Modeling Semantic Emotion Space Using a 3D Hypercube-Projection: An Innovative Analytical Approach for the Psychology of Emotions

Abstract

The widely accepted two-dimensional circumplex model of emotions posits that most instances of human emotional experience can be understood within the two general dimensions of valence and activation. Currently, this model is facing some criticism, because complex emotions in particular are hard to define within only these two general dimensions. The present theory-driven study introduces an innovative analytical approach working in a way other than the conventional, two-dimensional paradigm. The main goal was to map and project semantic emotion space in terms of mutual positions of various emotion prototypical categories. Participants (N = 187; 54.5% females) judged 16 discrete emotions in terms of valence, intensity, controllability and utility. The results revealed that these four dimensional input measures were uncorrelated. This implies that valence, intensity, controllability and utility represented clearly different qualities of discrete emotions in the judgments of the participants. Based on this data, we constructed a 3D hypercube-projection and compared it with various two-dimensional projections. This contrasting enabled us to detect several sources of bias when working with the traditional, two-dimensional analytical approach. Contrasting two-dimensional and three-dimensional projections revealed that the 2D models provided biased insights about how emotions are conceptually related to one another along multiple dimensions. The results of the present study point out the reductionist nature of the two-dimensional paradigm in the psychological theory of emotions and challenge the widely accepted circumplex model.

The Potential of Virtual Reality for the Investigation of Awe

“…The flexibility of valence in awe is somewhat unusual for an emotion, though there are other examples that follow this pattern, such as nostalgia (Wildschut et al, 2006). Since conventional models of emotions typically do not admit this degree of complexity (Trnka et al, 2016), Keltner and Haidt (2003) suggested the existence of different emotional themes (i.e., threat, beauty, virtue, power, and uncanny) that “flavor” awe (Keltner and Haidt, 2003; p. 304), creating a kind of family of awe-related states. For example, awe arising from threatening stimuli can be a source of negative valence, as they write, “danger causes an experience of awe to be flavored by feelings of fear” (Keltner and Haidt, 2003; p. 304).…”

Sound Predicts Meaning: Cross‐Modal Associations Between Formant Frequency and Emotional Tone in Stanzas

“…According to this model, an emotion can be defined by its position in a three-dimensional space that characterizes states as positive or negative (Evaluation), dominant or submissive (Potency), and active or passive (Activity). Later versions of the EPA model have often referred to the three dimensions as Valence or Pleasure (for Evaluation), Arousal or Intensity (for Activity), and Dominance or Controllability (for Potency) (e.g., Mehrabian & Russell, 1974;Trnka, La cev, Balcar, Ku ska, & Tavel, 2016). While we consider these terms as largely interchangeable, it is important to point out some nuances that set them apart.…”

Components of cultural complexity relating to emotions: A conceptual framework

“…All languages include words that relate to emotional experiences and moods. Such linguistic labels for emotion categories in language are called emotion terms, emotion words or emotion names (Hupka, Lenton, & Hutchinson, 1999;Trnka, Lacev, Balcar, Kuška, & Tavel, 2016). Emotion terms help people to understand their own emotions, and they are conventionally understood as abstract representations with which people compare their real, everyday emotional experiences (but see, e.g., Bickhard, 2007;or Cowley, Stephen, & Harvey, 2016 for different operational defining of language).…”