Advertisement

The Aachen List of Trait Words

  • Sara BritzEmail author
  • Siegfried Gauggel
  • Verena Mainz
Article
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, we present the Aachen List of Trait Words (ALoT), including a total of 606 German adjectives with English translations, describing personality traits. The lack of ratings regarding the social desirability of traits led us to create a German trait database. Ratings of valence and social desirability were obtained from 100 participants. Statistical analyses of 99 participants indicated that valence and social desirability ratings were strongly correlated. However, there are several words showing a weak or no relationship. Furthermore, uncommon words were rated less positively (or desirable) than more common traits. Word frequency and word length were positively correlated, showing that short terms were more common than long ones. Social desirability and valence ratings are presented together with several psycholinguistic variables known to influence word processing (e.g. word length) in the ALoT. Scores for each word are provided as supplemental materials. The ALoT is intended to provide stimulus material for experiments dealing with the affective processing of German trait adjectives.

Keywords

Database Personality attributes Valence Social desirability Psycholinguistic variables 

Notes

Funding

This study was financed by the Institute’s own funds (Institute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Adelman, J. S., & Estes, Z. (2013). Emotion and memory: A recognition advantage for positive and negative words independent of arousal. Cognition, 129(3), 530–535.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.014.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, N. H. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(3), 272–279.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025907.Google Scholar
  3. Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, F., & John, O. P. (1990). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors in German: A psycho-lexical study. European Journal of Personality, 4(2), 89–118.  https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410040204.Google Scholar
  4. Boucher, J., & Osgood, C. E. (1969). The Pollyanna hypothesis. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80002-2.Google Scholar
  5. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5–13.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5.Google Scholar
  6. Cowen, E. L. (1961). The social desirability of trait descriptive terms: Preliminary norms and sex differences. The Journal of Social Psychology, 53(2), 225–233.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1961.9922120.Google Scholar
  7. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting psychology, 24(4), 349–354.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, A. L. (1953). The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(2), 90–93.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058073.Google Scholar
  9. Fairfield, B., Ambrosini, E., Mammarella, N., & Montefinese, M. (2017). Affective norms for Italian words in older adults: Age differences in ratings of valence, arousal and dominance. PLoS ONE, 12(1), e0169472.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169472.Google Scholar
  10. Fossati, P., Hevenor, S. J., Graham, S. J., Grady, C., Keightley, M. L., Craik, F., et al. (2003). In search of the emotional self: An fMRI study using positive and negative emotional words. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(11), 1938–1945.  https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.11.1938.Google Scholar
  11. Gilet, A. L., Grühn, D., Studer, J., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (2012). Valence, arousal, and imagery ratings for 835 French attributes by young, middle-aged, and older adults: The French emotional evaluation list (FEEL). European Review of Applied Psychology, 62, 173–181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2012.03.003.Google Scholar
  12. Gillihan, S. J., & Farah, M. J. (2005). Is self special? A critical review of evidence from experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 76–97.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.76.Google Scholar
  13. Grühn, D., & Smith, J. (2008). Characteristics for 200 words rated by young and older adults: Age-dependent evaluations of German adjectives (AGE). Behavior Research Methods, 40(4), 1088–1097.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.4.1088.Google Scholar
  14. Hager, W., & Hasselhorn, M. (1994). Über Variablen, die eingeschätzt werden sollen, und über Variablen, die eingeschätzt werden: Emotionalität, Angenehmheit, Prägnanz, Erwünschtheit und Sympathie [On variables that should be estimated and variables that are estimated: Emotionality, pleasantness, meaningfulness, desirability, and likability]. In W. Hager & M. Hasselhorn (Eds.), Handbuch deutschsprachiger Wortnormen (pp. 226–248). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  15. Heister, J., Würzner, K.-M., Bubenzer, J., Pohl, E., Hanneforth, T., Geyken, A., et al. (2011). dlexDB–eine lexikalische Datenbank für die psychologische und linguistische Forschung. Psychologische Rundschau, 10, 10.  https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042/a000029.Google Scholar
  16. Holtgraves, T. (2004). Social desirability and self-reports: testing models of socially desirable responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(2), 161–172.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203259930.Google Scholar
  17. Institut für Deutsche Sprache. (2014). Korpusbasierte Wortgrundformenliste DEREWO, DeReKo-2014-II-MainArchive-STT.100000, Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Programmbereich Korpuslinguistik, Mannheim, Deutschland. Retreived from http://www.ids-mannheim.de/derewo.
  18. Jacobson, L. I., Kellogg, R. W., Cauce, A. M., & Slavin, R. S. (1977). A multidimensional social desirability inventory. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 9(2), 109–110.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336944.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, R. C., Thomson, C. W., & Frincke, G. (1960). Word values, word frequency, and visual duration thresholds. Psychological Review, 67(5), 332–342.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0038869.Google Scholar
  20. Kelley, W. M., Macrae, C. N., Wyland, C. L., Caglar, S., Inati, S., & Heatherton, T. F. (2002). Finding the self? An event-related fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(5), 785–794.  https://doi.org/10.1162/08989290260138672.Google Scholar
  21. Klett, C. J., & Yaukey, D. W. (1959). A cross-cultural comparison of judgments of social desirability. The Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 19–26.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1959.9921958.Google Scholar
  22. Konstabel, K., Aavik, T., & Allik, J. (2006). Social desirability and consensual validity of personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 20(7), 549–566.  https://doi.org/10.1002/per.593.Google Scholar
  23. Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.Google Scholar
  24. Montefinese, M., Ambrosini, E., Fairfield, B., & Mammarella, N. (2014). The adaptation of the affective norms for English words (ANEW) for Italian. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 887–903.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0405-3.Google Scholar
  25. Moors, A., De Houwer, J., Hermans, D., Wanmaker, S., Van Schie, K., Van Harmelen, A.-L., et al. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, dominance, and age of acquisition for 4,300 Dutch words. Behavior Research Methods, 45(1), 169–177.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0243-8.Google Scholar
  26. Moran, J., Macrae, C., Heatherton, T. F., Wyland, C., & Kelley, W. M. (2006). Neuroanatomical evidence for distinct cognitive and affective components of self. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(9), 1586–1594.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.9.1586.Google Scholar
  27. Nieznański, M. (2009). Recognition memory for self-relevant personality-trait words. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 68(3), 133–142.  https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185.68.3.133.Google Scholar
  28. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598.Google Scholar
  29. Qin, P., & Northoff, G. (2011). How is our self related to midline regions and the default-mode network? Neuroimage, 57(3), 1221–1233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.028.Google Scholar
  30. R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
  31. Ribeiro, R. L., Pompeia, S., & Bueno, O. F. (2005). Comparison of Brazilian and American norms for the international affective picture system (IAPS). Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 27(3), 208–215.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-44462005000300009.Google Scholar
  32. Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 677–688.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.677.Google Scholar
  33. Rosen, E. (1956). Self-appraisal, personal desirability, and perceived social desirability of personality traits. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52(2), 151–158.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046019.Google Scholar
  34. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Incorporated.Google Scholar
  35. Rozin, P., Berman, L., & Royzman, E. (2010). Biases in use of positive and negative words across twenty natural languages. Cognition and Emotion, 24(3), 536–548.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930902793462.Google Scholar
  36. Saucier, G. (2003). Factor structure of English-language personality type-nouns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 695–708.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.695.Google Scholar
  37. Schmidtke, D. S., Schröder, T., Jacobs, A. M., & Conrad, M. (2014). ANGST: Affective norms for German sentiment terms, derived from the affective norms for English words. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1108–1118.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0426-y.Google Scholar
  38. Schönbach, P. (1972). Likableness ratings of 100 German personality-trait words corresponding to a subset of Anderson’s 555 trait words. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2(3), 327–333.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420020309.Google Scholar
  39. Stöber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 222–232.  https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.222.Google Scholar
  40. Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 371–394.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.371.Google Scholar
  41. Vazire, S., & Carlson, E. N. (2010). Self-knowledge of personality: Do people know themselves? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(8), 605–620.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00280.x.Google Scholar
  42. Võ, M. L.-H., Conrad, M., Kuchinke, L., Urton, K., Hofmann, M. J., & Jacobs, A. M. (2009). The Berlin affective word list reloaded (BAWL-R). Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 534–538.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.534.Google Scholar
  43. Võ, M. L.-H., Jacobs, A. M., & Conrad, M. (2006). Cross-validating the Berlin affective word list. Behavior Research Methods, 38(4), 606–609.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193892.Google Scholar
  44. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph, 9(2, Pt. 2), 1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848.Google Scholar
  45. Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 224–228.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00154.Google Scholar
  46. Zipf, G. K. (1936). The psychobiology of language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Medical Psychology and Medical SociologyUniversity Hospital of RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations