Apples and oranges

(1)

Delft University of Technology

Apples and oranges

Three criteria for positive emotion typologies

Desmet, P.M.A.; Sauter, D.S.; Shiota, M.N. DOI

10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.03.012 Publication date

2021

Document Version Final published version Published in

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

Citation (APA)

Desmet, P. M. A., Sauter, D. S., & Shiota, M. N. (2021). Apples and oranges: Three criteria for positive emotion typologies. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 39, 119-124.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.03.012 Important note

To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable). Please check the document version above.

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons. Takedown policy

Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights. We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology.

(2)

Apples

and

oranges:

three

criteria

for

positive

emotion

typologies

Pieter

MA

Desmet

1

,

Disa

A

Sauter

2

and

Michelle

N

Shiota

3

Positiveemotiontypologies,thatis,classificationsofpositive

emotionsintoconceptuallydistinctcategoriesor‘types’

accordingtotheirproperties,canclarifyandsimplifythe

complexstructureofpositiveemotionspace.Inthisreview,we

introducethreekeyevaluativecriteriaforsuchtypologies:

comprehensiveness,distinctiveness,andgranularity.

Comprehensivenessisthedegreetowhichthetypology

accuratelyrepresentstheboundariesofpositiveemotion

space;distinctivenessiswhetheremotionalstatesare

clusteredonthebasisofaconsistentaspectofemotion;and

granularityisthelevelofnuanceanddetailincategorization.

Thesecriteriaprovidestandardsbywhichthequalityofexisting

typologiescanbejudged,aswellasguidingthedevelopment

ofnewtypologies.Multiplevalidandusefulpositiveemotion

typologiescanbedescribed;thesecriteriacanguidescholars

inselectingthetypologythatbestsuitstheirneeds.

Addresses

1_Faculty_of_Industrial_Design_Engineering,_Delft_University_of_Technology,

TheNetherlands

2_Department_of_Psychology,_University_of_Amsterdam,_The_Netherlands 3

DepartmentofPsychology,ArizonaStateUniversity,USA Correspondingauthor:Desmet,PieterMA(p.m.a.desmet@tudelft.nl)

CurrentOpinioninBehavioralSciences2021,39:119–124 ThisreviewcomesfromathemedissueonEmotion,motivation, personalityandsocialsciences*positiveaffect*

EditedbyGillesPourtois,DisaSauter,BlairSaundersandHenkvan Steenbergen

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.03.012

2352-1546/ã2021TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyElsevierLtd.Thisisan openaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Introduction

In 1869, Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev published the original version of his periodic table of chemical elements. Althoughothertypologiesofknownelementshadbeenproposed, Mendeleevwasthefirsttoleavegapsinhistableforelementsthat had not yet been discovered at the time. One example is Germanium (32 GE)—a glistering, brittle metalloid, which wasdiscoveredinanabandonedmineinGermanytwodecades after he predicted its existence. Mendeleev’s periodic table remainsoneofthemostinfluentialandwidelyusedtypologies inscience.

Categorizationisoneofthemostcentralhuman concep-tualabilities[1].Wecategorizeinallfacetsofourlives, including diseases (e.g. infectious, deficiency, heredi-tary), jobs (e.g. education, hospitality, science)—and positiveemotions (e.g.pride,relief, joy).Likethe peri-odic table, such categorizations bring about typologies: Organizedsystemsthatsortphenomenaintomeaningful categories or ‘types’ according to their properties, and articulatethosecategories’relationstoeachother[2,3].4 In science, agoodtypology canreduce complexityand provideconceptualclarityaboutthestructureofagiven domain.Moreover,asillustratedbyMendeleev’s Germa-nium prediction,typologies canyield predictionsabout yet-to-be-discovered phenomena[seeRef.[4]].

