Dominant emotion: meaning and application

You have held interviews, collected associations and looked at behaviour, but do not yet know which feeling colours a group's choice most strongly. Neurofactor uses the working concept dominant emotion for this, not an established term from emotion science. This article explains what we mean by it, how to identify and phrase a dominant emotion and where its limits lie.

In Neurofactor's approach, a dominant emotion is the feeling that appears to be most decisive within a target group around one specific choice, such as cautious optimism, doubt or defensiveness.

It is a group-level summary based on several sources, such as associations, conversations and behaviour. It is not a measurement of one emotion in one person, nor an established scientific category. The statement applies to a particular choice, context and period, and leaves room for variation within the group.

Emotion science has no established definition of dominant emotion as a characteristic of a target group. Neurofactor uses the term in target group profiles because a team needs something to hold on to: which feeling should you take seriously when you design communication, an offer or a change around this choice?

Our working definition is: the feeling that appears to be most decisive, within a defined target group and around a specific choice, for how people approach that choice. Three parts matter.

• Within a target group: it concerns a pattern in a group, not what one person feels.
• Around a specific choice: the same people may feel something quite different about another choice.
• Appears: it is an interpretation of evidence, with uncertainty that you state.

Wordings such as cautious optimism, doubt, defensiveness, relief, irritation or resignation are common. Not all of these words are emotions in a strict scientific sense; some are attitudes or blends. The field deliberately describes what the group experiences, even when that does not fit neatly into one theoretical category.

Emotion researchers do not agree on how best to classify emotions. That debate is open, and it determines how cautiously you should treat a label. Four perspectives help to place the concept.

• Discrete emotions. Ekman argues that there is a limited number of basic emotions, such as fear, anger and happiness, each with its own characteristics. He describes each basic emotion as a family of related states (Ekman, 1992).
• Dimensional models. Russell describes a basic layer of core affect: a combination of pleasant or unpleasant (valence) and activation. In this model, specific emotions arise when people link that basic layer to a cause and interpret it (Russell, 2003).
• Appraisal theory. According to Lazarus, emotions arise from the appraisal of what a situation means for your goals and whether you can cope with it (Lazarus, 1991). Scherer describes an emotion as an episode in which appraisal, bodily response, action tendency, expression and feeling change together. He distinguishes emotions from moods, preferences and attitudes (Scherer, 2005).
• Constructionist critique. Barrett argues that the evidence does not support the view that emotions are natural kinds with fixed boundaries (Barrett, 2006). An extensive review shows that you cannot reliably read one emotion from facial movements, because the link varies by person, situation and culture (Barrett et al., 2019).

What does this mean for you? A dominant emotion on a target group profile is not a discovered natural category, but a plain-language description that best fits what several sources show. The appraisal perspective is practical here: ask not only which feeling is present, but also which appraisal lies behind it. Doubt about a new way of working may stem from uncertainty about implementation or from feeling you have little influence. That difference determines what you do next.

Can a group have an emotion?

Research on group-level emotions shows that people who identify strongly with a group report emotions as group members. These differ from their individual emotions and are more similar within the group (Smith, Seger & Mackie, 2007). That research concerned strong group identities, such as a university or a political party, not marketing target groups. So you cannot use it as evidence that every target group shares an emotion. It does make clear that a group-level statement is something other than a sum of individuals.

The concept closest to dominant emotion is affective valence. Valence describes the direction of a feeling: pleasant or unpleasant. A dominant emotion is more specific. Two feelings with the same negative valence can work out differently. In studies with students, fear went together with more pessimistic risk estimates and anger with more optimistic ones, although both are unpleasant (Lerner & Keltner, 2001). For a target group profile, this means that negative alone is often too coarse to base an approach on.

Read more about the other fields in What are a target group's emotional drivers?, What is emotional pain in a target group profile? and What is an emotional benefit in a target group profile?.

It mainly helps with decisions about approach and tone.

• Choosing a tone. A group that is cautiously optimistic calls for a different tone than a group that responds defensively. The first needs confirmation and clarity, the second acknowledgement and room.
• Deciding the order. If doubt about feasibility prevails, there is little point in repeating the benefits first. You first answer the question that feeds the doubt.
• Selecting evidence. The feeling shows which kind of evidence is relevant. Doubt about implementation calls for a concrete roll-out plan, not another general promise.
• Drafting testable messages. Compare two versions of a message that respond differently to the feeling, with an assessment criterion set in advance.

1. Define the choice. Describe exactly which choice is involved and for which group. Without a choice there is no dominant emotion, only a general mood.
2. Combine types of sources. Use associations (see How do you measure associations?), conversations and behaviour. In conversations, note what people say and how. In behaviour, look at postponing, requesting information or dropping out.
3. Look for agreement. Which feeling recurs across several sources? A label that appears in only one source is a hypothesis.
4. Name the appraisal behind it. What is the feeling about: the implementation, the consequences, one's own influence, the judgement of others?
5. Record the spread. Which other feelings occur, and in which part of the group? Only use numbers if you actually have them.
6. Note context and timing. Record when, in which situation and from which sources you arrived at the label.

A useful wording has three parts: the emotion in plain language, the choice it belongs to and what feeds the feeling. For example: "Cautious optimism about switching to a new planning system, tempered by doubt about whether the roll-out will be completed this time."

• Choose words the target group itself would recognise and avoid clinical terms.
• A combined wording is fine if the sources show it. Naming a blend honestly is better than forcing one emotion.
• Add a short justification: which sources, what spread, how certain.
• Do not put instructions for the provider in this field. The consequence for communication belongs in a separate field.

This example is fictional and for illustration only.

Situation. A service provider wants to introduce a new planning system. Team leaders decide for themselves whether their team switches first.

Choice question. Which feeling determines how team leaders approach this choice?

Available information. Suppose free associations with "new planning system" produce words such as "finally an overview", "yet another new system" and "who is going to arrange that". In conversations, team leaders are positive about the goal but sceptical about earlier roll-outs that stopped halfway. Many team leaders sign up for a demo; few request a test environment.

Approach. Put the sources side by side. All three point in the same direction: interest, but hesitation at the next step.

Possible interpretation. A working hypothesis is cautious optimism with doubt about feasibility. A smaller group responds defensively, because it sees its own way of working threatened. You report that minority separately.

Next step. Test the hypothesis in a second round of conversations or a small pilot. Note that the label applies to the phase before roll-out.

• Using one signal as evidence. A striking quote, one facial expression or one physiological pattern does not determine the label on its own. Consequence: you can only mention such a signal as an indication.
• Confusing group and individual. The dominant emotion describes a group, not every person. So you cannot infer from it what one customer or employee feels.
• Hiding variation. Dominant does not mean that everyone feels it. A minority with a different feeling may be decisive for the choice. Report that group separately.
• Treating the label as permanent. Feelings around a choice change with context and timing. Check the label again when the situation changes.

Dominant emotion is a clarifying Neurofactor working concept: the feeling that appears to be most decisive within a target group around a specific choice. You identify it by combining several sources at group level, and you phrase it in plain language, together with the choice, the underlying appraisal, the spread and the timing. The scientific debate on emotion categories is open, so a dominant emotion is a summary you can test, not a finding.