Cogn Process

DOI 10.1007/s10339-013-0589-6

SHORT REPORT

Emotion words and categories: evidence from lexical decision

Graham G. Scott • Patrick J. O’Donnell •

Sara C. Sereno

Received: 29 April 2013 / Accepted: 5 November 2013

Ó Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Abstract We examined the categorical nature of emo- Introduction

tion word recognition. Positive, negative, and neutral
words were presented in lexical decision tasks. Word fre- Recent word recognition research has reported an interaction
quency was additionally manipulated. In Experiment 1, between a word’s emotional quality (characterized as posi-
‘‘positive’’ and ‘‘negative’’ categories of words were tive, negative, or neutral) and its frequency of occurrence
implicitly indicated by the blocked design employed. A (having a higher or lower prevalence of use). These results
significant emotion–frequency interaction was obtained, were found in lexical decision reaction times (Kuchinke et al.
replicating past research. While positive words consistently 2007; Scott et al. 2009), in electrophysiological voltages
elicited faster responses than neutral words, only low fre- (Scott et al. 2009), as well as in eye fixation times during
quency negative words demonstrated a similar advantage. fluent reading (Scott et al. 2012). Specifically, for low fre-
In Experiments 2a and 2b, explicit categories (‘‘positive,’’ quency (LF) words, behavioral responses to both positive and
‘‘negative,’’ and ‘‘household’’ items) were specified to negative words were faster than those to neutral words; for
participants. Positive words again elicited faster responses high frequency (HF) words, responses to positive words
than did neutral words. Responses to negative words, alone were faster than those to either negative or neutral
however, were no different than those to neutral words, words (which did not differ). Early word frequency effects
regardless of their frequency. The overall pattern of effects have consistently been demonstrated in eye movement and
indicates that positive words are always facilitated, fre- electrophysiological paradigms (see Hand et al. 2010), and
quency plays a greater role in the recognition of negative are considered to reliably indicate lexical access (e.g., Sereno
words, and a ‘‘negative’’ category represents a somewhat and Rayner 2003). Thus, an interaction of a word’s emotional
disparate set of emotions. These results support the notion quality with its frequency suggests a central role of emotion in
that emotion word processing may be moderated by dis- the initial stages of word recognition.
tinct systems. The underlying theoretical mechanisms of emotion word
processing, however, are less well understood. One account
Keywords Emotion  Word frequency  Category  is derived from Taylor’s (1991) two-stage mobilization-
Lexical decision  Arousal  Valence minimization hypothesis, developed from McGinnies’
(1949) theory of perceptual defense (see also Pratto and
John’s (1991) automatic vigilance hypothesis). Because of
their high arousal, emotion words are initially facilitated
G. G. Scott
relative to neutral words. Potential negative consequences of
Division of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of
the West of Scotland, Paisley PA1 2BE, UK such emotional content, however, are guarded against by
delaying their processing to provide time to diminish their
P. J. O’Donnell  S. C. Sereno (&) impact. Accordingly, although both positive and negative
Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, School of
words enjoy an initial advantage, negative words are sub-
Psychology, University of Glasgow, 58 Hillhead Street,
Glasgow G12 8QB, UK sequently inhibited. Scott et al. (2009) further suggested that
e-mail: [email protected] minimization could be stronger for HF than LF negative

123
 Cogn Process

words because, by definition, HF concepts are more salient. (2009) experiments (as in most emotion word experiments
An alternative explanation for the differential pattern of and in our Experiment 1), neutral words did not form a
responses to HF and LF negative words is based on the coherent category; they were simply items that shared the
clinical notion of desensitization. In their ‘‘boy who cried characteristics of low arousal and intermediate valence.
wolf’’ hypothesis, Scott et al. (2012) proposed that the rela- Thus, it is possible that the response time advantage found
tive slowness of responses to HF negative words may be for (most) emotion over neutral words may be due in part to
because their negative semantics are diluted or lost through unbalanced implicit categorical priming across conditions,
repeated exposure. Thus, while such words are consciously where a greater degree of semantic links exist between a
considered as negative in off-line rating tasks, on-line task selection of emotion versus neutral words. Consequently,
performance may be more closely linked to automatic word while explicit category priming should facilitate the pro-
recognition processes in which only vestigial emotional cessing of all word types, this effect may appear more pro-
activations are elicited. nounced for neutral words. We expected that the current set
Emotion words are typically characterized by their dual of experiments would provide complementary results. That
properties of arousal (internal activation) and valence (value is, Experiment 1 should establish a baseline of implicit cat-
or worth). In comparison with neutral words, emotion words egorical emotion processing (positive and negative) relative
have high arousal values correlated with extreme valence to neutral words that do not form any coherent category.
(e.g., Bradley and Lang 1999; see also the circumplex model Experiments 2a and 2b should provide evidence of the effect
of Russell 1980). While emotion words reside at polar of explicit categorical priming when it has been applied to all
opposites of a valence continuum, the question remains as to conditions (emotional or not). Taken together, the results of
whether positive and negative words comprise a single these experiments should begin to address the role that cat-
‘‘emotion’’ category or form independent categories. For egorical priming plays in experimental research into emotion
example, some researchers suggest that the relationship word processing.
between valence and recognition is linear, extending over a
single dimension (e.g., Kousta et al. 2009; Larsen et al.
2008), while others maintain it is categorical, with distinct Experiment 1
positive and negative types (e.g., Estes and Adelman 2008a,
b). Research into the organization and representation of Method
categories has demonstrated selective facilitation of cate-
gory members across a variety of paradigms and measures Participants
(e.g., Bermeitinger et al. 2011; Sachs et al. 2008; Segalowitz
and Zheng 2009). Moreover, what defines a category (e.g., Twenty-four members of the University of Glasgow com-
Barsalou 1983) and whether a category is established munity (16 female; mean age 25) received compensation for
implicitly or explicitly, for example, via the context afforded their participation. All were native English speakers, were
by a list of related items or by an encompassing label (e.g., right-handed, had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and
Bazzanella and Bouquet 2011; Becker 1980; Schacter and were naı̈ve as to the purpose of the experiment.
Badgaiyan 2001), has implications for the amount of benefit
conferred on its members. Apparatus
To investigate the categorical nature of emotion word
processing, we designed a series of lexical decision experi- The experiment was run on a Mac G4 using PsyScope 1.2.5
ments that all additionally manipulated word frequency, in PPC software. Stimuli were presented in 24-point Courier
particular, because of its differential effect on responses to (black characters on a white background) on a Hansol 2100A
negative words. In the prior emotion 9 frequency lexical 1900 monitor. At a viewing distance of 2500 , 3 characters
decision studies, positive and negative words were inter- subtended 1o of visual angle. Responses were made via a
mixed with neutral words within a single block. In our first PsyScope Button Box, and reaction times (RTs) were
study (Experiment 1), we examined whether the same pattern recorded with millisecond accuracy.
of effects would be obtained under conditions of implicit
categorical priming—when positive and negative words Design and materials
were presented in separate blocks. In the subsequent two
studies, we examined the effect of explicit category priming, A 4 (Emotion: Positive, Negative, Neutral1, Neutral2) 9 2
comparing responses to words belonging to the neutral cat- (Frequency: LF, HF) within-participants design was used
egory of ‘‘household’’ items to those within the category of with 27 items in each of the 8 conditions. Arousal and
either ‘‘positive’’ (Experiment 2a) or ‘‘negative’’ (Experi- valence ratings for all words were acquired from the affec-
ment 2b) items. In the Kuchinke et al. (2007) and Scott et al. tive norms for English words (ANEW) database (Bradley

123
Cogn Process

and Lang 1999). Each word has associated ratings for Results
arousal, from 1 (low) to 9 (high), and for valence, from 1
(low, having a negative meaning) to 9 (high, having a posi- The RTs from correct responses (96 % of the data) were
tive meaning). Arousal values ranged from 6 to 9 for emotion subjected to two trimming procedures. Items with RTs less
words and 1 to 5.5 for neutral words. Valence values ranged than 250 ms or greater than 1,500 ms were excluded from
from 6 to 9 for positive words, 1 to 4 for negative words, and further analyses. For each participant in each condition,
4 to 6 for neutral words. Word frequencies were obtained items with RTs beyond two standard deviations of the mean
from the British National Corpus (BNC; http://www. were additionally excluded. These procedures resulted in an
natcorp.ox.ac.uk), a database of 90 million written word average data loss of 5 % per participant (approx. one item per
tokens (with frequencies expressed in occurrences per mil- condition).
lion). Example items are presented in Table 1. Average word The mean RT data are presented in Table 3 and are
frequency, length (in letters and syllables), arousal, and graphically depicted in Fig. 1. A 4 (Emotion) 9 2 (Fre-
valence values across conditions are presented in Table 2. quency) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on
For each word, a nonword of equal length was constructed. the data by participants (F1) and by items (F2). There were
Nonwords comprised pronounceable, orthographically legal significant main effects of Emotion and Frequency as well as
pseudowords (e.g., famper). a significant Emotion 9 Frequency interaction [Emotion:
F1(3,69) = 6.83, p \ .001, and F2(3,78) = 12.77,
Procedure p \ .001; Frequency: F1(1,23) = 114.89, p \ .001, and
F2(1,26) = 146.84, p \ .001; Emotion 9 Frequency:
Participants were tested individually. Word responses were F1(3,69) = 6.86, p \ .001, and F2(3,78) = 4.11, p = .009].
made using the right forefinger on the right (green) key of the Follow-up contrasts to the interaction demonstrated signifi-
Button Box, labeled ‘‘W,’’ and nonword responses with the cant effects of Frequency, with faster responses to HF than
left forefinger on the left (red) key, labeled ‘‘NW.’’ Partici- LF words, for all Emotion conditions [Fs [ 7.09, ps \ .01].
pants were first presented with a set of practice items to For LF words, RTs to both Positive and Negative words,
become accustomed to the task. which did not differ [Fs \ 1], were significantly faster than
The experiment comprised two blocks, with Positive and those to either Neutral1 or Neutral2 words [Fs [ 15.35,
Neutral1 words in one block, and Negative and Neutral2 ps \ .001], which did not differ [F1 = 1.14, p [ .25;
words in the other. Half of the participants received the F2 \ 1]. For HF words, responses to Positive words alone
Positive and Netural1 block first, while the other half were significantly faster than responses to Negative, Neu-
received the Negative and Neutral2 block first. Within each tral1, or Neutral2 words, although some of these effects were
block, trials were presented in a different random order for marginal by items [F1s [ 7.19, ps \ .01; F2s from 4.00 to
each participant. Each trial consisted of a blank screen 3.66, ps from .049 to .060]. HF Neutral1, Neutral2, and
(1,000 ms), a central fixation cross (200 ms), another blank Negative conditions did not differ [Fs \ 1].
screen (500 ms), and a letter string presented centrally (until
response).
Discussion
Table 1 Example materials from Experiments 1, 2a, and 2b
HF and LF positive, negative, and neutral words were pre-
Frequency
sented in a lexical decision task. Unlike the prior emotion–
LF HF frequency studies, positive and negative words appeared in
Experiment 1 separate blocks. Nonetheless, a similar pattern of results
Positive cheer, miracle, treasure cash, travel, victory emerged showing a significant interaction. It could be that
Negative snake, outrage, mutilate fire, cancer, hostile the implicit category structure of ‘‘positive’’ and ‘‘negative’’
Neutral1 muddy, lantern, highway tower, finger, museum (separate blocks) is just as effective as that of ‘‘emotion’’
Neutral2 salad, basket, hairpin clock, writer, square (single block). A simpler explanation for these findings is
Experiment 2a
that the emotion–frequency interaction is immune to rela-
Positive flirt, reunion, valentine cash, passion, birthday
tively weak contextual manipulations.
Household stove, hammer, hairdryer door, window, corridor
Experiments 2a and 2b
Experiment 2b
Negative shark, slave, terrorist bomb, panic, disaster
In Experiments 2a and 2b, a stronger semantic context was
Household stool, poster, appliance bowl, bench, bathroom
implemented by providing explicit category labels. Specifi-
LF low frequency, HF high frequency cally, participants were told that they would be presented