Inemotionresearch,typologiescanserveseveral essen-tialpurposes.Theycanguidetheorizingandhypothesis development;helpdeterminewhichemotional statesto includeinagivenstudy;andsupportselectionof appro-priateexperimentalmanipulationsandoperational mea-sures [5]. Emotion typologies can thereby provide a framework for studies that investigate the impact of emotions on a multitude of outcomes, including moral judgment,socialstatus,altruism,and closerelationships [foranoverview,seeRef.[6]].Typologiescanalsoinform studiesthatinvestigateassociationsamongdifferent com-ponents of emotional responding, such as experiential, physiological,andbehavioralfeatures[e.g.Refs.[7–10]].

In contemporary emotion research,however, typologies are structurally underutilized. The majority of reported studiesinstead useemotion lists, whichlack anexplicit accountofthestructureofpositiveemotionspace[11]. These lists are typically too narrow to capture therich variety of actual positive emotional experiences [12]. Moreover, authors using emotion lists rarely report the criteria that guide their selection of some constructs rather than others,and new lists arereadily assembled, combinedor adjusted.Because differentstudiesrelyon differentemotionlists,itisoftendifficulttoarticulatethe implications of newempirical findings in termsof prior theory—much like comparing apples to oranges. This

4

Thewordstypologyandtaxonomyareoftenusedinterchangeably. Bailey [2] proposed that they represent two different classification approaches:Atypologyisprimaryconceptual,andataxonomyis empir-ical. The term taxonomy is more generally used in the biological scienceswhiletypologyisusedinthesocialsciences.Inthismanuscript wedonotmakethisdistinction;wetaketheviewthatatypologycanbe conceptual,empirical,orcombinationsofthetwo.

(3)

fragmentation canbe reduced byworking witha priori typologies,whichofferaneffectiveformof standardiza-tionbyreflectingthefullrangeofhumanpositive emo-tions.LikeMendeleev’speriodictable,agoodtypology enjoysconsensus,andiswidelyapplicableforallkindsof researchpurposes[7].

In recentyears, several typologies of positive emotions havebeenproposedthataimtoprovideconceptualclarity aboutthestructureofpositiveemotionspace.For exam-ple, Shiota et al. [13] introduced a typology of nine positive emotions, each representing a theorized adap-tive, specialized response to different fitness-critical resources(suchasfood,socialsupport,andinformation); Desmet[14] introducedatypology of 25positive emo-tionsbasedonappraisal-focusedcomponentialanalysisof 350 positive emotion words; and Weidman and Tracy [11] developed a typology of nine positive emotions based on factor analysis of 5939 emotional experiences reportedbyparticipants.Ourgoalhereisnottoarbitrate amongexisting typologiesorto proposeanewone, but rathertooutlinethekeycriteriabywhichtypologiescan be evaluated: comprehensiveness, distinctiveness, and granularity. Thesefeatures provide standardsby which thequalityofexistingtypologiescanbejudged,aswellas guidingthedevelopmentofnewtypologies.Inaddition, thesecriteriacanguidescholarsinselectingtheemotion typologythatbestsuitstheirresearchneeds,andprovide them with insights about issues to be aware of when combiningtypologies.

Three

criteria

for

positive

emotion

typologies

Positiveemotiontypologiesarebuiltonthepremisethat positiveemotionalstatesoccupyacomplexspacethatcan becarvedintomeaningfuldiscreteclusters.Eachcluster containscloselyrelatedtypesofemotionalstates,eachof whichisadistinctvariety ofemotional experience[12]. For example, one cluster labeled as ‘self-transcending’ positive emotions may contain the emotional states of awe,wonder, elevation, and inspiration [15].This does not mean that typologies necessarily adhere to the ‘naturalkinds’viewonemotions,which considers emo-tionsto becategories with firm boundariesthat canbe observedin nature—likethe periodic tableofchemical elements. Typologies canalso be useful for classifying categories that are more ambiguous and emergent. For example,typologiesof cloudsare helpfulfordescribing meteorological conditions and making weather predic-tions, despitecloudcategories beingmuchlessdiscrete andclear-cut thanthoseof chemicalelements. Typolo-giesofemotioncanlikewiseserveusefulpurposes regard-lessofwhetheremotionsareviewedasnaturalkindsoras emergentphenomenathatareconstructedbythehuman mind.

