Advances in Politics and Economics ISSN 2576-1382 (Print) ISSN 2576-1390 (Online) Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape 73 Original Paper Hidden Affections: Presumptions that Continue to Misshape The Measurement of Emotion George E. Marcus1 1 Department of Political Science, Williams College, Williamstown, United States Received: January 4, 2022 Accepted: January 21, 2022 Online Published: January 24, 2022 doi:10.22158/ape.v5n1p73 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/ape.v5n1p73 Abstract All empirical investigations rely on formative presumptions. Over the past 70 plus years, research on emotion has long been reliant on data collected using subjective responses and by experimental exposure to target stimuli, and increasingly with various brain scanning technologies. During this period neuroscience research greatly contributed to our understanding of how emotions are formed and what functions they perform in the realm of politics and social life more generally. I identify a number consequential presumptions, in some differing combinations, that have been the foundations for commonly used measures of emotion and measurement practices. These presumptions enable research that has generated a considerable empirical literature. But these presumptions have become increasing tenuous as insights produced by neuroscience has slowly been integrated into the measurement of emotion. The measurement of emotion has gradually adopted these new insights. The adjustments and benefits that derive are described in the final section. Keywords Emotion, operationalization, presumptions, preconscious awareness, conscious awareness Hidden Affections: How Presumptions Shape The Measurement of Emotion “In a very crucial sense there is no methodology without logos, without thinking about thinking. And if a firm distinction is drawn—as it should be—between methodology and technique, the latter is no substitute for the former. One may be a wonderful researcher and manipulator of data, and yet remain an unconscious thinker.” Giovani Sartori (1970, p. 1033) “People are not liable to be mistaken in their feelings, but they are frequently wrong in the names they give them, and in their reasoning about them.” Edmund Burke (2009, p. 30) www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 74 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 1. Introduction Emotion, once it emerged from its prior disregard in the social sciences, has become an essential topic in the effort to secure a sound understanding of how people form judgments, especially political judgments (Brader & Marcus, 2013). Scientific inquiries begin with selecting a methodology for generating data. The validity of substantive conclusions rest on the validity of the data used to reach those conclusions. As to measuring emotion there have been a number of important journal articles on emotion measurement in psychology and political science that have advanced our understanding of how to measure the emotions people experience. Among these are those by David Watson and colleagues (Watson et al., 1988; Watson, 1988; Watson & Clark, 1991; Watson & Clark, 1997; Gray & Watson, 2007; Watson et al., 2017); Harmon-Jones and colleagues (Harmon-Jones et al., 2016); Albertson and Gadarian (Albertson & Gadarian, 2016); Searles and Mattes (Searles & Mattes, 2015); Marcus and colleagues (Marcus & MacKuen, 1995; Marcus et al., 2006; Marcus et al., 2017); Rhodes-Purdy and colleagues (Rhodes- Purdy et al., 2021); Karl Scherer (Scherer, 2005); and, Junge and colleagues (Junge & Reisenzein, 2013; Junge & Reisenzein, 2016). While advancing the measurement of emotion, there remain aspects of emotion measurement not yet fully explored. In this review I seek to identify some remaining problems with some extant measures and practices. Giovani Sartori’s directive suggests that some scientific understandings can be so comfortably settled that their influence is both powerful and hidden. And, as such, they may block reaching better understandings (Danner et al., 2016). This can be the case even as many contemporary emotion theorists make no mention of these presumptions. My intentions are to make visible the presumptions that underly four commonly used measurements of emotion and measurement practices. Each of these have been selected because the measurements and validation practices preclude testing the validity of their presumptions: 1) Feeling thermometer and other measures reliant on a valence formulation of emotion. 2) Embedding a “think instruction” before asking people to rate a target stimulus using a list of emotion words. 3) Continued use of the PANAS schedule on the preemption its list of twenty affect words is a comprehensive sample of emotions. 4) Use of target stimuli and other means of affect induction without any or with insufficient manipulation checks. One theme this review will be to show that developments in the neuroscience of perception and of emotion challenge the validity of these practices. Another theme is to demonstrate how the development of new measures and modes of analysis of emotion freed from these presumptions has generated new and consequential understandings of emotion and then new insights on the ways emotions impact on action and judgment. Table 1 list four presumptions that have continued to shape empirical investigation of emotions. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 75 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Table 1. Presumptions Influential in Emotion Measurement 1. Depicting Emotion as Valence 2. Thinking generates more accurate emotion assessments 3. Focusing on ‘Peak’ Emotion 4. Understanding Emotion as Monochromatic 2. Presumptions 2.1 Affect as Valence A core presumption has long been that humans respond to reward and punishment (Skinner, 1969; Wilson et al., 1989a; O’Dougherty et al., 2001). This focus on reward-approach and punishment- avoidance has long been a central feature of models of learning and psychology more generally (Patterson et al., 1987; Tesser & Martin, 1996). Thus, identifying any external individual, group, or other object as positive or negative serves to address this fundamental concern. As Lodge and Taber (2005, p. 456) put it: “All political leaders, groups, issues, symbols, and ideas thought about and evaluated in the past become affectively charged—positively or negatively—and this affect is linked directly to the concept in long-term memory. This evaluative tally, moreover, comes automatically and inescapably to mind upon presentation of the associated object, thereby signaling its affective coloration...” Emotion, here, has been tasked with identifying the reward-punishment status of any object or activity under consideration. Valence remains a core accepted scientific concept as for example in investigations of “campaign sentiment” (Geer, 2006; Haselmayer, 2021) as well as the broad class of theories, such as utility theory and prospect theory, that attend to gain or loss; punishment or reward (Skinner, 1969; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). 2.2 Think Instructions Elicit more Accurate Responses The presumption is that if one directs people to think about the matter that will yield, on balance, more accurate assessments than leaving people to muddle through without such a direction. The well- established Elaboration Likelihood model gives weight to this presumption. Hence, it can be safely anticipated that invoking focused attention to a judgment task will enhance the motivation to secure a more accurate understanding (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986, p. 127). 2.3 The Peak Emotion Presumption The peak emotion presumption holds that peak levels of any discrete emotion, be it, joy, fear, anger, or any other discrete, or basic, emotion, reveals what is necessary to know about that emotion. Moreover, peak emotions are presumed to take over, that is, exclude other emotions from playing a concurrent role of consequence with the exception of the condition of ambivalence, discussed below. Hence, it is best to study a given emotion in circumstances were it can be expected that emotion is most likely to be www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 76 Published by SCHOLINK INC. prominent. For example, in the realm of negative emotions it is the attention grabbing events such as terror attacks, financial crises, pandemics, or high stake political confrontations, that best reveal the influence of negative emotions (Finseraas & Listhaug, 2013). As a result there has been less interest in low levels of discrete emotions because discrete emotions in the mundane normal activities of life are presumed to have less consequence on judgment. And, it encompasses the possibility of a state of mind that is non-emotional (Gennaro & Ash, 2021). 2.4 The Monochromatic Presumption Attitude theory and cognitive appraisal theories long presumed that people, at any given moment, normally experience one singular dominant emotion. This is the monochromatic presumption. If we describe ourselves as feeling happy, that is because we are happy. If we describe ourselves as fearful, that is because we are fearful (Roseman, 1984). The notion of ambivalence, a condition thought to arise when people experience simultaneous conflicting feelings about someone or something, asserts the possibility that people may experience multiple concurrent emotions (Craig & Martinez, 2005). However, the study of ambivalence envisions a very limited possibility of multiple concurrent emotions. Two conceptual limitations have constrained this research area. First, the general view is that instances of ambivalence are relatively rare. Second, the notion of ambivalence expressly limits the consideration of multiple emotions to two, the “bi” in ambivalence, one of which is positive and the other being negative, the “valence” in ambivalence (Lavine et al., 2012). An expanded consideration of multiple concurrent emotions and their distinct consequences foretells the future of research on emotion. One of the most enduring and detrimental impact of this presumption can be viewed in emotion induction experiments. I next turn to the data generation practices that to some extent are dependent on one or more of these presumptions. 3. Measuring Emotion 3.1 Measuring Emotion as Valence Feeling thermometers seek to answer to the question: Is this something we like and are inclined to approach, or something we dislike and are inclined to avoid (Cosmides & Tooby, 2000)? Feeling thermometers conceive emotion as a single valence factor. The American National Election Studies (ANES) operationalization is shown in Table 2. It remains a popular and frequently used measure of emotional attachment (Warner et al., 2021). Table 2. The Feeling Thermometer “I’d like to get your feelings toward some of our political leaders and other people who are in the news these days. I'll read the name of a person and I'd like you to rate that person using something we call the feeling thermometer. Ratings between 50 degrees and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorable and www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 77 Published by SCHOLINK INC. warm toward the person. Ratings between 0 degrees and 50 degrees mean that you don’t feel favorable toward the person and that you don't care too much for that person. You would rate the person at the 50 degree mark if you don't feel particularly warm or cold toward the person. If we come to a person whose name you don’t recognize, you don't need to rate that person. Just tell me and we’ll move on to the next one.” Source: (Overseers, 2021, p. 83). The measurement scheme precludes challenges to its validity. Willingness to rate leaders, groups, events, or policies does not thereby establish its scientific validity. Challenges: Three challenges to the validity of feeling thermometers have arisen over the past half- century. First, the identification of feelings as measuring emotional response, i.e., as a mechanism of memory, has been challenged by research holding that affective appraisals arise well before consciousness (Lodge & Taber, 2005). Second, also more fully discussed below, when multiple measures of emotion are gathered, initial analyses found two dimensions of response, commonly labeled positive emotion and negative emotion. That is they find they do not use the multiple measures to produce single valence measure (Abelson et al., 1982; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). Finally, thirdly, the feeling thermometer measure also rests on the presumption that negative emotion is a coherent scientific property (Hibbing et al., 2014; Mattes & Redlawsk, 2014). Yet for over twenty years the identification of two “negative” emotions, fear and anger, each with different neural underpinnings, each with different consequential antecedents, and each with differing downstream impacts on information processing generally, and judgment specifically, have been readily available in political science and psychology journals (MacKuen et al., 2010; Marcus et al., 2019; Lerner & Keltner, 2000; Lerner et al., 2003; Skitka et al., 2006; Suhay & Erisen, 2018). Indeed, this recent recognition of bifurcation within the domain of negative emotions had arisen many years prior (Arnold, 1950; Ax, 1953). There has been one effort to reassert the validity of valence. James Russell accepted that data gathered by multiple emotion word check lists does generate a dense two-dimensional array. He shows how, by rotating the dimensions by 45°, the two dimensions that then be plausibly be labeled valence and arousal (Russell et al., 1989). Russell’s alternative leaves us with two dimensions, as before, just relabeled in a fashion that serves to preserve a nominal valence dimension. Related to this proposal is the idea of “core affect” (Bakker et al., 2021). Central to this construction is the notion of good- positive-liking versus bad-negative disliking, the essence of the valence concept. But, as Karl Popper argued (Popper, 2000, p. 333): www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 78 Published by SCHOLINK INC. “Every ‘good’ scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.” While feeling thermometers are not themselves a theory, they are dependent on the validity of the theoretical claim that emotion is validly treated as a singular dimension that ranges from strongly like to strongly dislike. 3.2 Improving Accuracy when Measuring Emotion As a social species, humans have a robust capacity to join with others into a group, whether small, as in a family, or very large, such as citizens of a nation. Hence, exploring group identification has been a central focus of research in the social sciences (Huddy, 2001; Huddy, 2018). The standard party identification measure in the United States, then and now, instructs study participants to think who they align with rather how they feel about the parties. The instruction is “Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as [a Democrat, a Republican, an independent, or what?” (Note 1) Here, questions beginning by instructing people to think about their feelings of attachment is presumed to produce more accurate and valid responses. A recent example of this belief that accuracy in the measurement of emotion is enhanced by the “think” instruction is offered by Rhodes-Purdy and colleagues (Rhodes-Purdy et al., 2021). The rationale for using this instruction is worth quoting (Rhodes-Purdy et al., 2021, p. 7): Our approach should lead to more accurate reports of discrete emotional responses in several ways. … Forcing individuals to think in greater depth about a topic causes them to produce responses that are more complex … More effortful processing of information, as required by this two-step task, can lead to better decision-making … that is slower and more logical … which may give us higher quality, and more accurate, self-reports of emotion.” Challenges: There is considerable evidence from a number of studies showing that the think instruction condition does indeed change how people respond when compared to either no instruction or to feel instruction conditions. But rather than improving accuracy, these studies show that the think instruction generates biased estimates (Wilson et al., 1989b; Theiss-Morse et al., 1993). Specifically, with respect to measuring partisan attachment, measuring emotional identification to one’s party that use the "think” instruction yield distributions that overstate the percentage of Democrats and understate the percentage of Republicans in any given sample (Burden & Klofstad, 2005; Neely, 2007). 3.3 Using Emotion Words to Measure Emotion In the 70s and 80s the then popular “cognitive appraisal theories” of emotion offered a number of more complex taxonomic arrays than the simple one dimensional valence conception (Tomkins, 1984; Ortony et al., 1989; Roseman, 1984). The fundamental presumption, applicable to all variants of the cognitive appraisal approach, was that general considerations are sequentially applied which then determine the "basic” or "discrete” emotions that is made manifest in consciousness (Smith et al., 1993). Basic emotions are commonly understood as a set of affective states that form a taxonomy of www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 79 Published by SCHOLINK INC. monochromatic states. Various taxonomies of these "discrete” states were proposed (Tomkins, 1984; Ekman, 1992; Ortony et al., 1989; Roseman, 1991; Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994). The Izard Differential Emotion Scale (Izard, 1977) was one of the earliest efforts to operationalize the discrete approach to emotion. Study participants are presented a list of discrete emotions and then asked which of these they have ever felt, either recently or over a specified prior period. There is no external target, i.e., the interest was in the subjective state of the individual, not feelings about something out there. In political science research on emotion has generally not been directed at the introspective, rather emotions have been examined as informative reactions to the state of the world (Conover & Feldman, 1986). In psychology, Norbert Schwarz (1990) also argued for this shift in focus, to emotions as informative about some aspect of the external world. In the 1980 Election Study, of what is now the American National Election Studies (ANES), introduced a version of the Izard Differential Emotion scale. The exact wording of this operationalization reveals the embedded presumptions. Below is the instruction for the Candidate Feeling Scale: “Now we would like to know something about the feelings you have toward the candidates for President. I am going to name a candidate, and I want you to tell me whether something about that person, or something he has done, has made you have certain feelings like anger or pride.” Thereafter, the major presidential candidates were named and for each candidate seven emotion words randomly presented: angry, hopeful, afraid, proud, disgusted, sympathetic, and uneasy. (Note 2) Challenges: It quickly became apparent that individuals, when given a check list of supposed discrete emotions did not treat them as mutually exclusive alternatives. Rather, they treated them as equally useful markers for their feelings (Abelson et al., 1982; Tellegen, 1985; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). Moreover, when such lists were offered analyses of these responses generated a “circumflex” (i.e., a dense circle wherein all emotion words can be plotted) that is a two-dimensional space. (Note 3) This development enabled a new line of inquiry into emotion. Rather than the longstanding interest in which emotion becomes active, emotion word check lists enable emotion to be treated as appraisal rather than as response. And, further, directs attention to how changing levels of any given emotion, across the full range of that emotion, impact on downstream action and thought. Using lists of emotion words as multiple indicatorsoflatent scientific concepts of emotion treats emotion words as a way of identifying their meaning rather than by reference to a dictionary (Sullivan & Feldman, 1979). The immediate challenge was, and remains, how to select emotion words from the hundreds available in the English lexicon (Storm & Storm, 1987; Clore & Ortony, 1988; McEachrane, 2009). David Watson and colleagues (Watson et al., 1988), after examining many emotion words, selected the following twenty emotion words as reliable indicators covering the diverse domain of emotion: interested, distressed, excited, upset, strong, guilty, scared, hostile, enthusiastic, proud, irritable, alert, ashamed, inspired, nervous, determined, attentive, jittery, active, and afraid. These words formed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 80 Published by SCHOLINK INC. David Watson, not long after publishing the PANAS scale, recognized the relative paucity of negative emotion words suitable to identifying anger as an emotion distinct from fear. He, and his colleague Lee Anna Clark, developed a far fuller array of emotion words in the PANAS-X schedule to correct this lacunae (Watson & Clark, 1994). However, that important elaboration has not gained sufficient attention as many researchers continue to use the original PANAS schedule (Heubeck & Wilkinson, 2019). The PANAS-X schedule has been largely ignored thereby delaying exploration of the distinction between fear and anger (Marcus et al., 1995; Lerner & Keltner, 2000). Much depends on which of the hundreds of emotion words best define a distinct emotion. Consider the word choices English speakers have available to describe their feelings when violated in some fashion by someone or some group. They might choose any of these: rage, angry, wrathful, ire, annoyed, hassled, vexed, bothered, upset, insulted, peeved, pestered, offended, menaced, troubled, hateful, exasperated, irritated, ruffled, affronted. There are more than just these twenty readily available (e.g., cross, disgusted, disdain, bitter, incensed, infuriated, resentful, and, scorn). Why so many and, more importantly, how are they different? One type of difference is emotion words is that some are equally applicable to a single appraisal, either as synonyms for that one appraisal, or as names of different levels of that appraisal, i.e., identifying whether the underlying feeling is more robust or more mild. Moreover, even if some of the many words are synonyms one might choose one rather than another because of the social context, for example, being among friends, or alone, or among strangers. Another way emotion words might differ in meaning is by identifying differences of kind. We say we are “angry” when we feel we have been wronged, i.e., have a grievance. On the other hand, we might say we are “happy” when we feel some success. Each emotion word identifies a different distinct appraisal, how much grievance for the first, and how much success for the second (Calder et al., 2001). Inattention as to whether emotion words differ in their use as identifying the level of a given property or by identifying difference in kind is common in the social sciences (Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005). That inattention has led to considerable taxonomic confusion as to which emotion words identify differences in degree (i.e., applicable to stronger and weaker levels of a given emotion), and which are differences in kind. Some hold that disgust and anger are different emotions, that is different in kind (Clifford & Jerit, 2018; Molho et al., 2017; Giner-Sorolla & Russell, 2019). Others argue for a distinction between fear and anxiety (Cheung-Blunden et al., 2018) or for contempt as distinct from anger and from disgust (Roseman et al., 2020). Others hold that hope and enthusiasm are distinct emotions (Just et al., 2007) and yet others that there are ten different positive emotions (Van Zomeren, 2021). Some argue for more distinctions, while others hold for fewer. For example, some hold that disgust, contempt, fear, anger just members of the negative class of emotion (Hibbing et al., 2014). That is, emotion as valence is valid and a valence measure can be used to capture what emotions are and what they do (König et al., www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 81 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 2021). Testing whether these named emotions are different from each by degree or kind is, too often, largely absent. This leaves the category of “basic” emotion largely ill-defined. There are multiple criteria that can be used to test claims of that specific emotion words identify difference in kind while others identify as synonyms. Among these are: 1) Do people use a some emotion words as synonyms for a single emotion and do they differentiate that emotion from others (Marcus et al., 2017)? 2) Are different antecedents showing differentiating effects on the distinct emotions (Gerbella et al., 2019)? 3) Have distinguishing consequences for judgment and behavior that have been empirically demonstrated, for example, as to fear versus anger (MacKuen et al., 2010)? 4) Have distinct neural structures and processesidentified distinct neural affective appraisals (Calder et al., 2001; Paulus et al., 2010; Maratos et al., 2012; Phillips et al., 2004)? Too often none of the above are used to justify treating emotion words as being valid markers of a given emotion. (Note 4) 3.4 The Validity of the Experimental Practices and Emotions Research Experiments are a popular method for exploring emotion. Experiments on emotion commonly rest on the presumption that it is possible to induce the discrete emotion of interest. Experiments begin by randomly assigned some participants to receive the target emotion induction. This group can then be compared to others who have not been given that induction. Richer research designs can and do include differing inductions so that some participants would be induced to experience emotion A while others emotion B, and so on. The induction might make use of one or more faces from the set of Ekman faces (2005) or of the pictures that make up the Lang Universal Affect Inventory (1988). Some researchers have generated specific materials to induce the emotions of interest (Searles & Mattes, 2015). Yet, another approach is to ask participants to recall and describe a specified discrete feeling state thereby presumably making the emotion of interest consciously present (Valentino et al., 2011). Additionally sound, generally, and voice, specifically, have been used to activate a specific emotion (Bradley & Lang, 2000; Brader, 2006; Dietrich et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2016). The benefit of using stimulus of some proven validity is of obvious value but that value, as I shall argue below, has limitations. Challenges: An important means of validating the claim that the treatment has the intended