Abstract
Contrary to early theorizing, emotions often last for longer periods of time. Variability in people’s emotion duration contributes to psychopathologies. Therefore, emotion theories need to account for this variability. So far, reviews only list predictors of emotion duration without integrating them in a theoretical framework. Mechanisms explaining why these predictors relate to emotion duration remain unknown. I propose to embed research on emotion duration in a network model of emotions and illustrate the central ideas with simulations using a formal network model. In the network model, the components of an emotion have direct causal effects on each other. According to the model, emotions last longer (a) when the components are more strongly connected or (b) when the components have higher thresholds (i.e., they are more easily activated). High connectivity prolongs emotions because components are constantly reactivated. Higher thresholds prolong emotions because components are more easily reactivated even when connectivity is lower. Indirect evidence from research on emotion coherence and research on the relationship of predictors of emotion duration with components outside of emotional episodes supports the usefulness of the network model. I further argue and show in simulations that a common cause model, in which a latent emotion causes changes in emotion components, cannot account for research on emotion duration. Finally, I describe future directions for research on emotion duration and emotion dynamics from a network perspective.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Emotions are commonly defined as relatively short-term experiences (e.g., Ekman & Cordaro, 2011; Keltner & Gross, 1999). However, evidence indicates that the duration of emotional episodes is highly variable (Frijda et al., 1991; Verduyn et al., 2012). Differences between people in how long their (negative) emotions last are indicative of psychopathological states (e.g., Houben et al., 2015; Lapate & Heller, 2020). Hence, emotion theories need to account for varying patterns of emotion duration. Reviews primarily list predictors of emotion duration without integrating the findings into a broader theoretical framework (Verduyn, 2021; Verduyn et al., 2015). Mechanisms underlying the relation between these predictors and emotion duration remain largely unknown. My goal is to provide an integrative theoretical framework of emotion duration by embedding it in a network model of emotions.
Emotion Duration
Initially, theorizing argued that emotions are short-term experiences (e.g., Ekman, 1992). Emotions synchronize people’s feelings, cognition, physiology, motivation, and expression in response to personally relevant situations (e.g., Keltner & Gross, 1999; Levenson, 1994). The entire process was argued to last only a few seconds (e.g., Ekman, 1999; Ekman & Cordaro, 2011). However, studies soon showed that actual emotional episodes often last for minutes or even hours (Sonnemans & Frijda, 1994; Verduyn et al., 2012).
Notably, there is substantial variability between persons, emotions, or episodes of the same emotion in how long the episode lasts. Accordingly, research started investigating predictors of emotion duration, identifying multiple characteristics of the person, the emotion, or the emotion-eliciting event that predict the duration of an emotional episode (Table 1; for comprehensive reviews, see Verduyn, 2021; Verduyn et al., 2015). For instance, people higher in neuroticism or rumination have longer negative emotional episodes, people higher in depression have longer negative and shorter positive emotional episodes, people higher in extraversion have longer positive emotional episodes, and people higher in trait reappraisal or who currently reappraise the situation have shorter positive and negative emotional episodes. Furthermore, emotional episodes are longer when they are intense and the emotion-eliciting event is highly relevant.
Compiling lists of central predictors is of utmost importance. However, the mechanisms explaining why these predictors relate to emotion duration remain unknown. Embedding these findings in a theoretical framework would go beyond specific predictors toward a more general understanding of the dynamics of emotions (Muthukrishna & Henrich, 2019). It may also provide intervention strategies for dealing with problematic emotion duration in psychopathologies. I argue that embedding research on emotion duration in a network model of emotions promises to advance the field.
Emotion Duration in a Network Model of Emotions
The central idea of a network model of emotions is that the components of an emotion have direct causal effects on each other (Lange et al., 2020; Lange & Zickfeld, 2021; see also Suri & Gross, 2022). When visualized, these causal relationships look like a network. For instance, a person may perceive an insult as unfair, leading to hostile feelings and to the motivation to yell, for which the body mobilizes energy by accelerating heart rate and starting to frown, while frowning feeds back into feelings via facial feedback. The entire episode represents anger (Fig. 1). The more components of anger are activated, the more intense the emotional experience is. Importantly, there is no monolithic network structure for a particular emotion. Instead, there is variability between persons and situations (Lange et al., 2020).
