554779

research-article2014

EMR0010.1177/1754073914554779Emotion ReviewGodbold Researching Emotions in Interactions

Researching Emotions in Interactions: Seeing

and Analysing Live Processes

Emotion Review
Vol. 7, No. 2 (April 2015) 163168
The Author(s) 2014
ISSN 1754-0739
DOI: 10.1177/1754073914554779
er.sagepub.com

Natalya Godbold

University of Technology Sydney, Australia

Abstract
Emotions are processes with social origins and manifestations. However, the challenges of obtaining data on such volatile
phenomena might restrict empirical research. This article presents methodological recommendations for the study of emotional
processes during interactions, comprising an approach influenced by ethnomethodology. Key requirements include (a) detailed
interactional data; (b) examination of whichever emotions emerge instead of studying predefined categories; and (c) nuanced
insider understandings. Rather than focusing on individuals or the broad social milieu, useful insights are available via nuanced
examination of emotional trajectories as they are manifested in interactions. An example of the translation of these perspectives
into method is briefly demonstrated using excerpts from a study which explored interactions in online discussion boards.

Keywords
emotions, ethnomethodology, interactions, methodology, online discussion groups, visual methods

This article examines emotions as processes, and demonstrates

how research might cast light on the trajectory of emotions during interactions. It brings together methodological approaches
relevant to the problem and presents methodological recommendations to clarify how such research might be carried out.
As a background, two aspects of emotion research are
addressed. First is a contrast between examining emotions as
individually felt (Johnson-Laird & Oatley, 2000; Scherer,
2004), and examining emotions as social (Goffman, 1973;
Hochschild, 1979). Second is a contrast between viewing
emotions as states which are triggered by events (Scherer,
Wranik, Sangsue, Tran, & Scherer, 2004; Thagard & Kroon,
2006) and viewing emotions as processes (Denzin, 1984;
Frijda, 2000). This article explores the methodological challenges of viewing emotions as social processes manifested
during interactions, while nonetheless demonstrating the
potential fruitfulness of that perspective. Though a range of
methodological perspectives might guide our endeavours, the
principal approach explored here draws on Garfinkels ethnomethodology and his use of Schtzs concept of verstehen,
whereby events and activities are understood by members of a
social group. Ethnomethodology attends to unfolding processes as people interact, and is specifically useful here for its

focus on interactive rather than individual sense making.

Though the focus of the article is methodological, I briefly
demonstrate how this approach was translated into a study of
observable emotional processes in online discussion boards
for people living with kidney failure. The methods and findings from that study are sketched here to demonstrate the kind
of insight into emotions one might obtain from examining
interactions. Finally I explore the limitations and practical
value of this methodological perspective.

What Are Emotions?

There is no standard definition of what emotions are (Izard,
2010) but contrasting approaches exist in the literature. In one
approach, emotions are described in terms of how they manifest. They are associated with physiological changes like breathing and heart rate, changes in facial expressions or activities,
cognitive appraisals and feelings which are given labels like
fear or anger (Frijda, 2000; Turner, 2009). Much discussion
is devoted to categories and classifications of emotions (Averill,
2004; Goldie, 2004). Complex emotions are seen to consist of
combinations of basic emotions (Johnson-Laird & Oatley,
2000). In all this, emotions are mainly conceived as states of

Author note: The author gratefully acknowledges the support of IHateDialysis, Australian Dialysis Buddies, and KidneyKorner, as well as the members of those forums. This
research was supported by an APA Scholarship from the Australian Commonwealth Government.
Corresponding author: Natalya Godbold, Centre for Health Communication, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway NSW 2007, Australia. Email: Natalya.Godbold@uts.edu.au

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com at Ateneo de Manila University on July 17, 2016

