Journal of Language and Social
Psychology
http://jls.sagepub.com/
Language and Emotion: Certain English−Arabic Translations Are Not
Equivalent
Mary H. Kayyal and James A. Russell
Journal of Language and Social Psychology 2013 32: 261 originally published online 8
October 2012
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X12461004
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jls.sagepub.com/content/32/3/261
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Language and Social Psychology can be found
at:
Email Alerts: http://jls.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jls.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jls.sagepub.com/content/32/3/261.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Aug 16, 2013
OnlineFirst Version of Record - Feb 7, 2013
OnlineFirst Version of Record - Oct 8, 2012
What is This?
Downloaded from jls.sagepub.com at BOSTON COLLEGE on November 21, 2013
462574
of Language and Social PsychologyKayyal and Russell
JLS32310.1177/0261927X12461004Journal
Article
Language and Emotion:
Certain English–Arabic
Translations Are Not
Equivalent
Journal of Language and Social Psychology
32(3) 261­–271
© 2013 SAGE Publications
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X12461004
http://jls.sagepub.com
Mary H. Kayyal1 and James A. Russell1
Abstract
Happiness, sadness, and anger are translated into Arabic as farah, huzn, and ghudub,
respectively, by the translation–back translation method. But are these translations
equivalent? To be equivalent, they must have the same referents, specifically, show a high
correlation between profiles of endorsement and a similar breadth of endorsement
when used to refer to emotions. Here, English-speaking Americans, English-speaking
Palestinians, and Arabic-speaking Palestinians (N = 60, 60, and 42, respectively) rated
the extent to which each of 12 words referred to the various emotions conveyed
by 22 facial expressions. Only one translation (happiness–farah) passed both tests of
equivalence. All others differed with culture or language.
Keywords
language, emotion, words, translation, Arabic
Much psychological theory and research on emotion presupposes that common English words for emotions and feelings—such as happiness, sadness, anger, and fear—
can be translated into other languages. In Spanish, they are translated as felicidad,
tristeza, ira, and miedo, respectively, and in Arabic as (written in Latin script) farah,
huzn, ghudub, and khof, respectively. Ekman (1973) expressed this presupposition of
equivalence: “Regardless of the language, or whether the culture is Western or Eastern, industrialized or preliterate, these facial expressions are labeled with the same
1
Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Mary H. Kayyal, Department of Psychology, Boston College, 301 McGuinn Hall, 140 Commonwealth
Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jls.sagepub.com at BOSTON COLLEGE on November 21, 2013
262
Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32(3)
Figure 1. Mean percentage of observers in each sample who attributed the word sadness to
each of the 22 facial expressions.
Note. Each facial expression is identified by its plate number (in parentheses) and the emotion it was
predicted to convey by Ekman (1980). The facial expressions are ranked along the x-axis in decreasing
order (based on combined mean across the three samples.
emotion words: happiness, sadness, anger, fear, disgust, and surprise” (pp. 219-220).
This claim could make sense only if emotion words have exact equivalents in all languages. But do they?
Many English emotion words have been translated into other languages, and the
translation has been verified through the back-translation test. One set of bilinguals
translates an English word into, for example, Arabic, and another set of bilinguals
translates the Arabic word back into English; equivalence is claimed if the process
returns us to the original word. On the other hand, linguistic and ethnographic research
has questioned whether English emotion words have translation equivalents in all
other languages (Russell, 1991; Wierzbicka, 2009). There are now hints that the translation may not be equivalent to the original, even when it passes the back translation
test. For example, shame and its common translation into Spanish, vergüenza, do not
refer to emotions with identical features (Hurtado de Mendoza, Fernández-Dols,
Parrott, & Carrera, 2010). Thus, back translation may ensure that the translation is the
best available but not that two are equivalent.
To be equivalent, two emotion words must refer to the same events. Following
Russell and Sato (1995), we propose that two emotion words must refer to the same
facial expressions, on the assumption that facial expressions are the prime candidates
for universal signs of emotion. A word refers to the emotion conveyed by a face not in
an all-or-nothing manner but to a certain degree (Russell & Bullock, 1986). Consider
the American data in Figure 1 which shows the degree to which sadness refers to the
Downloaded from jls.sagepub.com at BOSTON COLLEGE on November 21, 2013
263
Kayyal and Russell
emotion conveyed by each of 22 different facial expressions. There is no sharp division between facial expressions that convey sadness and those that do not. We therefore characterize the relation of a word to the set of facial expressions as a profile.
Equivalence of reference to facial expressions, then, entails two specific criteria. First,
the two words must show a high correlation between their profiles. A word and a perfect synonym or a perfect translation have the same profiles. Second, the two profiles
must show the same breadth. That is, they must show an overall equivalent level of
endorsement for the facial expressions. We quantified breadth as the mean endorsement across faces.
Study Overview
We reanalyzed data from a study reported by Kayyal and Russell (2012) in which
Americans responded in English and bilingual Palestinians responded in either
English or Arabic by rating the extent to which each of 12 words referred to the emotion or feeling expressed in each of 22 facial expressions. Having these three groups
of respondents allowed us to disentangle effects due to language from those due to
culture. The facial expressions were published by Ekman (1980) to illustrate the ability of faces to communicate different emotions and feelings universally. There were
12 English words—happiness, sadness, anger, fear, interest, relaxation, embarrassment, disgust, contempt, surprise, perplexity, and hesitancy—which were the emotions and feelings that Ekman said were expressed by these facial expressions.
Translation–back translation was used to obtain the best available Arabic translation
for each word.
Method
Details of method are provided by Kayyal and Russell (2012).
Participants
The American sample consisted of 60 Boston College undergraduates (18-25 years,
17 male) who completed the survey in English. The Palestinians-in-English sample
consisted of 60 bilingual Palestinians (18-19 years, 17 male) who completed the same
survey in English. The Palestinians-in-Arabic sample consisted of 42 bilingual
Palestinians (18-19 years, 20 male) who completed the same survey in Arabic.
Photographs of Facial Expressions
Photographs of facial expressions were 22 black-and-white, approximately 2 inches ×
3 inches, frontal views of faces (Ekman, 1980). Eighteen were said by Ekman to signal a single emotion or feeling: happiness (Figure 1: Plates 37B and 8-furthest), sadness (14), anger (17), surprise (7, 8-middle), disgust (16), interest (22, 23, 26A, 26B),
Downloaded from jls.sagepub.com at BOSTON COLLEGE on November 21, 2013
264
Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32(3)
embarrassment (36, 33G), relaxation (45), perplexity (8-closest, 20, 21), and hesitancy (3). The remaining four were said to signal a blend of two emotions: fear/disgust
(12), fear/surprise (9), interest/fear (25), and perplexity/anger (19).
Translation of Emotion Words
The twelve English emotion or feeling words were translated into Arabic using a
standard translation–back translation procedure. For each word, a list of possible
Arabic translations taken from standard English–Arabic dictionaries and bilingual
Palestinians was presented to five bilingual speakers, who indicated the single closest
and most commonly used Arabic translation for each English word. The closest
Arabic synonyms for each of the 12 English words were then presented to a different
set of five bilinguals who were asked to back translate the Arabic word into English.
The back translation that returned to the original English word by the most judges was
chosen as the translation. At least three of the five judges had returned the original
English word in all 12 cases.
Procedure
Each participant received a booklet with general instructions, followed by 22 separate
sheets each showing a single facial expression and a rating form. There were four different orders of presentation of the faces (two random and two reversed). For each
face, participants indicated whether each of the 12 emotions was present or not by
circling either yes or no. If the participant circled yes, he or she indicated “the intensity
to which the emotion was present in the face” by circling a number from 1 (barely) to
6 (maximum intensity).
Results
Interrater Reliability
With the exception of one word (perplexity) for one sample, interrater reliability for
each word was adequate, ranging from moderate to high. Table 1 (columns 4-6) gives
the results of a two-way random effects model of intraclass correlation coefficients.
There were differences between samples: On average, Americans (mean = 0.94) used
the emotion words more reliably than either the Palestinians-in-English (0.79) or the
Palestinians-in-Arabic (0.77; t = 3.29 and 3.90, respectively; all ps < .01), who did not
differ from each other (t = 0.29, p = .77).
