In this commentary I focus on similarities, discrepancies, and problems in the four large theoretical perspectives on emotions presented in this issue. Focusing on the approaches’ ideas about the functionality of emotions, I will discuss limitations that call for (additional) smaller and more focused theories.
BarrettL. F. (2014). The conceptual act theory: A précis. Emotion Review, 6, 292–297.
2.
BrehmJ. W. (1999). The intensity of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 2–22. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_1
3.
BrehmJ. W.SelfE. A. (1989). The intensity of motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 109–131. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.000545
4.
GendollaG. H. E.WrightR. A.RichterM. (2012). Effort intensity: Some insights from the cardiovascular system. In RyanR. M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 420–438). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
5.
KruglanskiA. W.WebsterD. W. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing.”Psychological Review, 103, 263–283. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263
6.
MesquitaB.BoigerM. (2014). Emotions in context: A sociodynamic model of emotions. Emotion Review, 6, 298–302.
7.
MoorsA. (2014). Flavors of appraisal theories of emotion. Emotion Review, 6, 303–307.
8.
TracyJ. (2014). An evolutionary approach to understanding distinct emotions. Emotion Review, 6, 308–312.
9.
WeinerB. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573. doi:10.1037/0033–295X.92.4.548
