The current article discusses the distinction between affective valence—the degree to which an affective response represents pleasure or displeasure—and semantic valence, the degree to which an object or event is considered positive or negative. To date, measures that reflect positivity and negativity are usually placed under the same conceptual umbrella (e.g., valence, affective, emotional), with minimal distinction between the modes of valence they reflect. Recent work suggests that what might seem to reflect a monolithic structure of valence has at least (...) two different, confounding underlying sources, affective and semantic, that are fundamentally distinct, dissociable, and that obey different, recognizable rules. The current work discusses this distinction and provides implications for affective science from both the theoretical and the empirical perspective. (shrink)

The location of verbally reported feelings in a three-dimensional affective space is determined by the results of appraisal processes that elicit the respective states. One group of participants rated their evaluation of 59 pictures from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) on a profile of nine appraisal criteria. Another group rated their affective reactions to the same pictures on the classic dimensions of affective meaning (valence, arousal, potency). The ratings on the affect dimensions correlate differentially with specific appraisal ratings. These (...) results can be interpreted as showing that the reactions to the IAPS pictures are predictably produced through appraisal of picture content. The relevance of the findings for emotion induction paradigms and for emotion theory in general is discussed. (shrink)