures of each emotion have different functions\b Table\f2. \f \fScientists’ agreement on the functions of “emotion” Functions Mean rating Recruits response systems 8.87 Motivates cognition and action 8.2\f Organizes, orders, coordinates responses 7.78 Monitors or assesses significance of events 7.77 Provides information or meaning 7.\f5 Relational 6.82 Social 6.\f8 Controls responses 6.22 Motivates behavior characterized primarily as approach or withdrawal 4.96 Note : Mean ratings of degree of agreement on a scale from 1 (Not at all) to 10 (Completely). Table\f3. \f \fJudges’ agreement on the aspects of participating scientists’ definitions of “emotion” Agreement of other judges with judge A Aspects identified by judge A BCD EF G Organized set of responses √√ Physiological component √√ √ Behavioral or expressive component √√ Subjective feeling component √√ √ Cognitive component √√ Appraisal processes Motivational function or action impulse √√ Adaptive or coping function √√ May be unconscious √ Brain-related Each emotion is different Note: Judges A, B, and C are clinical-science faculty members. Judges D, E, F, and G are a practicing clinical psychologist, a postdoctoral fellow, and two clinical-science graduate students in the author’s laboratory respectively.

Table\f1. Scientists’ agreement on the structures of “emotion” Structures Mean rating Neural systems dedicated at least in part to “emotion” processes 8.92 Response systems 8.61 Feelings or feeling state 7.84 Expressive behavior, signaling system 6.56 Antecedent cognitive appraisal 6.54 Cognitive interpretation of a feeling state 4.79 Note: Mean ratings on degree of agreement on a scale from 1 (Not at all) to 10 (Completely). by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from \f66 Emotion Review Vol. 2 No. 4 Comparison of the author’s analysis to that of each of four of the judges showed that the judges identified all of the emotion functions in the foregoing list except num\fer seven, which proved to \fe unique\b Three additional emotion functions were identified \fy the judges: influencing appraisal processes, self-monitoring, and self-growth\b The S\fientists’ Des\friptions of the A\ftivators of Emotion The author’s qualitative analysis of the scientists’ responses identified six categories of phenomena that activate emotion or a change from one’s ongoing emotion experience to another\b 1\b I nnate and classically conditioned stimuli and other events/ situations that pr\lesent challenges or\l opportunities\b 2\b C ognition, including memories, images, and appraisal processes\b 3\b Social interactions\l and af filiation\b 4\b Goal-related activi\lties\b 5\b Ongoing emotion–co\lgnition interactio\lns\b 6\b S pontaneous changes in neuro\fiological systems/processes\b The first judge also found six categories of activators which were essentially identical in su\fstance to those of the author\b The second judge identified four relatively \froad categories which also had essentially the same overall content as those of the first judge and the author\b The S\fientists’ Des\friptions of Pro\fesses in Emotion Regulation The author’s qualitative analysis of the scientists’ answers to how emotion is most effectively regulated revealed seven cate - gories of processes\b The participating scientists also noted that different discrete emotions may involve or require different regulatory processes (marked as num\fer eight)\b 1\b Spontaneous neural/neurophysiolo\lgical processes (e\bg\b, changes in levels o\lf hormones, neurotr\lansmitters)\b 2\b Other emotions (e\bg\b, interactions among emotions within the individual and emotion contagion in social situations)\b 3\b C ognitive processes, including executive functions (monitoring, effortful control, learning/training) reappraisal, and cognitive restructuring\b 4\b A daptive/constructive utilization of the energy and motivation derived from the neuro\fiological processes of the emotion itse\llf\b 5\b L earning and developmental processes that make effective emotion–response patterns a part of personality/charact\ler\b 6\b Social processes: social approval/disapprova\ll, use of shared social appraisals, seeking social support, emotion contagion\b 7\b Behavioral processes: managing expressive \fehavior, changing/shaping s\lituations, avoidan\lce\b 8\b Regulatory processes may differ for different discrete emotions\b Two independent judges categorized the scientists’ responses on how emotion is most effectively regulated (see Ta\fle 4)\b The first judge derived eight categories that were virtually identical in su\fstance to the author’s\b The second judge also derived eight categories\b Six of them were virtually identical in su\fstance to six corresponding categories derived \fy the other judge and the author\b The content of one of her two remaining categories was unique—environmental changes (including proactive selection)\b Are There Rapid\b Automati\f\b and Un\fons\fious Conne\ftions among Emotion\b Cognition\b and A\ftion?

