The psychology of appraisal: Specific emotions and decision‐making
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A growing stream of research has examined emotions and decision‐making based on the appraisal tendencies associated with emotions. This paper outlines two general approaches that can lead to further our understanding of the variety of ways emotions affect decision‐making and information processing. Specifically, future research can examine the nature of emotional appraisals or investigate the nature of decision contexts and underlying psychological processes influenced by emotions. To understand the nature of emotional appraisals, scholars could examine the interaction of two appraisal dimensions or identify novel appraisal tendencies. To understand the decision‐making contexts and psychological processes influenced by emotions, scholars could examine how emotions interact with contextual influences to shape judgments through a variety of processes such as providing information, priming goals, or activating mindsets. These approaches to the study of emotions and decision‐making will contribute to more nuanced theory development around emotions, nurture new empirical work, and encourage interest in exploring a broader set of emotions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it