emotional intensity and categorisation ratings for emotional and nonemotional words

This article was downloaded by:[University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Libraries]On: 27 April 2008Access Details: [subscription number 792081571]Publisher: Psychology PressInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cognition & EmotionPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713682755

Emotional intensity and categorisation ratings foremotional and nonemotional wordsGregory P. Strauss a; Daniel N. Allen aa University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, USA

First Published on: 31 July 2007To cite this Article: Strauss, Gregory P. and Allen, Daniel N. (2007) 'Emotionalintensity and categorisation ratings for emotional and nonemotional words',Cognition & Emotion, 22:1, 114 - 133To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/02699930701319154URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699930701319154

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713682755

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699930701319154

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08

Emotional intensity and categorisation ratings for

emotional and nonemotional words

Gregory P. Strauss and Daniel N. Allen

University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, USA

Research investigating emotion processing has benefited from standardised

stimulus-sets portraying auditory and visual emotions. However, relatively few

stimulus-sets have been developed for emotional words, despite the increasing

popularity of studies comparing the cognitive processing of emotional and

nonemotional words. Words included in studies of emotion often control for

pleasantness, but do not control for other factors such as emotional intensity, word

frequency, and word length. Finally, categorisation ratings of words into discrete

emotional categories are conspicuously absent from the literature. The current

study addresses these issues by developing emotional intensity and categorisation

ratings for a set of 463 words. Participants included 200 undergraduate students

between the ages 18�40. Participants rated words based upon emotional intensity,

and categorised words into discrete emotional conditions for which they perceived a

word as being most representative. Results indicated that many words were reliably

classified into basic emotion categories.

It is known that normal emotion processing promotes well-being and poses

an inherent survival value, while aberrant emotion processing engenders

significant distress and promotes the development and maintenance of

psychological disorders. Due to the heterogeneity and impact of emotional

experience, researchers have attempted to study cognitive processes in

psychopathological and healthy individuals to better understand the nature

of emotional information processing. Several standardised stimulus-sets

have been developed to investigate emotion in relation to these areas of

cognition. Visual stimulus sets have been normed for emotional and

nonemotional photographs displaying faces (Ekman & Friesen, 1976;

Matsumoto & Ekman, 1988), and complex visual scenes (Lang, Bradley,

& Cuthbert, 1999), and auditory stimulus sets have also been normed for

emotional and nonemotional sounds (Bradley & Lang, 1999b). These and

Correspondence should be addressed to: Gregory P. Strauss, Department of Psychology,

University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA.

E-mail: [email protected]

COGNITION AND EMOTION

2008, 22 (1), 114�133

# 2007 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

www.psypress.com/cogemotion DOI: 10.1080/02699930701319154

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08

other standardised stimulus sets have allowed for significant advances in the

understanding of cognition and emotion, as these stimuli promote the

investigation of emotion theories that posit a valence-arousal or discrete

basic emotion model. Although several stimulus sets are available and widely

used in research implementing visual and auditory presentations, relatively

few data sets have been collected for verbal stimuli. In the absence of

standardised words sets, studies utilising non-standardised word lists may be

affected by variance in emotional intensity, valence, and categorisation

associated with the individual words, making results across studies difficult

to compare.Studies that have developed normative word ratings have focused on

factors like goodness, pleasantness, and intensity (Brown, 1965; Brown &

Ure, 1969; Heise, 1965; Jenkins, Russell, & Suci, 1958; Levinger & Clark,

1961; Silverstein & Dienstbier, 1968; Smith & Harleston, 1966). Ratings

from these studies offer support for theoretical models positing the existence

of a valence-arousal model of emotion, and provide verbal stimuli that can

be used to investigate these models. As the field of cognitive psychology

progressed, researchers also developed ratings to investigate emotion in

relation to areas like semantic association. Two major contributions to this

area came by way of Davitz (1969) and Averill (1975). In an attempt to

identify language used to identify emotional states, Davitz required

participants to evaluate a set of 556 statements and determine whether

each statement was related to a set of emotional labels. This procedure

resulted in a corpus of statements used by lay-people to define common

emotions. Averill significantly extended this work, in what is perhaps the

most extensive investigation of emotional words, by developing a semantic

atlas of emotional terms. Continuing Averill’s work, additional studies

examining the emotional lexicon have suggested that emotions are best

defined as internal/mental conditions, states, and have affect as a focus,

rather than cognition or behaviour (Clore, Ortony, & Foss, 1987; Ortony,

Clore, & Foss, 1987).

Additional studies have focused on developing ratings for words that can

be used as stimuli in cognitive investigations of emotion. Brown and Ure

(1969) developed norms for 650 emotional and nonemotional words, and

acquired ratings for 5 separate factors: valence, intensity, goodness,

concreteness, and associative difficulty. These word ratings provided an

important development for emotional-word stimuli, as they proposed

differences in factors related to emotionality (e.g., valence and intensity),

and allowed cognition to be investigated in relation to complex areas like

semantic association. Bellezza, Greenwald, and Banaji (1986) also developed

normative ratings for emotional and nonemotional words. In Bellezza et al.

(1986), participants were required to rate words based upon pleasantness

EMOTIONAL WORD RATINGS 115

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08

characteristics, resulting in the establishment of valence ratings for 1545

words. A set of over 2000 words has also been normed with regard to

pleasantness and arousal by Bradley and Lang (1999a). Ratings reported by

Bellezza et al. (1986), Bradley and Lang (1999a), and Brown and Ure (1969),

provide normative data on several factors known to differentially contribute

to emotion processing and allowed for investigations of cognition in relation

to a valence-arousal model; however, these ratings do not reflect other

theories postulating the existence of discrete emotions (Ekman, 1992; Izzard,

1977; Tomkins, 1962a, 1962b).

Research conducted by John (1988) incorporated theories of basic

emotion, and developed emotional intensity and free-association ratings

for 480 emotional and nonemotional words. John (1988) selected words for

inclusion if they were deemed by four trained researchers to represent the

discrete emotional categories of happiness, sadness, anger, and anxiety.

John’s (1988) ratings provided an important development in emotional-

word stimulus-sets, as they allowed researchers to investigate verbal

cognition in relation to basic emotion models. Although John’s (1988)

ratings contributed to the ability to assess emotions in relation to discrete

categories, it is unknown whether the words John (1988) included in

discrete categories represented their designated emotions because, as

suggested in a recent review by Nabi (2002), discrete emotions may possess

different meanings for researchers and the general public. For example,

while the emotion disgust is considered by most researchers to reflect a

distinct physical reaction that occurs in conjunction with an object or idea,

lay-individuals may have different conceptualisations such that annoyance

and irritation are experienced in a social context as being representative of

disgust (Nabi, 2002). Other basic emotions may also carry differential

meanings for researchers and lay-persons. As for John’s (1988) ratings,

although many of the words appear to represent their designated

categories, their emotional categorisation has yet to be empirically

validated by lay people. Thus, it is unknown whether lay people consider

words included in John’s (1988) word list, as being representative of their

intended categories.

The fact that researchers and lay persons have different conceptualisa-

tions of emotion may significantly impact emotion research using stimuli

that are not empirically validated in samples of lay individuals. This may be

particularly true for individual words that carry multiple connotations and

may not be solely representative of any one given emotion. To address these

issues, the current study developed lay-person ratings of emotional intensity

and categorisation for words that have been previously reported in studies of

emotion.