123
 Cogn Process

Table 2 Specifications of materials in Experiments 1, 2a, and 2b

Frequency Letters Syllables Arousal Valence
LF HF LF HF LF HF LF HF LF HF

Experiment 1
Positive 7.1 56.9 6.9 6.0 2.2 1.9 6.6 6.6 7.7 7.8
Negative 6.7 56.4 6.7 5.8 2.0 1.8 6.6 6.8 2.6 2.6
Neutral1 6.2 57.9 6.6 5.8 2.0 1.9 4.3 3.7 5.1 5.4
Neutral2 6.4 54.9 6.6 5.9 2.1 1.8 3.8 4.1 5.3 5.1
Experiment 2a
Positive 5.9 56.4 6.4 5.8 2.0 1.7 6.7 6.6 7.7 7.8
Household 5.8 60.0 6.4 5.7 2.1 1.7 3.8 3.8 5.2 5.2
Experiment 2b
Negative 7.5 56.6 6.6 5.6 1.9 1.9 6.7 6.9 2.6 2.4
Household 6.0 63.7 6.7 5.6 2.1 1.7 3.9 3.7 5.2 5.3
Units of measurement are as follows: frequency in occurrences per million, word length in number of letters and syllables, arousal on a scale
from 1 (low) to 9 (high), valence on a scale from 1 (low, having a negative meaning) to 9 (high, having a positive meaning)
LF low frequency, HF high frequency

with words belonging to two categories: ‘‘positive’’ and Table 3 Mean reaction time (RT) in milliseconds (with standard
‘‘household’’ items (Experiment 2a) or ‘‘negative’’ and deviations) across conditions in Experiments 1, 2a, and 2b
‘‘household’’ items (Experiment 2b). Frequency
LF HF
Method
Experiment 1
Positive 525 (81) 483 (63)
Participants
Negative 526 (81) 502 (82)
Neutral1 558 (96) 501 (72)
Thirty-six members of the University of Glasgow commu-
Neutral2 565 (81) 502 (65)
nity were compensated for their participation—18 (15
Experiment 2a
female; mean age 19) in Experiment 2a and a different set of
Positive 576 (97) 533 (84)
18 (17 female; mean age 20) in Experiment 2b. None had
Household 597 (105) 559 (119)
participated in Experiment 1. All conformed to the same
Experiment 2b
criteria used in Experiment 1.
Negative 581 (103) 517 (74)
Household 575 (80) 516 (75)
Apparatus
LF low frequency, HF high frequency

The apparatus was identical to that of Experiment 1.

