Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 1222–1236 | Cite as

Nencki Affective Word List (NAWL): the cultural adaptation of the Berlin Affective Word List–Reloaded (BAWL-R) for Polish

  • Monika Riegel
  • Małgorzata Wierzba
  • Marek Wypych
  • Łukasz Żurawski
  • Katarzyna Jednoróg
  • Anna Grabowska
  • Artur Marchewka
Open Access
Short Communication

Abstract

In the present article, we introduce the Nencki Affective Word List (NAWL), created in order to provide researchers with a database of 2,902 Polish words, including nouns, verbs, and adjectives, with ratings of emotional valence, arousal, and imageability. Measures of several objective psycholinguistic features of the words (frequency, grammatical class, and number of letters) are also controlled. The database is a Polish adaptation of the Berlin Affective Word List–Reloaded (BAWL-R; Võ et al., Behavior Research Methods 41:534–538, 2009), commonly used to investigate the affective properties of German words. Affective normative ratings were collected from 266 Polish participants (136 women and 130 men). The emotional ratings and psycholinguistic indexes provided by NAWL can be used by researchers to better control the verbal materials they apply and to adjust them to specific experimental questions or issues of interest. The NAWL is freely accessible to the scientific community for noncommercial use as supplementary material to this article.

Keywords

Emotion Affective verbal stimuli Affective ratings Valence Arousal Imageability Berlin affective word list–reloaded Nencki affective word list 

As was indicated by Wierzbicka (1999), human beings are “classifying animals” that categorize the “contents of the world” and events into categories and put labels on them. One of the things that undergo categorization is feelings, and the labels do not match across language boundaries.

Being omnipresent in everyday life and directly available for experimental use, words belong to the most widely used stimuli in cognitive psychology, affective, and cognitive neuroscience, as well as in neighboring disciplines. Using word stimuli, as compared with using visual (Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 2008; Marchewka, Żurawski, Jednoróg, & Grabowska, 2014) and auditory (Belin, Fillion-Bilodeau, & Gosselin, 2008; Bradley & Lang, 1999) stimuli, has numerous advantages, the greatest of which is that they can be strictly controlled for physical attributes and linguistic variables such as frequency of use, familiarity, word length, similarity to other words, word onset, age of acquisition, and the imagery and concreteness of the underlying concept. It is known that linguistic variables of this kind significantly influence the processing of verbal material (Moors et al., 2013; Võ, Conrad, Kuchinke, Urton, Hofmann, & Jacobs, 2009; Võ, Jacobs, & Conrad, 2006). Another advantage is that verbal stimuli are graphically less complex and less variable with regard to their physical features than are the majority of picture stimuli, which need to be controlled for complexity, brightness, color, and contrast (Soares, Comesaña, Pinheiro, Simões, & Frade, 2012) to make them comparable. However, these advantages of using verbal stimuli in studies of emotions cannot be exploited unless normative ratings for their affective content are available.

Currently, a number of databases offer affective norms for words in different languages, summarized in Table 1. Regardless of the increasing interest in this type of material, only recently was the first attempt to create an equivalent instrument for the Polish language made, with emphasis put on the duality-of-mind approach for emotion formation (Imbir, 2014).
Table 1

Available affective verbal data sets

Authors

Name

Language

N of Words

Grammatical Class

Psycholinguistic Variables

Categories

Emotional Dimensions

Discrete Emotions

Scales

Source(s)

Bradley & Lang, 1999

ANEW

English

1,034

nouns, verbs, adjectives

frequency

valence, arousal, dominance

SAM

Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Bellezza, Greenwald, & Banaji, 1986

Altarriba, Bauer, & Benvenuto, 1999

English

326

nouns, verbs, adjectives

concreteness, imageability, context availability

7-point scales (ranging from 1 to 7)

Dictionary of Affect in Language (WhisseIl, 1989); previous studies investigating emotions (e.g., Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987)

Võ et al., 2006

BAWL

German

2,200

verbs, nouns

imageability

valence

7-point scales (ranging from –3 to 3, 1 to 7)

CELEX database (Baayen et al., 1993)

Stevenson, Mikels, & James, 2007

English

1,034

nouns, verbs, adjectives

happiness, anger, sadness, fear, disgust

5-point scales (ranging from 1 to 5)

ANEW

Redondo et al., 2007

Spanish

1,035

nouns, verbs, adjectives

number of letters, syllables, orthographic neighbors, grammatical class, frequency, familiarity, concreteness, imageability

valence, arousal, dominance

SAM

ANEW translation

Janschewitz, 2008

-

English

460

nouns, verbs, adjectives

personal use, offensiveness, familiarity, tabooness, imageability

valence, arousal

9-point scales (ranging from 1 to 9)

Jay, 1992; ANEW

Võ et al., 2009

BAWL-R

German

2,900

nouns, verbs, adjectives

imageability, number of letters, syllables, phonemes, orthographic neighbors frequency, bigram frequency, accent

valence, arousal

7-point scales (ranging from –3 to 3 and 1 to 7), SAM

CELEX database (Baayen et al., 1993)

Lahl, Göritz, Pietrowsky, & Rosenberg, 2009

German

2,654

nouns

imageability, meaningfulness, potency, number of letters, frequency

valence, arousal

11-point scales

electronic corpus of the Institute of German Language and Linguistics of the Humboldt University of Berlin

Kanske & Kotz, 2010

LANG

German

1,000

nouns

concreteness

valence, arousal

9-point scales (SAM, concrete-abstract)

previously rated word list (Kanske & Kotz, 2007); dictionary (Duden: Die deutsche Rechtschreibung, 2000)

Eilola & Havelka, 2010

 

English/ Finnish

210

nouns

offensiveness, concreteness, familiarity

taboo words

valence, emotional charge

fully sliding visual analogue scales

ANEW and taboo words for which the American English norms were collected by Janschewitz, 2008

Briesemeister, Kuchinke, & Jacobs, 2011

DENN-BAWL

German

1,958

nouns

happiness, anger, sadness, fear, disgust

5-point scales (ranging from 1 to 5)

BAWL-R

Stevenson et al., 2011

ISAWS

English

1,450

sexual valence, arousal, energy

sexual words

valence, arousal, dominance

happiness, anger, sadness, fear, disgust

9-point scales (ranging from 1 to 9; SAM)

ANEW (Bradley & Lang, 1999; Stevenson et al., 2007), others

Ferré et al., 2012

Spanish

380

nouns

concreteness, familiarity, frequency, number of letters

animals, people, objects

valence, arousal

9-point scales (ranging from 1 to 9; SAM, numerical scale)

ANEW translation; the database of Pérez Dueñas et al., 2010; the Redondo et al., 2005, normative data