116 STRAUSS AND ALLEN

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2540964_Words_High_and_Low_in_Pleasantness_as_Rated_By_Male_and_Female_College_Students?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-5f92776d-6152-4003-85d5-1010cae7741c&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzE0NTc0ODtBUzoxOTExMzk3NjYxNjk2MDlAMTQyMjU4MjY3OTkzMg==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239604183_Affective_Norms_for_English_Words_ANEW_Instruction_Manual_and_Affective_Ratings?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-5f92776d-6152-4003-85d5-1010cae7741c&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzE0NTc0ODtBUzoxOTExMzk3NjYxNjk2MDlAMTQyMjU4MjY3OTkzMg==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239604183_Affective_Norms_for_English_Words_ANEW_Instruction_Manual_and_Affective_Ratings?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-5f92776d-6152-4003-85d5-1010cae7741c&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzE0NTc0ODtBUzoxOTExMzk3NjYxNjk2MDlAMTQyMjU4MjY3OTkzMg==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240236177_Emotionality_ratings_and_free-association_norms_of_240_emotional_and_non-emotional_words?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-5f92776d-6152-4003-85d5-1010cae7741c&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzE0NTc0ODtBUzoxOTExMzk3NjYxNjk2MDlAMTQyMjU4MjY3OTkzMg==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233168335_The_theoretical_versus_the_lay_meaning_of_disgust_Implications_for_emotion_research?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-5f92776d-6152-4003-85d5-1010cae7741c&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzE0NTc0ODtBUzoxOTExMzk3NjYxNjk2MDlAMTQyMjU4MjY3OTkzMg==

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08

METHOD

Participants

A total of 254 undergraduate students volunteered to take part in the study,

for which they were compensated with course credit. Participants were

between the ages of 18 and 40 and had adequate corrected vision (B20/200).

Individuals were excluded from the study if they spoke English as a second

language, reported a history of psychiatric or neurological disorder, or failedto complete all study procedures. Based on these inclusion and exclusion

criteria, 54 participants were excluded from final analyses. The remaining

ratings were taken from 200 participants. All participants provided informed

consent prior to the completion of any study procedures.

Materials

The 463 words selected in the current study were taken from normative

ratings developed by Brown and Ure (1969), Bellezza et al. (1986), and John

(1988), as well as empirical studies examining cognition and emotion in

relation to disgust and threat (Charash & McKay, 2002; Paunovic, Lundh, &

Oest, 2002), and studies of learning and memory for words presumed to be

neutral in emotional content (Delis, Kaplan, Kramer, & Ober, 2000; Delis,

Kramer, Kaplan, & Ober, 1987). Several additional emotional words, which

have not been used in previous rating or empirical investigations, were alsoincluded in the current study. These words were selected by the authors to

represent the emotions disgust and anxiety in order to provide an adequate

representation of words for these categories.

Design and procedure

The 484 words were randomly sorted and divided into four separate word

lists. Each list contained a total of 121 words. Several words were repea-ted across and within word lists to establish the reliability and validity of

word ratings. A random letter string (Ytzok) was also included in each word

list to identify participants who responded randomly or did not complete

ratings as instructed. Four separate words were repeated once within each of

the four word lists, resulting in a total of 16 words repeated, to determine the

consistency of individual ratings. These words were: cheerful, fungus,

competent, weakness, violent, onion, lively, grill, terror, blob, uneasy, table,

pious, failure, honour, and vote. A total of 14 words that were similar, butvaried in verb tense, were distributed across all word lists to further evaluate

consistency of participant ratings. These words included: assault, assaults,

attack, attacker, enjoy, enjoying, hate, hatred, punish, punishment, stink,

stinking, threat, and threaten.


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08

Participants rated words based upon emotional intensity and emotion

categorisation. Participants first rated their list of 121 words for emotional

intensity. The same 121 words were then rated for emotional categorisation.

An average of 50 participants rated each of the four word lists for both

emotional intensity and categorisation. The amount of time taken to

complete all study procedures approximated one hour. Participants com-

pleted ratings individually or in small groups.

Words were presented to participants via computer in a questionnaire

form. Participants first received one page of instructions for emotional

intensity ratings, followed by a single page of the 121 words. Emotional

intensity instructions required participants to rate each word on a 7-point

Likert-type scale, with 1 indicating ‘‘not very emotional’’ and 7 indicating

‘‘very emotional’’. Participants were also given the option of selecting

‘‘unfamiliar’’ for all words. Upon completing intensity ratings, partici-

pants submitted their responses, and were directed to a screen giving the

option of taking a 5-minute break, or immediately continuing with the

experiment. A second set of instructions detailing categorisation rating

procedures was then presented. Categorisation instructions required

participants to select one of eight discrete emotional categories (happi-

ness, sadness, anger, anxiety, fear, disgust, neutral, and surprise) that they

felt most highly represented the word. Options were presented in a ‘‘drop-

down’’ menu, and listed in alphabetical order. If participants felt that a

word represented an emotion not presented from the given choices, they

were given the option of entering an emotional category in a box labelled

‘‘other’’. Rating procedures for intensity and categorisation were based on

those employed by John (1998), which provided a basis for comparing

the current results to those previously reported, at least for some of the

words.

Emotion categories were selected to include a list of emotions that many

researchers consider ‘‘basic’’. Although there is disagreement regarding

which emotions are in fact basic, and some theorists include emotions not

examined in the current study (e.g., contempt, interest), the emotions

selected are common across the majority of basic emotion theories.

Additionally, although anxiety is considered by some to be a basic emotion

(Oatley & Johnson-Laird, 1987), this category has not traditionally been

considered basic. Anxiety was included in the current study to address a

need within basic emotion and clinical research, namely that there are few

standardised stimulus sets identifying stimuli that are highly representative

of the experience/state of anxiety. Thus, categories included in the current

study may allow for the selection of stimuli that represent emotions of

interest to both clinical and non-clinical investigations.


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08

RESULTS

Reliability

Correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the consistency with

which participants rated individual words. For the 16 words repeated within

the 4 word lists, individual ratings were found to be of moderate to high

reliability (Range: r�.67�.93). Of the words presented twice to each

participant, intensity rating correlations were greater than .73 for 14 of 16

words. Reliability estimates suggest that participants were, in general,

consistent in rating the emotional intensity of individual words.

Analyses were also conducted to investigate the reliability of emotional

categorisation ratings. For each of the 16 words repeated within the 4 word

lists, agreement scores were calculated for each subject by determining

the frequency with which participants categorised each word into same

emotion categories. Participants were given a score of 1 for words that they

categorised into the same category, and a score of 0 for words that were

categorised into two different categories. A final percent agreement score

was then calculated by dividing each word’s total score by the total number

of raters. Percent agreement analyses suggest that participants were highly

consistent in categorising individual words (M�0.84; range�.64�.98).

Of the words repeated, 14 of the 16 words had agreement ratings greater

than .80. Words with lower reliability for emotional intensity (weakness,

failure) also evidenced lower agreement among categorisation ratings, which

may partly explain their relatively lower reliability. It is expected that lower

agreement in categorisation and reliability for intensity resulted from

difficulty related to judging these individual words, rather than partici-

pant error, as these words were also not highly categorised into one

individual category. Overall, reliability findings suggest that participants

were able to reliably classify these words according to emotional intensity

and category.

Validity

Emotional intensity ratings obtained in the current study were correlated

with ratings obtained by John (1988) to determine convergent validity.

Ratings were found to be highly correlated (r�.94). Correlational findings

suggest that the current word norms have high convergent validity with

established word lists, as the current norms were highly correlated with John

(1988), and norms obtained by John were highly correlated with emotional

intensity ratings developed by Brown and Ure (1969); r�.95). Convergent

validity findings indicate that ratings obtained in the current study measure

what they purport to measure.



Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08

T-tests were conducted to determine whether words that are semanti-

cally similar differed with regard to emotional intensity. T-tests were

calculated for the 7 word pairs (14 words that are similar, but vary in verb

tense) that were distributed across the 4 word lists. Word pairs included:

(1) assault and assaults; (2) attack and attacker; (3) enjoy and enjoying; (4)

hate and hatred; (5) punish and punishment; (6) stink and stinking; and (7)

threat and threaten. Results from the t-test were nonsignificant for 5 of the

7 pairs (p�.05), indicating that emotional intensity did not significantly

differ among words expected to evidence similar ratings. Significant

differences were found between the pairs hate and hatred (t�2.88, pB.01)

and assault and assaults (t��3.33, pB.001). Although differences were

found between two of the word pairs, these findings generally suggest that

words that are highly similar in meaning evidenced similar emotional

intensity ratings.

Further evidence for the validity of word-ratings presented in the current

study comes through participant exclusionary procedures. Exclusionary

procedures eliminated all participants that did not select ‘‘unfamiliar’’ while

responding to the random letter string (Ytzok). The implementation of these

exclusionary procedures served to systematically eliminate participants that

evidenced random responding or an inability to the follow designated

instructions.

Emotion intensity and categorisation ratings

Normative emotional intensity and categorisation ratings are presented in

the appendices. The means for emotional intensity rating (Int) are presented

in the first column, followed by standard deviations (SD). These descriptive

statistics indicate that for many of the words, consistency in ratings was

present across participants as indicated by relatively small standard

deviations.The third and fourth columns (labelled Cat. 1 and Cat. 2) indicate the

emotional category of which the word is most and second most representa-

tive. Words with categorisation ratings of 70% or higher were deemed as

highly representative and noted with their corresponding category terms.

Highly representative words are included in Appendix 1. Words that did not

meet criteria for being highly representative (i.e., categorisation ratings

B70%) are presented in Appendix 2. These ‘‘blended’’ words represent

multiple emotional categories.1

1 The full table will be provided to interested readers upon request.


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08

DISCUSSION

The current study obtained normative intensity and categorisation ratings

for emotional and nonemotional words. The reliability and validity analyses

yielded results comparable to those published in previous research (Brown,

1965; Brown & Ure, 1969; Heise, 1965; Jenkins et al., 1958; John, 1988;

Levinger & Clark, 1961; Silverstein & Dienstbier, 1968; Smith & Harleston,

1966). The establishment of the current emotional categorisation ratings

extends the existing literature in a number of ways. This is the first study to

report emotion categorisation ratings from lay people for words with

presumed emotional and nonemotional content. In this regard, support

was found for the suggestion by Nabi (2002) that emotional words may hold

different meanings for lay people than for emotion researchers, as evidenced

by substantive differences in the categorisation ratings found in the present

study as compared to John (1988). For example, in the present study the

word doom was classified as fear by 70% of the participants, but as

categorised as ‘‘sad’’ by the researchers in John (1988). Similarly, the word

beauty was classified as happiness by 84% of participants, but selected as

neutral by researcher’s in John’s study.

In a related finding, many words were classified as blended when a 70% or

greater classification rate was used as the criteria for indicating that a word

was highly representative of a specific emotion category. John’s prior study

did not include a blended category, but rather used consensus ratings from

four emotion researchers to establish categorisation ratings. Thus, some

words in the current study were classified as blended that had previously

been reported to be representative of a particular emotional category. For

example, the word ‘‘bored’’ did not highly represent one particular emotion

in the present study (Nu�38%; Sd�31%; Ax�15%; Dg�12%), yet was

classified as sadness by John. Some words included in cognitive investiga-

tions of emotion were also not highly representative of their intended

emotions. For example, several words from Charash and McKay (2002)

selected to represent disgust were found to be blended (e.g., corpses, pimple,

phlegm).

Many words included in the current study were also found to be highly

representative of the discrete emotional categories of happiness (e.g.,

cheerful, friendly), surprise (e.g., shocked, surprised), anger (e.g., rage,

aggression), anxiety (e.g., nervous, uneasy) disgust (e.g., vomit, stinking),

fear (e.g., horror, afraid), sadness (e.g., hopeless, gloom), and neutral (e.g.,

bookcase, carrot). While the current study considered words categorised

greater than 70% of the time to validly represent their designated emotions,

increasing or decreasing this cut-off would obviously cause more or fewer

words to be classified as blended. The actual percentages of categorisation



Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08

for each word are presented in the appendices so that researchers can select

criteria that would be appropriate to the specific goals of their studies.

However, for most studies investigating discrete emotional categories,

selection of words that are highly representative is preferred over those

that are blended, and use of such words may allow for greater consistency of

results observed across studies and study sites.

Procedures used in the current study also improve upon previous

investigations, as words were rated by a relatively large number of

participants (e.g., 30�39 Brown & Ure, 1969, vs. mean of 50 in current

study), and several validity and reliability checks were used to ensure the

validity of ratings obtained.

Finally, the current ratings provide an updated sample of participant

ratings for emotional and nonemotional words. As the most recent word-

ratings were developed over 16 years ago (John, 1988), the current ratings

are of significance since connotations associated with words, and therefore

their intensity and emotion categorisation may change with time and

cultural events. Some of the differences between the current results and

those of John (1988) may also stem from these time and cultural factors.

Issues related to cultural differences were not addressed in the current study,

although support for such differences might be anticipated based on the

apparent differences between lay people and emotion researchers (Nabi,

2002). Future studies may wish to address categorisation differences based

on culture, race, education, sex, or a number of other factors that could

influence the emotional meaning of words for individuals. In any case, the

ratings presented in the current study may allow researchers to more validly

assess cognition related to basic emotions by using words that are highly

representative of individual emotions. Future word-rating studies may

benefit from obtaining normative data for multiple discrete positive

emotions (e.g., love, contentment, interest), and by developing categorisation

ratings that determine the extent to which words are prototypical of discrete

positive and negative emotions. Additionally, since the current ratings were

taken from undergraduate students only, it may be beneficial to obtain

ratings from community members, as these individuals may have different

conceptualisations of these words. Researchers may also benefit from

combining use of stimuli identified in the current study with work conducted

by Averill (1975) and Davitz (1969), which contributes findings beyond those

reported here in a number of ways, to examine the nature of emotion labels,

as well as the overlap between individual basic emotions.

Manuscript received 26 July 2004

Revised manuscript received 19 May 2006

Manuscript accepted 8 February 2007

First published online 31 July 2007



Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08

REFERENCES

Averill, J. R. (1975). A semantic atlas of emotional concepts. JSAS: Catalogue of Selected

Documents in Psychology, 5, 330 (Ms. No. 421).

Bellezza, F. S., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1986). Words high and low in pleasantness

as rated by male and female college students. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments &

Computers, 18(3), 299�303.

Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999a). Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction

manual and affective ratings. [Technical report no. C-1]. Gainesville, FL: University of

Florida, Center for Research in Psychophysiology.

Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999b). International Affective Digitized Sounds (IADS): Stimuli,

instruction manual and affective ratings. [Technical report no. B-2]. Gainesville, FL:

University of Florida, Center for Research in Psychophysiology.

Brown, W. P. (1965). Emotional indicators in word association. British Journal of Psychology, 56,

401�412.

Brown, W. P., & Ure, D. J. (1969). Five rated characteristics of 650 word association stimuli.

British Journal of Psychology, 60(2), 233�249.

Clore, G. L., Ortony, A., & Foss, M. A. (1987). The psychological foundations of the affective

lexicon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 751�766.

Charash, M., & McKay, D. (2002). Attention bias for disgust. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 16,

529�541.

Davitz, J. R. (1969). The language of emotions. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Delis, D., Kaplan, E., Kramer, J., & Ober, B. (2000). California Verbal Learning Test-II. San

Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Delis, D. C., Kramer, J. H., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B. A. (1987). The California Verbal Learning

Test � Adult Version (CVLT). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6(3/4), 169�200.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1976). Pictures of facial affect. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Heise, D. R. (1965). Semantic differential profiles for 1,000 most frequent English words.

Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 79(8, Whole No. 601), 31.

Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum.

Jenkins, J. J., Russell, W. A., & Suci, G. J. (1958). An atlas of semantic profiles for 360 words.

American Journal of Psychology, 71, 688�699.

John, C. (1988). Emotionality ratings and free-association norms of 240 emotional and non-

emotional words. Cognition and Emotion, 2(1), 49�70.

Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1999). The International Affective Picture System

(IAPS): Technical manual and affective ratings. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, The

Center for Research in Psychophysiology.

Levinger, G., & Clark, J. (1961). Emotional factors in the forgetting of word associations.

Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 62, 99�105.

Matsumoto, D., & Ekman, P. (1988). Japanese and Caucasian facial expressions of emotion

(JACFEE) [CD-ROM]. Available from: Neural Research Laboratory, Department of

Psychology, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA

94132, USA.

Nabi, R. L. (2002). The theoretical versus the lay meaning of disgust: Implications for emotion

research. Cognition and Emotion, 16(5), 695�703.

Oatley, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1987). Towards a cognitive theory of emotions. Cognition

and Emotion, 1, 29�50.

Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Foss, M. A. (1987). The referential structure of the affective lexicon.

Cognitive Science, 11, 341�364.


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08

Paunovic, N., Lundh, L. G., & Oest, L. G. (2002). Attentional and memory bias for emotional

information in crime victims with acute posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Journal of

Anxiety Disorders, 16(5), 675�692.

Silverstein, A., & Dienstbier, R. A. (1968). Rated pleasantness and association value of 101

English nouns. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal behavior, 7, 81�86.

Smith, M. G., & Harleston, B. W. (1966). Stimulus abstractness and emotionality as

determinants of behavioral and physiological responses in a word-association task. Journal

of Verbal learning & Verbal Behavior, 5, 309�313.

Tomkins, S. S. (1962a). Affect, imagery, consciousness. Vol. 1: The positive affects. New York:

Springer.

Tomkins, S. S. (1962b). Affect, imagery, consciousness. Vol. 2: The negative affects. New York:

Springer.


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08

APPENDIX 1

Emotional intensity and categorisation ratings for highly representative words

Word Int. (SD) Cat. 1 Cat. 2 Word Int. (SD) Cat. 1 Cat. 2

Angry 6.14 (1.47) Ag 98.0 Fr 2.0 Quote 2.42 (1.70) Nu 94.0 Ax, Hp, Sd 2.0

Mad 6.50 (0.80) Ag 92.0 Sd 4.0 Pliers 1.50 (1.19) Nu 94.0 Fr 4.0

Rage 6.24 (1.38) Ag 92.0 Fr 4.0 Weekly 1.90 (1.49) Nu 94.0 Ax 6.0

Aggression 5.88 (1.65) Ag 90.0 Fr 6.0 Tire 1.67 (1.43) Nu 94.0 Sd 4.0

Violent 6.05 (1.62) Ag 83.0 Fr 13.0 Boat 2.12 (1.75) Nu 93.0 Hp 7.0

Mean 5.71 (1.61) Ag 82.0 Nu 8.0 Quarter 1.93 (1.73) Nu 92.0 Hp 8.0

Enemy 5.43 (1.66) Ag 11.0 Fr 11.0 Resident 2.02 (1.70) Nu 92.0 Hp 8.0

Hatred 6.05 (2.07) Ag 80.0 Dg 16.0 Chair 1.71 (1.54) Nu 92.0 Hp 6.0

Hate 6.90 (0.57) Ag 76.0 Dg 18.0 Soap 1.86 (1.50) Nu 92.0 Hp 6.0

Stern 4.59 (1.83) Ag 76.0 Nu 18.0 Total 1.91 (1.55) Nu 92.0 Hp 6.0

Quarrel 4.71 (1.65) Ag 70.0 Nu 10.0 Bread 1.40 (1.09) Nu 92.0 Hp 6.0

Shove 3.07 (1.90) Ag 70.0 Nu 20.0 Salad 1.48 (1.20) Nu 92.0 Hp 6.0

Nervous 5.84 (1.56) Ax 90.0 Fr 8.0 Salmon 1.71 (1.31) Nu 92.0 Hp, Dg 6.0

Anxious 5.87 (1.34) Ax 88.0 Fr 8.0 Zebra 1.77 (1.40) Nu 92.0 Fr 6.0

Tense 5.19 (1.65) Ax 86.0 Nu 6.0 Parsley 1.74 (1.54) Nu 92.0 Dg 4.0

Restless 4.11 (2.21) Ax 84.0 Nu 12.0 Bag 1.46 (1.18) Nu 92.0 Sd 4.0

Urgent 4.43 (2.00) Ax 82.0 Nu 12.0 Chives 1.20 (0.66) Nu 92.0 Dg 6.0

Uneasy 5.07 (1.87) Ax 76.0 Fr 16.0 Cod 1.40 (0.85) Nu 92.0 Dg 6.0

Rotten 4.00 (2.32) Dg 94.0 Nu 6.0 Giraffe 1.87 (1.70) Nu 90.0 Hp 10.0

Vomit 4.37 (2.10) Dg 87.0 Ax 8.0 Solar 2.28 (1.49) Nu 90.0 Hp 10.0

Stinking 3.43 (1.90) Dg 85.0 Nu 11.0 Oregano 1.94 (1.75) Nu 90.0 Hp 8.0

Stink 3.09 (1.84) Dg 78.0 Nu 20.0 Maple 1.81 (1.40) Nu 90.0 Hp 8.0

Decomposed 3.23 (1.98) Dg 76.0 Nu 16.0 Neck 2.35 (1.67) Nu 90.0 Hp 8.0

Rotting 2.98 (1.84) Dg 76.0 Nu 13.0 Sweater 1.75 (1.54) Nu 90.0 Hp 8.0

Rancid 3.76 (2.22) Dg 74.0 Nu 20.0 Celery 1.21 (0.80) Nu 90.0 Hp 6.0

Filth 3.50 (2.11) Dg 74.0 Nu 22.0 Vitamin 1.90 (1.27) Nu 90.0 Hp 6.0

APPENDIX 1

EM

OT

ION

AL

WO

RD

RA

TIN

GS

125

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08

APPENDIX 1 (Continued)


