CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 80Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Science and Education ResearchSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The Affect System: What Lurks below the Surface of Feelings?

Cacioppo, John T., Larsen, Jeff T., Smith, N. Kyle, Berntson, Gary G.·2004·Feelings and Emotions
DOI 10.1017/cbo9780511806582.014
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9780511806582.014

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sense of ambivalence and vacillation appear when unipolar rather than bipolar measures of affect were used.

    “Sense of ambivalence and vacillation appear, as extensively shown by Cacioppo et al. (2004), when unipolar rather than bipolar measures of affect were used (e.g., Wiers et al., 2005).”

    From Impulsive action: emotional impulses and their control (2014) · cites this paper as Cacioppo et al. (2004)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cacioppo, J. T., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K., & Berntson, G. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Texas Tech University (US)
  • Ohio Wesleyan University (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Feelings and Emotions
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Published
2004-04-05
Pages
223-242
DOI
10.1017/cbo9780511806582.014
OpenAlex
W2278289754
Cited by
80
References
92
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 10
FWCI
6.42
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 2983 d)
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
affective space, approach-avoidance behavior, aversion, memory reconstruction, wishful thinking, confirmation bias, attitude polarization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review