{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022628372497824196, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3535911602209945, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Fuzzy concepts in a fuzzy hierarchy: varieties of anger.

This article argues that the concept of anger is not well characterized from the classical perspective. Instead, its membership is graded, its borders are fuzzy, and its subcategories fail to form a true class-inclusion hierarchy. Ss rated potential anger subcategories (fury, jealousy, annoyance, etc.) and remembered instances of their own anger as varying in degree of membership in anger. Degree of membership (prototypicality) predicted each subcategory's availability from memory given the category name, reaction time to verify its status as a subcategory, and its substitutability within naturally generated sentences about anger. Two predictions of a true class-inclusion hierarchy failed: that Ss would agree in adjudicating the membership of potential subcategories of anger and that all instances of a subcategory of anger would also be instances of anger. As an alternative to the classical view, emotion concepts are hypothesized to vary in their degree of breadth and overlap and to be mentally represented as scripts that allow different instantiations in different contexts.