On the alleged circularity of cognitive accounts of emotional conflicts

Cognitive accounts of recalcitrant emotions typically rely on a distinction between internalized beliefs – i.e., beliefs we deeply hold – and superficial beliefs to which we merely pay lip service. For example, when Sandra fears the old Fido despite believing he is not dangerous, cognitivists argue that there is a conflict between her superficial judgment that dogs are not dangerous and a more deeply rooted, unconscious belief that Fido poses a threat. A common objection to this view is that the only apparent way to distinguish internalized from superficial beliefs is that only the former give rise to emotions – a criterion that seems circular. This paper offers a defense of the cognitive account of recalcitrant emotions against the charge of circularity, arguing that there are philosophical and psychological reasons to consider this distinction useful for explaining a range of phenomena in our lives.