Soares et al., 2012

Portuguese

1,034

nouns, verbs, adjectives

valence, arousal, dominance

SAM

ANEW translation

Gilet, Grühn, Studer, & Labouvie-Vief, 2012

FEEL

French

835

adjectives

imagery

valence, arousal

7-point scales

web-based database of French words (LEXIQUE; New, Pallier, Ferrand, & Matos, 2001); previous French rating studies (Flieller & Tournois, 1996; Niedenthal et al., 2004)

Moors et al., 2013

Dutch

4,300

nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs

age of acquisition

valence, arousal, dominance

7-point scales

De Deyne & Storms, 2008; Fontaine, Poortinga, Setiadi, & Suprapti, 2002; Fontaine et al., 2007; Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989; Hermans & De Houwer, 1994; Keuleers, Diependaele, & Brysbaert, 2010; Osgood et al., 1957; Rouckhout & Schacht, 2000; http://synoniemen.net/

Ric, Alexopoulos, Muller, & Aubé, 2013

French

524

adjectives

consequences for the possessor of the trait, consequences for the others interacting with the trait holder

valence

happiness, anger, sadness, fear, disgust

7-point scales

previous research (Anderson, 1968; Boies, Lee, Ashton, Pascal, & Nicol, 2001; Wentura et al., 2000) and brainstorming

Söderholm et al., 2013

Finnish

420

nouns

number of letters, surface frequency, lemma frequency, bigram frequency, initial trigram frequency, final trigram frequency

valence, arousal

7-point scale (ranging from 1 to 7)

ANEW translation; the Turun Sanomat corpus

Warriner et al., 2013

English

13,915

nouns, verbs, adjectives

age of acquisition, frequency, imageability, sensory experience

taboo words and other categories

valence, arousal, dominance

9-point scales (ranging from 1 to 9)

ANEW; Van Overschelde, Rawson, and Dunlosky’s, 2004, category norms, and the SUBTLEX-US corpus (Brysbaert & New, 2009)

Montefinese et al., 2014

Italian

1,121

nouns, verbs, adjectives

familiarity, imageability, concreteness

valence, arousal, dominance

9-point scales (ranging from 1 to 9)

ANEW translation; semantic norms collected in the authors' laboratory (Montefinese et al., 2013)

Quadflieg et al., 2014

French

875

adjectives

applicability to humans, applicability to nonhuman entities, concreteness, familiarity, intensity, temporal stability, visibility, grammatical class, number of letters, number of syllables, frequency

valence

7-point scales

various French dictionaries, as well as previous French rating studies (e.g., Boies et al., 2001; Gilet et al., 2012; Niedenthal et al., 2004)

Monnier & Syssau, 2014

FAN

French

1,031

nouns, adjectives

number of letters, number of phonemes, number of syllables, grammatical class, frequency, imageability

objects, animals, food, concepts

valence, arousal

SAM

affective database compiled by Syssau and Font, 2005; affective database compiled by Bonin et al., 2003; the French Lexique database (New et al., 2004)

Schmidtke et al., 2014

ANGST

German

1,003

nouns, verbs, adjectives

imageability, potency, frequency, grammatical class, number of letters, number of syllables, orthographic neighbors

valence, arousal, dominance

7-point scales (ranging from –3 to 3, 1 to 7); SAM

ANEW translation

Imbir, 2014

ANPW

Polish

1,584

nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, two-word phrases

part of speech, number of letters, frequency

valence, arousal, dominance, origin, significance, source

9-point scales (ranging from 1 to 9); SAM

ANEW translation, own research

The Nencki Affective Word List (NAWL) was constructed using a dimensional view of emotions, which assumes that emotion can be defined as the coincidence of values on a number of different dimensions. This view was first described in Osgood’s (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957) seminal work The Measurement of Meaning. He described a semantic differential in which factor analyses conducted on a wide variety of verbal judgments indicated that the variance in emotional assessments was accounted for by three major dimensions. The two primary dimensions were affective valence, ranging from pleasant to unpleasant, and arousal, ranging from calm to excited. A third, less strongly related dimension was dominance, or in other words, control. The two primary dimensions were selected to be used in the construction of the NAWL. Instead of the third one, imageability was chosen, following the dimensions distinguished by the Berlin Affective Word List–Reloaded (BAWL-R; Võ et al., 2009). This decision was motivated by the fact that a number of studies investigating the effects of emotional valence on word memory have not controlled for the imageability of words, in spite of the evidence that easily imageable words are processed more efficiently and memorized better than words that are more difficult to imagine (Nittono, Suehiro, & Hori, 2002).

Taking into consideration the constantly growing number of behavioral and neuroimaging studies on emotion, conducted on both cross-cultural and Polish populations, we have provided the NAWL, containing 2,902 Polish words with subjective ratings for emotional valence, emotional arousal, and imageability, along with data on several psycholinguistic factors known to influence word perception. This newly developed data set is freely available to the scientific community for noncommercial use as supplementary material to this article.

Method

Materials

The words included in the NAWL are basically Polish translations of the items from BAWL-R (Võ et al., 2009), which contains 2,902 German words selected from the CELEX database (Baayen, Piepenbrock, & Van Rijn, 1993) and the original BAWL (Võ et al., 2006). All of the words are emotionally loaded and are characterized by negative, neutral, or positive affective valence.

The translation of the original German list of words was performed according to the rules described below and was subjected to further cultural modifications. Initially, four independent translators proficient in the German language were asked to translate the list very carefully and to find the best (defined as the most prototypical, most often used, and most emotional) equivalents in the Polish language. Subsequently, the translations were checked for coherence. Most of the words were identical in all four translations. In some cases, three of the four translators were unanimous (75 % agreement), two of the our translators (50 % agreement) were unanimous, or none of the four were unanimous (0 agreement). Those were the cases for 697, 273, and 24 words, respectively. In these cases, the translators were asked to review their translations, give more synonyms, and assess other possible versions of the translation. For instance, the German word Ganove was translated as bandzior (Eng. “mugger”), oprych (“thug”), rzezimieszek (“raider”), and oszust (“swindler”).

Once agreement was reached between the translators and the proper versions of translations were chosen for all 2,902 words, two other, independent translators proficient in the German language were asked to translate the list back from Polish to German, in order to check the validity of the translations. They were asked to make the translations very carefully and to find the best (most prototypical, most often used, and most emotional) equivalents in the German language. In most cases, the resulting back-translations were the same words from the BAWL-R. In some cases (n = 201), none of the back-translators matched the original word, or in others only one of the translators did (280 for the first translator, 37 for the second). In these cases, the translators were asked to compare their translations with the original words from the list and decide whether they would translate the words this way or if they found the Polish translation improper. All changes introduced at this stage were done in consultation with the other four translators.

