Valence, arousal, familiarity, concreteness, and imageability ratings for 292 two-character Chinese

16 Pages·2017·0.97 MB·English

RESEARCHARTICLE
Valence, arousal, familiarity, concreteness,
and imageability ratings for 292 two-character
Chinese nouns in Cantonese speakers in
Hong Kong
LydiaT.S.Yee1,2,3*
1 DepartmentofPsychology,TheEducationUniversityofHongKong,TaiPo,HongKong,2 Centrefor
PsychosocialHealth,TheEducationUniversityofHongKong,TaiPo,HongKong,3 CentreforBrainand
a1111111111
Education,TheEducationUniversityofHongKong,TaiPo,HongKong
a1111111111
a1111111111
*[email protected]
a1111111111
a1111111111
Abstract
Wordsarefrequentlyusedasstimuliincognitivepsychologyexperiments,forexample,in
recognitionmemorystudies.Intheseexperiments,itisoftendesirabletocontrolforthe
OPENACCESS
words’psycholinguisticpropertiesbecausedifferencesinsuchpropertiesacrossexperi-
Citation:YeeLTS(2017)Valence,arousal,
mentalconditionsmightintroduceundesirableconfounds.Inordertoavoidconfounds,stud-
familiarity,concreteness,andimageabilityratings
for292two-characterChinesenounsinCantonese iestypicallychecktoseeifvariousaffectiveandlexico-semanticpropertiesarematched
speakersinHongKong.PLoSONE12(3): acrossexperimentalconditions,andsodatabasesthatcontainvaluesfortheseproperties
e0174569.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
areneeded.WhilewordratingsforthesevariablesexistinEnglishandotherEuropeanlan-
pone.0174569
guages,ratingsforChinesewordsarenotcomprehensive.Inparticular,whileratingsforsin-
Editor:ChristosPapadelis,BostonChildren’s
glecharactersexist,ratingsfortwo-characterwords—whichoftenhavedifferentmeanings
Hospital/HarvardMedicalSchool,UNITED
STATES thantheirconstituentcharacters,arescarce.Inthisstudy,ratingsfor292two-characterChi-
nesenounswereobtainedfromCantonesespeakersinHongKong.Affectivevariables,
Received:January22,2017
includingvalenceandarousal,andlexico-semanticvariables,includingfamiliarity,concrete-
Accepted:March12,2017
ness,andimageability,wereratedinthestudy.Thewordswereselectedfromafilmsubtitle
Published:March27,2017 databasecontainingwordfrequencyinformationthatcouldbeextractedandlistedalong-
Copyright:©2017LydiaT.S.Yee.Thisisanopen sidetheresultingratings.Overall,thesubjectiveratingsshowedgoodreliabilityacrossall
accessarticledistributedunderthetermsofthe rateddimensions,aswellasgoodreliabilitywithinandbetweenthedifferentgroupsofpar-
CreativeCommonsAttributionLicense,which
ticipantswhoeachratedasubsetofthewords.Moreover,severalwell-establishedrelation-
permitsunrestricteduse,distribution,and
reproductioninanymedium,providedtheoriginal shipsbetweenthevariablesfoundconsistentlyinotherlanguageswerealsoobservedin
authorandsourcearecredited. thisstudy,demonstratingthattheratingsarevalid.Theresultingworddatabasecanbe
DataAvailabilityStatement:Allrelevantdataare usedinstudieswherecontrolfortheabovepsycholinguisticvariablesiscriticaltothe
withinthepaperanditsSupportingInformation researchdesign.
files.
Funding:Thisworkwassupportedbygrants
awardedtoL.T.S.Y.bytheEducationUniversityof
HongKong.Thegrantswere:RG64/2014-2015R,
DRG/2014-15,andDRG/2015-16.Thefundershad
noroleinstudydesign,datacollectionand
analysis,decisiontopublish,orpreparationofthe
manuscript.
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174569 March27,2017 1/16
Affectiveandlexico-semanticratingsfor292two-characterChinesenouns
Competinginterests:Theauthorhasdeclaredthat Introduction
nocompetinginterestsexist.
Wordsarecharacterizedbyanumberofaffectiveandlexico-semanticvariables.Examplesof
affectivevariablesincludevalenceandarousal,whichrefertotheextentofpleasantorunpleas-
antfeeling,andtheamountofphysiologicalresponse,thatawordevokesrespectively[1].
Valenceandarousalcanberatedsubjectively,andtheirnormativevaluesarederivedfromrat-
ingstudies[2].Ontheotherhand,lexico-semanticvariablescanbeobjectiveorsubjective.An
exampleofanobjectivepropertyiswordfrequency,whichcanbeassessedbyhowfrequentlya
wordappearsinprint[3,4],ormorerecently,intelevisionandfilmsubtitles[5].Commonly
studiedsubjectivelexico-semanticvariablesincludeconcreteness,imageability,andfamiliar-
ity.Concretenessistheextenttowhichawordistangible[6].Imageabilityreferstotheeaseof
generatingamentalimageforaword[6].Familiarityreferstohowfrequentlyawordisseen,
heard,orusedineverydaylife[7].Likevalenceandarousal,valuesforthesesubjectivelexico-
semanticvariablesareobtainedfromratingstudiesandusedtocreatepopulationnorms.
