RESEARCH IN PROGRESS

Cross-Cultural Evaluation of the International AffectivePicture System on an Indian Sample

Monika Lohani & Rashmi Gupta & Narayanan Srinivasan

Received: 2 October 2012 /Accepted: 13 June 2013# National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2013

Abstract The International Affective Picture System (IAPS)is widely used in emotion and attention research. Currently,there is neither a standard database of affective images for usein research with Indian population nor data on the way peoplefrom India respond to emotional pictures in terms of differentdimensions. In the present study, we investigatedwhether self-reported Indian ratings are comparable to the original norma-tive ratings (based on a North American sample) to evaluateits usability in Indian research context. The ratings wereobtained from a sample of eighty Indian participants (agerange=18 to 29 years, Mage=23.7, SD=2.67, 45 % females)on a stratified representative sample of 100 IAPS pictures.Similar to the normative data collected from the NorthAmerican sample in the original IAPS database, the ratingswere collected across three dimensions – valence (howpleasant/attractive or unpleasant/aversive), arousal (how calmor excited was the intensity of activation), and dominance(how controlling). Our results indicate similarities in valenceratings, but differences in arousal and dominance ratingsbetween the Indian and the North American samples. Therelationship between arousal and valence showed a similar(but less curved) boomerang shaped distribution seen with theNorth American sample. Unlike the North American sample,slopes were higher and intercepts were different for the Indiansample. However, the Indian sample also showed positivityoffset and negative bias like the North American sample.These affective ratings show a fair amount of similarity butcare is needed especially with arousal values in using thesepictures for research with Indian population. While there aresubtle differences in the relationship between different affec-tive dimensions, there are also major similarities acrosscultures in affective judgments.

Keywords IAPS . Emotion rating . Arousal . Valence .

Dimension . Cross-cultural . Indian ratings .

North American ratings

Emotional information directs attention to salient events inthe environment that are important for actions and survival(Jenkins and Oatley 1996). There are numerous ways emo-tions are studied in laboratory including the use of imagery(e.g., Lang et al. 1997), music (Sutherland et al. 1982),words, images (e.g., Wagner 1990), and videos (e.g., Grossand Levenson 1995) to name a few. Among these emotionalstimuli, using affective images have some desirable featuresover others. Particularly, they are static emotional stimuli andtheir physical parameters are easy to control, which is helpfulin appropriate stimulus selection, experimental manipula-tion, and ease of interpretation. To aid emotion research,many standardized stimulus sets including faces and emo-tional scenes have been developed (e.g., Lundqvist et al.1998). Such databases have many desirable qualities as theyallow better experimental control through the selection ofappropriate emotional stimuli. Moreover, they are useful incomparing research findings across different studies andlaboratories and thus are helpful in theory building.

A large set of stimuli which have been specially com-piled to allow better experimental control and comparisonof studies is the International Affective Picture System(IAPS). The IAPS (Lang et al. 2005) was developed bythe National Institute of Mental Health Center for the Studyof Emotion and Attention, University of Florida and theimages are accessible to researchers studying emotionand attention from around the world. These images have arich selection from wide range of situations that reproducemany aspects of real life, and act as potent elicitors ofemotions (Lang 1995). Pictures from the IAPS are widelyused in emotion research (Mogg et al. 2000; Muller et al.1999; Northoff et al. 2000; Reiman et al. 2000) to provide a

M. Lohani : R. Gupta :N. Srinivasan (*)Centre of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences,University of Allahabad, Allahabad 211002, Indiae-mail: nsrini@cbcs.ac.in

Psychol StudDOI 10.1007/s12646-013-0196-8

variety of insights into processing of emotional pictures and itsphysiological correlates. For instance, research on the dimen-sional aspects of emotion show that heart rate and facialelectromyographic activity differentiate negative from posi-tively valenced images, whereas skin conductance increaseswith arousal level of the images (Bradley and Lang 2000; Langet al. 1998). IAPS images have been used as well-controlledstimuli in research on emotion-attention interactions that in-clude numerous approaches including startle reflex, electro-physiology, and functional resonance imaging (for review seeBradley and Lang 2007). The IAPS has been standardized byratings collected from a large representative sample of NorthAmericans on three different dimensions – the affectivevalence (how pleasant/attractive or unpleasant/aversive),arousal (how calm or excited was the intensity of activation),and dominance (how controlling). The ratings for the im-ages were assessed by using the Self-Assessment Manikin(SAM) rating system devised by Lang (1980). The SAMrating system uses graphic figure depicting continuousscale from 1-lowest to 9-highest on each dimension (fordetails refer to Bradley and Lang 2000).

The IAPS rating norms have been collected from largegroups of North American participants, which make theseimages ideal for research purposes in North America andrelated cultures. However, it is important to question howappropriate it is to use the IAPS stimuli and norms whileselecting stimuli for conducting research with divergent cul-tures as researchers have acknowledged that culture affects theexperiential and behavioral emotional responses to stimuli(Mauss and Butler 2010). Bradley (2000) has suggested thatin order to enhance generalizability across studies, it is impor-tant to use affective stimuli that are standardized within andacross different cultures and groups. Various studies havecompared the affective ratings of the IAPS pictures with theratings from countries with different cultural background(Lasaitis et al. 2008 in Brazil; Ramirez et al. 1998 in Spain;Verschuere et al. 2001 in Belgium). For example, the norma-tive ratings of a subset of the IAPS images were comparedwith the ratings from a Flemish sample (Verschuere et al.2001). They found that the ratings of both the samples weresimilar with respect to valence and arousal dimension. Similarresults were also observed with the Brazilian sample (Lasaitiset al. 2008). However, the Brazilian average for arousal washigher than that of the North-Americans.

Nevertheless, IAPS pictures have not been compared withAsian cultural context, specifically with the Indian popula-tion. Currently, there is no standardized database of emotion-al images available for use in studies performed in the Indiancontext. The IAPS database is a well-established databaseand it would be worthwhile to investigate its potential usewith the Indian population at least until a new Indian data-base is developed. Given that IAPS consists of pictures froma Western context and the normative ratings have been

collected from a North American sample, it is an openquestion whether the pictures are suitable for use with theIndian population. It is possible that due to cultural differ-ences the Indian sample would have divergent ratings acrossthe three dimensions of measurement – valence, arousal, anddominance. The primary purpose was to compare NorthAmerican ratings with Indian ratings on IAPS pictures todetermine the usability of IAPS for research with Indianpopulation. We did not intend to norm the whole IAPS data-base using ratings from a representative Indian sample or toconduct validity assessment of IAPS with an Indian sample.

The current study was the first systematic attempt toexamine such group differences in affective rating in Indianvs. American ratings to test the suitability of using IAPS withIndian participants. In the present study, we investigatedwhether self-reported Indian ratings are comparable to thenormative ratings, stemming from the North American par-ticipants. Adult participants rated a stratified sample of 100photographs on the three important dimensions of emotion -valence, arousal, and dominance and were compared to thenormative ratings of the respective images obtained from theNorth American sample. Correlational analysis between theIndian and the North American ratings was also performedfor each dimension. Affective space, that is, the relationshipbetween arousal and valence ratings was computed for pos-itive and negative pictures from both the Indian and theNorth American ratings.

Our aim was to investigate whether self-reported Indianratings are comparable to the normative ratings from the NorthAmerican participants. Specifically, we investigated two re-search queries. Our first research question was whether therewere significant differences in rating on the three scales –valence, arousal, and dominance - for the Indian vs. theNorth American sample. Second, we wanted to comparewhether the affective space (relationship between arousaland valence) of positive and negative pictures for the Indiansample is similar to that of the North American sample.

Method

Participants

Eighty student volunteers from the University of Allahabad(age range=18 to 29 years, Mage=23.7, SD=2.67, 45 %females) gave consent and participated in the study. Allparticipants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision.

Stimuli

In order to compile a representative sample of IAPS, we useda stratified procedure used by Verschuere et al. (2001) andpicked a set of 100 pictures for our study. First, within each

Psychol Stud

variable/scale (valence, arousal, and dominance on a 9-pointscale) three levels were created: low (x<4), average (4<=x<= 6) and high (x>6), which resulted in a total of 27 strata(or categories). Next, for each stratum, we calculated thepercentage of pictures that were present in the originalIAPS data set. We included the corresponding percentageof pictures in our data set. For example, for the stratum lowvalence, medium arousal, and medium dominance, there are103 pictures in the IAPS data set of 955 images, which is10.8 %. Thus, for this stratum, we included 11 (that is 10.8 %rounded of to 11 %) in our total sample of 100 images.Similar calculations for all the strata were done. There werefew strata (for example the low valence, low arousal, andhigh dominance stratum) that did not contain any image inthe IAPS data set with the necessary features and hence wedid not have any image with those features in our sample.

Procedure

Participants were seated 60 cm in front of a 17” monitor onwhich instructions and pictures were presented. Participantswere informed that the main purpose of the current study wasto investigate how people respond to pictures that representdifferent events occurring in life. The ratings procedure(Bradley and Lang 2000) was explained to the participantsand the ratings were obtained using the keyboard. Participantswere explained that they had to rate each picture on threedifferent scales – valence, arousal, and dominance. The va-lence scale varied from 1 being completely unhappy, annoyed,unsatisfied, melancholic, despaired and bored to 9 beingcompletely happy, pleased, and satisfied. For arousal scale:1 was labeled completely relaxed, calm, sleepy, dull, sluggishand unaroused and 9 was labeled completely stimulated,excited, frenzied, wide-awake, and aroused. In the dom-inance scale: 1 was labeled being completely controlled,influenced, awed, submissive, guided to 9 being completelycontrolling, influential, in control, important, dominant, andautonomous.

Participants were instructed to rate how they actually feltwhile looking at each picture on these three scales. Theimages were presented in a random order. In each trial, anIAPS image was displayed on the whole screen. Participantswere instructed to study the picture and press space bar, oncethey were ready to rate the picture. Upon key press, instruc-tions to rate the valence with the rating scale showed up onthe computer screen. Participants could press the appropriatenumber key (ranging from 1 to 9) to indicate their choice.Once participants reported the valence, instructions to reportarousal, followed by dominance were presented on thescreen. Participants were informed that they could takebreaks in between two trials (but not within a trial). Onceparticipants had rated all the 100 pictures, they weredebriefed and thanked for their participation.

Data Analysis

Normed ratings for the 100 IAPS images from Americansample were used to compare the Indian sample (N=80)ratings of these pictures with the already available NorthAmerican ratings. To address the first research question, thatis, comparison of Indian ratings with American normativeratings, the mean valence, arousal, and dominance ratings forthe hundred images were compared using t-tests. It is to benoted that the comparison is between the Indian andAmerican ratings for each image. To compare the relation-ship between arousal and valence of positive and negativepictures for the Indian vs. American sample, co-relationaland a simple regression analysis was conducted.

Results

Comparison of Valence, Arousal, and Dominance Ratings

In order to understand the differences between the Indian andthe North American ratings, we compared the mean valence,arousal, and dominance ratings of each picture for both thesamples. We conducted t-tests to check for the presence ofsignificant differences in Indian vs. American ratings acrossthe three scales – valence, arousal, and dominance. The meanratings and standard deviations for all pictures are shown inthe Appendix. Overall, our Indian sample reported meanvalence of 5.18 (SD=1.77), mean arousal of 5.90(SD=0.69), and mean dominance of 5.35 (SD=0.45) forthe pictures in our sample. The average North Americanratings (for the same set of pictures) for valence was 4.93(SD=1.91), 4.82 (SD=1.19) for arousal, and 5.06 (SD=1.13)for dominance. Independent sample t-test showed that nosignificant difference was observed between the Indian andthe North American valence ratings, t(198)=0.977, p=.33.However, significant differences between the Indian vs.North American sample ratings were found for arousal,t(198)=7.735, p<.001, and dominance, t(198)=2.403,p<.05. The correlations between the North American ratingsand our sample were highest for valence (0.93) followed byarousal (0.64) and dominance (0.48), all ps<.001.

Variance of the Affective Space

In order to compare the variance of affective ratings, weplotted the ratings in a two-dimensional affective space(Bradley and Lang 2007). It is important to mention thatprevious observations (Bradley 1994) have found thatdominance does not typically explain the variance inaffective ratings and thus the affective space is typicallycompared using the valence and arousal ratings. Figure 1shows the affective space, with Valence on the y-axis and

Psychol Stud

Arousal on the x-axis, for both the North American andthe Indian samples.

In order to understand the relationship between valenceand arousal for the positive and negative images separately,we conducted co-relational and a simple regression analysis.The images were dichotomized as high (positive) or low(negative) valence, with a threshold value of 5.00. This ledto a categorization of 57 pictures as positive (M=6.53,SD=0.81) and 43 as negative (M=3.38, SD=0.85) with theIndian sample. For the Indian sample, it was found that therewas a positive linear trend between valence and arousal forthe positive images (r=.751, p<.001) and a negative rela-tionship between valence and arousal for the negative images(r=−.574, p<.001). Thus, pictures that were rated as highlypleasant or unpleasant were also rated as more arousing. Incomparison, the North American sample showed a positivecorrelation for positive images (r=.464, p<.001) and nega-tive correlation for negative images (r=−.694, p<.001). Thedirection of correlation was the same for both the samplesbut with different magnitudes. The range of the Indian and

the North American ratings for valence, arousal, and domi-nance dimensions are shown in Table 1. The range valuesindicate that the affective ratings were less extreme for thearousal and dominance dimensions compared to the NorthAmerican ratings.

