Emotional Valence, Arousal, and Threat Ratings of 160 Chinese Words among Adolescents

13 Pages·2015·0.41 MB·English

RESEARCHARTICLE
Emotional Valence, Arousal, and Threat
Ratings of 160 Chinese Words among
Adolescents
SamuelM.Y.Ho1*,ChristineW.Y.Mak1,DanniiYeung1,WenjieDuan1,SandyTang1,June
C.Yeung1,RitaChing2
1 PsychologyLaboratories,DepartmentofAppliedSocialSciences,CityUniversityofHongKong,Hong
Kong,China,2 TheWomen’sFoundation,HongKong,China
* [email protected]
Abstract
Thisstudywasconductedtoprovideratingsofvalence/pleasantness,arousal/excitement,
andthreat/potentialharmfor160Chinesewords.Theemotionalvalenceclassification(pos-
itive,negative,orneutral)ofallofthewordscorrespondedtothatoftheequivalentEnglish
languagewords.Morethan90%oftheparticipants,juniorhighschoolstudentsaged
between12and17years,understoodthewords.Theparticipantswerefrombothmainland
OPENACCESS
ChinaandHongKong,thusthewordscanbeappliedtoadolescentsfamiliarwitheither
Citation:HoSMY,MakCWY,YeungD,DuanW, simplified(e.g.inmainlandChina)ortraditionalChinese(e.g.inHongKong)withajunior
TangS,YeungJC,etal.(2015)EmotionalValence, secondaryschooleducationorhigher.Wealsoestablishedeightwordswithnegative
Arousal,andThreatRatingsof160ChineseWords
valence,highthreat,andhigharousalratingstofacilitatefutureresearch,especiallyon
amongAdolescents.PLoSONE10(7):e0132294.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294 attentionalandmemorybiasesamongindividualspronetoanxiety.Thus,thenewemo-
tionalwordlistprovidesausefulsourceofinformationforaffectiveresearchintheChinese
Editor:XuchuWeng,ZhejiangKeyLaborotoryfor
ResearchinAssesmentofCognitiveImpairments, language.
CHINA
Received:March19,2015
Accepted:June11,2015
Published:July30,2015
Introduction
Copyright:©2015Hoetal.Thisisanopenaccess
Recentstudieshaveprovidedunequivocalevidencethatemotionandcognitiveprocessesare
articledistributedunderthetermsoftheCreative
closelycoupled[1].Variousexperimentalparadigmshavebeendevelopedtoexaminehowsti-
CommonsAttributionLicense,whichpermits
unrestricteduse,distribution,andreproductioninany muliwithemotionalcontentinfluencecognition.Thedotprobetask[2]andtheemotional
medium,providedtheoriginalauthorandsourceare Strooptask[3]aremostfrequentlyusedforinvestigatingattentionalprocesses.Thedirected-
credited. forgettingparadigm[4]andimplicitandexplicitmemorytasks[5,6]arefrequentlyusedto
DataAvailabilityStatement:Allrelevantdataare examinememoryprocesses.
withinthepaperanditsSupportingInformationfile. Studiessuchasthesemaypresentpictures,faces,orwordsasemotionalstimuli.Oneadvan-
Funding:ThisworkwassupportedbyTheWomen’s tageofverbalstimuliistheabilitytocontrolaseriesofquantifiablefactors(e.g.numberofsyl-
Foundation(http://twfhk.org/)GrantNumber:CityU, lables)knowntoaffectwordprocessing,whichisnotthecaseforotherstimulusmaterialssuch
ProjectNumber:9231137. aspicturesorfaces.However,creatinghighlycontrolledword-basedmaterialsforstudying
emotionalinformationprocessingrequiresnotonlythecarefulmatchingofvariousfactors
CompetingInterests:Theauthorshavedeclared
thatnocompetinginterestsexist. knowntoinfluencewordperception,butalsoareliablemeasureofemotionalcontent.For
PLOSONE|DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294 July30,2015 1/13
ChineseEmotionalWords
instance,BradleyandLang[7]producedtheAffectiveNormsforEnglishWords(ANEW),
whichprovideasetofnormativeemotionalratingsforalargenumberofwords.Studiesinves-
tigatingcognitivebiaseshavealsoprovidedmanyappropriatewords[8–11].Theavailabilityof
suchstimulimakesthereplicationofresultsandscientificcommunicationeasierandcompara-
tivestudieswithdifferentcategoriesofstimuliandsensorialmodalitiespossible.Affective
wordlistshavebeendevelopedinotherlanguagesapartfromEnglish,includingFinnish[12],
Spanish[13,14],German[15],Italian[16],EuropeanPortuguese[17],andDutch[18].Like
theirEnglishlanguagecounterparts,thesenon-English-languageaffectivewordlistshavebeen
widelyusedinmemoryandperceptionexperiments.Forexample,OnraedtandKoster[19]
usedaDutchaffectiveworddatabaseinastudyofworkingmemory,whereasSiakaluk,Knol,
andPexman[20]adoptedthevalenceandarousalratingsofaffectivewordsasthestimuliin
theStrooptask.
