Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:07:19.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HEROÍNA: Drug or hero? Meaning-dependent valence norms for ambiguous Spanish words

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2019

Daniel Huete-Pérez Open the ORCID record for Daniel Huete-Pérez [Opens in a new window] ,
Juan Haro Open the ORCID record for Juan Haro [Opens in a new window] ,
Isabel Fraga Open the ORCID record for Isabel Fraga [Opens in a new window]  and
Pilar Ferré Open the ORCID record for Pilar Ferré [Opens in a new window]
Daniel Huete-Pérez
Affiliation:
Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Psychology, Research Center for Behavior Assessment (CRAMC), Tarragona, Spain
Juan Haro
Affiliation:
Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Psychology, Research Center for Behavior Assessment (CRAMC), Tarragona, Spain
Isabel Fraga
Affiliation:
Cognitive Processes & Behavior Research Group, Department of Social Psychology, Basic Psychology, and Methodology, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Pilar Ferré*
Affiliation:
Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Psychology, Research Center for Behavior Assessment (CRAMC), Tarragona, Spain
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Semantically ambiguous and emotional words occur frequently in language, and the different meanings of ambiguous words can sometimes have different emotional loads. For example, the Spanish word heroína (heroin/heroine) can refer to a drug or to a woman who performs a heroic act. Because both ambiguity and emotionality affect word processing, there is a need for normative databases that include data on the emotionality of the different meanings of such words. Thus far, no bases of this type are available in Spanish. With this in mind, the current study will present meaning-dependent affective (valence) ratings for 252 Spanish ambiguous words. The analyses performed show that (a) among ambiguous words, those words with meanings that have distinct affective valence are quite frequent, (b) ambiguous words rated as neutral in isolation can have meanings of opposite valence (i.e., negative-positive or positive-negative), and (c) the valence estimated for ambiguous words in isolation is better explained by the weighted average of the valence of their meanings by dominance. A database of this kind can be useful both for basic research (e.g., relationship between emotion and language and ambiguity processing) and for applied research (e.g., cognitive and emotional biases in emotional disorders and second language learning).

