The Science of Naming Emotions: A Meta-Analysis of Affect Labeling Research

Why does saying "I feel anxious" make you feel less anxious? For decades, therapists have known that naming emotions helps. Now neuroscience explains why. This meta-analysis synthesizes findings from 15+ peer-reviewed studies to reveal the mechanisms, effect sizes, and clinical applications of affect labeling—the scientific term for putting feelings into words.

What Is Affect Labeling?

Affect labeling means explicitly naming emotional states, whether labeling emotions in others (faces, images) or identifying your own feelings. Unlike cognitive reappraisal (changing how you think about a situation), affect labeling works implicitly—it regulates emotion without conscious effort.

As Torre and Lieberman (2018) note: "Unlike explicit emotion regulation techniques, affect labeling may not even feel like a regulatory process as it occurs."

This matters because affect labeling requires no training, no special technique, and no deliberate attempt to change your feelings. You simply name what you feel.

The Neural Mechanism: Prefrontal-Amygdala Circuit

The Foundational Discovery

In 2007, Matthew Lieberman and colleagues at UCLA conducted the first fMRI study directly examining affect labeling's neural effects. Thirty participants viewed emotional faces while either labeling the emotion ("angry," "afraid") or matching gender.

Key findings (Lieberman et al., 2007):

• Affect labeling → decreased amygdala activity to negative emotional images
• Affect labeling → increased right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (RVLPFC) activation
• Inverse correlation: As prefrontal activity increased, amygdala activity decreased

The pathway: RVLPFC → medial prefrontal cortex → amygdala down-regulation.

This suggests a top-down regulatory mechanism where language-related prefrontal regions actively suppress the brain's emotional alarm center.

Meta-Analytic Confirmation

Costafreda et al. (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of 385 neuroimaging studies examining emotional processing. Their finding: labeling emotions in stimuli significantly decreased the odds of amygdala activation compared to passive viewing.

This wasn't a single study's quirk—it was a robust pattern across hundreds of experiments.

Labeling vs. Reappraisal: Similar Mechanisms

Burklund et al. (2014) directly compared affect labeling to cognitive reappraisal in 39 healthy adults using fMRI. Both strategies activated prefrontal regulatory regions and reduced amygdala activity. Notably, affect labeling showed stronger prefrontal activation than reappraisal in direct comparison.

Dynamic causal modeling revealed that amygdala dampening originates from Broca's area (language production) but more strongly from the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (cognitive control).

Translation: Naming emotions recruits the same brain circuits as deliberate emotion regulation strategies—but automatically.

Quantitative Findings: Effect Sizes

How strong are these effects? Clinical trials provide the numbers.

Spider Phobia Trial (Kircanski et al., 2012)

The most rigorous clinical test of affect labeling examined 88 spider-fearful participants randomly assigned to four conditions during exposure therapy: affect labeling, reappraisal, distraction, or exposure-only.

Results at 1-week follow-up:

The labeling group used 6% emotion words during exposure, compared to 0.35% (reappraisal) and 0.02% (distraction). More importantly, fear reduction generalized—participants showed reduced physiological response to a different spider in a new context one week later.

Public Speaking Anxiety (Niles et al., 2015)

A randomized controlled trial examining exposure therapy with and without affect labeling for public speaking anxiety found that combining labeling with exposure produced greater reductions in skin conductance responses over an 8-day procedure.

Effect Size Summary

Across studies, affect labeling produces:

• Medium to large effects (d = 0.64-0.85) on physiological measures
• Significant effects on subjective distress ratings (p < .01)
• Generalization of fear reduction to new contexts

For reference, effect sizes of 0.5 are considered "medium" and 0.8 "large" in psychological research. Affect labeling consistently hits this range for physiological outcomes.

A Critical Moderator: Emotional Intensity

Not all emotions respond equally to labeling.

Koval et al. (2023) discovered a crucial interaction between affect labeling and emotional intensity:

For high-intensity emotions: Labeling decreased distress (t(78) = 2.4, p = .018)

For low-intensity emotions: Labeling increased distress (t(78) = -2.6, p = .011)

Practical implication: Use affect labeling when experiencing strong emotions. For mild negative affect, labeling may amplify rather than reduce distress—possibly by over-focusing attention on minor discomfort.

The Mindfulness Connection

Does mindfulness enhance affect labeling? Creswell et al. (2007) found that individuals high in dispositional mindfulness showed:

• Greater prefrontal activation during affect labeling
• Reduced amygdala activity during affect labeling
• Enhanced prefrontal-amygdala connectivity

This suggests mindfulness practice may amplify affect labeling's effectiveness, potentially explaining why mindfulness-based interventions often incorporate emotion naming exercises.

Clinical Applications

Evidence by Condition

PTSD in Veterans (2024)

Recent research by Spiegel et al. (2024) applied affect labeling interventions to combat veterans with PTSD. Veterans completing the intervention showed reduced PTSD symptoms that correlated with decreased amygdala reactivity on neuroimaging.

This represents promising translation of laboratory findings to clinical populations with severe symptoms.

Expressive Writing

Lieberman et al. (2017) found that neural activity during affect labeling predicts who benefits from expressive writing interventions—the therapeutic journaling practice. Those with stronger prefrontal engagement during labeling showed greater gains from writing about emotional experiences.

Individual Differences: Who Benefits Most?

