Author
Abstract
Human emotion has been a focus of scientific research across a wide variety of scientific disciplines and, in spite of careful research dating back as far as Charles Darwin, no consensus has emerged as to what emotions are, how many there are, and whether they are sharply bounded biological processes or culturally defined processes with diffuse boundaries, changing in response to contextual factors. Recently, Cowen and Keltner published research applying what they call a “semantic space approach” to the study of emotion (Cowen in Trends Cogn Sci 22:274–276, 2018; in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2017; in Am Psychol 2019). Their method finds that respondents recognize 28 emotional categories arrayed in a 27-dimensional space. These categories are not sharply bounded, but tail off into one another. Some researchers (Barrett in Trends Cogn Sci 22(2):97–99, 2018) have called their methodology into question, and recommended alternative procedures to check these results. In this article we apply an alternative, widely used methodology for generating semantic spaces to Cowen and Keltner’s emotional categories. Results of this alternative (“Galileo”) analysis conducted in the United States and Singapore support the finding that the space in which these 28 emotional categories lie is a high dimensional space, and that they are indeed not sharply bounded. Additionally however, the Galileo method finds that the underlying space is non-Euclidean and it provides information about the actual sizes of the dimensions. Results also show that some of Cowen and Keltner’s emotional categories (such as frustration) may not be best described as emotions themselves, but rather as situations in which other emotions (e.g., anger, sadness, etc.) may be generated.
Suggested Citation
Joseph Woelfel & Kenton Bruce Anderson & Asa Iacobucci, 2024.
"What are emotions and how many are there?,"
Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(6), pages 5483-5502, December.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:58:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s11135-024-01897-8
DOI: 10.1007/s11135-024-01897-8
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:spr:qualqt:v:58:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s11135-024-01897-8. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.