暴力词与情绪词在词汇特征和认知加工中的差异

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.03.001

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

暴力词与情绪词存在一定联系，但两者的差异还需做进一步探讨。研究1采用词汇评定任务考察两者的词汇特征差异，结果显示，与情绪词相比，暴力词的愉悦度、优势度、趋向度和熟悉度更低，唤醒度、攻击性和伤害性更高。社会情绪性和唤醒度是评价和区分两者更为综合的指标。研究2采用词汇判断任务和类别判断任务考察两者的认知加工差异，结果显示，两者的反应时存在差异，并受到实验任务的调节。综合来看，暴力词与情绪词在词汇特征和认知加工上均存在不同。基于情绪二维模型提出的暴力词双维度模型有助于更好地解释暴力词的特殊性。

关键词: 暴力词, 情绪词, 词汇特征, 社会情绪性, 认知加工

Abstract:

Violent words are related to emotional words, but the traditional dimensions describing the lexical properties of emotional words may not capture the key properties of violent words. In addition, it is unclear how violent words differ from emotional words in cognitive processing and whether this difference shows itself differently across experimental tasks. Study 1 examined the differences in lexical properties between violent words and emotional words through a lexical rating task. The results showed that, compared to emotional words, violent words had lower scores of pleasure, dominance, tendency, and familiarity, and higher scores of arousal, aggression, and injury. The results of the principal component factor analysis further showed that socio-emotional properties and arousal were the two more integrated indicators for evaluating and distinguishing violent words from emotional words. Study 2 explored the cognitive processing differences between violent words and emotional words through a lexical judgment task and a category judgment task. The results showed that cognitive processing of violent words and emotional words differed in response time, and were moderated by the experimental task. Combining the results of the two studies, it is evident that violent words differ from emotional words in both lexical properties and cognitive processing, suggesting the specificity of violent words. The proposed two-dimensional model of violent words based on the two-dimensional model of emotions helps to explain the specificity of violent words better.

Key words: violent words, emotional words, lexical properties, socio-emotional properties, cognitive processing

张旭亮, 谢琅, 殷舒琦, 余可可, 王瑞明. 暴力词与情绪词在词汇特征和认知加工中的差异[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(3): 289-296.

Xuliang ZHANG, Lang XIE, Shuqi YIN, Keke YU, Ruiming WANG. Lexical Properties and Cognitive Processing Differences Between the Violent Words and Emotional Words[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2024, 22(3): 289-296.

图/表 6

参考文献 0

	范宁, 宋耀武, 彭聃龄. 任务与字频对汉字阅读中情绪价效应的影响. 心理科学, 2012, 35 (5): 1026- 1030.
	耿雯雯, 谢朝群. 网络语言暴力的(不)礼貌研究. 中国外语, 2020, 17 (3): 20- 28.
	蒋重清, 肖艳丽, 刘颖, 杨丽珠, 渠育红, 邰圆圆, … 周志娟. 情绪启动与语义启动的比较. 心理科学进展, 2012, 20 (12): 1920- 1925.
	刘宏艳, 胡治国, 彭聃龄. 情绪与语言加工的相互作用. 心理科学进展, 2009, 17 (4): 714- 721.
	曲之毅, 刘惠军, 刘铁洋, 于斌. 认知和情绪词Flanker任务的冲突效应和冲突适应效应分析. 心理与行为研究, 2015, 13 (3): 334- 340. DOI
	王若茵, 范宁. 任务与字频对汉字情绪启动反转效应的影响. 心理科学, 2016, 39 (3): 559- 565.
	王一牛, 周立明, 罗跃嘉. 汉语情感词系统的初步编制及评定. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2008, 22 (8): 608- 612. DOI
	Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 2015, 67 (1): 1- 48.
	Bayer, M., Sommer, W., & Schacht, A. Reading emotional words within sentences: The impact of arousal and valence on event-related potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2010, 78 (3): 299- 307. DOI
	Bertels, J., Kolinsky, R., Pietrons, E., & Morais, J. Long-lasting attentional influence of negative and taboo words in an auditory variant of the emotional Stroop task. Emotion, 2011, 11 (1): 29- 37. DOI
	Betancor-Rodríguez, V., Chas-Villar, A., Rodríguez-Pérez, A., & Delgado-Rodríguez, N. Infrahumanization in children: An evaluation of 70 terms relating to humanity. Psicothema, 2016, 28 (1): 53- 58.
	Bro, R., & Smilde, A. K. Principal component analysis. Analytical Methods, 2014, 6 (9): 2812- 2831. DOI
	Cho, H., Pavek, K., & Steege, L. Workplace verbal abuse, nurse-reported quality of care and patient safety outcomes among early-career hospital nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 2020, 28 (6): 1250- 1258.
	Citron, F. M. M. Neural correlates of written emotion word processing: a review of recent electrophysiological and hemodynamic neuroimaging studies. Brain and Language, 2012, 122 (3): 211- 226. DOI
	Donahoo, S. A., & Lai, V. T. The mental representation and social aspect of expressives. Cognition and Emotion, 2020, 34 (7): 1423- 1438. DOI
	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 2009, 41 (4): 1149- 1160. DOI
	Hinojosa, J. A., Albert, J., López-Martín, S., & Carretié, L. Temporospatial analysis of explicit and implicit processing of negative content during word comprehension. Brain and Cognition, 2014, 87, 109- 121. DOI
	Janschewitz, K. Taboo, emotionally valenced, and emotionally neutral word norms. Behavior Research Methods, 2008, 40 (4): 1065- 1074. DOI
	Jay, T. (1992). Cursing in America: A psycholinguistic study of dirty language in the courts, in the movies, in the schoolyards and on the streets. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
	Kanske, P., & Kotz, S. A. Concreteness in emotional words: ERP evidence from a hemifield study. Brain Research, 2007, 1148, 138- 148. DOI
	Kousta, S. T., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. Emotion words, regardless of polarity, have a processing advantage over neutral words. Cognition, 2009, 112 (3): 473- 481. DOI
	Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 2017, 82 (13): 1- 26.
	Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. Emotion, motivation, and anxiety: Brain mechanisms and psychophysiology. Biological Psychiatry, 1998, 44 (12): 1248- 1263. DOI
	Rodríguez-Pérez, A., Betancor-Rodríguez, V., Ariño-Mateo, E., Demoulin, S., & Leyens, J. P. Normative data for 148 Spanish emotional words in terms of attributions of humanity. Anales de Psicologia, 2014, 30 (3): 1137- 1145.
	Russell, J. A. Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 2003, 110 (1): 145- 172. DOI
	Schindler, S., & Kissler, J. Selective visual attention to emotional words: Early parallel frontal and visual activations followed by interactive effects in visual cortex. Human Brain Mapping, 2016, 37 (10): 3575- 3587. DOI
	Sendek, K., Herzmann, G., Pfeifer, V., & Lai, V. T. (2022). Social acquisition context matters: Increased neural responses for native but not nonnative taboo words. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 22(2), 362–382.
	Storbeck, J., & Robinson, M. D. Preferences and inferences in encoding visual objects: A systematic comparison of semantic and affective priming. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2004, 30 (1): 81- 93. DOI
	Vine, V., Boyd, R. L., & Pennebaker, J. W. Natural emotion vocabularies as windows on distress and well-being. Nature Communications, 2020, 11 (1): 4525. DOI
	Yun, J. Y., Shim, G., & Jeong, B. Verbal abuse related to self-esteem damage and unjust blame harms mental health and social interaction in college population. Scientific Reports, 2019, 9 (1): 5655. DOI

词汇特征	积极词	中性词	消极词	暴力词
愉悦度	6.96±0.33	5.23±0.47	3.61±0.27	2.31±0.46
唤醒度	4.79±0.30	3.27±0.60	4.50±0.51	6.38±0.60
优势度	6.25±0.59	5.31±0.52	4.45±0.38	3.84±0.34
趋向度	7.56±0.46	5.78±0.49	3.56±0.35	2.46±0.35
熟悉度	6.72±0.55	5.30±1.03	5.26±0.83	4.14±0.81
攻击性	2.00±0.47	2.46±0.56	4.08±0.45	6.80±0.63
伤害性	1.70±0.23	1.91±0.24	4.37±0.45	7.08±0.56

词汇特征	积极词	中性词	消极词	暴力词
愉悦度	6.96±0.33	5.23±0.47	3.61±0.27	2.31±0.46
唤醒度	4.79±0.30	3.27±0.60	4.50±0.51	6.38±0.60
优势度	6.25±0.59	5.31±0.52	4.45±0.38	3.84±0.34
趋向度	7.56±0.46	5.78±0.49	3.56±0.35	2.46±0.35
熟悉度	6.72±0.55	5.30±1.03	5.26±0.83	4.14±0.81
攻击性	2.00±0.47	2.46±0.56	4.08±0.45	6.80±0.63
伤害性	1.70±0.23	1.91±0.24	4.37±0.45	7.08±0.56

主成分	特征值	贡献率(%)	累计贡献率(%)
成分1	5.36	76.53	76.53
成分2	0.85	12.16	88.69
成分3	0.42	6.03	94.73
成分4	0.19	2.69	97.42
成分5	0.10	1.40	98.82
成分6	0.06	0.78	99.60
成分7	0.03	0.40	100.00

主成分	特征值	贡献率(%)	累计贡献率(%)
成分1	5.36	76.53	76.53
成分2	0.85	12.16	88.69
成分3	0.42	6.03	94.73
成分4	0.19	2.69	97.42
成分5	0.10	1.40	98.82
成分6	0.06	0.78	99.60
成分7	0.03	0.40	100.00

主成分	成分1	成分2	成分3	成分4	成分5	成分6	成分7
愉悦度	0.41	0.14	0.30	−0.30	0.26	0.73	0.18
唤醒度	−0.30	0.70	0.44	−0.20	−0.33	−0.04	−0.27
趋向度	0.38	0.24	0.23	0.86	0.01	<0.01	−0.06
优势度	0.41	0.12	0.31	−0.28	0.33	−0.68	0.28
熟悉度	0.30	0.58	−0.75	−0.10	0.01	−0.01	0.02
攻击性	−0.41	0.18	−0.03	0.12	0.85	0.02	−0.26
伤害性	−0.42	0.21	−0.01	0.18	−0.01	0.06	0.86