Procedure
Design and Materials
The procedure of Experiment 1 was used with two modifi-
Both experiments utilized a 2 (Category: emotional, neu- cations. First, as part of their instructions, participants were
tral) 9 2 (Frequency: LF, HF) within-participants design, informed that the words consisted of items from two cate-
with 18 items in each of the 4 conditions. The emotional gories—‘‘Positive’’ and ‘‘Household’’ items (Experiment
category was ‘‘Positive’’ items in Experiment 2a and ‘‘Neg- 2a) or ‘‘Negative’’ and ‘‘Household’’ items (Experiment 2b).
ative’’ items in Experiment 2b, while the neutral category was Second, items were presented within a single block.
‘‘Household’’ items in both experiments. Emotion and neutral
words were selected from ANEW within the same ranges of
arousal and valence values used in Experiment 1. Example Results
items are presented in Table 1 and average stimulus proper-
ties in Table 2. For each experiment, nonwords employing The RTs from correct responses (96 % in both experi-
the same criteria as in Experiment 1 were used. ments) were subjected to the trimming procedures of

123
Cogn Process

Fig. 1 Average RT (ms) in Emotion 9 Frequency conditions in Experiments 1, 2a, and 2b. LF low frequency, HF high frequency

Experiment 1, resulting in an average data loss of 5 % per positive and neutral, but not negative, words. One expla-
participant (approx. one item per condition). RT means are nation draws on the differential effects of category priming
presented in Table 3 and Fig. 1. For each experiment, 2 in relation to both word frequency and category breadth,
(Category) 9 2 (Frequency) ANOVAs (F1 and F2) were discussed in greater depth in the next section.
performed on the RT means.
In Experiment 2a, the main effects of Category and Fre-
quency were both significant [Category: F1(1,17) = 7.82, General discussion
p = .012, and F2(1,17) = 7.94, p = .012; Frequency:
F1(1,17) = 16.94, p \ .001, and F2(1,17) = 12.31, We sought to determine the role of implicit and explicit
p = .003]. Responses to ‘‘positive’’ items (555 ms) were category membership on lexical decision responses to
faster than those to ‘‘household’’ items (578 ms). In addi- positive, negative, and neutral words. Word frequency was
tion, faster responses were made to HF (546 ms) than to additionally manipulated because of its central relationship
LF (586 ms) words. There was no evidence of an interaction with lexical access. Prior investigations demonstrated an
[all Fs \ 1]. emotion–frequency interaction using different paradigms
In Experiment 2b, only the main effect of Frequency and measures (Kuchinke et al. 2007; Scott et al. 2009,
was significant [Frequency: F1(1,17) = 40.59, p \ .001, 2012). These studies share the methodological feature that
and F2(1,17) = 36.29, p \ .001]. Responses to HF words all word types were presented together. It is possible that
(516 ms) were faster than those to LF words (578 ms). emotion words (positive and negative) were selectively
There was no effect of category nor was the interaction facilitated in their processing because implicit categorical
significant [all Fs \ 1]. priming was present for emotion but not neutral words.
In Experiment 1, positive and negative words were
embedded in separate blocks, with neutral words included
Discussion in each block. We reasoned that implementing such a
design should help activate the implicit categories of
Experiments 2a and 2b explicitly manipulated category ‘‘positive’’ and ‘‘negative’’ rather than that of ‘‘emotion.’’
membership for both emotion and neutral items. In both Nevertheless, as with the single-block studies, a similar
experiments, significant word frequency effects were emotion–frequency interaction was obtained. All word
obtained, with faster responses to HF than LF words. types demonstrated frequency effects. For LF words,
‘‘Positive’’ words elicited faster responses than ‘‘House- positive and negative word responses were faster than
hold’’ words (Experiment 2a), whereas ‘‘Negative’’ words neutral word responses; for HF words, only positive word
were no different (Experiment 2b). In comparison with the response were faster than negative and neutral responses. It
pattern of results of Experiment 1, the relative relationship is possible that the benefit provided by two focal implicit
between positive and neutral words remained the same, categories offset the cost of eliminating a single general
while that between negative and neutral words changed. one. Indeed, a recent study that only employed a subset of
Specifically, the previous advantage within the LF condi- our conditions—HF and LF negative and neutral words—
tion of negative over neutral words disappeared. Accord- reported an identical pattern of results corresponding to
ingly, it seems that category priming similarly affected these conditions (Méndez-Bértolo et al. 2011; cf. Nakic

