Emotional Self-Awareness: Recognizing and Naming Feelings

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Consciousness, Metacognition & Self-Awareness · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Emotional self-awareness is the capacity to notice, identify, and interpret one's own emotional experience, including recognizing that a feeling is occurring, distinguishing it from other feelings, and describing it in words when language is available. It includes an ability to attend to emotional changes across situations and to recognize that more than one emotion may occur at once. Emotional self-awareness is one component of self-awareness and overlaps with emotional clarity, emotional knowledge, and some aspects of metacognitive monitoring. It does not require constant introspection or perfectly precise labels.

When a person says, “I feel bad,” they have already detected unpleasant affect. When they recognize, “I am disappointed that my work was overlooked, anxious about tomorrow's decision, and relieved that the meeting is finished,” they are making finer distinctions about emotional experience, its context, and its possible meanings. Such distinctions can inform communication and decisions, although the mere act of naming an emotion does not guarantee that distress will decrease. Research on emotional awareness, affect labeling, and emotion differentiation provides separate, complementary ways to investigate these processes (Lane & Schwartz, 1987; Torre & Lieberman, 2018).

What Emotional Self-Awareness Means in Psychology

Emotions involve coordinated changes in experience, bodily activity, attention, interpretation, expression, and action tendencies. People can feel angry while smiling politely, remain uncertain about whether tension signals fear or excitement, and recognize sadness only after noticing withdrawal or tears. Emotional self-awareness concerns the person's representation of such experiences. It is a psychological process that varies by context, developmental history, linguistic resources, stress, and the demands of the moment.

One influential historical account is Richard Lane and Gary Schwartz's cognitive-developmental model of emotional awareness. Their framework describes increasing differentiation and complexity in the representation of feelings, from bodily and action-oriented reactions through more distinct and blended emotional representations (Lane & Schwartz, 1987). This model is an important theoretical tradition, not a universal ranking of people's maturity or a test that assigns individuals a clinical diagnosis.

Emotional self-awareness has at least four practically identifiable components: detection (“something is happening emotionally”), identification (“this resembles fear rather than anger”), description (“I can communicate what I feel”), and contextual understanding (“this reaction relates to an unmet expectation or perceived threat”). These components can diverge. A person may feel strong bodily arousal yet have few suitable labels, identify an emotion accurately while choosing not to disclose it, or articulate feelings well in calm circumstances but struggle during overwhelming stress.

Everyday Examples of Recognizing Feelings

Recognizing one emotion beneath a broad reaction

After an unanswered message, “I'm furious” may initially be the most accessible description. Later reflection may reveal disappointment, worry about rejection, or anger about a broken agreement. These are hypotheses about one's experience, to be checked against the circumstances and felt qualities rather than accepted because one label sounds sophisticated.

Recognizing mixed emotions

A person can feel proud and nervous about a promotion, affection and frustration toward the same family member, or grief and relief after the end of prolonged caregiving. Recognizing mixed feelings supports a more faithful account of experience. It also explains why a single word can be incomplete without being wrong.

Distinguishing an emotion from a judgment

“I feel ignored” expresses a meaningful interpretation of another person's behavior; “I feel hurt and lonely after the conversation” names the emotional experience more directly. Both kinds of statements may be useful. The difference matters because another person's intentions can remain uncertain even when one's own distress is clear.

Recognizing a physical signal without assuming its cause

A racing heart can accompany fear, excitement, exertion, medication effects, or physical illness. Bodily sensations may contribute to emotional experience, but no individual bodily cue uniquely identifies an emotion. Emotional understanding benefits from combining bodily changes with the situation, thoughts, and personal history (Barrett, 2006/2007).

Emotional Self-Awareness, Self-Awareness, and Metacognition

Self-awareness is a broad family of ways people represent themselves, their attributes, actions, bodily states, and experiences. Emotional self-awareness focuses on the emotion-related part of that family. Introspection is a method of attending to internal experience; self-reflection is more extended consideration of one's thoughts, motives, or life events. A person may engage in introspection without clearly identifying an emotion, and can identify a feeling without producing a detailed account of personal identity.

Metacognition concerns knowledge, monitoring, and control of cognition. Emotional self-awareness overlaps with monitoring because a person can assess and revise an interpretation of their own feeling, yet the constructs are not interchangeable. A confidence judgment about memory performance is metacognitive without being emotional self-awareness. An emotional report describes subjective experience; whether the label is accurate is a separate, methodologically difficult question. Emotional awareness should therefore be distinguished from certainty about one's interpretation.

A meta-analysis of intrapersonal emotion-knowledge measures found that several popular constructs correlate unevenly, with emotion differentiation showing little relationship to some self-reported clarity measures. This cautions against treating emotion labeling, differentiation, clarity, and emotional awareness as one empirically interchangeable skill (Park et al., 2022).

Emotional self-awareness also differs from interpersonal emotion recognition. Identifying an expression in another person's face or voice depends on perceptual and social-contextual information; knowing one's own internal experience involves different evidence. A published English Hub article addresses emotion recognition in faces, voices, and context.

How the Brain and Mind Support Emotional Awareness

Bodily information and interoception

Interoception includes processes by which the nervous system senses, integrates, and interprets signals relating to internal bodily conditions. Heartbeat, breathing, warmth, gastrointestinal sensations, and muscular tension may be available to awareness to varying degrees. These signals are informative, but their interpretation is context-dependent. Research distinguishes actual performance on interoceptive tasks, self-reported attention to bodily signals, and beliefs about interoceptive ability; these measures should not be treated as interchangeable.

A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis found that associations between self-reported interoception and alexithymia depend substantially on the questionnaires and facets assessed. The finding supports a differentiated model of bodily awareness and emotional understanding. It does not justify treating a low self-report score as proof that a person's brain cannot sense emotion.

Attention and conscious noticing

A feeling can influence behavior before it has been explicitly described. Attention changes which internal or external cues become salient; conscious noticing makes some of those cues available for deliberate consideration. Focused attention may assist in identifying feelings, but sustained self-monitoring can also become exhausting or feed repetitive negative thinking. Emotional awareness involves selective, flexible access to emotional information rather than perpetual surveillance of internal states.

Emotion concepts, learning, and language

Emotion words organize experience into communicable categories. The distinctions a person has learned—among sadness, grief, disappointment, loneliness, resentment, embarrassment, or guilt—may help them interpret an ambiguous state in light of social events and past experiences. Theoretical approaches differ over whether such categories are primarily constructed from affect, perception, concepts, and context or reflect more strongly differentiated emotion systems. The established observation is that conceptual knowledge and language participate in how people report, distinguish, and regulate feelings; the exact causal contribution of language to emotion generation remains a live research question (Barrett, 2007; Nook, 2023).

Appraisal and the meaning of a situation

The same physical activation can acquire different emotional significance depending on expectations, goals, perceived control, and social context. Someone whose voice trembles before a speech may interpret the state as fear, anticipation, or excitement. Emotional self-awareness involves examining what the event means to the person while remaining open to more than one account. Meaning can change as new information arrives. A label is a working interpretation, not a permanent identity claim.

Emotional Awareness Versus Emotional Granularity

Emotional granularity, also called emotion differentiation, concerns how distinctly emotional states are represented across moments and situations. Someone may recognize that they feel unpleasant without discriminating whether the experience is fear, shame, anger, or sadness. A finer-grained description may help specify what matters in the situation. Yet emotional granularity and emotional self-awareness have different scopes: granularity particularly concerns differentiation; awareness also involves noticing, interpreting, and monitoring one's feelings, even when a precise distinction is unavailable.

Granularity is often studied through repeated ratings of several emotions in daily life. Researchers analyze patterns of co-occurrence and variation, frequently with within-person correlations. These statistical estimates depend on the emotion items sampled, number of assessments, time frame, response behavior, and analytic decisions. They are not straightforward individual “emotional intelligence scores.” See the English Hub's dedicated Emotional Granularity: Meaning, Measurement, and Evidence for that separate scientific and measurement question.

