Core Affect: Valence, Arousal, and Subjective Experience
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 13, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Emotion & Affect Science · Written by Artificial Sapiens
Core affect is the continuously changing quality of how a person feels, described in James A. Russell’s model by two broad dimensions: valence (pleasant to unpleasant) and arousal (activated to deactivated). Someone may feel pleasantly calm, pleasantly excited, unpleasantly tense, or unpleasantly depleted. These descriptions locate the immediate affective tone of experience before identifying a specific emotion, object, or cause. Core affect is a theoretical construct within affective science, not a clinical diagnosis or a claim that all emotions can be completely explained by two numbers. Russell (2003) developed the influential account; Russell and Barrett (1999) distinguished this elemental feeling from full emotional episodes.
What Is Core Affect in Psychology?
In Russell’s psychological construction framework, core affect is the elementary, consciously accessible feeling of pleasure or displeasure and of energy or lethargy that may fluctuate from moment to moment. It is available to awareness even when someone cannot identify a particular stimulus that caused it. A person can recognize feeling uneasy or comfortable without having already decided whether the experience is fear, frustration, disappointment, relief, or something else. The concept addresses the general quality of the current affective state, rather than the entire sequence of appraisals, memories, bodily changes, motives, and actions that may comprise an emotion episode. Russell (2003).
The word core refers to the theoretical role of these two dimensions in a broad range of affective phenomena. In this account, an emotional episode can develop when affect becomes associated with a perceived cause and additional psychological processes organize the response. A pleasant feeling after hearing good news, for example, may become joy about a specific event. The feeling is part of the episode, but identifying what happened, interpreting its meaning, preparing to act, and communicating the experience add information beyond affective valence and arousal. Russell's explanation is influential and testable; alternative theories assign different causal and organizational roles to these components. Scherer and Moors (2019).
Valence: The Pleasant–Unpleasant Dimension
Valence describes the hedonic quality of an experience: how pleasant or unpleasant it feels to the person. A positive-valence state may be enjoyable, reassuring, or comfortable; a negative-valence state may be aversive, distressing, or uncomfortable. States near the middle may be relatively neutral, faint, or difficult to characterize. Valence is an experiential dimension, not an ethical judgment or a fixed verdict about whether an emotion is useful. Unpleasant apprehension can be informative in a genuinely risky situation, while pleasant relief may be short-lived or contextually misleading. Barrett (2006) explains the proposed centrality of valuation in emotional life.
Valence should be distinguished from whether a person approves of having an emotion. Someone might enjoy a frightening movie while also experiencing moments of discomfort, or dislike being angry while feeling energized by the anger. Researchers must decide whether they are asking about the immediate pleasantness of a state, evaluation of an event, satisfaction with life, a moral judgment, or attitudes toward an emotion. These questions can yield different answers. Hedonic tone is one dimension of affective experience, and a given episode may contain changing evaluations and mixed feelings over time. Mauss and Robinson (2009) review how differences in measures change what emotion studies can claim.
Is Negative Valence the Same as Sadness, Anxiety, or Illness?
Negative valence groups together many unpleasant experiences without identifying which specific emotion is present. Sadness, disgust, shame, irritation, pain-related distress, and fear may all involve unpleasantness, but they differ in situational meaning, action tendencies, bodily experience, and reported qualities. Experiencing unpleasant affect is part of ordinary psychological life. A mental health diagnosis requires its own clinical criteria, time course, impairment assessment, and context; an unpleasant-valence rating supplies none of these by itself. The model should therefore never be used to diagnose anxiety, depression, trauma-related conditions, or any other disorder from a single mood report.
Arousal: The Activation–Deactivation Dimension
Arousal in the core affect framework is the felt level of activation, wakefulness, or energy within an affective state. High subjective arousal can accompany excitement, alarm, enthusiasm, agitation, or intense anticipation. Low arousal can accompany serenity, fatigue, boredom, or feeling emotionally flat. Crucially, valence helps distinguish pleasant excitement from unpleasant tension, and pleasant relaxation from unpleasant weariness. Arousal is not automatically the same as emotional intensity, heart rate, physiological sympathetic activation, or being medically alert. Researchers use these related terms in different ways, and their measures can diverge. Yik, Russell, and Steiger (2011) investigated detailed patterns in self-reported core affect.