Wordsarecommonlyusedasexperimentalstimuliincognitivepsychologystudies.For
example,inmemoryresearch,wordsarefrequentlyusedtostudyrecollectionandfamiliarity,
processesthatsupportrecognitionjudgments[8,9].Whileaffectiveandlexico-semanticpsy-
cholinguisticpropertiesofwordsareactiveareasofresearchontheirown,theyarenuisance
variablesthatmustbecarefullycontrolledforinmemorystudies.Thisisbecauseinmemory
studies,theresearchfocusisnotonthepropertiesofthewordsbutonmemoryprocessing.
Moreimportantly,psycholinguisticpropertiesareknowntoinfluencememoryprocesses.For
example,researchhasshownthathighfrequencywordsarebetterrecalledthanlowfrequency
words[10],whilelowfrequencywordsarebetterrecognized[11,12].Concretewords[11],
wordsthatcaneasilyformanimageinthemind[13],andwordsthatarehighinvalenceor
arousal[14],arealsofoundtobebetterremembered.Therefore,thesevariablesmustbecon-
trolledforwhenwordsareusedasexperimentalstimuli.Thisisaccomplishedbysettingranges
forpsycholinguisticvariableswhenwordsareselectedfromdatabases,e.g.,limitingtheselec-
tiontoneutralwordsratedbetween3.5and4.5ona7-pointscale,andalsocounterbalancing
thewords’appearanceacrossexperimentalconditionsand/oracrossparticipants.Inthe
methodssectionofresearcharticles,itiscommonpracticetoreportwordlength,numberof
syllables,andwordfrequencyofthewordstimuliselected,andhowthestimuliarecounterbal-
anced[15–18].Althoughlesscommonlyreported,affectiveandlexico-semanticpsycholin-
guisticpropertiesshouldbelistedinthemethodssectionsaswell,sincetheytoomight
influencetheresults,asillustratedabove.
Tohelpresearchersgeneratesuitablestimuliforexperiments,itisthereforecriticaltohave
reliableandcomprehensivepsycholinguisticdatabases.Ratingsforawiderangeofpsycholin-
guisticvariablesareavailableforEnglishwordsandwordsinotherEuropeanlanguages.Typi-
cally,ratingsforaffectiveandlexico-semanticvariablesarecollectedinseparatestudies,as
theyareoftenconsideredasdifferentresearchinterests.InEnglish,acomprehensivedatabase
foraffectivevariablesisBradley&Lang[2],whichwasrecentlyvastlyexpanded[19].The
Bradley&Langdatabasehasbeenusedtobuildsimilaraffectivedatabasesforotherlanguages
includingSpanish[20],Italian[21],EuropeanPortuguese[22],andGerman[23].Lexico-
semanticdatabasesarealsoavailableformanylanguages,includingEnglish[24–26],Italian
[27],Spanish[28],andFrench[29].Recently,thereisincreasedinterestincollectingboth
affectiveandlexico-semanticratingswithinthesamestudy,e.g.,[23,30–34],becausethis
wouldpermitrelationshipsbetweenaffectiveandlexico-semanticvariablestobeexplored.
Bycomparison,therearefewstudiesonaffectiveorlexico-semanticcharacteristicsofChi-
nesewords.Althoughlexico-semanticratingsforsinglecharactersexist[35],totheauthor’s
knowledge,noextensiveworkhasbeendonefortwo-characterwords.Ratingsforsingle
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174569 March27,2017 2/16
Affectiveandlexico-semanticratingsfor292two-characterChinesenouns
charactersareoftenuninformativeonratingsfortwo-characterwords.Thisisbecausein
Chinese,whentwocharacterscombinetoformaword,thewordoftenconveysadifferent
meaningthaneitherofitsconstituentcharacters.Forexample,thecharacter“電”means“elec-
tricity”,whilethecharacter“腦”means“brain”.However,whenthetwocharacterscombine
toformtheword“電腦”,itmeans“computer”.Therefore,ratingsfortwo-characterwords
cannotbesimplyderivedfromratingsoftheirconstituentcharactersandhavetobecollected
separately.Thereareonlyafewstudiesonpsycholinguisticpropertiesoftwo-characterwords,
andnostudyhasconsideredbothaffectiveandlexico-semanticvariables,bothobjectiveand
subjectiveones,withinthesamestudy.WhileHoetal.[36]andWangetal.[37]provided
affectiveratingsfor160and1500two-characterwordsrespectively,lexico-semanticvariables
werenotcollectedinthesestudies.Morerecently,Yaoetal.[38]collectedbothaffectiveand
lexico-semanticratingsfor1100words,butdidnotprovideobjectivewordfrequencyinforma-
tionforthewords.Asillustratedabove,wordfrequencyinformationisalsocrucialfordesign-
ingpsychologyexperiments.Althoughtheoreticallyonecanretrievewordfrequency
informationfromthedatabasesfromwhichYaoetal.[38]selectedtheirwords,namelythe
ChineseAffectiveWordsSystem[37]andtheModernChineseDictionaryofCommonlyUsed
Words,thesedatabasesarenotreadilyaccessibleonline,thushinderingeasyaccesstoword
frequencyandsubjectiveaffectiveandlexico-semanticratingssimultaneously.