A meta-analysis of 17 studies reported a small association between greater negative emotion differentiation and fewer maladaptive behaviors (approximately r = −.15), with substantial methodological heterogeneity. This is evidence for a modest relationship across those study designs, not proof that teaching someone additional emotion words will prevent a disorder or change their behavior by a predictable amount. Repeated experience sampling may itself influence granularity, which complicates its use as both a neutral measuring instrument and a potential intervention (2021 ambulatory-assessment study).

Does Naming an Emotion Change How It Feels?

Affect labeling is the process of identifying or putting emotional content into words. It may occur while viewing an emotional image, reflecting on a personal experience, or telling another person what one feels. It overlaps with emotional self-awareness but also appears in experiments that ask people to label an image or someone else's emotion, which is not equivalent to recognizing their own real-world feelings.

In an influential functional MRI experiment, Lieberman and colleagues (2007) found that labeling emotion in negative images, relative to alternative encoding tasks, was associated with reduced amygdala activity and increased activity in right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex; these activities were inversely related in the reported analysis. This is a laboratory finding about a specific task. It does not mean that naming an emotion always “switches off” the amygdala or proves a single neural pathway for all emotional self-awareness.

A theoretical review by Torre and Lieberman (2018) synthesized evidence that affect labeling can resemble implicit emotion regulation across experiential, physiological, neural, and behavioral measures. A small experimental exposure study with spider-fearful participants found lower skin conductance at a one-week follow-up for an affect-labeling condition relative to comparator conditions, while self-reported fear did not differ significantly (Kircanski et al., 2012). Physiological improvement and the subjective feeling of improvement should be described separately.

Important qualifications come from newer experiments. A 2022 study of affect labeling and intensity found that labeling reduced distress in high-intensity negative-image conditions but increased distress in low-intensity conditions. Thus, the advice to name every emotion immediately, in every setting, exceeds the evidence. Context, emotional intensity, experimental design, and the individual's needs matter.

Emotional Self-Awareness and Emotion Regulation

Emotion regulation concerns processes that influence which emotions arise, when they arise, and how they unfold or are expressed. Identifying an emotion may support selecting a response: asking for information when anxious, setting a boundary when angry, seeking contact when lonely, or allowing grief to be felt without requiring an immediate solution. But awareness and regulation are separate outcomes. People can clearly recognize an intense emotion and still find it difficult to manage their behavior. Others may regulate a response effectively without consciously naming the emotion first.

The influential extended process model distinguishes identifying whether regulation is needed, selecting an approach, and implementing it (Gross, 2015). Emotion-awareness difficulties also appear as a dimension within the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, alongside other dimensions such as clarity, acceptance, and access to strategies. These dimensions should not be collapsed into a single ability, and questionnaire scores alone do not diagnose a condition.

The pathway from recognition to action is conditional. A person who accurately identifies fear may benefit from evaluating whether the threat is realistic. Someone who recognizes justified anger may need a communication plan. A person who notices exhaustion may need sleep or a workload change rather than a technique designed to reduce emotional intensity. Awareness supplies information for decisions; effective regulation also depends on circumstances and available options.

What Research Finds—and What It Cannot Establish

Findings supported by multiple research traditions

Emotional awareness can be operationalized and studied with structured responses to emotional scenarios, self-report questionnaires, momentary ratings, and experimental labeling tasks. Research supports meaningful individual and contextual differences in emotional description and differentiation. Laboratory studies show that labeling affect can alter some indices of reactivity in some conditions. Observational and meta-analytic work connects aspects of differentiation or alexithymia with behavioral and psychological outcomes. These are distinct bodies of evidence, with different definitions and causal strength (Lane et al., 1990; Torre & Lieberman, 2018; 2021 differentiation meta-analysis).

What remains preliminary

It is plausible that developing a broader emotion vocabulary, taking short reflective pauses, or reporting momentary experience may help some people notice more distinctions. But a 2024 longitudinal study of a brief online emotion-word task found partial, exploratory associations while reporting no direct intervention-group effects on its central differentiation, self-efficacy, and distress outcomes. That result does not establish a reliable treatment. Similarly, one small pilot study of affect-labeling training for combat-related PTSD showed promising change among completers but cannot establish effectiveness for PTSD treatment without controlled replication (2024 pilot study).

Methodological challenges

Self-report reflects what participants can notice, remember, and say; it can be shaped by social expectations and available vocabulary. Retrospective surveys summarize a person's beliefs about typical experience, whereas experience sampling collects many context-specific reports. Laboratory images evoke only some of the conditions of everyday emotion. Brain-imaging differences are correlates of task performance rather than direct measurements of an individual's inner certainty. Research samples can be disproportionately educated, Western, female, or drawn from students, limiting generalization. Different operational definitions of “awareness,” “clarity,” “differentiation,” and “identification” can produce apparently conflicting results.

Theoretical disagreement persists about how emotional experiences are generated and categorized. Researchers must separate the empirical task used, the psychological process inferred, and the broader philosophical interpretation. Neither emotion words nor neural signals offer a simple universally valid readout of subjective experience.

How Emotional Self-Awareness Is Measured

Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS)

The LEAS presents emotionally evocative interpersonal scenarios and asks respondents to describe how they and another person would feel. Responses are scored using a theory-based system that considers complexity and differentiation. The original validation included 40 undergraduates. The instrument provides a structured research measure of the complexity of emotional representation, not a direct test of every emotion a person has or a stand-alone diagnostic assessment.

Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20)

The TAS-20 assesses aspects of difficulty identifying feelings, difficulty describing feelings, and externally oriented thinking. Its initial development established evidence for a three-factor account (Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 199490005-1)). A later meta-analytic factor analysis of 88 samples drawn from 62 studies (N = 69,722) supported the original three-dimensional structure, while identifying complications involving language versions and measurement (meta-analytic structural study). TAS-20 evaluates an alexithymia-related trait construct; it is not an exhaustive emotional-awareness test or proof of diagnosis by score.

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS)

The DERS includes separable facets of perceived difficulty such as lack of emotional awareness and lack of clarity, in a broader emotion-regulation assessment. Distinguishing those subscales matters: frequency of attending to emotions is conceptually different from being able to identify what one feels. The scale was developed as a research instrument and must be interpreted according to its validated version and intended population (Gratz & Roemer, 2004).

Experience sampling and ecological momentary assessment

Participants report their experiences several times a day over a defined period. This approach captures fluctuations and allows researchers to estimate emotion differentiation within the person. Its strengths are real-world timing and repeated observation; its limitations include participant burden, reactivity to self-monitoring, missing data, and dependence on the set of words offered (experience-sampling review; granularity methods study).

Behavioral and neuroscience tasks

Affect-labeling tasks can compare emotion naming with perceptual matching, passive viewing, distraction, or reappraisal. Researchers may measure report, behavior, skin conductance, or brain activity. These measures capture different outcomes and cannot be substituted for each other. There is no single widely accepted objective test that infallibly determines the accuracy of an individual's inner emotional label.

Emotional Self-Awareness, Alexithymia, and Related Concepts

Alexithymia refers to a cluster of traits involving difficulty identifying and describing feelings and an externally oriented thinking style. It exists along dimensions and can be relevant in multiple clinical and nonclinical populations. A person who struggles to put emotions into words should not infer a disorder from that experience. Alexithymia and emotional self-awareness overlap in the identification and description domains, while their research scales, theoretical focus, and clinical implications differ. For the specific construct and measurement limitations, read the published Alexithymia: Difficulty Identifying and Describing Feelings.