Correlation of Profiles
For each emotion word, a profile was created as the mean rating within a sample for
each of the 22 faces. Table 1 (columns 7-9) shows the correlation between the profiles
Downloaded from jls.sagepub.com at BOSTON COLLEGE on November 21, 2013
265
Kayyal and Russell
Table 1. Interrater Reliability and Between-Sample Correlations for Word Profiles.
Between-samples correlations
Interrater reliability
Word
English
Happiness
Anger
Disgust
Relaxation
Sadness
Surprise
Fear
Interest
Contempt
Perplexity
Hesitancy
Embarrassment
Mean
Arabic
farah
ghudub
ishmi’zaz
istirraha
huzn
mufajeh
khof
ihtimam
yhad
irtibak
tirradud
ihraj
Americans Palestinians:
Americans
English
Versus
Versus
Versus
Palestinians- Palestinians- Palestinians- PalestiniansArabic
in-Arabic
in-English
Americans in-English
in-Arabic
.99
.98
.97
.97
.97
.95
.95
.94
.86
.94
.90
.82
.94
.96
.76
.85
.85
.80
.66
.80
.83
.79
.40
.91
.88
.79
.99
.73
.94
.83
.93
.76
.86
.72
.61
.65
.58
.69
.77
.99 (.98)
.94 (.94)
.92 (.96)
.88 (.90)
.90 (.90)
.93 (.95)
.90 (.91)
.82 (.79)
.79 (.77)
.60 (.58)
.38 (.53)
.59 (.56)
.98 (.99)
.98 (.99)
.89 (.93)
.89 (.89)
.88 (.92)
.87 (.93)
.88 (.80)
.88 (.83)
.94 (.89)
.88 (.90)
.83 (.86)
.78 (.88)
.72 (.74)
.76 (.73)
.76 (.68)
.65 (.54)
.40 (.45)
.47 (.49)
.62 (.59)
.21 (.16)
.−02 (−.06) −.30 (−.40)
.42 (.39)
.65 (.61)
Note. Columns 1 to 3 give the English word and its Arabic translation. Columns 4 to 6 give, for each of the three samples,
the intraclass correlation reliability coefficients for word profiles from a two-way random effects model. Correlations
in boldface are significant at p < .05. Columns 7 to 9 give, for each possible comparison pair, the between-sample correlations for word profiles. For each comparison, high correlation coefficients indicate that the two groups in that pair
applied the emotion word to the facial expressions in similar percentages. High correlation coefficients in parentheses
indicate that the two groups in that pair attributed similar intensity ratings to the emotion word. All correlations in
boldface are significant at p < .001.
for each word and its counterpart. For example, Table 1 shows that the profile for the
English word happiness as used by Americans (a) correlated .99 with the profile for
the English word happiness as used by Palestinians-in-English and (b) correlated .98
with the profile for its Arabic translation (farah) as used by Palestinians-in-Arabic.
While not surprising, this result is encouraging, for it shows that even with different
samples of observers, very high correlations are possible.
Five words (happiness, anger, disgust, relaxation, and sadness) reached the .80
criterion set by Russell and Sato (1995; mean r = .91, ps < .001; Table 1).
Three words (surprise, fear, and interest) fell slightly short of that criterion, revealing a small problem in translation not attributable to a cultural difference. Despite their
cultural differences, the two groups who responded in English used the three words
similarly (rs = .93, .90, and .82, respectively; all ps < .001), but despite their sharing a
culture, the two Palestinian groups produced correlations slightly less than .80 (rs =
.78, .76, and .65, respectively; all ps < .001). The differences between surprise and
mufajeh and between fear and khof were small, were not readily interpretable, and
require further testing. A possible difference between interest and ihtimam is that the
English word includes low arousal states of apprehension and uncertainty more often
than does its Arabic translation. The largest differences between the attribution of
Downloaded from jls.sagepub.com at BOSTON COLLEGE on November 21, 2013
266
Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32(3)
interest versus ihtimam were for faces predicted by Ekman (1980) to express fear,
embarrassment, surprise, and hesitancy.