164 Emotion Review Vol. 7 No. 2

being within individuals, triggered by an event (Scherer et al.,

2004; Thagard & Kroon, 2006). Researchers explore the attributes of emotions, or the actions, events, and factors that trigger
different emotions (Lutz, 2008; van den Broek, van der Sluis, &
Dijkstra, 2011).
Problems with conceiving emotions in these ways have
been identified by other writers. First, when one considers
emotions as triggered by events, it is easy to ignore the agency
of people feeling the emotions (Lupton, 1998). Second, one
might begin to imagine emotions in deceptively clear, categorised waysanger, fear, joyneglecting nuances and complexities, regardless of how finely the categorising scheme is
designed (Scherer, 2004). When researchers look for associations between emotions and triggering events or demographics, they may talk about accounting for the complete variance
in behaviour (Denzin, 1969, p. 930), and the conditions
required for generalisability (Wilhelm, Schoebi, & Perrez,
2004). Accounting for complete variance and trying to establish general truths suggests a conception of emotions as manifesting in ways which can be understood reliably, unhistorically,
and across populations (Lupton, 1998). Researching emotions
as stable categories draws attention away from their nature as
processes and the microprocesses from which they are produced (Katz, 2004; Parkinson, 2004). Importantly, one might
ignore the changing ways that emotions shift as we experience
them.
Instead of emotional states, other authors address emotions
as processes (Denzin, 1984; Frijda, 2000). For example, the
heuristics used to describe emotional statescognitive, physiological, behavioural, and subjective components and appraisal
processes (Izard, 2010; Johnson-Laird & Oatley, 2000)can be
imagined in dynamic relationships (Haviland-Jones &
Kahlbaugh, 2000; Milton, 2005; Scherer, 2001). From this perspective, emotions have reflexive, cogenerative relationships
with the world, operating as part of the way we experience situations (Holmes, 2010; Parkinson, 2004). Though some of these
authors refer to physiological aspects of emotions and others to
discursive perspectives, the combination of their commentary
produces a view of emotions as connecting to our perceptions of
the world and activating our responses.
Such perspectives on emotions are comparable to discussions of affect (Massumi, 1995; Thrift, 2004). Massumi discusses affect in terms of a matrix of variation (Massumi &
McKim, 2009, p. 3). All elements interacting in a situation are
viewed as interrelating processesemotions, cognitions,
objects in the environment, and ones management of identity. All are conceived as existing in time, and this acknowledgement of chronicity is a significant, but problematic theoretical
shift. Describing the experiential congregations constituting
affect, Massumi draws our attention to how the dynamic relationships implicit in emotions-as-processes necessarily lead to
unpredictable outcomes.
Researching volatile phenomena, one needs to do more than
attempt to predict how things will play out in the same way.
Instead we need tools to follow processes as if they had infinite

possible paths. We also need data in which the changing and

responsive aspects of processes are available. This means data
in which interactions unfold: recorded or live interactions.
Considering emotions as processes turns attention to the nuances
which signify change. It also draws attention away from individuals by bringing forward the situations in which changes
take place, including the location of individuals within the
social.
The term social has a range of meanings, each with methodological implications. When considering social aspects of
emotions, one might examine how individuals modify, interpret,
or hide their socially constructed, internal feelings (Goffman,
1973; Hochschild, 1979). This retains a focus on the individual.
Alternatively, one may shift to a wider focus on discourses,
societal structures, or other social factors associated with emotions (Barbalet, 1998; Kemper, 2000). By this too-wide focus,
we might lose view of particular instances of emotions altogether, which matters when emotional processes are the phenomena under study. Arguably, a middle ground is to study
interactions (Collins, 2004). It is a middle ground in that the
focus is neither on individuals nor on broader society.
Interactions are useful for our purposes if dynamics between
actors (the social) might be directly observed.

How to Study Interactions

Significant methodological approaches to the study of interactions in sociology include ethnomethodology (Garfinkel,
1967/1984), symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969), and the
work of Randall Collins (e.g., 2004). The approach presented
here follows ethnomethodology and Harold Garfinkel.

Ethnomethodology
Ethnomethodology turns the focus of social research towards the
sense-making processes of people in everyday situations (Heritage,
1984; Rawls, 2008). A central premise is that people develop
meanings not by simply applying prepackaged understandings,
but by reworking them as they interact. Ethnomethodologys
founder Harold Garfinkel was concerned with how situations
unfold contextually, in time. Actors must realign themselves and
design subsequent acts against changing contexts, moment by
moment (Rawls, 2008). Garfinkel viewed meaning as contextual
and developed by participants in ways particular to each unique
situation, and in ways which would be recognised and understood
by their peers. Meaning-making is thus an interaction between
local understandings and events as they unfold. Therefore, situations should be studied as they unfold, with activities contextualised live (Maynard & Clayman, 1991).
To study such contextualised meaning-making, a researcher
must be able to understand and interpret situations from the perspective of those present. Ethnomethodologists refer to
this as needing a member perspective. This mandates a critical examination of the role of the researcher, which can be

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com at Ateneo de Manila University on July 17, 2016

Godbold Researching Emotions in Interactions 165

understood using Schtzs conception of insider knowledge or

verstehen, to which I will return presently. Ethnomethodology
pays attention to longitudinally unfolding processes and calls
for live data rather than post hoc interviews, both for the sake of
engagement with context and for the observable presence of relevant actors. At the same time, ethnomethodology directs attention to people interacting in shared situationsto interactive
rather than individual sense making.

Studying Observable Manifestations

Pointing out that it is individuals who feel emotion, Kemper
remarked that we can measure emotion nowhere but in the individual (2000, p. 46). The main contribution of this article is to
disagree, on a technicality: we can observe emotion between individuals. It appears to be a very small move from inside the
individual to observations of individualsbut it is significant
by making emotions researchable in everyday situations. We can
see some emotions without having to ask people about them.
Observable, socially manifested phenomena demonstrate and
reenact emotions, eliciting responses from others in the interaction. Language makes experiences readily transmittable, and
thereby, social (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Emotions manifest
in talk, via our choice and use of words (Galasiski, 2004).
Moreover, facial expressions and bodily movements indicate
emotions (Harr & Gillett, 1994; Lupton, 1998). I argue that we
also betray-perform-reveal emotions in the way we write, via textual cues like terseness or exclamation marks and in written representations of physicalities. The following short excerpt from a
post to a kidney discussion group demonstrates how emotions
emerge from text. It is unedited to show how the contributor presented herself at the time of writing. She was facing the start of
invasive treatments for kidney failure.
Please talk me down. I am unconsolable. I can hardly see to post this. I feel
like I am being led to my execution. I just cant willingly allow someone
to do this to me. I just cannot. This is just a bridge too far for me.

Descriptions of emotions, of physicality, and of thoughts are

combined here to communicate distress on a range of levels,
showing how emotions can be expressed and accessed via text.
Observable emotional manifestations and responses make
presentations of feeling accessible to research (Gherardi
[2008] developed a similar perspective on researching knowing). The subject of such research would be neither social discourses nor individuals feelings, but their interactions en vivo:
the manifestation of feelings as readable signs and how interlocutors interpreted them.
To summarise, socially manifested emotions-as-processes
can be studied if one has:
1. Detailed interactional data; and
2. member-understandings of the expression of emotion,
which can allow
3. recognition of changes, enabling nuanced perception of
emotional trajectories.

Example: Exploring Emotional Aspects of

Interactions in Online Discussions
To demonstrate how these methodological recommendations
might be translated into methods for studying emotions in
interactions, I briefly present examples from a recent study
into online kidney failure support groups. These examples
illustrate the capacity for flexible examination of emergent
emotional themes enabled by an ethnomethodologically
informed approach.
Online discussion groups are Internet forums where people
discuss ideas by typing posts, usually a paragraph or two
long. Posts are gathered into threads which maintain the conversational order in which posts appeared, and keep them on
semipermanent display. For their frank, detailed exchanges and
frequent emotional displays (Hine, 2005; Liu, 2002), online
groups were an appropriate venue for the study of emotions in
interactions. I joined three renal discussion groups which
focussed on the ongoing lived experiences of chronic kidney
failure, making clear my dual roles as a researcher and as the
wife of a renal patient. I took part in discussions daily for 2
years. Through my ongoing participation, I developed relationships with other members online, and a members understanding of interactions in the groups.
In the following section, I briefly explain the methods used
to analyse interactions as an example of one way to respond to
the methodological challenges explicated before. A detailed
description of the method is outside the scope of this article, but
can be found elsewhere (e.g., Godbold, 2013).

Creating Local Thematic Charts

In online discussions, people might make use of thousands of
possible ideas, so following all possible themes across threads
or looking for the appearance of particular themes in every
thread was of limited use. Instead I examined individual threads
for whatever local themes they contained, charting the reuse of
local themes or elements of speech within threads. Themes
included repeated words as well as repeated or similar ideas
(including metaphors, sayings, and cultural references) and
tones.
By tones I mean manifestations of emotions in the text.
These are manifestations which appeared to me, as a long-term,
active member of the discursive community. I did not presume
to know what emotions were actually felt by contributors, but
created local labels to describe the local tones I perceived. For
example, earlier I quoted from a post beginning Please talk me
down If I had been coding that thread, I might have described
the tones as distraught, fearful, or agitated. The labels I might
have used are not as important as my recognition of tones reappearing throughout the thread, and their interrelations with
other themes and tones.
The analysis translated threads into charts displaying when
different elements appeared in the discussion.1 While space precludes a detailed description of emotions in online discussions
here, an example chart is reproduced next.

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com at Ateneo de Manila University on July 17, 2016

166 Emotion Review Vol. 7 No. 2

Enough
A thread entitled Enough was begun by a young man beginning a common treatment for kidney failure called haemodialysis. His commencing treatment schedule was three 4-hour
sessions per week. He wrote:
Hi all!
I must put out my emotions, otherwise Ill explode.
Yesterday, I had my first 4 hours sessions. Afterwards, I was a mess. I
cried and said I wont do it anymore. My parents and friends tried to
calm me down, but no success. Im so frustrated to be depended to a
machine. I went to a doctor yesterday and asked, what do I need to
sign to get just paliative care. Yes, I want to die.
Sorry for being depressed, but youre the only one, who understand me.

The chart at Figure 1 represents interactions of tones in the discussion that ensued. Contributions from the first contributor
(Posts 1, 14, and 20) are marked with an A.
Post 1 is marked as having a tone which is depressed, by
the coloured square at row 3, column 1. His depressed tone is
stated outright (Sorry for being depressed), but also demonstrated by the contributor having cried, wanting to die, and by
the title of the post (Enough). I could not contact the contributor of the second post for consent, so it is blanked out (column
2). The third post included the following remarks:
what can I say, you sound so down. I am saddened to here you want
to end it all even being on dialysis you can have a good life, it is what
you make of it. You are only young, you will get the chance of a
transplant there must be lots of things you want to achieve and they
are achievable if you give your self a chance. Thinking of you and
sending you hugs.

Post 3 is marked as worried and concerned (row 2) based

on comments such as I am saddened. The post is also coded as
positive (row 4), because it puts forward possible improvements to come: the chance of a transplant, and possible future
achievements. Each post was analysed in a similar way, creating
new rows for new tones as required.
Observation of patterns in the online discussions showed the
importance of repetition in the development of overall tones of
an interaction. People picked up and passed on the dominant
tone of a thread, sometimes echoing it, sometimes emphasising
it, and less often, contrasting it. Cumulative tones in posts created an emergent consensus in the thread, as can be seen here,
where every subsequent post conveyed positive tones. Advice
provided by contributors not only involved words (for instance,
by saying directly, I am saddened) but was also conveyed in
tone: lighthearted tones when there was nothing to worry about,
serious or urgent tones to draw attention to a problem. Post 12
remarked [dialysis is] not the end, its just a lifestyle adjustment: the tone is cheerful, demonstrating cheerfulness without
saying be cheerful. Thus meaning was developed in two ways:
as tones added colour to words, and as people echoed each others tones. When he next posted, even the first speaker expressed

