Emotion Review

http://emr.sagepub.com/

The Nature and Dynamics of Relevance and Valence Appraisals: Theoretical Advances and Recent
Evidence
Klaus R. Scherer
Emotion Review 2013 5: 150
DOI: 10.1177/1754073912468166
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://emr.sagepub.com/content/5/2/150

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Society for Research on Emotion

Additional services and information for Emotion Review can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://emr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://emr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Mar 20, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014

468166
2013

EMR5210.1177/1754073912468166Emotion ReviewScherer Relevance and Valence Appraisals

The Nature and Dynamics of Relevance and Valence

Appraisals: Theoretical Advances and Recent
Evidence

Emotion Review
Vol. 5, No. 2 (April 2013) 150162
The Author(s) 2013
ISSN 1754-0739
DOI: 10.1177/1754073912468166
er.sagepub.com

Klaus R. Scherer

Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Switzerland

Abstract
Appraisal theories of emotion have had a strong impact on the development of theory and experimental research in the domain
of the affective sciences. While there is generally a high degree of convergence between theorists in this tradition, some central
issues are open to debate. In this contribution three issues have been chosen for discussion: (a) varieties of relevance detection,
(b) varieties of valence appraisal, and (c) sequential-cumulative effects of appraisal results. In addressing these issues, new
theoretical ideas are suggested and an update of recent research on the sequence of appraisal processes is provided. Special
emphasis is placed on nonverbal signatures of appraisal processes.

Keywords
appraisal sequence, appraisal signatures, goal conduciveness, relevance detection, valence

Moors, Ellsworth, Scherer, and Frijda (2013) have surveyed a

number of central questions in appraisal theory that are open to
debate (see also Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003; Roseman & Smith,
2001). For this contribution, I have selected three issues for
closer scrutiny from the vantage point of my brand of appraisal
theory, the component process model (CPM; Scherer, 1984,
2001, 2009a): (a) varieties of relevance detection, (b) varieties
of valence appraisal, and (c) sequential-cumulative effects of
appraisal results. I will not attempt to survey the literature at
large, but will concentrate on theoretical development and
recent findings by our group (Geneva Emotion Research
Group). Before setting out, I define the technical terms used in
this article, in particular relevance and valence, and review the
essentials of the CPM.

and demonstrable bearing on the well-being of the individual,

pertinence as a rather concrete and strong or decisive type of
relevance, significance as indicative of the importance or quantity of consequences. Conducive is defined as tending to promote or assist, whereas obstructive signifies to block or close
up by an obstacle.
The term valence was introduced by Lewin (1938/1951),
who defined +valence as forces that attract and valence as
forces that repel people, in other words, differentiating good,
positive qualities from bad, negative qualities, as defined by
approachavoidance behavior tendencies (see also Sacharin,
Sander, & Scherer, 2012). I have argued that different types of
valence (Scherer, 2010) need to be distinguished and will defend
this view here.

Terminological Considerations

Description of the CPM

In what follows, the terms relevance, pertinence, significance,

and conduciveness will be copiously used. Even though the
words within this set are often seen as synonyms, I will not use
them interchangeably, but will use each with its own distinctive
meaning: relevance in the sense of an event having significant

Like most appraisal theories, the CPM is based on the assumption

that emotions are elicited and differentiated by the results of the
individuals evaluation of events according to a set of appraisal
criteria or stimulus evaluation checks (SECs). Table 1 shows the
set of SECs postulated by the CPM, organized into four major

Author note: This research was supported by an Advanced Grant of the European Research Council (ERC 230331 PROPERMO) to Klaus Scherer and the Swiss Center for Affective
Sciences. The author acknowledges pertinent comments by Marc Mehu, Marcello Mortillaro, Vera Sacharin, Katja Schlegel, and Jacobien van Peer.
Corresponding author: Klaus R. Scherer, Swiss Centre for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Rue des Battoirs 7, CH-1205 Geneva, Switzerland.
Email: Klaus.Scherer@unige.ch

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014

Scherer Relevance and Valence Appraisals 151

Table 1. Stimulus evaluation checks, organized in four groups, illustrated with typical features describing the event or the effects on the person
Stimulus evaluation checks

Event or behavior/person

Relevance
Novelty
Intrinsic pleasantness
Goal/need pertinence
Implications/consequences
Causal attribution
Outcome probability
Discrepancy from expectation
Goal/need conduciveness
Urgency
Coping potential
Control
Power
Adjustment
Norm compatibility
Internal standards
External standards

Event is sudden, familiar, unpredictable

Event is in itself un/pleasant for the person
Event is important and relevant for persons goals or needs

Event was caused by the persons own/somebody elses behavior/chance; caused un/intentionally
Consequences of the event are predictable
Event confirmed/is inconsistent with expectations
Consequences of the event are positive/negative for person
Event required an immediate response

Person can control the consequences of the event

Person has power over the consequences of the event
Person can live with the consequences of the event

Event incongruent with own standards and self-ideals

Event violated laws or socially accepted norms

Note: Adapted from Tables 1 and 4 in Scherer (2001).

thematic groups. The CPM assumes that these SECs exert their
effects on other emotion components in a sequential and cumulative fashion (see The Dynamics of Appraisal: Sequential Checking
section). Leventhal and Scherer (1987) proposed that each check
can be processed on different levels of information processing
(sensorimotor/schematic/conceptual) but that earlier checks,
mostly driven by intrinsic stimulus characteristics, tend to be
processed more easily and more rapidly at lower levels, whereas
checks involving external inference require processing at higher
levels. I have further developed the notion of levels of processing
and now postulate four such levels (entailing different neural structures and circuits): (a) a low sensorimotor level with a patternmatching mechanism that is largely genetically determined, using
criteria consisting of appropriate templates; (b) a schematic level,
based on memory traces from social learning processes and
occurring in a fairly automatic, unconscious fashion; (c) an association level, involving various cortical association areas, which
may occur automatically and unconsciously or in a deliberate,
conscious fashion; and (d) a conceptual level, involving propositional knowledge and underlying cultural meaning systems,
requiring consciousness and effortful calculations in prefrontal
cortical areas (see Scherer, 2009a, p. 1314).
The synchronization of the multicomponential response patterning driven by the appraisal results is seen as constitutive for
the emergence of a felt emotional experience that can, under
certain circumstances, be categorized and labeled by an established emotion term in the language spoken in the respective
culture (see Scherer, 2001, 2009a, for further detail).

Varieties of Relevance Detection

The central criterion for emotion-antecedent appraisal is the perceived relevance of the eliciting stimulus as a condition sine qua

non for emotion elicitation. The current version of the CPM proposes that novelty, intrinsic pleasantness, and pertinence for
goals or needs are the most important criteria for relevance
appraisal (Scherer, 2001), selecting stimuli that require further,
in-depth treatment. A series of studies in our laboratory (Aue &
Scherer, 2008, 2011; Gentsch, Grandjean, & Scherer, 2012; van
Peer, Grandjean, & Scherer, 2012; van Reekum etal., 2004) suggests that conceptual refinement is necessary in order to derive
specific hypotheses and, in particular, to model potential interaction effects between different sources of relevance appraisal.
In describing the central issue of personal relevance and goal
pertinence, appraisal theorists have mentioned different classes
of motivational variables such as tastes, needs, goals, values,
norms, self-esteem, and expectations. There has been little effort
to differentially define these partially overlapping concepts.
Such definitions are particularly important for an interdisciplinary area such as the affective sciences, given that differences in
the use of the same concept by scholars in different disciplines
(e.g., philosophers, psychologists, economists, and social scientists) tend to be the rule rather than the exception. Thus, one of
the major aims for appraisal theory is to further elucidate the
different relevance criteria, for example, determined by individual needs, values, and aspirations on the one hand and by social
expectations, norms, and conventions on the other.
As a first step toward further theoretical development, I suggest exploring the varieties of relevance detection in greater
detail and discussing potential research approaches. Traditionally,
relevance detection has been defined in the CPM as an evaluation of whether a stimulus deserves further processing because
of its bearing on our well-beingas determined by the results of
the checks for novelty, intrinsic pleasantness, and goal relevance
(see Table 1). These three subchecks are predicted to occur in
this order because of (a) the relative efficiency as a filter for

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014

152 Emotion Review Vol. 5 No. 2

attention, and (b) the respective ease and rapidity of the execution of the checks. The first two checks are amenable to very
rapid low-level processing, whereas the third one may require
somewhat higher levels of processing and thus more time.
To highlight the fact that the novelty check focuses on the
occurrence of an event (such as the appearance of an object,
manifestation of a behavior, or other events) rather than on its
quality (which is appraised by later checks), I suggest relabeling
it novelty occurrence check. Three subchecks have been postulated for the novelty checksuddenness, familiarity, and predictability. I surmise that the outcomes of the individual checks
integrate into a novelty continuum ranging from very high (sudden, unfamiliar, unpredictable) to very low (slow onset, familiar, highly predictable). I further suggest that the results of the
subchecks are stored in a constantly updated appraisal register
(see The Dynamics of Appraisal: Sequential Checking section
of this article and Scherer, 2009a). The degree of novelty is
likely to immediately determine the amount of attention devoted
to an event and the depth of further processing during the
subsequent checks.
The existence of a separate intrinsic un/pleasantness check
has been frequently debated in the literature, one critique being
that its outcome cannot be distinguished from the outcome of
the goal conduciveness/obstructiveness check. This argument
can be rejected based on both theoretical and empirical reasons.
Theoretically the central argument is that the un/pleasantness of
some stimuli is intrinsic to the stimulus, that is, that it does not
depend on the motivational state of the appraiser. Empirically,
the evidence reviewed in what follows shows (with replication
in several studies) that the two checks concerned can be manipulated independently, in an orthogonal design, and that significant differences in the ensuing response patterns are found. The
central argument in making the distinction is the focus on
the intrinsic quality of the stimulus, largely independent of the
motivational state of the appraiser or contextual factor. While I
have focused only on intrinsic un/pleasantness in the past,
I think that there are several classes of intrinsically relevant
stimuli, such as evolutionarily prepared threat-related (snakes,
spiders, anger expressions), reproduction-related (sex), tasterelated (sweetness), or nurturance-related (baby faces; Brosch,
Sander, & Scherer, 2007) stimuli, as well as strongly conditioned or highly overlearned stimulus classes from personal
learning history. I therefore propose changing the label of this
check to intrinsic relevance check, highlighting the central feature of the appraisal process: the readiness to respond, relatively
independently of motivational state or contextual factors, to particular classes of stimuli with given characteristics. This conceptualization provides a direct link to the large literature on
fear stimuli in which the notion of biological preparedness has
loomed large (see hman & Mineka, 2001). Clayton and Myers
(2009) have suggested the interesting concepts of biophilia and
biophobia, postulating the human need to adapt to the environment by approaching positive and avoiding negative aspects,
which is likely to have created an intrinsic, genetically-based
predisposition to associate with and depend on the natural environment. The renaming of this check to intrinsic relevance does

not imply any change in my earlier conceptualization of intrinsic un/pleasantness. It mainly extends the class of stimulus characteristics for which the appraisal is mostly driven by their
intrinsic quality rather than motivational or contextual factors. It
also does not mean that these stimuli are assumed to be exclusively treated on the lowest level of processing; rather, they may
also be processed on higher levels. For example, the appraisal of
the solution for a mathematical problem obviously requires conceptual processing, but the result can be determined by intrinsic
epistemic beauty and elegance.
Whereas novelty relevance is detected by expected occurrence and intrinsic relevance by specific types of stimuli, relevance criteria are much more complex for the third type of
relevance check, which concerns what one might call motivational relevance classes. These do not consist of specific classes
of stimulus types. Rather, the defining criterion is that the respective need, goal, or value of the appraiser on which the stimulus
has a direct bearing must be salient or of high priority at the
occurrence of the event. For example, food cues have been
shown to be less relevant and attention-grabbing in a state of
satiety (see Sacharin etal., 2012, for a review). Thus, for basic
needs (food, sex, social contact), relevance appraisal may depend
on the current motivational state. For goals in a meansend
action plan, for example, executing a complex task, motivational
relevance may depend on context, distance from goal attainment,
or probability of success as evaluated in the appraisal of implications. In the past, I have generally used the term goal relevance
to cover this large array of motivational states. However, apart
from the fact that the notion of a goal has a restrictive meaning
for many people (laymen and scientists alike), it has a somewhat
static connotation. Frijda (1986) has pointed out that relevance
needs to be assessed with respect to current concerns, that is,
needs, goals, values, norms, self-esteem, expectations, and so
forth, that are particularly pertinent at the time. This provides a
much more dynamic view of the underlying process, and it
underlines that a very high level of relevance is required. In consequence, I suggest changing the label of this relevance check
from goal relevance to concern pertinence. In a further step, one
might want to further develop the distinctions between these
motivational classes, with continuously operative needs being
mostly biologically based and thus universal, values being a
high-level construct of desirable qualities and achievements and
thus in large part shared by groups and cultures, goals (with a
definite end state) being more concrete objectives toward which
action is directed and thus likely to show a large variability over
individuals and time, and norms being strictly constrained sociocultural codices for required behavior.
I now turn to promising research approaches in the domain
of relevance appraisal, concentrating in large part on the work
conducted in our group. Differences in relevance detection for
the three checks described before can be examined experimentally, both individually and in combination. The experimental
manipulations would be determined by the relevance class:
types of stimuli for novelty and intrinsic relevance, manipulation of motivational need state and task goals for concern pertinence, and systematic participant selection for values and social

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014

Scherer Relevance and Valence Appraisals 153

norm relevance. The central prediction is that relevant stimulus

events are, at an early stage, more rapidly identified and draw
more attention, and, at a later stage, processed more intensively
or deeply and enter more readily into memory. The CPM
assumes sequential, cumulative processing and so the early
detected intrinsic, stimulus-bound relevance value of each class
of stimuli will, in the ensuing steps of the appraisal process,
interact with the results of further checks, as well as with context factors. One of the aims of this research should be to determine the relative importance of these factors and the nature of
the underlying dynamic functions.
In addition to the systematic manipulation of specific
appraisal checks (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988; Roseman &
Evdokas, 2004; Smith, 1989; van Reekum etal., 2004), there
are several established task paradigms, such as memory and
selective attention tasks. The contributors to a review of
appraisal research (Scherer, Schorr, and Johnstone, 2001)
pointed out a number of nonverbal techniques for the objective behavioral assessment of appraisal processes. The most
frequently used methods consist of psychophysiological
measurement (Pecchinenda, 2001), including the assessment
of facial expression (Kaiser & Wehrle, 2001) via electromyography (EMG). Thus, Aue, Flykt, and Scherer (2007) manipulated intrinsic pleasantness and goal conduciveness and
measured a set of psychophysiological variables in a pictureviewing task, including cardiovascular measures and facial
EMG. The results showed facial EMG differences for m.
zygomaticus and m. corrugator innervations for both checks,
whereas heart rate differentiated only the levels of the relevance condition, suggesting efferent response differences
between intrinsic pleasantness and goal conduciveness.
The development of techniques such as electroencephalographic (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)
assessment has been very useful for examining brain activity
responses underlying attention deployment to stimuli with different kinds of relevance for the organism (Dan Glauser & Scherer,
2008; Grandjean & Scherer, 2008; Kalisch, Wiech, Critchley, &
Dolan, 2006). Much of this work has focused on negative
particularly fear-relevantstimuli (see hman & Mineka, 2001).
In contrast, appraisal theories of emotion posit a more general
mechanism, predicting attention capture by stimuli that are intrinsically relevant for the organism or for momentary needs or goals,
regardless of the direction of valence. Our group has recorded
event-related brain potentials (ERPs) from 20 subjects performing a
dot-probe task in which the cues were fear-inducing and nurturanceinducing stimuli (i.e., anger faces and baby faces; see also Brosch
etal., 2007). Highly similar validity modulation was found for the
Positive Component 1 (P1) time-locked to target onset, indicating
early attentional capture by both positive and negative emotional
stimuli. Topographic segmentation analysis and source localization
indicate that the same amplification process was involved whether
attention orienting was triggered by negative, fear-relevant stimuli
or by positive, nurturance-relevant stimuli. These results confirm
that biological relevance, and not exclusively fear, produces an
automatic spatial orienting toward the location of a stimulus
(Brosch, Sander, Pourtois, & Scherer, 2008).

One of the major shortcomings in this research domain is the

lack of a valid verbal self-report measurement of relevance. We
have used self-report of affective impact (being touched by,
had a strong effect on me) with considerable success as a
measure of appraised relevance. Scherer, Dan, and Flykt (2006)
asked two groups of participants to rate their evaluation of 59
pictures from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS)
on a profile of nine appraisal criteria (including impact due to
relevance) and on the classic dimensions of affective meaning
(valence, arousal, potency). The ratings on the dimensions of
valence, arousal, and potency correlate differentially with specific appraisal ratings. However, contrary to what one may
expect, the reported impact of a photo did not relate linearly to
reported arousal (r = .15, n.s.). Rather, the results suggest a curvilinear relationship between reported impact and judged
arousal, in that very low arousal photos (such as a mother with
her baby) and highly arousing photos (such as a starved child)
can have a strong affective impact (see Murphy, Hill, Ramponi,
Calder, & Barnard, 2010, for a confirmation of the utility of
using impact scales).
Finally, it has to be stressed that individual differences in
relevance appraisal might or might not, depending on the emotions concerned, significantly mediate the processes involved,
and it is thus highly desirable that more attention is paid to this
fact. Apart from testing hypotheses suggested by the literature,
it might be of interest to examine a general sensitivity for relevance, some individuals potentially being more readily
touched by different situations. One can expect that the presence of appraisal biases in individuals, which may be reinforced by cultural value systems, will systematically influence
relevance detection, sometimes to the point of contributing to
the etiology of emotional disturbances (see Scherer & Brosch,
2009, for an overview).

Varieties of Valence Appraisal

In the affective sciences, valence is generally considered as one
homogeneous, continuous dimension (e.g., positive vs. negative; pleasurable vs. painful; more of this vs. less of that). In
contrast, the CPM proposes two different types of valence
appraisalintrinsic un/pleasantness and goal conduciveness/
obstructiveness. Our group has produced some preliminary
evidence that shows the utility of this distinction. Aue and
Scherer (2011) examined the somatovisceral response profiles
for these two types of valenced appraisal results. Participants
viewed unpleasant and pleasant pictures (intrinsic pleasantness) and performed either goal conducive (i.e., decreasing the
size of unpleasant pictures, increasing the size of pleasant pictures) or goal obstructive (i.e., increasing the size of unpleasant
pictures, decreasing the size of pleasant pictures) arm movements. The data suggest that the two appraisals have somewhat
similar, but not identical, response patterns (see also Aue &
Scherer, 2008). Specifically, main effects showed that intrinsic
pleasantness and goal conduciveness were simultaneously
reflected in zygomaticus activity, and their effects pointed in
the same direction. Interaction effects showed that the effect of

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014

154 Emotion Review Vol. 5 No. 2

intrinsic pleasantness was unmistakably present for both levels

of goal conduciveness in both zygomaticus and corrugator
activity. However, goal conduciveness effects were restricted
to pleasant images only. Whereas facial EMG demonstrated
more robust effects of intrinsic pleasantness than goal conduciveness, mean skin conductance, forehead temperature, and
finger temperature were influenced by the goal conduciveness
manipulation but not by the intrinsic pleasantness manipulation. Obstructive events were characterized by stronger physiological mobilization, more specifically, by less habituation in
mean skin conductance over the course of the experiment (consistent with findings reported in van Reekum etal., 2004).
These results emphasize the importance of distinguishing
between intrinsic pleasantness and goal conduciveness and
suggest that (a) the efferent effects of the two appraisals combine multiplicatively, and (b) the predictability of goal conduciveness may influence the impact of the respective appraisals
on somatovisceral responding.
Recently, I have suggested that it is both theoretically fruitful
and empirically sound to hypothesize at least six types of qualitatively different valences (Scherer, 2010). This proposal, based
on the assumption that for each type of valence there are specific appraisal objectives and possibly also different appraisal
mechanisms, is illustrated in Table 2. Concretely, it is assumed
that each of the SEC checks has a built-in valence aspect giving
rise to a specific type of valence: familiarity, pleasure, contentment, power, self-worthiness, and moral worthiness. The claim
is that, although all of these have something in common, namely,
the fundamental implications of approach and avoidance tendencies used by Lewin (1951) as the basis for introducing the
notion of valence, they are also differentiated by the special
quality of valence that is due to the underlying appraisal criterion and its efferent results. In addition, different types of
valence could be the result of appraisal at different levels of
processing (as described in the brief description of the CPM in
the first part of this article). The different levels continuously
interact, producing topdown and bottomup effects (Scherer,
2009a). It seems plausible that intrinsic relevance, for example
the pleasantness of sensory stimuli such as smell, taste, or visual
beauty, or other intrinsically relevant stimuli such as snakes and
baby faces, is processed at a lower level than goal conduciveness, which would seem to require at least associative and
sometimes conceptual processing. Sacharin etal. (2012) further
develop and justify the argument and provide suggestions for

