It has to be taken Into account that emotions, as evaluative processes of different types, are mostly automatic. In the case of humans, however, emotions are also partly based on deliberative thinking and reflection. Purely affective reactions arise as a consequence of subtropical mechanisms. This means that some emotions are automatic and based on uncontrolled, and even unconscious premises. On the other hand, evaluation can be due to reflective Judgments, based on concepts that allow an understanding of what is positive or negative in reality. This understanding is not only from one’s own point of view but also from a general point of view.
Moreover, it is an understanding not only related to the present but also to the past or future (anticipated) reality. In this type of specifically human emotions, affects are provoked as a consequence of deliberative appraisals. The author postulates the categorization of the negative and the positive emotions, referring to different automatic and reflective sources. These sources are: (1) affective (homeostasis and hoedown)?leading to automatic emotions, and conceptual (concepts Maria Acrimony is a professor in the Department of Psychology at the university of Warsaw.
Kananga, 2007; Lazarus, 1991; Eluded, 1996, 2012; Instead, Afraid, and Fischer, 2004; Nineteenth, 2007; Reworks, 1989; Russell, 2003; Cajon, 1980). The same reality can be evaluated as good or bad, and evoke positive or negative emotion, depending on the type of processes involved in the evaluation. Our studies on emotions are related to the assumption that the mechanisms underlying emotional processes can be generated in two evaluative systems: automatic and reflective Aromatics, 2001 , Bibb).
This approach is due to an old distinction between “heart and mind” bases of unman functioning and to the contemporary idea of the duality of human regulatory mechanisms: impulsive versus deliberative (Epstein, 1990; Lieberman, 2003; Struck and Deutsche, 2004; Warwick, 2009). The aim of this article is to discuss the question: What are the bases of automatically triggered emotions, and what are the premises of specifically human emotions due to the reflective activity of the mind? Automatic vs.. Afflictive bases of emotions The same feelings can have different sources. One can be happy eating something tasty, getting news about the failure of an enemy, or organizing help for poor children. One can be disappointed by a low income or be worried about the future of the world. The same situation can be evaluated negatively or positively depending on whether someone is in a good or a bad mood. The same aim can be viewed as worthy or unworthy from the point of view of purely affective feelings or reflective reasoning.
The latter can be based on a great variety of standards that differ among individuals and in various cultures and societies. 11 According to Reworks (1985), we have to distinguish between two main types of emotions: (1) automatic affective reactions, and (2) evaluative Judgments. An affective reaction is characterized by an automatic arousal of feeling, expression, and behavioral consequences. Such emotions appear immediately, even if we do not know why something is pleasant or unpleasant.
Evaluative Judgment is a form specific to human beings. It ascribes a certain degree of positivist or negativity to phenomena. A subject has an idea why he/she evaluates something as negative or positive. The majority of evaluative processes are automatic, uncontrolled? unconscious or conscious (Barge, 1997; Bridge and Winemaker, 2003; Damasks, 1994). Even unconscious, they strongly influence explicit Judgments (Colonelcy, 1999; Murphy and Cajon, 1993; Ohm, 2007).
However, some Judgments are due to deliberative thinking (Ulster, 1999; Goldberg, 1984; Pigged, 1965; Reworks, 1989). An important question arises: What is the basis of the deliberative Judgments leading to joy or sadness, hope or pessimism? Deliberative evaluation implies the involvement of cognitive processes and the use of articulated criteria of what is negative versus positive: the use of so-called cognitive, conceptual standards of evaluation Recklessly ) IT so, we nave to ask winner sun cognitive, articulate standards of evaluation originate.
Reworks (1985) indicates four categories of sources of evaluative standards: (1) states of an organism?due to biological needs and hedonistic preferences; (2) internalized social norms; (3) cognitive schemata?as a basis of what is typical or strange, normal or abnormal, and so on; and (4) axiological factors: abstract concepts of good and evil, leading to a more or less intuitive understanding of the meaning of Justice, liberty, humanity, and so on.
