IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v37y2009i4p560-589.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Critiquing Models of Emotions

Author

Listed:
  • Herman Smith

    (University of Missouri-St. Louis)

  • Andreas Schneider

    (Texas Tech University, Lubbock, andreas.schneider@ttu.edu)

Abstract

This article provides the first systematic empirical examination of four major genres of theories concerning the nature and rise of the corpus of human emotions with more than 2,000 statistical tests of five hypotheses. The distinction between evolutionary-universal and other ``secondary'' emotions is empirically uninformative for all five cultures. Next, the emotion-wheel theory of Plutchik receives no empirical support. All palette theories fail four empirical tests. More than 90 empirical tests fail to support Kemper and Turner in assuming that many secondary emotions arise through complex combinations of primary emotions due to socialization. The Johnson-Laird and Oatley hypothesis of five universal clusters of emotions is also tested and rejected. Researchers need to rethink the heuristic value of dichotomizing and lumping emotions in categories such as universal, primary, basic, secondary, tertiary, and so forth. There are clear empirical advantages to differentiating between emotions with three dimensions rather than two dimensions.

Suggested Citation

  • Herman Smith & Andreas Schneider, 2009. "Critiquing Models of Emotions," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(4), pages 560-589, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:37:y:2009:i:4:p:560-589
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124109335790
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124109335790
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124109335790?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herman W. Smith & Yap MiowLin, 2006. "Guilty Americans and Shameful Japanese? An Affect Control Test of Benedict’s Thesis," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Kent A. McClelland & Thomas J. Fararo (ed.), Purpose, Meaning, and Action, chapter 9, pages 213-236, Palgrave Macmillan.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:37:y:2009:i:4:p:560-589. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.