Previous studies have shown effects of rated danger and usefulness on lexical access. All of them have used stimuli selected for connotations of danger and/or usefulness. Stimuli for the present lexical decision study were all of the nouns, verbs, and adjectives from the Balota et al. (2002) English Lexicon Project (subject to constraints relating to experimental control; none had anything to do with danger or usefulness). The interaction between danger and usefulness ratings previously demonstrated (Wurm & Vakoch, 2000; Wurm, Vakoch, Seaman, & Buchanan, 2004; Wurm, Whitman, Seaman, Hill, & Ulstad, 2007) was found for nouns, even when age of acquisition was controlled. It was also found for verbs and adjectives. The interaction is believed to reflect competing pressures to (1) avoid dangerous objects/events and (2) approach valuable resources. It may be a manifestation of the rapid evaluation effects pervasive in the literature. Post hoc analyses showed that danger and usefulness explain as much variance as valence and arousal, or evaluation, potency, and activity.
Baayen, R. H., Feldman, L. B., &Schreuder, R. (2006). Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words.Journal of Memory & Language,55, 290–313.
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., &Gullikers, L. (1995).The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Linguistic Data Consortium. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
BAAYEN, R. H., WURM, L. H., & AYCOCK, J. (in press). Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words: A regression study across tasks and modalities.The mental lexicon.
Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2002). The English Lexicon Project: A web-based repository of descriptive and behavioral measures for 40,481 English words and nonwords. http://elexicon.wustl .edu/, Washington University.
Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system.Language & Cognitive Processes,18, 513–562.
Bradley, M. M., &Lang, P. J. (1999).Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Stimuli, instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical report C-1, Gainesville: University of Florida, Center for Research in Psychophysiology.
Brendl, C. M., &Higgins, E. T. (1996). Principles of judging valence: What makes events positive or negative? In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 95–160). San Diego: Academic Press.
Burnard, L. (1995).Users guide for the British National Corpus. British National Corpus Consortium, Oxford University Computing Service.
Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., &Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system has parallel and integrative processing components: Form follows function.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,76, 839–855.
Chen, S., &Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavior predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,25, 215–224.
De Houwer, J., Crombez, G., Baeyens, F., &Hermans, D. (2001). On the generality of the affective Simon effect.Cognition & Emotion,15, 189–206.
Ellis, A. W., &Morrison, C. M. (1998). Real age-of-acquisition effects in lexical retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 515–523.
Ferguson, M. J., &Bargh, J. A. (2004). Liking is for doing: The effects of goal pursuit on automatic evaluation.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,87, 557–572.
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,20, 1–55.
Lewin, K. (1935).A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Miller, G. A. (1990). WordNet: An on-line lexical database.International Journal of Lexicography,3, 235–312.
Moors, A., &De Houwer, J. (2001). Automatic appraisal of motivational valence: Motivational affective priming and Simon effects.Cognition & Emotion,15, 749–766.
Neumann, R., Förster, J., &Strack, F. (2003). Motor compatibility: The bidirectional link between behavior and evaluation. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.),The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 371–391). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Neumann, R., &Strack, F. (2000). Approach and avoidance: The influence of proprioceptive and exteroceptive cues on encoding of affective information.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,79, 39–48.
Osgood, C. E. (1969). On the whys and wherefores of E, P, and A.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,12, 194–199.
Pinheiro, J. C., &Bates, D. M. (2000).Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.
Robinson, M. D., Storbeck, J., Meier, B. P., &Kirkeby, B. S. (2004). Watch out! That could be dangerous: Valence-arousal interactions in evaluative processing.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,30, 1472–1484.
Schneirla, T. C. (1959). An evolutionary and developmental theory of biphasic processes underlying approach and withdrawal. In M. Jones (Ed.),Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 1–42). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Schreuder, R., &Baayen, R. H. (1997). How complex simplex words can be.Journal of Memory & Language,37, 118–139.
Solarz, A. K. (1960). Latency of instrumental responses as a function of compatibility with the meaning of eliciting verbal signs.Journal of Experimental Psychology,59, 239–245.
Wentura, D., Rothermund, K., &Bak, P. (2000). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of approach and avoidance-related social information.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,78, 1024–1037.
Wilson, Margaret (2002). Six views of embodied cognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 625–636.
Wilson, Michael (1988). MRC psycholinguistic database: Machineusable dictionary, Version 2.00.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,20, 6–10.
Wurm, L. H., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., &Baayen, R. H. (2006). Dynamics of the auditory comprehension of prefixed words: Cohort entropies and conditional root uniqueness points.The Mental Lexicon,1, 125–146.
Wurm, L. H., Labouvie-Vief, G., Aycock, J., Rebucal, K.A., &Koch, H. E. (2004). Performance in auditory and visual emotional Stroop tasks: A comparison of older and younger adults.Psychology & Aging,19, 523–535.
Wurm, L. H., & Seaman, S. R. (in press). Semantic effects in naming and perceptual identification, but not in delayed naming: Implications for models and tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition.
Wurm, L. H., &Vakoch, D. A. (2000). The adaptive value of lexical connotation in speech perception.Cognition & Emotion,14, 177–191.
Wurm, L. H., Vakoch, D. A., Aycock, J., &Childers, R. R. (2003). Semantic effects in lexical access: Evidence from single-word naming.Cognition & Emotion,17, 547–565.
Wurm, L. H., Vakoch, D. A., &Seaman, S. R. (2004). Recognition of spoken words: Semantic effects in lexical access.Language & Speech,47, 175–204.
Wurm, L. H., Vakoch, D. A., Seaman, S. R., &Buchanan, L. (2004). Semantic effects in auditory word recognition.Mental Lexicon Working Papers,1, 47–62.
Wurm, L. H., Whitman, R. D., Seaman, S. R., Hill, L., &Ulstad, H. M. (2007). Semantic processing in auditory lexical decision: Ear-of-presentation and sex differences.Cognition & Emotion,14, 1470–1495.
Zevin, J., &Seidenberg, M. (2002). Age of acquisition effect in word reading and other tasks.Journal of Memory & Language,47, 1–29.
About this article
Cite this article
Wurm, L.H. Danger and usefulness: An alternative framework for understanding rapid evaluation effects in perception?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 1218–1225 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193116
- Lexical Decision
- Simon Effect
- Lexical Access
- Mental Lexicon
- Common Noun