In other words, averse evaluative standards depend on (1) states of the body, (2) norms shared by a given society, (3) cognitive representation of the “correct” and “normal” reality, and (4) abstract concepts related to superior values. Evaluative standards?the basis of emotions?are more or less conscious and articulated (verbalized) by a subject (Scorcher, Score, 12 and Johnston, 2001). Fear or disgust (due to innate or learned dispositions) can rise as an immediate reaction, without conscious cognitive analysis of the situation (Eluded, 1996). Shame implies the perception of a negative Judgment of one’s own behavior by others.
Some types of Jealousy arise as a result of comparing one’s own state or situation with the state or situation of others, and a conclusion that one’s own state is worse (Azaleas, 1998). Among the articulated standards, special importance must be ascribed to the distinction between standards of normal as opposed to ideal states of reality (Reworks, 1979). A perceived discrepancy between an actual state and the standard of a normal state gives rise to defensive and preventive motivations to maintain or restore equilibrium (Capitol and Gardner, 1999).
In contrast, a perceived discrepancy between an actual state and the tankards related to ideals gives rise to hope and creativity, and stimulates personal development and growth (Higgins, 1987; Clicked, 1997; Rogers, 1961; Snyder, 2000). The category of standards and their verbal versus nonverbal forms leads to different consequences. How can we classify and distinguish automatically aroused emotional processes that are elicited “bypassing the will” and self-control, and processes that depend on the subject’s understanding of what is good or bad? The automatic type of evaluation and the reflective one are based on different criteria.
The automatic affective) system is much less diverse and flexible than a cognitive one. The reflective (conceptual) system, based on the subtle differentiation of evaluative standards, requires more complex information processing. Automatic negative and positive emotions At first, unconditional stimuli lead to unconditional emotional reactions (e. G. , expressions of fear or disgust). Reactions are not intermediated by any feeling. The cry of a newborn can be an unconditioned reaction to some processes generated in survival circuits, without any subjective experience.
Very quickly, and in snowball cushion, neutral stimuli and responses are conditioned and our repertory of sensory stimulations evoking emotional reactions increases. Conditioning later in life also goes unnoticed: laboratory research demonstrates the conditioning of subliminal, unconscious stimuli (?human and Soared, 1998). Various stimuli acquire implicit meaning and become a source of avoidance or approach, even if the individual does not feel pleased or displeased. Other stimuli are part of conscious experience.
If we want to know what is originally attractive or repulsive, pleasant or unpleasant, we must refer to both intrinsic and extrinsic sources of automatically elicited emotions: (1) internal (primary vs.. Secondary) drives and needs, which derive from the violation or reinstatement of biological and psychological homeostasis, and (2) external incentives, which derive from the aversive or hedonistic nature of the stimuli. Both these ranges of functioning underlie behaviors that in some people almost complete their repertory of regulators (when the reflective evaluative system is poorly developed).
Homeostasis bases of emotional reactions Emotions originally play adaptive functions in dealing with basic biological needs and external challenges. The primary emotions are related to biological homeostasis (Damasks, 1994; Eluded, 1996; Russell, 2003). Corporal disequilibrium, famine, or physical pain lead immediately to threat, fear, or anger, and a motivation to reduce tension. Determination is particularly strong, because of the need for gratification (Capitol and Gardner, 1999; Plutarch, 1980). However, not only states of the organism but also the individual’s psychological well-being are regulated in a similar ?homeostasis? way.
Colonization leads to new types of needs: psychological needs ?a basis for psychological homeostasis (Cannon, 1932). The deprivation of needs for safety, social belonging, and acceptance (Moscow, 1954) leads to negative emotions (e. G. , a feeling of social rejection or disapproval), and similar consequences, pushing a subject to search for gratification. If reinforcement is not available (as when a person is not able to elicit sympathy 14 from others) psychological suffering is often reduced through ego defense mechanisms and not through real actions (Freud, 1966).
When one cannot have another’s love, one finds solace in thinking that the partner is a “despicable creature. When one has compromised oneself, one attributes one’s own failures to external circumstances. In both cases?biological and psychological homeostasis needs?the positive emotions are evoked only at the moment of gratification. The negative emotions dominate over the positive ones (Tit et al. , 1998; Acrimony and Bar-Tall, 2006). Reduction of pain, anxiety, or disapproval restore homeostasis. Serenity, relief, and comfort are typical positive emotions of this type.
