The current status of research on the structure of evaluative space - PubMed (original) (raw)

Review

The current status of research on the structure of evaluative space

Catherine J Norris et al. Biol Psychol. 2010 Jul.

Abstract

The structure of evaluative space shapes emotional life and must be capable of an astonishing range of emotional experience and expression. In this article, we outline the current status of research on the Evaluative Space Model (ESM; Cacioppo et al., 1997, 1999), which proposes that behavioral predispositions (e.g., approach, withdrawal) are the ultimate output of the affect system, which is defined by operating characteristics that differ for positivity and negativity, and across levels of the nervous system. First, we summarize the tenets of the model, as well as counterarguments raised by other theorists. To address these counterarguments, we discuss the postulates of affective oscillation and calibration, two features of the affect system proposed to underlie the durability and adaptability of affect. Finally, we consider the implications of disorder in the structure of evaluative space for the comprehension and treatment of depression and anxiety.

Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1

The bivariate evaluative plane. The left axis represents the level of excitatory activation of positive evaluative processes (labeled positivity), and the right axis represents the level of excitatory activation of negative evaluative processes (labeled negativity). Along each axis, the level of activity increases with movement away from the front axis intersection. The dotted diagonal extending from the left to the right axis intersections represents the diagonal of reciprocal control (labeled reciprocity). The dashed diagonal extending from the back to the front axis intersections depicts the diagonal of nonreciprocal control (labeled coactivity). The arrows alongside the axes represent uncoupled changes in positive or in negative evaluative processing. These diagonals and axes, and vectors parallel to them, illustrate the major modes of evaluative activation.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Illustrative bivariate evaluative space and its associated affective response surface. This surface represents the net predisposition of an individual toward (+) or away from (−) the target stimulus. This net predisposition is expressed in relative units and the axis dimensions are in relative units of activation. The point on the surface overlying the left axis intersection represents a maximally positive predisposition, and the point on the surface overlying the right axis intersection represents a maximally negative predisposition. Each of the points overlying the dashed diagonal extending from the back to the front axis intersections represent the same middling predisposition. Thus, the nonreciprocal diagonal on the evaluative plane – which represents different evaluative processes (e.g., neutral to ambivalent) – yields the same middling expression on the affective response surface. Dashed lines (including the coactivity diagonal) represent isocontours on the evaluative plane, which depict many-to-one mappings between the affective response surface and the underlying evaluative space. These isocontours are illustrative rather than exhaustive. Adapted from Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1994).

Figure 3

Figure 3

Activation functions for positive and negative dimensions of affective processing; the x-axis represents affective input, whereas the y-axis represents output of the system. The ESM proposes that there are two asymmetries in affective processing: the positivity offset is the result of greater positive than negative affect at low levels of emotional input; the negativity bias is the result of stronger responses to negative than to equally extreme positive input. (Adapted from Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994).

References

    1. Allen JJ, Urry HL, Hitt SK, Coan JA. The stability of resting frontal electroencephalographic asymmetry in depression. Psychophysiology. 2004;41:269–280. -PubMed
    1. Amir N, McNally RJ, Riemann BC, Burns J. Suppression of the emotional stroop effect by increased anxiety in patients with social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1996;34:945–948. -PubMed
    1. Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C, Vohs KD. Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology. 2001;5:323–370.
    1. Berntson GG, Boysen ST, Cacioppo JT. Neurobehavioral organization and the cardinal principle of evaluative bivalence. In: Crinella FM, Yu J, editors. Brain mechanisms: Papers in memory of Robert Thompson. New York, NY, US: New York Academy of Sciences; 1993. pp. 75–102. -PubMed
    1. Berntson GG, Cacioppo JT. A contemporary perspective on multilevel analyses and social neuroscience. In: Kessel F, Rosenfield PL, Anderson NB, editors. Expanding the boundaries of health and social science: Case studies in interdisciplinary innovation. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press; 2003. pp. 18–40.

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources