Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we argue that the concept of environmental scaffolding can contribute to a better understanding of our affective life and the complex manners in which it is shaped by environmental entities. In particular, the concept of environmental scaffolding offers a more comprehensive and less controversial framework than the notions of embeddedness and extendedness. We contribute to the literature on situated affectivity by embracing and systematizing the diversity of affective scaffolding. In doing so, we introduce several distinctions that provide classifications of different types of environmentally scaffolded affectivity. Furthermore, we differentiate eight dimensions (e.g., trust, individualization, or intent) that allow us to evaluate the quality and effectivity of scaffolds in particular applications. On that basis, we develop a taxonomy using paradigmatic examples of affective scaffolding. This taxonomy enriches the current debate by emphasizing distinctions that are often conflated and by identifying fields of application that are commonly overlooked.
Highlights
During the last decade, situated approaches to cognition[1] have spread to our affective life and set out to study how our interaction with environmental entities contributes to affective phenomena.[2]
We argue that the concept of environmental scaffolding can contribute to a better understanding of our affective life and the complex manners in which it is shaped by environmental entities
We focus on the relationship between agent and environment as addressed in terms of embeddedness and extendedness.[11]
Summary
During the last decade, situated approaches to cognition[1] have spread to our affective life and set out to study how our interaction with environmental entities contributes to affective phenomena.[2]. “Mind Invasion: Situated Affectivity and the Corporate Life Hack,” Frontiers in Psychology 7 (2016): article 266; Sutton et al, “Psychology of Memory.” 29 E.g., Glackin, Roberts, and Krueger, “Out of Our Heads”; Krueger and Osler, “Engineering Affect”; León, Szanto, and Zahavi, “Emotional Sharing”; Slaby, “Mind Invasion”; Varga, Scaffolded Minds. One step on the path is to fully embrace the diversity of affective scaffolding and systematize paradigmatic cases in terms of a differentiated taxonomy Such a taxonomy may contribute to a better understanding of why and when certain affective scaffolds are used or structured.[34] Further, it may help us to exploit the variety of research areas for affective scaffolding while accepting that a useful application may strongly depend on both the particular research topics and interests.[35] In the remaining part of this section, we introduce three kinds of distinctions concerning the classification of different kinds of affective scaffolding that we consider relevant but not yet sufficiently elaborated. There is a danger that these differences will be lost if they are uniformly referred to as dimensions, as proposed, for example, by Colombetti and Krueger or Saarinen.[62]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