In the list of 2,902 Polish affective words obtained in the process of translation and back-translation, 195 words were found to have duplicates. These words were replaced with other words: either different translations proposed by some of the translators or synonyms found in the Polish Dictionary of Synonyms (Broniarek, 2006).

Attention was also paid to preserve the grammatical structure of Polish language—that is, the proper proportion of nouns, verbs, and adjectives. One of the most important dictionaries that provides an overall analysis of the grammatical structure of the Polish language is the Polish Language Dictionary, edited by Doroszewski in 1958-69. Although this dictionary is relatively old, according to Bańko (1992) the grammatical structure is rather stable, and the data provided by this dictionary are also representative for contemporary Polish: nouns, 54.9 %; verbs, 19.5 %; adjectives, 19.6 %; adverbs, 3.8 %; and other words, 2.33 %. This percentages of nouns, verbs, and adjectives were applied to the NAWL.

Another important psycholinguistic and lexical property of the words is their frequency of use per million words in Polish. This was retrieved for all of the words from the list, with the use of the balanced National Corpus of Polish Language, containing over 290 million word segments (NKJP; Pęzik, 2012). All words with a frequency lower than 0.003 per million were replaced with other, more frequent synonyms.

In addition to the norms of frequency mentioned above, we included recently published Polish word frequencies based on movie subtitles, which thus better reflect the spoken language (SUBTLEX-PL; Mandera, Keuleers, Wodniecka, & Brysbaert, 2014). Apart from the raw frequencies for the word forms, SUBTLEX-PL offers frequencies transformed to the Zipf logarithmic scale, measures of contextual diversity, part-of-speech-specific word frequencies, and frequencies of associated lemmas and word bigrams, providing researchers with necessary tools for conducting psycholinguistic research in Polish.

Some of the items from the original Berlin Affective Word List were culturally specific for the German society—for instance, were connected with specific geographical names or constituted stereotypes about some social groups. These items were replaced with items specific to the Polish language and society. For instance, Prater—a name of a big park in Vienna—was replaced with the name of a Warsaw park—Łazienki.

The final version of the NAWL consists of 2,902 words and includes 1,676 nouns, 614 verbs, and 612 adjectives, which account for 54.3 %. 19.9 %, and 19.8 %, respectively, of the total word number. Each word is represented only once, and each contains 2–17 letters (mean [M] = 7.37; standard deviation [SD] = 2.35). The frequencies of the words (as measured in everyday language use) range from 0.0034 to 15,793 (M = 55.1, SD = 321.2). As for the proportions of grammatical classes, these are very close to the general proportions of grammatical classes in Polish.

Participants

A total of 266 healthy volunteers (130 male, 136 female) from the ages of 20–52 (M = 23.7 years, SD = 4.9) took part in the study. The participants were of Polish origin, and all of them were proficient speakers of Polish. They were mainly college students and young employees living in Warsaw. They were educated in the following fields: arts (m = 39, f = 40), mathematics (m = 37, f = 29), engineering (m = 19, f = 9), biological and psychological sciences (m = 26, f = 48), medicine (m = 0, f = 5), mixed (m = 3, f = 2), or no higher education (m = 6, f = 3). The local Research Ethics Committee in Warsaw approved the experimental protocol of the study, and written informed consent was obtained from all of the participants prior to the experiment.

The students were invited to participate in the study through advertising posters at several departments of Warsaw universities. Additionally, all of the participants of the initial study sessions were asked to invite their friends to take part in the study. All participants obtained a financial reward of 30 PLN (approximately €7).

Procedure

Once they had filled in the informed consent form, all of the participants individually completed one of the assessment rounds through a platform available on a local server. Up to 10 people sat in one room during the assessment session, working on separate computers, with an average distance of 60 cm from the screen. Completing the task at their own pace took approximately 30–60 min. All participants signed an obligation not to tell anybody about the details of the experiment until 30 days had passed.

The evaluation procedure was based on the German one, and involved collection of the words’ ratings on the following scales: Valence, Arousal, and Imageability. Details regarding the scales are given in the next section.

Before the assessment session, the participants were given detailed instructions about the stimuli to be presented and the procedure. All participants were informed that should they feel any discomfort during the session, they could report it immediately in order to quit the experiment.

During the assessment session, each participant was presented with 291 words chosen pseudorandomly from all the categories, under the following constraints: no more than two words from each affective valence category (positive, neutral, and negative), and no more than four words from each grammatical category occured consecutively. In order to avoid serial-position and recency effects, each subset of 291 words was divided into three parts, and these parts were positioned in three possible ways, counterbalanced between the participants. Single words were presented in full-screen view for 2 s. Each presentation was followed by an exposure of the rating scales (for the assessments of valence, arousal, and imageability) on the new screen, accompanied by the word presented in smaller font in the upper part of the screen (see Fig. 1). The word and rating scales remained available to the participants’ view until they had completed all three ratings. After the participants had completed the ratings, they had to press the “Next” button, which triggered exposure of the next word in the series. A short break was introduced after participants had rated the first half of the words.
Fig. 1

Example of the assessment platform for the first of 291 words, strumień (Eng. “stream”). pl. strumień, Eng. “stream”; znak emocji, “valence”; negatywne emocje, “negative emotions”; pozytywne emocje, “positive emotions”; pobudzenie, “arousal”; brak pobudzenia, “no arousal”; wyobrażalność, “imageability”; trudno sobie wyobrazić, “difficult to imagine”; łatwo sobie wyobrazić, “easy to imagine”; następne, "next"

Rating scales

As we mentioned above, all of the words were rated on three continuous scales: emotional valence, arousal, and imageability. The scale of emotional valence was used to estimate how negative or positive were the emotions evoked by a given word, ranging from –3 to 3 (–3 for very negative emotions, 0 for emotionally neutral emotions, and 3 for very positive emotions). On the scale of arousal, participants estimated to what extent a particular word made them feel aroused/excited or unaroused/relaxed, assessed with the use of self-assessment manikins (SAMs; Lang, 1980) ranging from 1 to 5 (1 for unaroused, 3 for neutral, and 5 for very much aroused, e.g., jittery or excited). The authors of BAWL-R (Võ et al., 2009) reported that SAMs were used for depicting increasing levels of arousal in order to circumvent the sexual connotations implied by the German word for “arousal” (Erregung). Following the arguments given by Võ et al. (2009), the arousal SAM was used as a 5-point instead of a 9-point scale, because in a pilot arousal-rating study that had included a 9-point scale, with the possibility of marking points between the five depictions, such fine-grained ratings were not used by the participants. The third scale was for ratings of imageability, defined as the ease with which a word gives rise to a sensory mental image, ranging from 1 to 7 (1 = it is very difficult to imagine what is described by this word, 7 = it is very easy to imagine what is described by this word). The Appendix contains the original instructions in Polish and their English translation. Participants indicated their ratings by clicking the proper button on the screen with a standard computer mouse (see Fig. 1).

