IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v130y2025i1d10.1007_s11192-024-05215-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The use of emotion words by the sciences and other subjects

Author

Listed:
  • John G. Benjafield

    (Brock University)

Abstract

To what extent are emotion words used in anglophone disciplines? The data used to explore this question were the relative frequencies with which each of 20 emotion words occurred in each of 11 disciplines in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. The subjects examined included astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, mathematics, economics, political science, psychology, history, and philosophy. Each discipline was compared with every other discipline in terms of the relative frequencies of their usage of emotion words in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Every emotion word was used by every discipline in both centuries. Overall, there were more positive than negative emotion words used, although it was suggested that the negative emotion words may be more salient. The use of the words pleasure and amusement declined in frequency in the twentieth century in every discipline. By contrast, the word hate increased in frequency in every discipline in the twentieth century. Over the last few decades an increasing number of disciplines have taken an active interest in emotion as a research topic, and the characteristics of a multidisciplinary approach to emotion are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • John G. Benjafield, 2025. "The use of emotion words by the sciences and other subjects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(1), pages 21-42, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05215-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05215-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05215-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-024-05215-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "“Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-10, April.
    2. Daniele Fanelli & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-11, June.
    3. Charlotte von Bülow & Peter Simpson, 2022. "Negative Capability in Leadership Practice," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-030-95768-1, March.
    4. John G. Benjafield, 2019. "Keyword frequencies in anglophone psychology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1051-1064, March.
    5. John G. Benjafield, 2020. "Vocabulary sharing among subjects belonging to the hierarchy of sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1965-1982, December.
    6. Michael Schneider, 2018. "Carlyle and Boulding: The Two Economists Largely Responsible for Their Discipline Becoming Known as ‘The Dismal Science’," History of Economics Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 70(1), pages 40-48, May.
    7. Claire E. Robertson & Nicolas Pröllochs & Kaoru Schwarzenegger & Philip Pärnamets & Jay J. Bavel & Stefan Feuerriegel, 2023. "Negativity drives online news consumption," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(5), pages 812-822, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nick Haslam & Naomi Baes, 2023. "Scientific eminence and scientific hierarchy: bibliometric prediction of fellowship in the Australian Academy of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(12), pages 6659-6674, December.
    2. John G. Benjafield, 2020. "Vocabulary sharing among subjects belonging to the hierarchy of sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1965-1982, December.
    3. Oliver Wieczorek & Saïd Unger & Jan Riebling & Lukas Erhard & Christian Koß & Raphael Heiberger, 2021. "Mapping the field of psychology: Trends in research topics 1995–2015," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9699-9731, December.
    4. H. Latan & C.J. Chiappetta Jabbour & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour & M. Ali, 2023. "Crossing the Red Line? Empirical Evidence and Useful Recommendations on Questionable Research Practices among Business Scholars," Post-Print hal-04276024, HAL.
    5. repec:plo:pone00:0113901 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Saïd Unger & Lukas Erhard & Oliver Wieczorek & Christian Koß & Jan Riebling & Raphael H Heiberger, 2022. "Benefits and detriments of interdisciplinarity on early career scientists’ performance. An author-level approach for U.S. physicists and psychologists," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-20, June.
    7. Thibaut Arpinon & Marianne Lefebvre, 2024. "Registered Reports and Associated Benefits for Agricultural Economics," Post-Print hal-04635986, HAL.
    8. Pietro Nickl & Mehdi Moussaïd & Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, 2025. "The evolution of online news headlines," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Fabo, Brian & Jančoková, Martina & Kempf, Elisabeth & Pástor, Ľuboš, 2021. "Fifty shades of QE: Comparing findings of central bankers and academics," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-20.
    10. Harrison, Richard T., 2023. "W(h)ither entrepreneurship? Discipline, legitimacy and super-wicked problems on the road to nowhere," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    11. Fabo, Brian & Jančoková, Martina & Kempf, Elisabeth & Pástor, Ľuboš, 2024. "Fifty shades of QE: Robust evidence," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    12. Florian Thomas-Odenthal & Patricio Molero & Willem van der Does & Marc Molendijk, 2020. "Impact of review method on the conclusions of clinical reviews: A systematic review on dietary interventions in depression as a case in point," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-15, September.
    13. Assenza, Tiziana & Collard, Fabrice & Feve, Patrick & Huber, Stefanie, 2024. "From Buzz to Bust: How Fake News Shapes the Business Cycle," CEPR Discussion Papers 18912, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Pei-Shan Chi & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2022. "An article-based cross-disciplinary study of reference literature for indicator improvement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7077-7089, December.
    15. Mario Coccia, 2020. "The evolution of scientific disciplines in applied sciences: dynamics and empirical properties of experimental physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 451-487, July.
    16. Seolmin Yang & So Young Kim, 2023. "Knowledge-integrated research is more disruptive when supported by homogeneous funding sources: a case of US federally funded research in biomedical and life sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3257-3282, June.
    17. John G. Benjafield, 2024. "Exploring relationships among eminent psychologists using co-occurrence analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(3), pages 1787-1799, March.
    18. Marjan Bakker & Coosje L S Veldkamp & Olmo R van den Akker & Marcel A L M van Assen & Elise Crompvoets & How Hwee Ong & Jelte M Wicherts, 2020. "Recommendations in pre-registrations and internal review board proposals promote formal power analyses but do not increase sample size," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, July.
    19. Ximeng Fang & Sven Heuser & Lasse S. Stötzer, 2023. "How In-Person Conversations Shape Political Polarization: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from a Nationwide Initiative," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 270, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    20. Kimmo Eriksson & Brent Simpson, 2013. "Editorial Decisions May Perpetuate Belief in Invalid Research Findings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-6, September.
    21. Marcel A L M van Assen & Robbie C M van Aert & Michèle B Nuijten & Jelte M Wicherts, 2014. "Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-5, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05215-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.