All 34 scientists who replied to this question answered “yes” to affirm their \felief that there are rapid, automatic, and uncon - scious connections among emotion, cognition, and action\b Several added qualifiers or comments such as the following:

“Yes, also some slow, deli\ferate, and conscious connections …”; “Yes, \fut their nature is often misunderstood, as the con - nections are not \fetween stimuli, actions, and such, \fut \fetween the emergent meaning of sti\lmuli in context, ac\ltions in context”;\l “‘Action’ actually connotes just that fact, whereas there is not such an automatic relation with mere \fehavior, which lacks that purposeful aspect; they are pro\fa\fly the most important part of emotion”; “I would put the matter this way—yes to the feeling– cognition link; and yes there are such connections \fetween some actions and cognitions and feelings, although many actions are the products of conscious process (such as strategic means–ends thinking)\b” Parti\fipating S\fientists’ Topi\fs/Questions for Future Resear\fh Though there may \fe a unique element in each of the scientists’ questions for future theorizing and research, seven themes emerged and accounted for most of the information in the responses\b Each of the following themes suggests su\fstantial challenges and opportunities\b Interestingly, and perhaps indicative of the ro\fustness of current emotion research, the question on future research produced \la variety of su\fstan\ltially different responses\b Table\f4. \f \fJudges’ agreement on the processes in emotion regulation identified by emotion scientists Agreement of other judges with judge A Processes in regulation identified by judge A BC Spontaneous neural/neurophysiological processes √√ Inter- and intra-individual interactions among emotions √ Cognitive processes √ √ Adaptive/constructive utilization of emotion energy √ Learning and developmental processes √ √ Social processes √ Behavioral processes √ √ Different regulatory processes for different emotions √ √ Note: Judge A is the author. Judges B and C are a postdoctoral fellow and a clinical-science graduate student respectively. by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from Izard The Many Meanings/Aspe\fts of Emotion \f67 1\b Neural architecture of different emotions and emotion processes\b 2\b Development and change in emotion–cognition–\laction connections and re\llations\b 3\b Processes in emotion regulation and emotional reactivity and their relations to the development of emotion systems, social and emotion \lcompetence, and ps\lychopathology\b 4\b A dynamic systems perspective on emotion and emotional development\b 5\b Sex differences in emotion systems, emotion experiences, emotion–cognition–action sequences, and emotion-related personality traits \land psychopathology\b 6\b Relations \fetween e\lmotion and language\l\b 7\b W orking \foundary for a scientific concept of emotion, or a moratorium on its use as an unmodified or noncontextualized n\loun\b Responses to Three Questions on the Current Status and Future Use of “Emotion” Twenty-six of the participating scientists used the 10-point scale (1 = Completely disagree, 10 = Completely agree) to answer the three questions on the status and future of the term “emotion” in scientific writing (N = 27 for Question 2)\b The mean agreement rating was 6\b2 ( SD = 3\b3) for the statement that “emotion” is am\figuous and has no status in science, 8\b2 ( SD = 2\b6) for the idea that researchers should contextualize and make clear what they mean \fy “emotion,” and 6\b3 ( SD = 3\b6) for a\fandoning the unmodified singular noun “emotion\b” Discussion This look at scientists’ sometimes reluctant attempts to define “emotion” depicts it as highly complex, and su\fject to different interpretations\b At the same time, the scientists’ responses show that our understanding of emotion has come a long way since it was declared a category of fictional causes of \fehavior (Skinner, 1953; cf\b Panksepp, 1990)\b As expected, the participating scien - tists did not agree on a unitary definition of “emotion\b” However, of considera\fle significance for emotion science, they showed moderate to high agreement on the structures and functions of emotion\b The scientists’ responses clearly showed that “emotion” has several different meanings, all apparently heuristic\b The qualita - tive analyses of the participating scientists’ responses support the idea that “emotion” has several different aspects that have proved worthy targets of research\b The finding that the meanings of “emotion” are multiple does not imply that they are unrelated or that any two of them are orthogonal\b Indeed, they may \fe interpreted as aspects of emotion or of a particular discrete emotion\b The idea that emo - tion (or a specific emotion) is motivational does not necessarily conflict with the idea that it has particular neural su\fstrates and is informational, social, and relational, and monitors or assesses the significance of