Context
The emotion half of the psychopathology batch (ADR-021) filed Barrett’s theory of constructed emotion (LIT-542) beside two statements of appraisal theory. One is Lazarus’s Emotion and Adaptation (LIT-550), which Barrett names as her example of the causal appraisal theories she calls “highly doubtful”. The other is Frijda, Ridderinkhof and Rietveld’s account of action readiness (LIT-540), in which appraisal of concern pertinence elicits the emotion.
The LIT scheme declared three relations, and none of them is this one:
extendsis building on a paper.compared_againstmeans somebody ran the comparison.correctsmeans one paper showed the other wrong.
Barrett tests nothing against appraisal theory. She argues that its
causal order is backwards. The filing agent held the rivalry in prose in
all three notes and asked for a relation, citing the anthology’s rivals.
Decision
Add rivals to both schemes, symmetric (its own converse), with the
anthology’s meaning: another account of the same phenomenon that cannot
also be right, where neither yet corrects the other. When one is settled,
the relation becomes corrects on the winner and a status on the loser.
- On LIT it joins papers whose accounts exclude each other.
- On THEORY it joins the record’s own claims. Its first use there is expected to be the batch’s proposed theories of emotion, constructed categories against appraisal.
First use: LIT-542 rivals LIT-550 and LIT-540. Each
note already says in prose what the disagreement is. Barrett holds that
meaning follows from action and categorization. Lazarus and Frijda hold
that an appraisal of the event’s meaning comes first and produces the
emotion.
Frijda 2014 does not cite Barrett, and Barrett does not cite Frijda. The relation still holds, because it joins accounts, not citations: the two causal orders cannot both be right.
Alternatives considered
- Prose only. This is what the batch did before this decision. It is true but invisible to the index, the lineage views and any reader who arrives at one note and not the others.
compared_against. That would be false. The record’s blurb for it says “somebody ran the comparison”, and here nobody did.correctsfrom Barrett to Lazarus. That would take Barrett’s side. The record has not read Lazarus, and Barrett’s paper argues; it does not test.