Abstract 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.
Gonzalez et al. (Mon,) studied this question.