An English List of Trait Words Including Valence, Social Desirability, and Observability Ratings

Overview

Journal Behav Res Methods

Publisher Springer

Specialty Social Sciences

Date 2022 Aug 12

PMID 35962307

Authors

Sara Britz

Lena Rader

Siegfried Gauggel

Verena Mainz

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

To enable flexible and controlled research on personality, information processing, and interactions in socio-emotional contexts, the availability of highly controlled stimulus material, especially trait words and related attributes, is indispensable. Existing word databases contain mainly nouns and rating dimensions, and their role in studies within socio-emotional contexts are limited. This study aimed to create an English list of traits (ELoT), a database containing 500 trait adjectives rated by a large sample (n = 822, 57.42% female). The rating categories refer to the perceived valence associated with the traits and their social desirability and observability. Participants of different ages (18 to 65 years of age) and educational levels rated the words in an online survey. Both valence and social desirability ratings showed a bimodal distribution, indicating that most traits were rated either positive (respectively socially desirable) or negative (respectively socially undesirable), with fewer words rated as neutral. For observability, a bell-shaped distribution was found. Results indicated a strong association between valence and social desirability, whereas observability ratings were only moderately associated with the other ratings. Valence and social desirability ratings were not related to participants' age or gender, but observability ratings were different for females and males, and for younger, middle-aged, and older participants. The ELoT is an extensive, freely available database of trait norms. The large sample and the balanced age and gender distributions allow to account for age- and gender-specific effects during stimulus selection.

References

WATSON D, Hubbard B, Wiese D . Self-other agreement in personality and affectivity: the role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000; 78(3):546-58. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.3.546. View

Roberts C, Freeman J, Samdal O, Schnohr C, De Looze M, Nic Gabhainn S . The Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study: methodological developments and current tensions. Int J Public Health. 2009; 54 Suppl 2:140-50. PMC: 2732766. DOI: 10.1007/s00038-009-5405-9. View

Lalwani A, Shrum L, Chiu C . Motivated response styles: the role of cultural values, regulatory focus, and self-consciousness in socially desirable responding. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009; 96(4):870-82. DOI: 10.1037/a0014622. View

Mather M, Carstensen L . Aging and motivated cognition: the positivity effect in attention and memory. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005; 9(10):496-502. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.005. View

Schmidtke D, Schroder T, Jacobs A, Conrad M . ANGST: affective norms for German sentiment terms, derived from the affective norms for English words. Behav Res Methods. 2014; 46(4):1108-18. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-013-0426-y. View

Kauschke C, Bahn D, Vesker M, Schwarzer G . The Role of Emotional Valence for the Processing of Facial and Verbal Stimuli-Positivity or Negativity Bias?. Front Psychol. 2019; 10:1654. PMC: 6676801. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01654. View

Gruhn D, Smith J . Characteristics for 200 words rated by young and older adults: age-dependent evaluations of German adjectives (AGE). Behav Res Methods. 2008; 40(4):1088-97. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.40.4.1088. View

Verheyen S, De Deyne S, Linsen S, Storms G . Lexicosemantic, affective, and distributional norms for 1,000 Dutch adjectives. Behav Res Methods. 2019; 52(3):1108-1121. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-019-01303-4. View

Gosling S, John O, Craik K, Robins R . Do people know how they behave? Self-reported act frequencies compared with on-line codings by observers. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998; 74(5):1337-49. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1337. View

10.

Gruhn D . An English Word Database of EMOtional TErms (EMOTE). Psychol Rep. 2016; 119(1):290-308. DOI: 10.1177/0033294116658474. View

11.

Ric F, Alexopoulos T, Muller D, Aube B . Emotional norms for 524 French personality trait words. Behav Res Methods. 2012; 45(2):414-21. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0276-z. View

12.

Human L, Biesanz J . Target adjustment and self-other agreement: utilizing trait observability to disentangle judgeability and self-knowledge. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011; 101(1):202-16. DOI: 10.1037/a0023782. View

13.

Wentura D, Rothermund K, Bak P . Automatic vigilance: the attention-grabbing power of approach- and avoidance-related social information. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000; 78(6):1024-37. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.6.1024. View

14.

Stevens J, Hamann S . Sex differences in brain activation to emotional stimuli: a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Neuropsychologia. 2012; 50(7):1578-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.03.011. View

15.

Warriner A, Kuperman V, Brysbaert M . Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behav Res Methods. 2013; 45(4):1191-207. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x. View

16.

van Heuven W, Mandera P, Keuleers E, Brysbaert M . SUBTLEX-UK: a new and improved word frequency database for British English. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2014; 67(6):1176-90. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2013.850521. View

17.

Kyrolainen A, Luke J, Libben G, Kuperman V . Valence norms for 3,600 English words collected during the COVID-19 pandemic: Effects of age and the pandemic. Behav Res Methods. 2021; 54(5):2445-2456. PMC: 8676940. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-021-01740-0. View

18.

John O, Robins R . Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: the big five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. J Pers. 1993; 61(4):521-51. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00781.x. View

19.

Lahl O, Goritz A, Pietrowsky R, Rosenberg J . Using the World-Wide Web to obtain large-scale word norms: 190,212 ratings on a set of 2,654 German nouns. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(1):13-19. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.1.13. View

20.

Forster S, Drueke B, Britz S, Gauggel S, Mainz V . How females think about themselves and how they assume that significant others think about them: The influence of perspective taking on self-referential processing. PLoS One. 2019; 14(5):e0217870. PMC: 6544297. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217870. View