| Title |
The Set of Fear Inducing Pictures (SFIP): Development and validation in fearful and nonfearful individuals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-016-0797-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jarosław M. Michałowski, Dawid Droździel, Jacek Matuszewski, Wojtek Koziejowski, Katarzyna Jednoróg, Artur Marchewka |
| Abstract |
Emotionally charged pictorial materials are frequently used in phobia research, but no existing standardized picture database is dedicated to the study of different phobias. The present work describes the results of two independent studies through which we sought to develop and validate this type of database-a Set of Fear Inducing Pictures (SFIP). In Study 1, 270 fear-relevant and 130 neutral stimuli were rated for fear, arousal, and valence by four groups of participants; small-animal (N = 34), blood/injection (N = 26), social-fearful (N = 35), and nonfearful participants (N = 22). The results from Study 1 were employed to develop the final version of the SFIP, which includes fear-relevant images of social exposure (N = 40), blood/injection (N = 80), spiders/bugs (N = 80), and angry faces (N = 30), as well as 726 neutral photographs. In Study 2, we aimed to validate the SFIP in a sample of spider, blood/injection, social-fearful, and control individuals (N = 66). The fear-relevant images were rated as being more unpleasant and led to greater fear and arousal in fearful than in nonfearful individuals. The fear images differentiated between the three fear groups in the expected directions. Overall, the present findings provide evidence for the high validity of the SFIP and confirm that the set may be successfully used in phobia research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Thailand | 1 | 17% |
| Germany | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 18% |
| Researcher | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 27 | 34% |
| Neuroscience | 11 | 14% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 16 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2021.
All research outputs
#5,165,207
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#690
of 2,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,693
of 340,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#7
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,171 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.