Keywords

ambiguous wordsnormsvalence
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , March 2020 , pp. 259 - 283
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adriaens, G., Small, S. L., Cottrell, G. W., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence. San Mateo, CA: Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Altarriba, J., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2011). The representation of emotion vs. emotion-laden words in English and Spanish in the Affective Simon Task. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15, 310–328. doi: 10.1177/1367006910379261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angwin, A. J., Dissanayaka, N. N., McMahon, K. L., Silburn, P. A., & Copland, D. A. (2017). Lexical ambiguity resolution during sentence processing in Parkinson’s disease: An event-related potential study. PLOS ONE, 12, 1–14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, B. C., & Plaut, D. C. (2008). Settling dynamics in distributed networks explain task differences in semantic ambiguity effects: Computational and behavioral evidence. In Love, B. C., McRae, K., & Sloutsky, V. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 273–278). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Armstrong, B. C., Tokowicz, N., & Plaut, D. C. (2012). eDom: Norming software and relative meaning frequencies for 544 English homonyms. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1015–1027. doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0199-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Armstrong, B. C., Zugarramurdi, C., Cabana, Á., Lisboa, J. V., & Plaut, D. C. (2016). Relative meaning frequencies for 578 homonyms in two Spanish dialects: A cross-linguistic extension of the English eDom norms. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 950–962. doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0639-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balota, D. A., Ferraro, F. R., & Connor, L. T. (1991). On the early influence of meaning in word recognition: A review of the literature. In Schwanenflugel, P. J. (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 187–222). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bird, H., Franklin, S., & Howard, D. (2001). Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set of words, including verbs and function words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33, 73–79. doi: 10.3758/BF03195349CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bracken, J., Degani, T., Eddington, C., & Tokowicz, N. (2017). Translation semantic variability: How semantic relatedness affects learning of translation-ambiguous words. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 783–794. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings (Technical report C-1). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center for Research in Psychophysiology.Google Scholar
Britton, B. K. (1978). Lexical ambiguity of words used in English text. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 10, 1–7. doi: 10.3758/BF03205079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 904–911. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cai, Z. G., & Vigliocco, G. (2018). Word processing. In Thompson-Schill, S. L. & Wixted, J. T. (Eds.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience: Vol. 3. Language & thought. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Citron, F. M., Weekes, B. S., & Ferstl, E. C. (2014). Arousal and emotional valence interact in written word recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 1257–1267. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2014.897734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, J. (2015). Training the interpretation of ambiguity: A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington).Google Scholar
Davies, S. K., Izura, C., Socas, R., & Dominguez, A. (2016). Age of acquisition and imageability norms for base and morphologically complex words in English and in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 349–365. doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0579-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dearing, K. F., & Gotlib, I. H. (2009). Interpretation of ambiguous information in girls at risk for depression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 79–91. doi: 10.1007/s10802-008-9259-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Degani, T., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Ambiguous words are harder to learn. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 299–314. doi: 10.1017/S1366728909990411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degani, T., Tseng, A. M., & Tokowicz, N. (2014). Together or apart: Learning of translation-ambiguous words. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 749–765. doi: 10.1017/S1366728913000837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diedenhofen, B., & Musch, J. (2015). cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PLOS ONE, 10, e0121945. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121945CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dodds, P. S., Clark, E. M., Desu, S., Frank, M. R., Reagan, A. J., Williams, J. R., … Megerdoomian, K. (2015). Human language reveals a universal positivity bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 2389–2394. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1411678112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddington, C. M., & Tokowicz, N. (2015). How meaning similarity influences ambiguous word processing: The current state of the literature. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 13–37. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0665-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.42.1.134CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fang, X., & Perfetti, C. A. (2019). Learning new meanings for known words: Perturbation of original meanings and retention of new meanings. Memory & Cognition, 47, 130–144. doi: 10.3758/s13421-018-0855-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferraro, F. R., & Kellas, G. (1990). Normative data for number of word meanings. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 22, 491–498. doi: 10.3758/BF03204432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferré, P., Ventura, D., Comesaña, M., & Fraga, I. (2015). The role of emotionality in the acquisition of new concrete and abstract words. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00976CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, A. (2017). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Fraga, I., Guasch, M., Haro, J., Padrón, I., & Ferré, P. (2018). EmoFinder: The meeting point for Spanish emotional words. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1–10. doi: 10.3758/s13428-017-1006-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraga, I., Padrón, I., Perea, M., & Comesaña, M. (2017). I saw this somewhere else: The Spanish Ambiguous Words (SAW) database. Lingua, 185, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2016.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawlick-Grendell, L. A., & Woltz, D. J. (1994). Meaning dominance norms for 120 homographs. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 26, 5–25. doi: 10.3758/BF03204557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256–281. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.113.2.256CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilhooly, K. J., & Logie, R. H. (1980). Meaning-dependent ratings of imagery, age of acquisition, familiarity, and concreteness for 387 ambiguous words. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12, 428–450. doi: 10.3758/BF03201694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, L. D., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Understanding correlation: Factors that affect the size of r. Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 249–266. doi: 10.3200/JEXE.74.3.249-266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorfein, D. S., Viviani, J. M., & Leddo, J. (1982). Norms as a tool for the study of homography. Memory & Cognition, 10, 503–509. doi: 10.3758/BF03197654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guasch, M., Ferré, P., & Fraga, I. (2016). Spanish norms for affective and lexico-semantic variables for 1,400 words. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1358–1369. doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0684-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haro, J. (2012). Testmaker: Aplicación para crear cuestionarios online [Computer software and manual]. Retrieved from http://jharo.net/dokuwiki/testmakerGoogle Scholar
Haro, J., Comesaña, M., & Ferré, P. (2019). Is there an orthographic boost for ambiguous words during their processing? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 519–534. doi: 10.1007/s10936-018-9616-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haro, J., & Ferré, P. (2018). Semantic ambiguity: Do multiple meanings inhibit or facilitate word recognition? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47, 679–698. doi: 10.1007/s10936-017-9554-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haro, J., Ferré, P., Boada, R., & Demestre, J. (2017). Semantic ambiguity norms for 530 Spanish words. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 457–475. doi: 10.1017/S0142716416000266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hino, Y., Kusunose, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (2010). The relatedness-of-meaning effect for ambiguous words in lexical-decision tasks: When does relatedness matter? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 180–196. doi: 10.1037/a0020475CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1331–1356. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.22.6.1331Google Scholar