TheninepanelsinFigure1offervisualrepresentationsof positiveemotiontypologies.Whiterectangleswithblack

bordersrepresenttheemotion space,dots orshapes rep-resent particular emotional states, and bounded grey regions represent emotion clusters. Panel A1 displays a prototypical typology that meets all three evaluative criteria.The panelsontheright sideof theimage (A2, A3,B3andC3)eachexemplifyalower-qualitytypology thatisdeficientononeof thecriteria.

Firstcriterion:comprehensiveness

The primary evaluative standard for a typology is its comprehensiveness:thedegreetowhichitisanaccurate representationofpositiveemotionspace—itshouldcover allofthisspacebutnomore.Thisstandardismeasured withtwosubcriteria.Thefirstisinclusion:thedegreeto which the clusters cover the full spectrum of states in positive emotion space. Panel A2 visualizes a typology thatfallsshortoninclusion:Somepositiveemotionsare leftout(e.g.happinessandprideareincluded,but grati-tude is left out). The second subcriterion is focus: the degreetowhichtheclustersstaywithintheboundariesof positive emotion space. Panel A3 visualizes a typology that lacks focus: Some grey regions include positive emotionsthatfalloutsideof theboundaries(e.g. happi-ness, pride, and gratitude are included, but so is sleepiness).

Thisfirstevaluativestandardrevealsthatahigh-quality typologyreliesonadefinitionofpositiveemotionspace thatenablescleardifferentiationbetweenstatesthatfall withinversus those thatfall outside thatspace. Impor-tantly,agiventypology’scomprehensivenesscanonlybe assessedifthatdefinition ofthespaceisprovided. The only reasonwhy we canseethat PanelsA2 and A3 are flawedisbecausetherectanglesclearlyshowwhichdots should(andshouldnot)beincluded.Lackofinclusionis anoften-voicedcritiqueofemotiontypologies.For exam-ple, Keltner [5, p.16] mentioned that the ‘Basic Six’ emotions (anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise)‘onlycapture15–20%ofthevarietyofemotions thatare now known to besignaled across modalities of expressivebehavior’.

Secondcriterion:distinctiveness

There are multiple possible ways to carve up positive emotion space,depending onwhataspect or feature of theemotional states(e.g. non-verbalexpression, neural activity,cognitiveappraisal)isfocal.5Thesecond evalu-ativestandardfortypologiesisdistinctiveness:thedegree towhich theemotionalstatesare consistentlyclustered onthebasisofthesameemotionfeature.Thiscriterionis visualizedinPanelsB1–3.Inthesepanels,thedots’colors and shapes express two different clustering features.

120 Emotion,motivation,personalityandsocialsciences*positiveaffect*

5_A_distinct_category_is_semantic_typologies,_in_which_emotion_words

‘assuch’arethephenomenonofinquiry[25–30].Whilenon-semantic typologiesalsorelyontheuseofemotionwords,theseareusedaslabels orplaceholderstorepresentemotiontypes.

(4)

Figure1 (a1) (a2) (a3) (b3) (b1) (c1) (c2) (c3) (b2)

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

Threecriteriaforaccessingthequalityofpositiveemotiontypologies:(a)comprehensiveness,(b)distinction,and(c)granularity.Whiterectangles withblackbordersrepresentthetotalemotionspace;dotsparticularemotionalstates;andboundedgreyregionsemotionclusters.Thepanelson therightside(A2,A3,B3andC3)representdeficienttypologies.