a more cheerful tone. He wrote: Today, I reached the bottom of

my life and now the path can only lead me up So, lets go
on. He demonstrated muted positivity, matching the emergent
consenses2 (Figure 1; see Godbold, 2013, for a more detailed
analysis of emotions in threads).
The sequential charts used for the study are a form of visual
thematic analysis inspired by ethnomethodological perspectives
on the development of interactional sense. They make patterns
and sequences visually apparent, highlighting sequences ahead
of content. They bring forward how posts interact, allowing
observation of interactional processes.
This application of ethnomethodology demonstrates the
explicitly interactional, longitudinal focus required to study
emotional processes. Acknowledging that emotions manifest in
complex interactions with situations, it follows the trajectories
of whatever emotions were manifested, helping to free the analysis from preordained emotional states. It shifts the subject of
study from individual feelings to the emotional trajectories of
social interactions. The sensitivity required to work at this
nuanced level was attained by becoming an active member of
the groups under study. However, the detailed analysis I undertook came at the expense of being able to analyse only conservative amounts of data.

Discussion
Let us compare this ethnomethodological approach with other
perspectives on emotion. To study how individual contributors
felt (viewing emotions as individual and interior) one might ask
them. To understand how peoples emotions were affected by
social constructions or structural factors, one might examine
which emotional displays were acceptable in this community
(Goffman, 1973; Hochschild, 1979). Here, to examine how
emotional processes affected interactions (and vice versa), I
examined emotional trajectories within conversations: the focus
was on the interaction (Collins, 2004; Garfinkel, 1967/1984).
Significantly, while I noticed manifested emotions, I did not
theorise about the real internal feelings of individuals. The
term real suggests that there is a fixed, single way we might
be able to describe what was felt; this is counter to the understanding of emotions as intrinsically shifting. It also focuses on
the individual; though individual feelings are important and
interesting, sociology studies societies and how they are created
via interactions (Collins, 2004); therefore, socially manifested
feelings and their effects on interactions are the significant phenomenon.
I studied written interactions. Though comments could be
separated by long pauses ranging from minutes to days, the
resulting interactions were live in the sense that the data available for study was the (recorded) stuff of the interactions. One
could see where pauses occurred as messages are date-stamped,
but I did not analyse the effects of time on interactions in this
study, nor concern myself with the various mind-changing or
emotional trajectories which contributors may have experienced
between messages. Of interest were the interactions as they
occurred, particularly interrelations between posts.

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com at Ateneo de Manila University on July 17, 2016

Godbold Researching Emotions in Interactions 167

Figure 1. Sample local thematic chart from the analysis of Enough.

