CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 832Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesEmotions and Moral BehaviorCognitive Science and Education Research

The relationship of emotion to cognition: A functional approach to a semantic controversy.

Open access
Leventhal, Howard, Scherer, Klaus·1987·Cognition & Emotion
DOI 10.1080/02699938708408361
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We first review the main points in the dispute about whether emotion is primary and independent of cognition (Zajonc), or secondary and always dependent upon cognition (Lazarus), and suggest that the dispute is largely one of definition. Because definitional disputes seldom clarify substantive, theoretical points, we suggest a variety of questions regarding cognition-emotion interaction. To stimulate discussion of these issues, we propose a componential model in which emotions are seen to develop from simpler, reflex-like forms (“wired-in” sensory-motor processes) to complex cognitive-emotional patterns that result from the participation of at least two distinct levels of memory and information processing, a schematic and a conceptual level. These systems are typically activated by a continuous stimulus check process which evaluates five environment-organism attributes: novelty; pleasantness; goal conductiveness; coping potential; and consistency with social norms and self-relevant values. Questions about the relationship of cognition to emotion, and how two initially independent systems become inseparably interrelated, are transformed when viewed within the context of the dynamic, multilevel emotion processing system.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02699938708408361

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Appraisal processes are interspersed with conscious and deliberate efforts at exploring and articulating the informational content, whenever the automatic processes fail to give adequate guidance for further processing.

    “Yet, they are interspersed with conscious and deliberate efforts at exploring and articulating the informational content, whenever the automatic processes fail to give adequate guidance for further processing (Leventhal and Scherer, 1987).”

    From Impulsive action: emotional impulses and their control (2014) · cites this paper as Leventhal and Scherer, 1987

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leventhal, H., & Scherer, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Geneva (CH)
ORCID
Venue
Cognition & Emotion
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1987-03
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
3-28
ISSN
  • 0269-9931 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0600
DOI
10.1080/02699938708408361
OpenAlex
W2111690475
Cited by
832
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 23
FWCI
5.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Cognition & Emotion (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
Keywords
emotion-cognition interaction, Zajonc, Lazarus, sensory-motor reflexes, stimulus evaluation, novelty, pleasantness, coping potential, emotional processing

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