An example makes the distinction tangible. Consider two people before a public performance. Both report strong bodily energy and a sense of being highly activated. One finds that energy enjoyable and describes eager anticipation; the other finds it unpleasant and describes dread. Their felt arousal could be similar while valence differs markedly. Now compare someone at ease on a quiet afternoon with someone exhausted after an unpleasant day. Both may report low arousal, but the experience of restful calm differs from dispirited fatigue. Valence and arousal therefore answer complementary descriptive questions about what a moment feels like.
Subjective Arousal Is Not a Single Physiological Signal
The word arousal appears in studies of autonomic physiology, wakefulness, neural activity, motivation, and subjective experience, but agreement between measures is incomplete. Heart rate, electrodermal activity, pupil size, movement, and brain signals each index particular physiological or behavioral processes. They cannot be freely substituted for the felt experience of being energized. A comprehensive methodological review, Measuring Arousal: Promises and Pitfalls, argues that arousal is multifaceted and varies across people and contexts. This matters whenever a wearable device or experiment labels a bodily reading as the person's emotional state.
Recent neuroimaging provides a useful example of both progress and limits. In a 2025 study, Zhang and colleagues trained and validated a distributed brain-based predictive signature associated with participants' self-reported affective arousal across several experimental conditions. The work provided evidence that neural patterns related to subjective arousal can be meaningfully distinguished from some measures of autonomic reactivity and wakefulness. It remains a research model developed under specific methods and samples; predictive association does not turn a brain signal into unmediated access to another person's experience. Zhang et al. (2025).
How Valence and Arousal Work Together
The familiar two-dimensional space places valence along one axis and arousal along another. It permits a useful first description of affective life without requiring someone to select a particular emotion word. Four illustrative regions emerge: pleasant/high-arousal feelings such as exhilaration; unpleasant/high-arousal feelings such as agitation; pleasant/low-arousal feelings such as contentment; and unpleasant/low-arousal feelings such as drained discouragement. These are explanatory examples, not diagnostic categories, and actual feeling states are distributed continuously across the space. Russell (1980) proposed a circumplex organization that helped establish this dimensional approach.
A location on this map describes a person's report under a particular measurement scheme. It does not fix the exact emotion, physiological signature, meaning, future behavior, or situation that produced the feeling. Two people at comparable coordinates may label their experiences differently. Two situations with the same emotion label may also involve different valence or arousal profiles. Even within one person, an episode can move around the space: an initially frightening surprise may become excitement after the person recognizes that a feared outcome will not occur. The map is a representation of selected qualities of experience rather than a complete mechanism of emotion.
Are Valence and Arousal Independent?
Drawing two perpendicular axes is mathematically convenient. It does not establish that valence and arousal are statistically independent in life. Kuppens, Tuerlinckx, Russell, and Barrett (2013) reviewed evidence indicating that highly pleasant and highly unpleasant experiences often involve greater arousal than more neutral experiences, producing a frequently described V-shaped relationship. Its exact form varies by person, sampling method, and context. The apparent shape of an affective space may also depend on whether investigators measure activation, tension, pleasure, or high-activation positive and negative states.
Subsequent cross-cultural and individual-differences research examined why these relations vary. Kuppens et al. (2017) associated differences in the valence–arousal relationship with personality and cultural context in their study samples. Such findings make it important to distinguish the structural axes of a model from the empirical distribution of actual reports. A conceptual model can have two distinguishable dimensions even if people rarely occupy certain combinations or if extreme pleasantness and unpleasantness are often experienced as more activating.
Core Affect and the Circumplex Model: How Are They Related?
Core affect and the circumplex are closely related concepts with different analytical jobs. Core affect names the hypothesized elemental state of feeling good or bad and energized or depleted. A circumplex is a spatial model for representing relations among affective concepts or reports. The circle arranges descriptions such as excited, tense, sad, sleepy, serene, and content in a patterned order: similar experiences lie nearer together, while experiences with contrasting profiles tend to lie farther apart. Russell's 1980 work helped formalize this arrangement; his 2003 theory developed a broader account of how core affect participates in emotional episodes. Russell (1980); Russell (2003).
Models vary in how many positions they distinguish, which adjectives populate the space, and whether dimensions are rotated or decomposed into other factors. A particularly detailed investigation by Yik, Russell, and Steiger (2011) developed a 12-point circumplex representation using several studies and alternative self-report formats. That research shows how much more refined a dimensional account can become than the classroom image of four quadrants. The empirical usefulness of circumplex structures still depends on the language of the items, measurement design, sample, and theoretical assumptions.
