Abstract
In emotion research, both conceptual analyses and empirical studies commonly rely on emotion reports. But what do people mean when they say that they are angry, afraid, joyful, etc.? Building on extant theories of emotion, this paper presents four new studies (including a preregistered replication) measuring the weight of cognitive evaluations, bodily changes, and action tendencies in people’s use of emotion concepts. The results of these studies suggest that the presence or absence of cognitive evaluations has the largest impact on people’s emotion attributions, and bodily changes and action tendencies are considered to depend on cognitive evaluations. Implications for theories of emotion (concepts) and the interpretation of emotion reports are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The spoken language section of COCA consists of transcripts of unscripted conversation from more than 150 different TV and radio programs between 1990 and 2019.
The literature on concepts offer different proposals regarding what statistical and/or salience properties determine the weight of a feature (Murphy, 2002; Machery, 2009). Here, we adopt an uncompromising notion of weight as the impact of (the presence or absence of) a feature in categorization, which remains silent regarding what determines this impact.
This has been called the Problem of Parts (Prinz, 2004): The problem of determining which features are essential for emotion and which are not. Accounts that identify emotion with a combination of several features face a different problem, the Problem of Plenty, which consist of explaining how very different elements hang together to create a unitary phenomenon.
An exception is Study 6 in Fehr and Russell (1984), which is further discussed in this section.
Note that the question regarding which features determine emotion attribution (the one that this paper concerns) is different from the question regarding which features determine the intensity of the attributed emotion (Frijda et al., 1992).
These emotions are sometimes called “basic emotions” (Ekman, 1999). Here, we do not take a stand on whether these emotions are basic or not. These emotions were selected merely because they are paradigmatic examples of emotion.
The wording for Cognition builds on Richard Lazarus’s list of the core relational themes for each particular emotion (Lazarus, 1991, p. 122). The expression “seeing as” is taken from Nussbaum (2004, p. 197) and Robert Solomon, who claims “emotion is viewed as a way of seeing something as a thing of a certain sort” (Solomon, 2003, p. 63). The description of the Body element follows the idea that because “emotions may each correspond to several physiological patterns […] it is best to associate emotions with body state prototypes” (Prinz, 2004, p. 72). The prototypical reaction for each emotion was taken from previous research on the topic (Scherer & Summerfield, 1983; Shaver et al., 1987; see “Study 1”). Finally, the wording for Motivation is based on Andrea Scarantino’s list of action tendencies, which in turn builds on the work of other researchers (see Scarantino, 2014, p. 181). Note that some of these action tendencies can be interpreted as behaviors or goals. The expression “feel the urge” is taken from Nico Frijda, who claims that “Introspections produce a wealth of statements that refer to […] impulses to approach or avoid, desires to shout and sing or move, and the urge to retaliate” (Frijda, 1988, p. 351). Furthermore, I would like to thank Julien Deonna, Jesse Prinz, and Mauro Rossi for their feedback regarding the wording.
This and the following effect size interpretations are based on Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks.
Tests concerning a fourth hypothesis (H2: No feature or combination of features is both necessary and sufficient for emotion attribution) can be found in footnotes 10 and 11.
The percentage of participants who disagreed (Emotion Ratings < 4) that BM (.27), CM (.18), and CB (.12) cases were cases of emotion was not significantly higher than .50 (all ps > .05). This is a very minimal test of necessity. Its results suggest that none of these features is necessary for emotion.
The percentage of participants who agreed (Emotion Ratings > 3) that C (.63), B (.33), and M (.54) cases were cases of emotion was not significantly higher than .50 (all ps > .05). This is a very minimal test of sufficiency. Its results suggest that none of these features is sufficient for emotion.
Note, however, that a common objection against Cognitive theories of emotion states that cognitive evaluations can be made in a dispassionate way (Deigh, 1994). Thus, cognitive evaluations might not be highly specific of emotion (vs. non-emotion).
In Study 1, mean emotion ratings in the motivation condition (M) were lower for anger (2.00, SD=.82) than for fear (3.43, SD=1.13) and disgust (3.14, SD=1.34). All Ns < 8. In Study 2, mean emotion ratings in the motivation condition (M) were again lower for anger (3.36, SD=.81) than for fear (4.33, SD=.98) and disgust (3.58, SD=1.00). All Ns < 13.
References
Anzellotti, S., Houlihan, S. D., Liburd, S., & Saxe, R. (2019). Leveraging facial expressions and contextual information to investigate opaque representations of emotions. Emotion, 21(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000685
Aviezer, H., Hassin, R. R., Ryan, J., Grady, C., Susskind, J., Anderson, A., et al. (2008). Angry, disgust, or afraid? Studies on the malleability of emotion perception. Psychological Science, 19, 724–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02148.x
Betz, N., Hoemann, K., & Barrett, L. F. (2019). Words are a context for mental inference. Emotion, 19, 1463–1477. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000510
Brooks, J. A., & Freeman, J. B. (2018). Conceptual knowledge predicts the representational structure of facial emotion perception. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 581–591. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0376-6
Carroll, J. M., & Russell, J. A. (1996). Do facial expressions signal specific emotions? Judging emotion from the face in context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.205
Clore, G. L., & Ortony, A. (1991). What more is there to emotion concepts than prototypes? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 48–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.48
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Second Edi). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, lnc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
Crivelli, C., Russell, J. A., Jarillo, S., Crivelli, C., Russell, J. A., & Jarillo, S. (2017). Recognizing spontaneous facial expressions of emotion in a small-scale society of Papua New Guinea. Emotion, 17, 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000236
Davitz, J. R. (1969). The language of emotion. Academic Press.
Deigh, J. (1994). Cognitivism in the theory of emotions. Ethics, 104, 824–854. https://doi.org/10.1086/293657
Deonna, J. A., & Teroni, F. (2012). The emotions: A philosophical introduction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-415956-3.00001-4
Deonna, J. A., & Teroni, F. (2017). Getting bodily feelings into emotional experience in the right way. Emotion Review, 9, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916639666
Díaz, R. (2022). Emotions and the body. Testing the subtraction argument. Philosophical Psychology, 35, 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2021.1945023
Díaz, R. (in press). Experimental philosophy of emotion, in Compact Compendium of Experimental Philosophy, eds. M. Bauer and S. Kornmesser (De Gruyter).
Díaz, R., & Prinz, J. (in press) knowing how you feel about it: Evaluative Sentimentalism and Alexithymia.
Díaz, R., & Reuter, K. (2021). Feeling the right way: Normative influences on people’s use of emotion concepts. Mind and Language, 36, 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12279
Ekman, P. (1999). Basic emotions. Handbook of cognition and emotion, 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0800349X.
Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1984). The concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 463–486.
Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1991). The concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.425
Fontaine, J. J. R., Scherer, K. R., & Soriano, C. (2013). Components of emotional meaning: A sourcebook. Oxford University Press.
Ford, B. Q., & Gross, J. J. (2019). Why beliefs about emotion matter: An emotion-regulation perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418806697
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N. H. (1988). The Laws of Emotion. American Psychologist, 43(5), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.5.349
Frijda, N. H., Ortony, A., Sonnemans, J., & Clore, G. L. (1992). The complexity of intensity: Issues concerning the structure of emotion intensity. Emotion., 60–89. Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-97396-003 [Accessed February 6, 2022].
Gendron, M., & Feldman Barrett, L. (2009). Reconstructing the past: A century of ideas about emotion in psychology. Emotion Review, 1, 316–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073909338877
Gendron, M., Roberson, D., van der Vyver, J. M., & Barrett, L. F. (2014). Perceptions of emotion from facial expressions are not culturally universal: Evidence from a remote culture. Emotion, 14, 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036052
Goldie, P. (2007). Emotion. Philosophy Compass, 2, 928–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00105.x
Griffiths, P. E. (1997). What emotions really are the problem of psychological categories. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Available at: https://philpapers.org/rec/EGRWER [Accessed January 31, 2019].
Halberstadt, J. B., & Niedenthal, P. M. (2001). Effects of emotion concepts on perceptual memory for emotional expressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.587
Hampton, J. A. (1995). Testing the prototype theory of concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 686–708. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1031
Hampton, J. A. (2006). Concepts as prototypes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation - Advances in Research and Theory, 46, 79–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(06)46003-5
Hoemann, K., Wu, R., LoBue, V., Oakes, L. M., Xu, F., & Barrett, L. F. (2019). Developing an understanding of emotion categories: Lessons from objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
Hufendiek, R. (2016). Embodied emotions: A naturalist approach to a normative phenomenon. Routledge.
Jackson, J. C., Watts, J., Henry, T. R., List, J.-M., Forkel, R., Mucha, P. J., et al. (2019). Emotion semantics show both cultural variation and universal structure. Science (New York, N.Y.), 366, 1517–1522. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw8160
James, W. (1884). What is an emotion ? Mind, 9, 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LI.202.200
Kayyal, M., Widen, S., & Russell, J. A. (2015). Context is more powerful than we think: Contextual cues override facial cues even for valence. Emotion, 15, 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000032
Keil, F. (2010). Hybrid vigor and conceptual structure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 215–216. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000555
Knobe, J., & Nichols, S. (2017). Experimental philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/experimental-philosophy/.
Laird, J. D. (2007). Feelings: The perception of self. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195098891.001.0001
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545028
Lange, C. G. (1922). The emotions: A psychophysiological study. In K. Dunlap (Ed.), The Emotions (pp. 33–90). Williams & Wilkins Company.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
LeDoux, J. E., & Pine, D. S. (2016). Using neuroscience to help understand fear and anxiety: A two-system framework. American Journal of Psychiatry, 173, 1083–1093. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16030353
Lindquist, K. A., & Barrett, L. F. (2008). Constructing emotion: The experience of fear as a conceptual act. Psychological Science, 19, 898–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02174.x
Love, B. C. (1996). Mutability, conceptual transformation, and context. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 459–463.
MacCormack, J. K., Henry, T. R., Jackson, J. C., Bonar, A. S., Watts, J., List, J.-M., et al. (2021). Mind-body dualism in emotion concepts across 2,474 languages. Affective Science. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SUAFX
Machery, E. (2009). Doing without concepts. Oxford University Press.
Machery, E. (2017). Philosophy within its proper bounds. Oxford University Press.
Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (2019). Concepts. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9973.00225
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. MIT Press.
Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.3.289
Nook, E. C., Lindquist, K. A., & Zaki, J. (2015). A new look at emotion perception: Concepts speed and shape facial emotion recognition. Emotion, 15, 569–578. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039166
Nussbaum, M. (2001). Upheavals of thought. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.5840/gfpj200223213
Nussbaum, M. (2004). Emotions as Judgments of Value and Importance. In R. C. Solomon (Ed.), Thinking About Feeling: Contemporary Philosophers on Emotions (pp. 183–199). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ong, D. C., Zaki, J., & Goodman, N. D. (2015). Affective cognition: Exploring lay theories of emotion. Cognition, 143, 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.06.010
Panksepp, J. (2000). Emotions as natural kinds within the mammalian brain. Handbook of Emotions, 2, 137–156.
Parkinson, B. (1997). Untangling the appraisal-emotion connection. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0101_5
Prinz, J. (2004). Gut reactions. Oxford University Press.
Quigley, K. S., Lindquist, K. A., & Barrett, L. F. (2014). Inducing and measuring emotion and affect: Tips, tricks, and secrets. In H. Reis & C. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology (pp. 220–252). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511996481
Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 21–59). Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, R. C. (2003). Emotions: An essay in aid of moral psychology.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
Russell, J. A. (1991). In defense of a prototype approach to emotion concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.37
Russell, J. A., & Fehr, B. (1994). Fuzzy concepts in a fuzzy hierarchy: Varieties of anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 186–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.186
Saxe, R., & Houlihan, S. D. (2017). Formalizing emotion concepts within a Bayesian model of theory of mind. Current Opinion in Psychology, 17, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.019
Scarantino, A. (2012). How to define emotions scientifically. Emotion Review, 4, 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912445810
Scarantino, A. (2014). The motivational theory of emotions. Moral Psychology and Human Agency, 156–185. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717812.003.0008
Scarantino, A., and de Sousa, R. (2018). Emotion. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. N. Zalta https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9973.00225.
Scherer, K. R. (2009). Emotions are emergent processes: They require a dynamic computational architecture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364, 3459–3474. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0141
Scherer, K., & Summerfield, A. (1983). Cross-national research on antecedents and components of emotion: A progress report. Social Science Information, 22, 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901883022003002
Shargel, D., & Prinz, J. (2017). An enactivist theory of emotional content. The Ontology of Emotions, 110–129. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316275221.007
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52, 1061–1086. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1061
Siemer, M. (2008). Beyond prototypes and classical definitions: Evidence for a theory-based representation of emotion concepts. Cognition and Emotion, 22, 620–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930701440067
Sloman, S. A., Love, B. C., & Ahn, W. K. (1998). Feature centrality and conceptual coherence. Cognitive Science, 22, 189–228. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_2
Solomon, R. C. (1976). The passions. Anchor Press.
Solomon, R. C. (2003). Not passion’s slave: Emotions and choice. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073909345543
Tappolet, C. (2016). Emotions, values, and agency. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199696512.001.0001
Vicente, A., & Martínez Manrique, F. (2016). The Big Concepts Paper: A defence of hybridism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 67, 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axu022
Wierzbicka, A. (2009). Language and metalanguage: Key issues in emotion research. Emotion Review, 1, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073908097175
Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., Barrett, L. F., Simmons, W. K., & Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Grounding emotion in situated conceptualization. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1105–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.12.032
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
This work was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (research projects 100012_169484 and P2BEP1_200040). I would like to thank Claus Beisbart, Julien Deonna, Charlie Kurth, Anne Meylan, Jesse Prinz, Kevin Reuter, James Russell, Mauro Rossi, and Christine Tappolet for their comments on early drafts of the paper.
Data Availability
Data and materials are available at the Open Science Framework website: https://osf.io/d3h85/.
Ethics Approval
Research was approved by the Ethics Commission at the University of Bern.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no competing interests.
Informed Consent
Participants provided informed consent to participate in the studies.
Code Availability
Not applicable
Consent for Publication
Not applicable
Consent for Publication
Not applicable
Authors' Contributions
Not applicable
Additional information
Handling editor: Phoebe Ellsworth
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Díaz, R. What Do People Think Is an Emotion?. Affec Sci 3, 438–450 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-022-00113-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-022-00113-w