Based on previous observations (Ito et al. 1998;Verschuere et al. 2001), we had expected that our samplewould show a negative bias, that is a steeper slope for thenegative stimuli. Furthermore, we had predicted that therewill be positivity offset, which is greater intercept for positiveimages than negative. To allow comparison of the slopes and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Arousal

Val

ence

UN

UP

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Arousal V

alen

ce

IN

IP

a

b

Fig. 1 A plot of the stratifiedsample of 100 stimuli selectedfrom the IAPS in a two-dimensional space defined bythe ratings of valence andarousal by (a) Indian and(b) North American participants(IP Indian Positive, IN IndianNegative, UP North AmericanPositive, UN North AmericanNegative)

Table 1 Range of the Indian and North American ratings for thevalence, arousal, and dominance dimensions

Dimension Indian North American

Valence 1.80–7.96 1.82–7.73

Arousal 4.16–6.93 2.60–7.29

Dominance 3.85–6.36 2.70–7.71

Psychol Stud

the intercepts of both groups of stimuli, the valence ratingsfor the negative stimuli were inverted by subtracting thevalence score from 10. Separate regression analyses wereperformed for positive and negative pictures to calculatewhether the arousal of the image could predict the valencelevel.

For the Indian sample, the intercept for the positive stim-uli (1.906) was greater compared to the negative stimuli(1.29). Slope of positive stimuli was less (0.775) comparedto that of negative stimuli (0.919). In comparison, the NorthAmerican sample showed a greater intercept for positiveimages (4.896) compared to negative images (3.684). Theslope was less for positive images (0.342) compared tonegative images (0.618). The results with the Indian sampleshow positivity offset as well as negativity bias like theNorth American sample. However, the intercept values, ingeneral were smaller and the slopes were larger for the Indiansample compared to the North American sample. As can beobserved from Fig. 1, the main difference in rating betweenthe Indian and North American samples seems to be forrelatively low arousal pictures with Indians rating them aslower in valence than the North Americans. When the pic-tures were rated as highly arousing then both the Indian andNorth American samples rated those pictures as having highvalence. In order to compare whether there were any genderdifference in the valence, arousal and dominance ratings weran three t-tests. We found no significant differences invalence (p=.60), arousal (p=.50), and dominance (p=.85).Overall, the mean ratings were similar for male and femaleparticipants (r=.92, p<.001). Only for two pictures (IAPS#7041 and 8230), significant difference in ratings betweenmen and women were observed.

Discussion

In this study, we investigated differences in ratings of arepresentative sample of the IAPS set between an Indiansample compared to the normed ratings from the NorthAmerican participants to evaluate the suitability of usingIAPS for research with an Indian population. Both thegroups were similar in terms of the valence rating butshowed significant difference in arousal and dominance rat-ings with higher arousal and dominance ratings by Indiansample. The minimum arousal rating for the Indian samplewas 4.59 while for the Americans the minimum rating was3.06. While in general, there were significant correlationsbetween the ratings of the Indian and the North Americanratings, the correlation was the highest for valence, fairlyhigh for arousal, and the least for dominance.

These results indicate that the Indian and the NorthAmerican sample have similar valence ratings across the se-lected pictures from the database. To contrast, the correlation

between the Flemish and North American samples were fairlyhigh for all the three dimensions (Verschuere et al. 2001).Brazilians, similar to the Indian sample, had higher arousalvalues than the North Americans (Lasaitis et al. 2008). Thesedivergences in arousal ratings could be due to numerous rea-sons including cultural differences in interpreting affective in-formation. Another reason could be differences in interpretationof the construct of arousal and the rating scale between the twocultures. Moreover, it is possible that there may be culturaldifferences specific to some categories of images; such as, somesports that are only famous in a more western context oranimalsmore common inAmerica, among others. Further workis warranted to tease apart the possible explanations of culturaldifferences. The results imply that Indian researchers should bemuch more cautious about arousal, in comparison to the va-lance dimension, when using an IAPS set for research in India.