The analysis is not objective research. Reading posts between

peers required understanding of nuanced, shared meanings.
Objectivity is a stance which would render me blind to such
details. So my analyses represent only my interpretation of the
data. Instead of generalisability and reliability, I aimed for verisimilitude and well-documented procedures (Silverman, 2006).
Hence, a limitation of the analysis hinges on whether I recognised meanings in the online interactions in the way that others wouldverisimilitude. A rejoinder which Garfinkel adapted
from Schtz (1962, 1964, as summarised by Heritage, 1984)
contextualises the importance of member-understanding to ethnomethodological researchers. Schtz used verstehen (literal
translation: understanding) to describe how people acquire a
working knowledge of the social world via socially located
interpretations. Understanding is built from local social categories and constructs. Verstehen operates as a gathering-together
of these common understandings. Via verstehen, people who
know the local understanding of situations are able to interpret
situations as their peers would, and can interprete the actions of
peers in a situation. Thus, verstehen is central to how the world
is interpreted by social participants. For example, as a long-term
member of the groups, I was able to recognise when people
were making jokes or referring to sad situations previously discussed, and I could read the short-hand and slang they used.
People (including researchers) who are not insiders are not
able to reliably interpret nuanced social meanings of a social
group. However, when a researcher is member enough, they
become an instrument for the interpretation of common understandings of social situations in that group, by their own access
to verstehen (Heritage, 1984). Schtz argued that verstehen is
an indispensable method of the social sciences (Heritage,
1984, pp. 46, 50). Social scientists interpret and understand the
actions of subjects to the same degree of inexactitude as any
other social actor, because verstehen is social. This is not access
to what others experience; rather, it involves a making out of
whats going on here (Heritage, 1984, p. 49) using knowledge of what is typical or reasonable in a situation.
It is worth noting that Garfinkel himself used Schtzs verstehen to contextualise ethnomethodology, and the discussion
here is modelled on Garfinkels (via Heritages) interpretation
of the term. Verstehen forms a central part of the set of theoretical perspectives described as ethnomethodological.
The next step might be to enlist a cohort of members to
compare perceptions of emotional shifts in the same interaction.
This is not for the sake of producing ever finer gradations in our

categories of emotion. Emotions, being complex and situated,

have a mercurial quality that always eludes categorisation.
Emotional categoriesanger, fear, and so onare useful, but
only to gesture towards something that has already changed.

Conclusion
Understanding emotions in interactions requires understanding
them as processes affecting other processes. This article explicated methodological issues related to studying such volatile,
shifting phenomena, demonstrating an approach based on ethnomethodology. The sequential charts used here serve as one
example of the possible ways in which researchers might study
socially manifested emotions-as-processes. The focus was on
tones manifesting in interactions, not emotions felt by individuals, nor the wider social discourses or structures within which
they were located. Such a perspective requires detailed data as
well as researcher verstehen, or member understandings of
meanings in interactions. These elements provide some recognition of nuances in interactions, which allow the perception of
changes necessary to study emotions as enactive processes. The
subtlety and shiftability of emotions is part of what makes them
so important when interacting within situations, and it is the
shifts and their interpretation by actors which warrant closer
empirical attention.

Notes
1
2

These charts are inspired by Manidis (2013).

Plural of consensus.

References
Averill, J. R. (2004). Everyday emotions: Let me count the ways. Social
Science Information, 43(4), 571580. doi:10.1177/0539018404047703
Barbalet, J. M. (1998). Emotion, social theory, and social structure: A
macrosociological approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality:
A treatise in the sociology of knowledge New York, NY: Doubleday.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Denzin, N. K. (1969). Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. American Sociological Association, 34(6), 922934.
doi:10.2307/2095982

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com at Ateneo de Manila University on July 17, 2016

168 Emotion Review Vol. 7 No. 2

Denzin, N. K. (1984). On understanding emotion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Frijda, N. H. (2000). The psychologists point of view. In M. Lewis & J.
M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 5974).
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Galasiski, D. (2004). Men and the language of emotions. Hampshire, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Garfinkel, H. (1984). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
(Original work published 1967)
Gherardi, S. (2008). Situated knowledge and situated action: What do practice-based studies promise? In D. Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of new approaches in management and organization (pp.
516527). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Godbold, N. (2013). An information need for emotional cues: Unpacking
the role of emotions in sense making. Information Research, 18(1).
Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/18-1/paper561.html
Goffman, E. (1973). The presentation of self in everyday life. Woodstock,
NY: Overlook Press.
Goldie, P. (2004). The life of the mind: Commentary on Emotions
in Everyday Life. Social Science Information, 43(4), 591598.
doi:10.1177/0539018404047705
Harr, R., & Gillett, G. G. (1994). The discursive mind. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Haviland-Jones, J. M., & Kahlbaugh, P. (2000). Emotion and identity. In M.
Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed.,
pp. 293305). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Hine, C. (Ed.). (2005). Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the
Internet. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure.
American Journal of Sociology, 85(3), 551575.
Holmes, M. (2010). The emotionalization of reflexivity. Sociology, 44(1),
139154. doi:10.1177/0038038509351616
Izard, C. E. (2010). The many meanings/aspects of emotion: Definitions,
functions, activation, and regulation. Emotion Review, 2, 363370.
doi:10.1177/1754073910374661
Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Oatley, K. (2000). Cognitive and social construction in emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook
of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 458475). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Katz, J. (2004). Everyday lives and extraordinary research methods. Social
Science Information, 43(4), 609619. doi:10.1177/0539018404047707
Kemper, T. D. (2000). Social models in the explanation of emotions. In M.
Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed.,
pp. 4558). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Liu, Y. (2002). What does research say about the nature of computermediated communication: Task-oriented or social-emotion-oriented?
Electronic Journal of Sociology, 61(1) Retrieved fromhttp://www.
sociology.org/content/vol006.001/liu.html
Lupton, D. (1998). The emotional self: A sociocultural exploration. London, UK: Sage.