Core Affect, Emotion, Feeling, Mood, and Affect
These neighboring terms have overlapping everyday meanings but distinct roles within many scientific accounts. Affect is a broad umbrella term for positively or negatively toned experience and related responses; in clinical descriptions, observed affect may refer to an examiner's characterization of expressive display. Core affect is one specifically defined theoretical construct. Feeling commonly refers to the subjective, consciously experienced aspect of a state, though different authors use it differently. Emotion often describes a coordinated episode involving significance, appraisal, physiological and action-related changes, experience, and expression. Mood often refers to a more sustained or diffuse affective condition, sometimes without a salient object. Russell and Barrett (1999); Scherer and Moors (2019).
Imagine waking up tired and mildly irritable without knowing why. A core-affect description might be unpleasant and low-to-moderate in activation; the diffuse persistence of the state could also be described as a mood. Later, a colleague criticizes your work and you feel anger directed toward the criticism. That episode includes an attributed cause and potentially shifts in appraisal, behavior, and bodily activation. The description of its valence and arousal remains informative, but it does not capture its interpersonal meaning or the reasons why anger rather than fear or shame developed. Models disagree about the degree to which these processes depend on a common affective foundation.
Is Core Affect Always Conscious?
Russell’s definition characterizes core affect as accessible to consciousness: the person can, at least in principle, experience its pleasantness and activation. This does not mean people continuously notice or verbally report it, or that all influences on the state are consciously known. It also does not entail that every physiological affect-related response has a conscious counterpart. Studies may distinguish implicit evaluation, bodily change, attention, and a participant's report of felt experience. The claim that core affect is a fundamental ingredient of emotion belongs to a theoretical account, whereas questions about awareness and reporting require separate empirical investigation. Russell (2003).
Where Does Core Affect Come From?
Core affect can fluctuate as many internal and external influences converge. These include bodily comfort, pain, fatigue, sensory environments, movement, food-related states, interpersonal exchanges, expectations, recollections, and events interpreted as rewarding or threatening. Within Russell's account, the person may be aware of a change in feeling without accurately identifying its source. A stressful commute can leave someone on edge by the time they reach work; a comfortable setting or good conversation can alter the felt tone of an afternoon. These illustrations describe plausible pathways rather than assigning a deterministic emotional result to any one stimulus. Russell (2003).
Attribution matters because people try to explain what they feel. A sudden unpleasant surge of activation might be associated with an upcoming meeting, a recent argument, physical exertion, or several influences together. The causal story a person tells may be partly accurate, incomplete, or revised when new information emerges. Core affect, therefore, provides a vocabulary for what a moment feels like while the search for why it feels that way requires additional psychological evidence. This also explains why correlations between a reported state and an environmental event should not automatically be presented as a complete causal mechanism.
Core Affect, Appraisal, and the Construction of Emotion
Theories of emotion make different predictions about how felt valence, arousal, meaning, and specific emotion categories fit together. In Russell's psychological construction approach, core affect is central and can become attributed to an object or event; additional processes yield what people identify as anger, fear, joy, and other emotional episodes. Barrett and Bliss-Moreau's review similarly presents affect as a candidate psychological primitive influencing perception, learning, and consciousness. These accounts are influential theoretical explanations and should be presented as such. Barrett and Bliss-Moreau (2009).
Appraisal-oriented approaches emphasize how individuals evaluate an event's significance for their concerns and goals, with changing action tendencies, bodily responses, expression, feelings, and labeling. Other perspectives emphasize recurrent emotion categories and their functions. Different approaches can agree that a situation involves pleasantness and activation yet disagree about how sufficient these dimensions are, where causation begins, or what counts as a basic component. The value of the core affect framework lies in the research questions it organizes, not in a claim that all scientific accounts of emotion have converged on one ontology. Scherer and Moors (2019).
Two Dimensions Cannot Fully Describe Every Emotion
Experimental evidence gives a specific reason to preserve the complexity of emotional experience. In a large investigation of responses to emotionally evocative videos, Cowen and Keltner (2017) found a richer structure of reported emotional categories connected by gradients; participants' reports were not exhausted by valence and arousal ratings. This does not abolish dimensional models. It indicates that dimensions and emotion categories may answer different questions and that a two-axis representation sacrifices meaningful information about content. An awe-filled experience and excited amusement might share broad affective coordinates while differing dramatically in appraisal and subjective quality.