events, and may include appraisal processes and other forms of cognition\b Similarly, that emotion recruits response systems seems quite compati\fle with its functions in organizing, ordering, and coordinating or controlling responses\b Although many of the meanings/aspects of “emotion” have inspired empirical research, some of them may \fe understudied\b A possi\fle example is the cognitive and action consequences of the attention-gra\f\fing \land attention-focusing \laspect of emotion\b Attention-focusing temporarily pre-empts other aspects of cognitive processing and may facilitate a change in emotion experience, and thus in motivation and future cognition and action (Most, Scholl, Clifford, & Simons, 2005)\b A Des\fription of Emotion No succinct synthesis could capture everything in the 34 defini - tions of “emotion” given \fy the participating scientists\b These definitions defy complete synthesis, in part \fy virtue of their meaningful originality\b They represent ingenious insights and intellectual nuances from each scientist’s separate studies and o\fservations, often on different aspects of emotion\b The 34 scientists’ attempts to define “emotion” contained relatively distinct structures (six) and functions (nine)\b The structures and functions on which the scientists had a mean agreement score that rounded to 8 or higher (on a 10-point scale) help comprise the first sentence in the following descrip - tion of emotion, and those with a mean score of 5 or higher help comprise the second\b Emotion consists of neural circuits (that are at least partially dedicated), response systems, and a feeling state/process that motivates and organizes cognition and action\b Emotion also provides information to the person experiencing it, and may include antecedent cognitive appraisals and ongoing cognition including an interpretation of its feeling state, expressions or social-communicativ\le signals, and may motivate approach or avoidant \fehavior, exercise control/regulation \lof responses, and \fe social or relational in nature\b The foregoing noteworthy and highly pluralistic description of the structures and functions of emotion is not a definition\b The complexity of this description also suggests that confusion and other pro\flems in interpretation may arise from the use of the unmodified noun “emotion\b” However, this description contains several heuristic meanings/aspects of “emotion\b” Two findings from the current survey may represent nota\fle gains over the past three decades in our understanding of emo - tions or emotion processes\b Similar to an earlier survey on “emotion” (Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981), the present one found numerous categories of definitions\b However, in contrast to the 1981 survey, when only 32 of 92 (or 35% of) definitions were multicomponent or multiaspect, virtually all the current definitions were of this type\b Wide understanding and recogni- tion of the multiaspect nature of emotion among researchers may constitute a potentially significant change in approaches to emotion research and ultimately in emotion science\b The current study revealed another finding that may signal the emergence of an advance in emotion science\b In contrast to the definitions found \fy Kleinginna & Kleinginna (1981), many of those provided \fy the scientists who participated in the current study gave a definition of emotion that recognized by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from \f68 Emotion Review Vol. 2 No. 4 (a) neural circuits and neuro\fiological processes, (\f) pheno - menal experience or feeling, and (c) perceptual-cognitive processes as aspects of emotion\bIn reply to the email containing a draft of this article and a three-item (10-point scale) questionnaire relating to the status and future of the unqualified noun “emotion” in scientific research, the participating scientists showed wide individual dif - ferences (two selecting Option 1 and four selecting Option 10 to show complete agreement and complete disagreement, respec - tively)\b This finding seems to make it difficult or impossi\fle to conclude that “emotion” meets the standards of a scientific con - struct\b Though Gödel’s theorem reminds us that scientists often find it necessary to study indefina\fle or fuzzy concepts, the cur - rent group of scientists showed considera\fle concern a\fout the am\figuity and scientific status of the unqualified noun “emo - tion\b” Their ratings were a\fove the midpoint of the agreement scale on all three items that questioned the integrity of the term\b Their mean agreement of 8\b1 on the need to contextualize the noun “emotion” and specify the meaning \feing attri\futed to it seems to \fe a clear and helpful message for future research in the emotion domain\b It follows that researchers should also contex - tualize and specify the meaning of any discrete emotions under consideration\b Taking these steps should enhance the clarity of future research in the emotion domain\b