further research. In particular, they discuss how different types

of valence (microvalences) relate to one-dimensional valence
(macrovalence), arguing that different microvalences, as generated by different appraisals, can be integrated into a macrovalence, as constituted by a single, homogeneous valence
dimension, which can serve as a common currency in
decision making.
Indirect support for the notion of different types of valence
is provided by the results of a large-scale investigation of the
semantics of emotion words. Following a proposal to define the
meaning of emotion words by differential profiles of features
representing all components of emotion (Scherer, 2005),
Fontaine, Scherer, and Soriano (in press) have conducted a
massive cross-cultural studythe GRID studyin over 30
different countries with 25 different languages. Native speakers were asked to indicate the probability that a coherent profile
of specific component features (e.g., specific appraisals, bodily
reactions, facial and vocal expressions, action tendencies, and
feelings) would be present when a specific word was used to
describe the emotion that a person was experiencing. Similarly,
the use of a specific emotion word to describe an emotional
episode was expected to conjure up the corresponding profile
of characteristic component changes in the mind of the receiver.
The term GRID refers to the matrix formed by component features and emotion words. The resulting intercultural data set
strongly confirms a preliminary analysis in a small number of
Western countries (Fontaine, Scherer, Roesch, & Ellsworth,
2007) showing that the affective space spanned by 24 major
emotion terms requires, at a minimum, four dimensions to
allow reasonable discrimination of the termsvalence, power/
control, arousal, and unpredictability (or novelty), in this order
of importance.
In the present context, it is of interest to discuss the results
of a factor analysis of the 31 features representing the appraisal
component (representing the set of SECs proposed by the
CPM, as well as a number of features proposed by other
appraisal theories). Two factors were extracted on the basis of
a scree test and were stable across four language groups. The
factor loadings, shown in Table 3, suggest that the first factor is
a clear Valence factor, whereas the second factor can be called
Novelty. The loadings on the first factor illustrate the different
types of valence shown in Table 2: intrinsic pleasantness, confirmed expectations and goal conduciveness, coping potential
(in the sense of adjustment), and compatibility with normative

Table 2. Varieties of valence as a function of stimulus evaluation check outcome

Stimulus evaluation checks

Evaluation outcomes/feeling dimensions

Type of valence

Novelty
Intrinsic pleasantness/beauty
Goal/need conduciveness
Coping potential
Compatibility self-standards
Compatibility norms/values

Unknownfamiliar
Pleasantunpleasant
Satisfieddisappointed
Strongweak
Achievedfailed
Virtuouswicked

Familiarity
Pleasure
Contentment
Power
Self-worthiness
Moral worthiness

Note: Adapted from Scherer (2010).

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014

Scherer Relevance and Valence Appraisals 155

Table 3. Factor loadings of the appraisal features in the data set of the intercultural GRID study

Consequences positive for person

In itself pleasant for the person
Consequences positive for somebody else
Important and relevant for persons goals
In itself pleasant for somebody else
Important and relevant for goals of somebody else
Confirmed expectations
Consequences able to live with
Centre of attention
Familiar
Consequences predictable
Caused by the persons own behavior
Inconsistent with expectations
In itself unpleasant for somebody else
Consequences negative for somebody else
In danger
Violated laws or socially accepted norms
Irrevocable loss
Incongruent with own standards and ideals
Treated unjustly
In itself unpleasant for the person
Consequences negative for person
Unpredictable
Suddenly
Caused by chance
Required an immediate response
Caused by a supernatural power
Caused by somebody elses behavior
Caused intentionally
Consequences avoidable or modifiable
Enough resources to avoid or modify consequences

Valence appraisal

Novelty appraisal

0.97
0.96
0.93
0.88
0.88
0.84
0.81
0.79
0.73
0.70
0.53
0.47
0.55
0.72
0.76
0.81
0.83
0.86
0.91
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.04
0.15
0.42
0.07
0.44
0.09
0.19
0.35
0.03

0.04
0.07
0.07
0.09
0.11
0.07
0.26
0.11
0.12
0.28
0.48
0.36
0.48
0.09
0.12
0.26
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.84
0.76
0.64
0.56
0.49
0.34
0.23
0.37
0.41

Note: Based on a two-factorial varimax rotated structure; reproduced from Scherer and Fontaine (in press a).

or moral standards. Interestingly, the novelty check loads on

both factorsthe familiarity/expectedness pole of novelty
loads on the first factor, valence, and the suddenness and unpredictability pole of novelty loads on a separate factor that is
orthogonal to valence (see Scherer & Fontaine, in press a, for
further discussion).
One might argue that the fact that the large majority of
appraisal items load on a general valence factor is difficult to
reconcile with the notion that specific appraisal outcome profiles or configurations allow differentiation of emotions.
However, it often has been observed that different facets load on
a general superfactor (Gignac, 2008). For example, in the
domain of psychometric intelligence research a superfactor g,
a general ability factor underlying various types of competencies, has been identified. Our analysis shows that the emotion
domain also has its superfactor ggeneral valence
underlying various types of valenced appraisal criteria. Thus,
the different SEC outcomes load together on one factor in the
two-factorial solution shown in Table 2 because they all have,

like small g for cognitive ability, a component of valence.

Thus, different domain-specific valences as part of the major
SECs contribute to an overall macrovalence factor.
In a next step, we partialed out the superfactor valence to
explore the factorial structure of the remaining variance (using
the residual scores of the appraisal features) and obtained the
factor structure shown in Table 4. The six factors that emerge
can be labeled as follows: Novelty/Chance Cause, Coping
Ability, Expected/Familiar, Goal Relevance, Norm Violation,
and Self vs. Other Cause (see Scherer & Fontaine, in press a, for
details). It should be noted that these factor loadings do not represent a pure logical structure of the appraisal system, but are
affected by ecological correlations (e.g., if events are unpredictable, they are likely to be inconsistent with expectations, and
unexpected and unpredictable events often occur by chance and
require an urgent reaction; see Scherer & Fontaine, in press a).
These results provide indirect evidence (given that we study
frozen structures of lexical meaning) for the plausibility of
assuming qualitatively different types of microvalence that, in

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014

156 Emotion Review Vol. 5 No. 2

Table 4. Factor loadings of the theoretically predicted appraisal features after partialling out the superfactor outcome valence (g) in the data set of
the intercultural GRID study

Suddenly
Unpredictable
Caused by chance
Inconsistent with expectations
Required an immediate response
Enough resources to avoid or modify consequences
Consequences avoidable or modifiable
Consequences able to live with
Caused intentionally
Confirmed expectations
Familiar
Consequences predictable
Important and relevant for persons goals
Important and relevant for goals of somebody else
Violated laws or socially accepted norms
Incongruent with own standards and ideals
Caused by somebody elses behavior
Caused by the persons own behavior

