Hypotheses to Test

a deflection, D, measures whether conditions generated by an event confirm or disconfirm past experience � Context

an event seems more likely when it generates smaller deflections. � Context

an event seems more unlikely (U), uncanny, or unique as deflections are larger � Context

specification of interactions for predicting affective outcomes remains an open issue, especially across cultures. � Context

the unlikeliness-uncanniness-uniqueness of a future event can be determined entirely in terms of quantities that exist before the event occurs, namely, cultural definitions (f), parameters describing psychological processes (M, W, and V), and circumstances produced by recent events (t). � Context

by this rendering of the reidentification problem an object person's circumstantial state as a result of past events affects the calculation of an appropriate actor. � Context

However, an alternative construction is that labeling processes ignore all events prior to the last event - the one that is being explained - in which case object transients also would be set equal to fundamentals. � Context

the affect-control model reasonably embraces settings, in the sense that actions get adjusted appropriately when actors try to maintain sentiments about settings as well as about actors, behaviors, and objects of action. � Context

emotion can be predicted from the fundamental profile for self and the post event transient profile for self. � Context

emotions directly correspond to how events have affected the self - an interpretation that corresponds to intuitions (e.g., events that make one look bad also make one feel bad). � Context

People conduct themselves so as to keep transient impressions of themselves close to their identities, according to the basic axiom of affect control theory. Therefore the fundamental self profile, f_S, can determine emotion by determining what transient impressions generally arise as an individual creates events in a situation. � Context

people experience especially good or potent or lively emotions when events make them seem more good or potent or lively than their identity warrants. � Context

people who adopt extremely negative identities may experience chaotic emotions, or emotional lability. � Context

the trait that is inferred in order to account for a particular event will vary depending on the person's initial situational identity. � Context

trait inferences about a person with an extremely negative situational identity should be chaotic, depending on minor variations in participation. � Context

traits are evident only in retrospect after it is clear that a situationally abnormal event will not be repaired. In particular, the trigger for attributing a trait consists of (1) an event that disconfirms a person's situational identity, (2) an opportunity to participate in an event that would repair the consequences of the prior disconfirming event, and (3) foregoing the repair opportunity. � Context

inference of a particular trait that explains a person's current behavior is abandoned if a disconfirmation in another situation is recollected (a disconfirmation is an instance in which the person acted abnormally, assuming he or she has the trait). � Context

a mood attribution has to explain any recollected individual idiosyncracy in the current situation in order to be warranted. � Context

an abnormal participation with regard to one situational identity does not warrant inference of a new informal identity if the person's participation always can be viewed as confirming or repairing other identities in his or her situational repertoire of roles. � Context

the predicted evaluation of an actor is positive if the actor's emotion is consistent with the impact of the actor's behavior (e.g., feeling ashamed about an act with bad consequences or joyous about an act with good consequences). � Context

reidentifications of an emoting actor can be chaotic or impossible when the actor is directing very lively action to a very quiet person (e.g., grandparents, geezer, old maid, scrooge) or very quiet action (e.g., lull, soothe, contemplate) to a very lively person. � Context

reidentifications of an emoting actor will be chaotic or impossible when the displayed emotion is bad (like anger, fear, shame, depression) and the event involves a bad, strong, lively act (e.g., attack) directed at a strong, quiet person (e.g., grandfather or disciplinarian) � Context

the goodness or badness of predicted acts is dependent mainly on the actor's fundamental goodness or badness, while fundamental evaluations of object persons have no consistent effects. � Context

Relative neutralization of an actor's transient status exaggerates the goodness of the actor's actions when dealing with a positively-evaluated object � Context

object fundamentals are not a consideration in actor reidentification. For example, an actor who engaged in a given behavior on another theoretically would be judged the same, regardless if the other were a hero who has been made to seem neither good nor bad (transient E=0), or if the other were a villain who has been made to seem neither good nor bad. � Context

object evaluations (ranging between �4.3) never can reverse the judgment of an actor's character generated by the actor's behavior. � Context

the reidentification of an actor is more extreme with a good object and less extreme with a bad object. � Context

If the actor is positive and the behavior is positive, then the predicted re-evaluation of the object is positive. This effect is even more extreme when the actor has a temporarily depleted status: apparently, a recipient is assumed to be particularly good if an actor tries to regain self-esteem by acting favorably toward the recipient. � Context

A good act by a stigmatized actor makes the recipient seem bad, and again the effect is exaggerated if the actor's stigma is temporarily depleted: if an actor tries to repair evilness by acting nicely toward a person, then, apparently, the recipient of action is assumed to be evil, too. � Context

If the actor is good and the behavior is bad, then the object is seen as bad - someone who gets treated badly by a good person must deserve it. � Context

If the actor is bad and the behavior is bad, then the object is seen as someone good, as if we presume that bad people prefer to abuse good people. � Context

The best thing someone can do is act nicely toward a good person, and the graph shows that this results in a positive reidentification (3.5) if a definitely positive emotion is displayed, whereas the reidentification is negative (-6.0) if the displayed emotion is definitely negative. � Context

On the other hand, the worst thing someone can do is act nefariously toward a good person, and in this case a positive emotion yields a prediction of stigmatization (-6.0) whereas a negative emotion yields a positive reidentification (4.3). � Context

A good act toward an evil person leads to slightly positive reidentifications regardless of whether the action is accompanied by a display of good or bad emotion - as if the actor is credited for good conduct and allowed to feel positive about a good act or to feel negative about interacting with an evil character. � Context

a person engaging in a wicked act toward a bad person is stigmatized even though there is some justice in the event, and the prediction is negative regardless of the emotion displayed. � Context

neutral acts provide little basis for dramatic positive or negative reidentifications regardless of emotion displays. � Context

appropriate or inappropriate emotion displays affect reidentification mainly if an actor is behaving nicely or badly toward a good person. � Context