IAPS is the most widely used database in emotion re-search worldwide. It provides us a rich source of standard-ized pictorial stimuli with different kinds of emotional con-tent. While we do think it can be used in the Indian context,the researchers have to be cautious in using these images asstimuli. The current study has several implications for theuse of IAPS in an Indian context. There are some instanceswhen the cultural differences might influence the researchdesign and findings more than others. For instance, studiesthat investigate the effects of pleasant vs. unpleasant picturesor comparisons of emotional vs. neutral image stimuli coulduse the original normed ratings from IAPS database (ifIndian ratings are not available). However, studies thatwould be more sensitive to arousal level of the stimuli(e.g., interests in emotional memory as a function of arousallevel of the images) have to be cautious of the fact that thereare systematic cultural differences in arousal levels elicitedby these IAPS especially with an Indian sample. The currentdata suggests that for Indian samples, the same stimuli mayelicit higher arousal levels compared to North Americansample. Hence, the stimuli may not have the intended effect(or the range of effect such as effect of low vs. high arousal)on the dependent measures of interest.

In addition, while choosing emotional scenes it is impor-tant to consider the cultural relevance of those scenes. It isadvised to avoid using images of certain sports or animalsthat are uncommon to Indians that may not have comparablerelevance in an Indian context. The current findings suggestthat for arousal or context sensitive studies (as discussedabove) a wide variety of standardized IAPS images couldbe successfully used with an Indian sample after collectingwithin culture ratings. This would enable the use of wellcontrolled IAPS stimuli that are relevant to the Indian con-text and may have the desirable manipulation effects. Itshould also be noted that the current study has not rated allthe pictures in the IAPS database and a study that aims tolook at specific emotions should ensure at least images that

Psychol Stud

are relevant for understanding those emotions in the Indiancontext are systematically rated by a comparable population(age-matched, gender-matched, etc.). When ratings are avail-able, care should be taken to ensure that specific parametersof interest are controlled. For example, a study comparingthe effects of pleasant and unpleasant scenes on cognitionshould ensure that the scenes are not only matched forvalence magnitude but are also matched for arousal levels(Bandyopadhyay et al. 2013).

In addition to the comparison of ratings on individualdimensions, we also studied the relationship between arousaland valence for both positive and negative IAPS picturesamongst the Indian sample.We are not aware of any publishedstudies exploring the relationship between arousal and valencein India. In general, similar to the North American sample,those pictures that are rated higher in valence were also ratedas more arousing. This similarity is encouraging for the po-tential use of IAPS pictures amongst the Indian population. Interms of actual strength of correlation, the correlations werehigher for the positive pictures and less for negative pictureswith the Indian sample.

The Indian ratings of arousal and valence showed a fairlyconsistent boomerang shaped distribution similar to thatfound with ratings from other cultures and also showed bothpositivity offset as well as negative bias (Ito et al. 1998; Langet al. 1997; Lasaitis et al. 2008; Verschuere et al. 2001).However, there were some interesting differences in termsof arousal vs. valence relationship for the positive and neg-ative pictures. The boomerang shape of the Indian ratingswas not as deep or curved as that of the US ratings (seeFig. 1). In terms of valence values given arousal, the maindifference between the US and Indian samples seem to be forpictures with low arousal for both positive and negativepictures. In terms of arousal values given valence, the maindifference between the US and Indian sample was thatIndians seem to find the pictures more arousing. Furtherstudies would be needed to investigate these differences inthe arousal-valence relationship in the Indian population.

In conclusion, the results are encouraging in terms ofusing IAPS as stimuli for emotion studies in India. Overallpatterns were similar even though the pictures were normedusing the North American sample. However, there weresome differences in terms of arousal and dominance thatneeds to be taken care while using IAPS pictures for re-search with Indian samples. It should be noted that theratings in the current study were obtained with a represen-tative subset of 100 pictures and not with the whole datasetand it would be interesting to see whether the results wouldbe similar with a larger subset or the full set of IAPSpictures. In addition, we did not use certain sub-sets ofpictures like erotic pictures due to cultural sensitivities.Instead, other types of pictures, which were comparable invalence, arousal, and dominance were included. However,we acknowledge that not representing erotic content in oursample may account for some differences in arousal ratingsfrom the Indian sample. This could be one potential reasonfor the lack of gender differences and further studies wouldbe needed to examine the differences between differentgroups with very such high arousal positive stimuli.Hence, with other picture and participant samples, ageand gender differences can be examined (Bradley andLang 2000; Bradley et al. 2001). Furthermore, an importantlimitation of this study is that data was collected from arelatively small Indian sample and future work requires alarger representative sample to make more elaborate cultur-al comparisons in response to IAPS images or other emo-tional databases.

Taking account of these limitations, this study should beregarded as a first step towards a full cross-cultural evalua-tion of the IAPS for the Indian population. With a fairly largesubset, we have found that relationship between arousal andvalence for emotional pictures differ (such as for low arous-al) with the Indian sample and it would be interesting to seewhether it would generalize to an indigenously developedpicture database. We hope that this study would lead to sucha development.

Appendix

Table 2 Mean Indian ratings for valence, arousal, and dominance

IAPS slide number Description Valence Arousal Dominance

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

1111 Snakes 3.51 2.59 5.18 2.11 5.03 2.35

1300 Pit-Bull 3.46 2.57 5.16 2.06 5.20 2.70

1602 Butterfly 7.48 1.73 5.91 2.71 5.12 2.77

1660 Gorilla 4.82 2.30 6.35 2.91 4.87 2.93

1661 Orangutan 5.26 2.27 6.16 2.16 5.31 2.48

Psychol Stud

Table 2 (continued)

IAPS slide number Description Valence Arousal Dominance

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

1670 Cow 5.65 1.72 6.05 2.20 5.02 2.42

2005 Attractive Man 6.52 1.90 5.73 2.37 5.27 2.54

2025 Woman 6.22 2.10 6.15 2.61 5.08 2.64

2050 Baby 7.96 1.60 6.40 2.68 5.13 2.92

2104 NeuWoman 4.77 1.86 5.85 2.10 5.10 2.07

2120 Angry Face 3.37 2.22 6.13 2.64 4.71 2.84

2222 Boys Reading 6.78 1.71 5.90 2.10 4.75 2.53

2345 Children 7.95 1.74 5.86 2.18 5.36 2.52

2352.1 Kiss 7.37 2.06 5.53 2.32 5.57 2.46

2370 Three Men 7.05 2.01 5.46 2.15 5.31 2.53

2442 Drying Hair 6.95 1.59 6.21 2.49 5.42 2.66

2455 Sad Girls 4.10 2.47 5.46 2.20 4.92 2.55

2487 Musician 6.33 1.98 5.62 2.72 4.87 2.66

2490 Man 4.18 2.31 6.22 2.98 4.72 2.92

2510 Elderly Woman 7.00 2.07 5.47 2.53 5.35 2.54

2513 Woman1 6.35 1.80 6.20 2.59 5.15 2.83

2518 Quilting 6.32 1.71 6.68 2.12 4.85 2.72

2530 Couple 7.62 1.88 6.63 2.56 4.92 2.86

2580 Chess 5.93 1.89 5.87 3.23 3.85 2.89

2605 Dance 6.61 1.95 6.16 2.78 4.81 2.81

2681 Police2 5.82 1.83 6.58 2.60 5.08 2.74

2683 Bloody Kiss 3.05 2.41 5.83 1.99 5.47 2.39

2695 Refugees 4.83 2.26 5.73 2.75 4.48 2.78

2702 Binge Eating 6.13 1.82 6.56 3.12 5.16 3.30

2749 Smoking 5.28 1.75 5.87 2.39 4.87 2.41

2770 Mask 4.60 2.22 5.91 2.66 5.25 2.67

2791 Balloons 7.37 1.60 5.23 1.91 4.93 2.29

2830 Woman2 3.86 2.29 5.32 2.19 4.76 2.27

2870 Teenager 6.43 1.86 5.60 2.50 4.43 2.55

2880 Shadow 5.28 1.71 6.05 1.98 5.63 2.30

2981 Deer Head 2.87 2.50 5.10 1.87 5.12 2.35

3170 Baby Tumor 2.40 2.67 5.66 2.22 5.76 2.39

3180 BatteredFem 3.18 2.38 4.93 2.2 4.56 2.56

3210 Surgery 4.22 1.90 5.58 2.13 5.11 2.46

3225 Mutilation 2.51 2.25 5.86 2.13 5.12 2.32

3300 Disabled Child 3.97 2.31 6.07 2.10 5.82 2.67

3350 Infant 2.32 2.04 5.48 1.97 5.72 2.39

3550.2 Coach 4.01 2.03 5.63 1.95 5.37 2.35

4571 Attractive Man 7.06 1.85 4.96 1.89 5.23 2.49

4599 Romance 7.57 2.13 5.48 1.97 5.53 2.14

5260 Waterfall 7.55 1.77 6.71 1.82 5.66 2.26

5460 Astronaut 5.78 2.25 6.45 1.89 5.62 2.71

5470 Astronaut 6.96 1.92 4.97 2.12 5.30 2.59

5530 Mushroom 5.92 1.90 4.65 1.75 4.82 2.10

5811 Flowers 7.73 1.66 5.30 1.86 5.17 2.59

5814 Mountain 7.58 1.87 5.30 1.75 5.56 2.37

5900 Desert 6.12 2.20 5.51 2.04 5.37 2.41

Psychol Stud

Table 2 (continued)

IAPS slide number Description Valence Arousal Dominance

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

5950 Lightning 4.60 2.18 6.00 1.88 5.40 2.34

5990 Sky 6.37 2.29 4.45 1.92 4.97 2.46

6022 Assault2 2.42 2.43 5.65 2.25 5.07 2.56

6210 Aimed Gun 4.65 2.15 4.15 1.92 4.85 2.63

6311 DistressedFem 3.15 2.36 5.62 2.00 5.91 2.47

6314 Attack3 5.33 1.79 5.65 2.05 5.77 2.43

6350 Attack2 3.21 2.48 4.45 1.82 4.85 2.40

6562 Attack1 3.57 2.00 5.20 1.93 5.36 2.40

6836 Police 3.51 2.32 4.53 1.94 5.03 2.46

6838 Police 3.08 2.49 5.52 2.13 5.50 2.48

6910 Bomber 5.43 2.18 4.91 1.95 5.20 2.25

7040 Dustpan 4.32 1.79 4.65 1.87 5.30 2.51

7041 Baskets 5.21 1.61 4.16 1.85 4.86 2.55

7042 Barbells 5.18 1.73 7.06 2.17 5.87 2.46

7192 Vase 6.42 1.86 7.25 1.87 6.36 2.45

7195 Teeth 5.60 2.24 6.53 2.07 5.53 2.54

7282 Cake 7.55 1.66 6.93 1.71 5.70 2.38

7430 Candy 6.76 2.20 6.87 1.60 5.62 2.28

7705 Cabinet 5.03 1.68 6.56 2.23 6.05 2.51

7900 Violin 6.81 2.03 6.58 1.97 5.93 2.64

8031 Skier2 7.05 1.55 5.37 2.05 5.56 2.48

8080 Sailing 6.46 1.84 6.08 2.21 5.40 2.63

8162 Hot air balloon 6.93 1.85 6.77 1.92 5.91 2.83

8190 Skier1 7.71 1.87 6.18 2.11 5.96 2.44

8191 Ice Climber 7.08 1.82 6.10 2.11 5.48 2.76

8192 Volcano Skier 5.96 2.17 5.66 1.80 5.42 2.39

8230 Boxer 2.37 2.32 6.68 2.13 6.23 2.59

8250 Motorcyclist 6.90 1.81 5.98 1.78 5.86 2.29

8400 Rafters 6.48 1.96 6.90 2.12 6.20 2.40

8465 Runner 6.65 1.92 6.68 1.97 5.71 2.77

8485 Fire 3.26 2.67 5.86 1.68 5.16 2.36

8499 Rollercoaster 6.52 2.03 6.95 2.19 5.80 2.79

8502 Money 7.40 1.79 6.81 2.10 5.91 2.76

9001 Cemetery 3.87 2.12 6.57 2.06 6.28 2.33

9156 Plane 6.35 1.77 6.63 1.93 5.50 2.14

9254 Assault1 2.42 2.38 6.65 2.23 5.45 2.85

9265 Hung Man 1.80 1.70 6.31 2.09 5.48 2.20

9360 Empty Pool 5.12 1.47 5.12 2.28 5.17 2.31

9402 Mob 3.00 2.17 5.27 1.96 5.40 2.53

9421 Soldier 2.95 2.28 5.71 2.27 5.40 2.43

9428 Assault 2.35 1.90 6.02 1.95 5.62 2.47

9433 Dead Man 2.22 2.32 7.21 1.88 6.32 2.43

9570 Dog 1.97 2.09 6.40 1.74 5.73 2.31

9571 Cat 2.60 2.34 6.88 2.08 5.80 2.86

9582 Dental Exam 3.88 1.96 6.56 1.85 5.95 2.22

9635.1 Man on fire 2.46 2.50 5.48 2.04 4.87 2.51

9913 Truck 4.26 1.86 6.52 2.09 5.88 2.61

Psychol Stud

References

Bandyopadhyay, D., Pammi, V. S. C., & Srinivasan, N. (2013). Role ofaffect in decision making. Progress in Brain Research, 202, 37–53.

