| Title |
Dutch taboo norms
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-017-0890-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sander A. Roest, Tessa A. Visser, René Zeelenberg |
| Abstract |
This article provides norms for general taboo, personal taboo, insult, valence, and arousal for 672 Dutch words, including 202 taboo words. Norms were collected using a 7-point Likert scale and based on ratings by psychology students from the Erasmus University Rotterdam in The Netherlands. The sample consisted of 87 psychology students (58 females, 29 males). We obtained high reliability based on split-half analyses. Our norms show high correlations with arousal and valence ratings collected by another Dutch word-norms study (Moors et al.,, Behavior Research Methods, 45, 169-177, 2013). Our results show that the previously found quadratic relation (i.e., U-shaped pattern) between valence and arousal also holds when only taboo words are considered. Additionally, words rated high on taboo tended to be rated low on valence, but some words related to sex rated high on both taboo and valence. Words that rated high on taboo rated high on insult, again with the exception of words related to sex many of which rated low on insult. Finally, words rated high on taboo and insult rated high on arousal. The Dutch Taboo Norms (DTN) database is a useful tool for researchers interested in the effects of taboo words on cognitive processing. The data associated with this paper can be accessed via the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/vk782/ ). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 16% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Linguistics | 5 | 16% |
| Psychology | 5 | 16% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 11 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 29 March 2023.
All research outputs
#3,710,499
of 25,443,857 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#452
of 2,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,991
of 324,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#8
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,443,857 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,535 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 324,764 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.