Conclusions are limited by the inclusion of only some
Research gap analysis derived from 3 psychology papers in our local library.
The gap
Conclusions are limited by the inclusion of only some discrete emotions, exclusion of studies that did not elicit discrete emotions, few available effect sizes for some contrasts and moderators, and the methodological rigor of included stud
Evidence profile
Stated in the abstract section of the source papers, classified as general, drawn from work published between 2011 and 2026, spanning 3 journals. Those papers have been cited 664 times in total.
Research trend
Established — well-defined area with open sub-problems.
Supporting evidence — 3 representative gaps
- Emotion Knowledge, Emotion Utilization, and Emotion Regulation (2011) · Emotion Review · cited 161× · doi
This article suggests a way to circumvent some of the problems that follow from the lack of consensus on a definition of emotion (Izard, 2010; Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981) and emotion regulation (Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004) by adopting a conceptual framework based on discrete emotions theory and focusing on specific emotions.
generalstated in abstractevidence 5/5Keywords: emotion kleinginna emotions article suggests circumvent problems follow lack consensus definition izard regulation cole martin - Discrete emotions predict changes in cognition, judgment, experience, behavior, and physiology: A meta-analysis of experimental emotion elicitations. (2011) · Psychological Bulletin · cited 503× · doi
Conclusions are limited by the inclusion of only some discrete emotions, exclusion of studies that did not elicit discrete emotions, few available effect sizes for some contrasts and moderators, and the methodological rigor of included studies.
generalstated in abstractevidence 4/5Keywords: discrete emotions conclusions limited inclusion exclusion elicit available effect sizes contrasts moderators methodological rigor included - Who Determines the Meaning of an Emotion? Affective Sovereignty as an Epistemic Consequence of Measurement Limits (2026) · arXiv
Yet a central normative question in this domain has remained underexplored: who has the final authority to determine the meaning of one's own emotion? This study addresses the question from the epistemological side of measurement's structural limits.
generalstated in abstractevidence 4/5Keywords: question central normative domain remained underexplored final authority determine meaning emotion addresses epistemological side measurement
Questions about this gap
Explore this gap further
Run this gap as a query across open scholarly engines for the latest related literature.
Working on this gap? Review it with us.
Science AI Journal reviews manuscripts in one pass with 8 specialised AI agents calibrated on 69,000+ real peer reviews.
Tools for your next paper
Related gaps in Psychology
- Hearing rehabilitation with hearing aids and cochlearHearing rehabilitation with hearing aids and cochlear implants has been connected to increased communication, higher social engagement and d…
- Somatic symptoms are endorsed more stronglySomatic symptoms are endorsed more strongly than affective or cognitive symptoms of depression, suggesting a possible, but yet poorly define…
- Fifty-six families with a preschool child whose parentsFifty-six families with a preschool child whose parents varied widely in parental marital satisfaction were studied at two time points: at t…
- The analysis was limited to articles in English publishedThe analysis was limited to articles in English published between January 1, 2000 and September 1, 2021 on PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google …