Shyness, Anxiousness, and Angriness and Lazarus’ Emotion Theory

a multi-level appraisal process. Appraisals are considered as reflective or impulsive decisions that estimate a given person-environment relationship and evolve a particular emotion. Each emotion is qualified by its unique core relational theme. The core relational theme summarizes personal harms or benefits that result from the person-environment relationship. The core relational theme for anxiety is defined as “facing uncertain, existential threat”, and for anger as “a demeaning offense against me and mine” (p. 122).

To construct the core relational theme, an appraisal process generates different evaluative patterns that discriminate among emotions. Therefore, the appraisal process involves a set of primary and secondary appraisals. Primary appraisals concern the motivational aspects and the personal stakes in a person-environment encounter. Primary appraisals include three components, which are goal relevance, goal congruence or incongruence, and type of ego-involvement. Goal relevance refers to whether an encounter affects personal goals. Goal congruence or incongruence is concerned with whether the encounter facilitates or thwarts personal goals. Type of ego-involvement deals with aspects of ego-identity, e.g., self- and social-esteem, moral values, or life goals.

Secondary appraisals concern options for coping behavior, that is, the prospects to preserve positive or to avoid negative emotional states. Again, secondary appraisals include three components, which are credit or blame, coping potential, and future expectancy. Credit or blame derives from knowing who is held responsible for a frustration or a success. Coping potential refers to whether an individual can deal with situational demands and whether a situation offers possibilities to actualize personal goals.

Future expectancy refers to the probability of coping behavior changing things for better or worse.

In order to develop an evaluative pattern that specifies an emotion, one doesn’t require all six of the appraisal components for each emotion. For instance, all the necessary and sufficient components for anxiety comprise only the three primary appraisal components. For anger, the three primary appraisal components and the blame are essential (see Table 2). Both, anxiety and anger refer to person-environment relationships that are incongruent with their goal. Consequently, anger and anxiety are conceptualized as negative emotions. For anxiety, the type of ego-involvement concerns with an existential threat or a threat to self- or social-esteem. According to Lazarus’ model, these appraisal components are necessary and sufficient for the construction of anxiety. To experience anxiety, blame is irrelevant, yet the coping options and future expectations are characterized by uncertainty.

Table 2

The Formation of Anxiety or Anger and Resulting Action Tendencies (Lazarus, 1991)

Anxiety Anger Primary appraisals

Goal relevance (1) If there is goal relevance, any emotion is possible.

Goal incongruence (2) If there is goal incongruence, negative emotions are possible.

Ego-involvement (3) If ego involvement concerns threat to self- or social-esteem, … or existential threat, then emotion

possibilities narrow to anxiety.

then emotion possibilities include anger and anxiety.

Secondary appraisals

Blame (4) Irrelevant

(4) If there is other- or self-blame, anger occurs.

Coping potential (5) Uncertain (5) If attack is viable, anger is facilitated.

Future expectancy (6) Uncertain (6) If attack seems success-ful, anger is facilitated.

Action tendencies Avoidance, escape Approach, attack

Note. Essential appraisal components are 1 through 3 for anxiety, and 1 through 4 for anger.

For anger, the type of ego-involvement concerns with a threat to self- or social-esteem. When others or the self are blamed for the threat to self- or social-esteem, anger occurs. The anger is directed externally or internally, dependent on whether the blame is directed at another person or at oneself. These appraisal components are necessary and sufficient for the construction of anger. However, anger is facilitated, when coping options favor an attack, and if future expectations are positive about the environmental response to attack.

Although the appraisal components are in hierarchical order like in a decision-tree (see Table 2), the model argues that appraisals are not necessarily sequential. Thus, the appraisal process does not represent a step-by-step scan of the reported components in any fixed order. Moreover, the core relational theme of each emotion is identified very rapidly and, possibly, even simultaneously with the appraisal components. Interestingly enough, this construction of emotional meaning may have been evolved through a reflective, self-controlled, and abstract cognitive analysis and via an impulsive, unconscious process.

Thus, in regards to the reflective and impulsive information processing model from Strack and Deutsch (in press; see Chapter 2.2), the appraisal process may be accompanied by both a noetic, that is, conscious, and an experiential, that is, unconscious, state of awareness.

Furthermore, Lazarus’ (1991) model embraces behavioral aspects. Behavioral aspects are represented by different action tendencies that result from each emotion. The action tendencies that rise from anxiety are avoidance or escape. For anger, the action tendencies are approach or attack (see Table 2). In the model from Strack and Deutsch (in press), these action tendencies are considered to be the aspects of motivational orientation.

In both models, action tendencies or motivational orientations and behavior are activated reciprocally. Thus, strong action tendencies are more likely to elicit the compatible behavior. Similarly, any given behavior may reinforce the action tendency and the emotional state consistent with the behavior.

Even though Lazarus’ (1991) model deals with the formation of emotional states in different situations, the model does not neglect interindividual differences. Interindividual differences are represented by different appraisal styles. An appraisal style summarizes appraisals of person-environment relationships that are consistent across different situations. These transsituationally consistent response dispositions may also be considered as traits. For instance, someone who gets anxious, both, when trying to get around in a new place, and when delivering a speech in front of an audience, may be described as an

anxious person. The feeling of anxiety within both situations refers to an emotional state, whereas the readiness to appraise both situations as a threat to oneself refers to a personality trait, that is, anxiousness.

Thus, Lazarus’ emotion theory considers anxiety, and anger as the outcome of a person-environment relationship. Appraisal styles represent the effects of interindividual differences on this person-situation interaction. For instance, individuals high in anxiousness consistently tend to appraise person-environment relationships in terms of threat to self- or social esteem or even in terms of existential threat. Similarly, individuals high in angriness consistently tend to appraise person-environment relationships in terms of threat to self- or social-esteem, yet, hold others or themselves responsible for their harmful experiences.

Lazarus’ emotion theory does not explicitly refer to shyness. Nevertheless, Lazarus’

theory allows for the inclusion of shyness. According to Asendorpf (1989a), shyness is associated with two types of concern - fear of the unfamiliar and fear of being negatively evaluated by others. Within Lazarus’ theory these concerns may be considered as appraisal styles referring to shyness. These concerns may be also part of the appraisal styles for anxiousness (cf. Crozier, 2001). However, the shyness appraisal styles are more situation-specific and refer, in particular, to two kinds of inhibitions, that is, fear of strangers and fear of social evaluation. More importantly, self-descriptions and behavioral observations in shyness-inducing situations provided empirical evidence that shyness was independently elicited by both kinds of inhibitions (Asendorpf, 1989a).

The strength of Lazarus’ emotion theory is in its conceptualization of emotions as the result of a person-environment relationship. Thus, the model embraces both individual and situational aspects. In other words, the model refers to emotions as traits and as states.

Moreover, the model includes the adaptational effects of emotions, since it incorporates coping aspects. The weak point of the model is reflected in the appraisal components which do not clearly and fully narrow down the possible emotional outcomes to a particular emotion. For instance, appraisal components for both anxiety and anger may include the experience of threat to self- or social-esteem. Additionally, anger may not only occur due to threat to self- or social-esteem, but also due to threat to bodily integrity. In summary, Lazarus’ emotion theory has not yet been empirically tested concerning all of the appraisal components eliciting particular emotions. Therefore, it remains “something of a mystery” (Lazarus, 1991, p. 151) how and why a particular emotion arises. This is

especially the case, as long as the appraisal process itself is not defined as either sequential or simultaneous. Nevertheless, the model stands for the successful application of a psychological stress theory to a person-environment theory of emotions.

2.6.2 Shyness, Anxiousness, and Angriness in Relation to