Results

Ratings of the affective variables

For each word, we obtained from 25 to 54 ratings (M = 26.65, SD = 1.49) on each scale from the 266 participants of the study. Each word was rated by both males and females, with respective average numbers of ratings of 13.03 (SD = 2.26; ranging from 9 to 30) for males, and 13.62 (SD = 2.48; ranging from 10 to 33) for females.

In order to provide researchers with a general overview of the content of the database, descriptive statistics for the valence and arousal ratings, along with psycholinguistic indices (including imageability), are presented in Table 2.
Table 2

Descriptive statistics calculated separately for each dimension in men, women, and both groups, for all the NAWL words

 

Min

Max

M

SD

Affective dimension/ sex

 Valence/ M

–2.57

2.73

0.20

1.08

 Valence/ W

–2.92

2.94

0.14

1.04

 Valence/ all

–2.73

2.76

0.17

1.08

 Arousal/ M

1.07

4.21

2.41

1.06

 Arousal/ W

1.00

4.38

2.37

1.08

 Arousal/ all

1.11

4.27

2.38

1.08

Psycholinguistic subj. index/ sex

 Imageability/ M

2.43

7.00

5.59

1.32

 Imageability/ W

2.08

7.00

5.56

1.39

 Imageability/ all

2.67

6.89

5.60

1.38

Psycholinguistic obj. index

 Number of letters

2

17

7.37

2.35

 Frequency

0

15,793

55.19

321.27

Psycholinguistic obj. index

 

N

V

A

 Grammatical class (number of words)

 

1,676

614

612

Min minimal value, Max maximal value, M mean, SD standard deviation, n number, M men, W women, all both groups, N nouns, V verbs, A adjectives, subj. subjective, obj. objective

It may be noted that, in line with most of the previous studies, participants did not receive explicit instructions about ambiguous words having different meanings depending on the context. Thus, such ambiguity may be reflected in the rating variability.

Reliability

Since the applicability of the collected affective norms for Polish in experimental studies is highly dependent on their reliability, we addressed this issue by applying split-half reliability estimations for the whole sample and for the samples of males and females separately. In accordance with the descriptions of this procedure in literature (Monnier & Syssau, 2014; Montefinese, Ambrosini, Fairfield, & Mammarella, 2014; Moors et al., 2013), the samples were split into halves in order to form two groups, depending on the odd and even entrance ranks of the participants. In the case of the whole sample, the odd and even groups included comparable numbers of males and females (f = 26 % in odds, and f = 26 % in evens). First, mean ratings for each word were calculated in each group. Then,these means were correlated between the two groups within the whole sample, the male sample, and the female sample. All of the correlations were significant (p < .001). Finally, the correlations were adjusted using the Spearman–Brown formula. The corrected correlations were especially strong for the valence scale (r = .97 in the whole sample, r = .90 for males, and r = .94 for females). We also found strong correlations on the scale of arousal: namely, r = .81 for the whole sample, r = .67 for males, and r = .67 for females. On the scale of imageability, the correlations were as follows: r = .87 in the whole sample, r = .71 for males, and r = .77 for females.

Correlations between variables

Figure 2 depicts a function relating emotional arousal and emotional valence in the affective space. This relation can be described by the quadratic function y = 0.25x2 – 0.05x + 2.03, R2 = .48. The U-shaped (boomerang-like) function reflects higher arousal values for emotionally valenced words. A boomerang-shaped distribution has been also reported in the studies for other languages (Bradley & Lang, 1999; Eilola & Havelka, 2010; Ferré, Guasch, Moldovan, & Sánchez-Casas, 2012; Kanske & Kotz, 2010; Montefinese et al., 2014; Moors et al., 2013; Redondo, Fraga, Padrón, & Comesaña, 2007; Schmidtke, Schröder, Jacobs, & Conrad, 2014; Soares et al., 2012; Söderholm, Häyry, Laine, Karrasch, & Ha, 2013; Võ et al., 2009; Warriner, Kuperman, & Brysbaert, 2013), as well as for the visual and auditory stimulus materials (Kanske & Kotz, 2011; Lang et al., 2008; Marchewka et al., 2014).
Fig. 2

Quadratic and linear functions fitting arousal to the whole range of valence in the Nencki Affective Word List

Although NAWL does not contain taboo words, or sexual words such as “orgasm,” which are usually rated as both highly arousing and emotionally positive (Redondo et al., 2007), we found a symmetrical distribution of the ratings on both dimensions in our sample. In other words, both the negative and positive words showed higher arousal ratings than the neutral words. An increasing degree of negative valence was accompanied by an increase in emotional arousal (y = 0.13x2 – 0.22x + 2.08, R2 = .46), and this relation held true also for positive valence (y = 0.15x2 – 0.25x + 1.85, R2 = .49).

With regard to the relation between these two emotional dimensions and the psycholinguistic subjectively rated index of imageability, no significant linear correlation was found between arousal and imageability. This relation was also best explained by a quadratic function, y = 0.22x2 – 1.01x + 6.72, R2 = .01, which means that this function explained only 1 % of the imageability ratings in terms of the ratings of arousal. There was a significant linear correlation between the ratings of valence and imageability, yet the quadratic function y = 0.05x2 + 0.13x + 5.51, R2 = .06 gave the best explanation of this relation.

The impact of sex on emotional evaluations

Sex differences have been found to be a significant issue in neuroscience and psychological research (Cahill, 2006). As far as emotion processing is concerned, different levels of valence and arousal elicited by the same visual stimuli were found in men and women. Specifically, women react more strongly to unpleasant materials, as compared to men, whereas men tend to rate pleasant pictures as being more pleasant and arousing than women do (Bradley, Codispoti, Sabatinelli, & Lang, 2001; Lithari et al., 2010; Wrase et al., 2003).

To examine the issue of sex differences in the affective ratings, we analyzed the relationship between the ratings of valence and arousal for both males and females. The distributions of the affective ratings for all 2,902 words were similar for men and women, and both were classically U-shaped. Having conducted a regression analysis with valence as an independent variable and arousal as a dependent variable, we confirmed that this relationship between valence and arousal was best characterized by quadratic function for both males and females (y = 0.23x2 – 0.03x + 2.11, R2 = .34, and y = 0.24x2 – 0.05x + 1.97, R2 = .49, respectively; see Fig. 3). In other words, the quadratic relation between the two dimensions accounted for 34 % of the variance for males and 49 % for females, respectively. The ratings given by women were more extreme and formed a more pronounced U-shape than the ratings given by men. The linear model, in turn, accounted for only 0.1 % of the variance for men, and 1 % for women.
Fig. 3

Mean ratings of the 2,902 Polish words for valence (x-axis) and arousal (y-axis), together with regression trend lines for men and women

In order to obtain more precise conclusions about the impact of sex on the emotional evaluations, we conducted a multivariate repeated measures analysis of variance (MANOVA), taking words as the objects. We decided on this kind of analysis, because it has several advantages over multiple single ANOVAs. First, in an experiment examining several dependent variables, it helps to discover which factor is truly important. Additionally, MANOVA can protect against Type I errors that might occur for multiple ANOVAs conducted independently.

