This paper reviews four theoretical perspectives on the relationship between emotion and human behavior. Drawing on work by Baumeister et al., Barrett et al., Cunningham and Zelazo, and Ortony et al., the paper examines how emotions function not as direct causes of behavior but as feedback systems, appraisal mechanisms, and reflective evaluative processes. Each theory is summarized in accessible terms, highlighting the role of cognitive appraisal, automaticity, prefrontal cortex activity, and multi-level functioning in shaping how humans respond to stimuli. Together, these frameworks suggest a more complex and indirect relationship between emotional experience and behavioral output than popular accounts typically allow.
Baumeister, DeWall, Vohs, and Zhang argue that the popular theory of emotion — that its primary function is the "direct causation of behavior" — represents an incomplete understanding. They propose instead that emotion functions as a "feedback system" whose influence on human behavior is "indirect" (Baumeister et al., 2007). In other words, the theory rejects the idea that the purpose of emotion is to cause behavior directly.
Going further, the authors contend that emotion operates in order to stimulate a learning process. Consider a person in early evolutionary history encountering a tiger — or another dangerous predator — for the first time. It would take a few seconds for that individual to cognitively appraise the danger, which triggers a brain response of fear, which in turn activates the motor response causing the person to run. Having experienced this once, however, the next time the individual encounters a similar threat, the previous emotional response provides "feedback" — effectively, learning. That learned experience, obtained through the initial emotional response, allows the person to run before consciously experiencing fear. Conscious emotional states therefore "promote learning and alter guidelines for future behavior" (Baumeister, p. 168).
The theory that Barrett and colleagues promote first takes the "commonsense approach to emotion" to task. The authors reject the notion that emotions such as sadness, fear, or anger are "primitive" entities "lying in wait within the brain or body, ready to spring forth automatically" when triggered (Barrett, 2007, p. 175). In place of this view, Barrett et al. advance what they call the "dual-process model" — a more sophisticated understanding of emotion — in which an initial "basic emotion" (fear, anger, sadness, etc.) is immediately followed by an "appraisal approach," meaning that cognitive processes "automatically elicit and determine the quality and intensity" of the emotional response. In other words, people do not simply have knee-jerk reactions to emotional situations; immediately after the initial emotional trigger, a cognitive appraisal response takes place.
Cunningham and Zelazo accept that when the brain automatically evaluates a situation, that action is "crucial for survival." However, their model goes further. In addition to automatic evaluation, they argue that a "reflective evaluative process" is also necessary in order to store information from present experiences for use in future ones (Cunningham et al., 2007). The core of their theory is that these "reflective evaluative processes" are created — based on experience — in the prefrontal cortex (PFC), which elevates evaluation to a level beyond simple attitude or basic emotional response. In other words, the PFC houses learned "rules" that play a key role when humans evaluate situations.
"Four domains and three levels of human functioning"
The way humans respond to stimuli — through emotions, attitudes, and experiences — is a fascinating field of study and has produced some interesting and esoteric research. Reviewing the available literature is an exercise in expanding one's understanding, which is, after all, one of the central purposes of education.
You’re 62% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.