Theaimofthecurrentstudywastofillthisgapbyestablishingadatabasefortwo-character
Chinesewordsthatcanbeusedincognitivepsychologyexperiments.Ratingsfor292nouns
onvalence,arousal,familiarity,concreteness,andimageabilitywerecollectedfromCantonese
speakersinHongKong(CantoneseisthevarietyofChinesespokeninHongKong).These
fivevariableswerechosenbecausetheyareknowntoinfluencememory,asreviewedabove.
Wordswereselectedfromawordfrequencydatabase[39],whichpermittedwordfrequency
informationtobeextractedandlistedinthedatabasecreated.Inter-raterreliabilitywascalcu-
latedinordertoprovideameasureofqualityfortheratings.Also,relationshipsbetweenthe
variouspsycholinguisticvariableswereexplored.Itwasexpectedthatrelationshipsthatare
well-establishedinotherlanguageswouldbefound(e.g.,thestrongpositivecorrelation
betweenconcretenessandimageability[6,32,40]),whichwouldserveasfurtherevidencefor
thevalidityoftheratings.
Methods
Participants
Atotalof164youngadults,recruitedfromtheundergraduatestudentbodyoftheEducation
UniversityofHongKongviaconveniencesampling,participatedinthestudy.Allparticipants
reportedthemselvestobenativespeakersofCantonese(theChinesedialectspokeninHong
Kong),useTraditionalChinesecharacters(themorewidelyusedformatofwrittenChinesein
HongKong,comparedtoSimplifiedChinesecharacters)forthemajorityoftheirday-to-day
textcommunicationsincludingreadingandwriting,andhavenormalorcorrected-to-normal
vision.TheyeitherreceivedextracoursecreditorHKD$20fortheirparticipation.Thestudy
procedureswereapprovedbytheHumanResearchEthicsCommitteeoftheEducationUni-
versityofHongKong.Writteninformedconsentwasobtainedfromparticipantsbeforethe
studybegan.
Materials
Thewordpoolwasgeneratedfromthewordandcharacterdatabaseof[39].Thisdatabase
containsChinesesinglecharactersandmulti-characterwordsalongwithfrequencyinforma-
tion,whichisestablishedfromacorpusoffilmandtelevisionsubtitlesthatcontained46.8
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174569 March27,2017 3/16
Affectiveandlexico-semanticratingsfor292two-characterChinesenouns
millioncharactersand33.5millionwords.Usingfilmandmoviesubtitlestoassesswordfre-
quencyisdemonstratedtobeavalidmethodofobtainingwordfrequencyinformation[5,41],
andhasbeenusedtoassesswordfrequencyforseveralotherlanguagesaswell[42–45].293
two-characternounswereselectedfromthelow-/medium-frequencysectionofthedatabase,
withalogfrequencythatrangedbetween1.81(1.91wordspermillion)and2.71(15.23words
permillion).Wordselectionwasrestrictedtothelowtomediumfrequencyrange,because
wordsinthisfrequencyrangewereneededforasubsequentexperimentreportedelsewhere.
Specificnames(e.g.,placenamesorpersonnames),itemsthatwerenotcomposedoftwochar-
acters,oritemsthatwereinotherpartsofspeech(e.g.,connectivesorverbs),wereexcluded.
Thefinalwordpoolhadameanlogfrequencyof2.29(9.87wordspermillion)andstandard
deviationof0.20(1.22wordspermillion).SincethewordsintheCai&Brysbaert[39]database
werewritteninSimplifiedChinesecharacters,conversiontoTraditionalChinesecharacters
wasmadebyMSWord,andthenmanuallycheckedforaccuracy.Thenumberofstrokesof
eachcharacterofthetwo-characterwordwascountedbyanonlinetool(https://name.
longwin.com.tw/nos.php).
The293wordsweredividedintofivelists.Thefirstlistcontained65wordsandtheother
fourlistscontained57wordseach.Eachlistwouldgoontoberatedbyaseparategroupof
participants(seetheProceduresectionbelow).Fivelistsweresetupbecausethewordpool
waslarge.Ifparticipantsweretorateallwords,longratingsessionswouldbeneeded,which
wouldlikelyresultinfatigueandnon-complianceintaskperformance(e.g.,makingthesame
responseforallratings).Foreachlist,fivewordswerechosenatrandomtorepeatwithinthe
list,soastoobtainameasureofinternalratingconsistency.Next,fromthe65uniquewordsin
thefirstlist,eightwordswerechosenatrandomtoberepeatedintheotherfourlists,inorder
toestablishinter-raterreliabilitybetweengroupsofparticipants.Asaresult,eachlistcon-
tained70wordsintotal,uniqueandrepeatedwordscombined.Apartfromthewordsthat
wereplannedtorepeatwithinorbetweenthefivelists,onewordwasrepeatedinanotherlist
bymistake.Thisrepeatedwordwasremovedfromanalyses,resultinginratingsfor292unique
wordsintotal.
