The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Gut reactions: a perceptual theory of emotion
Abstract
Gut Reactions is an interdisciplinary defense of the claim that emotions are perceptions of changes in the body. This thesis, pioneered by William James and resuscitated by Antonio Damasio, has been widely criticized for failing to acknowledge that emotions are meaningful insofar as they represent concerns, not respiratory function and blood pressure. Fear represents danger, sadness represents loss. To explain this fact, many researchers conclude that emotions must involve judgments regarding one's relationship to the environment. Prinz offers a new unified account of the emotions that reconciles these two theories. He argues that emotions are embodied appraisals-they are perceptions of the body, but, through the body, they also allow us to literally perceive danger, loss, and other matters of concern. The basic idea behind embodied appraisal theory is captured in the familiar notion of a gut reaction, which has been overlooked by much emotion research. Using recent work in semantics, Prinz show how emotions can be meaningful without incorporating judgments or other cognitive states. Criticizing those who think that some emotions are social constructions, while others can be explained by evolutionary psychology, Prinz argues that all emotions are the same kind of phenomena, involving both nature and nurture. Prinz also distinguishes emotions from other affective states, such as motivations and moods, and offers a theory of emotional valence (what makes some emotions good and others bad). Ultimately, his theory of emotion consciousness is inspired by recent research on the neural correlates of conscious vision. Drawing a parallel between emotion consciousness and visual consciousness, Prinz shows that emotion is a form of perception in the fullest sense. Where vision reveals the identity of objects in a given situation, emotion reveals how that situation bears on our well-being.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A review of affective computing: From unimodal analysis to multimodal fusion
Poria, S., Cambria, E., Bajpai, R., & Hussain, A. (2017) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.003 · Cited by 1,644
An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood
Mendl, M., Burman, O. H. P., & Paul, E. S. (2010) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0303 · Cited by 944
Guendelman, S., Medeiros, S., & Rampes, H. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00220 · Cited by 577
Barrett, L. F. (2012) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/a0027555 · Cited by 503
Theories of emotion causation: A review
Moors, A. (2009) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930802645739 · Cited by 472
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2005-12-01
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 43-2124-43-2124
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1506947145
- Cited by
- 1,324
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gut reactions: a perceptual theory of emotion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.43-2124
- The paper
- Gut reactions: a perceptual theory of emotion. (2005). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.43-2124
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.