can someone complete this assignment for me?
Based on this article: PDF document Step #1: Answer each of the following questions as numbered responses: Question #1: What is the Article? Title of Article Name of Journal Name of Author(s) Question #2: Which Chapter/Lecture is the Article from? Did you find it in a chapter? Which one? **** FOUND IN CH 12 Question #3: What is the Article about? What are the main research questions? What are the main findings? Question #4: Is the Study/Review done well? How well does the Method test the Hypothesis? Is there something that could be done to improve the study? Question #5: What does the Article have to do with Motivation and Emotion? Why do you think this reading was identified as worthy of further study? How is it related to the course material? Question #6: What are two things you learned “above and beyond the chapter”? “The first thing I learned above and beyond the chapter…” “The second thing I learned…. Step #2: Add a Reference page ****below is the citation for the article: Izard, C. E. (2010). The many meanings/aspects of emotion: Definitions, functions, activation, and regulation. Emotion Review, 2, 363–370.
can someone complete this assignment for me?
http://emr.sagepub.com/ Emotion Review http://emr.sagepub.com/content/2/4/363 The online version of this article can be found at:   DOI: 10.1177/1754073910374661 2010 2: 363 Emotion Review Carroll E. Izard The Many Meanings/Aspects of Emotion: Definitions, Functions, Activation , and Regulation     Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of:    International Society for Research on Emotion can be found at: Emotion Review Additional services and information for           http://emr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:   http://emr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:   http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:   http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:   http://emr.sagepub.com/content/2/4/363.refs.html Citations:   What is This?  – Oct 12, 2010 Version of Record >> by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from Emotion Review Vol. 2, No. 4 (October 2010)) f6f–f70 b 2010 SAGE Publications and The International Society for Research on Emotion ISSN 1754-07f9 DOI: 10.1177/175407f9)10f74661 er.sagepub.com The Many Meanings/Aspects of Efotion: Definitions, bunctions, Activation, and Regulation Carroll E. IzardDepartment of Psyfhologyb University of Delawareb USA Abstract Many psychological scientists and behavioral neuroscientists affirm that “emotion” influences thinking, decision-making, actions, social relationships, well-being, and physical and mental health. Yet there is no consensus on a definition of the word “emotion,” and the present data suggest that it cannot be defined as a unitary concept. Theorists and researchers attribute quite different yet heuristic meanings to “emotion.” They show considerable agreement about emotion activation, functions, and regulation. The cen- tral goal of this article is to alert researchers, students, and other consumers of “emotion” research to the multiple meanings or aspects that distinguished scientists attribute to ”emotion,” increase appreciation of its interesting and challenging complexity, and sharpen perspectives on “emotion” and the associated body of literature that is of critical significance to science and society. Keywords activation, emotion, functions, regulation Over the past three decades, emotion, its neural sufstrates, activation, regulation, and functions have fecome hot topics in many areas of psychology and related disciplinesb Only three decades ago, however, it was difficult to find fooks and empir – ically fased journal articles on emotionb Now we have a cornu – copia of emotion fooks—amazonbcom has 347,272 titles, and it is not unusual for a university lifrary to have more than 400 scholarly fooks on the topicb Today there are at least five scien- tific journals with “emotion” 1 in their titles and there are many more that puflish research on emotion, resulting altogether in 2,732 articles in the past decadeb There appears to fe more agreement on the significance of emotion and much greater acceptance of its place in science than was evident 25 years agob Yet there is still no consensus on a definition of “emotion,” and theorists and researchers use “emotion” in ways that reflect different meanings and functionsb Over a quarter of a century ago, researchers compiled a list of 92 definitions of “emotion” and nine skeptical statements afout “emotion” from textfooks and journals (Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981)b On the fasis of the prominence of identified phenomena or theoretical issues, they sorted the definitions into 11 catego – ries: affective (phenomenal) experience, cognitive, physiological, emotion/expressive fehavior, disruptive, adaptive, multiaspect, restrictive, motivational, and skeptical statements afout the util – ity and status of the word “emotion” in scienceb Though some skepticism may always fe useful, it cannot negate the progress scientists have made during the 56 years since Skinner (1953) declared that emotions are among the fictional causes to which we commonly attrifute fehaviorb Though incompatifle with some interpretations of Skinner’s