Emotional intelligence is a family of models addressing perception, understanding, use, and management of emotion-related information, sometimes framed as abilities and sometimes as traits. Emotional self-awareness is one contributing process but should not be equated with the entire ability or trait model. The English Hub separately reviews Emotional Intelligence: Ability, Trait, and Scientific Evidence.

Emotional clarity commonly refers to how clearly someone understands what they feel; emotional attention concerns how much they notice or attend to emotional states. Interoceptive awareness focuses on bodily information. Mindfulness is a broader set of attentional and awareness practices, often involving a particular stance toward present experience. Rumination is repetitive dwelling on distress and its implications. People can have high emotional attention and low clarity, or reflect frequently without gaining useful insight. These distinctions help prevent the popular idea that more introspection automatically means greater emotional understanding.

Development, Relationships, and Cultural Context

Children learn emotion categories through bodily experience, social interaction, language, modeling, and discussion. Skills change over development, and performance varies with the kinds of situations and labels children are asked to consider. One prospective study found an indirect developmental pathway between some preschool emotion-labeling difficulties, later emotion lability, and adolescent depressive symptoms in a high-risk cohort (Hollender et al., 2024). It does not show that a vocabulary exercise in preschool will prevent depression.

Close relationships provide contexts for recognizing feelings and discussing their causes, but conversation is not automatically beneficial. In a 2024 study of emotional sharing, the association between sharing and differentiation varied with rumination. Conversations that clarify events, needs, and perspectives may be helpful; repetitive retelling that intensifies self-blame may have different consequences.

Emotional labels are also culturally and linguistically situated. Languages vary in which distinctions they make readily available; display rules, family norms, and communication contexts influence which feelings people report openly. A multilingual person's ability to describe emotion may differ by language without implying any deficit in underlying experience. Studies relying on translated questionnaires must establish the measurement properties of each version before comparing groups. Cultural humility is part of accurate assessment, not merely a courtesy.

How to Practice Recognizing and Naming Feelings

The following sequence is a low-risk reflective exercise consistent with emotion-labeling research. It is an educational method for observing patterns, not a validated treatment protocol or an emotional-awareness test.

Step 1: Notice an occasion rather than monitoring every minute

Choose a manageable moment—for example after a conversation or before a decision. Ask what changed in experience and behavior. A brief pause can be more sustainable than continuous internal monitoring. If attention to feelings increases distress, return attention to your surroundings or an ordinary activity.

Step 2: Describe without immediately explaining

Begin with broad descriptors such as pleasant, unpleasant, tense, quiet, energized, heavy, or unsettled. Notice bodily signals, thoughts, and impulses separately. A physical sensation is a clue; a thought about another person's motives is an interpretation. Neither should automatically substitute for an emotion word.

Step 3: Try one or two plausible emotion labels

Ask whether sadness, disappointment, anxiety, embarrassment, anger, excitement, relief, or another term fits. Mixed or uncertain answers are legitimate. “Possibly anxious, partly hopeful” can be a more accurate report than a forced declaration of certainty. The goal is to test useful distinctions, not to achieve an impressive vocabulary.

Step 4: Link the label to context

Consider the event, expectation, perceived loss, value, or need that makes the reaction understandable. Ask what additional evidence could change the interpretation. The response may also reflect fatigue, illness, medication, or a recent stressor. Context helps prevent treating every intense feeling as a reliable verdict about the external world.

Step 5: Decide whether a response is necessary

Some feelings need acknowledgment and time. Others point toward an action such as clarification, rest, support, problem-solving, or a boundary. Emotional awareness can help organize a choice, but the choice should also consider consequences, safety, and other people's perspectives. Difficult feelings do not always need to be reduced immediately.

Step 6: Revisit patterns gently

If it is useful, record a brief note with the situation, tentative labels, and what happened afterward. Watch for recurring patterns without turning the exercise into compulsive self-tracking. A small number of meaningful observations can be more useful than a large log with uncertain interpretations. Evidence that vocabulary training and self-monitoring improve outcomes remains mixed and context-dependent (2024 training study; experience-sampling study).

