The current status of research on the structure of evaluative space

Abstract

The structure of evaluative space shapes emotional life. Although behavior may be constrained to a single bipolar dimension, for example as defined by the opposing movements of approach and withdrawal, the mechanisms underlying the affect system must be capable of an astonishing range of emotional experience and expression. The model of evaluative space (ESM; J. T. Cacioppo, W. L. Gardner, & G. G. Berntson, 1997, 1999) proposes that behavioral predispositions are the ultimate output of the affect system, which is defined by operating characteristics that differ both for positivity and negativity, as well as across levels of the nervous system. In this article, we outline the current status of theory and research on the structure of evaluative space. First, we summarize the basic tenets of the model, as well as recent research supporting these ideas and counterarguments that have been raised by other theorists. To address these counterarguments, we discuss the postulates of affective oscillation and calibration, two mechanistic features of the affect system proposed to underlie the durability and adaptability of affect. We summarize empirical support for the functional consequences of the principles of affective oscillation and calibration, with a focus on how oscillation and the “stickiness” of affect can lead to the emergence of ambivalence, whereas affective calibration and the flexibility of the affect system produce asymmetries in affective processing (e.g., the negativity bias). Finally, we consider the clinical implications of disorder in the structure of evaluative space for the comprehension and treatment of depression and anxiety.

Brain dynamics of upstream perceptual processes leading to visual object recognition: A high density ERP topographic mapping study

“…Although speculative, this effect obtained for negatively-valenced scenes might be consistent with a negativity bias effect, as described in the Evaluative Space Model (ESM: Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1997;Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999;Norris, Gollan, Berntson, & Cacioppo, 2010). This dominant model makes the assumption of Brain Dynamics of Upstream Perceptual Processes 29 two separable and partially distinct components of the system underlying the evaluation of emotion and affect: (1) positivity, sensitive to appetitive stimuli and promoting approaching behavior; (2) negativity, oriented towards threat or danger, and fostering avoidance .…”

“…This negativity bias would lead to slower or diminished responses to non-negative (appetitive/pleasant), relative to negative stimuli (Norris, Gollan, Berntson, & Cacioppo, 2010).…”

Children's understanding of mixed emotions in self and other: Verbal reports and visual representations

“…As the ESM (Cacioppo, Gardner, & Bernston, 1999;Cacioppo, Larsen, Smith, & Bernston, 2004) postulates, the biological architecture supports positive and negative affect activation in multiple patterns such as reciprocal, co-activated or independent (Norris, Gollan, Bernston, & Cacioppo, 2010) which may support complex activation patterns across mid childhood.…”

“…The Evaluative Space Model (ESM) posits that the affect system is defined by different operating characteristics for positive and negative emotion that can lead to different behaviours, and are activated differently within the nervous system (Norris, Gollan, Bernston & Cacioppo, 2010). This model indicates that the operation of positive and negative substrates of valence are experientially separable (Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994;Cacioppo, Larsen, Smith, & Berntson, 2004).…”

Multiple synergistic effects of emotion and memory on proactive processes leading to scene recognition

“…1B). As argued in Schettino et al (2012), delayed recognition for 530 emotional relative to neutral scenes could be explained by differential motivational drives 531 between these two categories, including positivity offset Cacioppo 532 et al, 1999Cacioppo 532 et al, , 1997Norris et al, 2010). According to this general motivational account, 533 participants are usually inclined to engage in exploratory behavior when encountering emotion-534 laden stimuli (especially pleasant ones), presumably because of their intrinsic rewarding value.…”