Procedure
Eachparticipantreceivedoneofthefivelists,andratedeachofthe70wordsinthelistalong
fivedimensions:valence,arousal,familiarity,concreteness,andimageability.Participants
ratedall70wordsinonedimensionfirst,beforemovingontothenextdimension,untilrat-
ingsforallfivedimensionswerecompleted.Thisdesignwasadoptedtominimizethepossibil-
itythatratingsofdifferentdimensionswouldinfluenceeachother.Theorderofdimensions
wascounterbalancedbetweenparticipants.Withinparticipants,foreachdimension,theorder
ofwordpresentationwasrandomized.Participantswereinstructedtorateattheirownpace.
Theywerealsotoldthattherewerenocorrectorincorrectanswers,andthattheyshould
respondwiththeirfirstimpression.Eachratingsessionlastedforabout25minutes,including
thetimerequiredforgivinginstructions.
Participantssatabout60cmawayfromacomputermonitorandmaderesponsesusinga
keyboard.ThestudywasprogrammedinE-prime.WordswerepresentedinthefontPMin-
gLiU(新細明體)withafontsizeof24.Atthebeginningofthestudy,participantsweregiven
ageneraloverviewoftheaimofthestudy.Next,thedefinitionsofthefivedimensionswere
explained.Foreachdimension,twowordsthathadreceivedalowandahighratinginprevi-
ousratingstudieswereprovidedasexamples.Theyalsoservedasanchorsfortheratingpro-
cess.Theseexamplewordswerenotpartofthewordlisttoberated.Instructionswere
presentedinaself-pacedmanner,andparticipantswereencouragedtoaskclarification
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174569 March27,2017 4/16
Affectiveandlexico-semanticratingsfor292two-characterChinesenouns
questions.Beforetheratingofeachdimensionbegan,participantswereagainremindedofits
definitionandthetwoanchorexamples.
Measures
A5-pointLikertscalewasusedfortheratingsofalldimensions.Ahorizontalbarwithfive
evenlyspacedresponseoptionsremainedonthescreenthroughouttheratingprocessto
remindparticipantsaboutthedirectionofthescale.Thestudywasperformedinsmallgroups
ofonetofourparticipants,dependingonthesign-uprate.Participantswereinstructedto
pressa6thkeyiftheydidnotknowthemeaningofaword,andthosewordswereexcluded
fromanalysisforthatparticularparticipant.
Forthevalence(愉悅度)dimension,instructionswereadaptedfrom[2].Participantswere
askedtojudgethedegreetowhichtheyfindthewordstobepleasant,ona5-pointscalewith1
beingunpleasant(不悦)and5beingpleasant(愉快).Theexamplesprovidedwerethefollow-
ing:mostpeoplefindtheword“rejection”(拒絕)tobeunpleasant,sotheywillchoose1or2.
Bycontrast,mostpeoplefindtheword“romance”(浪漫)tobepleasant,sotheywillchoose4
or5.
Forthearousal(激烈度)dimension,instructionswereadaptedfrom[2].Participants
wereaskedtojudgethedegreetowhichtheyfindthewordstobearousing,ona5-point
scalewith1beingcalm(平靜)and5beingexcited(激動).Theexamplesprovidedwerethe
following:mostpeoplefindtheword“leisure”(悠閒)tobecalm,sotheywillchoose1or2.
Bycontrast,mostpeoplefindtheword“nightmare”(惡夢)tobearousing,sotheywill
choose4or5.
Forboththevalenceandthearousaldimensions,besidesthehorizontalbarthatrepre-
senteda5-pointscale,weadoptedtheratingscalesoftheSelf-AssessmentManikin(SAM)
[2,46,47]tofacilitaterating.SAMisascalemadeupofpictorialdepictionsofdifferentlevelsof
valenceandarousal.Theoriginal9-pointscalewasadaptedtoa5-pointscale,usingthe1st,3rd,
5th,7th,and9thfiguretorepresentthefivelevels.Increasinglevelsofvalencewererepresented
byamanchangingfromfrowningtosmiling,whileincreasinglevelsofarousalwererepre-
sentedbyamanchangingfromsleepytobeingwidelyawake,withanincreasinglylarge
“explosion”insidehisbody.Also,thelanguageusedin[2]wasadopted:forthevalencescale,
participantswereaskedtochoose1whentheywere“completelyunhappy,annoyed,unsatis-
fied,melancholic,despaired,orbored”(p.2)andtochoose5whentheywere“happy,pleased,
satisfied,contented,hopeful”(p.2).Iftheyfelt“completelyneutral,neitherhappynorsad”
(p.2),theyshouldchoose3.Forthearousalscale,participantswereaskedtochoose1when
theywere“completelyrelaxed,calm,sluggish,dull,sleepy,orunaroused”(p.2)andtochoose
5whentheywere“stimulated,excited,frenzied,jittery,wide-awake,oraroused”(p.2).Ifthey
were“notexcitednoratallcalm”(p.2),theyshouldchoose3.
