 21. Emotion and Personality  461
Studies have uncovered still other 
emotion-  specific autonomic responses. The 
blush covaries with feelings of embarrass -
ment, but not fear (Shearn, Bergman, Hill, 
Abel, & Hinds, 1992). A type of chills—  the 
“goosetingles”—is associated with elevated 
positive emotions rather than fear, particu -
larly awe and aesthetic experiences when lis -
tening to certain kinds of music (Maruskin, 
Thrash, & Elliot, 2012; Nusbaum et al., 
2014). Compassion, but not closely related 
states such as inspiration, consistently pre -
dicts increase in vagal tone—a marker of 
parasympathetic activation long thought to 
facilitate prosocial behavior (Stellar et al., 
2015). Reports of sexual desire, unsurpris -
ingly, track blood flow to the genital region, 
an effect mediated by activity in another 
branch of the parasympathetic nervous sys -
tem (Meston & Frolich, 2003).
These developments are detailing a much 
richer landscape of emotional experience, 
expression, and physiology than the Basic 
Six charted by early emotion scientists. 
These and other findings make the case for 
upwards of 20 distinct emotions worthy of 
study. In Tables 21.4 and 21.5, we synthesize theoretical analyses for negative and positive 
emotions. Our definitions emphasize two as -
pects of each emotion that are central to con -
ceptualizing its adaptive function. The first 
is its core appraisal tendency —the specific 
appraisal or set of appraisals reflecting the 
core, subjective, fitness-  relevant meaning of 
a situation thought to trigger that emotion -
al response (Frijda, 2017; Lazarus, 1991; 
 Lerner & Keltner, 2000, 2001). Appraisals 
reflect the evolutionary “problem” posed by 
the eliciting situation and guide cognitive 
processes such as attention, categorization, 
causal attribution, memory, risk assessment, 
and expectation. The second component 
of each emotion’s functional analysis is its 
action tendency  (e.g., Frijda, 1986, 2017; 
 Rodriquez Mosquera, Fischer, & Manstead, 
2004). Emotions dispose individuals toward 
goal-based actions (e.g., Fridlund, 1992; 
 Frijda, Kuipers, & ter  Schure, 1989); from 
an evolutionary standpoint, action tenden -
cies are behavioral solutions to adaptive 
problems.
Our synthesis necessarily simplifies the 
appraisals and action tendencies associated 
with each emotion and neglects nuances 
TABLE 21.4.  A Synthesis of Theoretical Accounts of Negative Emotions
Emotion Appraisal tendency Action tendency
Anger Offense against selfaRestore justice; hold individuals 
responsibleb, p, r
Contempt Other violates role, duty, obligationcLower the status of perpetrator
Disgust Contact with impure object or actiondPush awayd, l, n
Embarrassment Self has transgressed a social conventioneApologizef
Envy Other is superior to selfgReduce status of other
Fear Imminent threat to selfhFlee, reduce uncertaintyo, q
Guilt Self has violated moral standard regarding 
harmiRemedy harm
Jealousy Other threatens source of affectionjProtect source of affection from others
Sadness Irrevocable lossaAcquire new goodsl, m, o
Shame Self has transgressed aspiration or idealk Hide, avoid scrutiny
Note . aLazarus (1991). bLerner, Goldberg, and Tetlock (1998). cRozin, Lowery, Imada, and Haidt (1999). dRozin and 
Fallon (1987). eR. Miller and Tangney (1994). fKeltner and Buswell (1997). gSalovey (1991). hÖhman (1986). iBaumeister, 
Stillwell, and Heatherton (1994). jDeSteno and Salovey (1996). kTangney (1991). lLerner, Small, and Loewenstein (2004). 
mCryder, Lerner, Gross, and Dahl (2008). nHan, Lerner, and Zeckhauser (2012). oRaghunathan and Pham (1999). pSmall 
and Lerner (2008). qTiedens and Linton (2001). rSmall, Lerner, and Fischoff (2006).