On the basis of the previous findings, we decided to investigate the possible effects of sex, for the groups of negative and positive words separately (Montefinese et al., 2014; Schmidtke et al., 2014; Soares et al., 2012). For this reason, we constructed a dummy variable transforming valence into negativity/positivity, with the following rule: The group of positive words included those with mean valence ratings above the middle of the rating scale (namely 0), whereas the group of negative words included those with mean valence ratings below 0.

Then we constructed a MANOVA model with a 2 × 2 × 3 mixed design: assuming Sex Category as a within-object factor, Negativity/Positivity Group as a between-object factor, and the mean ratings of words on the scales of valence, arousal, and imageability as the examined dependent variables.

It is important to note that such a MANOVA is only a rough approximation, given that the participants in the study assessed only portions of the whole range of words included in the NAWL, and that in contrast to usual procedures, sex was not considered a between-object factor.

In terms of the within-object effects, the analysis of variance showed a significant main effect of sex, F(3, 2860) = 33.49, p < .001, η2 = .034. For the between-object effects, we found significant main effects of negativity/positivity for valence, F(1, 2862) = 6976.65, p < .001, η2 = .071; arousal, F(1, 2862) = 145.55, p < .001, η2 = .05; and imageability, F(1, 2862) = 100.23, p < .001, η2 = .03. Also, the effect of the interaction of sex and the negativity/positivity of the words was significant, F(3, 2860) = 84.62, p < .001, η2 = .082.

In order to better understand the nature of this interaction, we further analyzed the simple main effects of sex, for the groups of both negative and positive words. Pairwise comparisons showed that females rated valence significantly lower for the negative pictures (MD = –.23, p < .001), and significantly higher for the positive words (MD = .05, p < .001). Although females rated the arousal of negative words higher, this difference was not significant (MD = .01, p < .61), and females rated the arousal of positive words significantly lower than did males (MD = –.07, p < .001). The imageability of negative words was rated significantly lower by females (MD = –.09, p < .001), whereas the difference in the imageability ratings of positive words was not significant (MD = .01, p < .54).

Overall, the results we obtained showed that women probably were more radical in their assessments, with a tendency to assess words as being more extreme in valence (lower ratings for negative words and higher ratings for positive words) than men. As we previously reported, men showed a tendency to rate pleasant words as being more arousing than did women (Marchewka et al., 2014). Moreover, a significant effect of negativity/positivity revealed that negative words were assessed as being more arousing than positive words, confirming the already-reported findings regarding the relationship between valence and arousal.

To get the full image of the difference in the relation between affective variables in the groups of males and females, we conducted a multivariate curvilinear regression analysis. We treated arousal as a dependent variable and took valence and sex as predictors. The proposed model turned out to be significant (F = 861.98, p < .001). The R2 value showed that the model explained 43 % of the variance of the dependent variable, namely arousal. The relation between the predictors and the dependent variable was significant for both the linear and quadratic components, including constant (b0 = 2.11, p < .001), valence (b1 = –.03, p < .001), sex (b2 = –.14, p < .001), valence squared (b3 = .23, p < .001), and the interaction of valence and sex (b4 = –.02, p < .05), but not the interaction of sex and valence squared (b5 = .01, p < .12). From Fig. 3, showing the curves estimated separately for the groups of males and females, it can be concluded that women rated neutral and positive words as being less arousing than did men, whereas they rated negative words as being more arousing than did men.

Relations between the affective variables and the psycholinguistic variables

The results of the correlations computed for the affective dimensions and the objective and subjective psycholinguistic variables are presented in Table 3. This table shows that in the ratings of 2,902 Polish words, there was a weak but significant positive correlation between valence and lexical frequency. In other words, more frequently used words evoked more positive emotions. The arousal ratings were not related to frequency, yet they were related to word length, measured as the number of letters. This means that longer words were more arousing. Valence was positively related to imageability, and finally, imageability was negatively correlated with the number of letters. Negative words were the most arousing and most difficult to imagine. The longer the word, the more difficult it was to imagine.
Table 3

Correlation between valence and arousal ratings and the other psycholinguistic variables

 

1

2

3

4

5

1. Valence

–.10**

.21**

–.04*

.06**

2. Arousal

 

.03

.09**

–.02

3. Imageability

  

–.29**

–.02

4. Number of letters

   

–.03

5. Frequency

    

**p < .001, *p < .05

Comparison with BAWL-R

Although the NAWL is a cultural adaptation of the BAWL-R, and thus contains many modifications aimed at adjusting the words to the Polish culture, the results showed that the affective ratings had similar distributions across the Polish and German cultures. Table 4 shows the correlations between the ratings from the German and Polish data sets.
Table 4

Correlation between the mean valence, arousal and imageability ratings from the NAWL and BAWL-R

Affective Data Sets

BAWL-R valence

BAWL-R arousal

BAWL-R imageability

NAWL valence

.85**

–.44**

.11**

NAWL arousal

–.11**

.55**

–.06**

NAWL imageability

.20**

–.13**

.65**

**p < .001

All three rating categories (valence, arousal, and imageability) in the two languages were significantly correlated, with the strongest correlation being for valence (r = .85 for valence, r = .55 for arousal and .65 for imageability). It should be emphasized that the upper bound for these correlations was set by reliability estimation, as described above. The obtained reliability measures were also highest for the valence scale, and lower for the arousal and imageability scales. Figure 4 shows the affective spaces of BAWL-R and the NAWL.
Fig. 4

a Affective space of the Berlin Affective Word List–Reloaded in the dimensions of valence (x-axis) and arousal (y-axis), with exemplary words. b Affective space of the Nencki Affective Word List in the dimensions of valence (x-axis) and arousal (y-axis), with exemplary words

Discussion

For the present study, we aimed at creating a Polish adaptation of the German BAWL-R (Võ et al., 2009) and collecting valence, arousal, and imageability rating for the 2,902 words it contains. Additionally, the words were estimated with regard to several objective psycholinguistic variables that are known to affect word processing—namely frequency, number of letters, and grammatical class.

