This exchange provides an array of perspectives on the questions of what emotions are, how they function, and how they should be studied. While my approach is evolutionary and functionalist—viewing each distinct emotion as having evolved to serve a particular function (though not necessarily one entirely unique to that emotion)—this approach is not the only one needed to fully understand emotions. Furthermore, several of the accounts offered here might be effectively synthesized by accepting the importance of both universal evolutionary factors (...) and sociocultural particulars in shaping emotion experiences. (shrink)

In reply to the commentaries of Clay-Warner (2014), Gendolla (2014), Nesse (2014), Shweder (2014), and Zachar (2014), I repeat the essential features of appraisal theories of the second flavor: They take emotional components (and not specific emotions) as the phenomenon to be explained, and they strive for a multilevel mechanistic explanation that leaves room for complex and dynamical processes or mechanisms. Every mechanistic explanation starts with an accurate description of regularities between inputs and outputs. Regularities do not preclude context-dependent variety, (...) because there is no limit to the number of input factors that can influence the output, and back. (shrink)

It is time to abandon essentialism in emotional research: Our sociodynamic model (Mesquita & Boiger, 2014) proposes to study emotions as contextualized processes, rather than as states. This does not mean eschewing mental processes, but rather studying them dynamically and in open interaction with their environment. Our proposal is not to shift the focus of emotion studies to a different level. Rather, placing emotions in their social context renders their psychological qualities understandable and predictable. This is illustrated by some examples (...) from my own cross-cultural research. (shrink)