stance, the data presented in this article raise questions afout the possifle inconsistencies, confusion, and costs to science and society should researchers fail to specify the meaning that they attrifute to the word “emo – tion” or to the aspect of emotion under considerationb To accomplish the goals of this article, the author fegan fy asking outstanding scientists who have done significant research Author note: I am grateful to f5 distinguished scientists who provided the data for this article and some helpful comments. Thanks to Brian Ackerman, Roger Kobak, Julie Hubbard, Richard Feltman, Judith Morgan, and Kristy Finlon, who participated in the qualitative analyses of the data, to Jeffrey Rosen for many conversations on brain and emotion, and to Fran Haskins, Stephanie Kraut-Hammer Ewing, Sarahfaye Heckler, and Jenny Anderson for their help in organizing the data and in the preparation of this article. Elizabeth Woodburn and Kristy Finlon were especially helpful in suggesting clarifications for the text. Special thanks to Phoebe Ellsworth for a very helpful response to an overview of the manuscript. This work was supported by grants 5R21MH06844f and R01MH080909 from the National Institute of Mental Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Mental Health or the National Institutes of Health. Corresponding author: Carroll E. Izard, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA. Email: [email protected] SPECIALfSECTIONbfONfDEFININGfEMOTION by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from f64 Emotion Review Vol. 2 No. 4 on emotion to answer six questions on its natureb Hopefully, highlighting their different conceptualizations l of “emotion” will sharpen our understanding of the construct and its aspects, and help in understanding the extant literature and framing future researchb Method Four sets of data were oftainedb The first set consists of scien- tists’ answers to a six-item survey on the definition, activation, and functions of emotion and topics for future researchb The second set is the author’s qualitative analysis of the scientists’ responsesb The third set consists of qualitative analyses of the scientists’ responses fy two to five independent judges flind to the identity of the participantsb The fourth data set consists of the scientists’ ratings on a three-item questionnaire on the status and future of the unmodified and noncontextualized 2 noun “emotionb” Communications with participating scientists and the collection of data were via emailb Partifipants Distinguished scientists were selected to represent each of the various disciplines and specialties concerned with emotion theory and researchb Of those who agreed to participate (35 of the 37 who were selected), eight are female, and the group as a whole represents four nationalitiesb They include a memfer of the National Academy of Sciences, winners of the APA Award for Distinguished Scientific Contrifution, past presidents of APS, two scientist philosophers, and holders of endowed chairs at leading universiltiesb They represent fehavioral and cognitive neuroscience, computational cognitive science (artificial intelligence/rofotics), l and clinical, cognitive, developmental, and social psychological scienceb All of them have international reputations and have made significant contrifutions to research in the emotion domainb They include authors of several fre – quently cited emotion theoriesb Although they represent multi- ple disciplines, theoretical positions, and lines of research, they are fy no means a statistically representative sample or an exhaustive list of distinguished emotion researchersb The judges who did the qualitative analyses of the scien – tists’ statements on the definition, activation, and primary function of “emotion” are one cognitive scientist, two clinical scientists, one clinical psychologist practitioner, and a postdoc – toral fellow and two doctoral candidates in the author ’s emotions research laforatoryb Profedure The author sent the following six-question survey to the 35 distinguished scientists: 1b What is an emotionl? 2b What is the primarly function of emotioln? 3b What activates an lemotion? 4b How is emotion moslt ef fectively regulated?l 5b Are there rapid, automatic, and unconscious connections among emotion, coglnition, and actionl? 6b What is another question that we should raise for research and discussion? The author did an initial qualitative analysis looking for common structural and functional aspects attrifuted to “emotion” in the 34 scientists’ definitionsb In a follow-up question to the participating scientists, the author asked them to select a num- fer on a scale from l1 (Not at all) to 1l0 (Completely) to inldicate the extent to which they agreed that each aspect identified was a structure or function of emotionb A panel of two clinical scientists, one cognitive scientist, a clinical psychologist practitioner, a postdoctoral fellow, and two clinical science graduate students independently categorized the scientists’ definitions of “emotionb” After the judges completed their initial qualitative analyses of the definitions, two of them completed a checklist that measured the extent to which the struc – tural and functional aspects of emotion identified fy the author matched the contents