Diarrhoea 3.78 (2.36) Dg 72.0 Nu 12.0 Vitamins 1.65 (1.22) Nu 90.0 Hp 6.0

Fungus 1.95 (1.75) Dg 72.0 Nu 24.0 Closet 2.07 (1.66) Nu 90.0 Hp, Fr 8.0

Maggot 3.41 (1.59) Dg 72.0 Nu 10.0 Halibut 1.76 (1.65) Nu 90.0 Hp, Dg 8.0

Mucous 2.85 (2.13) Dg 70.0 Nu 28.0 Gene 1.96 (1.17) Nu 90.0 Hp, Sp 4.0

Fearful 5.95 (1.75) Fr 94.0 Ag, Ax, Nu 2.0 Lamp 1.59 (1.37) Nu 90.0 Hp 4.0

Terror 6.13 (1.89) Fr 88.0 Ax 10.0 Wax 1.96 (1.54) Nu 90.0 Fr 8.0

Horror 5.86 (1.70) Fr 85.0 Ax 13.0 Signal 2.25 (1.43) Nu 90.0 Ax 6.0

Danger 5.43 (1.51) Fr 82.0 Ax 14.0 Radishes 1.85 (1.58) Nu 90.0 Dg 10.0

Afraid 6.15 (1.95) Fr 80.0 Ax 20.0 Cabbage 1.33 (0.98) Nu 90.0 Dg 8.0

Rattlesnake 2.79 (1.86) Fr 76.0 Nu 20.0 Toaster 1.37 (1.10) Nu 90.0 Sp 6.0

Doom 4.82 (1.93) Fr 70.0 Sd 14.0 Patio 1.67 (1.31) Nu 89.0 Hp 11.0

Scared 6.56 (0.78) Fr 70.0 Ax 18.0 Lawn 1.44 (1.06) Nu 88.0 Hp 10.0

Cheerful 5.56 (1.51) Hp 100 � Porch 1.56 (1.06) Nu 88.0 Hp 10.0

Enjoy 5.41 (1.85) Hp 100 � Corn 1.85 (1.47) Nu 88.0 Hp 10.0

Joy 6.17 (1.40) Hp 100 � India 2.27 (1.62) Nu 88.0 Hp 8.0

Smile 5.76 (1.61) Hp 100 � Grill 1.92 (1.50) Nu 88.0 Hp 6.0

Comfort 5.79 (1.36) Hp 98.0 Ax 2.0 Ladder 1.48 (1.18) Nu 88.0 Fr 8.0

Enjoying 5.57 (1.69) Hp 98.0 Sp 2.0 Bus 1.63 (1.44) Nu 88.0 Ax, Hp 4.0

Friendly 5.37 (1.84) Hp 98.0 Nu 2.0 Vest 1.53 (1.14) Nu 88.0 Ax 4.0

Goodness 4.98 (1.59) Hp 98.0 Nu 2.0 Package 2.07 (1.56) Nu 88.0 Sp 8.0

Happy 6.11 (1.83) Hp 98.0 Nu 2.0 Chisel 1.78 (1.33) Nu 88.0 Ax 6.0

Peace 5.36 (1.82) Hp 96.0 Fr, Nu 2.0 Yield 2.23 (1.49) Nu 88.0 Ax 10.0

Pleasant 5.65 (1.31) Hp 96.0 Fr, Nu 2.0 Wrench 2.56 (1.97) Nu 87.0 Ag, Ax 5.0

Accomplishment 5.63 (1.89) Hp 96.0 Nu, Sd 2.0 Sandwich 1.67 (1.41) Nu 86.0 Hp 14.0

Glad 6.37 (1.12) Hp 96.0 Sp 2.0 Pianist 2.47 (1.54) Nu 86.0 Hp 12.0

Proud 6.21 (1.13) Hp 96.0 Nu 4.0 Squirrel 1.91 (1.84) Nu 86.0 Hp 6.0

Love 6.62 (1.42) Hp 94.0 Ax, Fr, Sp 2.0 Zone 2.08 (1.41) Nu 86.0 Hp, Ax 6.0

Peaceful 5.18 (2.11) Hp 94.0 Nu 4.0 Oyster 1.92 (1.48) Nu 86.0 Dg 8.0

Pleased 5.79 (1.27) Hp 94.0 Sp 6.0 Scan 2.05 (1.70) Nu 86.0 Ax 14.0

126

ST

RA

US

SA

ND

ALLE

N

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08



Sunny 4.50 (1.57) Hp 94.0 Sp 6.0 Zero 2.16 (1.79) Nu 86.0 Sd 10.0

Warmth 4.82 (1.83) Hp 94.0 Nu 6.0 Ginger 1.65 (1.08) Nu 85.0 Hp 9.0

Succeed 5.15 (1.94) Hp 92.0 Ax 6.0 Juice 1.88 (1.69) Nu 84.0 Hp 16.0

Freedom 5.75 (1.95) Hp 92.0 Nu 4.0 Writing 2.09 (1.48) Nu 84.0 Hp 14.0

Sunrise 4.33 (1.54) Hp 92.0 Nu 6.0 Italian 2.38 (1.57) Nu 84.0 Hp 10.0

Humorous 6.08 (1.19) Hp 92.0 Sp 8.0 Chicken 2.47 (1.85) Nu 84.0 Hp, Fr 6.0

Glory 5.71 (1.42) Hp 90.0 Sp, Nu 5.0 Moderate 2.85 (1.41) Nu 84.0 Ax 6.0

Glorious 5.69 (1.21) Hp 90.0 Nu 6.0 Spinach 1.95 (1.72) Nu 84.0 Dg 10.0

Success 4.59 (2.19) Hp 88.0 Ax, Nu 6.0 Pepper 2.00 (1.60) Nu 84.0 Sp 8.0

Faithful 5.79 (1.46) Hp 88.0 Nu 8.0 Drill 2.02 (2.14) Nu 84.0 Fr 8.0

Harmonious 5.20 (1.72) Hp 88.0 Nu 8.0 Incline 2.05 (1.71) Nu 84.0 Ax 12.0

Triumph 5.23 (1.78) Hp 88.0 Nu, Sp 6.0 Pineapple 2.00 (1.65) Nu 83.0 Hp 17.0

Carefree 5.27 (1.59) Hp 86.0 Nu 12.0 Truck 2.12 (1.65) Nu 83.0 Hp 13.0

Honour 5.70 (1.48) Hp 84.0 Nu 8.0 Knight 1.96 (1.49) Nu 82.0 Hp 12.0

Excellence 5.06 (1.60) Hp 84.0 Ax 6.0 Fragment 2.16 (1.79) Nu 82.0 Ax 8.0

Beauty 4.02 (2.47) Hp 84.0 Nu 14.0 Aspirin 2.00 (1.50) Nu 82.0 Ax 10.0

Devoted 5.42 (2.36) Hp 82.0 Nu 12.0 Clock 1.96 (1.49) Nu 82.0 Ax 18.0

Sunset 4.49 (1.88) Hp 81.0 Nu 17.0 Indirect 2.80 (1.67) Nu 82.0 Ax 8.0

Diploma 4.62 (1.60) Hp 80.0 Nu 14.0 Apricots 2.13 (1.60) Nu 80.0 Hp 20.0

Lively 5.15 (1.36) Hp 80.0 Nu, Sp 8.0 Apples 1.56 (1.35) Nu 80.0 Hp 18.0

Rose 4.46 (1.47) Hp 80.0 Nu 8.0 Civilian 2.58 (1.67) Nu 80.0 Hp 16.0

Youthful 4.18 (2.01) Hp 79.0 Nu 17.0 Validity 3.33 (1.78) Nu 80.0 Hp 12.0

Precious 5.18 (1.70) Hp 78.0 Sp 10.0 Flounder 2.49 (1.87) Nu 80.0 Ax, Dg, Hp 6.0

Angel 5.08 (1.73) Hp 76.0 Nu 14.0 Vote 2.84 (1.78) Nu 80.0 Ax 12.0

Easter 4.35 (1.95) Hp 76.0 Nu 20.0 Racket 1.81 (1.32) Nu 80.0 Ag, Sp 6.0

Rainbow 3.13 (1.85) Hp 76.0 Nu 22.0 Absorb 2.16 (1.70) Nu 80.0 Ag, Ax, Dg, Sp 4.0