Does the Body Produce Core Affect?
Affective feeling is connected to bodily and brain processes, but scientific evidence does not establish one isolated bodily variable that uniquely determines subjective valence or arousal. Autonomic activation, posture, breathing, sensory input, brain networks, and interpretations of internal changes can covary with reported states in context-dependent ways. The importance of bodily information varies across theoretical approaches. Neuroscientific meta-analysis indicates that emotion-related processes draw on distributed and interacting brain systems rather than neatly separable, exclusive regions for every emotion category. Lindquist et al. (2012).
A key experimental distinction is between three levels: an individual's own report of felt arousal, physiological measurements such as skin conductance or heart rate, and models that statistically predict reports from recordings. Researchers can compare these levels and investigate their relations, but evidence of association is not proof of identity. The 2025 distributed-neural-signature study illustrates potential for improved prediction while retaining the difference between neural measurement and phenomenological experience. Zhang et al. (2025). Claims that a camera, voice analyzer, smartwatch, or other automated system directly reads a person's inner state should be assessed against this distinction.
How Scientists Measure Core Affect
Because core affect concerns subjective experience, carefully designed self-report is central to much of its research. Investigators may ask how pleasant or unpleasant someone feels right now, how activated or sleepy they feel, or ask for ratings of adjectives positioned around a circumplex. Momentary assessment can be repeated throughout the day to study within-person variability and temporal patterns; laboratory measures may focus on responses to controlled images, sounds, films, or tasks. The chosen scale defines which aspect of affect is being recorded, and repeated reports help separate a fleeting state from an individual's usual pattern. Yik, Russell, and Steiger (2011).
One established method is the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM), a pictorial rating procedure that asks about pleasure, arousal, and dominance. In research comparing measures, Bradley and Lang (1994) reported strong correspondence between its pleasure and arousal reports and ratings from a longer semantic differential measure in the studied setting. Dominance is an additional dimension in SAM, reminding readers that an instrument can measure affective qualities beyond the two-dimensional core affect formulation. Instruments should be matched to the precise construct and time scale under investigation, rather than selected because all include the word emotion.
Core Affect and PANAS Are Related but Different Measurement Models
The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) is often mentioned alongside valence and arousal, but its positive and negative affect scales are not simply the pleasant and unpleasant ends of a single core-affect valence axis. PANAS uses multiple emotion-related descriptors, many incorporating activation. Scores reflect the structure and content of that instrument, which was originally developed and evaluated for the two affect scales. For example, highly enthusiastic and highly nervous ratings can involve activation in distinct valence contexts. Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988).
When reading a study, check the exact item wording, response period, scoring, and whether authors measured current feeling, typical affect, stimulus evaluation, or a more general mood disposition. Two papers can both mention positive affect while testing different hypotheses. Even superficially comparable scales may not be interchangeable across linguistic groups or experimental settings. This is why construct validity and measurement design matter more than the familiar labels on questionnaire subscales. Mauss and Robinson (2009).
Limits of Self-Report and Sensor-Based Assessment
Self-report gives access to the participant's own characterization of experience, but it can be affected by language, memory, attention, expectations, familiarity with emotion words, and the demands of a task. Retrospective answers may summarize an interval differently from repeated in-the-moment judgments. Physiological and expressive recordings contribute complementary evidence yet introduce their own interpretive uncertainties. A well-designed study specifies whether it predicts a label, correlates with ratings, identifies an experimental condition, or supports an actual causal explanation. Mauss and Robinson (2009).
The presence of two axes also should not encourage assigning fixed universal cutoffs to ordinary life. A rating of seven on one laboratory's activation scale has meaning through that scale's anchors, sample, and procedure; it does not translate directly into a clinical state. Researchers must examine reliability, validity, cultural appropriateness, statistical uncertainty, and the degree to which a measure works for within-person versus between-person comparisons. These are ongoing problems in affective measurement, not reasons to discard subjective reports.
Individual, Cultural, and Contextual Variation
People can differ in which affective states they encounter, how strongly they report them, the situations associated with them, and the vocabulary used to describe them. Some people may experience high activation as desirable or exciting in contexts where others find it unsettling. Recalled feelings can be shaped by cultural expectations and personal habits of attention. Kuppens et al. (2017) studied personality and cultural variation in the reported relationship between valence and arousal, underscoring that the two-axis diagram is an organizing proposal, not a rigid cross-population law.