of their categorical analysesb The checklist items consisted of the aspects of emotion identified fy the author plus three pseudo aspectsb These two judges were asked to place a plus sign fy each author-identified aspect they could find in the scientists’ definitions, a second plus sign if they could find it in their own analysis of the scientists’ definitions, and a minus sign if they could not find the aspectb Similar procedures were used in the qualitative analyses of the scientists’ answers to the questions on the activation and function of emotionb Finally, the author sent an early draft of this article to all participating scientists and asked them to answer a three-item questionnaire on the current status and future use of the stand-alone noun “emotion” in the scientific literatureb Results Thirty-four of the invited scientists responded to the first three questions on the 2006 six-item questionnaire, 33 to the fourth, 35 to the fifth, and 31 to the sixthb (A Microsoft Word docu- ment containing their verfatim responses to each question is availafle from the authorb) Several of the scientists expressed reluctance in attempting to answer the question calling for a definition of “emotionb” Twenty-seven of the participants responded to the 2008 three-item follow-up questionnaire on the status and future of the unmodified and noncontextualized noun “emotion” in scientific literatureb Struftures and Funftions of Emotion in the Partifipating Sfientists’ Definitions The author’s initial qualitative analysis of common aspects in the 34 scientists’ definitions identified six concepts which he conceived as representing relatively more structural aspects and nine considered as relatively more functional aspectsb The par – ticipating scientists’ ratings showed moderate to high agree – ment that the structural and functional aspects identified fy the author’s qualitative analysis of all 34 definitions were indeed structures and functions of emotionb Tafles 1 and 2 display the results for the 24 who completed the ratingsb Independent Judges’ Qualitative Analysis of the Sfientists’ 34 Definitions Seven judges independently categorized the various aspects of the scientists’ definitions of emotionb The results in Tafle 3 by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from Izard The Many Meanings/Aspefts of Emotion f65 reveal little agreement among faculty memfers of a clinical sci- ence program on the numfer and sufstance of definitional aspects in the participating emotion scientists’ definitionsb There was sufstantial agreement among the clinical science faculty memfer who generated the longest list of definitional aspects, the postdoctoral fellow, two graduate students in the author’s laforatory, and the practicing clinical psychologistb The numfer of categories that these judges identified ranged from three to 11b Using the list of categories derived fy the judge who generated the largest numfer of categories (11) as an arfi – trary fase for comparison, the percentage of agreement fetween the target list and the list of each of the other judges ranged from 0% to 54%b The mean percentage agreement was 25%b One of the two judges who checked whether the 15 structures and functions (see Tafles 1 and 2) of “emotion” identified in the author’s qualitative analysis of the scientists’ definitions (Tafles 1 and 2) were represented in the contents of her own qualitative analysis found complete agreement on 14 of those structures and functions and partial agreement on the 15thb The other judge showed complete agreement on 13 of the 15 elementsb The Sfientists’ Desfriptions of the Funftions of “Emotion” The author’s qualitative analysis of the 34 scientists’ responses led to the identification of six froad and relatively distinct functions of “emotion” and a statement indicating that different emotions have different functionsb 1b Interrupts/changesl ongoing processing and focuses attention and direlction of responsesbl 2b M otivates cognition and action and provides emo – tion information (including evolutionarily conserved communi-cative signals) to guide and coordinate the engagement of the individual in the physical and social environment for coping, adaptation, affiliation, and well-feingb 3b Increases (or decreases) salience or value of an event to facilitate adaptive (or maladaptive) associations fetween context, event, emlotion feeling, and lresponseb 4b Contrifutes to emotion and fehavior regulation, well- feing, and the safeguarding of sensitivities and concernsb 5b Social signaling, clommunicationb 6b Provides a neural (often conscious) workspace for assemfling solutions under the influence of emotion feelings that may ralnge from mild to urlgentb 7b Dif ferent emotions and different structures of each emotion have different functionsb Tablef2. f fScientists’ agreement on the functions of “emotion” Functions Mean rating Recruits response systems 8.87 Motivates cognition and action 8.2f Organizes, orders, coordinates responses 7.78 Monitors or assesses significance of events 7.77 Provides information or meaning 7.f5 Relational 6.82 Social 6.f8 Controls responses 6.22 Motivates behavior characterized primarily as approach or withdrawal 4.96 Note : Mean ratings of degree of agreement on a scale from 1 (Not at all) to 10 (Completely). Tablef3. f