[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Aleader-dev] Roseman96
From: |
Joshua N Pritikin |
Subject: |
[Aleader-dev] Roseman96 |
Date: |
Wed, 6 Aug 2003 08:59:58 +0530 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
Cc: "William L. Jarrold" <address@hidden>
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 03:51:04PM +0530, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> I will offer some comments on Roseman soon though, in any case.
Another big email. :-)
Here are my reactions while reading Roseman96. If you prefer to read
my conclusion first then skip to the bottom. I've tried to organize
my thoughts into three categories:
1. How Roseman's appraisal maps to Aleader's appraisal.
2. What I agree with or don't understand.
3. How Aleader's appraisal maps to Roseman's appraisal.
+++ + +++
Here we go:
1. How Roseman's appraisal maps to Aleader's appraisal.
+ The appraisal of probability corresponds pretty well with Aleader's
concept of tension.
+ The appraisal of "an event's control or influence potential by the
self" corresponds to Aleader's appraisal of intensity. I am still
refining the exact method of appraising intensity. Perhaps intensity
is the most subtle component among Aleader's menu of appraisals.
Maybe KR is needed to help me get rigorous.
+ I am confused by the terms "positive emotion" and "negative
emotion". It seems tautological that "improving things" is positive
and "made worse" is negative. On the other hand, I acknowledge that
some way is needed to differentiate positive & negative emotions. I
guess this roughly corresponds to Aleader's appraisal of individual
intention.
+ The appraisals of causation by self and causation by other are
represented implicitly in Aleader when the intention of two
individuals are combined to form the situational intention.
2. What I agree with or don't understand.
Agree with:
+ I agree that the appraisal of "whether one can cope with an event"
is not relevant for differentiating emotion.
+ The appraisal of legitimacy and problem source are not represented
in Aleader because the emotions which they differentiate are
considered composite / sequential emotion patterns. Superficially,
I do not see a problem with modelling these emotion patterns,
but I have not attempted it.
+ I think that surprise could be modelled in an Aleader as a sequence:
tension != relaxed then phase = after. (Don't worry about it if you
don't understand my notation. Surprise is just one emotion. We can
come back to it later.)
Don't understand:
+ The idea of "motivational state" just seems confusing. Maybe I
don't understand what it is suppose to mean. I guess I agree that
motivational state needs some revision, as noted on page 261.
+ I'm not sure whether I understand the appraisal "causation by
circumstances". Somehow it seems related to probability, but maybe
not.
3. How Aleader's appraisal maps to Roseman's appraisal.
Aleader's appraisal has five main components: initiator, intention,
phase, tension, and intensity.
+ Both tension and intensity are well represented in Roseman's model,
as noted above.
+ Intention is somewhat represented, but Aleader's method of appraising
intention is more complex than Roseman's.
+ Aleader appraises phase. I didn't find phase in Roseman's model. If
you recall my eariler email, a precise explanation of "phase" can be
found at the end of KM's situation manual.
+ I did not find anything about initiator in Roseman's model. Perhaps
this is due to his experimental methodology. The subjects are asked
write about an event in which they were a participant. Therefore, the
point of view will usually (always?) be the subject's point of view.
To contrast, in Aleader there is no preset preference among the two
participants' point of view.
W Jarrold wrote:
> i believe there is a hole in the literature. there is a more general
> class of concepts that should be called "affective states". emotions
> are a focused subclass of these. ambandoned is a classic affective
> state which is not an emotion.
Now I understand what you are talking about. Yes, I agree. Many of
Aleader's "emotions" are not what people typically expect as an
emotion. While Roseman seems to stick with a more traditional
definition of emotion, Aleader follows the affective state idea.
However, instead of inventing a term "affective state", I re-defined
emotion to mean what you call "affective state". I still remain
undecided whether it is better to introduce a new term or to re-define
"emotion". I don't think emotion is very well defined (in general)
and "affective state" is a mouth-full. What do you think?
OK, I suppose I should write some sort of conclusion now.
Despite confidence in my own introspection & creativity, I had quite a
lot of anxiety approaching this type of article. What if Aleader's
appraisal model included a bunch of factors which turned out to have
poor empirical performance? That would be a problem. Now my worry is
mostly finished. It is not always easy to gauge the similarity of
appraisal questions, but I find that my intuition is mostly supported
by the numbers. I look forward to reviewing OCC.
--
.. Sensual .. Perceptual .. Cognitive .. Emotional .. Oh My!
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [Aleader-dev] Roseman96,
Joshua N Pritikin <=