When Difficulty Identifying Feelings May Deserve Support

Temporary difficulty labeling emotion is common during stress, rapid change, exhaustion, grief, or a demanding situation. More persistent difficulties can accompany several different experiences or conditions, but the pattern alone does not identify a clinical diagnosis. Trauma-related numbing, dissociation, depression, anxiety, neurodevelopmental differences, medication effects, and physical health concerns require different forms of assessment. They should not all be explained as insufficient emotional vocabulary.

Professional support may be useful when emotional confusion is persistent, causes significant distress, interferes with relationships, or makes it difficult to recognize needs and seek help. A qualified clinician can explore emotional experience alongside mood, sleep, safety, trauma history, medical factors, and functioning. If a person experiences sudden new confusion, major neurological changes, or potentially serious physical symptoms, prompt medical assessment takes priority over psychological self-labeling.

Awareness work should respect the person's tolerance and preferences. People who become overwhelmed or dissociated when focusing inward may benefit from supported, paced approaches rather than prolonged unsupervised introspection. Neither disclosure nor forced emotional naming is a universal requirement for healthy functioning.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is emotional self-awareness in simple terms?

It is the ability to notice what you are feeling, make sense of the experience, and describe it when useful. Someone can recognize “I feel anxious and disappointed” even when they are unsure exactly why. Emotional awareness can be partial, tentative, and context-dependent.

Is emotional self-awareness the same as emotional intelligence?

No. Emotional self-awareness concerns understanding one's own feelings. Emotional intelligence models also address abilities or traits related to understanding others' emotions, reasoning about emotional information, and managing responses. Scientific instruments measuring these constructs do not all test the same capacity.

Does naming feelings make them go away?

Sometimes labeling changes emotional reactivity, but the effect depends on the task and circumstances. Experiments show both reductions and, in some low-intensity conditions, increases in reported distress. A useful emotion label can also improve understanding without reducing the feeling.

What if I cannot find the right emotion word?

Start with a broad descriptor, bodily sensation, or tentative pair of possibilities. The absence of a precise word at one moment is not a diagnosis. If this difficulty is persistent and impairing, clinical assessment can help explore possible explanations.

Can I feel two emotions at once?

Yes. Emotions can be mixed and can shift rapidly. Feeling relief alongside grief, or excitement alongside fear, may accurately describe a complex event. A single label need not exhaust the experience.

How is emotional awareness different from emotion regulation?

Awareness concerns noticing and interpreting emotional experience. Regulation concerns influencing how emotions unfold or how one responds to them. Awareness can inform regulation, but knowing what one feels does not automatically provide a workable response strategy.

Is emotional self-awareness a clinical diagnosis?

No. It is a psychological construct and a topic of measurement and research. Some conditions can involve difficulty identifying or describing feelings, yet evaluation requires consideration of a wider clinical picture and appropriate professional assessment.

Can a person be emotionally aware without talking about feelings?

Yes. Internal recognition and interpersonal disclosure are different processes. People may recognize an emotion clearly while choosing privacy, silence, art, movement, or another form of expression. Social rules and personal circumstances influence how feelings are communicated.

Is an emotion wheel a scientifically proven treatment?

An emotion wheel may provide convenient vocabulary for reflection, but the chart itself is not a universally validated therapy. Research on affect labeling or emotion differentiation does not demonstrate that every commercial wheel or app improves mental health outcomes. It is best treated as an optional aid to language.

Can emotional self-awareness improve with practice?

Some skills and patterns of reporting may change with experience, reflection, learning, or therapy. Research includes promising observational and experimental findings, but the durability, size, and generalizability of improvement from any specific self-guided exercise remain uncertain. Progress can mean recognizing uncertainty, making fewer premature assumptions, or responding more thoughtfully—not simply producing more emotion words.

Related Articles

Emotional Granularity: Meaning, Measurement, and Evidence examines how differentiated emotional experience is operationalized and measured.