Forthefamiliarity(熟悉度)dimension,instructionswereadaptedfrom[7,26,40].Partici-
pantswereaskedtojudgethedegreetowhichtheyfindawordtobefamiliar,intermsofhow
oftentheyencounterawordineverydaylife,ona5-pointscalewith1beingunfamiliar(陌生)
and5beingfamiliar(熟悉).Theexamplesprovidedwerethefollowing:mostpeopleencoun-
tertheword“Yucca”(絲蘭,akindofplant)infrequentlyandfinditlessfamiliar,sotheywill
choose1or2.Bycontrast,mostpeopleencountertheword“newspaper”(報紙)frequently
andfinditfamiliar,sotheywillchoose4or5.
Fortheconcreteness(具體性)dimension,instructionswereadaptedfrom[6].Participants
wereaskedtojudgethedegreetowhichtheyfoundthewordstobeconcrete,ona5-point
scalewith1beingabstract(抽象)and5beingconcrete(具體).Theexamplesprovidedwere
thefollowing:mostpeoplefindtheword“how”(如何)tobeabstract,sotheywillchoose1or
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174569 March27,2017 5/16
Affectiveandlexico-semanticratingsfor292two-characterChinesenouns
2.Bycontrast,mostpeoplefindtheword“banana”(香蕉)tobeconcrete,sotheywillchoose4
or5.
Fortheimageability(想象度)dimension,instructionswereadaptedfrom[6,48].Partici-
pantswereinstructedtojudgetheeasewithwhichtheycanformanimageofthewordintheir
mind,ona5-pointscalewith1beingdifficulttoformanimageinthemind(難以在腦海裡形
成影像),and5beingeasytoformanimageinthemind(容易在腦海裡形成影像).The
examplesprovidedwerethefollowing:mostpeoplefinditdifficulttocomeupwithamental
imagefortheword“taxationrate”(稅額),sotheywillchoose1or2.Bycontrast,mostpeople
finditeasytocomeupwithamentalimagefortheword“beef”(牛肉),sotheywillchoose4
or5.
Supplementarymaterial
TheresultingratingsarelistedintheSupportingInformationsection.InanExcelspreadsheet,
the292wordsaresortedindescendingorderbytheirlogfrequency.Englishtranslations(per-
formedonlineusingGoogleTranslate,BingTranslate,PROMT(Online-Translator.com),and
LanguageWeaver(www.reverso.net))ofthewordsareprovidedforreference.Thefivevari-
ablesareorderedfromlefttorightinthefollowingmanner:valence,arousal,familiarity,con-
creteness,andimageability.Foreachwordandforeachratingdimension,themean(M)
ratingforthewordanditsstandarddeviation(SD)arelisted.Foreachword,thenumberof
strokesofeachcharacter,aswellasthewordasawhole,arealsolisted.Thispropertymightbe
usefultoresearcherswhoareinterestedinthevisualcomplexityofChinesewords.
Wordfrequencyforeachwordisexpressedinwordspermillion(wpm),logwpm,andthe
Zipfvalue.wpmandlogwpmarewidelyusedfrequencymeasuresinpsycholinguisticstudies.
Likelogwpm,theZipfscaleisalogarithmicscale.Itisderivedusingtheformulalog ofthe
10
frequencypermillionwords+3,whichcanbeconceptualizedaslog ofthefrequencyperbil-
10
lionwords.TheZipfvalueisprovidedalongsidethewidelyusedwpmandlogwpmmeasures
becausetheZipfscaleismoreintuitive[44]:ittypicallyvariesbetween1to7likeaLikert-
scale,andlowfrequencywordsthathaveanegativevalueafterthelog frequencypermillion
10
transform(lowfrequencywordsmayhavelessthanoneoccurrencepermillionwords,which
resultinnegativelogvalues)hasamoreintuitivevalueof1or2afteralog frequencyperbil-
10
liontransform.
Resultsanddiscussion
Datatrimming
Beforetheratingswereanalyzed,therawdatawasexaminedforoutliersinfoursteps.Inthe
firststep,foreachparticipant,theproportionofresponsesthathadareactiontimeof300ms
orbelowwascalculated.Sixparticipantswerefoundtohavemademorethan15%oftheir
responsesinlessthan300ms.Theywereremovedfromfurtheranalyses,asthehighpropor-
tionofaberrantlyquickresponsessuggestedthattheseparticipantsdidnotperformthetask
properly.A300msresponseisconsideredasaberrantlyquick,asperstandardpracticeinpre-
viousstudies[49,50].Also,asinthesetwopreviousstudies,wedidnotsetanupperlimitfor
reactiontimebecausespeedwasnotemphasizedintheinstructions.