Novelty/
chance cause

Coping
ability

Expected/
familiar

Goal
relevance

Norm
violation

Self vs.
other cause

0.87
0.85
0.75
0.64
0.63
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.28
0.17
0.23
0.15
0.04
0.09
0.07
0.33
0.02

0.10
0.17
0.08
0.07
0.19
0.85
0.79
0.71
0.14
0.00
0.15
0.38
0.00
0.07
0.01
0.17
0.02
0.26

0.02
0.12
0.05
0.11
0.25
0.12
0.17
0.14
0.73
0.67
0.63
0.62
0.06
0.09
0.01
0.06
0.33
0.39

0.01
0.01
0.15
0.10
0.16
0.12
0.02
0.31
0.19
0.38
0.16
0.11
0.83
0.81
0.10
0.05
0.15
0.02

0.04
0.02
0.08
0.11
0.09
0.06
0.25
0.09
0.22
0.05
0.26
0.09
0.04
0.01
0.85
0.81
0.05
0.09

0.02
0.13
0.03
0.32
0.11
0.16
0.16
0.20
0.13
0.15
0.04
0.20
0.14
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.69
0.67

Note: Based on a six-factorial varimax rotated structure; reproduced from Scherer and Fontaine (in press a).

combination, can generate a multitude of different emotions

(possible mechanisms are discussed in Sacharin etal., 2012).
To summarize: I suggest that the outcomes of most appraisal
checks are not neutral but valenced and that the type of valence
is different in each case (having different feeling qualities and
generating different response patterns). Because of the common
valence component, these different outcomes (microvalences)
tend to be integrated into a macrovalence dimension, which corresponds to the classic pleasantness or evaluation dimension in
dimensional theories of emotion. This corresponds to a projection from higher dimensional to lower dimensional space. The
empirical emergence of a superfactor general valence in the
GRID study (with emotion words as elements) suggests that for
most prototypical emotions the different appraisal outcomes are
valenced in the same directiondue to structural constraints or
ecological correlations. However, there may be many cases
where the microvalence outcomes of different appraisal checks
do not match, for example when my boss insists on my drinking
a glass of spectacular vintage Bordeaux wine on a day on which
I am strictly forbidden to drink any alcohol for medical reasons
(intrinsic pleasantness of the wine, goal obstructiveness in terms
of health, and low power and control to refuse). Not surprisingly, such ambivalent emotions are rarely studied; possibly
they are rare events. However, their occurrence warrants
research attention on the role of appraisal-check specific
microvalences and their integration into overall feeling.
The GRID study also provides further indirect evidence for
the claim that the appraisal results drive the differentiation of
emotions. We tested the extent to which the 24 emotion terms
under investigation can be classified on the basis of profiles of

appraisal features alone, using multiple discriminant analysis

(MDA). In the GRID instrument, we use a total of 142 features
to represent all of the emotion components (appraisal, bodily
reactions, expression, action tendencies, and feeling). In an
overall MDA, these 142 features allow us to classify the 24
emotions with a cross-validated hit rate of 82.1%. If we use only
the 31 features representing the appraisal component, we reach
a cross-validated hit rate of 70.7%, only about 10% less than for
the combined discriminative power of all 142 component features. Successively adding other components in a series of
MDAs shows that adding action tendencies adds about 5% to
the hit rate, consequently adding bodily reactions and expression adds another 5%, and finally, adding feelings adds the
remaining 2% (see Scherer & Fontaine, in press b).1 The finding
that the appraisal feature profiles alone allow us to explain the
lions share of the variance in the semantic differentiation of the
emotion terms is highly consistent with the claim of appraisal
theories (especially the CPM) that the appraisal results drive the
changes in the other components and produce a level of synchronization or coherence that is constitutive for the occurrence
of an emotion episode and for the meaning of the respective
emotion word.

The Dynamics of Appraisal: Sequential

Checking
As mentioned at the outset, the CPM has a dynamic architecture
based on the assumption that four major groups of SECs have
sequential-cumulative effects on all other emotion components.

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014

Scherer Relevance and Valence Appraisals 157

As this feature of the CPM is often misinterpreted, I will provide a somewhat more extensive description here, followed by
the empirical evidence to date.
From the very inception of the CPM (Scherer, 1982, 1984), I
have postulated that the SECs exert their effectsfor both logical and economical reasonsin a sequential fashion. It seems
plausible to assume that if the results of an SEC provide essential
information to judge a criterion in another SEC, the former must
yield a result before the latter can be processed. Logically, I can
determine my potential to cope with the consequences of an
event only if I know what they are. And it would be extremely
uneconomical to invest precious resources before I am reasonably certain about the outcome of any actions I may want to prepare for. Apart from adducing logical and economical reasons, it
can be argued that the microgenetic unfolding of the emotionantecedent appraisal processes parallels both phylogenetic and
ontogenetic development in the differentiation of emotional
states. The earlier SECs, particularly the novelty and the intrinsic
pleasantness check, seem to be present in most animals as well
as in newborn humans. Thus it seems plausible that these lowlevel processing mechanisms are hard-wired detection capacities
and occur very rapidly after the occurrence of a new stimulus.
More complex evaluation mechanisms are successively developed at more advanced levels of phylogenetic and ontogenetic
development, with natural selection operating in the direction
of more sophisticated information-processing ability in phylogenesis, and with maturation and learning increasing the individuals cognitive capacity in ontogenesis (see Scherer, 1984,
pp. 313314; Scherer, Zentner, & Stern, 2004).
As shown in Figure 1, all SECs are expected to be processed
simultaneously, starting with relevance detection. However, the
essential criterion for the sequence assumption is the point in time
at which a particular check achieves preliminary closure, that is,
yields a reasonably definitive result, one that warrants efferent

commands to response modalities (the diamond shapes in Figure 1).

The darker coloration around the diamond shapes suggests more
intense processing as preliminary closure of a check is achieved.
Resource-intensive information processing should occur for only
those stimuli that have been appraised as highly relevant for the
organism. In consequence, relevance detection is considered to be
a first selective filter that a stimulus or event needs to pass to merit
further processing. Extensive appraisal and preparation of behavioral reactions are indicated only if the event concerns a goal or need
of major importance or when a salient discrepancy with an expected
state is detected, suggesting that the implications for the organism
are assessed next in the sequence. Clearly, the causes and implications of the event need to be established before the organisms coping potential can be conclusively determined, as the latter must be
evaluated for a specific situational demand. The check for normative significance is predicted to occur last, in part because it is likely
to require a higher level of processing than some of the other SECs
because it may involve the evaluation of complex rules.
Figure 1 illustrates that once the processing of a given SEC
has produced a sufficiently stable result to justify a specific
reaction (closure), there are efferent effects on all other components. One essential effect is exerted on the appraisal component itself by providing the necessary information for the
subsequent checks, as described before. In addition, there are
efferent effects on the somatovisceral, action tendency, and
motor expression components. The effects of the different SEC
groups are sequential and cumulative, as the efference of each
subsequent check will modulate and interact with (or sometimes replace) the effects of earlier checks. In addition, the set
of curved arrows shown in the right margin of Figure 1 illustrates (without implying precise specification) the existence of
multiple direct interactions between the component subsystems, including the possibility that the cognitive appraisal processes can be affected by changes in the other components.