(5)

PanelB1showsatypologyinwhichstatesareclusteredby dotshape.Inthecontextofpositiveemotionresearch,dot shapes might correspondto appraisalprofiles. Panel B2 shows a typology in which states are clustered by dot color,whichmightcorrespondtothefacialexpressionsof differentpositiveemotions.Thesepanelsillustratethat thewaypositiveemotionspaceispartitioneddependson theclustering feature; either approach isvalid, andhas the potential to be useful. Panel B3 visualizes what happenswhenclustersaremadeonthebasisof inconsis-tent features. The resulting typology is conceptually indistinct;somepositiveemotionsareclusteredtogether becausetheyaresimilartermsofappraisalprofiles,while othersformacategorybasedonsimilarityinfacial expres-sions. Notably, bounded grey regions overlap because some positive emotions can be included in multiple categories,dependingontheclustering feature.

The typology suggested by one aspect of emotional processorresponding(e.g.elicitingsituation, physiologi-cal response, non-verbal expression) may be different from the typology suggested by another aspect, and at this point there is no inherent reason to prioritize one aspect over the others. At the same time, the second evaluativestandard illustrateswhy theoften-used prac-ticetocombineemotionlistsforresearchpurposescomes witharisk.Listsmaybedrawnfromdifferenttypologies, andwhilethesetypologiesmayeachbehighlydistinctive on its own, combining them can introduce unwanted indistinctiveness. Because different theoretical frame-works provide different clustering criteria, we should be cautious to combine typologies that were based on differenttheoriesof emotion.

Thirdcriterion:granularity

Thethirdevaluativestandardfortypologiesisthatthey shouldmaximizetheirinternalgranularityconsistency.In itssimplestform,atypologysortsentitiesintoclusterson thebasisofsimilarity.Whencreatingapositiveemotion typology,weaimtoclusteremotionalstatessothateach cluster isas differentas possible from allother clusters (maximizingbetween-clusterheterogeneity),whileeach cluster is internally as homogeneous as possible (maxi-mizing within-cluster homogeneity). The balance betweenthesetwointentionsdeterminesthetypology’s granularity—the level of detail and nuance of clusters [16,17].6 Typologies with low granularity include few clustersthateachrepresentmanyemotionalstates(Panel C1).Insuchatypology,lovemightconstituteone cate-gorythatiscontrastedwithothercategorieslikereliefand

amusement.Conversely,typologieswithhighgranularity includemanyclustersthateachrepresentfewemotional states(PanelC2).Forexample,atypologywithseparate clusters of ‘nurturant love’ (which includes feelings of caring,kindness,compassion), ‘attachmentlove’(which includesfeelingsofaffection,dependence,andtrust),and ‘sexualdesire’(whichincludesfeelingsofattractionand arousal)hashighergranularitythanatypologythat com-binesthesefeelingstatesintoasingle‘love’cluster[see Ref.[13]].

PanelC3visualizesatypologythatfallsshortoninternal granularity consistency; there is no consistent balance between within-cluster homogeneity and between-cluster heterogeneity, which hinders between-cluster comparison.Whileconsistency isdesirable,itisnotthe case that higher granularity is always better. The ‘granularitysweet spot’ofanytypologydependsonthe categorizingfeature[18].Somefeaturesmayenablemore fine-grained distinctions between positive emotions statesthanothers.Liketheprevioustwocriteria, granu-larity represents a potential source of incompatibility betweentypologies,and thuscombining typologiescan introduceunwantedgranularity inconsistency.

Inconsistent granularity is an often-voiced critique of Ekman’s basic emotion typology, which includes only one positiveaffect cluster (happiness)to encompass all positiveemotionalstates,ascomparedtofourcategories ofnegativeaffect [19].‘But justlike therearedifferent waysoffeelingbad,therearealsomanydifferentwaysof feeling good’ [20, p.36]. While traditional emotional typologies tended to represent negative emotions with higher granularity than positive emotions [13], recentaccountsarebetter matched[e.g. Ref.[21]],or focus specifically on positive emotion space [e.g. Refs. [11,13,14,22]].

