"Człowiek i Społeczeństwo" to półrocznik naukowy Wydziału Antropologii i Kulturoznawstwa, Wydziału Filozoficznego, Wydziału Psychologii i Kognitywistyki oraz Wydziału Socjologii (dawny Wydział Nauk Społecznych) Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu koncentrujący się na problemach jednostki i ludzkich społeczności w kontekście współczesnej kultury. Czasopismo wyróżnia interdyscyplinarne podejście wynikające ze stosowania metod i teorii właściwych dla poszczególnych kierunków z obszaru nauk społecznych i humanistycznych, a więc antropologii, filozofii, kognitywistyki, kulturoznawstwa, psychologii, socjologii. POLITYKA FUNKCJONOWANIA CZASOPISMA AKTUALNY NUMER ARCHIWUM INDEKSOWANE W: CROSSREF, DOAJ,WIKIDATA, SUDOC, SHERPA ROMEO, OPENALEX, ROAD, CEEOL, EBSCO Sociology Source Ultimate, BazEkon, Google Scholar, THE KEEPERS, WorldCat, ERIH PLUS WSKAŹNIKI OCENY CZASOPISMA: Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego (2024): 40 DOI: 10.14746/cis ISSN (Print): 0239-3271 ISSN (Online): 2956-5243 PRACE PUBLIKOWANE W CZASOPIŚMIE DOSTĘPNE SĄ NA LICENCJI CREATIVE COMMONS: Od t. 39 (2015- ): Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowa (CC BY 4.0 International) Przed 2015 rokiem: do wszystkich tekstów opublikowanych prawa autorskie są zastrzeżone (© Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu – OPEN ACCESS) WYDAWCA: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu Wydawnictwo Nauk Społecznych i Humanistycznych
1. W momencie złożenia pracy celem rozpoczęcia postępowania w sprawie publikacji, Licencjodawca, zwany dalej Autorem, akceptuje wszystkie zasady umieszczone na stronie internetowej czasopisma “Człowiek i Społeczeństwo”, udzielając Licencjobiorcy, zwanego dalej Wydawcą, niewyłącznej i nieodpłatnej licencji na korzystanie z Utworu. Licencja zakłada tym samym brak ograniczeń terytorialnych, czasowych oraz ilościowych na następujących polach eksploatacji (art. 50 ustawy z dnia 4 lutego 1994 r. o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych): a. utrwalanie Utworu; b. zwielokrotnienie Utworu drukiem i w wersji cyfrowej; c. wprowadzenie do obrotu, użyczenie lub najem oryginału/zwielokrotnionych egzemplarzy Utworu; d. publiczne wykonanie, wystawienie, wyświetlenie, odtworzenie oraz nadawanie i reemitowanie, a także publiczne udostępnianie Utworu w taki sposób, aby każdy mógł mieć do niego dostęp w miejscu i w czasie przez siebie wybranym; e. włączenie Utworu w skład utworu zbiorowego; f. wprowadzenie Utworu w postaci elektronicznej na platformy elektroniczne lub inne wprowadzenie Utworu w postaci elektronicznej do Internetu, Intranetu, Extranetu lub innej sieci; g. rozpowszechnianie Utworu w wersji elektronicznej w Internecie, Intranecie, Extranecie lub innej sieci, w pracy zbiorowej, a także samodzielnie w formule Open Access w oparciu o licencję Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowa Licencja Publiczna (CC BY 4.0), a także inną wersję językową tej licencji, lub którąkolwiek późniejszą wersję tej licencji. 2. Założenia licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowa Licencja Publiczna (CC BY 4.0), udzielają Wydawcy upoważnienia do kopiowania, zmieniania, rozprowadzania, przedstawiania i wykonywania Utworu jedynie pod warunkiem uznania autorstwa. 3. Wraz z dostarczeniem Utworu, Autor zobowiązuje się do wypełnienia, podpisania oraz odesłania skanu umowy
Prawa autorskie (c) 2026 Michael A. Gilbert https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pl
This paper argues that everyday argumentative episodes are inherently emotional and proposes applying the concepts and methods used to analyze emotional episodes to argumentative-emotional ones. Emotions develop at the verbal and physical (paraverbal) levels. Sections one and two discuss two paraverbal aspects of emotion. The first section presents increased tension as a criterion for identifying the beginning of an emotional-argumentative episode. Section two focuses on the physical transformations individuals experience during emotional interactions and their correlative communicative and argumentative function. This topic is difficult to document adequately and the data are difficult to interpret. It constitutes an autonomous field of study. Sections three through five focus on the lexicon of emotional terms. This lexicon includes hundreds of terms that refer to emotions. In addition to this core set, it includes some thousands of terms that suggest, connote, imply, or point toward an emotion (some thousands). The dictionary-based impact method is a unifying approach to an expanded set of emotional terms.