123
 Cogn Process

et al. 2006). It is also possible that although positive and Theoretically, to more effectively assess explicit cate-
negative items were blocked in the current study, partici- gorical priming of emotional words, it might be beneficial to
pants nonetheless relied upon a more general implicit include additional baseline conditions (e.g., HF and LF non-
category. More parsimoniously, the effect of such implicit categorical neutral words) as well as discrete subcategories
category priming could be too weak to sufficiently influ- of emotion words (e.g., HF and LF ‘‘happy’’ and ‘‘anger’’
ence word recognition processes. This is substantiated by words). On the practical side, however, implementing such
the Scott et al. (2012) study which demonstrated a similar control conditions within a single experiment would be
emotion–frequency interaction in eye fixation times on methodologically challenging and the results could be
target words during fluent reading. Because targets were problematic to interpret. First, it would be difficult to gen-
embedded in emotionally neutral sentence frames, the word erate an adequate number of items across all conditions that
recognition process was less susceptible to local priming are controlled for relevant lexical properties. Second,
by semantically related exemplars. responses to a minority of non-categorical items within the
Experiments 2a and 2b examined whether explicit cat- broader context of a task involving categories may not be
egory priming of both emotion and neutral words would representative. Finally, it is unclear whether words belong-
alter their response–time relationships. Participants were ing to categories of distinct emotions (e.g., ‘‘happy’’ and
instructed that word stimuli belonged to two categories— ‘‘anger’’ words) would be additionally considered as mem-
‘‘positive’’ and ‘‘household’’ items (Experiment 2a), or bers of the generic positive and negative word categories.
‘‘negative’’ and ‘‘household’’ items (Experiment 2b). Word Nevertheless, there may be other ways of addressing con-
frequency effects were obtained across all word categories. cerns about what can and cannot be directly attributable to
‘‘Positive’’ words elicited consistently faster responses than explicit category priming of emotional words.
‘‘household’’ words, while no differences emerged for Recently, a growing minority of researchers have begun
‘‘negative’’ versus ‘‘household’’ words. What distinguishes to investigate distinct emotional subcategories underpinning
these combined results from those of the prior emotion– the meaning of words (e.g., Briesemeister et al. 2011a, b;
frequency experiments is the lack of a difference between Fontaine et al. 2007; Stevenson et al. 2007; Wurm 2007). For
LF negative and neutral words. It has been demonstrated example, Briesemeister et al. (2011a) showed that a word’s
that semantic variables, including category priming, often membership within certain discrete emotional categories
exert a greater facilitative effect on LF than HF words (e.g., (‘‘happiness,’’ ‘‘disgust,’’ and ‘‘fear,’’ but not ‘‘anger’’ or
Becker 1979; Hauk et al. 2006; for reviews, see Borowsky ‘‘sadness’’) could explain as much variance in lexical deci-
and Besner 2006; Hand et al. 2010). As one consequence, sion RTs as a two-dimensional (arousal 9 valence) model of
the magnitude of word frequency effects should be emotion. Although word frequency was statistically con-
reduced. Our current study, however, does not address this trolled via regression, interactions with frequency were not
particular aspect of the data as independent samples of tested. One experiment was in German and used a set of
participants were used. Nevertheless, it is possible that affectively laden words. However, the English data from the
explicit category priming, with particular benefits to LF other experiments were taken from the English Lexicon
words, is selectively effective for positive and neutral, but Project (Balota et al. 2007), representing responses to over 40
not negative, categories. While all three categories are thousand words collected from many experiments across
fairly broad, the negative category is perhaps the most several labs (different stimulus lists comprised nonadjacent
heterogeneous and, hence, the least susceptible to such words from an alphabetized master list). Consequently, it is
priming. In their density hypothesis, Unkelbach et al. difficult to ascertain the semantic features of any subset of
(2008) proposed that positive information is processed materials, in particular, whether any form of categorical
more quickly because, in comparison with negative infor- priming could have occurred. Further studies examining the
mation, it is more densely clustered in semantic space. categorical nature of emotion word processing should use
Emotions have typically been classified into the subtypes appropriate neutral words having comparable categorical
of ‘‘happiness,’’ ‘‘surprise,’’ ‘‘sadness,’’ ‘‘anger,’’ ‘‘fear,’’ characteristics.
and ‘‘disgust’’ (e.g., Ekman and Friesen 1971). In com- In sum, we examined the categorical nature of emotion
parison with the category ‘‘positive,’’ the category ‘‘nega- word processing in a series of experiments. When implicit
tive’’ comprises a greater range of distinct emotions. For categories of ‘‘positive’’ and ‘‘negative’’ were implied
example, while many negative words will engage the (Experiment 1), the emotion–frequency interaction found in
activation of an avoidance mechanism, words that belong prior studies was maintained. When explicit categories were
to the category ‘‘anger’’ often involve approach actions. employed (Experiments 2a and 2b), including one repre-
Moreover, depending on the perspective (subject/object) sentative of neutral words, only positive words retained their
taken by the reader, a word’s interpretation can be influ- relative behavioral advantage over neutral words; responses
enced by their appraisal (Lerner and Keltner 2000). to LF negative words lost their prior advantage and were no