Safety 4.94 (2.00) Hp 74.0 Nu 10.0 Onion 2.54 (1.94) Nu 80.0 Sd 16.0

Blossom 3.67 (1.72) Hp 72.0 Nu 24.0 Lemons 2.02 (1.55) Nu 79.0 Hp 17.0

Ocean 4.17 (1.59) Hp 72.0 Nu 18.0 Elephant 2.00 (2.29) Nu 79.0 Fr 11.0

EM

OT

ION

AL

WO

RD

RA

TIN

GS

127

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08



Divine 4.84 (1.61) Hp 70.0 Nu 28.0 Hammer 1.88 (1.52) Nu 79.0 Ag 15.0

Cabinet 1.70 (1.50) Nu 100 � Books 2.07 (1.58) Nu 78.0 Hp 18.0

Cucumber 1.60 (0.78) Nu 100 � Sheep 1.90 (1.65) Nu 78.0 Hp 12.0

Garage 1.73 (1.55) Nu 100 � Transfer 2.19 (1.67) Nu 78.0 Ax 14.0

Skillet 1.70 (1.59) Nu 100 � Clarinet 2.16 (1.54) Nu 76.0 Hp 22.0

Tray 1.27 (0.96) Nu 100 � Cinnamon 2.33 (1.75) Nu 76.0 Hp 20.0

Wrist 1.81 (1.72) Nu 100 � Expert 2.69 (1.76) Nu 76.0 Hp 16.0

Carrot 1.63 (1.35) Nu 98.0 Hp 2.0 Film 3.43 (1.84) Nu 76.0 Hp 14.0

Lens 1.73 (1.52) Nu 98.0 Hp 2.0 Hint 2.23 (1.49) Nu 76.0 Sp 12.0

Lettuce 1.45 (1.26) Nu 98.0 Hp 2.0 Wallet 2.07 (1.84) Nu 76.0 Ax 8.0

Paprika 1.62 (1.41) Nu 98.0 Hp 2.0 Somehow 1.92 (1.44) Nu 76.0 Ax 16.0

Wagon 1.80 (1.62) Nu 98.0 Hp 2.0 Grass 2.02 (1.48) Nu 75.0 Hp 23.0

Margin 1.89 (1.60) Nu 98.0 Fr 2.0 Grapes 1.98 (1.55) Nu 74.0 Hp 24.0

Slate 2.07 (1.67) Nu 98.0 Fr 2.0 Pastry 1.73 (1.02) Nu 74.0 Hp 24.0

Tires 1.63 (1.53) Nu 98.0 Dg 2.0 Subway 2.05 (1.79) Nu 74.0 Ax, Fr 8.0

Slacks 1.82 (1.45) Nu 98.0 Ax 2.0 Lock 2.29 (1.75) Nu 74.0 Ax 10.0

Dutch 2.00 (1.58) Nu 98.0 Ag 2.0 Car 3.06 (2.13) Nu 73.0 Hp 21.0

Briefcase 1.73 (1.57) Nu 98.0 Sd 2.0 Drums 2.49 (1.63) Nu 73.0 Hp 15.0

Gear 1.74 (1.57) Nu 98.0 Sp 2.0 Bracelet 2.05 (1.52) Nu 72.0 Hp 28.0

Table 1.62 (1.45) Nu 98.0 Sd 2.0 Pottery 2.54 (1.97) Nu 72.0 Hp 26.0

Rug 1.78 (1.57) Nu 96.0 Hp 4.0 Uncle 3.46 (2.08) Nu 72.0 Hp 26.0

Butter 1.54 (1.26) Nu 96.0 Hp, Dg 2.0 Academy 2.07 (1.42) Nu 72.0 Hp 18.0

Palm 1.96 (1.58) Nu 96.0 Hp, Dg 2.0 Recruit 2.33 (1.64) Nu 72.0 Fr, Hp 8.0

Bowl 1.37 (1.01) Nu 96.0 Hp, Ax 2.0 Library 2.06 (1.58) Nu 72.0 Sd 12.0

Camera 1.75 (1.43) Nu 96.0 Hp, Ax 2.0 Matches 2.44 (1.78) Nu 72.0 Fr 12.0

Desk 1.58 (1.51) Nu 96.0 Hp, Ax 2.0 Bathe 2.60 (1.43) Nu 70.0 Hp 28.0

Nutmeg 1.77 (1.66) Nu 96.0 Hp, Sp 2.0 Nearby 2.41 (1.77) Nu 70.0 Hp 22.0

Plums 1.73 (1.66) Nu 96.0 Hp, Sp 2.0 Violin 2.37 (1.84) Nu 70.0 Hp 24.0

Fork 1.67 (1.54) Nu 96.0 Fr, Sp 2.0 Organisation 2.48 (1.69) Nu 70.0 Hp 16.0

128

ST

RA

US

SA

ND

ALLE

N

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08



Factory 1.77 (1.81) Nu 96.0 Ax, Dg 2.0 Willow 2.47 (1.57) Nu 70.0 Sd 22.0

Pen 1.62 (1.52) Nu 96.0 Ag, Ax 2.0 Shoes 1.75 (1.55) Nu 70.0 Hp 28.0

Context 2.27 (2.00) Nu 96.0 Sd, Sp 2.0 Cry 6.44 (1.39) Sd 96.0 Fr, Nu 2.0

Tapes 2.10 (1.70) Nu 96.0 Sp 2.0 Sad 6.07 (1.85) Sd 96.0 Ax 4.0

Cow 2.10 (1.78) Nu 94.0 Hp 6.0 Gloom 5.29 (1.71) Sd 84.0 Fr, Nu 6.0

Saxophone 1.98 (1.47) Nu 94.0 Hp 6.0 Grief 6.00 (1.66) Sd 83.0 Ax 9.0

Tangerines 1.92 (1.58) Nu 94.0 Hp 6.0 Tragic 5.18 (2.03) Sd 72.0 Fr 18.0

Jacket 1.73 (0.95) Nu 94.0 Hp 6.0 Hopeless 5.84 (1.64) Sd 70.0 Fr 13.0

Spatula 1.58 (1.20) Nu 94.0 Hp 4.0 Disappointment 5.75 (1.87) Sd 70.0 Ag, Dg 10.0

Bookcase 1.61 (1.30) Nu 94.0 Hp 4.0 Surprised 5.30 (2.00) Sp 98.0 Hp 6.0

Heel 2.35 (1.87) Nu 94.0 Ag, Fr, Hp 2.0 Amazed 5.65 (1.45) Sp 78.0 Hp 20.0

Sage 1.77 (1.34) Nu 94.0 Dg, Hp, Sp 2.0 Shocked 5.63 (1.47) Sp 78.0 Ax 14.0

Turnip 1.79 (1.63) Nu 94.0 Dg, Hp, Sp 2.0

Note: Int (SD)�Mean emotional intensity (standard deviation); Cat. 1�Emotional category that the word most highly represents; Cat. 2�Category of which the word is second most representative; Ag�Anger; Ax�Anxiety; Dg�Disgust; Fr�Fear; Hp�Happiness; Nu�Neutral;

Sd�Sadness; Sp�Surprise.

EM

OT

ION

AL

WO

RD

RA

TIN

GS

129

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08

APPENDIX 2

Emotional intensity and categorisation ratings for blended words

Word Int (SD) Cat. 1 Cat. 2 Word Int (SD) Cat. 1 Cat. 2

Excited 6.63 (1.53) Hp 60.0 Sp 30.0 Pious 4.39 (2.15) Nu 60.0 Hp 16.0

Lust 6.38 (0.93) Hp 66.0 Sp, Ax 08.0 Illegal 4.39 (1.73) Fr 34.0 Nu 28.0

Murder 6.27 (1.42) Fr 40.0 Ag 36.0 Earnest 4.38 (1.89) Hp, Nu 44.0 Ax 10.0

Pain 6.21 (1.16) Fr, Sd 34.0 Ax 18.0 Solemn 4.37 (2.10) Sd 44.0 Nu 32.0

Hurt 6.18 (1.50) Sd 57.0 Ag 23.0 Prison 4.37 (2.05) Fr 54.0 Sd 16.0

Suicide 6.17 (1.65) Sd 66.0 Fr 22.0 Felony 4.31 (1.82) Ag 42.0 Fr 26.0

Upset 6.15 (1.09) Sd 52.0 Ag 40.0 Enchantment 4.31 (1.62) Hp 68.0 Sp 22.0

Panic 6.14 (1.80) Ax 64.0 Fr 36.0 Ranting 4.30 (1.65) Ag 42.0 Nu 24.0

Helpless 6.10 (1.26) Sd, Fr 32.0 Ax 28.0 Brooding 4.28 (2.12) Nu 34.0 Ag 32.0

Failure 6.07 (1.44) Sd 50.0 Ax 22.0 Villain 4.26 (1.79) Ag 52.0 Fr 28.0

Desire 6.06 (1.80) Hp 43.0 Ax 25.0 Adequate 4.19 (1.51) Hp 54.0 Nu 32.0

Agony 6.06 (1.60) Sd 43.0 Ax, Fr 19.0 Bored 4.16 (2.31) Nu 38.0 Sd 31.0

Misery 6.04 (1.88) Sd 64.0 Fr 18.0 Shallow 4.16 (1.97) Dg 42.0 Nu 25.0

Fright 6.02 (1.50) Fr 64.0 Ax 24.0 Pimple 4.12 (1.96) Dg 43.0 Ax 21.0

Despair 6.02 (1.43) Sd 62.0 Ax 30.0 Ominous 4.09 (1.81) Nu 60.0 Fr 18.0

Massacre 6.00 (1.33) Fr 32.0 Ag 28.0 Criminal 4.07 (1.73) Fr 48.0 Ag 26.0

Nightmare 5.98 (1.21) Fr 66.0 Ax 32.0 Bold 4.02 (1.85) Nu 40.0 Sp 25.0

Jealous 5.95 (1.92) Ag 44.0 Ax 16.0 Devil 4.02 (1.28) Fr 56.0 Dg 20.0

Cancer 5.94 (1.61) Fr 52.0 Sd 38.0 Lifetime 4.00 (2.16) Nu 48.0 Hp 34.0

Suffer 5.94 (1.30) Sd 52.0 Fr 22.0 Rational 3.98 (1.58) Nu 54.0 Hp 26.0

Evil 5.92 (1.72) Ag 44.0 Fr 42.0 Competent 3.97 (1.84) Hp 51.0 Nu 41.0

Hopeful 5.92 (1.25) Hp 68.0 Ax 20.0 Tumour 3.95 (2.39) Fr 58.0 Nu 18.0

Ashamed 5.90 (1.58) Sd 47.0 Dg 26.0 Wit 3.91 (1.59) Hp 42.0 Nu 34.0

Tender 5.87 (1.21) Hp 46.0 Nu 36.0 Indifferent 3.90 (1.92) Nu 64.0 Sd 14.0

Killing 5.85 (1.87) Ag 54.0 Fr 26.0 Unlawful 3.90 (1.67) Fr 38.0 Dg 20.0

Rejected 5.82 (1.86) Sd 54.0 Ax 20.0 Dog 3.87 (1.89) Nu 64.0 Hp 34.0

APPENDIX 2130

ST

RA

US

SA

ND

ALLE

N

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08



Cruel 5.73 (1.79) Ag 52.0 Fr 24.0 Blitzkrieg 3.83 (2.27) Nu 58.0 Ag 20.0

Calm 5.73 (1.46) Hp 64.0 Nu 34.0 Poison 3.81 (1.97) Fr 62.0 Ag 18.0

Vicious 5.72 (1.91) Ag, Fr 40.0 Ax, Dg 06.0 Standards 3.79 (1.84) Nu 58.0 Ax 28.0

Assault 5.71(1.36) Fr 54.0 Ag 32.0 Active 3.79 (1.64) Hp 68.0 Nu 20.0

Intense 5.71 (2.19) Ax 62.0 Fr 18.0 Flawed 3.77 (1.87) Sd 32.0 Dg 22.0

Torture 5.71 (1.60) Fr 66.0 Sd 14.0 Decay 3.75 (1.95) Dg 56.0 Sd 16.0

Hostile 5.70 (1.80) Ag 66.0 Fr 18.0 Pollute 3.75 (1.62) Dg 56.0 Sd 16.0

Tortured 5.68 (2.00) Fr 56.0 Sd 26.0 Adverse 3.75 (1.38) Nu 48.0 Ax 26.0

Guilty 5.65 (1.69) Ax 38.0 Fr 23.0 Harmless 3.73 (1.78) Nu 68.0 Hp 26.0

Criticised 5.62 (1.61) Sd 42.0 Ag 32.0 Rhythm 3.73 (1.32) Nu 58.0 Hp 42.0

Relieved 5.62 (1.59) Hp 66.0 Nu 18.0 Stimulus 3.70 (1.60) Nu 57.0 Sp 26.0

Attacker 5.62 (1.44) Fr 62.0 Ag 20.0 Balance 3.65 (2.01) Nu 62.0 Hp 30.0

Bad 5.60 (1.50) Ag 44.0 Dg, Sd 20.0 Nursery 3.63 (1.91) Hp 64.0 Nu 36.0

Miracle 5.57 (1.58) Sp 51.0 Hp 47.0 Theatre 3.63 (1.89) Nu 58.0 Hp 24.0

Threat 5.54 (1.30) Fr 66.0 Ag, Ax 16.0 Bright 3.63 (1.87) Hp 62.0 Nu 25.0

Shy 5.53 (1.54) Ax 45.0 Sd 21.0 Absence 3.63 (1.81) Nu 36.0 Sd 34.0

Wicked 5.46 (1.38) Ag 40.0 Fr 28.0 Weather 3.62 (1.71) Nu 40.0 Hp 26.0

Confused 5.41 (1.82) Ax 57.0 Sd 11.0 Mistakes 3.43 (1.92) Sd, Ax 28.0 Ag 18.0

Weakness 5.41 (1.71) Ag 48.0 Dg 36.0 Performance 3.41 (2.05) Nu 40.0 Ax 36.0

Annoy 5.39 (1.83) Ag 34.0 Dg 26.0 Abolish 3.39 (2.07) Nu 32.0 Fr 16.0

Dissatisfied 5.35 (2.00) Ag 34.0 Dg 26.0 Pungent 3.36 (1.97) Dg 62.0 Nu 28.0

Disapproval 5.35 (1.75) Sd 38.0 Ax, Dg 20.0 Impose 3.33 (1.96) Ag 38.0 Nu 30.0

Troubled 5.32 (1.89) Ax 42.0 Sd 22.0 Elegant 3.30 (1.92) Hp 68.0 Nu 32.0

Arrogant 5.30 (1.98) Dg 48.0 Ag 32.0 Infinite 3.29 (1.92) Nu 56.0 Hp 16.0

Attack 5.29 (1.74) Ag 43.0 Fr 28.0 Fan 3.27 (2.13) Nu 62.0 Hp 32.0

Crash 5.24 (1.74) Fr 45.0 Ax 21.0 Kitty 3.27 (1.96) Nu 48.0 Hp 44.0

Punishment 5.17 (1.67) Ag 44.0 Fr 32.0 Gigantic 3.27 (1.95) Nu 58.0 Sp 14.0

Ugly 5.16 (2.09) Dg 49.0 Sd 41.0 Youngest 3.27 (1.87) Nu 64.0 Hp 20.0

Threaten 5.14 (2.00) Fr 62.0 Ax 18.0 Diamond 3.25 (1.87) Hp 54.0 Nu 38.0

EM

OT

ION

AL

WO

RD

RA

TIN

GS

131

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08



Corpses 5.14 (1.62) Dg 50.0 Fr 20.0 Fist 3.21 (1.80) Ag 52.0 Nu 30.0

Bitter 5.13 (1.52) Ag 42.0 Dg 28.0 Pus 3.19 (1.99) Dg 64.0 Nu 36.0

Inferior 5.12 (1.71) Sd 32.0 Ax 28.0 Hearty 3.19 (1.73) Hp 53.0 Nu 45.0

Risk 5.10 (1.57) Ax 55.0 Fr 38.0 Whatever 3.16 (1.64) Nu 64.0 Dg 16.0

Eternal 5.08 (1.85) Hp 55.0 Nu 35.0 Witness 3.12 (1.83) Nu 54.0 Ax 17.0

Poverty 5.08 (1.77) Sd 68.0 Fr 16.0 Friction 3.10 (1.69) Nu 60.0 Ag 18.0

Eager 5.05 (1.95) Ax 48.0 Hp 42.0 Inhibit 3.10 (1.61) Nu 48.0 Ax 28.0

Contempt 5.05 (1.80) Ag 48.0 Nu 16.0 Ooze 3.09 (1.98) Dg 68.0 Nu 32.0

Provoke 5.02 (1.70) Ag 48.0 Ax, Nu 16.0 Actor 3.08 (1.89) Nu 68.0 Hp 18.0

Awkward 5.02 (1.50) Ax 60.0 Nu 18.0 Precise 3.06 (2.00) Nu 54.0 Hp 24.0

Awful 5.00 (2.12) Dg 58.0 Sd 28.0 Exactness 2.98 (1.54) Nu 60.0 Ax 28.0

Blame 5.00 (1.96) Ag 44.0 Ax, Dg 14.0 Keen 2.91 (1.80) Nu 54.0 Hp 32.0

Paralysis 4.94 (1.81) Sd 44.0 Fr 34.0 Testing 2.89 (1.90) Ax 62.0 Nu 30.0

Expectation 4.88 (0.69) Ax 50.0 Nu 24.0 Incomplete 2.85 (1.76) Ax 36.0 Sd 32.0

Innocence 4.87 (1.93) Hp 56.0 Nu 32.0 Restore 2.84 (2.05) Nu 58.0 Hp 40.0

Cautious 4.85 (1.54) Ax 40.0 Fr 36.0 Chimes 2.84 (1.51) Nu 52.0 Hp 40.0

Punishable 4.83 (1.85) Ag 47.0 Fr 43.0 Acquaint 2.81 (1.69) Nu 63.0 Hp 24.0

Fault 4.83 (1.64) Ax 26.0 Sd 22.0 Rabbit 2.79 (1.71) Hp 52.0 Nu 44.0

Goals 4.79 (1.84) Hp 40.0 Ax 28.0 Coffee 2.76 (2.07) Nu 66.0 Ax 15.0

Ambush 4.77 (1.82) Fr 48.0 Sp 20.0 Refund 2.75 (1.93) Nu 52.0 Hp 42.0

Fair 4.77 (1.71) Hp 60.0 Nu 38.0 Assail 2.73(1.93) Nu 68.0 Fr 16.0

Ache 4.77 (1.65) Sd 48.0 Nu 24.0 Faeces 2.73 (1.94) Dg 60.0 Nu 36.0

Intruder 4.77 (1.64) Fr 60.0 Ag, Ax 16.0 Wildlife 2.73 (1.54) Nu 58.0 Hp 34.0

Superior 4.77 (1.48) Hp 36.0 Nu 26.0 Deduct 2.71 (1.78) Nu 49.0 Sd 19.0

Spite 4.76 (1.89) Ag 66.0 Nu 22.0 Sanction 2.71 (1.58) Nu 66.0 Ag 12.0

Perfect 4.75 (1.76) Hp 44.0 Nu 22.0 Knife 2.69 (1.90) Nu 62.0 Fr 24.0

Inadequate 4.73 (1.69) Sd 40.0 Ax 22.0 Urine 2.67 (2.09) Dg 48.0 Nu 46.0

Scream 4.68 (2.13) Fr 68.0 Sp 12.0 Yellow 2.67 (1.56) Hp 42.0 Nu 40.0

Awe 4.67 (1.97) Sp 60.0 Hp 28.0 Replace 2.66 (1.80) Nu 52.0 Sd 20.0

132

ST

RA

US

SA

ND

ALLE

N

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Nev

ada,

Las

Veg

as, L

ibra

ries]

At:

02:3

9 27

Apr

il 20

08



Lethal 4.67 (1.84) Fr 62.0 Nu 12.0 Quick 2.66 (1.76) Nu 58.0 Ax 34.0

Discipline 4.67 (1.56) Nu 34.0 Fr 20.0 Pink 2.65 (1.89) Nu 70.0 Hp 24.0

Critical 4.66 (2.10) Ax 64.0 Nu 14.0 Tiger 2.65 (1.74) Nu 42.0 Fr 36.0

Assaults 4.65 (1.68) Fr 50.0 Ag 40.0 Phlegm 2.62 (1.91) Dg 56.0 Nu 40.0

Lucky 4.65 (1.62) Hp 62.0 Sp 28.0 Rapid 2.61 (2.03) Nu 56.0 Ax 42.0

Stubborn 4.63 (1.92) Ag 68.0 Ax 14.0 Motorcycle 2.60 (1.60) Nu 56.0 Fr 20.0

Rescue 4.62 (1.59) Hp 54.0 Ax 20.0 Search 2.56 (1.54) Nu 52.0 Ax 36.0

Castration 4.61 (2.40) Fr 40.0 Ax 14.0 Scab 2.55 (1.55) Nu 44.0 Dg 36.0

Rebel 4.60 (1.93) Nu 26.0 Ag 22.0 Fashion 2.52 (1.73) Nu 68.0 Hp 30.0

Obesity 4.57 (1.88) Sd 49.0 Dg 24.0 Occasion 2.50 (1.72) Nu 52.0 Hp 26.0

Majestic 4.56 (2.01) Hp 52.0 Nu 40.0 Retained 2.49 (1.53) Nu 62.0 Ax 12.0

Kidnapper 4.55 (2.34) Fr 64.0 Dg 10.0 Blob 2.48 (1.74) Nu 64.0 Dg 34.0

Imperfect 4.55 (1.85) Sd 40.0 Ax, Nu 17.0 Seashell 2.45 (1.68) Nu 64.0 Hp 34.0

Grave 4.52 (2.16) Fr 56.0 Sd 30.0 Lion 2.41 (1.91) Nu 50.0 Fr 40.0

Ardent 4.52 (2.06) Nu 58.0 Hp 24.0 Guitar 2.31 (1.59) Nu 68.0 Hp 28.0

Cross 4.50 (1.48) Nu 40.0 Hp 28.0 Green 2.25 (1.61) Nu 64.0 Hp 24.0

Punish 4.45 (2.29) Ag 38.0 Fr 30.0 Voltage 2.24 (1.68) Nu 45.0 Fr 28.0

Inflict 4.45 (2.07) Ag 38.0 Fr 26.0 Barbecue 2.23 (1.70) Nu 58.0 Fr 42.0

Coma 4.45 (1.87) Sd 68.0 Fr 26.0 Sooner 2.16 (1.43) Nu 64.0 Sp 14.0

Law-breaker 4.44 (1.90) Ag 36.0 Fr 33.0 Basement 2.12 (1.48) Nu 66.0 Fr 21.0

Worse 4.41 (2.02) Sd 28.0 Nu 26.0 Cherries 1.87 (1.55) Nu 68.0 Hp 30.0

Wonder 4.41 (1.74) Sp 56.0 Nu 19.0 Peaches 1.87 (1.36) Nu 68.0 Hp 30.0

Note: Int (SD)�Mean emotional intensity (standard deviation); Cat. 1�Emotional category that the word most highly represents;

Cat. 2�Category of which the word is second most representative; Ag�Anger; Ax�Anxiety; Dg�Disgust; Fr�Fear; Hp�Happiness;

Nu�Neutral; Sd�Sadness; Sp�Surprise.

EM

OT

ION

AL

WO

RD

RA

TIN

GS

133