背景:关于效价和唤醒的刺激情感质量的感知主要在实验室实验中进行了研究。基于人口的研究可以通过访问更大的研究来补充这些研究,年长的,更好的平衡,和更多的异质样本。几个特点,其中年龄,性别,抑郁症,或者焦虑,被发现与情感质量感知有关。这里,我们打算将效价和唤醒评级方法从实验研究转移到基于人群的研究。我们的目的是评估在大型观察性BiDirect研究的背景下获得和确定效价和唤醒等级结构的可行性。此外,我们探索了年龄的角色,性别,抑郁症,以及对单词的效价和唤醒等级的焦虑。
方法:704名参与者提供了预先归类为不愉快的12个书面名词的效价和唤醒等级,中性,或令人愉快。效价和唤醒等级的预测因子(即年龄,性别,抑郁症,和焦虑)通过将两个情感维度与三个单词类别相结合而出现的六个结果进行了分析。采用多元线性回归对数据进行建模。通过模型解释的方差分解量化了相对预测因子的重要性。
结果:总体而言,基于人群的平均评分与实验室设置中的评分相同.该模型在效价维度上没有达到统计学意义。在唤醒维度,该模型解释了5.4%(令人不快),4.6%(中性),和3.5%(令人愉快)的方差。(趋势)在所有单词类别中都发现了性别对唤醒等级的影响(令人不快:女性的唤醒增加;中性,愉快:女性觉醒减少)。年龄和焦虑(唤醒增加)的影响仅限于中性词。
结论:我们报告了在大型环境中单词的效价和唤醒等级的结果,观察,以人群为基础的研究。方法转移产生了可接受的数据质量。分析表明,所选预测因子在唤醒维度的影响很小。
BACKGROUND: The perception of the affective quality of stimuli with regard to valence and arousal has mostly been studied in laboratory experiments. Population-based research may complement such studies by accessing larger, older, better balanced, and more heterogeneous samples. Several characteristics, among them age, sex, depression, or anxiety, were found to be associated with affective quality perception. Here, we intended to transfer valence and arousal rating methods from experimental to population-based research. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of obtaining and determining the structure of valence and arousal ratings in the setting of the large observational BiDirect Study. Moreover, we explored the roles of age, sex, depression, and anxiety for valence and arousal ratings of words.
METHODS: 704 participants provided valence and arousal ratings for 12 written nouns pre-categorized as unpleasant,
neutral, or pleasant. Predictors of valence and arousal ratings (i.e. age, sex, depression, and anxiety) were analyzed for six outcomes that emerge by combining two affective dimensions with three words categories. Data were modeled with multiple linear regression. Relative predictor importance was quantified by model-explained variance decomposition.
RESULTS: Overall, average population-based ratings replicated those found in laboratory settings. The model did not reach statistical significance in the valence dimension. In the arousal dimension, the model explained 5.4% (unpleasant), 4.6% (
neutral), and 3.5% (pleasant) of the variance. (Trend) effects of sex on arousal ratings were found in all word categories (unpleasant: increased arousal in women;
neutral, pleasant: decreased arousal in women). Effects of age and anxiety (increased arousal) were restricted to the
neutral words.
CONCLUSIONS: We report results of valence and arousal ratings of words in the setting of a large, observational, population-based study. Method transfer yielded acceptable data quality. The analyses demonstrated small effects of the selected predictors in the arousal dimension.