Figure 1. Sequential-cumulative efferent effects of appraisal results on different components of emotion (slightly modified after Table 5.2 in Scherer,
2001).

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014

158 Emotion Review Vol. 5 No. 2

Figure 1 shows only one cycle of what is in reality a constant

recursive process in which the results of each cycle are fed into
the next cycle. The CPM predicts particular efferent change patterns for the results of each SEC. It is important to emphasize
the ubiquity of interaction effects between SECs in the temporal
sequenceeach SEC result can modify the nature of the efferent changes produced by subsequent checks. In other words, the
patterning of the component states is specific to the unique evaluation history of the respective stimulus. For example, an
unpleasant odor that was expected will yield a componential
patterning that is different from an unexpected one because the
changes produced by the preceding step are different. In other
words, the SECs and the effects of their results on the other
subsystems are not independent of each other; rather, each preceding SEC result and the change produced by it sets the
scene for the effects of the following SEC result.
Looking at it in another way, specific patterns of component states (e.g., those that seem to characterize emotions such
as anger or fear) can only occur if there is a corresponding
pattern of specific SEC results in which each SEC adds a particular modification or added value in a complex sequential
interaction. The result of this patterning of the appraisal results
and the continuous efference to the other components is a form
of synchronization of the states of the organismic subsystems
concerned, constituting a higher degree of coherence of these
systems, in the interest of adapting to the new situation created
by the occurrence of the emotion-eliciting event (see Scherer,

2001, for more detail). The relatively homogeneous synchronization pattern that characterizes a specific type of emotion
episode can be described as an attractor basin in the language
of nonlinear systems theory (see Scherer, 2000, 2009b). As
described in greater detail elsewhere (Scherer, 2001, 2009a),
the appraisal-driven synchronization of the components may
lead to emergent consciousness on the level of the feeling
component. These feelings represent all of the accumulated
changes in the components (and the consolidated results of the
appraisal process) and thus have very specific qualia. In some
cases, for example, when a person wants to engage in social
sharing of an emotion episode, the feeling qualia are categorized and labeled with a word or an expression (sometimes a
metaphor). The emotion episode will continue until massive
changes in the appraisal (e.g., a problem is resolved or a new
event intervenes) lead to a desynchronization or new synchronization pattern.
In response to critics of the sequence assumption I have
insisted that it is entirely consistent with the notion of parallel
processing (see Scherer, 2001, for a detailed argument). The
reason is that I assume a type of appraisal register (rapidly
accessible storage space for elementary information such as
intermediate calculation results), the contents of which are continuously updated in each recursive loop (see Figure 2). In parallel processing, all checks are always performed and separate
registers for each SEC hold temporary values that consist of the
best available estimates of the respective criterion. An efferent

Figure 2. Sketch of the potential architecture of the appraisal process as part of a general information-processing system, separately driving peripheral
support systems and alternative action tendencies (slightly modified after Figure 5.3 in Scherer, 2001).
Note: NES: neuro-endocrine system; ANS: autonomic nervous system; SNS: somatic nervous system; Nov: novelty; Plea: pleasantness; Rel: relevance; Con: conduciveness;
Urg: urgency; Ctr: control; Adj: adjustment; InSt: internal standards; ExSt: external standards.

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014

Scherer Relevance and Valence Appraisals 159

response will only occur when the estimate is considered as

relatively stabilized, justifying the investment of energy. In
other words, while all checks may be processed in parallel on a
very superficial level, deep processing only occurs when an
appropriate register value is set in a prior check that requires
more extensive investment of resources for further evaluation.
As long as no change occurs (shallow processing), the register
setting remains unchanged. Thus, the economy argument for the
utility of sequential processing which I have advanced before
has three bases: (a) costly deep processing is only initiated when
required by previous results, (b) efferent reactions in other components are only elicited when there is sufficient justification,
and (c) the efferent response pattern can be continuously adapted
in terms of its specificity according to the cumulative-sequential
information.
What is the empirical evidence for the prediction of sequentialcumulative appraisal effects? Scherer (1999) demonstrated that
the recognition of emotions in scenarios that provide information corresponding to the SECs is faster and more accurate if the
information is given in the predicted order. Although interesting, this provides only indirect evidence for the sequence
assumption. More direct testing is required, if possible based on
signatures for appraisal checks in the form of indicators in brain
activity, physiological changes, or specific expression patterns.
In recent years, a number of different studies have addressed
these issues.

Reaction Time
Flykt, Dan, and Scherer (2009) reported an attempt to estimate
the time window of the intrinsic pleasantness check using a dualtask probe paradigm. In three experiments, participants viewed
negative and positive pictures. Their other task was speeded
response on a probe superimposed on the pictures with different
stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). Longer probe-reaction
times were observed for negative than for positive pictures. This
effect appeared at SOA 300 ms or 350 ms, suggesting that the
intrinsic pleasantness appraisal check yields a differential behavioral outcome around 300 ms after stimulus onset, and seems to
continue unless attention to picture content is inhibited.

Facial Expression Indicators

Lanctt and Hess (2007) empirically tested the CPM hypothesis
that the intrinsic pleasantness evaluation occurs before the goal
conduciveness evaluation. In two studies, intrinsically pleasant
and unpleasant images were used to manipulate pleasantness,
and a specific event in a Pac-Man type video game was used to
manipulate goal conduciveness. Facial EMG was used to measure facial reactions to each evaluation. As predicted, facial reactions to the intrinsic pleasantness manipulation were faster than
facial reactions to the goal conduciveness manipulation. The
authors interpreted these results as providing strong empirical
support for the sequential nature of the appraisal process. More
recently, Krumhuber and Scherer (2011) studied affect bursts
consisting of spontaneous, short emotional expressions in which

facial, vocal, and gestural components are highly synchronized.

This study investigated the facial correlates of affect bursts that
expressed five different emotions: anger, fear, sadness, joy, and
relief, as enacted by professional actors. Detailed analysis of 59
facial actions with the Facial Action Coding System revealed a
reasonable degree of emotion differentiation for individual
action units. Interestingly, the expression of facial actions
peaked in a cumulative-sequential fashion with significant differences in their sequential appearance between emotions.
Although this study provided only indirect evidence for the
sequential-cumulative hypothesis, it does highlight the potential
of facial expression patterns to index underlying appraisals (as
suggested by Scherer, 1992).