Research on other kinds of psychological networks indicates that variability in two independent characteristics of a network critically affect its dynamics (Fig. 1): (a) connectivity—how strongly the components are connected—and (b) each component’s threshold—the state in which a component tends to be (e.g., Cramer et al., 2016; Dalege et al., 2016). When conceptualizing emotional episodes as networks of causal relationships, the same characteristics should affect the dynamics of emotions.
If the components of an emotion’s network are more strongly connected, activation of one or more component(s) also more quickly activates other components of the network. Once the network is active, its activity is sustained by reactivation via feedback loops between components. Thus, higher connectivity will prolong the duration of an emotional episode.
Moreover, a component’s threshold indicates in which state the component tends to be. When the threshold is high, the component tends to be active and can, hence, be more easily activated all else being equal. For instance, for components of anger, does a person often consider situations unfair or tends to yell a lot? If thresholds of a network are high, its components will be more easily activated and also more easily reactivated even when the network’s connectivity is lower. Thus, high component thresholds will also prolong the duration of an emotional episode.
To specify and explore these ideas, I varied the two characteristics in a formal network model (inspired by Cramer et al., 2016; Lunansky et al., 2020; technical details are available in the Supplementary Materials and code is on OSF). To base the formal model on realistic emotion networks, I took network structures from another study. Specifically, I used common methods for estimating networks from data when researchers aim to investigate theoretical causal network models (for a discussion of the limitations of these methods, see Lange & Zickfeld, 2021). I estimated two networks with data from a study in which participants rated sets of components of awe and fear after watching movies of threatening natural events (e.g., tornados; Lange and Zickfeld, in press). I then simulated an external event that activates all components of the respective network (e.g., watching a movie) and that then faded over arbitrary units of time as if the emotional person is occupied with the event for some time. Once the external activation vanished, the emotion will return to its baseline at some point. The first return to baseline is a straightforward definition of the end of an emotional episode (Verduyn, 2021). I tracked the intensity of the emotion as the mean activity of all components. For instance, when seven of 10 components are active, the emotion’s intensity is 0.7. Once the intensity after the event, was no longer significantly larger than the mean intensity prior to the event, the emotion ended. In separate simulations, I varied the respective network’s connectivity or thresholds.
The simulations corroborated the theorizing (Fig. 2), although the results are stronger for fear than for awe. Both higher connectivity (for both emotions) and higher thresholds (only for fear) led to higher emotion duration. For higher connectivity, the network also kept its high-intensity state for longer. Beyond these primary findings, higher thresholds also resulted in higher baseline intensity because the components tend to be active. In contrast, higher connectivity even reduced the baseline intensity because the initially inactive components keep each other in check.
An alternative model inspired by affect program theories (Levenson, 1994; for a similar argument, see Coan, 2010) fails to account for research on emotion duration (full description of the model and simulation results reported in the Supplementary Materials). In this model, there is a common cause that affects all emotion components, while the components have no causal relationships among each other. Independent of the strength of relationships between the common cause and the components, the emotion always ends once the external activation vanished because the components cannot reactivate each other. This finding complements other evidence that people’s self-rated experiences of emotions are best captured by a network model as compared to such alternative models (Lange and Zickfeld, in press).
Predictors of Emotion Duration, Network Connectivity, and Thresholds
Fully embedding research on emotion duration in a network model of emotions requires evidence that predictors of emotion duration relate to network connectivity and component thresholds. Such research is nonexistent. However, there is indirect evidence from two separate lines of research. First, the notion of network connectivity is reminiscent of the notion of emotion coherence. Emotion coherence indicates how strongly the component changes of an emotion (e.g., feelings and expressions of anger) are correlated in an emotional episode. Notably, there is substantial variability between persons and situations in how strongly emotions cohere (e.g., Mauss & Robinson, 2009). If predictors of emotion duration are also predictors of emotion coherence, then research on emotion coherence provides indirect evidence that these predictors relate to differences in network connectivity.
Second, the component changes of an emotion can occur in non-emotional situations. For instance, people differ in how unfairly they tend to perceive situations or in how frequently they yell also in situations in which they do not experience anger. Akin to thresholds, people would therefore more easily experience such a component all else being equal. If evidence indicates that predictors of emotion duration are also predictors of general tendencies for component changes outside of emotional episodes, then this research provides indirect evidence that these predictors relate to differences in thresholds.
Indeed, the two lines of research provide indirect evidence that predictors of emotion duration relate to differences in network connectivity and component thresholds (Table 1). Neuroticism predicted less coherence of facial expressions and physiology in sadness (Wu et al., 2021), yet neuroticism predicted higher thresholds for various components associated with many negative emotions (Kuppens & Tong, 2010) such as lower autonomy, more worrying, and being pessimistic (Soto & John, 2017) as well as being motivated to avoid (Smits & Boeck, 2006). For extraversion, no research linked it to emotion coherence of positive emotions, yet it predicted higher thresholds for components associated with many positive emotions such as higher control, being assertive, higher power, and being active (Soto & John, 2017) as well as being motivated to approach (Smits & Boeck, 2006). Depression predicted less coherence of various components for both positive and negative emotions (Bendezú et al., 2022; Brown et al., 2020; Kahn et al., 2021; Mauss et al., 2005; Sommerfeldt et al., 2019) and predicted higher thresholds for components associated with many negative emotions such as inactivity or loss of interest (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) as well as a cognitive style predisposing to experience negative emotions (Hankin et al., 2005). For rumination, no research linked it to emotion coherence of negative emotions, yet it predicted higher thresholds for components associated with many negative emotions such as a maladaptive cognitive style and lower motivation to act (Nolen-Hoeksma et al., 2008) as well as appraisals of intrusive thoughts about the likelihood of challenging relevant situations (Watkins, 2004). (Trait) reappraisal had a mixed relationship with emotion coherence for various components for both positive and negative emotions (Brown et al., 2020; Butler et al., 2014), yet it, by definition, predicts a lower threshold of appraisals involved in an emotional episode because the activation of appraisals is attenuated or opposing appraisals are activated.
Similar findings exist for research on characteristics of the emotional situation. Emotion intensity predicted higher emotion coherence of various components for both positive and negative emotions (Bonanno & Keltner, 2004; Brown et al., 2020; Mauss et al., 2005; Rosenberg & Ekman, 1994; Schaefer et al., 2014). The relationship of emotion intensity and thresholds cannot be determined because emotional intensity cannot occur outside of an emotional episode. Finally, event relevance predicted more coherence of various components for negative emotions (Calvo & Miguel-Tobal, 1998; Lohani et al., 2018), while there is no research on emotion coherence for positive emotions, and event relevance also predicted a higher threshold for components associated with positive and negative emotions such as perceiving potentially emotion-eliciting cues more quickly, and a higher motivation to prioritize, think about, and respond to such cues (Klinger & Cox, 2004).
Thus, different predictors may change emotion duration via different mechanisms. Neuroticism, depression, and (trait) reappraisal may primarily predict differences in thresholds as implied by research on their relationship with emotion components outside emotional episodes. In contrast, they may predict network connectivity, if anything, negatively, as implied by research on their relationship with emotion coherence. Even though evidence is less strong, the same conclusions may apply to extraversion and rumination. Emotion intensity and event relevance may further positively predict network connectivity as these predictors also positively relate to emotion coherence.
Future Research Directions
Beyond providing a theoretical framework for embedding research on emotion duration, the approach also makes new predictions. First, as shown in Fig. 2, depending on the mechanism, the shape of the intensity profile of an emotional episode should differ. If a predictor relates to higher emotion duration via higher connectivity (emotion intensity, event relevance), the intensity profile should show an abrupt decrease, while the intensity should remain rather high throughout. This pattern results because strongly connected components prefer to be in the same state, either active or inactive. Hence, they will tend to be all activated as long as possible and once the external activation becomes low enough, they will all tend to deactivate quickly. If a predictor relates to higher emotion duration primarily via higher thresholds (neuroticism, extraversion, depression, rumination), their intensity profile should show a more steady decrease over time. For lower thresholds (reappraisal), the decrease should be quicker because the components tend to be inactive and therefore strive to reach that state quicker. Some evidence supports these predictions (Heylen et al., 2015; Verduyn et al., 2012).
Second, depending on the mechanism, a predictor may also relate to other patterns of emotion dynamics (for background, see Cramer et al., 2016; Dalege et al., 2016; Gilmore, 1981). As shown in Fig. 2, predictors relating to higher connectivity should predict higher variance in emotion intensity before the end of an emotional episode because the highly interconnected components reactivate each other from time to time. Furthermore, they should predict lower variance in emotion intensity outside of emotional episodes because components keep each other in check. For predictors relating to higher thresholds, variance outside emotional episodes is even higher.
Moreover, depending on the mechanism, one should encounter different emotional states. That is, different states are probable. Imagine asking a person multiple times how intensely they currently experience fear and tracking how often they experience each level of intensity. Or imagine asking multiple persons in only one situation and tracking how many persons experience each level of intensity. Both these approaches result in frequencies of different emotional intensities. Different people or situations lead to different frequencies (Haslbeck et al., 2023) and these differences may result from differences in the underlying networks. Hence, different predictors of emotion duration may also result in different frequencies of probable states. As is also shown in Fig. 2, for predictors relating to higher connectivity one should encounter especially low and high intensity states, whereas for predictors relating primarily to differing thresholds one should encounter many high intensity states with a skewed tail of low intensity states. Relatedly, intervening on network characteristics (e.g., Blanken et al., 2019; Haslbeck et al., 2021) may allow shaping people’s emotion dynamics, helping them to deal with problematic emotion duration in psychopathologies. For instance, regulating a strongly connected component should have a larger effect on emotion duration than regulating a weakly connected component. Future research should test these patterns directly and intervene on them.
One limitation, however, is that the evidence relating predictors of emotion duration to network connectivity and thresholds is only indirect. Therefore, before investigating additional patterns, research should determine emotion networks separately for different persons or situations using tools from network science (e.g., Borsboom et al., 2021; Frewen et al., 2012; Lange & Zickfeld, 2021, Lange and Zickfeld, in press) and relate the predictors to network connectivity and thresholds directly. Complementarily, future research could extend and explore the formal network model used for the simulations (see Supplementary Materials for details and avenues for future research).
Moreover, contrary to predictions, higher thresholds did not lead to higher emotion duration for the awe network. Potentially, the awe network featured too many weak relationships between components. Then, even if the components tend to be active, the network cannot sustain its active state with reactivation via feedback loops. I tested this reasoning in another simulation reported in the Supplementary Materials. Indeed, increasing thresholds in the high connectivity awe network led to higher emotion duration.
Finally, the causal direction of various relationships is unknown. For instance, maybe neuroticism causes changes in thresholds. However, maybe neuroticism is a state defined by differences in thresholds (Cramer et al., 2012) or emotional processes cause changes in neuroticism (Lunansky et al., 2020). Relatedly, in line with evidence that various relationships between components of emotions are bidirectional (Scherer & Moors, 2019) and that components of an emotion are only partly connected (Mauss & Robinson, 2009), I used partly connected, bidirectional networks estimated from data for the simulations. However, in actual networks, at least some relationships may be in only one direction, which could be investigated with directed acyclic graphs (for an accessible introduction, see Rohrer, 2018). Moreover, the networks may have specific structures (e.g., a small world; Lange et al., 2020). Thus, research should clarify the causal role of predictors of emotion duration as embedded in even more realistic causal network models.
Conclusion
People often experience emotions over extended periods of time, while various characteristics of the person, the emotion, or the emotion-eliciting event predict variability in emotion duration. I argued that all the predictors may relate to emotion duration via only two mechanisms: network connectivity and component thresholds. By embedding research on emotion duration in a network model, I thereby integrated scattered findings and paved the way towards new research on emotion dynamics.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Vol. 4).
Bendezú, J. J., Thai, M., Wiglesworth, A., Cullen, K. R., & Klimes-Dougan, B. (2022). Adolescent stress experience–expression–physiology correspondence: Links to depression, self-injurious thoughts and behaviors, and frontolimbic neural circuity. Journal of Affective Disorders, 300, 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.098
Blanken, T. F., Van Der Zweerde, T., Van Straten, A., Van Someren, E. J. W., Borsboom, D., & Lancee, J. (2019). Introducing network intervention analysis to investigate sequential, symptom-specific treatment effects: A demonstration in co-occurring insomnia and depression. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 88(1), 52–54. https://doi.org/10.1159/000495045
Bonanno, G., & Keltner, D. (2004). The coherence of emotion systems: Comparing “on-line” measures of appraisal and facial expressions, and self-report. Cognition & Emotion, 18(3), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930341000149
Borsboom, D., Deserno, M. K., Rhemtulla, M., Epskamp, S., Fried, E. I., McNally, R. J., Robinaugh, D. J., Perugini, M., Dalege, J., Costantini, G., Isvoranu, A.-M., Wysocki, A. C., van Borkulo, C. D., van Bork, R., & Waldorp, L. J. (2021). Network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 1(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-021-00055-w
Brown, C. L., Van Doren, N., Ford, B. Q., Mauss, I. B., Sze, J. W., & Levenson, R. W. (2020). Coherence between subjective experience and physiology in emotion: Individual differences and implications for well-being. Emotion, 20(5), 818–829. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000579
Butler, E. A., Gross, J. J., & Barnard, K. (2014). Testing the effects of suppression and reappraisal on emotional concordance using a multivariate multilevel model. Biological Psychology, 98, 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.09.003
Calvo, M. G., & Miguel-Tobal, J. J. (1998). The anxiety response: Concordance among components. Motivation and Emotion, 22(3), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022384022641
Coan, J. A. (2010). Emergent ghosts of the emotion machine. Emotion Review, 2(3), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910361978
Cramer, A. O. J., van Borkulo, C. D., Giltay, E. J., van der Maas, H. L. J., Kendler, K. S., Scheffer, M., & Borsboom, D. (2016). Major depression as a complex dynamic system. PLOS ONE, 11(12), e0167490. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167490
Cramer, A. O. J., van der Sluis, S., Noordhof, A., Wichers, M., Geschwind, N., Aggen, S. H., Kendler, K. S., & Borsboom, D. (2012). Dimensions of normal personality as networks in search of equilibrium: You can’t like parties if you don’t like people. European Journal of Personality, 26(4), 414–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1866
Dalege, J., Borsboom, D., Van Harreveld, F., Van den Berg, H., Conner, M., & Van der Maas, H. L. J. (2016). Toward a formalized account of attitudes: The Causal Attitude Network (CAN) model. Psychological Review, 123(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039802
Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6(3–4), 169–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411068
Ekman, P. (1999). Basic emotions. In T. Dalgleish & M. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 45–60). John Wiley & Sons.
Ekman, P., & Cordaro, D. (2011). What is meant by calling emotions basic. Emotion Review, 3(4), 364–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911410740
Frewen, P. A., Allen, S. L., Lanius, R. A., & Neufeld, R. W. J. (2012). Perceived causal relations: Novel methodology for assessing client attributions about causal associations between variables including symptoms and functional impairment. Assessment, 19(4), 480–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111418297
Frijda, N. H., Mesquita, B., Sonnemans, J., & Van Goozen, S. (1991). The duration of affective phenomena or emotions, sentiments and passions. In K. T. Strongman (Ed.), International review of studies on emotion (pp. 187–225). Wiley & Sons.
Gilmore, R. (1981). Catastrophe theory for scientists and engineers. Dover Publications Inc.
Hankin, B. L., Fraley, R. C., & Abela, J. R. Z. (2005). Daily depression and cognitions about stress: Evidence for a traitlike depressogenic cognitive style and the prediction of depressive symptoms in a prospective daily diary study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 673–685. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.673
Haslbeck, J. M. B., Borsboom, D., & Waldorp, L. J. (2021). Moderated network models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 56(2), 256–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1677207
Haslbeck, J. M. B., Ryan, O., & Dablander, F. (2023). Multimodality and skewness in emotion time series. Emotion. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001218
Heylen, J., Verduyn, P., Van Mechelen, I., & Ceulemans, E. (2015). Variability in anger intensity profiles: Structure and predictive basis. Cognition and Emotion, 29(1), 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.896783
Houben, M., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Kuppens, P. (2015). The relation between short-term emotion dynamics and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 901–930. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038822
Kahn, J. H., Lawell, K. J., Allen, A., Henning, J., Heidenreich, B. A., Cox, D. W., Williams, E. L., Ladd, K., Samlow, B. N., Hamlet, A. N., & Woodrum, J. L. (2021). The moderating effect of depression symptoms on the concordance between the experience and verbal disclosure of emotion. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 43(2), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-020-09851-2
Keltner, D., & Gross, J. J. (1999). Functional accounts of emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 13(5), 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379140
Klinger, E., & Cox, W. M. (2004). Motivation and the theory of current concerns. In W. M. Cox & E. Klinger (Eds.), Handbook of motivational counseling: Concepts, approaches, and assessment (pp. 3–27). John Wiley & Sons.
Kuppens, P., & Tong, E. M. W. (2010). An appraisal account of individual differences in emotional experience. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(12), 1138–1150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00324.x
Lange, J., & Zickfeld, J. H. (in press). Comparing implications of distinct emotion, network, and dimensional approaches for co-occurring emotions. Emotion. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001214
Lange, J., Dalege, J., Borsboom, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & Fischer, A. H. (2020). Toward an integrative psychometric model of emotions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 444–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619895057
Lange, J., & Zickfeld, J. H. (2021). Emotions as overlapping causal networks of emotion components: Implications and methodological approaches. Emotion Review, 13(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073920988787
Lapate, R. C., & Heller, A. S. (2020). Context matters for affective chronometry. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(7), 688–689. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0860-7
Levenson, R. W. (1994). Human emotions: A functional view. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotions: Fundamental questions (pp. 123–126). Oxford University Press.
Lohani, M., Payne, B. R., & Isaacowitz, D. M. (2018). Emotional coherence in early and later adulthood during sadness reactivity and regulation. Emotion, 18(6), 789–804. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000345
Lunansky, G., Borkulo, C., & Borsboom, D. (2020). Personality, resilience, and psychopathology: A model for the interaction between slow and fast network processes in the context of mental health. European Journal of Personality, 34(6), 969–987. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2263
Mauss, I. B., Levenson, R. W., McCarter, L., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The tie that binds? Coherence among emotion experience, behavior, and physiology. Emotion, 5(2), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5.2.175
Mauss, I. B., & Robinson, M. D. (2009). Measures of emotion: A review. Cognition & Emotion, 23(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930802204677
Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1
Nolen-Hoeksma, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 400–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00088
Rohrer, J. M. (2018). Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917745629
Rosenberg, E. L., & Ekman, P. (1994). Coherence between expressive and experiential systems in emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 8(3), 201–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939408408938
Schaefer, H. S., Larson, C. L., Davidson, R. J., & Coan, J. A. (2014). Brain, body, and cognition: Neural, physiological and self-report correlates of phobic and normative fear. Biological Psychology, 98, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.12.011
Scherer, K. R., & Moors, A. (2019). The emotion process: Event appraisal and component differentiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 719–745. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011854
Smits, D. J. M., & Boeck, P. D. (2006). From BIS/BAS to the big five. European Journal of Personality, 20(4), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.583
Sommerfeldt, S. L., Schaefer, S. M., Brauer, M., Ryff, C. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2019). Individual differences in the association between subjective stress and heart rate are related to psychological and physical well-being. Psychological Science, 30(7), 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619849555
Sonnemans, J., & Frijda, N. H. (1994). The structure of subjective emotional intensity. Cognition & Emotion, 8(4), 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939408408945
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
Suri, G., & Gross, J. J. (2022). What is an emotion? A Connectionist Perspective. Emotion Review, 14(2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739221082203
Verduyn, P. (2021). Emotion duration. In C. E. Waugh & P. Kuppens (Eds.), Affect Dynamics (pp. 3–18). Springer.
Verduyn, P., Delaveau, P., Rotge, J.-Y., Fossati, P., & Van Mechelen, I. (2015). Determinants of emotion duration and underlying psychological and neural mechanisms. Emotion Review, 7(4), 330–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915590618
Verduyn, P., Van Mechelen, I., & Frederix, E. (2012). Determinants of the shape of emotion intensity profiles. Cognition & Emotion, 26(8), 1486–1495. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.662152
Watkins, E. (2004). Appraisals and strategies associated with rumination and worry. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.002
Wu, D. J., Svoboda, R. C., Bae, K. K., & Haase, C. M. (2021). Individual differences in sadness coherence: Associations with dispositional affect and age. Emotion, 21(3), 465–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000731
Acknowledgements
I thank Jonas Dalege, Janis H. Zickfeld, and the members of the Scientific Network Explicit Causal Inference in Personality Research for feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript and for helping me to better understand aspects of formal network models.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This project was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) Grant 461127198 awarded to Michael P. Grosz for the scientific network Explicit Causal Inference in Personality Research (https://www.ecip.cc) to which I belong.
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Data availability
Data and code are available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/mbhjn/).
Code availability
Data and code are available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/mbhjn/).
Authors' Contribution
Not applicable
Ethics approval
Not applicable
Consent to participate
Not applicable
Consent for publication
Not applicable
Additional information
Handling Editor: Ralph Adolphs
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lange, J. Embedding Research on Emotion Duration in a Network Model. Affec Sci 4, 541–549 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-023-00203-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-023-00203-3