One pair—contempt and yhad—showed a major problem of translation not attributable to culture. The two groups responding in English used contempt similarly (r =
.79) but not similar to the way the group responding in Arabic used its translation,
yhad: r = .40 and .47, respectively. Observers’ ratings for specific faces suggested that
contempt was used for faces expressing low-arousal hostility, discomfort, or annoyance, whereas the yhad was limited to faces expressing a more aroused anger.
The remaining three words—perplexity, hesitancy, and embarrassment—failed
equivalence of profiles for all possible comparisons. Perplexity was used with only
modest agreement across samples: mean r = .48. Modest correlations occurred not
just for the translation of perplexity but even for the two English-speaking samples
using the same word. Modest correlations for perplexity may be due to low reliability (Table 1, columns 5 and 6) for the two Palestinian samples with this word.
Perhaps the concept is not readily accessible in Palestinian culture. Similarly, the
words hesitancy and embarrassment were used with modest agreement across samples: mean r = .39. Reliability for the English words was high (Table 1) and therefore
cannot explain the modest correlations for the two English-speaking groups.
Palestinians-in-English used embarrassment to refer to positive states, whereas
Americans did not. The differences between Americans’ and English-speaking
Palestinians’ use of hesitancy were unclear.
A similar pattern of results emerged when a profile was created with mean intensity
ratings substituted for mean endorsement; Table 1 gives these correlations in parentheses. Those words that were endorsed most often were also rated as most intense: r =
.97, .99, .99, all ps < .001, in the three samples. Six words (happiness, anger, disgust,
relaxation, sadness, and surprise) met the .80 criterion (mean r = .91, all ps < .001),
two words (interest and fear) came close but failed (mean r = .67, all ps < .05), and
four words (perplexity, hesitancy, contempt, and embarrassment) remained problematic for all comparisons (mean r = .39).
Equivalence of Breadth
Our first operational definition of a word’s breadth was its mean endorsement across
the 22 faces. Figure 1 illustrates how a word and its Arabic translation can differ in
breadth; it shows the percentage of observers from each sample who applied the word
sadness or its Arabic translation to each of the 22 faces. Figure 2 shows the breadth
of each word seen in each of the three samples. Every word except happiness and its
translation showed a difference in breadth. Overall, most English emotion words—
whether used by Americans or by Palestinians—were applied more broadly than their
Arabic counterparts.
Happiness illustrates a translation that passes the breadth test. All three groups
applied the word to a similar percentage of facial expressions: 28% both by Americans
Downloaded from jls.sagepub.com at BOSTON COLLEGE on November 21, 2013
267
Kayyal and Russell
Figure 2. Mean percentage of facial expressions to which each emotion word was applied by
each of the three sample groups (irrespective of the specific facial expression to which each
word was applied).
Note. The dotted box indicates the five words for which Americans and Palestinians-in-English applied
that word to an equal percentage of facial expressions but to a significantly greater percentage of facial
expressions than did Palestinians-in-Arabic.
and Palestinians-in-English and 24% by Palestinians-in-Arabic (independent samples
t statistics were all <1.00, all ps > .40).
Five emotion words—sadness, anger, fear, surprise, and contempt—showed a language difference without a culture difference: the English word was broader than its
Arabic translation. In each case, Palestinians-in-English did not differ significantly
from Americans (t tests; all ps > .30) but showed significantly greater breadth than did
Palestinians-in-Arabic (t100 = 2.14 for happiness, 4.40 for sadness, 5.21 for anger, 6.02
for fear, 3.03 for surprise, and 3.58 for contempt; all ps < .01). Palestinians-in-Arabic
were least likely to apply sadness for all 22 faces, anger for 19, fear for 21, contempt
for 17, and surprise for 14 facial expressions.
Two emotion words—interest and disgust —were reasonable cases of culture, but
not language, differences in breadth. Americans applied these words to a significantly
greater percentage of facial expressions than did either group of Palestinians, who did
not differ from each other. The difference for interest occurred for all 22 faces, but for
disgust for 12 faces.
