<p>The <a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/13621/what-causes-emotions?rq=1">accepted answer</a> of this SE questions states that &quot;The meta-analytic evidence seems to favor the [<strong>constructionist</strong>] view [over the <strong>basic emotion view</strong>], but there's still a buttload of work to be done on this end.&quot;</p>
<p>Hower, an important view in the research on emotion, the <strong>appraisal theory</strong>, was not discussed in the answer.</p>
<p>Which of the <strong>appraisal theory</strong> of emotions or the <strong>construction theory</strong> of emotions tends to be proved the most correct?</p>
<p>Research has proved that the emotion regulation technique of re-appraisal is very efficient. This highlights the accuracy of the appraisal theory.</p>
<p>Research has proved that observing and acknowledging one’s emotional or affective state is efficient for emotional regulation. This highlights the accuracy of the constructionist theory (because its points that it is the affective state per se, and its appraisal, which could have an influence on the experience of the emotion).</p>
<p>Thus, research on emotion regulation may point to a unification of appraisal and constructionist theories. But I don’t think both theories are supposed to be unified.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-01T08:15:24.370Z
They're not mutually exclusive as they apply differently. Constructionist applies to interpretation whereas appraisal is at a lower-level in generating the affect - if I've understood correctly. Respectively, a secondary (socially mediated?) and primary affect. Seems like apples and oranges to me. Can you clarify what domains of applicability of the words are you thinking should be compared?
Jiminy Cricket.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-01T08:21:06.237Z
Thank you for your answer. Your answer points to the fact that it lacks something to constructionist theory: it is supposed to be a theory of emotion but it don’t model how they are triggered. This is not the case of the appraisal theory.
Starckman
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-01T08:23:12.420Z
I did not precise it in my question, but the appraisal theory in fact, at least IMU can also be internal-bodily changes oritented: you can create emotions based on how your interpret various bodily change (not necessarily those which are triggered by stressor in the environment)
Starckman
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-01T08:29:24.747Z
I'd agree about the somatic origin component, though I've seen little in the literature except some preliminary thinking regarding the gut-brain axis. Oh, and puberty/menopause, of course.
Jiminy Cricket.
<emotion>
Which of the appraisal theory of emotions or the construction theory of emotions tends to be proved the most correct?
Starckman
# Which of the appraisal theory of emotions or the construction theory of emotions tends to be proved the most correct?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-04-26)

The [accepted answer](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/13621/what-causes-emotions?rq=1) of this SE questions states that "The meta-analytic evidence seems to favor the [**constructionist**] view [over the **basic emotion view**], but there's still a buttload of work to be done on this end."

Hower, an important view in the research on emotion, the **appraisal theory**, was not discussed in the answer.

Which of the **appraisal theory** of emotions or the **construction theory** of emotions tends to be proved the most correct?

Research has proved that the emotion regulation technique of re-appraisal is very efficient. This highlights the accuracy of the appraisal theory.

Research has proved that observing and acknowledging one’s emotional or affective state is efficient for emotional regulation. This highlights the accuracy of the constructionist theory (because its points that it is the affective state per se, and its appraisal, which could have an influence on the experience of the emotion).

Thus, research on emotion regulation may point to a unification of appraisal and constructionist theories. But I don’t think both theories are supposed to be unified.

**Tags:** emotion

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: They're not mutually exclusive as they apply differently. Constructionist applies to interpretation whereas appraisal is at a lower-level in generating the affect - if I've understood correctly. Respectively, a secondary (socially mediated?) and primary affect. Seems like apples and oranges to me. Can you clarify what domains of applicability of the words are you thinking should be compared?  
> **username_0**: Thank you for your answer. Your answer points to the fact that it lacks something to constructionist theory: it is supposed to be a theory of emotion but it don’t model how they are triggered. This is not the case of the appraisal theory.  
> **username_0**: I did not precise it in my question, but the appraisal theory in fact, at least IMU can also be internal-bodily changes oritented: you can create emotions based on how your interpret various bodily change (not necessarily those which are triggered by stressor in the environment)  
> **username_1**: I'd agree about the somatic origin component, though I've seen little in the literature except some preliminary thinking regarding the gut-brain axis. Oh, and puberty/menopause, of course.  

---

## 0 answers