Additionally, this study describes the characteristics of the word ratings in the database, by analyzing their distribution in affective space, possible gender-related differences in the valence, arousal, and imageability ratings, and the relationship between the affective and linguistic characteristics.

Our results concerning the distribution of ratings in the affective space are in line with studies conducted in other languages, which have shown that the relationship between valence and arousal is best described by a quadratic function (Eilola & Havelka, 2010; Redondo et al., 2007; Soares et al., 2012; Võ et al., 2009). This relation is characterized by symmetrically higher arousal values for emotionally valenced words, both positive and negative, than for neutral words. This is different from the asymmetrical relationship that has been demonstrated by many instruments that measure emotions from a bidimensional point of view, in which an increasing degree of negative valence is accompanied by an increase in emotional arousal, yet this relation is weaker for positive valence (Bradley & Lang, 1999; Redondo et al., 2007).

We examined the influence of gender on the affective ratings, since gender effects had been reported as significant in previous studies (Monnier & Syssau, 2014; Montefinese et al., 2014; Soares et al., 2012; Söderholm et al., 2013). First, we proposed a model of regression analysis with arousal as a dependent variable and valence and sex as predictors, which turned out to be significant and explained 45 % of the variance of our results. Subsequently, we compared the correlations between valence and arousal for both genders. In a regression curve estimation, we found that the quadratic function explained a larger part of the variance in the ratings of women (49 %) than of men (34 %), as had been reported in other studies (Monnier & Syssau, 2014). Our findings are in line with studies for the Portuguese adaptation of ANEW (Soares et al., 2012) and the Affective Norms for French Words (Monnier & Syssau, 2014), in that female participants rated words with more extreme valence values than did men. Having provided the affective norms separately for men and women will allow researchers to take into account sex differences in valence and arousal ratings when selecting their affective words. Although the origin of these gender differences in the affective ratings needs further investigation, we note the necessity for researchers interested in emotional words to take into account these interactions as potential sources of systematic error.

Our results are also in line with previous studies with respect to the idea that words’ affective characteristics are dependent on other psycholinguistic characteristics, the following of which we have provided: imageability, frequency, number of letters, and grammatical class. Specifically, we found that the more positive that words are on the valence scale, the more frequently they are used, which goes in line with previous studies (Montefinese et al., 2014; Warriner et al., 2013). This result might be linked to the so-called “linguistic positivity bias,” originally called “the Polyanna hypothesis,” meaning a tendency for positive words to be used more often than equally familiar negative words (Augustine, Mehl, & Larsen, 2011; Boucher & Osgood, 1969). Another previously reported result (Warriner et al., 2013) was that words easier to imagine were rated more positively. Longer words were more arousing, but also more difficult to imagine. As for the relations between the objective and subjective psycholinguistic indices, imageability correlated negatively with a word’s length measured in the number of letters. It has already been reported in previous studies (Quadflieg, Michel, Bukowski, & Samson, 2014) that the longer a word is, the more difficult it is to imagine. These findings point to the importance of controlling for psycholinguistic variables when investigating the effects of valence and arousal on cognitive processes.

As was already mentioned, the choice of rating scales was made according to the rating scales used in BAWL-R. The authors (Võ et al., 2009) reported that SAMs (Lang, 1980) were used for the arousal ratings as a 5-point instead of a 9-point scale. It is thus important to point out that in BAWL-R, and in NAWL accordingly, a rating of 5 on the arousal scale reflects the highest rating, whereas in most other studies using SAMs, that rating depicts a word that is neither arousing nor relaxing. Our understanding of the SAM procedure is also in line with that presented by the authors of BAWL-R (Võ et al., 2009), who noted that this procedure is not based on Lang’s (1980) theoretical and methodological approach to emotions, treating both emotional valence and emotional arousal as bipolar dimensions. We support the idea that valence is best represented by a bipolar dimension, with a negative pole on one side of the scale and a positive pole on the other, and neutral valences around the scale’s center. Nevertheless, we also agree with the difficulties resulting from “the absence of a clearly defined concept of ‘arousal’ ” (Ribeiro, Pompéia, & Bueno, 2005), and think that arousal can be explained better as a unipolar dimension, with a linear increase of positive values ranging from low to high arousal (values 1–5, respectively).

To reiterate, the results of our behavioral study creating the Nencki Affective Word List, a standardized affective verbal data set, are convergent with those of most studies conducted in this field of research. Therefore, the present database appears to be comparable with previously established norms.

Description of the database

Table S1 attached in the supplementary materials to this article includes the ratings of the first 100 words in each of the two affective dimensions, along with the aforementioned psycholinguistic subjective ratings and objective indices. The database is organized in the following way:
  • No.: number identifying each of the 2,902 words and corresponding to the original number in the BAWL-R (Võ et al., 2009)

  • NAWL_word: Polish words in alphabetical order

  • BAWL_word: original words from the BAWL-R (Võ et al., 2009)

  • N_men, N_women, N_all: numbers of ratings obtained for each word from males, females, and the whole group

Affective assessments

  • val_M_men: mean of the valence ratings for each word obtained in the group of men

  • val_M_women: mean of the valence ratings for each word obtained in the group of women

  • val_M_all: mean of the valence ratings for each word obtained in the whole group

  • val_SD_men: standard deviation of the valence ratings for each word obtained in the group of men

  • val_SD_women: standard deviation of the valence ratings for each word obtained in the group of women

  • val_SD_all: standard deviation of the valence ratings for each word obtained in the whole group

  • aro_M_men: mean of the arousal ratings for each word obtained in the group of men

  • aro_M_women: mean of the arousal ratings for each word obtained in the group of women

  • aro_M_all: mean of the arousal ratings for each word obtained in the whole group

  • aro_SD_men: standard deviation of the arousal ratings for each word obtained in the group of men

  • aro_SD_women: standard deviation of the arousal ratings for each word obtained in the group of women

  • aro_SD_all: standard deviation of the arousal ratings for each word obtained in the whole group

Psycholinguistic subjective indices

  • ima_M_men: mean of the imageability ratings for each word obtained in the group of men

  • ima_M_women: mean of the imageability ratings for each word obtained in the group of women

  • ima_M_all: mean of the imageability ratings for each word obtained in the whole group

  • ima_SD_men: standard deviation of the imageability ratings for each word obtained in the group of men

  • ima_SD_women: standard deviation of the imageability ratings for each word obtained in the group of women

  • ima_SD_all: standard deviation of the imageability ratings for each word obtained in the whole group

Psycholinguistic objective indices

  • Freq.: frequency, measured as the number of occurrences per million words (Pęzik, 2012)

  • Let.: number of letters in each word

  • Gram.: grammatical class, classified as nouns (N), verbs (V), and adjectives (A)

  • SUBTLEX-PL: frequency and compound frequency measures based on movie subtitles (Mandera et al., 2014)

The NAWL is freely accessible to the scientific community for noncommercial use as supplementary material to this article.

