Abstract Cognitive reappraisal is an emotion regulation strategy that involves changing one’s interpretation of a situation to change its emotional impact. Cognitive reappraisal studies typically assess changes in valence ratings following reappraisal as the primary dependent variable, but scholars have recently documented that valence ratings can take two forms: affective valence (i.e., the positivity/negativity of one’s hedonic internal feelings) and semantic valence (i.e., the positivity/negativity of one’s cognitive evaluation of the stimulus). Because typical rating instructions do not distinguish between these forms of valence, it remains unknown how strongly cognitive reappraisal shifts either one. We address this gap through two preregistered studies. In Study 1, N = 155 participants completed a classic cognitive reappraisal task in which they either responded naturally to or cognitively reappraised negative images. Critically, we manipulated whether participants rated either affective valence, semantic valence, or “default” valence (conventional instructions). Reappraisal significantly improved valence ratings in all conditions, but reappraisal most strongly influenced semantic valence and least strongly affective valence. Interestingly, default valence behaved most similarly to semantic valence, suggesting that existing reappraisal studies largely document changes in semantic evaluations, more than affective experiences. Study 2 ( N = 105) replicated these effects within-subjects. These results extend research on affective and semantic valence by demonstrating that they vary in their responsiveness to regulation. Additionally, they suggest that existing research likely overestimates the impact of reappraisal on felt emotional experiences, prompting new perspectives on past findings and more focused methods for assessing the hedonic impact of emotion regulation.