Hino, Y., Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding? Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 247–273. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.04.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinojosa, J. A., Martínez-García, N., Villalba-García, C., Fernández-Folgueiras, U., Sánchez-Carmona, A., Pozo, M. A., & Montoro, P. R. (2016). Affective norms of 875 Spanish words for five discrete emotional categories and two emotional dimensions. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 272–284. doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0572-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hinojosa, J. A., Moreno, E. M., & Ferré, P. (2019). Affective neurolinguistics: Towards a framework for reconciling language and emotion. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2019.1620957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinojosa, J. A., Rincón-Pérez, I., Romero-Ferreiro, M. V., Martínez-García, N., Villalba-García, C., Montoro, P. R., & Pozo, M. A. (2016). The Madrid Affective Database for Spanish (MADS): Ratings of dominance, familiarity, subjective age of acquisition and sensory experience. PLOS ONE, 11, e0155866. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155866CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jager, B., & Cleland, A. A. (2016). Polysemy advantage with abstract but not concrete words. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45, 143–156. doi: 10.1007/s10936-014-9337-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 278–305. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(81)90011-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, J. J., Fisher, D. G., & Rogness, N. T. (2009). Lexical ambiguity in statistics: What do students know about the words association, average, confidence, random and spread? Journal of Statistics Education, 17. doi: 10.1080/10691898.2009.11889535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellas, G., Ferraro, F. R., & Simpson, G. B. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 601–609. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.14.4.601Google ScholarPubMed
Khanna, M. M., & Cortese, M. J. (2011). Age of acquisition estimates for 1,208 ambiguous and polysemous words. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 89–96. doi: 10.3758/s13428-010-0027-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kissler, J., & Koessler, S. (2011). Emotionally positive stimuli facilitate lexical decisions—An ERP study. Biological Psychology, 86, 254–264. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.12.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81, 205–223. doi: 10.1006/brln.2001.2518CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15, 155–163. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kousta, S. T., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). Emotion words, regardless of polarity, have a processing advantage over neutral words. Cognition, 112, 473–481. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.06.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuperman, V. (2015). Virtual experiments in megastudies: A case study of language and emotion. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1693–1710. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2014.989865CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuperman, V., Estes, Z., Brysbaert, M., & Warriner, A. B. (2014). Emotion and language: Valence and arousal affect word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1065. doi: 10.1037/a0035669CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 445–452. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.8.4.445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, C. J. C., & Chen, Y. R. (2015). Exhaustive semantic activation for reading ambiguous verbs in Chinese sentences. Lingua Sinica, 1, 1–23. doi: 10.1186/s40655-015-0008-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mogg, K., Bradbury, K. E., & Bradley, B. P. (2006). Interpretation of ambiguous information in clinical depression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1411–1419. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.10.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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/s13428-012-0243-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., Walling, J. R., & Wheeler, J. W. (1980). The University of South Florida homograph norms. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12, 16–37. doi: 10.3758/BF03208320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory & Cognition, 9, 225–236. doi: 10.3758/BF03196957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pecher, D. (2001). Perception is a two-way junction: Feedback semantics in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 545–551. doi: 10.3758/BF03196190CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pexman, P. M., Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (2004). Semantic ambiguity and the process of generating meaning from print. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1252–1270. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1252Google ScholarPubMed
Real Academia Española. (2014). 23a edición del Diccionario de la lengua española. Madrid: Author.Google Scholar
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/BF03193031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245–266. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Ferreiro, J., & Davies, R. (2019). The graded effect of valence on word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45, 851–868. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000616Google ScholarPubMed
Schane, S. (2002). Ambiguity and misunderstanding in the law. Thomas Jefferson Law Review, 25, 167–193.Google Scholar
Scott, G. G., Keitel, A., Becirspahic, M., Yao, B., & Sereno, S. C. (2019). The Glasgow Norms: Ratings of 5,500 words on nine scales. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 1258–1270. doi: 10.3758/s13428-018-1099-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, G. B. (1984). Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 316–340. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.96.2.316CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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/s13428-011-0131-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., Imbault, C., Pérez-Sánchez, M. A., & Brysbaert, M. (2017). Norms of valence and arousal for 14,031 Spanish words. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 111–123. doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0700-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevenson, M., & Guo, Y. (2010). Disambiguation in the biomedical domain: The role of ambiguity type. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 43, 972–981. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2010.08.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re) consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645–659. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90355-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syssau, A., & Laxén, J. (2012). The influence of semantic richness on the visual recognition of emotional words. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 70–78. doi: 10.1037/a0027083CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taler, V., Klepousniotou, E., & Phillips, N. A. (2009). Comprehension of lexical ambiguity in healthy aging, mild cognitive impairment, and mild Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia, 47, 1332–1343. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.01.028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tokowicz, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 727–779. doi: 10.1080/01690960601057068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandekerckhove, J., Rouder, J. N., & Kruschke, J. K. (Eds.) (2018). Bayesian methods for advancing psychological science [Special Issue]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinson, D., Ponari, M., & Vigliocco, G. (2014). How does emotional content affect lexical processing? Cognition and Emotion, 28, 737–746. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2013.851068CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Võ, M. L., Jacobs, A. M., & Conrad, M. (2006). Cross-validating the Berlin Affective Word List. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 606–609. doi: 10.3758/BF03193892CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagenmakers, E J., Love, J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, A. J., … Morey, R. D. (2018). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological science: Part II. Example applications with JASP. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 58–76. doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1323-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagenmakers, E. J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., Love, J., … Matzke, D. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology: Part I. Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 35–57. doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1343-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Huete-Pérez et al. supplementary material

Huete-Pérez et al. supplementary material

Download Huete-Pérez et al. supplementary material(File)
File 99.9 KB