A common myth about emotion is that it is merely a feeling. Research has proven that this is just not the case. Emotion and the conceptual definition has long been debated on and altered over decades of emotion research. For instance, Charles Darwin would argue that emotions are automatic and a result of both our genetics and nurture. However, William James would submit that emotions are the perception of bodily changes as we react to external stimuli. Regardless, what we can agree on is as follows: emotions are behavioral, physiological, and experiential. In other words, emotions are multidimensional and cannot be boiled down to a simple term or phrase. In order to understand emotions, we must also understand affects. An affect is a generic term covering a broad range of feelings that people experience. These can include both an emotion (a temporary state) or a mood (an emotional state that can last hours, days, weeks, or longer). It is no surprise that emotions can be perceived as either positive or negative. Regardless, each emotion we experience serves a purpose and each emotion comes with its own set of physiological experiences (heart rate, sweat, etc). These physiological experiences can be perceived differently depending on the individual who experiences it. This statement does not account for the multitude of individuals who have, and would, self-report experiencing not just one but multiple emotions at any given time (Grossman, et al., 2016). So I guess this means that emotions are not merely a feeling then, right?

References

Grossmann, I., Huynh, A. C., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2016). Emotional complexity: Clarifying definitions and cultural correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(6), 895–916. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000084.supp (Supplemental)