123
Cogn Process

different than their neutral counterparts. We suggested that Hauk O, Davis MH, Ford M, Pulvermüller F, Marslen-Wilson WD
the pattern of results might be explained by effects of cate- (2006) The time course of visual word recognition as revealed by
linear regression analysis of ERP data. NeuroImage
gorical priming that depend on both word frequency and 30(4):1383–1400
category coherence. In this respect, our work represents an Kousta S-T, Vinson DP, Vigliocco G (2009) Emotion words,
initial exploration of these issues. Recent developments in regardless of polarity, have a processing advantage over neutral
establishing larger and more comprehensive databases of words. Cognition 112(3):473–481
Kuchinke L, Võ ML, Hofmann M, Jacobs AM (2007) Pupillary
words that are normed on several emotional dimensions are responses during lexical decisions vary with word frequency but
encouraging. Such work will permit more systematic not emotional valence. Int J Psychophysiol 65(2):132–140
assessments of how a word’s emotional content as well as its Larsen RJ, Mercer KA, Balota DA, Strube MJ (2008) Not all negative
frequency and context can affect its recognition. words slow down lexical decision and naming speed: importance
of word arousal. Emotion 8(4):445–452
Lerner JS, Keltner D (2000) Beyond valence: toward a model of
emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cogn
References Emot 14(4):473–493
McGinnies E (1949) Emotionality and perceptual defense. Psychol
Balota DA, Yap MJ, Cortese MJ, Hutchison KA, Kessler B, Loftis B, Rev 56(5):244–251
Neely JH, Nelson DL, Simpson GB, Treiman R (2007) The Méndez-Bértolo C, Pozo JA, Hinojosa JA (2011) Word frequency
English Lexicon Project. Behav Res Methods 39(3):445–459 modulates the processing of emotional words: convergent
Barsalou LW (1983) Ad hoc categories. Mem Cogn 11(3):211–227 behavioral and electrophysiological data. Neurosci Lett
Bazzanella B, Bouquet P (2011) Associative and categorical priming 494(3):250–254
in recognition of individuals. In: Carlson L, Hölscher C, Shipley Nakic M, Smith BW, Busis S, Vythilingam M, Blair RJR (2006) The
TF (eds) Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the impact of affect and frequency on lexical decision: the role of the
Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society, Boston, amygdala and inferior frontal cortex. NeuroImage
MA, pp 525–530 31(4):1752–1761
Becker CA (1979) Semantic context and word frequency effects in Pratto F, John OP (1991) Automatic vigilance: the attention-grabbing
visual word recognition. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform power of negative social information. J Pers Soc Psychol
5(2):252–259 61(3):380–391
Becker CA (1980) Semantic context effects in visual word recogni- Russell JA (1980) A circumplex model of affect. J Pers Soc Psychol
tion: an analysis of semantic strategies. Mem Cogn 8(6):493–512 39(6):1161–1178
Bermeitinger C, Wentura D, Frings C (2011) How to switch on and Sachs O, Weis S, Zellagui N, Huber W, Zvyaginstev M, Mathiak K,
