Michelle Dawson posts

Post published on Twitter/X on 11 Nov 2022 13:41

Twitter/X DOI work crossref Extract quoted in the post Question asked by Dawson in the post External link integrated into the post

Structured cited links

1 cited resource

DOI work Fetched Post crossref

Maital Neta, M. Justin Kim (2023). Surprise as an Emotion: A Response to Ortony. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(4), 854-862. SAGE Publications.

Publication date
10 Nov 2022
Identifier
10.1177/17456916221132789
Authors
Maital Neta, M. Justin Kim
Source
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Details
18(4), 854-862
Reference type
article
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Metadata source
crossref

Abstract

We write in response to an article published in this journal by Andrew Ortony titled “Are All ‘Basic Emotions’ Emotions? A Problem for the (Basic) Emotions Construct.” The author claimed that “for all its elevated status as a basic emotion, surprise fails to satisfy the minimal requirements that [he] proposed for something to be an emotion, and if it is not an emotion, it cannot possibly be a basic emotion.” Although we acknowledge the concerns brought forth by Ortony, we respectfully disagree with his conclusion about surprise. To make a case against the assertion that surprise is valence-free, we summarize an extensive body of work showing that surprise is indeed valenced—in a specific manner (i.e., ambiguously valenced)—and that it meets all of Ortony’s criteria for an emotion. In other words, rather than being described as neither positive nor negative, this emotion is either positive or negative. We consider the data with respect to surprise as a basic emotion, and we dispute the definitions of basic emotions as “widely divergent.” Future work is needed to continue defining an emotion, and a basic emotion, but we believe this is a worthy effort toward shaping a still evolving field.

Study authors in this cited reference