No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 February 2009
Many contributions have been made in recent psychological literature to the study of the nature of emotion, yet profound differences of opinion remain both as to the aetiology and function of emotional states. I propose in this paper to inquire whether a consistent theory can be put forward which would do justice to all the facts that recent investigations have brought to light. It would appear that the defects of most of the theories of emotion are due to the fact that they exaggerate some aspect or phrase of emotion and claim for it exclusive or predominant value.
page 38 Note 1 Cf. Bancels, Larguier des, Introd. à la Psychologie, p. 328.Google Scholar
page 38 Note 2 Claparède, , Archives de Psychologie, vol. vii. p. 187.Google Scholar
page 38 Note 3 Cf.Traité de Psychologie, ed. Dumas, , vol. i. pp. 948–9.Google Scholar
page 39 Note 1 Cf.Piéron, , Le Cerveau et la Pensée, p.310.Google Scholar
page 38 Note 2 Foundations of Character, p. 372.
page 40 Note 1 Cf. Principles, vol. ii. p. 442.
page 40 Note 2 Psychology, p. 134.
page 40 Note 3 Ibid., p. 216.
page 40 Note 4 Cf. Dumas, , Traité, pp. 625–9.Google Scholar
page 43 Note 1 Foundations of Character.
page 47 Note 1 Outline of Psychology, p. 324.
page 48 Note 1 In Stout's Groundwork of Psychology, ch. xvi.
page 49 Note 1 Cf. especially MrShand’s, article on “The Relation between Complex and Sentiment,” British Journal of Psychology, vol. xiii.Google Scholar