switch off semantic priming effects for natural and artifactual Kircher T (2008) Automatic processing of semantic relations in
categories: activation processes in category memory depend on fMRI: neuronal activation during semantic priming of taxonomic
focusing specific feature dimensions. Psychon Bull Rev and thematic categories. Brain Res 1218:194–205
18(3):579–585 Schacter DL, Badgaiyan RD (2001) Neuroimaging of priming: new
Borowsky R, Besner D (2006) Parallel distributed processing and perspectives on implicit and explicit memory. Curr Dir Psychol
lexical-semantic effects in visual word recognition: are a few Sci 10(1):1–4
stages necessary? Psychol Rev 113(1):181–195 Scott GG, O’Donnell PJ, Leuthold H, Sereno SC (2009) Early
Bradley MM, Lang PJ (1999) Affective Norms for English Words emotion word processing: evidence from event-related poten-
(ANEW): Stimuli, instruction manual, and affective ratings. tials. Biol Psychol 80(1):95–104
Technical Report C-1. The Center for Research in Psychophys- Scott GG, O’Donnell PJ, Sereno SC (2012) Emotion words affect eye
iology, University of Florida, Gainsville, FL fixations during reading. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn
Briesemeister BB, Kuchinke L, Jacobs AM (2011a) Discrete emotion 38(3):783–792
effects on lexical decision response times. PLoS ONE Segalowitz SJ, Zheng X (2009) An ERP study of category priming:
6(8):e23743 evidence of early lexical semantic access. Biol Psychol
Briesemeister BB, Kuchinke L, Jacobs AM (2011b) Discrete Emotion 80(1):122–129
Norms for Nouns: Berlin Affective Word List (DENN-BAWL). Sereno SC, Rayner K (2003) Measuring word recognition in reading:
Behav Res Methods 43(2):441–448 eye movements and event-related potentials. Trends Cogn Sci
Ekman P, Friesen WV (1971) Constants across cultures in the face 7(11):489–493
and emotion. J Pers Soc Psychol 17(2):124–129 Stevenson RA, Mikels JA, James TW (2007) Characterization of the
Estes Z, Adelman JS (2008a) Automatic vigilance for negative words Affective Norms for English Words by discrete emotional
in lexical decision and naming: comment on Larsen, Mercer, and categories. Behav Res Methods 39(4):1020–1024
Balota (2006). Emotion 8(4):441–444 Taylor SE (1991) Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative
Estes Z, Adelman JS (2008b) Automatic vigilance for negative words events: the mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychol Bull
is categorical and general. Emotion 8(4):453–457 110(1):67–85
Fontaine JRJ, Scherer KR, Roesch EB, Ellsworth PC (2007) The Unkelbach C, Fiedler K, Bayer M, Stegmüller M, Danner D (2008)
world of emotion is not two-dimensional. Psychol Sci Why positive information is processed faster: the density
18(12):1050–1057 hypothesis. J Pers Soc Psychol 95(1):36–49
Hand CJ, Miellet S, O’Donnell PJ, Sereno SC (2010) The frequency- Wurm LH (2007) Danger and usefulness: an alternative framework
predictability interaction in reading: it depends where you’re coming for understanding rapid evaluation effects in perception?
from. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36(5):1294–1313 Psychon Bull Rev 14(6):1218–1225

123