How are you feeling? Revisiting the quantification of emotional qualia.

Numerous emotion researchers have asked their study participants to attend to the distinct feelings of arousal and valence, and self-report and physiological data have supported the independence of the two. We examined whether this dissociation reflects introspection about distinct emotional qualia or the way in which valence is measured. With either valence (Experiment 1) or arousal (Experiment 2) as the primary focus, when valence was measured using a bipolar scale (ranging from negative to positive), it was largely dissociable from arousal. By contrast, when two separate unipolar scales of pleasant and unpleasant valence were used, their sum was equivalent to feelings of arousal and its autonomic correlates. The association (or dissociation) of valence and arousal was related to the estimation (or nonestimation) of mixed-valence experiences, which suggests that the distinction between valence and arousal may reflect less the nature of emotional experience and more how it is measured. These findings further encourage use of unipolar valence scales in psychological measurement.

Are valence and arousal separable in emotional experience?

The bipolar valence-arousal model of conscious experience of emotions is prominent in emotion research. In this work, we examine the validity of this model in the context of feelings elicited by visual stimuli. In particular, we examine whether arousal has a unique contribution over bivariate valence (separate measures for pleasure and displeasure) in explaining physiological arousal (electrodermal activity, EDA) and self-reported feelings at the level of item-specific responses across and within individuals. Our results suggest that self-reports of arousal have neither an advantage in predicting EDA nor make a unique contribution when valence is present in the model. Acceptance of the null hypothesis was confirmed with the use of the Bayesian information criterion. Arousal also showed no advantage over valence in predicting global feelings, but demonstrated a small unique component (1.5% to 4% of variance explained). These results have practical implications for both experimental design in the study of emotions and the underlying bases of their conscious experience.