Inthesecondstep,participantswhoreportedanaberrantlylargenumberofwordsthat
theydidnotknowwereexcludedfromfurtheranalysis.Consideringthatthemajority(83%)
ofparticipantsdidnothaveanysuchresponses,thosewhoreportedthattheydidnotknow
morethan10wordsoutofatotalof70wereconsideredasaberrant.Eightparticipantswere
excludedbythiscriterion.Threeadditionalparticipantswereexcludedbecausetheyhadmore
than10suchresponsesforallratingdimensionscombined.Althoughwithinasingle
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174569 March27,2017 6/16
Affectiveandlexico-semanticratingsfor292two-characterChinesenouns
dimension,thenumberofwordsthattheyreportedthattheydidnotknowwassmall,those
wordswerenotconsistentacrossdimensions,castingdoubtsontheseparticipants’compliance
withtaskinstructions.
Afterthefirsttwosteps,147participantsremained.Oftheseparticipants,only17reported
aword/wordsthattheydidnotknow.Inthese17participants,theyreportedanaverageof
0.82±0.58words(mean±S.D.)perratingdimensionthattheydidnotknow.Thisnumberis
consideredreasonable.Next,fortheseremainingparticipants,trialsunder300mswere
excludedfromanalysis.Thisledtoaremovalof523ratingsoutofatotalof51,450ratings
acrossalldimensionsacrossallparticipants.
Inthethirdstep,themeanandstandarddeviationoftheratingswerecalculatedforeach
word.Responsesthatwereoutsidetherangeof±2.5S.D.wereremovedfromfurtheranalysis,
resultinginafurtherremovalof585ratingsacrossalldimensionsacrossallparticipants.
Inthelaststep,internalreliabilitywascalculatedforeachsubject,usingthefivewordsthat
wereratedtwicewithinparticipants.Asin[48],participantswithconsistencythatwaslower
than0.2,asindicatedbythePearsoncorrelationcoefficient,wereremovedfromfurtheranaly-
sis.Fourparticipantswereremovedbythiscriterion.Themeanandstandarddeviationofcon-
sistencyintheremaining143participantswas0.74±0.18,demonstratinggoodconsistency.
Therefore,thefinaldatasetconsistedofratingsfrom143participants(87%ofparticipants
tested).Eachwordreceivedatleast22andatmost33validratings.Forvalence,arousal,famil-
iarity,concreteness,andimageability,eachwordreceived27.8±3.10,28.3±2.99,27.3±2.74,
28.2±2.97,and28.4±3.02(mean±S.D.)validratingsrespectively.
Reliability
First,ratingconsistencywithineachsampleofparticipants(25ormoreparticipantspersam-
ple,whoratedthesamewordlist)wasassessed.Adoptingthesameapproachas[32],theinter-
raterreliabilityoftheratingswasassessedbycalculatingtheintra-classcorrelationcoefficients
(ICCs).TheICCswerecalculatedforthefivedimensionsseparately.Foreachdimension,an
ICCwasobtainedforeachsampleofparticipants.Then,ameanICCforeachdimensionwas
obtainedbyaveragingtheICCsofthefivesamplesofparticipants.Themeanandstandard
deviationoftheICCsforeachdimensionare:valence:0.95±0.02,arousal:0.86±0.04;famil-
iarity:0.77±0.08;concreteness:0.84±0.04;andimageability:0.81±0.07.Overall,theICCs
werehighforallfivedimensions,demonstratinghighinter-raterreliabilityinoursamples.In
ordertoprovideastandardizedmeasureofvariability,thecoefficientofvariation(CV)was
alsocomputedforeachratingdimension.TheCVswere3%,5%,10%,5%,and8%forvalence,
arousal,familiarity,concreteness,andimageabilityrespectively.Therefore,boththeunstan-
dardizedandstandardizedmeasuresofvariabilityindicatethatvalencewasthemostconsis-
tentlyrateddimension,whilefamiliaritywastheleastconsistentlyrated,althoughstill
reachingasatisfactorylevel.Thefindingthatvalencehasamoreconsistentratingthanarousal
isconsistentwithpreviousstudiesformanylanguages[20,22,32,51,52].
Next,ratingconsistencyamongthefivedifferentsamplesofparticipantswasassessedby
calculatingtheratingconsistencyoftheeightwordsthatrepeatedacrossthedifferentsamples
ofparticipants.AnICCwascalculatedforeachdimension.TheICCswere0.99,0.98,0.82,
0.98,and0.98forvalence,arousal,familiarity,concreteness,andimageabilityrespectively,
demonstratinghighlyconsistentratingsforthefivesamplesofparticipants.
Relationshipbetweenvariables
Pearsoncorrelationswerecalculatedforallpossiblepair-wisecombinationsofvariables.There
areseveralnotablerelationships(Table1).First,concretenesshadastrongpositivecorrelation
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174569 March27,2017 7/16
Affectiveandlexico-semanticratingsfor292two-characterChinesenouns
Table1. Correlationbetweenvariables.