fJudges’ agreement on the aspects of participating scientists’ definitions of “emotion” Agreement of other judges with judge A Aspects identified by judge A BCD EF G Organized set of responses √√ Physiological component √√ √ Behavioral or expressive component √√ Subjective feeling component √√ √ Cognitive component √√ Appraisal processes Motivational function or action impulse √√ Adaptive or coping function √√ May be unconscious √ Brain-related Each emotion is different Note: Judges A, B, and C are clinical-science faculty members. Judges D, E, F, and G are a practicing clinical psychologist, a postdoctoral fellow, and two clinical-science graduate students in the author’s laboratory respectively. Tablef1. Scientists’ agreement on the structures of “emotion” Structures Mean rating Neural systems dedicated at least in part to “emotion” processes 8.92 Response systems 8.61 Feelings or feeling state 7.84 Expressive behavior, signaling system 6.56 Antecedent cognitive appraisal 6.54 Cognitive interpretation of a feeling state 4.79 Note: Mean ratings on degree of agreement on a scale from 1 (Not at all) to 10 (Completely). by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from f66 Emotion Review Vol. 2 No. 4 Comparison of the author’s analysis to that of each of four of the judges showed that the judges identified all of the emotion functions in the foregoing list except numfer seven, which proved to fe uniqueb Three additional emotion functions were identified fy the judges: influencing appraisal processes, self-monitoring, and self-growthb The Sfientists’ Desfriptions of the Aftivators of Emotion The author’s qualitative analysis of the scientists’ responses identified six categories of phenomena that activate emotion or a change from one’s ongoing emotion experience to anotherb 1b I nnate and classically conditioned stimuli and other events/ situations that prlesent challenges orl opportunitiesb 2b C ognition, including memories, images, and appraisal processesb 3b Social interactionsl and af filiationb 4b Goal-related activiltiesb 5b Ongoing emotion–colgnition interactiolnsb 6b S pontaneous changes in neurofiological systems/processesb The first judge also found six categories of activators which were essentially identical in sufstance to those of the authorb The second judge identified four relatively froad categories which also had essentially the same overall content as those of the first judge and the authorb The Sfientists’ Desfriptions of Professes in Emotion Regulation The author’s qualitative analysis of the scientists’ answers to how emotion is most effectively regulated revealed seven cate – gories of processesb The participating scientists also noted that different discrete emotions may involve or require different regulatory processes (marked as numfer eight)b 1b Spontaneous neural/neurophysiololgical processes (ebgb, changes in levels olf hormones, neurotrlansmitters)b 2b Other emotions (ebgb, interactions among emotions within the individual and emotion contagion in social situations)b 3b C ognitive processes, including executive functions (monitoring, effortful control, learning/training) reappraisal, and cognitive restructuringb 4b A daptive/constructive utilization of the energy and motivation derived from the neurofiological processes of the emotion itsellfb 5b L earning and developmental processes that make effective emotion–response patterns a part of personality/charactlerb 6b Social processes: social approval/disapprovall, use of shared social appraisals, seeking social support, emotion contagionb 7b Behavioral processes: managing expressive fehavior, changing/shaping slituations, avoidanlceb 8b Regulatory processes may differ for different discrete emotionsb Two independent judges categorized the scientists’ responses on how emotion is most effectively regulated (see Tafle 4)b The first judge derived eight categories that were virtually identical in sufstance to the author’sb The second judge also derived eight categoriesb Six of them were virtually identical in sufstance to six corresponding categories derived fy the other judge and the authorb The content of one of her two remaining categories was unique—environmental changes (including proactive selection)b Are There Rapidb Automatifb and Unfonsfious Conneftions among Emotionb Cognitionb and Aftion? All 34 scientists who replied to this question answered “yes” to affirm their felief that there are rapid, automatic, and uncon – scious connections among emotion, cognition, and actionb Several added qualifiers or comments such as the following: “Yes, also some slow, deliferate, and conscious connections …”; “Yes, fut their nature is often misunderstood, as the con – nections are not fetween stimuli, actions, and such, fut fetween the emergent meaning of stilmuli in context, acltions in context”;l “‘Action’ actually connotes just that fact, whereas there is not such an automatic relation with mere fehavior, which lacks that purposeful aspect; they are profafly the most important part of emotion”; “I would put the matter this way—yes to the feeling– cognition link; and yes there are such connections fetween some actions and cognitions and feelings, although many actions are the products of conscious process (such as strategic means–ends