Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Scott, Graham; O'Donnell, Patrick; Sereno, Sara C. (2014)
Publisher: Springer
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Q1, BF
We examined the categorical nature of emotion word recognition. Positive, negative, and neutral words were presented in lexical decision tasks. Word frequency was additionally manipulated. In Experiment 1, "positive" and "negative" categories of words were implicitly indicated by the blocked design employed. A significant emotion–frequency interaction was obtained, replicating past research. While positive words consistently elicited faster responses than neutral words, only low frequency negative words demonstrated a similar advantage. In Experiments 2a and 2b, explicit categories ("positive," "negative," and "household" items) were specified to participants. Positive words again elicited faster responses than did neutral words. Responses to negative words, however, were no different than those to neutral words, regardless of their frequency. The overall pattern of effects indicates that positive words are always facilitated, frequency plays a greater role in the recognition of negative words, and a "negative" category represents a somewhat disparate set of emotions. These results support the notion that emotion word processing may be moderated by distinct systems.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Balota, D.A., Yap, M.J., Hutchison, K.A., Cortese, M.J., Kessler, B., et al. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445-459.
    • Barsalou, L.W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211-227.
    • Bazzanella, B., & Bouquet, P. (2011). Associative and categorical priming in recognition of individuals. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T.F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 525-530). Boston, MA: Cognitive Science Society.
    • Becker, C.A. (1979). Semantic context and word frequency effects in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5(2), 252-259.
    • Becker, C.A. (1980). Semantic context effects in visual word recognition: An analysis of semantic strategies. Memory & Cognition, 8(6), 493-512.
    • Bermeitinger, C., Wentura, D., & Frings, C. (2011). How to switch on and switch off semantic priming effects for natural and artifactual categories: Activation processes in category memory depend on focusing specific feature dimensions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(3), 579-585.
    • Borowsky, R., & Besner, D. (2006). Parallel distributed processing and lexical-semantic effects in visual word recognition: Are a few stages necessary? Psychological Review, 113(1), 181-195.
    • Bradley, M.M., & Lang, P.J. (1999). Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW). Gainsville, FL. The NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention, University of Florida.
    • Briesemeister B.B., Kuchinke L., & Jacobs A.M. (2011a). Discrete emotion effects on lexical decision response times. PLoS ONE, 6(8): e23743.
    • Briesemeister, B.B., Kuchinke, L., & Jacobs, A.M. (2011b). Discrete emotion norms for nouns: Berlin affective word list (DENN-BAWL). Behavior Research Methods, 43(2), 441-448.
    • Estes, Z., & Adelman, J.S. (2008a). Automatic vigilance for negative words in lexical decision and naming: Comment on Larsen, Mercer, and Balota (2006). Emotion, 8(4), 441- 444.
    • Estes, Z., & Adelman, J.S. (2008b). Automatic vigilance for negative words is categorical and general. Emotion, 8(4), 453-457.
    • Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(2), 124-129.
    • Fontaine, J.R.J., Scherer, K.R., Roesch, E.B., & Ellsworth, P.C. (2007). The world of emotion is not two-dimensional. Psychological Science, 18(12), 1050-1057.
    • Hand, C.J., Miellet, S., O'Donnell, P.J., & Sereno, S.C. (2010). The frequency-predictability interaction in reading: It depends where you're coming from. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1294-1313.
    • Hauk, O., Davis, M.H., Ford, M., Pulvermüller, F., & Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (2006). The time course of visual word recognition as revealed by linear regression analysis of ERP data. NeuroImage, 30(4), 1383-1400.
    • Kousta, S.-T., Vinson, D.P., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). Emotion words, regardless of polarity, have a processing advantage over neutral words. Cognition, 112(3), 473-481.
    • Kuchinke, L., Võ, M.L., Hofmann, M., & Jacobs, A.M. (2007). Pupillary responses during lexical decisions vary with word frequency but not emotional valence. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 65, 132-140.
    • Larsen, R.J., Mercer, K.A., Balota, D.A., & Strube, M.J. (2008). Not all negative words slow down lexical decision and naming speed: Importance of word arousal. Emotion, 8(4), 445-452.
    • Lerner, J.S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 473-493.
    • McGinnies, E. (1949). Emotionality and perceptual defense. Psychological Review, 56(5), 244-251.
    • Méndez-Bértolo, C., Pozo, J.A., & Hinojosa, J.A. (2011). Word frequency modulates the processing of emotional words: Convergent behavioral and electrophysiological data. Neuroscience Letters, 494(3), 250-254.
    • Nakic, M., Smith, B.W., Busis, S., Vythilingam, M., & Blair, R.J.R. (2006). The impact of affect and frequency on lexical decision: The role of the amygdala and inferior frontal cortex. NeuroImage, 31(4), 1752-1761.
    • Pratto, F., & John, O.P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 380- 391.
    • Russell, J.A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161-1178.
    • Sachs, O., Weis, S., Zellagui, N., Huber, W., Zvyaginstev, M., Mathiak, K., & Kircher, T. (2008). Automatic processing of semantic relations in fMRI: Neuronal activation during semantic priming of taxonomic and thematic categories. Brain Research, 1218, 194- 205.
    • Schacter, D.L., & Badgaiyan, R.D. (2001). Neuroimaging of priming: New perspectives on implicit and explicit memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(1), 1-4.
    • Scott, G.G., O'Donnell, P.J., Leuthold, H., & Sereno, S.C. (2009). Early emotion word processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Biological Psychology, 80(1), 95- 104.
    • Scott, G.G., O'Donnell, P.J., & Sereno, S.C. (2012). Emotion words affect eye fixations during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 783-792.
    • Segalowitz, S.J., & Zheng, X. (2009). An ERP study of category priming: Evidence of early lexical semantic access. Biological Psychology, 80(1), 122-129.
    • Sereno, S.C., & Rayner, K. (2003). Measuring word recognition in reading: Eye movements and event-related potentials. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 489-493.
    • 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(4), 1020-1024.
    • Taylor, S.E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilizationminimization hypothesis Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 67-85.
    • Unkelbach, C., Fiedler, K., Bayer, M., Stegmüller, M., & Danner, D. (2008). Why positive information is processed faster: The density hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 36-49.
    • Wurm, L.H. (2007). Danger and usefulness: An alternative framework for understanding rapid evaluation effects in perception? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(6), 1218- 1225.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article