Bradley, M. M. (1994). Emotional memory: A dimensional analysis. InS. M. van Goozen, N. E. Van de Poll, & J. A. Sergeant (Eds.),Emotions: Essays on emotion theory (pp. 97–134). Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bradley, M. M. (2000). Emotion and motivation. In J. T. Cacioppo & L.G. Tassinary (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 602–642). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bradley, M.M., &Lang, P. J. (2000).Measuring emotion: Behavior, feeling,and physiology. In R. D. Lane & L. Nadel (Eds.), Cognitive neurosci-ence of emotion (pp. 242–276). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2007). Emotion and motivation. In J. T.Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychophysiology (3rd ed., pp. 581–607). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Sabatinelli, D., & Lang, P. J. (2001).Emotion and motivation II: sex differences in picture processing.Emotion, 1, 300–319.

Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotion elicitation using films.Cognition and Emotion, 9, 87–108.

Ito, T. A., Cacioppo, J. T., & Lang, P. J. (1998). Eliciting effect using theinternational affective picture system: trajectories through evaluativespace. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 855–879.

Jenkins, J. M., & Oatley, K. (1996). Emotional episodes and emotion-ality through the lifespan. In C. Malatesta-Magai & S. McFadden(Eds.), Handbook of emotion, adult development, and aging (pp.421–441). San Diego: Academic.

Lang, P. J. (1980). Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment:Computer applications. In J. B. Sidowski, J. H. Johnson, & T. A.Williams (Eds.), Technology in mental health care delivery sys-tems (pp. 119–167). Norwood: Ablex.

Lang, P. J. (1995). The emotion probe: studies of motivation andattention. American Psychologist, 50, 372–385.

Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1997). Motivatedattention: Affect, activation and action. In P. J. Lang & R. F.Balaban (Eds.), Attention and orienting: Sensory and motivationalprocesses (pp. 97–134). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1998). Emotion,motivation, and anxiety: brain mechanisms and psychophysiology.Biological Psychiatry, 44, 1248–1263.

Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2005). Interna-tional affective picture system (IAPS): Affective ratings of

pictures and instruction manual (Technical Report A-6).Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.

Lasaitis, C., Ribeiro, R. L., & Bueno, O. F. A. (2008). Brazilian normsfor the International Affective Picture System (IAPS)-comparisonof the affective ratings for new stimuli between Brazilian andNorth-American subjects. Journal Brasileiro de Psiquiatria, 57,270–275.

Lundqvist, D, Flykt, A., & Öhman, A. (1998). The Karolinska DirectedEmotional Faces - KDEF, CD ROM from Department of ClinicalNeuroscience, Psychology section, Karolinska Institutet, ISBN91-630-7164-9.

Mauss, I. B., & Butler, E. A. (2010). Cultural context moderates therelationship between emotion control values and cardiovascularchallenge versus threat responses. Biological Psychology, 84,521–530.

Mogg, K., McNamara, J., Powys, M., Rawlinson, H., Seiffer, A.,& Bradley, B. P. (2000). Selective attention to threat: a testof two cognitive models of anxiety. Cognition and Emotion,14, 375–399.

Muller, M. M., Keil, A., Gruber, T., & Elbert, T. (1999). Processing ofaffective pictures modulates right-hemispheric gamma band EEGactivity. Clinical Neuropsychology, 110, 1913–1920.

Northoff, G., Richter, A., Gessner, M., Schlagenhauf, F., Fell, J.,Baumgart, F., et al. (2000). Functional dissociation between me-dial and lateral pefrontal cortical spatiotemporal activation innegative and positive emotion: a combined fMRI/MEG study.Cerebral Cortex, 10, 93–107.

Ramirez, I., Hernandez, M. A., Sanchez, M., Fernandez, M. C., Vila, J.,Pastor, M. C., et al. (1998). Spanish norms of the internationalaffective picture system. Journal of Psychophysiology, 12, 312–313.

Reiman, E. M., Lane, R. D., Ahern, G. L., Schwartz, G. E., & Davidson,R. J. (2000). Positron emission tomography in the study of emo-tion, anxiety, and anxiety disorders. In R. D. Lane & L. Nadel(Eds.), Cognitive neuroscience of emotion (pp. 389–406). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Sutherland, G., Newman, B., & Rachman, S. (1982). Experimentalinvestigations of the relations between mood and intrusiveunwanted cognitions. The British Journal of Medical Psychology,55, 127–138.

Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., & Koster, E. (2001). The internationalaffective picture system: a Flemish validation study. PsychologicaBelgica, 41, 205–217.

Wagner, H. L. (1990). The spontaneous facial expression of dif-ferential positive and negative emotions. Motivation andEmotion, 14, 27–43.

Table 2 (continued)

IAPS slide number Description Valence Arousal Dominance

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

9920 Car Accident 3.61 2.28 6.46 2.11 5.73 2.32

Psychol Stud