Alexithymia: Difficulty Identifying and Describing Feelings explains the related trait construct and limitations of screening instruments.

Emotional Intelligence: Ability, Trait, and Scientific Evidence places awareness within broader emotion-related abilities and traits.

Emotion Recognition: Faces, Voices, and Context covers the separate task of interpreting emotional cues in others.

References

Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A., & Taylor, G. J. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale—I: Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(94)90005-190005-1)

Barrett, L. F. (2007). The experience of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 373–403. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085709

Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94

Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781

Hoemann, K., Barrett, L. F., & Quigley, K. S. (2021). Emotional granularity increases with intensive ambulatory assessment: Methodological and individual factors influence how much. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.704125

Hollender, A. E., et al. (2024). Childhood emotion dysregulation mediates the relationship between preschool emotion labeling and adolescent depressive symptoms. Emotion, 24(1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001248

Kashdan, T. B., & Farmer, A. S. (2014). Differentiating emotions across contexts: Comparing adults with and without social anxiety disorder using random, social interaction, and daily experience sampling. Emotion, 14(3), 629–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035796

Kircanski, K., Lieberman, M. D., & Craske, M. G. (2012). Feelings into words: Contributions of language to exposure therapy. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1086–1091. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4721564/

Lane, R. D., Quinlan, D. M., Schwartz, G. E., Walker, P. A., & Zeitlin, S. B. (1990). The Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale: A cognitive-developmental measure of emotion. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55(1–2), 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1990.9674052

Lane, R. D., & Schwartz, G. E. (1987). Levels of emotional awareness: A cognitive-developmental theory and its application to psychopathology. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(2), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.144.2.133

Levy-Gigi, E., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2022). Affect labeling: The role of timing and intensity. PLOS ONE, 17(12), e0279303. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279303

Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N. I., Crockett, M. J., Tom, S. M., Pfeifer, J. H., & Way, B. M. (2007). Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli. Psychological Science, 18(5), 421–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01916.x

Matt, L. M., Seah, T. H. S., & Coifman, K. G. (2024). Effects of a brief online emotion word learning task on negative emotion differentiation, emotional self-efficacy, and prospective distress: Preliminary findings. PLOS ONE, 19(2), e0299540. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299540

Myin-Germeys, I., et al. (2018). Experience sampling methodology in mental health research: New insights and technical developments. World Psychiatry, 17(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20513

Nook, E. C. (2023). The promise of affective language for identifying and intervening on psychopathology. Affective Science, 4, 517–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-023-00199-w

Park, J., Zhan, X., & Naragon-Gainey, K. (2022). Meta-analysis of the associations among constructs of intrapersonal emotion knowledge. Emotion Review, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739211068036

Parker, J. D. A., Taylor, G. J., & Bagby, R. M. (2003). The 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale: III. Reliability and factorial validity in a community population. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 55(3), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00578-000578-0)

Schroeders, U., Kubera, F., & Gnambs, T. (2022). The structure of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20): A meta-analytic confirmatory factor analysis. Assessment, 29(8), 1806–1823. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211033894

Seah, T. H. S., & Coifman, K. G. (2022). Emotion differentiation and behavioral dysregulation in clinical and nonclinical samples: A meta-analysis. Emotion, 22(7), 1686–1697. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000968

Sels, L., Erbas, Y., O’Brien, S. T., Verhofstadt, L., Clark, M. S., & Kalokerinos, E. K. (2024). The double-edged sword of social sharing: Social sharing predicts increased emotion differentiation when rumination is low but decreased emotion differentiation when rumination is high. Psychological Science, 35(10), 1079–1093. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241266513

Torre, J. B., & Lieberman, M. D. (2018). Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling as implicit emotion regulation. Emotion Review, 10(2), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073917742706

Van Bael, K., Scarfo, J., Suleyman, E., Katherveloo, J., Grimble, N., & Ball, M. (2024). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between subjective interoception and alexithymia: Implications for construct definitions and measurement. PLOS ONE, 19(11), e0310411. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310411