In ordinary conversation, differences in emotional language can make apparently similar reports difficult to compare. Words such as calm, energized, upset, or content can have different connotations and social uses. Scientists therefore need to test whether translated measures preserve their intended construct and whether response patterns reflect the same interpretations of questions. Findings from one set of participants or emotion-induction materials require careful generalization. The empirical observation that two dimensions frequently describe substantial variance in reports is compatible with variation in how emotional categories, meanings, and experiences are organized.
What Core Affect Can Explain—and What It Cannot
The model provides a compact way to organize a wide range of changing feelings, to compare momentary states, and to ask how pleasantness and activation relate to attention, perception, bodily responses, events, and later emotion labels. It is particularly useful when people have a clear felt tone but no precise explanation or emotion word. Its strength is conceptual economy: researchers can operationalize valence and arousal, study their relationship, and compare responses under explicit assumptions. Russell (2003); Yik, Russell, and Steiger (2011).
Its explanatory limits are equally important. Two dimensions alone do not determine an emotional episode's object, meaning, social function, duration, learning history, category, or specific bodily response. They do not establish which mechanism caused the state or whether a causal pathway is identical across people. They also do not settle theoretical disagreements between constructionist, appraisal, and basic-emotion accounts. Evidence for richer categories and distributed brain networks makes simple one-to-one mapping especially problematic. Cowen and Keltner (2017); Lindquist et al. (2012).
Practical Meaning: How to Understand Your Current Feeling
A practical application of the model is to describe a current state in two steps. First ask, "How pleasant or unpleasant does this feel?" Then ask, "How activated or low-energy do I feel?" Someone might notice pleasant low arousal after a quiet walk, unpleasant high arousal during a disagreement, or unpleasant low arousal after a draining day. These questions may help articulate distinctions before a specific emotion word emerges. They are descriptive prompts inspired by the model, not a validated treatment protocol or a diagnostic screen.
A second step is to consider context: What happened? What is my body doing? What meaning am I giving the situation? Has this state been present for minutes, hours, or days? Another person may attach a different emotional label to a similar combination of pleasantness and energy. Appreciating this variation can sharpen discussion and the interpretation of research without assuming the diagram explains every cause. Persistent or disruptive distress should be evaluated through appropriate clinical criteria and professional assessment, rather than through valence–arousal quadrants.
Common Misconceptions About Core Affect
"Core affect is one of the basic emotions" mixes two distinct theories. Core affect describes general dimensions of felt experience in Russell's account, while basic-emotion theories propose distinct recurrent emotion categories or systems. "Arousal is just heart rate" conflates felt activation with a physiological measure. "The axes are always independent" confuses conceptual dimensions with observed statistical relationships. "Feeling bad means psychiatric illness" mistakes ordinary unpleasant experience for a clinical diagnosis. "A computer can read emotion directly from valence and arousal" overstates what behavioral, physiological, and predictive measures can reveal. Each interpretation is corrected by keeping definitions, data, and causal inference separate. Russell (2003); Mauss and Robinson (2009).
Frequently Asked Questions
What is core affect in simple terms?
It is the immediate feeling tone of a moment, described by how pleasant or unpleasant and how activated or depleted you feel. In Russell's model it can exist before the person identifies a specific emotion or source. Core affect helps describe what a state feels like, while appraisal, context, and other processes contribute to interpreting what the state means. Russell (2003).
What are the two dimensions of core affect?
Valence runs from pleasant to unpleasant, and arousal from activated to deactivated. Their combination describes states such as excitement, agitation, tranquility, and fatigue-related discomfort. The dimensions are conceptually distinguishable, while their statistical relationship varies across people and settings. Kuppens et al. (2013).
Is core affect the same thing as mood?
A mood can be experienced as diffuse affect without an obvious immediate object, and in Russell's theory core affect helps explain that feature. Mood also typically refers to a relatively sustained condition, whereas core affect can vary continuously. Different theories define mood, feeling, and emotion somewhat differently. Russell and Barrett (1999).
Can the same level of arousal occur in happiness and fear?
Yes. Highly activating pleasant and unpleasant states can overlap in reported activation despite differing in valence, appraisal, and meaning. This is one reason a heart-rate or activity measurement alone cannot identify which emotion a person experiences. Mauss and Robinson (2009).