But such a state of Joy and happiness is short. The reactive emotions end the emotional process and reduce the activity. Thus, the homeostasis mechanisms of regulation are related to so-called positive-negative asymmetry (Peters Ana chaplains, AY): to ten malevolence AT negative over positive emotions. The principal function of homeostasis regulation is to gratify the basic needs. Gradually, the repertory of human needs extends beyond these adaptive and defensive functions. We may begin to display greed, seek expansion in order to boost our power, to gain social recognition and admiration.
We may respond to deprivation of these new needs with Jealousy, envy, or triumph. Hedonistic bases of emotional reactions Another category of automatically rising motions is due to a universal, innate, inborn ability to react to external stimuli. We do not know why water lilies in bloom give us pleasure whereas the proximity of a rubbish dump is displeasing. Certain sensory stimuli are unconditional sources of pleasure or disgust. Some visual, oral, tactual, gustatory, olfactory incentives cause displeasure. Horrible noise, stench, ugliness, and so on lead to repulsion, revulsion, repugnance.
Such feelings cause avoidance behavior. If this type of defense is not possible, reduction of tension is achieved through habituation. Some stimulus caching receptors automatically elicit 15 feelings of beauty in forms, colors, smells, sounds, tastes, and flavors. These types of feelings cause approach behavior. Hedonistic pleasure is one of the basic mechanisms pushing a subject toward the external world. Both negative and positive hedonistic sources of emotions are less determinative than homeostasis ones. External incentives cause anticipation of a given type of impressions and feelings.
This period of anticipation gives a moment of opportunity to control one’s own behavior. Some external stimulus plays the role of a natural source of emotion, without the mediation f cognitive processes. But hedonistic sensitivity develops over a whole lifespan, and stimuli that have previously been unpleasant can become a source of great pleasure. Such transformation can be due to a motivation toward sensation seeking, or due to the reflective processes leading to novel types of activities and new types of experienced pleasure (like classical music or objects of art).
On the nonspecific regulatory characteristics of the automatic emotions Cajon (1980) noticed that primary affects (generated regardless of conscious?explicit?cognition) have some very important characteristics. They are not only a source of uncontrolled reaction, leading to immediate?defensive or adaptive?consequences. They are also diffuse: they “spill over” and dominate the evaluation of all attributes of a given context, even those that are irrelevant and unconnected with the source of a particular emotion (if somebody provokes anger, irritation can also be associated with his/her relatives or child).
Eluded (2012, p. 663) uses the notion of “generalized arousal … Recruiting widespread areas into the service of the immediate situation, monopolizing and/or synchronizing brain resources. This notion seems to be relevant as the explanatory concept, related to the diffusiveness of primary emotions. Even unconscious emotions have a diffuse effect (such as mood) on the individual’s approach to various (also irrelevant) elements of the situation (Murphy and Cajon, 1993; Ohm, 2007).
As a consequence, evaluate holistic, and at the same time homogeneous: everything is either “black” or “hi Moreover, because of the holistic type of activation, the individual is completely certain of his or her own Judgments, and incapable of questioning them (as we when we are in a state of any fanatic engagement). When one is angry, one may the first person one meets. Erotic tension can lead one to bestow one’s affection upon somebody one would never even think of if one were in a different psychological frame of mind (Wooziness, 1993).
Anxiety can lead to affiliation an sexual attraction to an unknown person (Dutton and Aaron, 1974; Catheter, 195 Reflective negative and positive emotions Obviously, our minds are different. Fee and thinking are the bases of this differentiation. Thinking is essential if new evaluative standards are to develop, and with them?new sources of concern a feelings, Joy or sorrow. Human beings can begin to worry about the future of the environment and the planet?a new type of emotions, quite absent in the esp. reactive primary, automatic emotions.