Recommendationsfordevelopingandselectingpositive emotiontypologies

Thethreekeycriteriadiscussed herearenotspecific to theevaluationofpositiveemotiontypologies;theyapply toemotiontypologiesmorebroadly—andtotypologiesin general. Even so, the objective to develop them was motivated by the observation that the field of positive emotionsis in urgent need of agood setof guidelines. Typologiesarefundamentalinemotionresearchbecause ‘Theorycannotexplainmuchifit isbased onan inade-quate system of classification’ [2, p.15]. As outlined above, good typologies specify the phenomenological spacetheyaimtocover;whichaspectofemotionisused asthebasisofcategorization;andwhatstepsweretaken to maximize focus, inclusion, distinction, and to deter-minegranularity.

Theconsistentapplicationofatypologyinthestudyof positive emotions is hindered by the fact that there is

122 Emotion,motivation,personalityandsocialsciences*positiveaffect*

6

Inemotionresearch,theterm‘emotionalgranularity’isoftenusedto representindividual differences inthe abilityto makefine-grained, nuanceddistinctionsbetweensimilarsubjectiveemotionalexperiences (infolktheoryemotiontypologies).Inthecurrentmanuscript,theterm isusedtorefertoconceptualknowledge(inscientifictypologies)rather thantotheindividual’sabilitytomakedistinctions(seeRef.[32]fora discussionaboutthedistinction).

(6)

presentlynosingle,widelyaccepteddefinitionofpositive emotionspace.Differenttheoriesimplydifferent bound-aries,andthustheemotionalstatestoberepresentedby the typology differ among theoretical traditions. More-over,positiveemotionspaceismulti-componential;each componentcanbeusedasthe‘carvingknife’topartition thespace.Somecomponentsresultinaspacewithhigh granularity withmanydifferentclusters,whereas others yieldlowgranularitywithfewclusters.Theapplicability ofatypologydependsontherelevantphenomenological spaceandemotionaspect(s)ofinterest.Selectinga typol-ogy thus involves some considerations: It should effec-tivelyrepresentpositiveemotionspaceasdefinedbyyour theory and research interests (focus and inclusion); the granularity shouldbeadequateforthepurposeathand; anditshouldbebasedonacategorizationcriterionthatis relevant toitsintended use.

Concluding

remarks

Mendeleev’s periodic table of chemical elements is a remarkablescientificaccomplishment—but itisnotthe onlytypologyofchemicalelements.Infact,various alter-nativeversionsareavailablethatemphasizechemicalor physical properties not clearly distinguished in Mendeleev’s periodicsystem[23].Scientistsuse differ-ent typologies for different research purposes: Organic chemistsuseversionsinwhichelementsarecategorized on the basis of chemical properties, while scholars of quantum mechanics use versions that focus more on theelements’physicalqualities.Thisdiversityof typolo-giesisnotaconceptualweakness,butevidenceof scien-tificrigor.Ourhopeisthatthisapproachwillalsocometo applytopositiveemotiontypologies.Aimingtodevelopa single,generictypologythatfitsalltheoriesandresearch purposesmaynotbetheultimateaim.Instead,weshould seek toestablisharangeoftypologiesthatfit particular theoreticaland/orapplicationgoals.Anyfieldthatworks withtypologiesrequiresasetofclearcriteriathatcanbe usedtodevelop,test,andselecttypologies.Wehopethat the explicit consideration of the three criteria outlined above will support a more systematic approach in the developmentanduseofpositiveemotiontypologies.Itis encouragingtoconsiderthatafterMendeleevfirst intro-ducedhisperiodictable,itrequiredmorethanacentury of refinement before reaching its current form; in fact, refinementsarestillbeingmadetoday[24].Atypologyis thus workin progress,apragmaticandimperfect repre-sentation of acomplexphenomenon. Thereby, positive emotiontypologiesservetobothfollowandstimulatethe progressionofourunderstandingofthisconceptualspace.

