This study experimentally tests the contributions of specific appraisals, considered at both molecular (appraisal components) and molar (core relational themes) levels of analysis, to the experience of four emotions (anger, guilt, fear/anxiety, and sadness) using a two-stage directed imagery task. In Stage 1, subjects imagined themselves in scenarios designed to evoke appraisals hypothesised to produce either anger or sadness. In Stage 2, the scenarios unfolded in time to produce a second manipulation designed to systematically evoke the appraisals hypothesised to produce each of the four emotions under study. The results provided substantial support for the theoretically specified appraisal-emotion relationships for anger, guilt, and fear/ anxiety. However, support for the predictions for sadness was weaker, partially due to ineffective manipulation of the relevant appraisals. Implications for the further development and testing of emotion theory are discussed.

Form C of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) scales is an 18 item, general purposes condition-specific locus of control scale that could easily be adapted for use with any medical or health-related condition. Data from 588 patients with one of four conditions—rheumatoid arthritis, chronic pain, diabetes, or cancer—were utilized to establish the factor stucture of Form C and to establish the reliability and validity of the resultant four subscales: Internality; Chance; Doctors; and Other (powerful) People. The alpha reliabilities of the subscales are adequate for research purposes. Data from the arthritis and chronic pain subjects established that the Form C subscales were moderately stable over time and possessed considerable concurrent and construct validity. Some discriminant validity of Form C with Form B of the MHLC was also demonstrated.

Pleasant experience appears to be less emotionally differentiated than unpleasant experience. For instance, theories of emotion typically posit the existence of six or seven unpleasant emotions but often posit only one or two pleasant emotions. The present study is an attempt to systematically examine the differentiation of pleasant emotional experience. Subjects were asked to recall pleasant experiences that were associated with particular situational appraisals—appraisals of effort, agency, and certainty were systematically manipulated—and to describe their appraisals and emotions during these experiences. The results indicated that positive emotions, and their associated appraisals, are somewhat less differentiated than negative emotions, but nonetheless provided evidence of considerable differentiation among six pleasantly toned emotions (interest, hope/confidence, challenge, tranquillity, playfulness, and love). Each of these latter emotions was experienced differentially across the appraisal conditions, and was characterised by a distinct pattern of appraisal.

Recently there has been considerable theoretical and empirical work attempting to identify specific cognitive dimensions that shape the emotional response. However, this work has almost universally neglected an important theoretical distinction between two types of cognition relevant to emotion: knowledge and appraisal. Knowledge has to do with the facts of an adaptational encounter, whereas appraisal defines the personal significance of an encounter for well-being. In the shaping of an emotion, knowledge is a distal variable which requires an additional process of appraisal to produce an emotion; appraisal is a proximal variable which directly influences whether an emotion will be generated, and if so, its kind and intensity. In this article we examine the distinctions between knowledge and appraisal that are relevant to the emotion process, and how the failure to consider them muddies theoretical and empirical work. We examine a number of putative appraisal dimensions prominent in current theoretical systems, examine why they often constitute knowledge rather than appraisal, and discuss some of the appraisal dimensions in the emotion process. In addition, the major techniques used to study the cognition-emotion relationship are examined and their potential for providing evidence of appraisal rather than knowledge is evaluated.

A sense of competence or self-efficacy is associated with many positive outcomes, particularly in the area of health behavior. A measure of a sense of competence in the domain of health behavior has not been developed. Most measures are either general measures of a general sense of self-efficacy or are very specific to a particular health behavior. The Perceived Health Competence Scale (PHCS), a domain-specific measure of the degree to which an individual feels capable of effectively managing his or her health outcomes, was developed to provide a measure of perceived competence at an intermediate level of specificity. Five studies using three different types of samples (students, adults and persons with a chronic illness) provide evidence for the reliability and validity of the PHCS. The eight items of the PHCS combine both outcome and behavioral expectancies. Results from the five studies indicate that the scale has good internal consistency and test–retest reliability. The construct validity of the scale is demonstrated through the support obtained for substantive hypotheses regarding the correlates of perceived health competence, such as health behavior intentions, general sense of competence and health locus of control.