Threecomponentsofemotionarecommonlyused[21]:thevalenceorpleasantnessofthe
stimuli;thearousalorexcitementprovokedbythestimuli;andthedominanceordegreeof
controlexertedbythestimuli.Ofthese,emotionalvalencehasbeenidentifiedasthemostpow-
erfulmeasureoftheemotionalnatureofstimuli,andhasalsobeenshowntocapturecognitive
resourcessuchasattention[22,23].Thelevelofarousalisthesecondmajordimensionofemo-
tionalaffect[7,24],andthereisincreasingevidenceforitsimportance[25].Dominancehas
beenlesscommonlyused[18],andsomestudieshaveonlyincludedvalenceandarousal,not
dominance[12,13,15].
Inadditiontotheabovethreedimensions,studiesonanxietyhavefoundanassociation
betweenthreat-relatedattentionalbiasesandanxiety[26].However,althoughnotallnegative
wordsarenecessarilythreatening,thetwoemotionaltraitsareoftenmingled.Somestudies
supporttheideathatthreatcapturesattentioninallindividualsonlyifitexceedsacritical
threshold[27,28].Itwouldbeuseful,therefore,todistinguishbetweenthreatandnegative
emotionalvalenceandthelevelofthreatforeachword,yetthereisadearthofinformationin
thisarea.Inthecurrentstudy,ratingsonvalenceandthreat(orthepotentialharminducedby
thestimuli)wereobtainedforeachwordtoprovidedataonwordsthatareunpleasant(nega-
tive),threatening,andhighinarousal.Onlyonestudy,onspokenFrenchwords,hasprovided
ratingsofthesethreedimensions[29].Nevertheless,threatwordcuesareimportantstimulifor
studiesoncognitiveprocessingandmemorybiases[9,30].
Chineseisoneofthemostwidelyusedlanguagesintheworld,yettothebestofourknowl-
edge,nopreviousstudyhascomparedtheemotionalratingsofChinesewordswithratingsof
thecorrespondingwordsinEnglishnorms.PreviousstudiesonChinesesubjectshavetypically
usedtranslatedtextsandadoptedtheemotionalratingsofEnglishwords[31].However,the
polysemyorsyntacticambiguityofaword,orthelackoflexicalparallelismbetweenChinese
andEnglish,mayunderminethecomparabilityofANEW’swordratings.Awell-knownexam-
pleistheword“crisis”inEnglishwhichisdepictedbytwocharactersinChinese(危機).The
firstcharacter(危)representsdangerwhilethesecond(機)representsopportunity.Ithasbeen
suggestedthatthewordcrisismaynothaveahighnegativevalenceinChinese[32].Further-
more,theperceptionofcertainemotionalwordsmaychangeduringadolescence.Considering
theincreasedinterestinthestudyofcognitiveprocessinginchildrenandadolescents,andthe
advantagesassociatedwiththeuseofwordsintermsofexperimentalmanipulationandcon-
trol,theaimofthepresentstudywastovalidatetheemotionalvalence,arousallevel,andthreat
levelofChinesewords.Specifically,weaimedtoadaptthewordstimulitoChineseatanappro-
priatereadinglevelforChineseadolescents.Ourfindingsprovideasetofnormativeemotional
ratingsforalargenumberofwordsintheChineselanguage,whichwillbeausefultoolfor
useinfuturestudiesofemotionandcognitionconductedamongadolescentsinChinese
community.
PLOSONE|DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294 July30,2015 2/13
ChineseEmotionalWords
Insummary,thisstudywasconductedto(1)establishalistofaffectivewordsinChineseto
facilitatecognitiveresearch,especiallyexperimentsonworkingmemoryandattentionalbias
forchildrenandadolescents;(2)establishwordswiththreatratingwhicharelessavailablein
theliterature;(3)provideratingsofthethreatdimensiontoexaminethevalence-threatand
arousal-threatbi-dimensionalrelationships;and(4)createalistofwordsthatarehighlynega-
tiveandelicithigharousalandthreateningreactionsamongpeopleforfutureresearch.
Methods
Participants
Theparticipantswere164studentsrecruitedfromtwosecondaryschoolsinmainlandChina
(n=102):SchoolA,n=71,SchoolB,n=31,andonesecondaryschoolinHongKong(School
C,n=62).Alloftheparticipantswereadolescentswithnohistoryofpsychopathologyorpsy-
choticspectrumdisorders.AllwerenativeChinesespeakers:participantsfromHongKong
wereabletoreadtraditionalChineseandparticipantsfrommainlandChinawereabletoread
simplifiedChinese.Asaresult,forparticipantsfromHongKong,traditionalChinesewasused
forallassessmentmaterials(wordsforrating,inventoriesetc.)whereasforparticipantsfrom
MainlandChina,simplifiedChinesewasused.ThecontentsoftwoChineseversionsofthe
materialsareidentical.OurpreviousstudieshaveconfirmedthatthesetwoformsofChinese
canbeusedinterchangeablywithlittleeffectontheresults[33,34].
Procedure
Writteninformedconsentfromtheparentsorguardianswasfirstobtainedthroughtheschool
teachers.Ontheassessmentday,studentswereinformedthatparticipationwasvoluntaryand
theycouldwithdrawfromthestudyatanytimewithoutanynegativeconsequences.Anonym-
ityandconfidentialityofparticipationswereassured.Writteninformedconsentwasobtained
fromthestudentsbeforecommencementoftheexperiment.Ethicsapprovalwasobtained
fromtheHumanSubjectsEthicsSub-CommitteeoftheCityUniversityofHongKong.
Rating300wordson4dimensions(valence,arousal,dominance,andthreat)wouldhave
meanteachparticipantrating1,200items,whichcouldhaveledtofatigueandnon-compliance
behavior(e.g.missingresponses).Thefollowingtwostrategieswereadoptedtoreducethe
aboveissues.First,weexcludeddominanceasratingsonthisdimensionarelesscommonlycol-
lectedinotherstudies,accordingtotheliteraturereview.Second,theparticipantswereran-
domlyassignedtooneofthreegroups,eachofwhichratedthewordsononlyoneofthethree
emotionaldimensions:56(Group1:mainlandChina,n=31;HongKong,n=25)ratedthe
emotionalvalenceofwords;53(Group2:mainlandChina,n=37;HongKong,n=16)rated
theemotionalarousalofthesamewords;andanother51(Group3:mainlandChina,n=30;
HongKong,n=21)ratedthethreatvalueofthesamewords.Genderandagewerebalanced
acrossgroups.Asaresult,eachparticipantonlyneededtorate300itemsononeemotional
dimension.Thisarrangementcouldalsominimizethepossibilityofmutualinfluencebetween
theemotionalvalence,arousal,andthreatratings.
Theparticipantsingroups1and2ratedtheemotionalvalenceandarousallevelsofthe
words,respectively,ona9-pointSelf-AssessmentManikinscale(SAM)[35,36].Thepartici-
pantsingroup3ratedthethreatlevelsofthewordsonafive-pointscale.Detailsoftheserating
scalesareprovidedintheMeasuressectionbelow.Apaper-and-pencilprocedurewasadopted
fortheaffectiveratingtask.Thedatawerecollectedintheparticipants’classrooms.Ineachses-
sion,beforethedatacollection,aresearchassistantwithapsychologyeducationalbackground
presentedtheaimofthestudytothestudents,andemphasizedthevoluntarynatureoftheir
participationandtheconfidentialityoftheresults.Studentswereallowedtodropoutofthe
PLOSONE|DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294 July30,2015 3/13
ChineseEmotionalWords
studyatthisstageiftheydidnotwanttoparticipate.Subsequently,theresearchassistant
explainedtheaffectiveratingtaskbydescribingtheuseoftheSAMscaletogroups1and2,
andtheuseofthethreat-valuescaletogroup3.Theparticipantswereremindedthataper-
sonal,subjectiveratingwasrequired,andthustherewerenocorrectorincorrectanswers.The
participantswerealsotoldthattheycouldmarkaspecificresponseiftheydidnotknowthe
meaningofanyofthepresentedwords.Beforethestartoftheassessment,sixwords(love,
boat,bomb,duck,trust,andcrime)wereusedasexamplestogivetheparticipantsabasicrefer-
ence,andanadditionalself-createdwordwasusetoshowhowtorespondincasethewordwas
notcomprehensibletothem.Finally,questionnairesetswiththewordlistweredistributedto
eachsubject.Notimelimitwasdefined,butthesubjectswereencouragedtoanswerasquickly
aspossible.Theentireprocesslastedforabout40minutes.
Materials
Wefirstselected300EnglishverbsandnounswithreferencetotheANEWdatabase[36]and
thewordlistsofpreviousstudiesinvestigatingcognitivebiases,whichprovideasourcefor
wordspertainingtosocialandpsychologicalthreat[7,9,30,37,38].The300wordscomprised
104negative,73positive,and123neutralwords.Abilingualtranslator(nativeChineselan-
guagespeaker)withapsychologyeducationbackgroundperformedtheforwardtranslation
fromEnglishtoChinese,andanotherbilingualindividualwithapsychologyeducationback-
groundindependentlytranslateditbackintoEnglish.Toensuretheitemsinbothversions
achievedgrammaticalandcolloquialappropriateness,differencesbetweentheoriginaland
back-translatedversionswerediscussedandresolvedwiththeagreementofbothtranslators
andthefirstauthorofthispaper.Twoversionsofthesamewordlistwerecreatedwiththe
itemspresentedinrandomordertoexcludetheinfluenceofprimacyandrecencyeffectson
theparticipants’ratings.
Measures
ValenceandArousalScales. ThevalenceandarousalratingscalesoftheSelf-Assessment
Manikin(SAM)[7,35]wereusedtomeasurevalenceandarousal.TheSAMconsistsoftwo
9-pointbipolarratingsscales(rangingfrom“1”to“9”)withpictorialmanikinsrepresenting
thevaluesoneachdimension.Inthepresentstudy,onthevalencescale,“1”wasaccompanied
byafrowning,unhappyfigurerepresentingextremelyunpleasant,and“9”wasaccompanied
byasmiling,happyfigurerepresentingextremelypleasant.Onthearousalscale,“1”was
accompaniedbyarelaxed,sleepyfigurecorrespondingtofeelingverycalm,and“9”was
accompaniedbyanexcited,wide-eyedfigurecorrespondingtofeelingveryexcitedand
aroused.Thepresentationofthescaleswasbasedonempiricalevidencethathighernumbers
intuitivelygowithpositiveanchors(e.g.sadtohappyratherthanhappytosad)[39].
Threat-valueScale. AsinthestudybyBertels,Kolinsky,andMorais[29],wordswere
ratedaccordingtotheirthreatvalueona5-pointscalerangingfrom“1=notthreatening”to
“5=verythreatening.”
PersonalData. Participantswerealsoaskedtoprovidedemographicinformation(e.g.,
sex,age,educationgrade,country/placeresidedinmostbetweenbirthandage7)andanswered
questionsabouttheirlanguagehistory(e.g.,nativelanguage,secondlanguageslearned),hand-
edness(right-handed,left-handed)andvision(normal,correctedtonormalvisualacuity).Par-
ticipantswerealsoaskedtoindicatewhethertheyknewthemeaningofeachword(“yes”or
“no”).
PLOSONE|DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294 July30,2015 4/13
ChineseEmotionalWords
Results
Participantprofile
Fourparticipants(2.4%)withmorethan10%missingdatawereexcludedfromthedataanaly-
sis,thusthefinalsampleconsistedof160participants.Theparticipants’demographiccharac-
teristicsarepresentedbyschoolinTable1.
Onaverage,theHongKongstudentswereolderthanthemainlandChinesestudents,t(1)=
-3.53,p<.01,andtheHongKongsamplehadfewergirlsthanthesamplefrommainland
China,χ²(1)=4.24,p<.05.
SelectionofWords
Tenwordswereexcludedfromtheanalysisbecause10%ormoreoftheparticipants(ranged
from10%to15%)statedthattheydidnotunderstandtheirmeaning.Theremaining290
wordswerecategorizedintopositive,neutral,ornegativevalenceaccordingtotheratingscores
ofthe56participantsassignedtothevalenceratinggroup(seeProceduresection)basedonthe
criteriaofFerreetal.[13]:lessthan4=negative;4to6=neutral;6to9=positive.Theresult-
ingvalenceclassification(positive,negative,neutral)ofeachwordwasthencomparedtoitsa
prioriclassificationaccordingtopreviousstudies(seeMaterialssection).Onlywordsthatwere
ratedthesameinbothclassificationswereselectedforfurtheranalysis.Forexample,theword
“crazy”(瘋狂inChinese)wasclassifiedasnegativeinEnglishaccordingtopreviousstudies
butpositiveinChineseaccordingtotheratingsofthepresentsample.Thiswordwasexcluded
fromthefinallist.ThisstrategyensuredthattheChinesewordsinourfinallisthadidentical
valencetotheexistingwordlistsinotherlanguagestofacilitatecommunicationandcompari-
sonofresults.Table2depictstheconcordancerateofthethreevalencetypes.Therewere160
wordswithvalenceidenticaltopreviousstudies:25positive(15.6%),90neutral(56.3%),and
45(28.1%)negative.These160wordswereincludedinourfinalwordlist.
Table1. WordswithHighThreatRating.
WordNo. EnglishTranslation ChineseWord Threat(Rating=1–5) Valence(Rating=1–9) Arousal(Rating=1–9)
Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Mean(SD)
3 Annoyed 煩惱 3.06(1.39) 2.55(2.04) 5.54(2.29)
5 Assault 毆打 3.36(1.45) 2.47(1.87) 5.53(2.74)
11 Beating 痛打 3.36(1.34) 2.65(2.02) 5.69(2.59)
20 Cancer 癌症 3.57(1.51) 2.27(1.67) 5.82(2.49)
28 Collapse 倒塌 3.02(1.61) 3.55(2.16) 4.94(3.00)
51 Dying 垂死 4.00(1.23) 2.50(1.84) 5.48(2.63)
53 Emergencies 緊急 3.35(1.65) 3.15(1.88) 4.69(2.94)
70 Hazard 危險 3.20(1.53) 3.82(1.82) 5.30(2.70)
77 Horror 驚駭 3.13(1.48) 2.69(1.75) 5.50(2.54)
81 Idiotic 白痴 3.34(1.61) 2.48(1.90) 4.85(2.40)
118 Pounding 猛擊 3.50(1.30) 3.29(2.28) 5.14(2.38)
138 Suffocate 窒息 3.84(1.36) 2.84(1.84) 5.54(2.72)
140 Surgery 手術 3.90(1.33) 2.54(2.04) 6.00(2.61)
144 Teased 取笑 3.08(1.54) 3.15(2.30) 4.72(2.69)
155 Violence 暴力 3.06(1.39) 3.13(2.26) 5.32(2.65)
Note:Highthreatratingisdefinedasameanscoreabove3ona5-pointscale;Highnegativevalenceisdefinedasameanscorebelow3ona9-point
scale;andhigharousalisdefinedasameanscoreabove5ona9-pointscale.Highthreat,highnegativeandhigharousalwordsarehighlightedinbold
fonts.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294.t001
PLOSONE|DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294 July30,2015 5/13
ChineseEmotionalWords
Table2. Concordanceratebyvalenceofwords.
ClassificationbasedonRatingofthePresentStudy
Positiven(%) Neutraln(%) Negativen(%)
ClassificationbasedonpreviousStudies Positive 25(8.6) 47(16.2) 0
Neutral 9(3.1) 90(31.0) 19(6.6)
Negative 1(0.3) 54(18.6) 45(15.5)
Note:Numberofwords=290;numberofparticipantsdidtherating=56.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294.t002
DescriptiveStatistics
Aftercategorizingthewordsintopositive,negative,andneutralvalence,wecategorizedthem
ashighorlowarousalandhighorlowthreat,accordingtothefollowingstrategies:
1. wordswithameanarousalratingscoreabove5.0accordingtothe9-pointSAMscalewere
categorizedashigharousalwords;and
2. wordswithameanscoreabove3.0onthe5-pointthreatratingscalewerecategorizedas
highthreatwords.
Accordingtotheabovestrategies,20words(12.5%)werecategorizedashigharousaland15
words(9.4%)ashighthreat.Asthreatratingsarenotcommonlyavailableintheliterature,we
providethemeansandstandarddeviationofthehighthreatwordsinTable3.AnExcelfile
withthedataforthe160wordsandtheirclassificationisavailableasasupportinginformation
ofthearticle.Thetopthreehighest-ratedthreatwordsweredying(mean=4.00,SD=1.23),
surgery(mean=3.90,SD=1.33),andsuffocate(mean=3.84,SD=1.36).
Table3. WordswithHighThreatRating.
WordNo. EnglishTranslation ChineseWord Threat(Rating=1–5) Valence(Rating=1–9) Arousal(Rating=1–9)
Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Mean(SD)
3 Annoyed 煩惱 3.06(1.39) 2.55(2.04) 5.54(2.29)
5 Assault 毆打 3.36(1.45) 2.47(1.87) 5.53(2.74)
11 Beating 痛打 3.36(1.34) 2.65(2.02) 5.69(2.59)
20 Cancer 癌症 3.57(1.51) 2.27(1.67) 5.82(2.49)
28 Collapse 倒塌 3.02(1.61) 3.55(2.16) 4.94(3.00)
51 Dying 垂死 4.00(1.23) 2.50(1.84) 5.48(2.63)
53 Emergencies 緊急 3.35(1.65) 3.15(1.88) 4.69(2.94)
70 Hazard 危險 3.20(1.53) 3.82(1.82) 5.30(2.70)
77 Horror 驚駭 3.13(1.48) 2.69(1.75) 5.50(2.54)
81 Idiotic 白痴 3.34(1.61) 2.48(1.90) 4.85(2.40)
118 Pounding 猛擊 3.50(1.30) 3.29(2.28) 5.14(2.38)
138 Suffocate 窒息 3.84(1.36) 2.84(1.84) 5.54(2.72)
140 Surgery 手術 3.90(1.33) 2.54(2.04) 6.00(2.61)
144 Teased 取笑 3.08(1.54) 3.15(2.30) 4.72(2.69)
155 Violence 暴力 3.06(1.39) 3.13(2.26) 5.32(2.65)
Note:Highthreatratingisdefinedasameanscoreabove3ona5-pointscale;Highnegativevalenceisdefinedasameanscorebelow3ona9-point
scale;andhigharousalisdefinedasameanscoreabove5ona9-pointscale.Highthreat,highnegativeandhigharousalwordsarehighlightedinbold
fonts.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294.t003
PLOSONE|DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294 July30,2015 6/13
ChineseEmotionalWords
Table4. ThreatbyValenceandArousalGroups(totalnumberofwords=160).
LowThreat HighThreat Total
n(%) n(%) n(%)
Valence
Positive 115(71.9) 0 115(71.9)
Negative 30(18.8) 15(9.4) 45(28.1)
Arousal
Low 136(85.0) 4(2.5) 140(87.5)
High 9(5.6) 11(6.9) 20(12.5)
Total 145(90.6) 15(9.4) 160(100)
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294.t004
Asdiscussedpreviously,notallnegativewordsarenecessarilythreatening,andviceversa.
Theparticipantsrated30words(18.8%)asnegativebutnotasposingasocialorpsychological
threat;forinstance,avoid,unkind,ashamed,stupid,embarrass,andlazy.Conversely,all15
wordsthatwereratedashighthreatwerealsoratedasnegativewords.Fourwords(2.5%)were
classifiedashighthreatbutlowarousal:collapse,idiotic,emergencies,andteased.Ninewords
(5.6%)wereratedashigharousalbutlowthreat:ashamed,stupid,embarrass,reject,terrific,
terrified,despise,worried,andcoward.Finally,11words(6.9%)wereratedashighthreatand
higharousal:hazard,suffocate,assault,annoyed,beating,dying,pounding,cancer,horror,sur-
gery,andviolence(Table4).
Itisusefultodeveloplistsofwordsthatarehighlynegative,andelicithigharousaland
threateningreactionsamongpeople.Weselectedwordswithaveragescoresbelow3onthe
valencescale(verynegative/unpleasant;9-pointscale),above5onthearousalscale(high
arousal;9-pointscale),andabove3onthethreatscale(highthreat,5-pointscale).Eightwords
fulfilledtheabovecriteria;representing17.8%ofthenegativewordsonourlist(seeTable3).
Relationshipsbetweendemographiccharacteristicsandratings
Themeansandstandarddeviationsofeachemotionaldimensionbygenderandlocationare
depictedinTable5.Themeanratingsforvalenceandarousalwere4.59(SD=.62)and4.21
(SD=1.20)respectivelyona9-pointscalewhereasthoseforthreatwas2.20(SD=.62)ona
5-pointscale.Gender(maleversusfemale)andregion(HongKongversusmainlandChina)
didnotaffecttheratings,exceptthatthemeanvalenceratingswerehigherforparticipants
fromHongKongthanfortheirmainlandcounterparts,t(54)=-3.87,p<.01.One-wayanalysis
ofvariance(ANOVA)revealednodifferencesinthethreeemotionaldimensionsbetweenpar-
ticipantsofdifferentages:positive,F(5,144)=1.13,p=.35;neutral,F(5,144)=1.02,p=.41;
andnegative,F(5,144)=1.88,p=.10.
Reliability
WeadaptedthemethodofMoorsandcolleagues[18]inasimilarstudytocalculatethereli-
abilitiesforeachsampleofvalence(n=56),arousal(n=53),andthreat(n=51)ratingssepa-
rately(seealso[21]).Asmentionedbefore(seeProcedure),participantswereallocatedtoone
ofthreegroupswithparticipantsineachgroupprovidedratingsononeofthethreeemotional
dimensions(valence,arousal,orthreat).Accordingly,participantsineachratinggroupwere
splitintohalvesaccordingtotheirserialnumbers(oddoreven).Interclasscorrelationcoeffi-
cients[40]werehighforvalence(.98),arousal(.84),andthreat(.96).Wealsospliteachrating
groupaccordingtogenderandlocation.Allreliabilitiesweregood:gender(maleversus
PLOSONE|DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294 July30,2015 7/13
ChineseEmotionalWords
Table5. Mean(StandardDeviation)forValence,Arousal,andThreatRatingsbyGender,andRegion(numberofwords=160).
Gender Region
TypeofWords All Female Male t(df) HongKong MainlandChina t(df)
ValenceMean(SD)ona9-pointratingscale
All 4.59(0.62) 4.59(0.55) 4.58(0.70) -0.06(54) 4.91(0.36) 4.33(0.68) -3.87(54)**
Negative 3.05(1.08) 3.02(1.03) 3.07(1.14) 0.17(54) 3.45(0.91) 2.73(1.11) -2.61(54)*
Neutral 4.89(0.73) 4.95(0.65) 4.84(0.81) -0.53(54) 5.19(0.44) 4.65(0.83) -2.91(54)**
Positive 6.55(1.15) 6.45(1.13) 6.64(1.19) 0.62(54) 6.81(0.92) 6.34(1.29) -1.53(54)
ArousalMean(SD)ona9-pointratingscale
All 4.21(1.20) 4.21(1.17) 4.21(1.29) 0.02(51) 4.06(1.65) 4.27(0.97) 0.57(51)
Negative 4.79(1.43) 4.97(1.40) 4.46(1.47) -1.25(51) 4.94(1.72) 4.73(1.31) -0.50(51)
Neutral 3.75(1.37) 3.67(1.32) 3.88(1.50) 0.53(51) 3.55(1.72) 3.84(1.21) 0.71(51)
Positive 4.29(1.47) 4.20(1.54) 4.46(1.36) 0.63(51) 3.89(2.21) 4.47(0.99) 1.34(51)
ThreatMean(SD)ona5-pointratingscale
All 2.20(0.65) 2.27(0.63) 2.14(0.68) -0.68(49) 2.02(0.66) 2.33(0.62) 1.71(49)
Negative 2.79(0.75) 2.85(0.72) 2.74(0.78) -0.55(49) 2.75(0.78) 2.82(0.74) 0.36(49)
Neutral 2.02(0.74) 2.09(0.67) 1.96(0.80) -0.61(49) 1.77(0.77) 2.20(0.67) 2.11(49)*
Positive 1.58(0.62) 1.64(0.59) 1.53(0.65) -0.61(49) 1.37(0.50) 1.73(0.65)
*p<.05
**p<.01
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294.t005
female):valence(.98),arousal(.84),threat(.96);location(mainlandChinaversusHongKong):
valence(.98),arousal(.76),threat(.92).
Bi-directionalRelationshipsbetweentheVariables
ThePearson’szero-ordercorrelationcoefficientsbetweentheemotionalwordsareshownin
Table6.Thereweresignificantcorrelationsforallofthebi-dimensionalrelationshipsinthe
expecteddirections.First,valenceandthreatwerenegativelycorrelated(r=-.79,p.<.001),
showingthatwordsthatweremorepleasantwerelessthreatening.Second,asignificantnega-
tivecorrelationwasobtainedbetweenarousalandthreat(r=.62,p<.001),i.e.wordsthat
weremorethreateningtendedtoarousemoreexcitementamongtheparticipants.Finally,a
negativelinearrelationshipwasobtainedbetweenvalenceandarousal(r=-.43,p<.001),sug-
gestingthatwordsthatweremorenegativetendedtoelicitmoreexcitement.
BradleyandLang[7]andotherstudiesofaffectivewordadaptationindifferentlanguages,
suchasSpanish[13],EuropeanPortuguese[17],andFinnish[12]havereportedaquadratic
relationshipbetweenvalenceandarousal.Thisquadraticrelationshipwasthusexaminedin
thecurrentstudy.AU-shapeddistribution(R=.72,p<.000),indicatingthatverypositiveor
Table6. Correlationsbetweenthevariables.
Valence Arousal Threat
Valence 1 -.43** -.79**
Arousal 1 .62**
Threat 1
**p<.001
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294.t006
PLOSONE|DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294 July30,2015 8/13
ChineseEmotionalWords
verynegativewordstendedtoarousemoreexcitementamongtheparticipants,wasobtained.
Thisquadraticrelationshipalsoexplainedmoreofthevariance(52.5%)thanthelinearrela-
tionship(18.6%),showingthatitfitthedatabetterthanthelinearmodel.ThesameU-shaped
distributionwasobtainedintheabovementionedstudies[7,12,13,17].
Discussion
Weestablishvalence,arousal,andthreatratingsforalistof160Chineseaffectivewordsinthis
study.Asmentionedbefore(seeProceduresection),rating300wordson4dimensions
(valence,arousal,dominance,andthreat)mightleadtofatigueandnon-compliancebehavior.
Wehaveexcludedpower/dominanceinthepresentstudyforthefollowingreasons.First,
power/dominancehasbeenlesscommonlyusedandexcludedinpreviousstudies[12,13,15,
18].Second,itisourinteresttoexplorewordsthatarethreateningbutnotnegativeandvice
versa(seeTable3).Finally,wearemotivatedtoestablishalistofwordsthatarehighlynegative,
andelicithigharousalandthreateningreactionsamongpeopleforfutureresearch(seealso
Table3).Thewordshavegoodreliability,asdemonstratedbythehighsplit-halfreliabilityin
thethreecategories:valence(.98),arousal(.84),andthreat(.96).Tothebestofourknowledge,
thisisthefirstempiricallyestablishedaffectivewordlistinChinese.Ourwordlisthasseveral
characteristics.