Author

contributions

Allauthorsconceivedanddevelopedthepresentedideas and helpedshapethemanuscript. Pieter Desmetmade thevisualizationinFigure1andtooktheleadinwriting.

Conflict

of

interest

statement

Nothingdeclared.

Acknowledgements

WeacknowledgetheorganizersoftheLorentzworkshop‘PositiveAffect: Nature,NeurochemistryandFunction,’Leiden,March2–6,2020for initiatingthe‘PositiveAffect’issue.ThevisualizationinFigure1was inspiredbyanimagepublishedbyDesmetandFokkinga[31,p.8].Pieter DesmetissupportedbyVICIgrantnumber453-16-009ofTheNetherlands OrganizationforScientificResearch(NWO);DisaSauterissupportedby ERCStartinggrantno.714977.

References

and

reading

Papersofparticularinterest,publishedwithintheperiodofreview, havebeenhighlightedas:

ofspecialinterest ofoutstandinginterest

1. RipsLJ:Inductivejudgmentsaboutnaturalcategories.JVerb LearningVerbBehav1975,14:665-681.

2. BaileyKD:TypologiesandTaxonomies:AnIntroductionto ClassificationTechniques. ThousandOaks,CA:Sage;1994. 3. CollierD,LaporteJ,SeawrightJ:Puttingtypologiestowork:

concept-formation,measurement,andanalyticrigor.PolitRes Q2012,65:217-232.

4. GregorS:Thenatureoftheoryininformationsystems.MISQ 2006,30:611-642.

5.

KeltnerEmot2019,D:Toward33:14-19.aconsensualtaxonomyofemotions.Cogn Thispaperprovidesaclearrationaleforthedevelopmentofaconceptual taxonomyofemotions.Itpresentsaninitialproposaltoinclude20–25 emotions,andapleatorelyonopen-ended,datadrivenmethodsthat transcendaprioriconceptionsaboutthenatureofemotions.

6. WeidmanAC,StecklerCM,TracyJL:Thejingleandjangleof emotionassessment:imprecisemeasurement,casualscale usage,andconceptualfuzzinessinemotionresearch.Emotion 2017,17:267-295.

7. KamilogluRG,FischerAH,SauterDA:Goodvibrations:areview ofvocalexpressionsofpositiveemotions.PsychonBullRev 2020,27:237-265.

8. ShumanV,Clark-PolnerE,MeulemanB,SanderD,SchererKR: Emotionperceptionfromacomponentialperspective.Cogn Emot2017,31:47-56.

9. CamposB,ShiotaMN,KeltnerD,GonzagaGC,GoetzJL:Whatis shared,whatisdifferent?Corerelationalthemesand expressivedisplaysofeightpositiveemotions.CognEmot 2013,27:37-52.

10. FontaineJRJ,SchererKR,SorianoC:ComponentsofEmotional Meaning:ASourcebook. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress;2013. 11.

WeidmanexperiencedAC,positiveTracyJL:emotions.AprovisionalAffecttaxonomySci2020:1-30.ofsubjectively Thispaperreportsaseriesoffourstudiesthatexaminedhowmany,and which,positiveemotionscohereasdistinctsubjectiveexperiences,at boththestateandtraitlevels.Theresultisacomprehensiveportraitofthe taxonomicstructureofsubjectivelyexperiencepositiveemotions. 12. CowenAS,KeltnerD:Self-reportcaptures27distinct

categoriesofemotionbridgedbycontinuousgradients.Proc NatlAcadSciUSA2017,114:E7900-E7909.

13.

ShiotaThomasMN,E,KeltnerCamposD:B,BeyondOveisC,happiness:HertensteinbuildingMJ,Simon-ascienceof discretepositiveemotions.AmPsychol2017,72:617.