Prawa autorskie (c) 2026 Christian Plantin https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pl
How surprising! People sometimes argue for an expression of emotion and sometimes argue against feeling an emotion. These arguments are not the usual sort of argument for or against a statement, so it is not obvious how to analyze them and how to evaluate them. But don’t worry! On my conception of arguments as composed of illocutionary act-types, they can be analyzed as being what they seem to be (arguments for or against a Searlian expressive). And one can evaluate the inference in arguments for expressions of emotion by means of my conception of consequence as transmission of acceptability, where acceptability is an objective status that applies to all kinds of illocutionary act-types, not just statements. And one can evaluate the inference in arguments against an emotion by means of an analogous conception of refutation as transmission of the opposite of acceptability, a status that we might call ‘rejectability’.
Prawa autorskie (c) 2026 David Hitchcock https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pl
Insights for Argumentation Theory from a Cognitive-Motivational Approach to Emotions
This paper examines Miceli and Castelfranchi’s (2015; hereafter M&C) theory of emotion to explore how a cognitive-motivational analysis of emotional functioning can interact with established conceptual approaches in mainstream argumentation theory, with particular attention to argument reconstruction and interpretation. The discussion begins by outlining the principal ideas presented by M&C, focusing on how their cognitive-motivational framework provides insights into the mechanisms underlying emotions. These concepts are then applied specifically to argumentation theory, demonstrating the relevance of M&C’s approach within this domain. The analysis culminates with a detailed example illustrating the integration of both perspectives, highlighting the practical implications of combining cognitive-motivational analysis with argumentation theory. From the discussion and the example provided, two key ideas emerge. First, employing a cognitive-motivational anatomy of emotion makes it easier to reconstruct and interpret the implicit elements within arguments. Second, incorporating the conceptual frameworks of persuasion through arousal of emotions and persuasion through appeal to anticipated emotions clarifies the role that specific emotions play in the structure of an argument.
Prawa autorskie (c) 2026 Cristián Santibáñez https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pl
Sensible Reason in Argumentation: Beyond the Emotion/Reason Divide
This article introduces the concept of sensible reason in order to explain a dimension of argumentation that is often treated too broadly under the category of emotion. The central claim is that certain affective, perceptual, symbolic, and situated elements do more than accompany arguments as persuasive intensifiers: they function within argumentation as part of what gives claims meaning, force, orientation, and justification. For that reason, the term sensible reason is proposed as a more precise way of accounting for how the sensible operates within argumentative practice. The article clarifies what this concept means by arguing that sensible reason is not reducible to explicit emotion-language, propositional form, or rhetorical ornament, but must be understood through its symbolic expression, its cultural and collective constitution, its situational character, and its role in the production of argumentative intelligibility. From this perspective, argumentation appears not simply as an inferential structure, but as a social and situated practice in which sensible forms participate in what arguments do. The case of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, EZLN) and its political formulation of digna rabia (“dignified rage”) is used to show how a sensible reason may become historically mediated, multimodal, collective, and publicly operative within political argumentation.
Prawa autorskie (c) 2026 Amanda Panambi Morales Vidales https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pl
Emotions in the Shadow of Objective Liability: Administrative Environmental Protection from the Perspective of Law and Emotions
This article examines administrative monetary penalties in Polish environmental law through the lens of the Law and Emotions framework. It challenges the dominant view of such sanctions as neutral and technical instruments by arguing that they function as emotionally charged mechanisms of public authority. The analysis shows that strict or quasi-objective liability regimes structurally generate fear, anxiety, and moral stigmatization, shaping compliance not only through rational calculation but also through affective governance. Drawing on a doctrinal-interpretive methodology grounded in interdisciplinary scholarship, the study combines legal analysis of statutory provisions and case law with socio-legal insights into regulation and governance. It argues that administrative monetary penalties, despite being formally classified as non-penal measures, operate as forms of hidden punitiveness that produce predictable emotional responses. These effects support compliance but may also undermine perceptions of proportionality, fairness, and trust, particularly affecting smaller entities. The article concludes that administrative sanctioning should be reconsidered within a broader understanding of proportionality that accounts for the foreseeable emotional impact of sanctions and the need for stronger individualization and procedural safeguards.
Prawa autorskie (c) 2026 Waldemar Jagodziński https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pl
The Language of Affect Heuristic in Online Discourse: A Corpus Study with Human and Llm Coders
This paper investigates the affect heuristic in online argumentative discourse through a corpus-based study combining manual and automatic annotation. Drawing on research in argumentation theory, psychology, and decision science, the study approaches affect not as an external addition to reasoning but as a recurring component of evaluative judgment. The analysis focuses on discussions of climate change and artificial intelligence collected from Reddit and X (formerly Twitter), domains characterised by uncertainty, risk perception, and public controversy. The study employs a bottom-up annotation methodology in which four human annotators identify instances of affect heuristic and related cognitive biases in a corpus of more than 30,000 posts and comments. Inter-annotator agreement is assessed using Fleiss’ κ, Cohen’s κ, Gwet’s AC1, and weighted F1 measures. In a second stage, the same annotation scheme is applied to GPT-4o, treated as a constrained fifth annotator operating within predefined categories and probabilistic classification rules. The results show that the affect heuristic is the most frequent heuristic pattern in the corpus, occurring more often than confirmation bias, availability heuristic, or representativeness heuristic. Although traditional κ coefficients remain low because of category imbalance, agreement measures robust to prevalence effects indicate substantial consistency among annotators. The automatic anno-tation stage reveals partial alignment between human and model judgments, while also exposing systematic discrepancies in the model’s distribution of categories. A lexical and discursive analysis further demonstrates that affect heuristics do not necessarily manifest through explicit emotion vocabulary. Instead, they frequently appear through evaluative framing, practical reasoning under uncertainty, and subtle stance-taking related to collective action and future-oriented judgment. The findings contribute to empirical research on emotional processes in argumentation and demonstrate how affective reasoning can be operationalised and studied through combined qualitative and computational methods.
Prawa autorskie (c) 2026 Paulina Żelewska, Barbara Konat https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pl
Breath Meditation and Emotional Regulation: Psychosomatic and Neural Mechanisms in a 21-Day Study
This study investigates the effects of a 21-day breath meditation intervention on emotional well-being, with a focus on the psychosomatic and neural mechanisms of breath regulation. Breath meditation, known to activate the parasympathetic nervous system and reduce physiological markers of stress, has been shown to enhance emotional regulation and improve subjective well-being. The study included 112 adult participants, divided into four groups, each engaging in different combinations of breath meditation, body scanning, and positive reflection exercises. Emotional well-being was assessed using the SUPIN (Polish adaptation of the PANAS), measuring positive and negative affect pre- and post-intervention. Results indicate significant improvements in positive affect and reductions in negative affect for groups practicing breath meditation, especially when combined with positive reflection. Group 2 (Breath Meditation + “Three Good Things”) showed the largest increases in positive affect and reductions in negative affect, highlighting the synergistic effect of combining mindfulness with positive psychology exercises. These findings underscore the efficacy of breath meditation as a brief, non-invasive intervention for emotional well-being and stress regulation. The study offers insights into practical applications for mental health, educational, and workplace settings, emphasizing the potential of breath-focused mindfulness practices to foster resilience and emotional balance. Future research should explore long-term effects and physiological markers to deepen understanding of these interventions’ mechanisms and sustainability.
Prawa autorskie (c) 2026 Piotr Cieśla, Magdalena Cieśla, Małgorzata Bernatek https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pl
Trafność procesu odpowiadania w polskiej adaptacji Skali Postrzeganej Siły Argumentu (PAS-PL): badanie pilotażowe
This article presents the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Polish version of the Perceived Argument Strength Scale (PAS-PL), along with a pilot study of response process validity in the context of arguments concerning COVID-19 vaccination. The adaptation followed international guidelines for the translation of psychometric instruments, using a bidirectional (forward–backward) translation procedure. Response processes were examined using the think-aloud method in a sample of ten students. Four categories of response problems were identified (confusion, disengagement, general response difficulties, and reactivity), and the reliability of protocol annotation was high (Krippendorff’s α = 0.808). In 83% of observations, no problems with interpretation or responding were detected. Exploratory analyses using a mixed-effects model indicated that problems occurred less frequently during the second administration of the questionnaire; a directionally consistent but statistically uncertain tendency was also observed for more frequent problems when selecting the midpoint response. The findings provide preliminary evidence for the response process validity of the PAS-PL and outline directions for further psychometric validation of the instrument.
Prawa autorskie (c) 2026 Paweł Kleka, Robert Szymański, Barbara Konat https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pl
Prawa autorskie (c) 2026 Barbara Konat, Cristián Santibáñez https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pl