What is awe? On an uncontested definition, conceptual ambiguities, and cultural limitations

In the last 20 years, there has been an enormous amount of research on awe and its associations with other phenomena. In this article, we draw on N = 168 publications to argue that it is very difficult to integrate this research into a coherent theory of awe because current awe research lacks a reasonably clear understanding of the phenomenon. In detail, we show that the majority of publications on awe are based on Keltner and Haidt's (2003) approach to awe without putting it to the test. Furthermore, we illustrate how researchers' heavy reliance on the term "awe" in evocation and assessment makes it oftentimes difficult to say what collected data represent. In addition, we identify inconsistencies between researchers' theoretical approach to awe and their empirical methods in some studies. Finally, we outline that there is only very little scientific knowledge about differences in awe across various languages, cultures, and time periods. Based on these claims, we draw conclusions for existing research on awe's associations with other phenomena and for debates about the classification of awe. As a final step, we propose various solutions to solve the problems we identified. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).