nucleation

LIT-1464: The Nature and Dynamics of Relevance and Valence Appraisals: Theoretical Advances and Recent Evidence

1 min read

Properties2
StatusUnavailable — registered 2026-10-23 from Crossref, not read: no lawful full text could be reached. OpenAlex lists no open copy. The SAGE article page and PDF refused this client behind a bot check, and the journal is subscription-only. The University of Geneva's Archive ouverte holds two other papers from the same issue with public access (the issue's introduction by Moors, Ellsworth, Scherer and Frijda, and Scherer and Ellsworth's reply), but no record of this one was found, and the Geneva E3 Lab's publications page does not post it. A web search found no author or course posting. Its subject, the varieties of valence appraisal, is read first-hand in Shuman, Sander and Scherer's "Levels of valence" (LIT-1458), published two months later. Filed because the record's potential account needs the component process model's distinction between kinds of valence. It stays Unavailable until a copy is supplied, not on merit.
Tagsemotion-and-affect, cognition

Graph View

Klaus R. Scherer (2013), Emotion Review 5(2):150–162 — DOI-10.1177/1754073912468166

Key takeaways

Registered, not read. From the abstract:

  • “In this contribution three issues have been chosen for discussion: (a) varieties of relevance detection, (b) varieties of valence appraisal, and (c) sequential-cumulative effects of appraisal results.”
  • New theoretical proposals and an update on the sequence of appraisal processes. “Special emphasis is placed on nonverbal signatures of appraisal processes.”

The varieties of valence are read in Shuman, Sander and Scherer (LIT-1458, NOTE-1108): intrinsic pleasantness, goal conduciveness, power, self-congruence and moral goodness, each a separate valenced check. The sequence evidence, intrinsic pleasantness before goal conduciveness, is read in Grandjean, Sander and Scherer (NOTE-1115) and Scherer and Moors (NOTE-1106).

Standing in the record

Filed on 2026-10-23 for the objection that the record’s potential account tracks ‘wanting’, not ‘liking’ (CLAIM-438, against CLAIM-440). What this paper would add over its readings elsewhere is Scherer’s own statement of why intrinsic pleasantness is a relevance check and goal conduciveness an implications check. If the record answers the objection by assigning its account to goal-conduciveness valence, this is the paper to cite for the division.

No instruction for machine-learning practice; nothing here belongs in the anthology.

Backlinks