Valence Arousal Familiarity Concreteness Imageability Wordfrequency(logwpm) Numberofstrokes
Valence — -.20** .38*** -.12* -.01 .03 -.00
Arousal — -.11 -.02 .02 -.01 .10
Familiarity — .34*** .41*** .16** .07
Concreteness — .88*** .21*** .02
Imageability — .09 -.00
Wordfrequency(logwpm) — -.13*
Numberofstrokes —
*p<0.05
**p<0.01
***p<0.001
Pearsoncorrelationcoefficientsforallpair-wisecombinationsofvalence,arousal,familiarity,concreteness,imageability,wordfrequency(measuredinlog
wordspermillion(wpm)),andnumberofstrokes(ofbothcharactersofthewordsummedtogether).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174569.t001
withimageability(r=.88,p<0.001).Thesamestrongpositivecorrelationhasbeenfoundin
English[6,40],Spanish[32],French[30],EuropeanPortuguese[53],andveryrecently,Chi-
nese[38].Theconvergencebetweenseverallanguagesindicatesthat,acrossthesedifferentlan-
guages,ingeneralitiseasiertoformamentalimageforconcretewordsthanforabstract
words.Thisfindingisconsistentwiththedual-codingtheory[54,55],whichpostulatesthat
twosystems,oneverbal-basedandtheotherimagery-based,areinvolvedintherepresentation
ofthesemanticsofastimulus.Accordingtothistheory,concretewordsareprocessedfaster
thanabstractwords,aphenomenonknownastheconcretenesseffect[55],becausewhile
abstractwordsarecodedbytheverbal-basedsystemonly,concretewordscanbecodedby
boththeverbal-andtheimagery-basedsystems.Theadditionalimagery-basedcodingpro-
videsanadditionalformofrepresentationtofacilitateprocessing.
Itisimportanttohighlightthat,althoughconcretenessandimageabilityarehighlycorre-
lated,theyarenotidenticalconstructs,asseveralauthorsadvocatedinrecentstudies[53,56–
58].Guasch[32]foundthatwhilewordstendtoco-varyinthesetwodimensions,thereare
alsowordsthatarehighinconcretenessbutlowinimageability(e.g.,tuberculosis),andwords
thatarelowinconcretenessbuthighinimageability(e.g.,issue).Hereinthisstudy,itwas
foundthatconcretenessandimageabilityeachhadoverlappingbutdifferentpatternsofcorre-
lationswithotheraffectiveandlexico-semanticvariables.Specifically,althoughbothconcrete-
nessandimageabilitycorrelatewithfamiliarity,onlyconcretenessisfoundtofurthercorrelate
withvalenceandwordfrequency,furtherrevealingthatconcretenessandimageabilityare
overlappingbutnotsynonymousconstructs.Theiroverlapislikelybecauseoneofthedecision
criteriaforconcretenessiswhetheraworddescribesanobjectthatexistsinreallife,whichnat-
urallycorrespondstowhetherthewordcanarousevisualimagery.Thiscriteriontherefore
overlapswiththedecisioncriterionforimageability,andexplainstheirsharedvariance.On
theotherhand,theirnon-overlappingvariancesinvitefurtherresearchintowhatcontributeto
thedecisioncriteriawhenpeoplemaketheseratingjudgments.Forexample,Connell&Lynott
[56]proposedwhetherawordrepresentsatypicalexemplarofaconcretecategory(objects,
materials,etc.)alsocontributestoitsconcretenessrating.
Bothconcretenessandimageabilitycorrelatepositivelywithfamiliarity.Thesamecorrela-
tionswerefoundinpreviousstudies:forthemoderatepositivecorrelationbetweenconcrete-
nessandfamiliarity(r=.34,p<0.001),asimilarcorrelationwasfoundin[38];forthe
moderatepositivecorrelationbetweenimageabilityandfamiliarity(r=.41,p<0.001),
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174569 March27,2017 8/16
Affectiveandlexico-semanticratingsfor292two-characterChinesenouns
similar-sizedcorrelationshavebeenobtainedin[26,31,32,38].Theimplicationofthesecorre-
lationsisthatmoreconcreteandmoreimageablewordstendtobeperceivedasmorefamiliar.
Besidessubjectivefamiliarity,concretenessalsohadamoderatepositivecorrelationwith
objectivewordfrequency(r=.21,p<0.001).Previousstudieshavealsoidentifiedapositive
correlationbetweenconcretenessandprintedfrequency[6,59].Together,theyillustratethat
moreconcretewordsnotonlyareperceivedtobemorefamiliar,buttheyalsoobjectively
occurmorefrequentlyinthelanguage.
Concretenesswasfoundtocorrelatewithvalencenegatively(r=-.12,p<0.05).Thiseffect
wasalsoobservedin[60],andthesizeofthecorrelationishighlysimilar(r=-.11in[60]).It
meansthatwordsthataresubjectivelyperceivedtobemorepleasantarealsoperceivedtobe
moreabstract.Thisfindinghighlightstheimportanceoftakingconcretenessintoconsider-
ationwheninvestigatingtheprocessingofemotionalwords,andviceversa.Indeed,ithasbeen
shownthatconcretenessinfluencestheprocessingofemotionalwords[58,61,62].Broadly
speaking,thisfindingdemonstratedthataffectivevariablescorrelatewithlexicalvariables,and
highlightstheimportanceofinvestigatingtherelationshipbetweenthetwoinfuturestudies.