Thispaperproposesatotalof10distinctpositiveemotionstatesacross twocomprehensivereviewsrootedinfunctionalityandbiology,including amusement,attachmentlove,awe,contentment,enthusiasm,gratitude, liking/pleasure,nurturantlove,pride,andsexualdesire.

14. DesmetPMA:Facesofproductpleasure:25positiveemotions inhuman-productinteractions.IntJDes2012,6:1-29.

(7)

15. ShiotaMN,ThrashTM,DanversAF,DombrowskiJT: Transcendingtheself:awe,elevation,andinspiration.In HandbookofPositiveEmotions.EditedbyTugadeMM,Shiota MN,KirbyLD.TheGuilfordPress;2014:362-377.

16. SmidtKE,SuvakMK:Abrief,butnuanced,reviewofemotional granularityandemotiondifferentiationresearch.CurrOpin Psychol2015,3:48-51.

17. KirbyLD,TugadeMM,MorrowJ,AhrensAH,SmithCA:Vivela diffe´rence:theabilitytodifferentiatepositiveemotional experienceandwell-being.In HandbookofPositiveEmotions. EditedbyTugadeMM,ShiotaMN,KirbyLD.TheGuilfordPress; 2014:241-255.

18. BaileyKD:Constructingmonotheticandpolythetictypologies bytheheuristicmethod.SociolQ1973,14:291-308.

19. EkmanP:EmotionsRevealed:RecognizingFacesandFeelingsto ImproveCommunicationandEmotionalLife. London:Weidenfeld andNicolson;2003.

20. SauterDA:Morethanhappy:theneedfordisentangling positiveemotions.CurrDirPsycholSci2010,19:36-40. 21.

Cowenpassions:AS,towardSauterDA,ahigh-dimensionalTracyJL,KeltnertaxonomyD:Mappingofemotionalthe experienceandexpression.PsycholSciPublicInterest2019, 20:69-90.

Buildingonempiricalfindingsandmethodologies,thispaperoffersan alternativeconceptualandmethodologicalapproachtothe categoriza-tionofemotions.Thisresultsinahigh-dimensionaltaxonomyofemotion, whichisricherthanthetraditional‘basicsix’andaffective circumplex-modelofemotions.

22. ShiotaMN,NeufeldSL,DanversAF,OsborneEA,SngO,YeeCI: Positiveemotiondifferentiation:afunctionalapproach.Soc PersonalPsycholCompass2014,8:104-117.

23. ScerriE:ThePeriodicTable:ItsStoryanditsSignificance.Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress;2019.

24. ScerriE:Recentattempttochangetheperiodictable.Philos TransRSocA2020,378:1-17.

25. AverillJR:Asemanticatlasofemotionalconcepts.JSAS CatalogueofSelectedDocumentsinPsychology1975,vol3. 26. GilliozC,FontaineJRJ,SorianoC,SchererKR:Mappingemotion

termsintoaffectivespace.SwissJPsychol2016,75:141-148. 27. Johnson-LairdPN,OatleyK:Thelanguageofemotions:an

analysisofasemanticfield.CognEmot1989,3:81-123. 28. OrtonyA,CloreGL,FossMJ:Thereferentialstructureofthe

affectivelexicon.CognSci1987,11:341-364.

29. StormC,StormT:Ataxonomicstudyofthevocabularyof emotions.JPersSocPsychol1987,53:805-816.

30. VanGoozenS,FrijdaNH:EmotionwordsusedinsixEuropean countries.EurJSocPsychol1993,23:89-95.

31. DesmetPMA,FokkingaSF:BeyondMaslow’spyramid: introducingatypologyofthirteenfundamentalneedsfor human-centereddesign.MultimodalTechnolInteract2020, 4:1-22.

32. ScarantinoA,GriffithsP:Don’tgiveuponbasicemotions.Emot Rev2011,3:444-454.

Apples and oranges

Delft University of Technology