Physiological Indicators
Aue etal. (2007) tested the sequence assumption with a memory
task in which participants were presented with pictures displaying biological and cultural threat stimuli or neutral stimuli (stimulus relevance manipulation) with superimposed symbols
signaling monetary gains or losses (goal conduciveness manipulation). Results for heart rate and facial EMG showed differential
efferent effects of the respective appraisal outcomes and provided direct evidence for sequential processing. As predicted,
muscle activity over the brow and cheek regions marking the
process of relevance appraisal occurred significantly earlier than
that of goal conduciveness appraisal. Heart rate, in contrast, was
influenced by the stimulus-relevance manipulation only.
Delplanque etal. (2008) tested whether an odor is detected as
novel or familiar before it is evaluated as pleasant or unpleasant.
Participants performed a recognition task in which they were
presented with pairs of unpleasant or pleasant odors (sample and
target odors). Within a pair, the sample and target were either
identical or different in order to assess participants novelty
detection; unpleasant and pleasant target odors were contrasted
to examine participants appraisal of intrinsic pleasantness.
Dependent measures included facial expressions (using EMG)
and physiological reactions (using electrocardiogram and electrodermal activity). The earliest effects on facial muscles and
heart rate occurred in response to novelty detection. Later effects
on facial muscles and heart rate were related to pleasantness
evaluation, confirming the existence of sequential effects of
appraisal checks on odor-elicited emotional reactions.

Brain Activity
Grandjean and Scherer (2008) systematically manipulated novelty, goal relevance, intrinsic pleasantness, and goal conduciveness SECs in visual stimuli to test the sequence hypothesis in
two experiments with EEG recordings. Topographical analyses
of the ERPs revealed a specific electrical map related to novelty
(90 ms after the onset of the stimulus) preceding another topographical map related to task goal relevance, indicating that the
occurrence of the novel map precedes the task goal relevance
map by about 50 ms. To investigate the effects of manipulated
appraisals not revealed by the topographical analyses, Grandjean

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014

160 Emotion Review Vol. 5 No. 2

and Scherer further analyzed the global field power, which

revealed early effects related to novelty and later effects related
to the intrinsic pleasantness factor. For the second experiment,
in which intrinsic pleasantness and goal conduciveness were
manipulated, the results confirmed that neuronal processing of
intrinsic pleasantness precedes the effects related to goal conduciveness checks (see Grandjean & Scherer, 2008, Figure 4). The
frequency analyses revealed late effects in the gamma band,
indicating an effect of goal conduciveness at about 600 ms after
the onset of the stimuli, suggesting that a high level of cognitive
processing is involved in this type of appraisal. The results of
these two experiments support the CPM predictions and suggest
that novelty and intrinsic pleasantness may be appraised early,
on an unconscious, automatic, and possibly schematic level,
whereas goal conduciveness tends to be evaluated later in the
sequence, possibly on a conscious, controlled, and propositional
level (as predicted by Leventhal & Scherer, 1987).
Van Peer etal. (2012) replicated and extended these results
using a similar experimental design and EEG analysis procedure. Novelty and intrinsic pleasantness appraisals were manipulated by using a three-stimulus oddball paradigm with visual
affect-inducing stimuli (IAPS pictures). Different measures of
EEG brain activity were computed to identify markers for these
specific appraisal results. In addition to replicating the predicted
sequence, the data suggest that the effects of intrinsic pleasantness are modulated by novelty. This can be taken as an indication that different neural mechanisms underlie the processing of
the respective checks.
Gentsch etal. (2012) extended this approach by adding the
coping potential check, predicted to occur after the goal conduciveness check. In the context of a monetary gambling task,
EEG recordings were used to measure brain activity accompanying the evaluation of feedback related to goal conduciveness
(win vs. loss of money vs. break even) and coping potential
(presence vs. absence of option to change the outcome). In each
trial, information for both appraisal checks was simultaneously
presented. Confirming the sequence hypothesis, feedbacklocked ERPs showed early effects of the goal conduciveness
(~230300 ms), followed by a Coping Potential Goal
Conduciveness interaction in the consecutive time interval
(~350600 ms).
In sum, these results show that signatures or markers of
appraisal in peripheral components exist and can be exploited to
test the sequence hypothesis generated by the CPM. Overall,
there is now a rather impressive amount of empirical evidence
for the predicted sequential processing of novelty, intrinsic
pleasantness, goal conduciveness, and coping potential.

evidence on the dynamic nature of the appraisal-driven emotion

process, especially with respect to the sequential-cumulative
hypothesis proposed in the CPM. Needless to say, I feel greatly
encouraged by the accumulating support for the model, especially
from neuroscience and psychophysiological research. Discussing
the results of past research and designing new studies reveals that
there is an urgent need to theoretically develop the role of interactions between appraisal checks and their effects on the cumulative
sequence. For example, it is quite obvious (and we have unpublished empirical evidence) that the coping potential check plays a
different role in the appraisal process depending on whether the
event is goal conducive or obstructive. In the latter case, the question of whether I have enough power to deal with the consequences becomes a primary concern, probably leading to greater
attention and more in-depth processing, and giving greater weight
to the result of the check in the overall integration. Conversely, if
an event is pleasant and/or if I have almost reached my goal, a
coping potential check might seem much less important or even
superfluous. Furthermore, particular SECs might be of greater
importance for certain appraisal situations, requiring that they are
weighted accordingly in the integration of the appraisal results.
These questions need urgent attention as they have important
implications for the computational modeling of emotion (Scherer,
1993, 2010; Scherer & Meuleman, 2012).
Answers to these questions require a much more detailed
understanding of the exact mechanisms underlying appraisal, as
well as the brain structures and circuits involved. Clearly, more
theoretical work, as well as close contact with theory and
research in cognitive psychology and the neurosciences, will be
required to flesh out these preliminary ideasfuture work that,
given the complexity of both the theoretical framework and the
methodological tools required, should preferably be taken on by
interdisciplinary teams of researchers.

Note
1

Of course, this result depends on the order in which the different components are entered into the discriminant analysis because in the case of a
high level of common variance, as is the case here, the first component
entered will automatically explain a very high amount of the variance.
However, as in regression analysis, the strongest component is always
entered first, and this is indeed appraisal in our case, with over 70% of
the variance explained on the basis of the component features alone (in
comparison, action tendencies explain 67.7%, bodily reactions 62.4%,
facial expression 62.7%, vocal expression 53.2%, and feeling 52.5%).
Quite independently of the statistics, it seems difficult to imagine
another sequence, given that it is hard to imagine other major sources of
differentiation in the response components than appraisal.

References

Conclusion
I have reviewed recent theoretical ideas generated in our group,
some of which are currently informing our experimental work,
for example in the direction of testing the effects of different types
of valence appraisal. I have also reviewed the current state of

Aue, T., Flykt, A., & Scherer, K. R. (2007). First evidence for differential
and sequential efferent effects of goal relevance and goal conduciveness appraisal. Biological Psychology, 74, 347357.
Aue, T., & Scherer, K. R. (2008). Appraisal-driven somatovisceral response
patterning: Effects of intrinsic pleasantness and goal conduciveness.
Biological Psychology, 79, 158164.

