Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26089808›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2015

10 years of BAWLing into affective and aesthetic processes in reading: what are the echoes?

Arthur M Jacobs, Melissa L-H Võ, Benny B Briesemeister, Markus Conrad, Markus J Hofmann, Lars Kuchinke, Jana Lüdtke, Mario Braun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Neuroimaging of valence decisions in children and adults.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Arthur M JacobsDepartment of Experimental and Neurocognitive Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin Berlin, Germany ; Cluster of Excellence "Languages of Emotion", Freie Universität Berlin Berlin, Germany ; Dahlem Institute for Neuroimaging of Emotion Berlin, Germany.
Melissa L-H VõScene Grammar Lab, Department of Cognitive Psychology, Goethe University Frankfurt Frankfurt, Germany.
Benny B BriesemeisterDepartment of Experimental and Neurocognitive Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin Berlin, Germany.
Markus ConradCluster of Excellence "Languages of Emotion", Freie Universität Berlin Berlin, Germany ; Department of Cognitive, Social and Organizational Psychology, Universidad de La Laguna San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Spain.
Markus J HofmannDepartment of Experimental and Neurocognitive Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin Berlin, Germany ; Department of Psychology, General and Biological Psychology, University of Wuppertal Wuppertal, Germany.
Lars KuchinkeCluster of Excellence "Languages of Emotion", Freie Universität Berlin Berlin, Germany ; Experimental Psychology and Methods, Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr Universität Bochum Bochum, Germany.
Jana LüdtkeDepartment of Experimental and Neurocognitive Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin Berlin, Germany ; Cluster of Excellence "Languages of Emotion", Freie Universität Berlin Berlin, Germany.
Mario BraunDepartment of Experimental and Neurocognitive Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin Berlin, Germany ; Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, Universität Salzburg Salzburg, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reading is not only "cold" information processing, but involves affective and aesthetic processes that go far beyond what current models of word recognition, sentence processing, or text comprehension can explain. To investigate such "hot" reading processes, standardized instruments that quantify both psycholinguistic and emotional variables at the sublexical, lexical, inter-, and supralexical levels (e.g., phonological iconicity, word valence, arousal-span, or passage suspense) are necessary. One such instrument, the Berlin Affective Word List (BAWL) has been used in over 50 published studies demonstrating effects of lexical emotional variables on all relevant processing levels (experiential, behavioral, neuronal). In this paper, we first present new data from several BAWL studies. Together, these studies examine various views on affective effects in reading arising from dimensional (e.g., valence) and discrete emotion features (e.g., happiness), or embodied cognition features like smelling. Second, we extend our investigation of the complex issue of affective word processing to words characterized by a mixture of affects. These words entail positive and negative valence, and/or features making them beautiful or ugly. Finally, we discuss tentative neurocognitive models of affective word processing in the light of the present results, raising new issues for future studies.

Indexed as

aestheticsBerlin Affective Word List (BAWL)emotionlexical decision taskneurocognitive poeticsreadingvalence decision taskword recognition models

Identifiers

PMID26089808
PMCPMC4452804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.