Familiaritycorrelatedpositivelywithvalence(r=.38),consistentwith[31],wheretheyfur-
therdemonstratedthatthecorrelationwasdrivenbyaresponsebias,inthatparticipantswere
morewillingtosaythattheywerefamiliarwithpositivewords.Familiarityalsocorrelatedpos-
itivelywithwordfrequency(r=.16),consistentwithseveralpreviousstudies[24,26,31],
althoughthesizeofthecorrelationissmallerthaninthesestudies,whichhadr’sof.35or
above.Thesmallcorrelationislikelyduetotherestrictedfrequencyrangeofthewords
includedinthisstudy,makingitdifficulttofindalargecorrelation.Inaddition,subjective
familiarityforlowfrequencywordsislikelyinfluencedbywordprevalence,ameasureofthe
numberofpeopleinthepopulationwhoknowtheword[63].
Lastly,weexaminedwhetherthereisaquadraticrelationshipbetweenvalenceandarousal,
ashasbeenwidelyreported.Bradley&Lang[2]observedaquadraticrelationshipbetween
valenceandarousal,wherehighlypositiveandnegativewordshadhigherratingsonarousal.
Sincethen,thesameeffecthasbeenobservedmanytimesinratingstudiesindifferentlan-
guages,includingFinnish[51],Spanish[20,32,64,65],German[34,66],EuropeanPortuguese
[22],andChinese[36].Astep-wiseregressionanalysiswithalinearandaquadratictermwas
performed,withvalenceanditssquareastheindependentvariablesandarousalasthedepen-
dentvariable.Althoughalinearmodelwassignificant(R=0.20,F(1,290)=11.61,p<0.005),
itonlyaccountedfor3.8%ofthevariance.Bycontrast,thequadraticmodelexplainedanaddi-
tional42.4%ofthevariance(R=0.68,F(2,289)=124.20,p<0.001),hencedemonstratinga
betterfitforthequadraticmodel.Fig1showsthistypicalU-shapedfunctionbetweenvalence
andarousal.
ItisofparticularinteresttocomparethecurrentstudywithYaoetal.[38],sincebothstud-
iesacquiredratingsonvalence,arousal,familiarity,concreteness,andimageabilityforChinese
words,andonlydifferedintwoaspects:Yaoetal.[38]didnotprovidewordfrequencyinfor-
mation,whilethecurrentstudydidnotcollectcontextavailabilityratings.Wordsinthetwo
studiesonlyoverlappedtoasmallextent:amongthe292wordsratedinthecurrentstudy,
only26wereratedbyYaoetal.Despitethesmalloverlap,thehighlystatisticallysignificant
relationshipsbetweenvariablesfoundinthecurrentstudy(p’s<0.01)wereallfoundinYao
etal.[38],includingthequadraticrelationshipbetweenvalenceandarousal,andthecorrela-
tionsbetweenconcretenessandfamiliarity,betweenconcretenessandimageability,between
familiarityandimageability,andbetweenfamiliarityandvalence,indicatingthattheserela-
tionshipsarelikelystableforChinesewordsingeneral.
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174569 March27,2017 9/16
Affectiveandlexico-semanticratingsfor292two-characterChinesenouns
Fig1.Distributionofthemeanratings(providedbyatleast22participants)forthe292wordsinthevalenceandarousal
dimensions.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174569.g001
Potentialusesofthecurrentdatabase
AsmentionedintheIntroduction,themotivationforconductingthisstudywastocreatea
databasethatcanbeusedtogeneratesetsofChinesewordsthatarematchedonvariouspsy-
cholinguisticvariables.Toshowthatthedatabasecanbeusedforthispurpose,analyseswere
conductedinwhichrandomsamplesofwordsweredrawnfromthedatabase,splitintotwo
halves,andtestedtoseeifthetwohalveswereindeedmatchedonthevariouspsycholinguistic
variables.Thisanalysisapproachmimickedthetypicalwaythedatabasewouldbeusedtogen-
eratestimuliforexperiments.Sevenseparateanalyseswereconducted,usingvaryingsample
sizesof120,140,160,180,200,220,and240words.Thesesamplesizeswerechosenbecause
theyarerepresentativeofthenumberofstimulitypicallyrequiredforsmall-scalememory
experiments[e.g.,Experiment1inHennesseeetal.[67]presented180wordsintotal;Hopp-
sta¨dteretal.[68,69]presented200wordsand100wordsintheirstudiesrespectively;Ozubko
etal.[70]presented120wordsintotal].Eachsamplewassplitintotwosetsandcompared
againsteachother(insteadofsplittingintothreeormoresets)becauseadmittedly,thedata-
basehasonly292wordsandisunlikelytohaveenoughstimuliformorecomplexexperimental
designs.Thesmallnumberofwordsinthedatabaseiscurrentlyitsmajorlimitation.Now,a
samplesizeof120wordswillbeusedasanexampletoillustratehowtheanalyseswere
PLOSONE|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174569 March27,2017 10/16