Examines how terminology affects value-judgments about emotions and their expresser, suggesting better language use.
Emotions are commonly described using the valence-based terms “positive” and “negative,” which, we suggest, can create value-judgments of emotions and people experiencing them as being, for example, good or bad. We examined this assertion in four studies ( N = 818). We found that people perceive valence-based terminology in a more value-laden manner than feeling-based terminology (“pleasant”/“unpleasant”; Study 1). We then examined whether using valence-based, feeling-based, or neither terminology influences value-judgments of anger and envy and people expressing them (Studies 2, 3). We found that both terminologies can create value-judgments. Some of our findings in Study 3 were moderated by participants’ political ideology. In Study 4, we explored alternatives to the valence-based terminology. While all terminologies can convey some degree of value-judgments, the valence-based terminology does it most. We tentatively recommend (a) using either a feeling-based (“pleasant”/“unpleasant”) or a feeling-specific terminology (“pleasant-feeling”/ “unpleasant-feeling”) to discuss general emotion groups and (b) using no descriptive terminology when discussing specific emotions. We conclude by offering the Words-as-Values (WaV) Theoretical Framework through which researchers may further explore the influences of terminology and its boundary conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gonzalez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: