1 results
14 - The Affect System
-
- By John T. Cacioppo, University of Chicago, Jeff T. Larsen, Texas Tech University, N. Kyle Smith, Ohio Wesleyan University, Gary G. Berntson, Ohio State University
- Edited by Antony S. R. Manstead, University of Cambridge, Nico Frijda, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Agneta Fischer, Universiteit van Amsterdam
-
- Book:
- Feelings and Emotions
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 05 April 2004, pp 223-242
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
ABSTRACT
The structure of affective space has been debated for more than fifty years. According to the model of evaluative space (Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994; Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1997), the common metric governing approach/withdrawal is generally a single bipolar dimension at response stages that itself is the consequence of multiple operations, such as the activation function for positivity (appetition) and the activation function for negativity (aversion), at earlier affective processing stages. Accordingly, affective space can be bipolar or bivariate depending on specific circumstances. We further extend the model by reviewing evidence for coactivated emotional states and component processes underlying affect, emotion, and feeling. Two different event-related brain components that reflect implicit affective processing provide specific information on the general location and timing of component affective processing.
Not long ago, the camera was a metaphor for memory, the computer for the brain. Memory, however, does not activate a stored depiction of the event but rather reconstructs the event (Loftus, 1979; Roediger & McDermott, 2000). Contrary to the doctrine of rationality, the inferences drawn from facts (e.g., syllogisms) are not coldly calculated conditional probabilities but a calculus shaped in part by wishful thinking (McGuire, 1981). People do not weigh evidence objectively but generally exercise a confirmatory bias. For example, disagreeing parties who receive mixed messages containing evidence for and against each party's position tend to polarize rather than moderate their attitudes (Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979).