J Psycholinguist Res DOI 10.1007/s10936-015-9357-3

Emotion Word Processing: Effects of Word Type and Valence in Spanish–English Bilinguals Stephanie A. Kazanas · Jeanette Altarriba

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Previous studies comparing emotion and emotion-laden word processing have used various cognitive tasks, including an Affective Simon Task (Altarriba and BasnightBrown in Int J Billing 15(3):310–328, 2011), lexical decision task (LDT; Kazanas and Altarriba in Am J Psychol, in press), and rapid serial visual processing (Knickerbocker and Altarriba in Vis Cogn 21(5):599–627, 2013). Each of these studies has found significant differences in emotion and emotion-laden word processing. The current study investigated this word type distinction using a bilingual sample, to assess emotion and emotion-laden word processing in a bilingual’s two languages. Sixty Spanish–English bilinguals performed a masked LDT with positive and negative emotion and emotion-laden word pairs, in either Spanish or English. Overall, the four-way interaction of relatedness, word type, valence, and language was significant. Response times (RTs) to emotion words were significantly faster than RTs to emotion-laden words, but only in English. These results indicate that the emotion/emotionladen word type distinction may be the most robust in a person’s dominant language. Keywords

Emotion · Word type · Valence · Priming effects · Language dominance

Introduction Across a variety of domains, researchers have demonstrated a robust processing advantage for emotional stimuli, relative to neutral stimuli. These results are consistent across monolingual (e.g., Jay et al. 2008; Talmi and Moscovitch 2004) and bilingual (e.g., Anooshian and Hertel 1994; Ayçiçegi and Harris 2004; Ferré et al. 2010) studies. Further, emotion research is broadly useful, as emotionalawareness and intelligence can enhance psychologPortions of these data were presented at the 54th annual meeting of the New England Psychological Association, Bates College, Lewiston, ME. S. A. Kazanas (B) · J. Altarriba Department of Psychology, University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY), 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. Altarriba e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Psycholinguist Res

ical well-being and contribute to reduced mental illness (Goleman 1995). Finally, research with threatening and fear-inducing stimuli indicates a time in our evolutionary history when heightened emotional processing benefited survival (e.g., Öhman et al. 2001; Öhman and Mineka 2001). Together, these results indicate the importance of emotion research, as well as its far-reaching applications. In an effort to better define emotional stimuli, researchers have begun to examine the differences in emotion and emotion-laden processing. To date, word type research comparing emotion word processing to emotion-laden word processing has found an emotion advantage, with larger emotion effects across a variety of cognitive tasks (Altarriba and Basnight-Brown 2011; Kazanas and Altarriba in press; Knickerbocker and Altarriba 2013). However, this explicit comparison has not been tested within a single experiment, using a bilingual population. Thus, the current study investigated the more recent emotion advantage relative to emotion-laden word processing, using a word priming paradigm. Emotion Word Processing in Bilinguals The relationship between emotion processing and bilingualism is a complex one (for a recent review, see Pavlenko 2012). For example, across both clinical (e.g., Altarriba and SantiagoRivera 1994; Santiago-Rivera and Altarriba 2002) and laboratory (e.g., Anooshian and Hertel 1994) settings, bilinguals often describe their first language as ‘more emotional’ than their second language. Bilinguals also believe that their first language is perceived as ‘more natural’, with their second language sounding ‘artificial’ (Dewaele and Nakano 2013; Pavlenko 2006). This pattern is consistent with multilinguals, as well: Feelings are expressed more often in a multilinguals’ second language than in their third and fourth languages (Dewaele 2009). In addition, Harris et al. (2006) have noted that there is a strong scientific basis for these emotional experiences: Psychophysiological techniques measuring autonomic arousal (e.g., skin conductance ratings) have found stronger responses to reprimands presented in Spanish to Spanish–English bilinguals (Harris 2004). However, this effect was the most pronounced with bilinguals who had learned their second language (English) later in life. Thus, language dominance may play an important role in this effect. However, Harris et al. (2006) have speculated that skin conductance measures for emotional stimuli presented in a functionally dominant second language may be similar to those presented in a first language. Additional findings from the skin conductance responses collected by Harris (2004) are of interest to the current study. For example, responses to positive, aversive, endearing, insulting, and taboo phrases were similar across Spanish and English (with similar patterns across early and late second language learners). Ayçiçegi-Dinn and Caldwell-Harris (2009) have published some complementary findings within the memory domain. Their Turkish-English bilinguals recalled an equivalent number of emotional words in Turkish and English. This finding has been replicated with Spanish–English bilinguals, as well: Ferré et al. (2010) replicated the typical emotion advantage for emotional words (positive and negative) relative to neutral words. The magnitude of the advantage was equivalent across English and Spanish. These experiments were conducted with highly proficient bilinguals and indicate that effects observed in a bilingual’s second language can match those observed in a bilingual’s first language. Word Type Investigations Early word type research demonstrated the ways in which abstract lexical processing differed from concrete lexical processing (Bleasdale 1987; Paivio 1971, 1986). Further, abstract,

123

J Psycholinguist Res

concrete, and emotion words have been shown to differ on several dimensions, as well as word associations and memorability (Altarriba and Bauer 2004; Altarriba et al. 1999). Recent reviews of this area of research (e.g., Altarriba 2006; Pavlenko 2008) have urged future research to consider these distinctions and better elucidate what defines an emotion word apart from other types of words. Thus, more recently, researchers have turned their attention toward the differences between emotion and emotion-laden word processing: processing a word that directly labels an emotional state (e.g., passion), when compared with processing a word that has come to elicit an emotion (e.g., butterfly). Emotion words have generated significantly larger effects than emotion-laden words using rapid serial visual processing (RSVP) methodology (Knickerbocker and Altarriba 2013). Differences between emotion and emotion-word processing have also been demonstrated using unmasked and masked priming approaches (Kazanas and Altarriba in press) and an Affective Simon Task (Altarriba and Basnight-Brown 2011). Differences in emotion and emotion-laden word processing also appear to be moderated by valence, with different patterns of results for positive and negative words in several of the previously mentioned tasks. For example, using a lexical decision task (LDT), Kazanas and Altarriba (in press) found significantly faster response times (RTs) and larger priming effects with positive words than with negative words. Finally, Altarriba and Basnight-Brown (2011) compared emotion and emotion-laden word processing in English and Spanish, with similar findings in both languages. Across both languages, negative emotion and emotion-laden words, and positive emotion-laden words produced significant Simon effects, with slower responses to incongruent trials (i.e., competing key-press instructions according to color and valence). Thus, the word type and valence of a given word has been demonstrated to impact lexical processing. These results indicated that the emotion/emotion-laden distinction may exist in both of a Spanish–English bilingual’s languages. However, these word types were assessed in separate experiments, encouraging future experiments with direct comparisons. The Current Study The current study was designed to investigate the emotion/emotion-laden distinction with a bilingual population. Previous word type investigations of this kind were limited to English stimuli, or compared Spanish and English emotion and emotion-laden word processing in separate experiments. Each of them indicated processing differences between emotion and emotion-laden words. In this study, both Spanish and English word lists were used, and a backward masked word priming task was modeled after one used by Kazanas and Altarriba (in press, Experiment 2), to determine the ways in which these words are represented within semantic memory. This particular type of task has also been used in previous word type investigations (Altarriba and Bauer 2004; Bleasdale 1987), as it can directly compare RTs according to several between- and within-subject factors. For example, across two experiments, Kazanas and Altarriba (in press) found that processing was fastest with positive emotion words, and slowest with negative emotion-laden words. Priming effects matched these results, with significantly larger priming effects with positive emotion words than with negative emotion-laden words. These results were consistent across unmasked and masked LDTs. As previous research has indicated that emotion and emotion-laden word processing differs within a variety of cognitive tasks, we predicted that a bilingual population will also demonstrate this distinction. Furthermore, using highly-proficient bilinguals, we expected effects in Spanish to mirror those already documented in English.

123

J Psycholinguist Res

Method Participants Participants in this experiment (N = 60) were University at Albany, State University of New York undergraduate students. Each participant gave their informed consent and received either course credit or monetary compensation for their participation. All participants were screened with both the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II; Beck et al. 1996) and the ‘state’ portion of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger et al. 1983). These questionnaires were used to limit variance in the data related to a negative response bias (Trippe et al. 2007). After the experimental trials, all participants were asked general questions about the procedure (e.g., whether they saw any words other than the targets) and were provided with ample time to recall any of the primes. Thus, only those participants with non-clinical BDI-II and STAI scores, who had not explicitly processed the primes were retained for analyses. All participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, with stimuli presented in either English or Spanish. A language history questionnaire (Altarriba and Mathis 1997) was administered at the end of each session to collect information related to language acquisition, proficiency, and daily usage. All participants listed Spanish as their L1 and English as their L2, with earlier age of acquisition (both spoken and reading) in Spanish. However, English (their L2) had become their functionally dominant language, evident by a significantly larger daily usage approximation (80 % English vs. 20 % Spanish). Proficiency ratings were made with a nine-point Likert scale, with higher ratings indicating higher proficiency. Participants rated their English and Spanish comprehension skills equally ( p > .05), but rated their English writing and speaking skills higher than their Spanish skills (though the difference in ratings was relatively small and less than one point) (both ps < .01). These patterns were equivalent across participants in the English and Spanish LDT conditions (all ps > .05). Means for these language history variables and proficiency ratings are listed in Table 1. Stimuli A set of 48 prime-target word pairs was selected from a larger list created for a monolingual version of this experiment (Kazanas and Altarriba in press). See Appendix for this list of words. Word pairs from this list were matched on arousal and valence using the Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW; Bradley and Lang 1999) database, with valence values used to construct homogeneous positive and negative word pairs (see Table 2 for these values). The University of South Florida Free Association Norms was utilized to match stimuli on forward association strength (with unrelated prime-target pairs having an association equal to zero) (Nelson et al. 1998). Additional norming data were gathered from the English Lexicon Project (ELP; Balota et al. 2002), matching all stimuli on word length, word frequency, and LDT RTs (all ps > .05). For the Spanish condition, all primes and targets were translated from the original English word pairs, and every effort was made to select word pairs that did not include cognates. English and Spanish translations were matched on word length ( p > .05). Approximately half of the words (32 of 72) did not have concreteness values in EsPal (Duchon et al. 2013), which limited our ability to match English and Spanish words on concreteness. We relied on previous findings reported by Kazanas and Altarriba (in press): As priming effects from concrete and non-concrete targets did not differ in English, we retained the maximum number of word pairs. Frequency values listed in EsPal (Duchon et al. 2013) were difficult to compare with those gathered from the ELP (Balota et al. 2002), as they used different methods to collect

123

J Psycholinguist Res Table 1 Demographic information and language history English condition

Spanish condition

Age

20.73

19.47

Gender

15 males; 15 females

10 males; 20 females

BDI-II Score

5.83

7.10

STAI Score

30.50

30.90

Spanish age of acquisition

1.18

1.55

Spanish reading age of acquisition

4.80

5.58

Spanish comprehension rating

9.43

9.40

Spanish writing rating

8.90

8.63

Spanish speaking rating

9.17

9.27

English age of acquisition

6.27

4.65

English reading age of acquisition

6.62

5.98

English comprehension rating

9.47

9.70

English writing rating

9.47

9.77

English speaking rating

9.53

9.70

% of day speaking Spanish

18.32

17.37

% of day speaking English

81.21

82.13

Table 2 Valence means matched by condition and language version Condition

Related primes

Unrelated primes

Targets

English

English

English

Spanish

Spanish

Spanish

Emotion Positive

7.89

7.48

7.45

7.85

7.76

7.99

Emotion-laden Positive

7.64

7.68

7.09

6.19

7.33

7.30

Emotion Negative

2.62

2.77

2.95

2.65

2.77

3.01

Emotion-laden Negative

2.28

1.84

2.56

2.18

2.27

2.12

their data. Most importantly, the Spanish adaptation of ANEW (Redondo et al. 2007) was used to match words on valence and arousal. These valence and arousal values are listed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively, and closely matched those in English (all ps > .05). Prime-target word pairs were created with equal amounts of related and unrelated pairs. To reduce any response bias, half of the word pairs included nonwords. Nonword pairs were created by changing one vowel in the target word. All nonwords were pronounceable according to English and Spanish phonological rules. See Table 3 for prime and target means for these values (including arousal). The 48 experimental trials were equally divided among emotion word type and valence blocks: positive emotion (e.g., delight-joy; gusto-júbilo), negative emotion (e.g., anger-rage; ira-rabia), positive emotion-laden (e.g., kitten-puppy; gatito-perrito) and negative emotionladen (e.g., coffin-burial; ataúd-túmulo). We chose to block our stimuli by valence, instead of intermixing positive and negative trials, to reduce the effect of processing one word pair (e.g., a negative trial) on the next word pair (e.g., a positive trial). The slower processing of negative stimuli had been shown to affect subsequent trials in an emotional Stroop task (McKenna

123

J Psycholinguist Res Table 3 Additional norming data Norm

Related Primes

Unrelated Primes

Targets

Lengtha

5.63 (6.42)

6.38 (7.17)

5.21 (5.92)

Frequency

8.75

8.52

8.75

Arousala

5.86 (5.99)

5.63 (6.32)

5.69 (6.25)

LDT RT

634

650

620

a Spanish listed in parentheses, with values matching those in English

500 ms + 50 ms kiss 200 ms ####### 2000 ms hug

Fig. 1 A summary of the procedure for the current experiment

and Sharma 2004). The order of the four blocks was counterbalanced and participants were randomly assigned to one of the counterbalanced block orders. Procedure All participants were tested individually within the Cognition and Language Laboratory. Following completion of the BDI-II and STAI questionnaires, instructions for the priming task were displayed on a computer screen and reinforced by the experimenter, who remained with the participant and assisted with practice trials. Participants were randomly assigned to either the English condition or the Spanish condition. A summary of the procedure for each trial is shown in Fig. 1. Participants were presented with a fixation ‘+’ at the center of the computer screen for 500 ms. After this duration, a prime word (e.g., kiss) appeared on the screen for 50 ms, followed by a 200-ms mask (#######). Then, a target word (e.g., hug) appeared and participants had a maximum of 2000 ms to respond, until the next trial began. A participant in the Spanish condition responded to Spanish prime-target trials. Each participant was encouraged to respond as quickly and as accurately as possible by pressing the ‘m’ key if the target was a word and the ‘z’ key if the target was a nonword. Feedback was given according to the accuracy of each trial. Results Mean RTs were calculated for accurate responses. For each participant, RTs were trimmed by removing responses 2.5 standard deviations above and below the overall mean related

123

J Psycholinguist Res Table 4 English version: means and priming effects Word type Emotion Emotion-laden

Valence

Mean related RT (ms)

Mean unrelated RT (ms)

Priming effect (ms) ** +112

Positive

602

714

Negative

641

718

+77

Positive

625

722

+97

Negative

692

761

+69

** All priming effects significant at the p < .01 level

Table 5 Spanish version: means and priming effects Word type Emotion Emotion-laden

Valence

Mean related RT (ms)

Mean unrelated RT (ms)

Priming effect (ms) ** +100

Positive

756

856

Negative

792

914

+122

Positive

736

863

+127

Negative

801

879

+78

** All priming effects significant at the p < .01 level

and unrelated RT. Trimmed data accounted for 1 % of a participant’s raw data. Analyses with trimmed RTs for correct responses are described below. Preliminary analyses indicated that participants in the English condition (M = 681 ms) responded significantly faster than those in the Spanish condition (M = 848 ms), F(1, 58) = 25.949, p < .001, η2 = .309. Similarly, participants in the English condition (M = 89.5 %) were significantly more accurate in their responses than those in the Spanish condition (M = 79.0 %), F(1, 58) = 36.685, p < .001, η2 = .387. There were no speed-accuracy tradeoffs across the word type and valence conditions. A repeated-measures ANOVA was used to test for overall main effects and the omnibus 4-way interaction. Results from the repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant overall main effects (collapsed across language) for two of the three within-subjects factors. First, participants responded faster to related targets (M = 709 ms) than to unrelated targets (M = 802 ms), which indicates a significant semantic priming effect, F(1, 58) = 141.326, p < .001, η2 = .709. Second, participants responded faster to positive targets (M = 762 ms) than to negative targets (M = 774 ms), F(1, 58) = 32.330, p < .001, η2 = .358. The third overall main effect, for word type, was not significant; however, the main effect was significant in the English condition, with faster responses to emotion targets (M = 693 ms) than to emotion-laden targets (M = 716 ms), F(1, 29) = 5.415, p < .05, η2 = .157. In the Spanish condition, responses to emotion targets and emotion-laden targets were equivalent, p = .437. The 2 (relatedness) × 2 (word type) × 2 (valence)× 2 (language) interaction was significant, F(1, 58) = 4.145, p < .05, η2 = .067. In the English condition, RTs were fastest to related positive emotion words (M = 602 ms) and slowest to the unrelated negative emotionladen words (M = 761 ms). In the Spanish condition, RTs were fastest to the related positive emotion-laden words (M = 736 ms) and slowest to the unrelated negative emotion words (M = 914 ms). Means for the English condition and Spanish condition are displayed in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.

123

J Psycholinguist Res English

Spanish

150 135

Priming Effects (ms)

120

delight -joy

anger -rage

kitten -puppy

105 90 coffin -burial

75 60 45 30 15 0

Emotion Positive

Emotion Negative

Emotion-laden Positive

Emotion-laden Negative

Fig. 2 A comparison of the priming effects across language versions

Finally, priming effects were assessed with planned comparisons. Pairwise t-tests compared RTs to unrelated targets with RTs to related targets. When the difference between these RTs was significant—specifically, when participants responded significantly faster to related targets than unrelated targets—the priming effect was significant. In this experiment, priming effects were significant for each word type and valence condition, for both language conditions (all ps < .01). Overall, these priming effects for the English condition are shown in Table 4 and those for the Spanish condition are shown in Table 5. Priming effects for the two language conditions were equivalent (all ps > .05). In addition, in both language conditions, comparisons between emotion priming effects and emotion-laden priming effects were non-significant: Emotion priming effects and emotion-laden priming effects were equivalent (all ps > .05). In other words, priming effects for positive emotion trials were equal in magnitude to priming effects for positive emotion-laden trials. This was also the case for negative emotion trials and negative emotion-laden trials. These priming effects are displayed in Fig. 2.

Discussion In the current study, emotion word processing was compared with emotion-laden word processing, with bilingual participants performing a masked LDT in either English or Spanish. Several results replicated those from previous research, including significant priming effects for these word types (faster RTs to related targets than unrelated targets) (Kazanas and Altarriba in press) and faster RTs to positive targets than negative targets (Sutton et al. 2007). This main effect of valence—an advantage afforded to positive words—has most recently been demonstrated in the attention and memory domains, using electrophysiology and neuroimaging techniques (e.g., Kissler et al. 2009). In addition, the emotion processing advantage over emotion-laden processing—demonstrated by faster RTs—was observed when participants performed the LDT in English, but not in Spanish. These results from the English version replicate the emotion advantage documented by Knickerbocker and Altarriba (2013) and Kazanas and Altarriba (in press). Thus, the results from the Spanish version of the LDT are unique in that they describe a new dynamic critical to

123

J Psycholinguist Res

word type research. To our knowledge, researchers have not detected limitations to word type distinctions according to task, language, or language dominance. In other words, findings from the current study and those described by Altarriba and Basnight-Brown (2011) indicate that the distinction between emotion and emotion-laden words in Spanish may be a function of their respective tasks. However, these comparisons are tentative, as participants in the current study processed both emotion and emotion-laden words in either English or Spanish; participants in Altarriba and Basnight-Brown’s (2011) experiments processed Spanish and English emotion words or emotion-laden words. Significant findings are further discussed in the following sections. The Emotion/Emotion-laden Distinction Studying emotion word processing in this way is quite new. Only recently have researchers begun to define the way emotion word processing differs from emotion-laden word processing. For example, emotion words appear to be processed faster (Knickerbocker and Altarriba 2013), with valence playing a role in this effect (Altarriba and Basnight-Brown 2011; Kazanas and Altarriba in press). While emotion-word processing occurs more rapidly than emotionladen word processing, this effect is especially pronounced when comparing positive words to negative words. In the current study, this finding was apparent in the English version of the LDT, with fastest RTs to the positive emotion words, and slowest RTs to the negative emotion-laden words. Results from the Spanish version of the LDT were a bit different, with faster RTs to the positive emotion-laden words and slowest RTs to the negative emotion words. Together, these findings support the overall main effect of valence, with faster RTs to positive words than negative words. However, the emotion/emotion-laden word distinction appears to be more complex. On the one hand, the distinction appears quite robust in English, and has now been documented with RTs using both an English monolingual and Spanish–English bilingual population, across several cognitive tasks. On the other hand, the distinction in Spanish is not as well-studied. In the initial study, Altarriba and Basnight-Brown (2011) reported differences in emotion and emotion-laden processing using an Affective Simon Task, though emotion and emotion-laden word processing was assessed in different experiments. This distinction was not observed in the current study, within the Spanish version of the LDT. There are several reasons why this might occur. For example, the categorical distinction between emotion and emotion-laden words may not be as robust in Spanish as it is in English: In Spanish, these word types may be more interconnected, with emotion-laden words having stronger ties to their emotional referents. Or, these emotion words may have activated childhood memories or associations from when they were first learned, leading to some perseveration before responding. Finally, the distinction may be more visible in a bilingual’s more dominant language, or in tasks requiring more conscious processing. Additional empirical research can assist in defining the parameters of this distinction, particularly with other languages and bilingual populations. Language Dominance One additional explanation for our discrepant findings in English and Spanish may stem from the characteristics of our bilingual population, particularly their English-dominant language background. Our data from the English version of the LDT mirrors the LDT findings described previously with English monolinguals (Kazanas and Altarriba in press). Thus, the main effect of word type and the distinction between emotion and emotion-laden words may be more pronounced in one’s dominant language, as previously noted. With our bilingual population,

123

J Psycholinguist Res

their language history data indicate that typical language dominance effects (i.e., dominant in the L1 direction) may not apply. Previous research has supported the assertion that bilinguals consider their L1 to be their more emotional language (e.g., Altarriba and Santiago-Rivera 1994; Santiago-Rivera and Altarriba 2002), using a variety of tasks and measures (e.g., Harris 2004; Harris et al. 2006). However, when language dominance shifts in the L2 direction, as was the case with our bilinguals, faster RTs and stronger effects can instead be observed in a bilingual’s second language (e.g., with cross-language semantic and translation priming, Basnight-Brown and Altarriba 2007). Furthermore, Dewaele (2009) has noted an interesting case of emotional expression shifting to a more recently acquired language (e.g., Italian L3), particularly when the language was acquired in young adulthood. Thus, it appears likely that language dominance accounts for the similarities between previous findings with English monolinguals (Kazanas and Altarriba in press) and current findings with Spanish–English bilinguals, when also tested in English. Future Research As discussed previously, the current study drew participants from a primarily Englishdominant bilingual population, though proficiency ratings for both English and Spanish were quite similar across rating dimensions. Therefore, future research should investigate whether our findings replicate with a Spanish-dominant bilingual population. Future research should also investigate this distinction using additional tasks and methodologies. Additional research could also explore whether other word type distinctions exist in Spanish, as previous experiments have included bilingual participants and cannot fully determine whether word type distinctions are driven by experience with the English language. For example, abstract, concrete, and emotion words differ along several rating dimensions when assessed in English, including concreteness, imageability, memorability, etc. (Altarriba and Bauer 2004; Altarriba et al. 1999). Perhaps future research could also assess whether these word type distinctions exist in other languages. Finally, more extensive normative data for Spanish words are needed for experiments of this kind, such as association values and LDT and naming RTs.

Conclusions The current study was designed to investigate the role of bilingualism in the emotion/emotionladen distinction. Previous word type investigations with monolinguals have demonstrated an emotion advantage (e.g., Kazanas and Altarriba in press; Knickerbocker and Altarriba 2013), including one set of experiments finding a similar pattern of results for monolingual and bilingual participants (Altarriba and Basnight-Brown 2011). However, when emotion and emotion-laden word processing were compared in a single experiment, the emotion advantage—with faster RTs—was demonstrated in English, only. The magnitude of priming effects for these word types were equivalent across languages, suggesting that emotion and emotion-laden words are stored in similar ways across English and Spanish. As our participants were primarily English-dominant bilinguals, the processing advantage afforded to emotion words may be most visible when assessed with participants’ functionally dominant language. Acknowledgments Many thanks to Chantae Miller, Nicole Salierno, and Diana Wilkonski for their assistance with data collection.

123

J Psycholinguist Res

Appendix

Related Primes

Unrelated Primes

Targets

English

Spanish

English

Spanish

English

Spanish

cheer delight excitement safe kindness pride anger anxious betray afraid angry selfish gift kitten cozy treat kiss baby venom coffin hell accident headache thief

aclamar gusto estímulo seguro bondad propio ira ansioso delatar miedoso enojado egoísta regalo gatito acogedor obsequio beso nene malicia ataúd infierno accidente jaqueca ladrón

bliss freedom devoted enjoyment fun hopeful abuse jealousy arrogant guilt resent nervous vacation lottery reward father circus lamb deceit traitor ache nightmare knife divorce

dicha libertad entregado disfrute diversión aspirante maltrato envidia altanero culpa rencor inquieto veranear sorteo ganar padre espectáculo cordero engaño espía doler pesadilla cuchillo desunir

happy joy thrill secure nice loyal rage tense hurt scared mad greed birthday puppy snuggle candy hug doll poison burial devil injury sickness robber

feliz júbilo emoción fijo gracioso fiel rabia tieso dolido susto furioso gula cumpleaños perrito mimar dulces abrazo muñeca veneno túmulo diablo herida mareo bandido

References Altarriba, J. (2006). Cognitive approaches to the study of emotion-laden and emotion words in monolingual and bilingual memory. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 56, 232–256. Altarriba, J., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2011). The representation of emotion versus emotion-laden words in English and Spanish in the Affective Simon Task. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(3), 310–328. Altarriba, J., & Bauer, L. M. (2004). The distinctiveness of emotion concepts: A comparison between emotion, abstract, and concrete words. American Journal of Psychology, 117(3), 389–410. Altarriba, J., Bauer, L. M., & Benvenuto, C. (1999). Concreteness, context availability, and imageability ratings and word associations for abstract, concrete, and emotion words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31(4), 578–602. Altarriba, J., & Mathis, K. M. (1997). Conceptual and lexical development in second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 550–568. Altarriba, J., & Santiago-Rivera, A. L. (1994). Current perspectives on using linguistic and cultural factors in counseling the Hispanic client. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25(4), 388–397. Anooshian, L., & Hertel, P. (1994). Emotionality in free recall: Language specificity in bilingual memory. Cognition and Emotion, 8(6), 503–514. Ayçiçegi, A., & Harris, C. (2004). Bilinguals’ recall and recognition of emotion words. Cognition and Emotion, 18(7), 977–987. Ayçiçegi-Dinn, A., & Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2009). Emotion-memory effects in bilingual speakers: A levelsof-processing approach. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 291–303. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D., & Simpson, G. B., et al. (2002). The English Lexicon Project: A web-based repository of descriptive and behavioral measures for 40, 481 English words and non-words. http://elexicon.wustl.edu. Basnight-Brown, D. M., & Altarriba, J. (2007). Differences in semantic and translation priming across languages: The role of language direction and language dominance. Memory and Cognition, 35(5), 953–965.

123

J Psycholinguist Res Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the beck depression inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Bleasdale, F. A. (1987). Concreteness-dependent associative priming: Separate lexical organization for concrete and abstract words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(4), 582–594. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW). Gainesville, FL: The NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention, University of Florida. Dewaele, J.-M. (2009). Age effects on self-perceived communicative competence and language choice among adult multilinguals. EUROSLA Yearbook, 9, 245–268. Dewaele, J.-M., & Nakano, S. (2013). Multilinguals’ perceptions of feeling different when switching languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(2), 107–120. Duchon, A., Perea, M., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). EsPal: One-stop shopping for Spanish word properties. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1246–1258. Ferré, P., García, T., Fraga, I., Sánchez-Casas, R., & Molero, M. (2010). Memory for emotional words in bilinguals: Do words have the same emotional intensity in the first and second language? Cognition and Emotion, 24(5), 760–785. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam. Harris, C. L. (2004). Bilingual speakers in the lab: Psychophysiological measures of emotional reactivity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(2–3), 223–247. Harris, C. L., Gleason, J. B., & Ayçiçegi, A. (2006). When is a first language more emotional? Psychophysiological evidence from bilingual speakers. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Languages and emotions of multilingual speakers (pp. 257–283). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Jay, T., Caldwell-Harris, C., & King, K. (2008). Recalling taboo and nontaboo words. American Journal of Psychology, 121(1), 83–103. Kazanas, S. A., & Altarriba, J. (in press). The automatic activation of emotion and emotion-laden words: Evidence from a masked and unmasked priming paradigm. American Journal of Psychology. Kissler, J., Herbert, C., Winkler, I., & Junghöfer, M. (2009). Emotion and attention in visual word processing– An ERP study. Biological Psychology, 80, 75–83. Knickerbocker, H., & Altarriba, J. (2013). Differential repetition blindness with emotion and emotion-laden wordtypes. Visual Cognition, 21(5), 599–627. McKenna, F. P., & Sharma, D. (2004). Reversing the emotional Stroop effect reveals that it is not what it seems: The role of fast and slow components. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 382–392. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. http://w3.usf.edu/FreeAssociation. Öhman, A., Flykt, A., & Esteves, F. (2001). Emotion drives attention: Detecting the snake in the grass. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 466–478. Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobia, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108(3), 483–522. Paivio, A. U. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Paivio, A. U. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press. Pavlenko, A. (Ed.). (2006). Bilingual selves. In Bilingual minds: Emotional experience, expression, and representation (pp. 1–33). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pavlenko, A. (2008). Emotion and emotion-laden words in the bilingual lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 147–164. Pavlenko, A. (2012). Affective processing in bilingual speakers: Disembodied cognition? International Journal of Psychology, 47(6), 405–428. Redondo, J., Fraga, I., Padrón, I., & Comesaña, M. (2007). The Spanish adaptation of ANEW (Affective Norms for English Words). Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 600–605. Santiago-Rivera, A., & Altarriba, J. (2002). The role of language in therapy with the Spanish–English bilingual client. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(1), 30–38. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Sutton, T. M., Altarriba, J., Gianico, J. L., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2007). The automatic access of emotion: Emotional stroop effects in Spanish-English bilingual speakers. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 1077–1090. Talmi, D., & Moscovitch, S. (2004). Can semantic relatedness explain the enhancement of memory for emotional words? Memory and Cognition, 32(5), 742–751. Trippe, R. H., Hewig, J., Heydel, C., Hecht, H., & Miltner, W. H. R. (2007). Attentional blink to emotional and threatening pictures in spider phobics: Electrophysiology and behavior. Brain Research, 1148, 149–160.

123

Emotion Word Processing: Effects of Word Type and Valence in Spanish-English Bilinguals.

Previous studies comparing emotion and emotion-laden word processing have used various cognitive tasks, including an Affective Simon Task (Altarriba a...
239KB Sizes 0 Downloads 8 Views