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014

Scherer Relevance and Valence Appraisals 161

Aue, T., & Scherer, K. R. (2011). Effects of intrinsic pleasantness and goal
conduciveness appraisals on somatovisceral responding: Somewhat
similar, but not identical. Biological Psychology, 86, 6573.
Brosch, T., Sander, D., Pourtois, G., & Scherer, K. R. (2008). Beyond fear:
Rapid spatial orienting towards emotional positive stimuli. Psychological Science, 14, 362370.
Brosch, T., Sander, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2007). That baby caught my eye . . .
Attention capture by infant faces. Emotion, 7, 685689.
Clayton, S., & Myers, G. (2009). Conservation psychology. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Dan Glauser, E. S., & Scherer, K. R. (2008). Neuronal processes involved in
subjective feeling emergence: Oscillatory activity during an emotional
monitoring task. Brain Topography, 20, 224231.
Delplanque, S., Grandjean, D., Chrea, C., Aymard, L., Cayeux, I.,
Le Calve, B., . . . Sander, D. (2008). Emotional processing of odors:
Evidence for a nonlinear relation between pleasantness and familiarity
evaluations. Chemical Senses, 33, 469479.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion.
In R. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook
of affective sciences (pp. 572595). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, C. A. (1988). Shades of joy: Patterns of appraisal
differentiating pleasant emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 2, 301331.
Flykt, A., Dan, E. S., & Scherer, K. R. (2009). Using a probe detection task
to assess the timing of intrinsic pleasantness appraisals. Swiss Journal
of Psychology, 68, 161171.
Fontaine, J. R. J., Scherer, K. R., Roesch, E. B., & Ellsworth, P. E. (2007).
The world of emotions is not two-dimensional. Psychological Science,
18, 10501057.
Fontaine, J. R. J., Scherer, K. R., & Soriano, C. (in press). Components of
emotional meaning: A sourcebook. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. London, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Gentsch, K., Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2012). Temporal dynamics of event-related potentials related to goal conduciveness and power
appraisals. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Gignac, G. E. (2008). Higher-order models versus direct hierarchical
models: g as superordinate or breadth factor? Psychology Science
Quarterly, 50, 2143.
Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2008). Unpacking the cognitive architecture of emotion processes. Emotion, 8(3), 341351.
Kaiser, S., & Wehrle, T. (2001). Facial expressions as indicators of
appraisal processes. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone
(Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotions: Theories, methods, research
(pp. 285300). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kalisch, R., Wiech, K., Critchley, H. D., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Levels of
appraisal: A medial prefrontal role in cognitive appraisal of emotional
material. Neuroimage, 30, 14581466.
Krumhuber, E. G., & Scherer, K. R. (2011). Affect bursts: Dynamic patterns
of facial expression. Emotion, 11, 825841.
Lanctt, N., & Hess, U. (2007). The timing of appraisals. Emotion, 7,
207212.
Leventhal, H., & Scherer, K. R. (1987). The relationship of emotion to cognition: A functional approach to a semantic controversy. Cognition &
Emotion, 1, 328.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical
papers (D. Cartwright, Ed.). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. (Original
work published 1938)
Moors, A., Ellsworth, P., Scherer, K. R., & Frijda, N. H. (2013). Appraisal
theories of emotion: State of the art and future development. Emotion
Review, 5, 119124.
Murphy, F. C., Hill, E. L., Ramponi, C., Calder, A. J., & Barnard, P. J.
(2010). Paying attention to emotional images with impact. Emotion,
10, 605614.

hman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fear, phobias and preparedness: Toward
an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review,
108, 483522.
Pecchinenda, A. (2001). The psychophysiology of appraisals. In K. R.
Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 301315). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Roseman, I. J., & Evdokas, A. (2004). Appraisals cause experienced
emotions: Experimental evidence. Cognition & Emotion, 18, 128.
Roseman, I. J., & Smith, C. A. (2001). Appraisal theory: Overview,
assumptions, varieties, controversies. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, &
T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion (pp. 334). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sacharin, V., Sander, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2012). Levels of valence.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Scherer, K. R. (1982). Emotion as a process: Function, origin, and
regulation. Social Science Information, 21, 555570.
Scherer, K. R. (1984). On the nature and function of emotion: A component
process approach. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to
emotion (pp. 293317). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scherer, K. R. (1992). What does facial expression express? In
K. Strongman (Ed.), International review of studies on emotion (Vol. 2,
pp. 139165). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Scherer, K. R. (1993). Studying the emotion-antecedent appraisal process:
An expert system approach. Cognition & Emotion, 7, 325355.
Scherer, K. R. (1999). On the sequential nature of appraisal processes:
Indirect evidence from a recognition task. Cognition & Emotion, 13,
763793.
Scherer, K. R. (2000). Emotions as episodes of subsystem synchronization
driven by nonlinear appraisal processes. In M. D. Lewis & I. Granic
(Eds.), Emotion, development, and self-organization: Dynamic systems
approaches to emotional development (pp. 7099). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multi-level
sequential checking. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone
(Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research
(pp. 92120). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured?
Social Science Information, 44, 693727.
Scherer, K. R. (2009a). The dynamic architecture of emotion: Evidence for the component process model. Cognition & Emotion, 23,
13071351.
Scherer, K. R. (2009b). Emotions are emergent processes: They require a
dynamic computational architecture. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society, Series B, 364, 34593474.
Scherer, K. R. (2010). The component process model: A blueprint for a
comprehensive computational model of emotion. In K. R. Scherer,
T. Bnziger, & E. B. Roesch (Eds.), Blueprint for affective computing:
A sourcebook (pp. 4770). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Scherer, K. R., & Brosch, T. (2009). Culture-specific appraisal biases contribute to emotion dispositions. European Journal of Personality, 23,
265288.
Scherer, K. R., Dan, E., & Flykt, A. (2006). What determines a feelings
position in three-dimensional affect space? A case for appraisal.
Cognition & Emotion, 20, 92113.
Scherer, K. R., & Fontaine, J. R. J. (in press a). Driving emotion: The
appraisal component. In J. R. J. Fontaine, K. R. Scherer, & C. Soriano
(Eds.), Components of emotional meaning: A sourcebook. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Scherer, K. R., & Fontaine, J. R. J. (in press b). Componential meaning structure of emotion terms: Integration across components. In
J. R. J. Fontaine, K. R. Scherer, & C. Soriano (Eds.), Components of
emotional meaning: A sourcebook. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014

162 Emotion Review Vol. 5 No. 2

Scherer, K. R., & Meuleman, B. (2012). Human emotion experiences can

be predicted on theoretical grounds: Evidence for verbal labeling.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Scherer, K. R., Schorr, A., & Johnstone, T. (Eds.). (2001). Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Scherer, K. R., Zentner, M. R., & Stern, D. (2004). Beyond surprise:
The puzzle of infants expressive reactions to expectancy violation.
Emotion, 4, 389402.

Smith, C. A. (1989). Dimensions of appraisal and physiological

response in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
56, 339353.
van Peer, J. M., Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2012). Sequential unfolding of novelty and pleasantness appraisals of affective pictures:
Evidence from EEG. Manuscript submitted for publication.
van Reekum, C., Banse, R., Johnstone, T., Etter, A., Wehrle, T., & Scherer,
K. R. (2004). Psychophysiological responses to appraisal responses in
a computer game. Cognition & Emotion, 18, 663688.

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014