First,weattemptedtoensurethatthevalenceclassification(i.e.,positive,neutral,ornega-
tive)ofeachofourChinesewordscorrespondedwiththeclassificationoftheirEnglishcoun-
terpartsinpreviousstudies[7,30,37,38].Forexample,thewordconfident(自信inChinese)
wasclassifiedaspositivebothinourstudy(meanvalencerating=6.37,SD=2.10)andinthe
ANEWmanual[7](meanvalencerating=7.98,SD=1.29).Similarly,theworddespise(鄙視
inChinese)wascategorizedasnegativebothonourlistandtheANEWlist(oursample:
mean=3.16,SD=2.25;ANEW:mean=2.03,SD=1.38).Duetothelackoflexicalparallelism
betweentheChineseandEnglishlanguages,wecontendthatwordstranslatedfromEnglish
intoChinesemaynotnecessarilyhavethesamevalence.Ourpresentfindings,infact,support
thisproposition.Forinstance,thewordcrazywasclassifiedasanegativewordinEnglish
accordingtoapreviousstudy[9].However,theChinesetranslationofthisword(瘋狂)carries
theconnotationofelationorecstasy,andtheyoungpeopleinoursampleregardeditasaposi-
tiveword.Asexpected,somewordsthatwereclassifiedasneutralinEnglishwereconsidered
aspositiveornegativeinChineseandviceversa.Forexample,Stewartandcolleagues[30]clas-
sifiedthewordmotel(旅館inChinese)asneutral,butourparticipantsconsidereditapositive
word,perhapsbecausetheyassociateditwithtravelingandholidays.Forty-sevenwords
(16.2%,Table2)withpositivevalenceinEnglishwereratedasneutralwordsbyourpartici-
pants.Anotableexampleisthewordhappiness(快樂inChinese),whichwasclassifiedaspos-
itiveinMcCabe’s[9]study,butasneutralinthepresentstudy.Thereasonforthisdifference
maybethatthewordhappinesscarriesahedonicconnotationthatmaynotberegardedaspos-
itiveinChineseculture[41].Finally,54words(18.6%)thatwereclassifiedasnegativein
Englishwereratedasneutralinthecurrentstudy.Manyofthesewordshavemarginalratings
intheANEWdatabase[7],forexample,anxious(ANEWvalencemeanrating=4.80)andshy
(ANEWvalencemeanrating=4.59).OurChineseparticipantsmightalsoregardshyandanx-
iousasadaptivereactionsinsomesituationsbecausetherearenotabledifferencesinpro-social
behaviorbetweenWesternandChinesecultures[41–43].Adetaileddiscussionofthepossible
reasonsforthedifferencesinclassificationbetweenourfindingsandthoseofpreviousstudies
isbeyondthescopeofthispaper.WeattemptedtosynchronizethevalenceofourChinese
wordswithexistingEnglishlanguagewordlists,whichisanimportantstepinensuringthe
PLOSONE|DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294 July30,2015 9/13
ChineseEmotionalWords
Fig1.Distributionofthemeanvalues(positive,negative,andneutraltypesofwords)fortheratings
ofthe160Chinesewordsinvalenceandarousaldimensions.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294.g001
consistencyofvalenceacrosslanguages,althoughthisattemptreducedthenumberofwordsin
ourlist.
Second,ourstudyisoneofthefewtoprovideratingsofthethreatofemotionalwords.
Highlythreateningstimuliareimportanttoolsinexperimentalstudiesofcognitivebiases,espe-
ciallystudiesrelatedtotheetiologyofanxiety[2,26,44,45]andinterventionstrategiestomod-
ifytheattentionalbiasofanxietyproneadolescents[46–49].Ourlistcontained15wordsthat
theadolescentsperceivedaselicitingsocialandpsychologicalthreat,andeightofthesewere
ratedhighlyonthreat,arousal,andnegativevalence:annoyed(煩惱);assault(毆打);beating
(痛打);cancer(癌症);dying(垂死);horror(驚駭);suffocate(窒息);andsurgery(手術).All
oftheseexcepthorrorarerelatedtophysicalsufferingandpain,whichmayberelatedtoado-
lescents’concernsabouttheirphysicalwell-beingandappearanceatthisstage[50].These
wordsshouldbehelpfulforuseinexperimentsoncognitivebiasesrelatedtoanxiety,particu-
larlyattentionalandmemorybiases,amongadolescents.Ourresultsshowthathigharousal
wordsdonotnecessarilyhavehighthreatvalues.Forinstance,thewordterrific(優秀inChi-
nese)wasnotconsideredasahighthreatword,althoughithadahigharousalvalue,andalso
hadahighpositivevalencerating(mean=6.19,SD=2.47).Similarly,notallnegativewords
wereratedasthreatening.Wordssuchasavoid(逃避),ashamed(羞恥),andembarrassed
(尷尬)areobviouslynegativewords,buttheadolescentsinoursampledidnotappraisethem
aspossessingahighpotentialtoharm.
Third,thewordsinourlistwerecomprehensibletothemajority(>90%)ofour12-to
17-year-oldsecondaryschoolparticipants.TherearetwoformsofwrittenChinese:simplified
andtraditional.TheformerisusedmainlyinmainlandChinaandSingaporewhereasthelatter
isusedinHongKongandTaiwan.ThesetwoformsofwrittenChinesehaveslightlydifferent
lexicalandgrammaticalstructures,andsomeexpressionsandwordsinsimplifiedChinesemay
notbecomprehensibletopeopleusingtraditionalChineseandviceversa.Itisimportantto
havealistofemotionalwordsapplicabletoadolescentsfamiliarwitheitherofthetwowritten
formsofChinesetofacilitatecomparisonacrosscommunities.Furthermore,ourwordswere
PLOSONE|DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0132294 July30,2015 10/13