Multidimensional normative ratings for the International Affective Picture System

Abstract

The purpose of the present investigation was to replicate and extend the International Affective Picture System norms (Ito, Cacioppo, & Lang, 1998; Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1999). These norms were developed to provide researchers with photographic slides that varied in emotional evocation, especially arousal and valence. In addition to collecting rating data on the dimensions of arousal and valence, we collected data on the dimensions of consequentiality, meaningfulness, familiarity, distinctiveness, and memorability. Furthermore, we collected ratings on the primary emotions of happiness, surprise, sadness, anger, disgust, and fear. A total of 1,302 participants were tested in small groups. The participants in each group rated a subset of 18 slides on 14 dimensions. Ratings were obtained on 703 slides. The means and standard deviations for all of the ratings are provided. We found our valence ratings to be similar to the previous norms. In contrast, our participants were more likely to rate the slides as less arousing than in the previous norms. The mean ratings on the remaining 12 dimensions were all below the midpoint of the 9-point Likert scale. However, sufficient variability in ratings across the slides indicates that selecting slides on the basis of these variables is feasible. Overall, the present ratings should allow investigators to use these norms for research purposes, especially in research dealing with the interrelationships among emotion and cognition. The means and standard deviations for emotions may be downloaded as an Excel spreadsheet from www.psychonomic.org/archive.

Resting state glutamate predicts elevated pre-stimulus alpha during self-relatedness: A combined EEG-MRS study on “rest-self overlap”

“…A paired t-test revealed that RTs for high self were shorter than for low self (t(26) = −2.77, p = .01). In accord with available ratings (Libkuman et al, 2007;Northoff et al, 2009;Schneider et al, 2008), we also compared high and low self-related stimuli as judged by our participants with regard to potential differences in emotional valence, and arousal; comparisons yielded no significant differences or correlations with subject ratings. That there were no such differences or correlations suggests that differences in assessment between high and low self-related stimuli were dependent upon participants' subjective preferences rather than upon objective features of the stimuli themselves.…”

“…The selection of the pictures was based upon previous ratings (Libkuman, Otani, Kern, Viger, & Novak, 2007) for the dimensions personal relevance (viz., high and low self), valence and arousal, as well as ratings from Schneider et al (2008), Northoff et al (2009), and Grimm et al (2006. Based upon these ratings, stimuli were balanced with regard to valence, arousal, and selfrelatedness.…”

Introducing the Open Affective Standardized Image Set (OASIS)

“…The behavioral and neural responses to negative stimuli differ, depending on whether they are perceived as immediately threatening to the individual or as merely being negative and nonthreatening (Kveraga et al, 2015). Importantly, affect can also be conceptualized as a set of discrete states rather than as dimensional (Barrett, 1998;Ekman, 1992;Izard, 1992), and, similarly to the IAPS images (Libkuman, Otani, Kern, Viger, & Novak, 2007;Mikels et al, 2005), the images included in the OASIS dataset could also be rated using discrete emotion labels rather than two-or three-dimensional scales. Furthermore, even though the OASIS images were selected to represent various segments of circumplex space, they are subject to variation on other, not necessarily affective, dimensions, such as consequentiality, memorability, meaningfulness, and familiarity.…”

Lisbon Symbol Database (LSD): Subjective norms for 600 symbols

“…That is, stimuli that are more extreme in positive or negative valence are also rated as being more arousing (Backs, da Silva, & Han, 2005;Ito, Cacioppo, & Lang, 1998;Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1998;Libkuman, Otani, Kern, Viger, & Novak, 2007; but for exceptions, see Grühn &Scheibe, 2008, andRibeiro, Pompéia, &Bueno, 2005). In the present study, we asked participants to evaluate the extent to which the symbol refers to something arousing/exciting or passive/calm (1 = Refers to something very passive/calm, 7 = Refers to something very arousing/exciting).…”