A motivational theory of emotion to replace 'emotion as disorganized response.'

Leeper, Robert

doi:10.1037/h0061922

Cited by 203 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There, Bowlby states that he took the concept of disorganization from the neurologist Kurt Goldstein, who had been making use of a commonly used concept among neurologists of the 1940s and 1950s. “Disorganization” was a term that had been used quite widely by neurological researchers interested in strong affect as a potentially overwhelming physiological experience (for a review, see Leeper, 1948). Goldstein argued that certain affects, such as anxiety, anger, awe, and ecstasy, could be so intense and absorbing that the organism could become disoriented, lost in the affect, and unable to respond behaviorally to the demands of the situation (Goldstein, 1951).…”

Section: Issues Of Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, one lesson from examining the origins of the concept of disorganization is the importance of considered and careful use of terminology about behavior, psychological process, and classification that matches intended meaning, rather than assuming that the term “disorganized” is self-evident in its meaning (Duschinsky & Solomon, 2017). Soon after the end of the Second World War, Leeper (1948) was already warning the neurological research community that the term was ambiguous and ripe for contributing to misunderstandings if adequate definition was not provided.…”

Section: Issues Of Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Disorganized attachment and defense: exploring John Bowlby’s unpublished reflections

Reisz

Duschinsky

Siegel³

2017

Attachment & Human Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Main and Solomon were the first to create a formal infant Strange Situation classification of attachment disorganization. Bowlby’s reflections on the underlying psychological processes of such behaviors, however, began early in his career, including the term “disorganization.” Most of these remained unpublished but are available through the John Bowlby Archive. Bowlby saw affective experiences as the source of the attachment behavioral system’s organization and regulation, and he introduced the term “effector equipment” to describe the emergent organization of attention, expectation, affect, and behavior to orchestrate responses to the environment. In his thinking, disorganization results from threat conflict, safe haven ambiguity, and/or activation without assuagement, which interfere with coordination and integration across a behavioral system. Bowlby’s unpublished writings also amplify his published work on segregated systems and defensive exclusion. Bowlby’s insights are relevant today and can provide greater background and clarity to current work, as researchers and clinicians consider the origins, manifestations, and meaning of disorganization.

show abstract

Section: Issues Of Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Issues Of Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Disorganized attachment and defense: exploring John Bowlby’s unpublished reflections

Reisz

Duschinsky

Siegel³

2017

Attachment & Human Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An emotional person would cease his or her rational, dispassionate activity and do things unbefitting an enlightened Western citizen, such as attack another person, weep, make spontaneous decisions, and so on. There has been relatively thorough criticism of this view (Arnold, 1960;Leeper, 1948), although variations resurface occasionally (e.g., Loewenstein, 1994). A more modern position argues that emotions primarily provide information to the organism, such as what the person values (Batson, Shaw, & Oleson, 1992) or the person's velocity of goal attainment (Carver & Scheier, 1998).…”

Section: Interest As An Emotionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interest and Interests: The Psychology of Constructive Capriciousness

Silvia

2001

Review of General Psychology

148

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The abiding interest that sustains scientific research has only rarely been displaced onto interest itself. What little research there is, however, has pursued one of two parallel paths. The first path is the study of interest as a transient affective state. Emotion psychology-this path's primary traveler-has historically viewed interest as the black sheep in the flock of basic emotions. The -prototypical‖ negative emotions such as anger and fear have received the lion's share of research, leaving interest and the other positive emotions in relative obscurity (Fredrickson, 1998). But mere neglect aside, many venerable shepherds have kicked interest out of the flock entirely. Interest isn't included in many major emotion theories, beginning with Darwin (1872/1998) and continuing with contemporary models

show abstract

“…A growing number of theorists from various disciplines, following the leads of Darwin (1872Darwin ( /1965, James (1890James ( /1950, Leeper (1948), and Tomkins (1963), have converged on this general view of the adaptive nature of emotions and their role in human experience (Arnold, 1960;D'Andrade, 1981;Frijda, 1986;Lazarus, 1982;Roseman, 1984;Scherer, 1984;Smith & Ellsworth, 1985. Our own recent research has been devoted to exploring some of the implications of this point of view.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%