Lutz, C. A. (2008). Engendered emotion: Gender, power, and the rhetoric

of emotional control in American discourse. In M. Greco & P. Stenner
(Eds.), Emotions: A social science reader (pp. 6370). London, UK:
Routledge.
Manidis, M. (2013). Practising knowing in emergency departments
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
Massumi, B. (1995). The autonomy of affect. Cultural Critique, 31, 83
109. doi:10.2307/1354446
Massumi, B., & McKim, J. (2009). Of microperception and micropolitics.
Inflexions, 3, 120.
Maynard, D. W., & Clayman, S. E. (1991). The diversity of ethnomethodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 385418.
Milton, K. (2005). Meanings, feelings and human ecology. In K. Milton &
M. Svaek (Eds.), Mixed emotions: Anthropological studies of feeling
(pp. 2541). Oxford, UK: Berg.
Parkinson, B. (2004). Auditing emotions: What should we count? Social
Science Information, 43(4), 633645. doi:10.1177/0539018404047711
Rawls, A. W. (2008). Harold Garfinkel, ethomethodology and workplace
studies. Organization Studies, 29(5), 701732.
Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel
sequential checking. In A. Schorr & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal
processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 92120). Cary,
NC: Oxford University Press.
Scherer, K. R. (2004). Ways to study the nature and frequency of
our daily emotions: Reply to the commentaries on Emotions
in Everyday Life. Social Science Information, 43(4), 667689.
doi:10.1177/0539018404047713
Scherer, K. R., Wranik, T., Sangsue, J., Tran, V., & Scherer, U. (2004).
Emotions in everyday life: Probability of occurrence, risk factors,
appraisal and reaction patterns. Social Science Information, 43(4),
499570. doi:10.1177/0539018404047701
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing
talk, text and interaction (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thagard, P., & Kroon, F. (2006). Emotional consensus in group decision
making. In P. Thagard (Ed.), Hot thought mechanisms and applications
of emotional cognition (pp. 6585). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thrift, N. (2004). Intensities of feeling: Towards a spacial politics of affect.
Geografiska Annaler, 86B(1), 5778.
Turner, J. H. (2009). The sociology of emotions: Basic theoretical arguments. Emotion Review, 1, 340354. doi:10.1177/1754073909338305
Van den Broek, E. L., van der Sluis, F., & Dijkstra, T. (2011). Telling the
story and re-living the past: How speech analysis can reveal emotions
in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) patients. In J. Westerink, M.
Krans & M. Ouwerkerk (Eds.), Sensing emotions (Vol. 12, pp. 153
180). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Wilhelm, P., Schoebi, D., & Perrez, M. (2004). Frequency estimates
of emotions in everyday life from a diary methods perspective: A comment on Scherer et al.s survey-study Emotions in
Everyday Life. Social Science Information, 43(4), 647665.
doi:10.1177/0539018404047712

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com at Ateneo de Manila University on July 17, 2016