If they are to be aroused, one must ask questions and seek answers; one must reflect upon the meaning of various ago activities. Humans have the ability to evaluate the meaning of different aspects reality, due to the intellectual basis of thinking (Holyoke and Morrison, 2005) an development of the reflective evaluative system Aromatics, 2001 ; Struck and Deutsche, 2004). On the basis of intellectual and linguistic capacities, a person is o articulate concepts, to recognize and to define different attributes of objects, aspects of situations or properties of different states, and to evaluate them.
Such abilities lead to generalization of one’s own experience, to the formation of abs concepts and the achievement of meticulousness (Winemaker and Schools 2011). It permits one to understand an external (encountering) perspective, an anticipate the future, nonexistent but potential 17 states of reality. The latter allows people to create ideals and desired visions of better reality. In other words, the human mind is capable of evaluating reality Afflictive way, thanks to abstract concepts, connected with values (e. G. , “proper and evaluative standards (indicating that progress is something better than the status quo).
Such abstract evaluative standards cannot be reached without intellectual engagement, anticipation, thinking, and reasoning (Goldberg, 1984; 1965). The main condition necessary for the real influence of reflective standard human functioning is the individual’s mental activity. Such activity depends on her will to formulate questions about the meaning of the reality and to search f Dad’s to Terminate answers. When Lusciously ten conceptual standards AT Renville valuation, it is worth referring to Rookie’s (1979) important distinction between standards related to one’s own person and standards related to the external world: self vs.. Ended-self standards. The latter involve one’s own standing visit–visit what is good for other people and the world in general. Also, the “beyond-self” standards make it possible to perceive other people’s needs from the perspective of an object, the so-called egocentric perspective (Skywards, 1982; Stutter, 2005). On this basis, we suggest two categories of mechanisms that evoke negative and positive reflective motions: (1) self-standards, and (2) general abstract axiological standards.
They rest upon the individual’s understanding of what is negative and what is positive in reference to one’s own person, and what is the meaning of good and evil in general. Self-standards as a source of emotions of conceptual origin Psychologists representing different theoretical orientations have devoted much attention to the regulative consequences of formation of the cognitive schemata of the real and ideal self (Bandmaster, 1987; Code, 1975; Decide and Aryan, 2002; Greenland and Partisans, 984; Acrimony, 1993; Markus and Stigmata, 1991; 18 Rogers, 1961; Skidded and Crosslink, 2003; Tester, Felon, and Souls, 2000).
Processes of comparisons between the real and the ideal self are considered very important for personality development and self-realization. The discrepancy or coherence between the two forms of the self lead to negative and positive emotions. Some authors emphasize that internal reinforcements (self-disapproval or self- acceptance) are much more salient and meaningful for a person than external rewards and punishments. However, it has to be taken into account that personal tankards and aspirations are based primarily on social norms and expectations. We have to be helpful, polite, and sociable.
The initialization of such norms is a basis of the feeling of pressure (see the Freudian concept of superego). The connection of the self with such norms leads to the formation of the ought self (Higgins (1987)?a subsystem of the self structure that we have to distinguish from the ideal self. The latter is related to personal aspirations, accepted as guiding rules of one’s own behavior. Ideal personal standards are accepted by a subject regardless of social norms (social expectations). According to Higgins (1987), these two forms of the desired self lead to different emotions.
A discrepancy between the actual (“real”) self and the ought self produces threat and anxiety. A person feels shame, embarrassment, remorse, grief, and guilt. A discrepancy between the actual self and the ideal self leads to passive, depressive emotions, such as sadness and disappointment. Realization of the self standards leads to positive emotions, which also differ depending on the type of standards. Self-satisfaction is lower in the case of realization of ought self standards than in the case of the ideal self standards.
Ideal self-realization leads to the enhancement of self-esteem, self-acceptance, and self-respect. Self standards may follow from higher values. It is possible, however, to go Deanna ten Internal, personal, egocentric perspective Dye developing cataracts concepts of good and evil?the axiological concepts referring to higher values. People can be happy or sad not only when reflecting on bygone times or thinking about their current lives, but also when thinking about different people, different cultures, and civilizations. 9 Axiological standards as a source of emotional reactions People can experience Afflictive emotions not only if they have developed in their minds aspirations and visions of themselves, but also if they have developed abstract concepts leading them to distinguish between good and evil in general. When these concepts are present, they become a source of many new qualities of emotions?mainly positive ones, because the pursuit of good is more likely to attract the thinking man or woman’s attention than is the pursuit of evil.