Notes

Author note

This study was supported by the National Science Centre, OPUS Grant No. 2012/07/B/HS6/02112, and by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Iuventus Plus Grant No. IP2011 033471. We are grateful to the group of professional translators who prepared the cultural adaptation of BAWL-R for Polish: Natalia Banasik, Zofia Bysiec, Katarzyna Łaszewska, Klaudia Łukasiak, Milena Arzybowa, and Marcin Szczęsny. We appreciate the invaluable work of Paweł Turnau, who constructed a Web-based assessment platform used to collect the affective ratings. We are also grateful to Piotr Pęzik for providing data on the frequency of use of the words from NAWL, from the National Corpus of Polish. Last but not least, we thank Melissa Le-Hoa Võ, the author of BAWL-R, and Benny Briesemeister, the author of DENN-BAWL, for their helpful comments on the construction of NAWL. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Supplementary material

13428_2014_552_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (615 kb)
ESM 1(XLSX 615 kb)

References

  1. Altarriba, J., Bauer, L. M., & Benvenuto, C. (1999). Concreteness, context availability, and imageability ratings and word associations for abstract, concrete, and emotion words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 578–602. doi:10.3758/BF03200738 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, N. H. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 272–279.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Augustine, A. A., Mehl, M. R., & Larsen, R. J. (2011). A positivity bias in written and spoken English and its moderation by personality and gender. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 508–515. doi:10.1177/1948550611399154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM) (Vol. 358, pp. 1–13). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistics Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  5. Bańko, M. (1992). Struktura gramatyczna słownictwa w polsko-angielskim słowniku minimum na tle struktury gramatycznej SJPDor. Prace Językoznawcze. Filologia Polska, 16, 39–50.Google Scholar
  6. Belin, P., Fillion-Bilodeau, S., & Gosselin, F. (2008). The Montreal Affective Voices: A validated set of nonverbal affect bursts for research on auditory affective processing. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 531–539. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.2.531 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bellezza, F. S., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1986). Words high and low in pleasantness as rated by male and female college students. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 18, 299–303. doi:10.3758/BF03204403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boies, K., Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Pascal, S., & Nicol, A. A. M. (2001). The structure of the French personality lexicon. European Journal of Personality, 15, 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonin, P., Méot, A., Aubert, L., Malardier, N., Niedenthal, P., & Capelle-Toczek, M.-C. (2003). Normes de concrétude, de valeur d’imagerie, de fréquence subjective et de valence émotionnelle pour 866 mots [Norms of concreteness, imagery value, subjective frequence, and emotional valence for 866 words]. L'Année Psychologique, 104, 655–694. doi:10.3406/psy.2003.29658 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boucher, J., & Osgood, C. (1969). The Pollyanna hypothesis. Journal of Verbal and Learning Behavior, 8, 1–8. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80002-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Sabatinelli, D., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation II: Sex differences in picture processing. Emotion, 1, 300–319. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.300 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Stimuli, instruction manual and affective ratings (Technical Report C-1). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention.Google Scholar
  13. Briesemeister, B. B., Kuchinke, L., & Jacobs, A. M. (2011). Discrete emotion norms for nouns: Berlin affective word list (DENN-BAWL). Behavior Research Methods, 43, 441–448. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0059-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Broniarek, W. (2006). Gdy ci słowa zabraknie: Słownik synonimów. Brwinów, Poland: Haroldson Press.Google Scholar
  15. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.977 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Cahill, L. (2006). Why sex matters for neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 477–484. doi:10.1038/nrn1909 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. De Deyne, S., & Storms, G. (2008). Word associations: Norms for 1,424 Dutch words in a continuous task. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 198–205. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.1.198 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Doroszewski, W. (Ed.). (1958-1969). Słownik Języka Polskiego. Warsaw, Poland: Państwowe Wydawnictwo “Wiedza Powszechna.”.Google Scholar
  19. Duden. (2000). Die deutsche Rechtschreibung. Mannheim: Author.Google Scholar
  20. Eilola, T. M., & Havelka, J. (2010). Affective norms for 210 British English and Finnish nouns. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 134–140. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.1.134 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferré, P., Guasch, M., Moldovan, C., & Sánchez-Casas, R. (2012). Affective norms for 380 Spanish words belonging to three different semantic categories. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 395–403. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0165-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Flieller, A., & Tournois, J. (1996). Imagery value, subjective and objective frequency, date of entry into the language, and degree of polysemy in a sample of 998 French words. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 471–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fontaine, J. R. J., Poortinga, Y. H., Setiadi, B., & Markam, S. S. (2002). Cognitive structure of emotion terms in Indonesia and The Netherlands. Cognition & Emotion, 16, 61–86. doi:10.1080/02699933014000130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fontaine, J., Scherer, K. R., Roesch, E. B., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2007). The world of emotions is not two-dimensional. Psychological Science, 18, 1050–1057.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. doi:10.1016/j.erap.2012.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hermans, D., & De Houwer, J. (1994). Affective and subjective familiarity ratings of 740 Dutch words. Psychologica Belgica, 34, 115–139.Google Scholar
  28. Imbir, K. K. (2014). Affective Norms for 1,586 Polish Words (ANPW): Duality-of-mind approach. Behavior Research Methods. Advance online publication. doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0509-4Google Scholar
  29. Janschewitz, K. (2008). Taboo, emotionally valenced, and emotionally neutral word norms. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1065–1074. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.4.1065 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jay, T. (1992). Cursing in America: A psycholinguistic study of dirty language in the courts, the movies, in the schoolyards, and on the streets. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kanske, P., & Kotz, S. A. (2007). Concreteness in emotional words: ERP evidence from a hemifield study. Brain Research, 1148, 138–148. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.02.044 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kanske, P., & Kotz, S. A. (2010). Leipzig Affective Norms for German: A reliability study. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 987–991. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.4.987 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kanske, P., & Kotz, S. A. (2011). Cross-modal validation of the Leipzig Affective Norms for German (LANG). Behavior Research Methods, 43, 409–413. doi:10.3758/s13428-010-0048-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Keuleers, E., Diependaele, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Practice effects in large-scale visual word recognition studies: A lexical decision study on 14,000 Dutch mono- and disyllabic words and nonwords. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 174. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00174 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lahl, O., Göritz, A. S., Pietrowsky, R., & Rosenberg, J. (2009). Using the World-Wide Web to obtain large-scale word norms: 190,212 ratings on a set of 2,654 German nouns. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 13–19. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.1.13 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lang, P. J. (1980). Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment: computer applications. In J. B. Sidowski, J. H. Johnson, & T. A. Williams (Eds.), Technology in mental health care delivery systems (pp. 119–137). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  37. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2008). International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual (Technical Report A-8). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center for Research in Psychophysiology.Google Scholar
