<p>Baumeister and Bushman (2007) have given this definition of emotion:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>a subjective state, often accompanied by a bodily reaction (e.g., increased heart rate) and an evaluative response, to some event</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But I thought that emotion (see the synthesis in <a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/13621/what-causes-emotions?rq=1">SE psycho here</a>) is normally understood as the interpretation of an affect, affect which is a bodily reaction; so that you cannot have an emotion without having a bodily reaction, and so it is not that an emotion is <em>often</em> accompanied by a bodily reaction, but is <em>always</em> accompanied by a bodily reaction.</p>
<p>The wikipedia of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appraisal_theory" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Appraisal theory</a> also states my understanding:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>According to Schachter and Singer (1962)[26] we can have arousal without emotion, but we cannot have an emotion without arousal.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This question is based on the consensus among Constructionists.</p>
<p><strong>References:</strong></p>
<p>Baumeister, R. F., &amp; Bushman, B. J. (2007). Angry emotions and aggressive behaviors. In G. Steffgen &amp; M. Gollwitzer (Eds.), <em>Emotions and aggressive behavior</em> (pp. 61–75). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe &amp; Huber.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-14T21:23:18.403Z
Considering the other question you linked, are you wanting to base this question on the concensus among Basic Emotion Theorists, or Constructionists?
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-15T01:28:46.213Z
@ChrisRogers On the Constructionists
Starckman
<emotion>
Why an emotion is "often" accompanied by a bodily reaction?
Starckman
# Why an emotion is "often" accompanied by a bodily reaction?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-04-14)

Baumeister and Bushman (2007) have given this definition of emotion:

> a subjective state, often accompanied by a bodily reaction (e.g., increased heart rate) and an evaluative response, to some event

But I thought that emotion (see the synthesis in [SE psycho here](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/13621/what-causes-emotions?rq=1)) is normally understood as the interpretation of an affect, affect which is a bodily reaction; so that you cannot have an emotion without having a bodily reaction, and so it is not that an emotion is *often* accompanied by a bodily reaction, but is *always* accompanied by a bodily reaction.

The wikipedia of [Appraisal theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appraisal_theory) also states my understanding:

> According to Schachter and Singer (1962)[26] we can have arousal without emotion, but we cannot have an emotion without arousal.

This question is based on the consensus among Constructionists.

**References:**

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). Angry emotions and aggressive behaviors. In G. Steffgen & M. Gollwitzer (Eds.), *Emotions and aggressive behavior* (pp. 61–75). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber.

**Tags:** emotion

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Considering the other question you linked, are you wanting to base this question on the concensus among Basic Emotion Theorists, or Constructionists?  
> **username_0**: @ChrisRogers On the Constructionists  

---

## 0 answers

