Farid Anvari, Jacqueline Bachmann, J. Sanchez-Burks, I. Schneider
{"title":"Is “Neutral” Really Neutral? Mid-point Ratings in the Affective Norms English Words (ANEW) May Mask Ambivalence","authors":"Farid Anvari, Jacqueline Bachmann, J. Sanchez-Burks, I. Schneider","doi":"10.1525/collabra.82204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW) is a stimulus set that provides researchers with English language words that have been pre-rated on bipolar scales for valence, dominance, and arousal. Researchers rely on these pre-ratings to ensure that the words they select accurately reflect the affective responses these words elicit. Each word has a valence rating reflecting the degree to which people experience the word as positive or negative, with midpoint ratings on this scale presumably reflecting neutrality. However, neutral words tend to vary substantially in arousal, suggesting that not all neutral words are the same. Some researchers account for this by using the bipolar valence ratings in conjunction with the arousal ratings, selecting low-arousal neutral words when neutrality is what they seek. We argue that the varying levels of arousal in neutral words is due to varying levels of ambivalence. However, the idea that midpoint valence ratings for ANEW stimuli may hide varying levels of ambivalence has not yet been examined. This article provides evidence that words in the ANEW that appear neutral actually vary markedly in the levels of ambivalence they elicit and that this is related to their levels of arousal. These findings are relevant for research, past and present, that use the ANEW because ambivalence has different psychological consequences than neutrality, and therefore complicates the ability to draw clear inferences and maintain experimental control.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Collabra-Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.82204","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW) is a stimulus set that provides researchers with English language words that have been pre-rated on bipolar scales for valence, dominance, and arousal. Researchers rely on these pre-ratings to ensure that the words they select accurately reflect the affective responses these words elicit. Each word has a valence rating reflecting the degree to which people experience the word as positive or negative, with midpoint ratings on this scale presumably reflecting neutrality. However, neutral words tend to vary substantially in arousal, suggesting that not all neutral words are the same. Some researchers account for this by using the bipolar valence ratings in conjunction with the arousal ratings, selecting low-arousal neutral words when neutrality is what they seek. We argue that the varying levels of arousal in neutral words is due to varying levels of ambivalence. However, the idea that midpoint valence ratings for ANEW stimuli may hide varying levels of ambivalence has not yet been examined. This article provides evidence that words in the ANEW that appear neutral actually vary markedly in the levels of ambivalence they elicit and that this is related to their levels of arousal. These findings are relevant for research, past and present, that use the ANEW because ambivalence has different psychological consequences than neutrality, and therefore complicates the ability to draw clear inferences and maintain experimental control.
英语单词情感规范(英语:Affective norm for English Words,简称:新规范)是一个刺激集,它为研究人员提供了在双相量表上对英语单词的效价、优势和唤醒进行了预先评级。研究人员依靠这些预评分来确保他们选择的词语准确地反映了这些词语引发的情感反应。每个词都有一个效价等级,反映了人们对这个词的积极或消极感受的程度,这个等级的中点大概反映了中性。然而,中性词在唤起性方面往往存在很大差异,这表明并非所有中性词都是相同的。一些研究人员通过使用双相效价评级和唤醒评级来解释这一点,当中立是他们寻求的时候,选择低唤醒的中性词汇。我们认为,中性词的不同程度的唤醒是由于不同程度的矛盾心理。然而,关于新刺激的中点效价评级可能隐藏不同程度的矛盾心理的观点尚未得到检验。这篇文章提供的证据表明,在新语言中,看似中性的词实际上在引发的矛盾心理水平上有显著差异,这与它们的唤起水平有关。这些发现与过去和现在使用新思维的研究相关,因为矛盾心理与中立心理有不同的心理后果,因此使得出明确推论和维持实验控制的能力复杂化。
期刊介绍:
Collabra: Psychology has 7 sections representing the broad field of psychology, and a highlighted focus area of “Methodology and Research Practice.” Are: Cognitive Psychology Social Psychology Personality Psychology Clinical Psychology Developmental Psychology Organizational Behavior Methodology and Research Practice.