effect is the use of manipulation checks (Fiedler et al., 2021). Emotion induction, as practiced (Fakhrhosseini & Jeon, 2017), is commonly reliant on the presumption that the impact of the induction on the target emotional state is monochromatic. This presumption has the effect of obscuring the need exclude the possibility that other emotions might also be impacted by exposure to the treatment. Research has shown there is considerable evidence that multiple concurrent affective appraisals is the norm, not the exception (Whalen et al., 2001; Maratos, 2011; Maratos et al., 2012; Marcus et al., 2017). As Mutz and Permante (2015) have persuasively argued, it is essential to include manipulation checks to validate the claim that the affective state of interest has been successfully manipulated by the www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 82 Published by SCHOLINK INC. treatment. However, it is equally vital to use manipulation checks to assess whether other concurrent affective states have not been manipulated or, if altered, have data on these concurrent affective changes so that they can be controlled by multivariate statistical analysis. Producing better measures and analysis practices for research on emotion requires is a new theoretical foundation. I turn to that next. 4. A Neuroscience Informed Theory of Perception Various appraisal theories hold the presumption that appraisal is prior and emotion is the consequential result, hence emotion is commonly labeled: emotional response. For example, the emotion regulation approach from the outset presents emotion as a derivative response (Katz et al., 1974; Gross, 1998; Tamir et al., 2020). The recognition that there are consequential information processes that act before conscious awareness has long been shown to be ubiquitous (Libet et al., 1979; Zajonc, 1980; Freeman & Johnson, 2016). But this recognition is often couched in spatial terms, e.g., subliminal versus liminal (Winkielman & Berridge, 2004) or the lower and higher reaches of the brain (Kosslyn & Miller, 2013). Finding the right language to describe how affective processes and consciousness are related requires a new understanding of perception. This new understanding is briefly described below. In the late 60s and early 70s neuroscience research revealed some important insights that profoundly undermined the psychology of perception that had hitherto provided the foundation for ongoing programs of research into emotions. The research of neuroscientist Benjamin Libet (1979) revealed that though conscious awareness come with a sense of immediacy this sense is largely an illusion, see also (Nørretranders, 1998). His research revealed that during the 500 milli-second period that lies between the arrival of sensory signals to the human brain and the availability of consciousness, massive parallel preconscious processes are creating actionable understandings that shape and control much of what we do (Castiello et al., 1991). The brain generates actionable awareness considerably earlier than does the conscious mind. Preconscious processing enables deft and swift control of habituated actions well before and well beyond what conscious control can sustain (Freeman & Johnson, 2016; Hoffman, 2019). Three features of preconscious processing are of particular importance. First, preconscious multiple concurrent, but distinct appraisals, have greater capacity than the more limited serial subjective experience of consciousness (Grossberg, 2000). For example, our tongues have difference kinds of taste cells each tuned to a different facet of taste: sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and umami. These, together with yet other types of cells in the mouth that add assessments of pain, temperature, and texture, generate in consciousness the coherent taste and feel of something we’ve ingested. The brain does not wait for the mind’s late awareness to take action. Swift identification and initiating the disgorging response to what is foul is vital to limit the danger of ingesting something poisonous and dangerous to life (Rozin & Fallon, 1987). Waiting for the necessary passage of time for conscious www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 83 Published by SCHOLINK INC. recognition after ingesting something possibly poisonous is an unlikely route for securing environmental fitness (Herzog et al., 2016). Second, in addition to being slow, consciousness does not have introspective access to the full sensory information the brain receives from the senses. Preconscious neural processes are far more capable of handling the vast volume of sensory and somatosensory inputs then is conscious awareness. Consciousness has available a late and far simplified representation of that information. Third, affective preconscious appraisals, because of their early and greater capabilities, are essential to successful thought and action (Bechara et al., 1995). In addition to having earlier and richer capacity to assess sensory and somatosensory input, preconscious processes also have access to essential neural systems that conscious awareness lacks. Among these are the vestibular system, procedural memory, and the motor cortex, to name but three of the most important. This changes how we should think about emotion, rather than understanding “Emotions [as having] the power to change how people perceive the (political) world” (Widmann, 2021, p. 163), we should understand that emotions are preconscious perceptions of the world. Perception is best understood as beginning with multiple concurrent appraisals (Luo et al., 2007). The illusion of consciousness as giving humans instantaneous access to all we perceive is so powerful that social scientists, as do we all, use spatial terms—such as liminal versus subliminal—in discussing mental dynamics (Kouider & Dehaene, 2007; Baumeister et al., 2007). Figure 1 presents a schematic map reimagining perception and its relationship to emotion. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 84 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Figure 1. Preconscious Emotion and Conscious Awareness Figure 1 displays a fundamental shift from where emotion and thinking are located to when they each take place and which variant of reasoning is thereby made manifest and by which actions deftly executed. The temporal border between the preconscious realm and that of conscious awareness is generally placed at 500 milliseconds after sensory signals arrive in the brain (Matsuhashi & Hallett, 2008). Moreover, this new understanding redefines emotion as cognitive in that these affective appraisals are fundamentally information processing. This reformulation focuses on the continuously shifting levels of multiple affective appraisals and the dynamic consequences that flow there from before consciousness is available (Sander et al., 2005). Some appraisal scholars have begun to accommodate to the newer understanding of perception (Scherer & Moors, 2019). Appraisal theorists continue important comprehensive programs of research (Scherer & Moors, 2019; Barrett & Satpute, 2019) but, a not inconsiderable portion of contemporary published research has become narrowly focused on individual affective states or to some seemingly ad hoc selection of emotions intermixing those that differ in degree, for example, happy and sad, with emotions that differ in kind, such as fear and anger (Mills & D’Mello, 2014). 4.1 Measuring Emotion Driven by Neuroscience Insights We can map the changing conceptions of emotion over time. As shown in Figure 2, below, the conception of emotion has shifted from a one-dimensional formulation, valence, to a two-dimensional www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 85 Published by SCHOLINK INC. formulation, two dimensions that depict a dense ‘circumplex’, to, more recently, a dense ellipsoid volume. The ellipsoid is a shaped generated by using three axes to represent three ongoing active appraisals scanning for three essential aspects of securing and support individual and collective agency. In the case of the two-dimensional circumplex the axes are conventionally treated as orthogonal. In the case of the ellipsoid that is not the case. Studies exploring threat, and using validated measures of fear, anger, and enthusiasm generally find the two threat related appraisals, fear and anger, are highly correlated (Marcus et al., 2017). Hence these two axes are positioned at an acute angle, reflecting their joint relevance in identifying the two different facets of threat. On the other hand, the axis depicting the ongoing appraisal of reward seeking habituated behavior is located somewhat oblique to the other two. (Note 5) Not depicted in Figure 2 is the shift in understanding from emotion as a result of prior appraisal to emotion as the neural mechanism of appraisal. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 86 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Figure 2. Changes in Emotion Conception: Valence, Circumflex, and Ellipsoid www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 87 Published by SCHOLINK INC. One new insight that flows from unpacking negativity is that threat can now be understood not one property, but two. Threat is multi-faceted. Fear identifies one facet of threat: the degree of novelty evident in the moment. Anger identifies another facet of threat: the presence of one or more violation of norms that dictate the proper behavior for ourselves, our family and friends, and strangers (Haidt, 2001). While we have long thought that it is sufficient to describe threats as being one thing, varying from weak and inconsequential to robust and deadly, our brains had long been using preconscious emotional appraisals to tell us that such abstractions were obscuring strategically consequential differences between threat as novelty and threat as norm violation (Marcus et al., 1995). More broadly, reliance on valence-based measures of emotion will continue to mask the attention the human brain gives to more nuanced and focused appraisals. The long-standing focus on fear as the marker of threat (Hobbes, 1968; Jost & Napier, 2012) now becomes more complex as fear is but one vital appraisal used to identify threat. Research prompted by the concurrent presence of the anger appraisal has not only identified anger’s prominent role in identifying threat but reallocates many of the downstream consequences from fear to anger (Vasilopoulou & Wagner, 2017; Marcus et al., 2019). Pursuing that more complex understanding mandate methods of measuring emotion that can capture the independent dynamic shifting of fear and of anger in threat conditions. Finally, if changing levels of these appraisals initiate changes in later, downstream processes such as openness to persuasion, or social bonding, and the like, then all levels of these appraisals are consequential (Marcus, 2021). “Peak” levels are important, but then so too are all the levels of any specific appraisal. If fear is low, signaling a familiar environment, then swift reliance on the ‘tried and true’ is deft mode of judgment and action (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). Both high and low levels of novelty are consequential. Similarly, if very low levels of anger signal the absence of norm violations, then people are better able to exercise their individual agency, a consequence of some contemporary relevance (Webster, 2018; Marcus, 2019). 5. Discussion A principal purpose of this inquiry is to explore how often unattended presumptions have directed the operationalization of emotion. The presumptions considered here identify the attributes thought to define emotion. The earlier approaches have a very long history and so their advantages and disadvantages can be more readily observed and assessed than the more recent. Older missteps are more easily identified than current practices. We can expect that as we learn more, the current practices and measures thought to be valid will be improved or replaced. The understanding of emotion as a holistic, subjective state, has made way for a new more complex dynamic understanding of emotion as multiple ongoing appraisals. And, these appraisals, at all levels of each appraisal, have consequence (Neuman et al., 2018). Hopefully further work on measuring emotion will enable both old ideas and new to be continuously re-evaluated, further enriching our www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 88 Published by SCHOLINK INC. understandings of our affections in all their sundry influences. This is not a final reckoning, only the most recent. Measurement of concepts is an essential feature of empirical research. But measures serve best when their foundational presumptions are made visible so that their validity can be tested. Acknowledgement Professor Mihai Stoicu, Williams College, helped with the generation of Figure 2. Colleagues Jon Krosnick, Milton Lodge, Matthew Rhodes-Purdy, Gijs Schumacher, Kathleen Searles, John Sullivan, Steve Utych, and, David Watson, each offered very helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. References Abelson, R. P., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., & Fiske, S. T. (1982). Affective and Semantic Components in Political Personal Perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(4), 619-630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.4.619 Albertson, B., & Gadarian, S. K. (2016). Did that Scare You? Tips on Creating Emotion in Experimental Subjects. Political Analysis, 24(4), 485-491. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpw022 Arnold, M. B. (1950). An excitatory theory of emotion. In M. L. Reymert (Ed.), Feelings and Emotions: The Mooseheart Symposium (pp. 11-33). Ax, A. (1953). The Physiological Differentiation between Fear and Anger in Humans. Psychosomatic Medicine, 15(5), 433-422. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-195309000-00007 Bakker, B. N., Schumacher, G., Gothreau, C., & Arceneaux, K. (2020). Conservatives and liberals have similar physiological responses to threats. Nature Human Behavior, 4(6), 616-621. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0823-z Bakker, B. N., Schumacher, G., & Matthijn, R. (2021). Hot politics? Affective responses topoliticalrhetoric. American Political Science Review, 11(1), 150-164. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000519 Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The Unbearable Automaticity of Being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462-479. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.462 Barrett, L. F., & Satpute, A. B. (2019). Historical Pitfalls and New Directions in the Neuroscience of Emotion. NeuroscienceLetters, 6(693), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2017.07.045 Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How Emotion Shapes Behavior: Feedback, Anticipation, and Reflection, Rather Than Direct Causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 167-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307301033 Bechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., Adolphs, R., Rockland, C., & Damasio, A. R. (1995). Double Dissociation of Conditioning and Declarative Knowledge Relative to the Amygdala and Hippocampus in Humans. Science, 269(15 August 1995), 1115-1118. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7652558 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 89 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Overseers, B. O. (2021). ANES 2020 Time Series Study Preliminary Release: Pre-Election Data User Guide and Codebook. Retrieved from http://www.electionstudies.org Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226788302.001.0001 Brader, T., & Marcus, G. E. (2013). Emotion and Political Psychology. In L. Huddy, J. S. Levy, & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 165-204). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199760107.013.0006 Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2000). Affective reactions to acoustic stimuli. Psychophysiology, 37(2), 204-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.3720204 Burden, B. C., & Klofstad, C. A. (2005). Affect and Cognition in Party Identification. Political Psychology, 26(6), 869-886. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00448.x Burke, E. (2009). A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (Reissue ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107360495 Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Larsen, J. T., Pochlmann, K. M., & Ito, T. (2000). The Psychophysiology of Emotion. In R. Lewis, J. & M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), The Handbook of Emotions (pp. 173-191). Guildford. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Losch, M. E., & Kim, H. S. (1986). Electromyographic Activity Over Facial Muscle Regions Can Differentiate the Valence and Intensity of Affective Reactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 260-268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.50.2.260 Calder, A. J., Lawrence, A. D., & Young, A. W. (2001). Neuropsychology of Fear And Loathing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(5), 352-363. https://doi.org/10.1038/35072584 Caruana, F. (2017). What is missing in the “Basic Emotion vs. Constructionist” debate? Pragmatist insights into the radical translation from the emotional brain. Pragmatism Today, 8(1), 87-103. Castiello, U., Paulignan, Y., & Jeannerod, M. (1991). Temporal Dissociation of Motor Responses and Subjective Awareness. Brain, 114(6), 2639-2655. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/114.6.2639 Celeghin, A., Diano, M., Bagnis, A., Viola, M., & Tamietto, M. (2017). Basic Emotions in Human Neuroscience: Neuroimaging and Beyond. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1432), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01432 Cheung-Blunden, V., Cropper, K., Panis, A., & Davis, K. (2018). Functional Divergence of Two Threat-Induced Emotions: Fear-Based Versus Anxiety-Based Cybersecurity Preferences. Emotion, 19(8), 1353-1365. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000508 Clifford, S., & Jerit, J. (2018). Disgust, Anxiety, and Political Learning in the Face of Threat. American Journal of Political Science, 62(2), 266-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12350 Clore, G. L., & Ortony, A. (1988). The Semantics of the Affective Lexicon. In V. Hamilton, G. Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive Science Perspectives on Emotion and Motivation (pp. 367-397). Martinus Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2792-6_15 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 90 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Conover, P., & Feldman, S. (1986). Emotional Reactions to the Economy: I’m Mad as Hell and I’m Not Going to Take It Any More. American Journal of Political Science, 30(1), 30-78. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111294 Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2000). Evolutionary Psychology and the Emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions (2nd ed., pp. 91-115). Guildford Press. Craig, S. C., & Martinez, M. D. (2005). Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion. PalgraveMacmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403979094 Danner, D., Blasius, J., Breyer, B., Eifler, S., Menold, N., Paulhus, D. L., Rammstedt, B., Roberts, R. D., Schmitt, M., & Ziegler, M. (2016). Current Challenges, New Developments, and Future Directions in Scale Construction. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(3), 175-180. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000375 Dietrich, B. J., Hayes, M., & O’Brien, D. Z. (2019). Pitch Perfect: Vocal Pitch and the Emotional Intensity of Congressional Speech. American Political Science Review, 113(4), 941-926. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000467 Dunn, J. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Feeling and Believing: The Influence of Emotion on Trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 736-748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.88.5.736 Ekman, P. (1992). An Argument for Basic Emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6(3/4), 169-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411068 Ekman, P., & Rosenberg, E. L. (2005). What the face reveals: Basic and applied studies of spontaneous expression using the facial action coding system (FACS) (2nd ed. Vol. Series in affective science). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195179644.001.0001 Fakhrhosseini, S. M., & Jeon, M. (2017). Affect/Emotion InductionMethods. In M. Jeon (Ed.), Emotions and Affect in Human Factors and Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 235-253). AcademicPress. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801851-4.00010-0 Fiedler, K., McCaughey, L., & Prager, J. (2021). Quo Vadis, Methodology? The Key Role of Manipulation Checks for Validity Control and Quality of Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, early view, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970602 Finseraas, H., & Listhaug, O. (2013). It can happen here: The impact of the Mumbai terror attacks on public opinion in Western Europe. Public Choice, 156(1-2), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-011-9895-7 Freeman, J. B., & Johnson, K. L. (2016). More Than Meets the Eye: Split-Second Social Perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(5), 362-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.03.003 Geer, J. G. (2006). In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns. University of Chicago Press. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 91 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Gennaro, G., & Ash, E. (2021). Emotion and Reason in Political Language. The Economic Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueab104 Gerbella, M., Caruana, F., & Rizzolatti, G. (2019). Pathways for smiling, disgust and fear recognition in blindsight patients. Neuropsychologia, 128(1), 6-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.08.028 Giner-Sorolla, R., & Russell, P. S. (2019). Not Just Disgust: Fear and Anger Also Relate to Intergroup Dehumanization. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.211 Gray, E. K., & Watson, D. (2007). Assessing positive and negative affect via self-report. In J. A. Coan & J. J. B. Allen (Eds.), The Handbook of Emotion Elicitation and Assessment (pp. 171-183). Oxford University Press. Gross, J. J. (1998). The Emerging Field of Emotion Regulation: An Integrative Review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271 Grossberg, S. (2000). The Complementary Brain: Unifying Brain Dynamics and Modularity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(6), 233-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01464-9 Haidt, J. (2001). The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834. Harmon-Jones, C., Bastion, B., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2016). Detecting Transient Emotional Responses With Improved Self-Report Measures and Instructions. Emotion, 16(7), 1086-1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000216 Haselmayer, M. (2021). Candidates rather than context shape campaign sentiment in French Presidential Elections (1965-2017). French Politics, early view, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-021-00159-5 Herzog, M. H., Kammer, T., & Scharnowski, F. (2016). Time Slices: What is the Duration of a Percept? PLOS Biology, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002433 Heubeck, B. G., & Wilkinson, R. (2019). Is all fit that glitters gold? Comparisons of two, three and bi- factor models T for Watson, Clark & Tellegen’s 20-item state and trait PANAS. Personality and Individual Differences, 144, 132-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.002 Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2014). Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Research, 37(3), 297-350. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X13001192 Hobbes, T. (1968). Leviathan. Penguin Books. Hoffman, D. D. (2019). The Case Against Reality. Allen Lane. Huddy, L. (2001). From Social to Political Identity: A Critical Examination of Social Identity Theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00230 Huddy, L. (2018). The Group Foundations of Democratic Poltical Behavior. Critical Review, 30(1-2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2018.1466857 Izard, C. E. (1977). Human Emotions. PlenumPress. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2209-0 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 92 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Jost, J. T., & Napier, J. L. (2012). The Uncertainty-Threat Model of Political Conservatism. In M. A. Hogg & D. L. Blaylock (Eds.), Extremism and the psychology of uncertainty (pp. 90-111). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444344073.ch6 Junge, M., & Reisenzein, R. (2013). Indirect scaling methods for testing quantitative emotion theories. Cognition and Emotion, 27(7), 1247-1275. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.782267 Junge, M., & Reisenzein, R. (2016). MetricScalesfor Emotion Measurement. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 58(3), 497-530. Just, M. R., Crigler, A. N., & Belt, T. L. (2007). Don’t Give Up Hope: Emotions, Candidate Appraisals, and Votes. In W. R. Neuman, G. E. Marcus, A. N. Crigler, & M. B. MacKuen (Eds.), The Affect Effect (pp. 231-259). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226574431.003.0010 Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 37(2), 263-292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185 Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Uses and Gratification Research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523. https://doi.org/10.1086/268109 Kim, J., Wang, Jing, Wendell, D. H., & Shinkareva, S. V. (2016). Identifying Core Affect in Individuals from fMRI Responses to Dynamic Naturalistic Audiovisual Stimuli. PlosOne, 11(9), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161589 König, P. D., Waldvogel, T., Wagschal, U., Becker, B., Feite, L., & Weishaupt, S. (2021). The emotional valence of candidate ratings in televised debates. Communications, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2020-0059 Kosslyn, S. M., & Miller, G. W. (2013). Top brain, bottom brain: Surprising insights into how you think (1st ed.). Simon & Schuster. Kouider, S., & Dehaene, S. (2007). Levels of processing during non-conscious perception: A critical review of visual masking. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 362, 857- 875. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2093 Lang, P. J., & Ohman, A. (1988). The International Affective Picture System [photographic slides]. Lavine, H., Johnston, C. D., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2012). The Ambivalent Partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199772759.001.0001 Lazarus, R. S., & Lazarus, B. N. (1994). Passion and Reason: Making Sense of Our Emotions. Oxford University Press. Lerner, J. S., Gonzalez, R. M., Small, D. A., & Fischhoff, B. (2003). Effects of Fear and Anger on Perceived Risks of Terrorism: A National Field Experiment. Psychological Science, 14(2), 144- 150. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.01433 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 93 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14(4), 473-493. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300402763 Libet, B., Wright Jr., E. W., Feinstein, B., & Pearl, D. K. (1979). Subjective Referral of the Timing for a Conscious Sensory Experience. Brain, 102, 193-224. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/102.1.193 Lodge, M. G., & Taber, C. (2005). The Automaticity of Affect for Political Leaders, Groups, and Issues. Political Psychology, 36(3), 455-482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00426.x Luo, Q., Holroy, T., Jones, M., Hendler, T., & Blair, J. (2007). Neural dynamics for facial threat processing as revealed by gamma band synchronization using MEG. NeuroImage, 34(2), 839-847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.09.023 MacKuen, M. B., Wolak, J., Keele, L., & Marcus, G. E. (2010). Civic Engagements: Resolute Partisanship or Reflective Deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 440-458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00440.x Maratos, F. A. (2011). Temporal Processing of Emotional Stimuli: The Capture and Release of Attention by Angry Faces. Emotion, 11(5), 1242-1247. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024279 Maratos, F. A., Senior, C., Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., & Rippon, G. (2012). Early gamma-band activity as a function of threat processing in the extrastriate visual cortex. Cognitive Neuroscience, 3(1), 62-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2011.613989 Marcus, G. E. (2002). The Sentimental Citizen: Emotion in Democratic Politics. Pennsylvania State University Press. Marcus, G. E. (2012). Political Psychology: Neuroscience, Genetics and Politics. Oxford University Press. Marcus, G. E. (2019). How Fear and Anger Impact Democracy. Democracy Papers, 1-7. Retrieved from https://items.ssrc.org/how-fear-and-anger-impact-democracy/ Marcus, G. E. (2021). The Rise of Populism: The politics of justice, anger, and grievance. In J. Forgas, B. Crano, & K. Fiedler (Eds.), The Psychology of Populism (pp. 81-104). Routledge. Marcus, G. E., & MacKuen, M. (1995). Measuring Mood in the 1995 NES Pilot Study. Retrieved from https://electionstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/nes008447.pdf Marcus, G. E., MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., & Keele, L. (2006). The Measure and Mismeasure of Emotion. In D. Redlawsk (Ed.), Feeling Politics: Emotion in Political Information Processing (pp. 31-45). PalgraveMacmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403983114_3 Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. B. (2000). Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. University of Chicago Press. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. B. (2017). Measuring Emotional Response: Comparing Alternative Approaches to Measurement. Political Science Research and Methods, 5(4), 733-754. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.65 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 94 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Marcus, G. E., Sullivan, J. L., Theiss-Morse, E., & Wood, S. L. (1995). With Malice Toward Some: How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174046 Marcus, G. E., Valentino, N. A., Vasilopoulos, P., & Foucault, M. (2019). Applying the Theory of Affective Intelligence to Support for Authoritarian Policies and Parties. Advances in Political Psychology, 40(S1), 109-139. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12571 Matsuhashi, M., & Hallett, M. (2008). The timing of the conscious intention to move. European Journal of Neuroscience, 28(13), 2344-2351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06525.x Mattes, K., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2014). The Positive Case for Negative Campaigning. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226202334.001.0001 McEachrane, M. (2009). Emotion, Meaning, and Appraisal Theory. Theory & Psychology, 19(1), 33- 53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354308101418 Mills, C., & D’Mello, S. (2014). On the Validity of the Autobiographical Emotional Memory Task for Emotion Induction. PlosOne, 9(4), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095837 Molho, C., Tybur, J. M., Güler, E., Balliet, D., & Hofmann, W. (2017). Disgust and Anger Relate to Different Aggressive Responses to Moral Violations. Psychological Science, 28(5), 609-619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617692000 Mutz, D. C., & Permantle, R. (2015). Standards for experimental research: A better understanding of experimental experimental methods. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 192-215. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2015.4 Neely, F. (2007). Party Identification in Emotional and Political Context: A Replication. Political Psychology, 28(6), 667-688. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00599.x Neuman, W. R., Marcus, G. E., & MacKuen, M. B. (2018). Hardwired for News: Affective Intelligence and Political Attention. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 62(4), 614-635. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2018.1523169 Nørretranders, T. (1998). The User Illusion (J. Sydenham, Trans.). Viking. O’Dougherty, J. O., Kringelbacj, M. L., Rolls, E. T., Hornak, J., & Andrews, C. (2001). Abstract Reward and Punishment Representations in the Human Obritofrontal Cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 4(1), 95-102. https://doi.org/10.1038/82959 Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1989). The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571299 Ortony, A. (2021). Are All “Basic Emotions” Emotions? A Problem for the (Basic) Emotions Construct. Perspectives on Psychological Science, Early view, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620985415 Patterson, C. M., Kosson, D. S., & Neuman, J. P. (1987). Reaction to Punishment, Reflectivity, and Passive Avoidance Learning in Extraverts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 565-575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.565 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 95 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Paulus, M. P., Simmons, A. N., Fitzpatrick, S. N., Potterat, E. G., Van Orden, K. F., Bauman, J., & Swain, J. L. (2010). Differential Brain Activation to Angry Faces by Elite Warfighters: Neural Processing Evidence for Enhanced Threat Detection. PlosOne, 5(4), e100096. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010096 Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2 Phillips, M. L., Williams, L. M., Heining, M., Herba, C. M., Russell, T., Andrew, C., Bullmore, E. T., Brammer, M. J., Williams, S. C. R., Morgan, M., Young, A. W., & Gray, J. A. (2004). Differential neural responses to overt and covert presentations of facial expressions of fear and disgust. NeuroImage, 21(4), 1484-1496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.12.013 Popper, K. R. (2000). Science as Falsification. In T. Schick (Ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science (pp. 33-39). Mayfield Publishing Company. Rhodes-Purdy, M., Navarre, R., & Utych, S. M. (2021). Measuring Simultaneous Emotions: Existing Problems and a New Way Forward. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 8(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2019.35 Roseman, I. (1984). Cognitive Determinants of Emotions: A Structural Theory. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 11-36). Sage. Roseman, I. J. (1991). Appraisal Determinants of Discrete Emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 5(3), 161-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939108411034 Roseman, I. J., Mattes, K., Redlawsk, D. P., & Katz, S. (2020). Reprehensible, Laughable: The Role of Contempt in Negative Campaigning. American Politics Research, 48(1), 44-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X19857968 Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A Perspective on Disgust. Psychological Review, 94(1), 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.23 Russell, J. A., Weiss, A., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1989). Affect Grid: A Single-Item Scale of Pleasure and Arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 493-502. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.493 Sander, D., Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2005). A systems approach to appraisal mechanisms in emotion. Neural Networks, 18, 317-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2005.03.001 Sartori, G. (1970). ConceptMisformation in Comparative Politics. American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033-1053. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958356 Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are Emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 44(4), 695-729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018405058216 Scherer, K. R., & Moors, A. (2019). Appraisal and Component Differentiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 719-745. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011854 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 96 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as Information: Informational and Motivational Functions of Affective States. In R. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 527-561). Guilford. Searles, K., & Mattes, K. (2015). It’s a Mad, Mad World: Using Emotion Inductions in a Survey. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 172-182. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2015.5 Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement; a theoretical analysis. Appleton-Century- Crofts. Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., Aramovich, N. P., & Morgan, G. S. (2006). Confrontational and Preventative Policy Responses to Terrorism: Anger Wants a Fight and Fear Wants “Them” to GoAway. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28(4), 375-384. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2804_11 Smith, C. A., Haynes, K. N., Lazarus, R. S., & Pope, L. K. (1993). In Search of the “Hot” Cognitions: Attributions, Appraisals, and Their Relation to Emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 916-929. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.916 Storm, C., & Storm, T. (1987). A Taxonomic Study of the Vocabulary of Emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 805-816. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.805 Suhay, E., & Erisen, C. (2018). The Role of Anger in Biased Assimilation of Political Information. Political Psychology, 39(6), 793-810. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12463 Sullivan, J. L., & Feldman, S. (1979). Multiple Indicators. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985192 Tamir, M., Vishkin, A., & Gutentag, T. (2020). Emotion Regulation Is Motivated. Emotion, 20(1), 115- 119. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000635 Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of Mood and Personality and Their Relevance to Assessing Anxiety, With an Emphasis on Self-Report. In A. H. Tuma & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the Anxiety Disorders (pp. 681-716). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203728215-49 Tesser, A., & Martin, L. (1996). The Psychology of Evaluation. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (pp. 400-432). Guilford. Theiss-Morse, E., Marcus, G. E., & Sullivan, J. L. (1993). Passion and Reason in Political Life: The Organization of Affect and Cognition and Political Tolerance. In G. E. Marcus & R. Hanson (Eds.), Reconsidering the Democratic Public (pp. 249-272). Penn State Press. Tomkins, S. S. (1984). Affect Theory. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to Emotion (pp. 163-195). Lawrence Earlbaum. Valentino, N. A., Brader, T., Groenendyk, E. W., Gregorowicz, K., & Hutchings, V. L. (2011). Election Night’s Alright for Fighting: The Role of Emotions in Political Participation. Journal of Politics, 73(1), 156-170. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381610000939 Van Boxtel, A. (2010). Facial EMG as a Tool for Inferring Affective States. Proceedings of Measuring Behavior, 104-108. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 97 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Van Zomeren, M. (2021). Toward an Integrative Perspective on Distinct Positive Emotions for Political Action: Analyzing, Comparing, Evaluating, and Synthesizing Three Theoretical Perspectives. Political Psychology, early view, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12795 Vasilopoulou, S., & Wagner, M. (2017). Fear, anger and enthusiasm about the European Union: Effects of emotional reactions on public preferences towards European integration. European Union Politics, 18(3), 382-405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116517698048 Warner, B. R., Park, J., Kim, G.-E., McKinney, M. S., & Paul, W. B. (2021). Do Presidential Primary Debates Increase Political Polarization? American Behavioral Scientist, early view, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642211026613 Watson, D. (1988). The Vicissitudes of Mood Measurement: Effects of Varying Descriptors, Time Frames, and Response Formats on Measures of Positive and Negative Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(1), 128-141. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.128 Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1991). Self- Versus Peer Ratings of Specific Emotional Traits: Evidence of Convergent and Discriminant Validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 927- 940. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.927 Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Expanded Form., 35. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/Watson/Watson.html https://doi.org/10.17077/48vt- m4t2 Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Measurement and Mismeasurement of Mood: Recurrent and Emergent Issues. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(2), 267-296. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6802_4 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 Watson, D., Stanton, K., & Clark, L. A. (2017). Self-Report Indicators of Negative Valence Constructs within the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): A Critical Review. Journal of Affective Disorder, 216(1), 58-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.09.065 Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a Consensual Structure of Mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 219-235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.219 Webster, S. W. (2018). Anger and declining trust in government in the American electorate. Political Behavior, 40, 933-964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9431-7 Whalen, P. J., Shin, L. M., McInerney, S. C., Fischer, H., Wright, C. I., & Rauch, S. L. (2001). A Functional MRI Study of Human Amygdal Responses to Facial Expression of Fear Versus Anger. Emotion, 1(1), 70-83. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.1.1.70 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022 98 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Widmann, T. (2021). How Emotional Are Populists Really? Factors Explaining Emotional Appeals in the Communication of Political Parties. Political Psychology, 42(1), 163-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12693 Wilson, G. D., Barrett, P. T., & Gray, J. A. (1989a). Human Reactions to Reward and Punishment: A Questionnaire Examination of Gray’s Personality Theory. British Journal of Psychology, 80(4), 509-516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1989.tb02339.x Wilson, T. D., Kraft, D., & Dunn, D. S. (1989b). The Disruptive Effects of Explaining Attitudes: The Moderating Effects of Knowledge about the Attitude Object. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(5), 379-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(89)90029-2 Winkielman, P., & Berridge, K. C. (2004). Unconscious Emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(3), 120-123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00288.x Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151-175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151 Notes Note 1. Follow up questions further refine identifiers as strong or not so strong, and if independent whether they lean to one or the other major party. Note 2. The criteria by which some emotion words are taken to be naming basic emotions and which are names of ‘non-basic’ emotion remains largely unresolved (Celeghin et al., 2017; Ortony, 2021; Caruana, 2017). Note 3. The instruction to participants also included the direction has made you, i.e., past tense. However, subsequent research demonstrated that people respond as if the instruction is here and now (Watson, 1988). Note 4. Psychophysiological measures have long been of interest as a promising means by which one could obtain valid measures of discrete emotions but over the past three decades little progress has been made in that venture (Cacioppo et al., 2000; Bakker et al., 2020). There is one exception to that assessment, FacialEMG (Cacioppo et al., 1986; Van Boxtel, 2010). Note 5. These are approximations. As more data becomes available, from more studies, it is likely that we will find these axes are dynamically related.