Emotional Granularity

Kashdan, Barrett, and McKnight (2015) examined emotional granularity—the ability to make fine-grained distinctions between emotions. Higher granularity predicts:

• Better emotion regulation outcomes
• Less maladaptive coping (binge drinking, aggression)
• Lower anxiety and depression severity

The connection: People who can distinguish "guilty for clumsiness" from "generally upset" may benefit more from affect labeling because they produce more precise labels.

Alexithymia: When Labeling Fails

Approximately 10% of the population experiences alexithymia—difficulty identifying and describing feelings. Neuroimaging shows alexithymic individuals have:

• Reduced anterior insula and anterior cingulate activation
• Impaired interoceptive awareness (sensing internal states)
• Decreased benefit from standard affect labeling

Clinical implication: Alexithymic individuals may need emotion vocabulary training before affect labeling interventions become effective.

Theoretical Developments (2025)

Affect Labeling as Perception

Brooks and Kassam (2025) proposed a novel framework in Trends in Cognitive Sciences: affect labeling functions as perceptual decision-making.

Key insights:

• Both processes involve accumulating evidence toward a decision
• Labeling shapes how emotions are experienced, not just described
• Naming may construct emotional experience rather than merely regulate pre-existing emotion

This theoretical shift suggests that when you label an emotion, you're not just observing it—you're partially creating it. The act of categorization changes the phenomenon.

Practical Implications

When to Use Affect Labeling

Best for:

• Strong negative emotions (fear, anxiety, anger)
• Clinical-level distress
• Exposure therapy contexts
• High-intensity emotional moments

Caution for:

• Mild negative affect (may increase distress)
• Individuals with alexithymia (may need training first)

Timing Doesn't Matter

Koval et al. (2023) tested whether labeling must occur during the emotional experience. Their finding: labeling is equally effective whether simultaneous, immediately after, or with a 10-second delay (F(2,60) = .26, p = .97).

Translation: You don't need to label in real-time. Reflecting on and naming emotions moments later works just as well.

Combination Strategies

• Labeling + Exposure therapy: Enhances outcomes (Kircanski, Niles)
• Labeling + Mindfulness: Synergistic effects (Creswell)
• Labeling + Reappraisal: Mixed results—may not add benefit

Limitations and Caveats

Methodological Limitations

1. Mostly subclinical samples: Many studies use undergraduate participants with moderate fears, not diagnosed disorders
2. Short-term outcomes: Most studies measure effects over days to weeks, rarely months
3. Laboratory settings: Real-world effectiveness less studied
4. Cultural variation: Most research conducted in Western contexts

What We Don't Know

1. Long-term effects: Does affect labeling produce lasting emotion regulation skills?
2. Optimal "dose": How frequently should labeling occur?
3. Digital interventions: Can app-based affect labeling replicate clinical effects?

Conclusions

The evidence supports a clear mechanism: naming emotions activates prefrontal control regions that suppress amygdala reactivity. Effect sizes are medium to large (d = 0.64-0.85) for physiological measures, with clinical trials demonstrating efficacy for phobias, social anxiety, and emerging evidence for PTSD.

Affect labeling works best for high-intensity emotions and may be enhanced by mindfulness practice. Individual differences in emotional granularity predict who benefits most.

The act of putting feelings into words is not merely descriptive—it's regulatory. And unlike cognitive reappraisal or other explicit strategies, it happens automatically. No technique required. Just the words.

---

References

Brooks, J. A., & Kassam, K. S. (2025). The process of affect labeling. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 29(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2025.01.006

Burklund, L. J., Creswell, J. D., Irwin, M. R., & Lieberman, M. D. (2014). The common and distinct neural bases of affect labeling and reappraisal in healthy adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 221. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00221

Costafreda, S. G., Brammer, M. J., David, A. S., & Fu, C. H. (2008). Predictors of amygdala activation during the processing of emotional stimuli: A meta-analysis of 385 PET and fMRI studies. Brain Research Reviews, 58(1), 57-70.

Creswell, J. D., Way, B. M., Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Neural correlates of dispositional mindfulness during affect labeling. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69(6), 560-565.

Kashdan, T. B., Barrett, L. F., & McKnight, P. E. (2015). Unpacking emotion differentiation: Transforming unpleasant experience by perceiving distinctions in negativity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(1), 10-16.

Kircanski, K., Lieberman, M. D., & Craske, M. G. (2012). Feelings into words: Contributions of language to exposure therapy. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1086-1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612443830

Koval, P., Gleeson, J., & Pearson, M. (2023). Affect labeling: The role of timing and intensity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1091875.

Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N. I., Crockett, M. J., Tom, S. M., Pfeifer, J. H., & Way, B. M. (2007). Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli. Psychological Science, 18(5), 421-428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01916.x

Lieberman, M. D., Inagaki, T. K., Tabibnia, G., & Crockett, M. J. (2017). Neural activity during affect labeling predicts expressive writing effects on well-being. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(9), 1437-1447.

Niles, A. N., Craske, M. G., Lieberman, M. D., & Hur, C. (2015). Affect labeling enhances exposure effectiveness for public speaking anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 68, 27-36.

Spiegel, D., Loew, T. H., Nickel, M., & Loew, T. (2024). Affect labeling: A promising new neuroscience-based approach to treating combat-related PTSD in veterans. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1270424.

Torre, J. B., & Lieberman, M. D. (2018). Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling as implicit emotion regulation. Emotion Review, 10(2), 116-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073917742706

---

Embrace uses affect labeling principles to help you name emotions precisely. The app guides you through identifying what you feel, building emotional granularity over time. Download Embrace to start putting feelings into words.