Until we follow such a path consistently, scientific studies of emotion and their transla - tion for pu\flic knowledge and practical applications may \fe at risk of misinterpretation and confusion\b Stronger Agreement on the Fun\ftions of Emotion The scientists’ responses contained a wide range of specific and general functions of emotion, \fut there was su\fstantial agreement among them\b Their responses are consistent with the proposition that emotions have multiple and quite significant functions in motivating and focusing individual endeavors, social interactions, and the development of adaptive and maladaptive \fehavior\b Our qualitative analyses suggest that in contrast to the pro\f- lem of defining “emotion,” there is rather high agreement on the functions of emotion\b The description of emotion functions con - tained common themes that can guide future research\b Although there was no question on the survey a\fout it, several of the par - ticipating scientists volunteered that different discrete emotions have different functions\b A\ftivation of Emotion There was su\fstantial agreement among the scientists’ descrip - tions of processes that activate emotion\b The description of each of these activators has a unique element or emphasis that can lead to distinct hypotheses for testing its validity\b Emotion Regulation The 33 scientists’ responses (only 33 of 34 scientists responded) were easily reduced to eight relatively distinct processes or techniques for emotion regulation (Ta\fle 4)\b Each of these pro cesses offers possi\filities for hypothesis testing relating to their parameters and validity\b The participating scientists also noted that different discrete emotions may involve different regulatory processes\b All the scientists agreed that there are rapid and automatic connections among emotion and cognition\b They also agreed that such processes may operate unconsciously (or perhaps more precisely at a level of awareness that is not accessi\fle for ver\fal report)\b Assumedly, these automatic and linguistically inaccessi\fle processes have implications for emotion activation, emotion regulation, and emotion utilization\b The scientists noted that there are innumera\fle conscious emotion–cognition \l connections as well\b Questions for Future Dis\fussion and Resear\fh The scientists raised seven relatively distinct and interesting topics for future discussion and research\b Regarding future research on the topic of the neural architecture of emotions, Sloman (A\b Sloman, personal communication, 19 Novem\fer, 2008) suggested adding the topic of an a\fstract information- processing architecture for all mental functions\b This notion may \fe quite appealing to the growing num\fer of scientists who postulate continuous interaction of emotion and cognition\b Extant research literature on emotions suggests that the first six of the seven identified topics are quite amena\fle to rigorous empirical research\b Toward\fGreater\fClarity\fin\fResearch\fon\fEmotion Taken together, the o\fservations of the scientists who contri\f - uted to this article make it clear that emotion functions are \froad and inclusive and its activators are numerous and pervasive\b “Emotion” as variously descri\fed \fy them is integral to adap - tive and maladaptive personal and social \fehavior, despite the current questiona\fle status of the unqualified term “emotion” in the scientific literature\b One path toward less semantic confu - sion in the literature is to stop using the noun “emotion” without contextualizing it, and providing a statement of the meaning or meanings assumed \fy the author\b A second and complementary approach to increase semantic precision in the emotion literature is to adopt a discrete emo - tions approach (as many now do), and identify each discrete emotion under consideration and provide for each a statement of the meaning assumed \fy the author (as many do not)\b A possi\fle advantage of this approach is that it should prove easier to define and provide an operational definition for a particular discrete emotion than for the general term “emotion\b” Such information is essential to replication of findings across la\fora - tories, which is relatively rare in the extant literature\b The dis - crete emotions approach does not preclude acknowledging that distinctions among emotions are often difficult \fecause of their frequent interactions and permea\fle \foundaries\b The discrete emotions approach toward resolving the pro\flems of the polyse - mous noun “emotion” received unsolicited explicit or implicit support from several participants in the present study\b The by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from Izard The Many Meanings/Aspe\fts of Emotion \f69 responses of several of the scientists noted that answers to the six questions posed in the present survey would differ for each discrete emotion\b Extant literature suggests that it is feasi\fle to qualify, contextualize, and define functionally discrete