Three words—relaxation, perplexity, and hesitancy—combined the two patterns
just reported: Breadth was greater for English than Arabic language and for American
than Palestinian culture. The three groups differed significantly from each other:
Americans versus Palestinians-in-English, t118 = 5.02, 2.81, 2.56, respectively;
Americans versus Palestinians-in-Arabic, t100 = 7.85, 5.38, and 8.30, respectively;
Palestinians-in-English versus Palestinians-in-Arabic, t100 = 3.75, 2.38, and 5.06,
respectively (all ps < .04). The percentage of faces to which relaxation, perplexity, and
Downloaded from jls.sagepub.com at BOSTON COLLEGE on November 21, 2013
268
Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32(3)
hesitancy were applied was highest for Americans (37%, 53%, and 47%, respectively),
followed by Palestinians-in-Arabic (23%, 41%, and 36%, respectively), followed by
Palestinians-in-English (13%, 29%, and 14%, respectively).
Finally, embarrassment produced a pattern difficult to explain. Palestinians-inEnglish applied embarrassment to a significantly greater percentage of facial expressions (27%) than did either Americans (18%; t118 = 2.50, p < .02) or Palestinians-in-Arabic
(16%; t100 = 3.15, p < .01), who did not differ from each other (t100 = 0.55, p = .59).
A similar pattern of results emerged when the mean intensity ratings for each facial
expression were substituted for mean endorsement, although the pattern was less
robust.
Multidimensional Scaling
Despite differences found so far, there was also similarity. To explore that similarity,
we used individual differences scaling (INDSCAL; Carroll & Chang, 1970), which is
a nonmetric, weighted multidimensional scaling technique that provides a geometric
representation of the similarities among stimuli—in this case, the 12 emotion words.
In this study, the similarity between two words was defined as the correlation between
their profiles of endorsement of the 22 facial expressions. Each sample was treated as
a separate “subject,” and INDSCAL provides “weights” that assess how subjects differ in their emphasis on each dimension of the space.
Number of dimensions. Stress, canonical correlations, variance accounted for, and
interpretability all suggested a two-dimensional solution. Stress was substantially
reduced by adding a second dimension (from .28 to .19) but not by a third (.14). All
three samples shared two common dimensions, as indicated by high and significant
first (r = .93-.97, all ps < .001) and second (r = .80-.93, all ps < .05) canonical correlations. The third canonical correlations were nonsignificant for two of the three comparisons (Americans vs. Palestinians-in-English: r = .22, p = .53; Americans vs.
Palestinians-in-Arabic: r = .02, p = .95; Palestinians-in-English vs. Palestinians-inArabic: r = .68, p =.03). Improvement in variance accounted for from a two- to a threedimensional solution was relatively small (from .80 to .83). The third dimension was
not readily interpretable. The two-dimensional solution is shown in Figure 3.
Interpretation. The first dimension could be interpreted as valence, contrasting
unpleasant versus pleasant feelings, and accounted for 65.5% of the variance. The
second dimension could be interpreted as contrasting response to novel versus familiar
events. High values went to responses to unfamiliar situations (e.g., perplexity, interest, and surprise), low values to responses to familiar situations with established or
expected reactions (e.g., happiness, anger, and sadness). This dimension accounted for
14.9% of the variance.
Sample differences. For each subject (sample), INDSCAL provides a weirdness
score ranging from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating that the subject fits the space poorly.
Americans, Palestinians-in-English, and Palestinians-in-Arabic had weirdness scores
of .28, .02, and .39, respectively. All fit the space well, albeit with some differences.
Downloaded from jls.sagepub.com at BOSTON COLLEGE on November 21, 2013
269
Kayyal and Russell
Figure 3. Emotion words in a two-dimensional space created by INDSCAL
Note. INDSCAL = individual differences scaling. Dimension 1 was interpreted as valence, contrasting
unpleasant versus pleasant feelings. Dimension 2 was interpreted as contrasting response to novel versus
familiar events.
INDSCAL also provides weights that indicate the relative importance of each
dimension to each sample; weights range from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating no importance
and 1 indicating high importance. Americans, Palestinians-in-English, and Palestiniansin-Arabic had weights of .76, .82, and .85, respectively, for Dimension 1 and weights
of .53, .35, and .20, respectively, for Dimension 2. Thus, Americans emphasized both
dimensions more equally than did either group of Palestinians, whereas the Palestiniansin-Arabic gave more than 4 times the emphasis to the first dimension than they did to
the second.
Discussion and Conclusion
Evidence continues to mount that when we translate a word, we risk changing its
meaning. In the current study, only one word, happiness, had an Arabic translation,
farah, that passed unequivocally both of the two criteria examined here: correlation
of their profiles and equivalence of their breadth when used to describe the emotions
Downloaded from jls.sagepub.com at BOSTON COLLEGE on November 21, 2013
270
Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32(3)
conveyed by faces. All other words, even though they passed the back translation test,
lacked an exact translation by one or both of these criteria.
The largest differences were seen when the samples differed in both culture and
language, but some differences were also seen when samples differed in culture but
used the same language. Of the seven words that failed the equivalence-of-profiles test,
four represented translation-only differences, none represented culture-only differences, and three showed no clear pattern. For the equivalence-of-breadth tests, five
words clearly represented language-only differences, two represented culture-only differences, three showed both patterns, and one showed no clear pattern. The two criteria
examined here—equivalence of profiles and equivalence of breadth—are necessary but
not sufficient. Thus, future research might benefit from examining further criteria.
Although differences were found between English emotion words and their Arabic
translations, there was also similarity. This similarity was seen in the translation–back
translation results and in the correlations reported in Table 1, which were positive for
11 of the 12 words and often exceedingly high. Multidimensional scaling suggested
that similarity occurred in the valence and novelty coded by the words.
Acknowledgments
We thank Howie Giles and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We also thank
Jeehye Choi, Amanda Greenwood, Kerrie Pieloch, Kristen Hewitt, Claudia Hernandez,
Matthew Williams, Ciara James, Nicole Trauffer, and Marissa DiGirolamo for their help in data
entry and manuscript preparation.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article:
This research was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation (5001525).
References
Carroll, J. D., & Chang, J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling
via an n-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition. Psychometrica, 35, 283-319.
Ekman, P. (1973). Cross-cultural studies of facial expression. In P. Ekman (Ed.), Darwin and
facial expression: A century of research in review (pp. 169-222). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Ekman, P. (1980). The face of man: Expressions of universal emotions in a New Guinea village.
New York, NY: Garland STPM Press.
Hurtado de Mendoza, A., Fernández-Dols, J. M., Parrott, W. G., & Carrera, P. (2010). Emotion
terms, category structure, and the problem of translation: The case of shame and vergüenza.
Cognition & Emotion, 24, 661-680.
Downloaded from jls.sagepub.com at BOSTON COLLEGE on November 21, 2013
271
Kayyal and Russell
Kayyal, M. H., & Russell, J. A. (2012). Americans and Palestinians judge spontaneous facial
expressions of emotion. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Russell, J. A. (1991). Culture and the categorization of emotions. Psychological Bulletin, 110,
426-450.
Russell, J. A., & Bullock, M. (1986). Fuzzy concepts and the perception of emotion in facial
expressions. Social Cognition, 4, 309-341.
Russell, J. A., & Sato, K. (1995). Comparing emotion words between languages. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 384-391.
Wierzbicka, A. (2009). Language and metalanguage: Key issues in emotion research. Emotion
Review, 1, 3-14.
Author Biographies
Mary H. Kayyal is currently a doctoral student at Boston College, working under the supervision of Dr. James A. Russell. Her research focuses on the nature and development of emotion
categories across cultures and languages. Recent first-authored publications include “What
Made Sahar Scared: Imaginary and Realistic Causes in Palestinian and American Children’s
Concept of Fear” in the Journal of Cognition and Culture, in press.
James A. Russell (PhD, University of California, Los Angeles) is a professor of psychology at
Boston College. He studies various aspects of emotion and has recently proposed a conceptual
framework, called psychological construction, to integrate these disparate aspects. He, along
with Jaak Panksepp, was the topic of a recent book titled Categorical Versus Dimensional
Models of Affect: A Seminar on the Theories of Panksepp and Russell.
Downloaded from jls.sagepub.com at BOSTON COLLEGE on November 21, 2013