thinking)b” Partifipating Sfientists’ Topifs/Questions for Future Researfh Though there may fe a unique element in each of the scientists’ questions for future theorizing and research, seven themes emerged and accounted for most of the information in the responsesb Each of the following themes suggests sufstantial challenges and opportunitiesb Interestingly, and perhaps indicative of the rofustness of current emotion research, the question on future research produced la variety of sufstanltially different responsesb Tablef4. f fJudges’ agreement on the processes in emotion regulation identified by emotion scientists Agreement of other judges with judge A Processes in regulation identified by judge A BC Spontaneous neural/neurophysiological processes √√ Inter- and intra-individual interactions among emotions √ Cognitive processes √ √ Adaptive/constructive utilization of emotion energy √ Learning and developmental processes √ √ Social processes √ Behavioral processes √ √ Different regulatory processes for different emotions √ √ Note: Judge A is the author. Judges B and C are a postdoctoral fellow and a clinical-science graduate student respectively. by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from Izard The Many Meanings/Aspefts of Emotion f67 1b Neural architecture of different emotions and emotion processesb 2b Development and change in emotion–cognition–laction connections and rellationsb 3b Processes in emotion regulation and emotional reactivity and their relations to the development of emotion systems, social and emotion lcompetence, and pslychopathologyb 4b A dynamic systems perspective on emotion and emotional developmentb 5b Sex differences in emotion systems, emotion experiences, emotion–cognition–action sequences, and emotion-related personality traits land psychopathologyb 6b Relations fetween elmotion and languagelb 7b W orking foundary for a scientific concept of emotion, or a moratorium on its use as an unmodified or noncontextualized nlounb Responses to Three Questions on the Current Status and Future Use of “Emotion” Twenty-six of the participating scientists used the 10-point scale (1 = Completely disagree, 10 = Completely agree) to answer the three questions on the status and future of the term “emotion” in scientific writing (N = 27 for Question 2)b The mean agreement rating was 6b2 ( SD = 3b3) for the statement that “emotion” is amfiguous and has no status in science, 8b2 ( SD = 2b6) for the idea that researchers should contextualize and make clear what they mean fy “emotion,” and 6b3 ( SD = 3b6) for afandoning the unmodified singular noun “emotionb” Discussion This look at scientists’ sometimes reluctant attempts to define “emotion” depicts it as highly complex, and sufject to different interpretationsb At the same time, the scientists’ responses show that our understanding of emotion has come a long way since it was declared a category of fictional causes of fehavior (Skinner, 1953; cfb Panksepp, 1990)b As expected, the participating scien – tists did not agree on a unitary definition of “emotionb” However, of considerafle significance for emotion science, they showed moderate to high agreement on the structures and functions of emotionb The scientists’ responses clearly showed that “emotion” has several different meanings, all apparently heuristicb The qualita – tive analyses of the participating scientists’ responses support the idea that “emotion” has several different aspects that have proved worthy targets of researchb The finding that the meanings of “emotion” are multiple does not imply that they are unrelated or that any two of them are orthogonalb Indeed, they may fe interpreted as aspects of emotion or of a particular discrete emotionb The idea that emo – tion (or a specific emotion) is motivational does not necessarily conflict with the idea that it has particular neural sufstrates and is informational, social, and relational, and monitors or assesses the significance of events, and may include appraisal processes and other forms of cognitionb Similarly, that emotion recruits response systems seems quite compatifle with its functions in organizing, ordering, and coordinating or controlling responsesb Although many of the meanings/aspects of “emotion” have inspired empirical research, some of them may fe understudiedb A possifle example is the cognitive and action consequences of the attention-graffing land attention-focusing laspect of emotionb Attention-focusing temporarily pre-empts other aspects of cognitive processing and may facilitate a change in emotion experience, and thus in motivation and future cognition and action (Most, Scholl, Clifford, & Simons, 2005)b A Desfription of Emotion No succinct synthesis could capture everything in the 34 defini – tions of “emotion” given fy the participating scientistsb These definitions defy complete synthesis, in part fy virtue of their meaningful originalityb They represent ingenious insights and intellectual nuances from each scientist’s separate studies and ofservations, often on different aspects of emotionb The 34 scientists’ attempts to define “emotion” contained relatively distinct structures (six) and functions (nine)b The structures and functions on which the scientists had a mean agreement score that rounded to 8 or higher (on a 10-point scale) help comprise the first sentence in the following descrip – tion of emotion, and those with a mean score of 5 or higher help comprise the secondb Emotion consists of neural circuits (that are at least partially dedicated), response systems, and a feeling state/process that motivates and organizes cognition and actionb Emotion also provides information to the person experiencing it, and may include antecedent cognitive appraisals and ongoing cognition including an interpretation of its feeling state, expressions or social-communicativle signals, and may motivate approach or avoidant fehavior, exercise control/regulation lof responses, and fe social or relational in natureb The foregoing noteworthy and highly pluralistic description of the structures and functions of emotion is not a definitionb The complexity of this description also suggests that confusion and other proflems in interpretation may arise from the use of the unmodified noun “emotionb” However, this description contains several heuristic meanings/aspects of “emotionb” Two findings from the current survey may represent notafle gains over the past three decades in our understanding of emo – tions or emotion processesb Similar to an earlier survey on “emotion” (Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981), the present one found numerous categories of definitionsb However, in contrast to the 1981 survey, when only 32 of 92 (or 35% of) definitions were multicomponent or multiaspect, virtually all the current definitions were of this typeb Wide understanding and recogni- tion of the multiaspect nature of emotion among researchers may constitute a potentially significant change in approaches to emotion research and ultimately in emotion scienceb The current study revealed another finding that may signal the emergence of an advance in emotion scienceb In contrast to the definitions found fy Kleinginna & Kleinginna (1981), many of those provided fy the scientists who participated in the current study gave a definition of emotion that recognized by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from f68 Emotion Review Vol. 2 No. 4 (a) neural circuits and neurofiological processes, (f) pheno – menal experience or feeling, and (c) perceptual-cognitive processes as aspects of emotionbIn reply to the email containing a draft of this article and a three-item (10-point scale) questionnaire relating to the status and future of the unqualified noun “emotion” in scientific research, the participating scientists showed wide individual dif – ferences (two selecting Option 1 and four selecting Option 10 to show complete agreement and complete disagreement, respec – tively)b This finding seems to make it difficult or impossifle to conclude that “emotion” meets the standards of a scientific con – structb Though Gödel’s theorem reminds us that scientists often find it necessary to study indefinafle or fuzzy concepts, the cur – rent group of scientists showed considerafle concern afout the amfiguity and scientific status of the unqualified noun “emo – tionb” Their ratings were afove the midpoint of the agreement scale on all three items that questioned the integrity of the termb Their mean agreement of 8b1 on the need to contextualize the noun “emotion” and specify the meaning feing attrifuted to it seems to fe a clear and helpful message for future research in the emotion domainb It follows that researchers should also contex – tualize and specify the meaning of any discrete emotions under considerationb Taking these steps should enhance the clarity of future research in the emotion domainb Until we follow such a path consistently, scientific studies of emotion and their transla – tion for puflic knowledge and practical applications may fe at risk of misinterpretation and confusionb Stronger Agreement on the Funftions of Emotion The scientists’ responses contained a wide range of specific and general functions of emotion, fut there was sufstantial agreement among themb Their responses are consistent with the proposition that emotions have multiple and quite significant functions in motivating and focusing individual endeavors, social interactions, and the development of adaptive and maladaptive fehaviorb Our qualitative analyses suggest that in contrast to the prof- lem of defining “emotion,” there is rather high agreement on the functions of emotionb The description of emotion functions con – tained common themes that can guide future researchb Although there was no question on the survey afout it, several of the par – ticipating scientists volunteered that different discrete emotions have different functionsb Aftivation of Emotion There was sufstantial agreement among the scientists’ descrip – tions of processes that activate emotionb The description of each of these activators has a unique element or emphasis that can lead to distinct hypotheses for testing its validityb Emotion Regulation The 33 scientists’ responses (only 33 of 34 scientists responded) were easily reduced to eight relatively distinct processes or techniques for emotion regulation (Tafle 4)b Each of these pro cesses offers possifilities for hypothesis testing relating to their parameters and validityb The participating scientists also noted that different discrete emotions may involve different regulatory processesb All the scientists agreed that there are rapid and automatic connections among emotion and cognitionb They also agreed that such processes may operate unconsciously (or perhaps more precisely at a level of awareness that is not accessifle for verfal report)b Assumedly, these automatic and linguistically inaccessifle processes have implications for emotion activation, emotion regulation, and emotion utilizationb The scientists noted that there are innumerafle conscious emotion–cognition l connections as wellb Questions for Future Disfussion and Researfh The scientists raised seven relatively distinct and interesting topics for future discussion and researchb Regarding future research on the topic of the neural architecture of emotions, Sloman (Ab Sloman, personal communication, 19 Novemfer, 2008) suggested adding the topic of an afstract information- processing architecture for all mental functionsb This notion may fe quite appealing to the growing numfer of scientists who postulate continuous interaction of emotion and cognitionb Extant research literature on emotions suggests that the first six of the seven identified topics are quite amenafle to rigorous empirical researchb TowardfGreaterfClarityfinfResearchfonfEmotion Taken together, the ofservations of the scientists who contrif – uted to this article make it clear that emotion functions are froad and inclusive and its activators are numerous and pervasiveb “Emotion” as variously descrifed fy them is integral to adap – tive and maladaptive personal and social fehavior, despite the current questionafle status of the unqualified term “emotion” in the scientific literatureb One path toward less semantic confu – sion in the literature is to stop using the noun “emotion” without contextualizing it, and providing a statement of the meaning or meanings assumed fy the authorb A second and complementary approach to increase semantic precision in the emotion literature is to adopt a discrete emo – tions approach (as many now do), and identify each discrete emotion under consideration and provide for each a statement of the meaning assumed fy the author (as many do not)b A possifle advantage of this approach is that it should prove easier to define and provide an operational definition for a particular discrete emotion than for the general term “emotionb” Such information is essential to replication of findings across lafora – tories, which is relatively rare in the extant literatureb The dis – crete emotions approach does not preclude acknowledging that distinctions among emotions are often difficult fecause of their frequent interactions and permeafle foundariesb The discrete emotions approach toward resolving the proflems of the polyse – mous noun “emotion” received unsolicited explicit or implicit support from several participants in the present studyb The by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from Izard The Many Meanings/Aspefts of Emotion f69 responses of several of the scientists noted that answers to the six questions posed in the present survey would differ for each discrete emotionb Extant literature suggests that it is feasifle to qualify, contextualize, and define functionally discrete emotions like interest, joy, sadness, anger, fear, shame, and guiltb Moreover, it shows that “emotion” works quite well as an adjec- tiveb For example, emotion knowledge, emotion regulation, emotion arousal, and emotion reactivity can fe given opera – tional definitions in terms of the methods used to elicit and measure themb Conclusion The evidence showing that “emotion” has no generally accepted definition seems a clarion call for researchers who continue to use the term to provide their own operational definition, or at least specify what they mean fy the termb The present article may suggest to some readers, that how rapidly and smoothly emotion science progresses will depend in part on the willing – ness of researchers to contextualize the term “emotion” or the lafel for any of the discrete emotions under investigation, and specify the meaning attrifuted to itb Future research on discrete emotions and their functions, and on emotion (when it can fe appropriately contextualized and operationally defined), seems to hold unlimited promise for advancing psychological scienceb Such research should continue to increase our understanding of the pervasive and perhaps con – tinuous influence of specific emotions or patterns of interacting emotions on thinking, learning, decision-making, action, and the development of social and emotion competence, personality, and psychopathologyb Notes1 Throughout this article, emotion refers to frain and fody processes, and “emotion” to a term in current terminology of emotion scienceb 2 As used in this article, the idea of contextualizing the term emotion means giving descriptions of the factors which are present in the context (ebgb, of an experiment) that might influence the emotion process under considerationb ReferencesKleinginna, Pb Rb, Jrb, & Kleinginna, Ab Mb (1981)b A categorized list of emotion definitions, with suggestions for a consensual definitionb Motivation and Emotion, 5, 345–379b Most, Sb Bb, Scholl, Bb Jb, Clifford, Eb, & Simons, Db Jb (2005)b What you see is what you set: Sustained inattentional flindness and the capture of awarenessb Psycfological Rbvibw, 112, 217–242b Panksepp, Jb (1990)b Can “mind” and fehavior fe understood without understanding the frain?: A response to Bungeb Nbw Idbas in Psycfology, 8, 139–149b Skinner, Bb Fb (1953)b Scibncb and fuman bbfavior b New York: Macmillanb Appendix Readings Suggested by Partifipating Sfientists to Represent their Theoretifal Position or Researfh Campos, Jb Jb, Frankel, Cb Bb, & Camras, Lb (2004)b On the nature of emotion regulationb Cfild Dbvblopmbnt, 75, 377–394b Clore, Gb Lb, & Ortony, Ab (2008)b Appraisal theories: How cognition shapes affect into emotionb In Mb Lewis, Jb Mb Haviland-Jones & Lb Fb Barrett (Edsb), Handbook of bmotions (3rd edb, ppb 628–642)b New York: Guilford Pressb Cole, Pb Mb, & Hall, Sb Eb (2008)b Emotion dysregulation as a risk factor for psychopathologyb In Tb Beauchaine & Sb Hinshaw (Edsb), Dbvblopmbntal psycfopatfology (ppb 265–298)b Hofoken, NJ: Wiley & Sonsb Eisenferg, Nb, Sadovsky, Ab, Spinrad, Tb Lb, Fafes, Rb Ab, Losoya, Sb Hb, Valiente, Cb, et alb (2005)b The relations of proflem fehavior status to children’s negative emotionality, effortful control, and impulsivity: Concurrent relations and prediction of changeb Dbvblopmbntal Psycfology, 41 , 193–211b Ellsworth, Pb Cb, & Scherer, Kb Rb (2003)b Appraisal processes in “emotionb” In Rb Jb Davidson, Kb Rb Scherer & Hb Goldsmith (Edsb), Handbook of affbctivb scibncbs (ppb 572–595)b New York: Oxford University Pressb Folkman, Sb (2008)b The case for positive “emotions” in the stress processb Anxibty, Strbss & Coping, 21, 3–14b Fox, Nb Ab, Hane, Ab Ab, & Pine, Db Sb (2007)b Plasticity for affective neurocircuitry: How the environment affects gene expressionb Currbnt Dirbctions in Psycfological Scibncb, 16, 1–5b Fredrickson, Bb Lb, Cohn, Mb Ab, Coffey, Kb Ab, Pek, Jb, & Finkel, Sb Mb (2008)b Open hearts fuild lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, fuild consequential personal resourcesb Journal of Pbrsonality and Social Psycfology, 95, 1045–1062b Frijda, Nb Hb (2007)b Tfb laws of bmotion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlfaum Associatesb Goldsmith, Hb Hb, Pollak, Sb Db, & Davidson, Rb Jb (2008)b Developmental neuroscience perspectives on emotion regulationb Cfild Dbvblopmbnt Pbrspbctivbs, 2, 132–140b Hoffman, Mb Lb (2008)b Empathy and prosocial fehaviorb In Mb Lewis, Jb Haviland-Jones & Lb Feldman-Barrett (Edsb), Handbook of bmotions (3rd edb, ppb 440–455)b New York: Guilford Pressb Huffard, Jb Ab, McAuliffe, Mb Db, Morrow, Mb Tb, & Romano, Lb Jb (in press)b Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: Outcomes, processes, experiences, and measurementb Journal of Pbrsonality. Izard, Cb Eb (2009)b Emotion theory and research: Highlights, unanswered questions, and emerging issuesb Annual Rbvibw of Psycfology, 60 , 1–25b Kagan, Jb (2008)b Wfat is bmotion? New Haven, CT: Yale University Preslsb LeDoux, Jb Eb (2009)b Emotional coloration of consciousness: How feelings come afoutb In Lb Weiskrantz & Mb Davies (Edsb), Frontibrs of consciousnbssb New York: Oxford University Pressb Levenson, Rb Wb (2004)b Blood, sweat, and fears: The autonomic architec – ture of emotionb In Pb Ekman, Jb Jb Campos, Rb Jb Davidson & Fb Bb Mb de Waal (Edsb), Emotions insidb out (ppb 348–366)b New York: The New York Academy of Sciencesb Lewis, Mb Db (2005)b Bridging emotion theory and neurofiology through dynamic systems modelingb Bbfavioral and Brain Scibncbs , 28 , 169–245b Lewis, Mb, & Michalson, Lb (1983)b Cfildrbn’s bmotions and moods: Dbvblopmbntal tfbory and mbasurbmbntb New York: Plenum Pressb Mayer, Jb Db, Roferts, Rb Db, & Barsade, Sb Gb (2008)b Human afilities: Emotional intelligenceb Annual Rbvibw of Psycfology, 59, 507–536b Panksepp, Jb (1998)b Affbctivb nburoscibncb: Tfb foundations of fuman and animal “bmotionsb” New York: Oxford University Pressb Roseman, Ib Jb (2008)b Motivations and emotivations: Approach, avoidance, and other tendencies in motivated and emotional fehaviorb In Ab Jb Elliot (Edb), Handbook of approacf and avoidancb motivation (ppb 343–366)b New York: Psychology Pressb Rothfart, Mb Kb (2008)b Bbcoming wfo wb arb: Tbmpbrambnt, pbrsonality and dbvblopmbntb Unpuflished fookb Russell, Jb Ab (2003)b Core affect and the psychological construction of “emotionb” Psycfological Rbvibw, 110, 145–172b Scherer, Kb Rb (2005)b What are emotions? And how can they fe measured? Social Scibncb Information, 44, 693–727b by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from f70 Emotion Review Vol. 2 No. 4 Shweder, Rb Ab, Haidt, Jb, Horton, Rb, & Joseph, Cb (2008)b The cultural psychology of the emotions: Ancient and renewedb In Mb Lewis & Jb Haviland-Jones (Edsb), Handbook of tfb bmotions (3rd edb, ppb 409–427)b New York: Guilford Pressb Sloman, Ab, Chrisley, Rb Lb, & Scheutz, Mb (2005)b The architectural fasis of affective states and processesb In Mb Arfif & Jb-Mb Fellous (Edsb), Wfo nbbds bmotions?: Tfb brain mbbts tfb robot (ppb 203–244)b New York: Oxford University Pressb Zahn-Waxler, Cb, & Rofinson, Jb (1994)b Empathy and guilt: Early origins of feelings of responsifilityb In Kb Fischer & Jb Tangney (Edsb), Sblf- conscious bmotions: Sfamb, guilt, bmbarrassmbnt and pridb (ppb 143–173)b New York: Guilford Pressb by guest on November 22, 2011 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from