emotions like interest, joy, sadness, anger, fear, shame, and guilt\b Moreover, it shows that “emotion” works quite well as an adjec- tive\b For example, emotion knowledge, emotion regulation, emotion arousal, and emotion reactivity can \fe given opera - tional definitions in terms of the methods used to elicit and measure them\b Conclusion The evidence showing that “emotion” has no generally accepted definition seems a clarion call for researchers who continue to use the term to provide their own operational definition, or at least specify what they mean \fy the term\b The present article may suggest to some readers, that how rapidly and smoothly emotion science progresses will depend in part on the willing - ness of researchers to contextualize the term “emotion” or the la\fel for any of the discrete emotions under investigation, and specify the meaning attri\futed to it\b Future research on discrete emotions and their functions, and on emotion (when it can \fe appropriately contextualized and operationally defined), seems to hold unlimited promise for advancing psychological science\b Such research should continue to increase our understanding of the pervasive and perhaps con - tinuous influence of specific emotions or patterns of interacting emotions on thinking, learning, decision-making, action, and the development of social and emotion competence, personality, and psychopathology\b Notes1 Throughout this article, emotion refers to \frain and \fody processes, and “emotion” to a term in current terminology of emotion science\b 2 As used in this article, the idea of contextualizing the term emotion means giving descriptions of the factors which are present in the context (e\bg\b, of an experiment) that might influence the emotion process under consideration\b ReferencesKleinginna, P\b R\b, Jr\b, & Kleinginna, A\b M\b (1981)\b A categorized list of emotion definitions, with suggestions for a consensual definition\b Motivation and Emotion, 5, 345–379\b Most, S\b B\b, Scholl, B\b J\b, Clifford, E\b, & Simons, D\b J\b (2005)\b What you see is what you set: Sustained inattentional \flindness and the capture of awareness\b Psyc\fological R\bvi\bw, 112, 217–242\b Panksepp, J\b (1990)\b Can “mind” and \fehavior \fe understood without understanding the \frain?: A response to Bunge\b N\bw Id\bas in Psyc\fology, 8, 139–149\b Skinner, B\b F\b (1953)\b Sci\bnc\b and \fuman b\b\favior \b New York: Macmillan\b Appendix Readings Suggested by Parti\fipating S\fientists to Represent their Theoreti\fal Position or Resear\fh Campos, J\b J\b, Frankel, C\b B\b, & Camras, L\b (2004)\b On the nature of emotion regulation\b C\fild D\bv\blopm\bnt, 75, 377–394\b Clore, G\b L\b, & Ortony, A\b (2008)\b Appraisal theories: How cognition shapes affect into emotion\b In M\b Lewis, J\b M\b Haviland-Jones & L\b F\b Barrett (Eds\b), Handbook of \bmotions (3rd ed\b, pp\b 628–642)\b New York:

Guilford Press\b Cole, P\b M\b, & Hall, S\b E\b (2008)\b Emotion dysregulation as a risk factor for psychopathology\b In T\b Beauchaine & S\b Hinshaw (Eds\b), D\bv\blopm\bntal psyc\fopat\fology (pp\b 265–298)\b Ho\foken, NJ: Wiley & Sons\b Eisen\ferg, N\b, Sadovsky, A\b, Spinrad, T\b L\b, Fa\fes, R\b A\b, Losoya, S\b H\b, Valiente, C\b, et al\b (2005)\b The relations of pro\flem \fehavior status to children’s negative emotionality, effortful control, and impulsivity:

Concurrent relations and prediction of change\b D\bv\blopm\bntal Psyc\fology, 41 , 193–211\b Ellsworth, P\b C\b, & Scherer, K\b R\b (2003)\b Appraisal processes in “emotion\b” In R\b J\b Davidson, K\b R\b Scherer & H\b Goldsmith (Eds\b), Handbook of aff\bctiv\b sci\bnc\bs (pp\b 572–595)\b New York: Oxford University Press\b Folkman, S\b (2008)\b The case for positive “emotions” in the stress process\b Anxi\bty, Str\bss & Coping, 21, 3–14\b Fox, N\b A\b, Hane, A\b A\b, & Pine, D\b S\b (2007)\b Plasticity for affective neurocircuitry: How the environment affects gene expression\b Curr\bnt Dir\bctions in Psyc\fological Sci\bnc\b, 16, 1–5\b Fredrickson, B\b L\b, Cohn, M\b A\b, Coffey, K\b A\b, Pek, J\b, & Finkel, S\b M\b (2008)\b Open hearts \fuild lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, \fuild consequential personal resources\b Journal of P\brsonality and Social Psyc\fology, 95, 1045–1062\b Frijda, N\b H\b (2007)\b T\f\b laws of \bmotion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl\faum Associates\b Goldsmith, H\b H\b, Pollak, S\b D\b, & Davidson, R\b J\b (2008)\b Developmental neuroscience perspectives on emotion regulation\b C\fild D\bv\blopm\bnt P\brsp\bctiv\bs, 2, 132–140\b Hoffman, M\b L\b (2008)\b Empathy and prosocial \fehavior\b In M\b Lewis, J\b Haviland-Jones & L\b Feldman-Barrett (Eds\b), Handbook of \bmotions (3rd ed\b, pp\b 440–455)\b New York: Guilford Press\b Hu\f\fard, J\b A\b, McAuliffe, M\b D\b, Morrow, M\b T\b, & Romano, L\b J\b (in press)\b Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: Outcomes, processes, experiences, and measurement\b Journal of P\brsonality.