  38. Lithari, C., Frantzidis, C. A., Papadelis, C., Vivas, A. B., Klados, M. A., Kourtidou-Papadeli, C., & Bamidis, P. D. (2010). Are females more responsive to emotional stimuli? A neurophysiological study across arousal and valence dimensions. Brain Topography, 23, 27–40. doi:10.1007/s10548-009-0130-5 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., Wodniecka, Z., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). Subtlex-pl: Subtitle-based word frequency estimates for Polish. Behavior Research Methods. doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0489-4. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
  40. Marchewka, A., Zurawski, L., Jednoróg, K., & Grabowska, A. (2014). The Nencki Affective Picture System (NAPS): Introduction to a novel, standardized, wide-range, high-quality, realistic picture database. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 596–610. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0379-1 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Monnier, C., & Syssau, A. (2014). Affective Norms for French Words (FAN). Behavior Research Methods, 46, 1128–1137. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0431-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Montefinese, M., Ambrosini, E., Fairfield, B., & Mammarella, N. (2013). Semantic memory: A feature-based analysis and new norms for Italian. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 440–461. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0263-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 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, 887–903. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0405-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Moors, A., De Houwer, J., Hermans, D., Wanmaker, S., van Schie, K., Van Harmelen, A.-L., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, dominance, and age of acquisition for 4,300 Dutch words. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 169–177. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0243-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. New, B., Pallier, C., Ferrand, L., & Matos, R. (2001). Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: LEXIQUE. L'Année Psychologique, 101, 447–462. doi:10.3406/psy.2001.1341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 516–524. doi:10.3758/BF03195598 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Niedenthal, P. M., Auxiette, C., Nugier, A., Dalle, N., Bonin, P., & Fayol, M. (2004). A prototype analysis of the French category “émotion.”. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 289–312. doi:10.1080/02699930341000086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nittono, H., Suehiro, M., & Hori, T. (2002). Word imageability and N400 in an incidental memory paradigm. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 44, 219–229. doi:10.1016/S0167-876000002-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  51. Pérez Dueñas, C., Acosta, A., Megías, J. L., & Lupiáñez, J. (2010). Evaluación de las dimensiones de valencia, activación, frecuencia subjetiva de uso y relevancia para la ansiedad, la depresión y la ira de 238 sustantivos en una muestra universitaria. Psicológica, 31, 241–273.Google Scholar
  52. Pęzik, P. (2012). Wyszukiwarka PELCRA dla danych NKJP. In A. Przepiórkowski, M. Bańko, R. Górski, & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego. Wydawnictwo, Poland: PWN.Google Scholar
  53. Quadflieg, S., Michel, C., Bukowski, H., & Samson, D. (2014). A database of psycholinguistic and lexical properties for French adjectives referring to human and/or nonhuman attributes. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 67–76. doi:10.1037/cep0000001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Redondo, J., Fraga, I., Comesaña, M., & Perea, M. (2005). Estudio normativo del valor afectivo de 478 palabras españolas. Psicológica, 26, 317–326.Google Scholar
  55. Redondo, J., Fraga, I., Padrón, I., & Comesaña, M. (2007). The Spanish adaptation of ANEW (Affective Norms for English Words). Behavior Research Methods, 39, 600–605. doi:10.3758/BF03193031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Ribeiro, R. L., Pompéia, S., & Bueno, O. F. A. (2005). Comparison of Brazilian and American norms for the International Affective Picture System (IAPS). Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 27, 208–215. doi:10.1590/S1516-44462005000300009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Ric, F., Alexopoulos, T., Muller, D., & Aubé, B. (2013). Emotional norms for 524 French personality trait words. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 414–421. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0276-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Rouckhout, D., & Schacht, R. (2000). Ontwikkeling van een Nederlandstalig interpersoonlijk circumplex. Diagnostiekwijzer, 3, 96–118.Google Scholar
  59. 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, 1108–1118. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0426-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O'Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52, 1061–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Soares, A. P., Comesaña, M., Pinheiro, A. P., Simões, A., & Frade, C. S. (2012). The adaptation of the Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW) for European Portuguese. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 256–269. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0131-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Söderholm, C., Häyry, E., Laine, M., Karrasch, M., & Ha, E. (2013). Valence and arousal ratings for 420 Finnish nouns by age and gender. PLoS ONE, 8, e72859. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072859 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Stevenson, R. A., Mikels, J. A., & James, T. W. (2007). Characterization of the Affective Norms for English Words by discrete emotional categories. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 1020–1024. doi:10.3758/BF03192999 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Stevenson, R. A., Stevenson, L. D., Rupp, H. A., Kim, S., Janssen, E., & James, T. W. (2011). Incorporating emotions specific to the sexual response into theories of emotion using the Indiana Sexual and Affective Word Set. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 59–78. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9669-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Syssau, A., & Font, N. (2005). Evaluations des caractéristiques émotionnelles d’un corpus de 604 mots. Bulletin de Psychologie, 58, 361–367. doi:10.3917/bupsy.477.0361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van Overschelde, J. P., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2004). Category norms: An updated and expanded version of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 289–335. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2003.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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, 534–538. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.2.534 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Võ, M. L.-H., Jacobs, A. M., & Conrad, M. (2006). Cross-validating the Berlin Affective Word List. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 606–609. doi:10.3758/BF03193892 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1191–1207. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Wentura, D., Rothermund, K., & Bak, P. (2000). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of approach and avoidance-related social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1024–1037.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Whissell, C. M. (1989). The dictionary of affect in language. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research, and experience (Vol. 4, pp. 113–131). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  72. Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://medcontent.metapress.com/index/A65RM03P4874243N.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wrase, J., Klein, S., Gruesser, S. M., Hermann, D., Flor, H., Mann, K., & Heinz, A. (2003). Gender differences in the processing of standardized emotional visual stimuli in humans: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neuroscience Letters, 348, 41–45. doi:10.1016/S0304-3940(03)00565-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monika Riegel
    • 1
  • Małgorzata Wierzba
    • 1
  • Marek Wypych
    • 1
  • Łukasz Żurawski
    • 2
  • Katarzyna Jednoróg
    • 2
  • Anna Grabowska
    • 2
    • 3
  • Artur Marchewka
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Brain Imaging, Neurobiology Centre, Nencki Institute of Experimental BiologyWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Laboratory of Psychophysiology, Department of NeurophysiologyNencki Institute of Experimental BiologyWarsawPoland
  3. 3.University of Social Sciences and HumanitiesWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations