Time flies. The last post I wrote was before the final of the world cup. The goal of the last post was to point out how some of the key concepts of emotion theories often focus on the individual and neglect the complex interplay of individuals with networks of family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, and strangers, both in real interactions and in implied, implicit ways.

I was very happy to receive both emails, and comments via the blog, pointing out that social processes play a role. Indeed - this is the thrust of my argument. concepts such as "relevance" can only explain so much ... In a public situation, after the win of the team, one can think in addition to what I outlined hte last time of comparison processes (if everybody is excited, it probably is exciting, even if I am not sure), to very low-level processes of contagion that follow from the perception of others around us. Feedback processes at multiple levels.

And now for a harsh switch of valence - from euphoria to hysteria.

Yesterday evening, I watched, on television and the Internet, as did many in Germany, events as the tragedy of Duisburg started to unfold. All the while the techno beat was still pounding and lights were flashing with hundreds of thousands of fans apparently unaware of the carnage just a few stone throws away. It is clear that the causes of the event are manifold and now, with hindsight, it appears that bad decisions with regard to the planning might have contributed to the sequence of events. However, one thing is sure - lots of people in a tight space, pushing and shoving, in the heat, played a big role. Did we really witness a stampede? Whenever we talk or think about crowd behavior the question is whether "the crowd" really exists. Does the crowd have a mind? Surely it does not have a (single) brain. The concept of the crowd is a very difficult one when trying to describe behavior in human - whether it relates to offline or online behavior (see CYBEREMOTIONS:EU).

In my mind bridging the analysis of the behavior of individuals and the behavior of large groups of individuals in real time is one of the major challenges for social psychology today.

Scientists from many disciplines are trying to observe, describe, predict, and modify panic behavior as one of the most destructive "mass" behaviors. Here is a link from an Australian TV program, CATALYST. The hope is that research bridging biology, psychology, mathematics, and even physics can help to prevent catastrophes, such as the one in Duisburg yesterday.

The world cup is coming to an end real!soon!now! - In the meanwhile, I have been busy collecting photos of the emotional reactions of fans (like here). Amazing! But not only on TV or the Internet and the press have I witnessed such emotions, I have seen them first hand - without having to go to South Africa. Walking through the streets in Germany after a win, there were cars honking, vuvuzelas were given a good work out, flags were waved, and people were busy wearing smiles and laughing all around. Fascinating. Why? I was surprised by the intensity and the ubiquity of the reactions - after all, it was not these people on the field, they did not win, the players are people who they do not know personally, who are very different from them, and the team will not see any of the reactions and waving (unless you happen to be in the first row of some official "public viewing" and the coaches will show the players video clips for motivational reasons - which apparently they do).

So what creates these intense emotions? How can they be explained? The go-to theory here surely is appraisal theory - this group of theories distinguishes itself from others in that it focuses on what conditions/situations/events elicit a specific emotional state. Different people react to the same objective situation differently - appraisal theory hold that this because the meaning and the implications for everybody might be different. The emotion is not caused by the event directly, but by what that entails for you, now ... Typically the key feature then that determines whether you will have an emotional reaction (what you show, feel, how your body responds) is to what degree the event is perceived as relevant for you. If it is not relevant it should not do much, if it is highly relevant and it is either important for or against your goals and needs then something should happen.

Consider some stranger getting into a car and driving off - no big deal. If it is your car that would be a different story. You see an apple - if you are really hungry and there is nothing else around, you will see this apple with different eyes then when you are not hungry. Magda Arnold, the "mother of appraisal theory" already discussed things like that 50 years ago and of course many philosophers did before. There is no need that these goal states are as biological as hunger, thirst, or having to go to the bathroom (a locked door then can mean a very different thing under such circumstances), but for example, a bus closing its doors in front of you when you have to be somewhere on time vs when you are on vacation and you have much time.

But what about things like TV or film? Why would you care about a fictional character dying on screen? Why can a novel move you to tears? Why can a football match create mayhem? Let's wait for the final to see who wins the cup and I will continue from there ... In the meanwhile I invite comments and I also invite you to participate in our studies here.

A good overview over appraisal theory can be found here.

... and ... do emotions explain the death threats to Paul the octopus?

Arnold, M.B. (1960). Emotion and personality (2 vols). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Scherer, K. R., Schorr, A., & Johnstone, T. (2001). Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, Methods, Research. New York: Oxford University Press.