By reflecting, one can not only begin to notice the shortcomings and faults of existing ways of life but also to create new visions of the oral order (Goldberg, 1984; Clicked, 1997; Pigged, 1965; Reworks, 1979). If these visions are attractive, one can also pursue new forms of activity. The graves of enemies, conditions of animals, of the planet, of the universe can be subjects of reflection, worries, hope, and actions (Baton, 1991; Hoffman, 1979; Reworks, 1989).
Thanks to reflective standards of evaluation we can be open, candid, unconditionally loving (without conditions such as sharing the same faith, belonging to the same nation or party). A discrepancy between axiological standards and reality leads to linings of sadness, sorrow, and pity. In the case of coherence of axiological standards and reality, we can feel moved and touched, feel Joy and happiness. The subject of this experience depends on a personal conceptualization of higher values such as humanism, liberty, and Justice. Axiological standards depend on the individual’s understanding of such abstract concepts.
The same abstract concepts are constantly being reformulated. This is because they are merely heuristics for conduct. It takes conceptual effort to discover their concrete referents. This is how new ideas about improving the world are shaped. The world is in a constant state of flux because human minds are forever generating new standards and understandings of abstract concepts. For example, directives stating the right thing to do in the realm of social Justice were quite different in the nineteenth century from what they are in the twenty-first century (Pinker, 2011). 0 Specific properties of reflective emotions It is worth noting that although abstract axiological concepts have played a significant role in the history of mankind, psychologists have often overlooked them (and they are almost completely nonexistent In experimental sinology). I Nils may De Decease superior values are often intuitively accepted, insofar as they are represented in the mind simply as labels with no conceptual base. In such cases, standards are not deeply cognitively processed. “Good” and “bad” mean in fact “pleasant” and “unpleasant. Emotions that have a conceptual basis have some specific properties. The crucial one is due to the heterogeneity of cognitive appraisals. Based on cognitive analyses, affective reactions are precisely connected with the selected attributes of a given situation and elicited as a consequence of an articulated appraisal. That is why we are able to perceive good and bad sides of the same object, and the affective consequences of heterogeneity appraisal are not diffusive (I. E. , do not influence the evaluation of irrelevant elements of a current situation).
We are able to separate someone’s virtues and faults, mistakes and contributions. Axiological emotions do not lead immediately to a particular kind of behavior such as negative or positive emotions evoked by homeostasis and hedonistic mechanisms. This inability to immediately lead to a particular kind of behavior is because ideals as such, can never be completely legalized, and do not evoke such expectations. On the other hand, such mechanisms are a necessary condition allowing for the formation of transgression aims?aims not reduced to the maintenance of equilibrium, but related to long-term goals.
Conclusions We define emotions as any type of evaluative processes?including those elicited in survival circuits, leading directly to automatic unconscious reactions (Eluded, 2012). The main psychological factors that determine the differentiation of properties of emotions are related to the sources of affect: internal versus external, ensure 21 versus conceptual, conscious or unconscious, spontaneous or based on deliberative thinking Aromatics, AAA, Bibb). It should be noted that the main issue in psychological studies of the role of emotions concerns the valence: the distinction between negative and positive emotions.
It is worth distinguishing among the negative and positive emotions of different origin, based on different mechanisms and leading to different consequences. Negative automatic versus negative reflective emotions, and positive automatic versus positive reflective emotions play different ejaculatory roles?as we try to demonstrate in empirical studies. A comparison of negative automatic and positive reflective emotions, or positive automatic and negative reflective emotions, can produce misleading conclusions of research.
Future studies should focus on the interactive effects relating the valence of emotions to their type of origin. From a psychological perspective, it seems to be especially important to study emotions of automatic versus reflective origin: emotions that “bypass the will” and even awareness versus emotions that arise due to deliberative appraisals of objects, states, events, and a sense of life. It seems especially necessary in psychological studies to focus more on specifically human emotions?that is, the reflective emotions.