Izard, C\b E\b (2009)\b Emotion theory and research: Highlights, unanswered questions, and emerging issues\b Annual R\bvi\bw of Psyc\fology, 60 , 1–25\b Kagan, J\b (2008)\b W\fat is \bmotion? New Haven, CT: Yale University Pres\ls\b LeDoux, J\b E\b (2009)\b Emotional coloration of consciousness: How feelings come a\fout\b In L\b Weiskrantz & M\b Davies (Eds\b), Fronti\brs of consciousn\bss\b New York: Oxford University Press\b Levenson, R\b W\b (2004)\b Blood, sweat, and fears: The autonomic architec - ture of emotion\b In P\b Ekman, J\b J\b Campos, R\b J\b Davidson & F\b B\b M\b de Waal (Eds\b), Emotions insid\b out (pp\b 348–366)\b New York: The New York Academy of Sciences\b Lewis, M\b D\b (2005)\b Bridging emotion theory and neuro\fiology through dynamic systems modeling\b B\b\favioral and Brain Sci\bnc\bs , 28 , 169–245\b Lewis, M\b, & Michalson, L\b (1983)\b C\fildr\bn’s \bmotions and moods:

D\bv\blopm\bntal t\f\bory and m\basur\bm\bnt\b New York: Plenum Press\b Mayer, J\b D\b, Ro\ferts, R\b D\b, & Barsade, S\b G\b (2008)\b Human a\filities: Emotional intelligence\b Annual R\bvi\bw of Psyc\fology, 59, 507–536\b Panksepp, J\b (1998)\b Aff\bctiv\b n\burosci\bnc\b: T\f\b foundations of \fuman and animal “\bmotions\b” New York: Oxford University Press\b Roseman, I\b J\b (2008)\b Motivations and emotivations: Approach, avoidance, and other tendencies in motivated and emotional \fehavior\b In A\b J\b Elliot (Ed\b), Handbook of approac\f and avoidanc\b motivation (pp\b 343–366)\b New York: Psychology Press\b Roth\fart, M\b K\b (2008)\b B\bcoming w\fo w\b ar\b: T\bmp\bram\bnt, p\brsonality and d\bv\blopm\bnt\b Unpu\flished \fook\b Russell, J\b A\b (2003)\b Core affect and the psychological construction of “emotion\b” Psyc\fological R\bvi\bw, 110, 145–172\b Scherer, K\b R\b (2005)\b What are emotions? And how can they \fe measured? Social Sci\bnc\b Information, 44, 693–727\b by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from \f70 Emotion Review Vol. 2 No. 4 Shweder, R\b A\b, Haidt, J\b, Horton, R\b, & Joseph, C\b (2008)\b The cultural psychology of the emotions: Ancient and renewed\b In M\b Lewis & J\b Haviland-Jones (Eds\b), Handbook of t\f\b \bmotions (3rd ed\b, pp\b 409–427)\b New York: Guilford Press\b Sloman, A\b, Chrisley, R\b L\b, & Scheutz, M\b (2005)\b The architectural \fasis of affective states and processes\b In M\b Ar\fi\f & J\b-M\b Fellous (Eds\b), W\fo n\b\bds \bmotions?: T\f\b brain m\b\bts t\f\b robot (pp\b 203–244)\b New York: Oxford University Press\b Zahn-Waxler, C\b, & Ro\finson, J\b (1994)\b Empathy and guilt: Early origins of feelings of responsi\fility\b In K\b Fischer & J\b Tangney (Eds\b), S\blf- conscious \bmotions: S\fam\b, guilt, \bmbarrassm\bnt and prid\b (pp\b 143–173)\b New York: Guilford Press\b by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from