↓ Skip to main content

It’s all in your head – how anticipating evaluation affects the processing of emotional trait adjectives

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
It’s all in your head – how anticipating evaluation affects the processing of emotional trait adjectives
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01292
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastian Schindler, Martin Wegrzyn, Inga Steppacher, Johanna Kissler

Abstract

Language has an intrinsically evaluative and communicative function. Words can serve to describe emotional traits and states in others and communicate evaluations. Using electroencephalography (EEG), we investigate how the cerebral processing of emotional trait adjectives is modulated by their perceived communicative sender in anticipation of an evaluation. 16 students were videotaped while they described themselves. They were told that a stranger would evaluate their personality based on this recording by endorsing trait adjectives. In a control condition a computer program supposedly randomly selected the adjectives. Actually, both conditions were random. A larger parietal N1 was found for adjectives in the supposedly human-generated condition. This indicates that more visual attention is allocated to the presented adjectives when putatively interacting with a human. Between 400 and 700 ms a fronto-central main effect of emotion was found. Positive, and in tendency also negative adjectives, led to a larger late positive potential (LPP) compared to neutral adjectives. A centro-parietal interaction in the LPP-window was due to larger LPP amplitudes for negative compared to neutral adjectives within the 'human sender' condition. Larger LPP amplitudes are related to stimulus elaboration and memory consolidation. Participants responded more to emotional content particularly when presented in a meaningful 'human' context. This was first observed in the early posterior negativity window (210-260 ms). But the significant interaction between sender and emotion reached only trend-level on post hoc tests. Our results specify differential effects of even implied communicative partners on emotional language processing. They show that anticipating evaluation by a communicative partner alone is sufficient to increase the relevance of particularly emotional adjectives, given a seemingly realistic interactive setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hong Kong 1 2%
Colombia 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 51 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 26%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Linguistics 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 14 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 November 2014.
All research outputs
#14,662,319
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,860
of 29,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,317
of 258,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#281
of 373 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,682 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 258,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 373 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.