Is the circumplex model scientifically proven?
The circumplex is a well-studied and useful representational framework with considerable evidence from self-report research. Its exact structural details and explanatory scope remain subjects of investigation. It should be evaluated against alternative multidimensional and categorical findings rather than treated as a complete, universally established theory of every emotion. Yik et al. (2011); Cowen and Keltner (2017).
How can core affect be measured?
Researchers often use momentary pleasantness and arousal ratings, circumplex adjective scales, repeated experience sampling, or pictorial measures such as SAM. Physiology and neural signals may complement self-report but measure related, nonidentical processes. Researchers should specify what the measure actually captures. Bradley and Lang (1994); Mauss and Robinson (2009).
Does core affect determine which emotion someone feels?
A given valence–arousal combination underdetermines the specific emotion. Context, conceptual knowledge, appraisal, the event's significance, and other processes contribute to what people report. Accounts differ about the precise causal relations among these components. Russell (2003); Scherer and Moors (2019).
Can AI or a wearable device directly detect core affect?
Automated systems can measure signals and predict aspects of labels or self-reports in evaluated conditions. A predicted rating is not direct observation of another person's subjective experience. Accuracy and generalization depend on device, training data, population, context, and intended construct. Zhang et al. (2025).
Conclusion
Core affect is a major theoretical framework for studying the felt dimensions of psychological life. Valence describes pleasantness; arousal describes subjective activation. Their combination gives researchers and readers a flexible language for comparing changing states and understanding why identical levels of activation can accompany different feelings. Evidence supports the utility of dimensional descriptions, while ongoing research establishes variation in these dimensions' relation and meaningful emotional features beyond the two-axis model. The strongest use of core affect is a precise description of a specific aspect of experience, accompanied by attention to context, measurement, and competing scientific explanations.
For additional scientific context, see What Are Emotions? Psychological Definition, Components, and Functions.
Related Articles
Sleep and Emotional Regulation: Effects on Mood and Stress examines how sleep relates to emotional states and their management in the neighboring English Hub territory.
Emotional Numbing After Trauma: Meaning, Causes, and Recovery examines an independently owned clinical topic; reduced or altered affective experience requires more than a two-dimensional description.
References
Barrett, L. F. (2006). Valence is a basic building block of emotional life. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.006
Barrett, L. F., & Bliss-Moreau, E. (2009). Affect as a psychological primitive. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 167–218. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2884406/
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The Self-Assessment Manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49–59. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7962581/
Cowen, A. S., & Keltner, D. (2017). Self-report captures 27 distinct categories of emotion bridged by continuous gradients. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(38), E7900–E7909. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1702247114
Kuppens, P., Tuerlinckx, F., Russell, J. A., & Barrett, L. F. (2013). The relation between valence and arousal in subjective experience. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 917–940. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23231533/
Kuppens, P., Tuerlinckx, F., Yik, M., Koval, P., Coosemans, J., Zeng, K. J., & Russell, J. A. (2017). The relation between valence and arousal in subjective experience varies with personality and culture. Journal of Personality, 85(4), 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12258
Lindquist, K. A., Wager, T. D., Kober, H., Bliss-Moreau, E., & Barrett, L. F. (2012). The brain basis of emotion: A meta-analytic review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(3), 121–143. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22617651/
Mauss, I. B., & Robinson, M. D. (2009). Measures of emotion: A review. Cognition and Emotion, 23(2), 209–237. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19809584/
Reid, T., Nielson, C., & Wormwood, J. B. (2025). Measuring arousal: Promises and pitfalls. Affective Science, 6(2), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-024-00288-4
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714
Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110(1), 145–172. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12529060/
Russell, J. A., & Barrett, L. F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: Dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 805–819. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10353204/
Scherer, K. R., & Moors, A. (2019). The emotion process: Event appraisal and component differentiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 719–745. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30110576/
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://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3397865/
Yik, M., Russell, J. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2011). A 12-point circumplex structure of core affect. Emotion, 11(4), 705–731. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21707162/
Zhang, R., Gan, X., Xu, T., Yu, F., Wang, L., Song, X., Jiao, G., Liu, X., Zhou, F., & Becker, B. (2025). A neurofunctional signature of affective arousal generalizes across valence domains and distinguishes subjective experience from autonomic reactivity. Nature Communications, 16, 6492. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-61706-0