Abstract
In this study, we present the Aachen List of Trait Words (ALoT), including a total of 606 German adjectives with English translations, describing personality traits. The lack of ratings regarding the social desirability of traits led us to create a German trait database. Ratings of valence and social desirability were obtained from 100 participants. Statistical analyses of 99 participants indicated that valence and social desirability ratings were strongly correlated. However, there are several words showing a weak or no relationship. Furthermore, uncommon words were rated less positively (or desirable) than more common traits. Word frequency and word length were positively correlated, showing that short terms were more common than long ones. Social desirability and valence ratings are presented together with several psycholinguistic variables known to influence word processing (e.g. word length) in the ALoT. Scores for each word are provided as supplemental materials. The ALoT is intended to provide stimulus material for experiments dealing with the affective processing of German trait adjectives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adelman, J. S., & Estes, Z. (2013). Emotion and memory: A recognition advantage for positive and negative words independent of arousal. Cognition, 129(3), 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.014.
Anderson, N. H. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(3), 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025907.
Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, F., & John, O. P. (1990). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors in German: A psycho-lexical study. European Journal of Personality, 4(2), 89–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410040204.
Boucher, J., & Osgood, C. E. (1969). The Pollyanna hypothesis. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80002-2.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5.
Cowen, E. L. (1961). The social desirability of trait descriptive terms: Preliminary norms and sex differences. The Journal of Social Psychology, 53(2), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1961.9922120.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting psychology, 24(4), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358.
Edwards, A. L. (1953). The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(2), 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058073.
Fairfield, B., Ambrosini, E., Mammarella, N., & Montefinese, M. (2017). Affective norms for Italian words in older adults: Age differences in ratings of valence, arousal and dominance. PLoS ONE, 12(1), e0169472. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169472.
Fossati, P., Hevenor, S. J., Graham, S. J., Grady, C., Keightley, M. L., Craik, F., et al. (2003). In search of the emotional self: An fMRI study using positive and negative emotional words. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(11), 1938–1945. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.11.1938.
Gilet, A. L., Grühn, D., Studer, J., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (2012). Valence, arousal, and imagery ratings for 835 French attributes by young, middle-aged, and older adults: The French emotional evaluation list (FEEL). European Review of Applied Psychology, 62, 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2012.03.003.
Gillihan, S. J., & Farah, M. J. (2005). Is self special? A critical review of evidence from experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.76.
Grühn, D., & Smith, J. (2008). Characteristics for 200 words rated by young and older adults: Age-dependent evaluations of German adjectives (AGE). Behavior Research Methods, 40(4), 1088–1097. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.4.1088.
Hager, W., & Hasselhorn, M. (1994). Über Variablen, die eingeschätzt werden sollen, und über Variablen, die eingeschätzt werden: Emotionalität, Angenehmheit, Prägnanz, Erwünschtheit und Sympathie [On variables that should be estimated and variables that are estimated: Emotionality, pleasantness, meaningfulness, desirability, and likability]. In W. Hager & M. Hasselhorn (Eds.), Handbuch deutschsprachiger Wortnormen (pp. 226–248). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Heister, J., Würzner, K.-M., Bubenzer, J., Pohl, E., Hanneforth, T., Geyken, A., et al. (2011). dlexDB–eine lexikalische Datenbank für die psychologische und linguistische Forschung. Psychologische Rundschau, 10, 10. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042/a000029.
Holtgraves, T. (2004). Social desirability and self-reports: testing models of socially desirable responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203259930.
Institut für Deutsche Sprache. (2014). Korpusbasierte Wortgrundformenliste DEREWO, DeReKo-2014-II-MainArchive-STT.100000, Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Programmbereich Korpuslinguistik, Mannheim, Deutschland. Retreived from http://www.ids-mannheim.de/derewo.
Jacobson, L. I., Kellogg, R. W., Cauce, A. M., & Slavin, R. S. (1977). A multidimensional social desirability inventory. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 9(2), 109–110. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336944.
Johnson, R. C., Thomson, C. W., & Frincke, G. (1960). Word values, word frequency, and visual duration thresholds. Psychological Review, 67(5), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0038869.
Kelley, W. M., Macrae, C. N., Wyland, C. L., Caglar, S., Inati, S., & Heatherton, T. F. (2002). Finding the self? An event-related fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(5), 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1162/08989290260138672.
Klett, C. J., & Yaukey, D. W. (1959). A cross-cultural comparison of judgments of social desirability. The Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1959.9921958.
Konstabel, K., Aavik, T., & Allik, J. (2006). Social desirability and consensual validity of personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 20(7), 549–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.593.
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.
Montefinese, M., Ambrosini, E., Fairfield, B., & Mammarella, N. (2014). The adaptation of the affective norms for English words (ANEW) for Italian. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 887–903. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0405-3.
Moors, A., De Houwer, J., Hermans, D., Wanmaker, S., Van Schie, K., Van Harmelen, A.-L., et al. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, dominance, and age of acquisition for 4,300 Dutch words. Behavior Research Methods, 45(1), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0243-8.
Moran, J., Macrae, C., Heatherton, T. F., Wyland, C., & Kelley, W. M. (2006). Neuroanatomical evidence for distinct cognitive and affective components of self. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(9), 1586–1594. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.9.1586.
Nieznański, M. (2009). Recognition memory for self-relevant personality-trait words. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 68(3), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185.68.3.133.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598.
Qin, P., & Northoff, G. (2011). How is our self related to midline regions and the default-mode network? Neuroimage, 57(3), 1221–1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.028.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
Ribeiro, R. L., Pompeia, S., & Bueno, O. F. (2005). Comparison of Brazilian and American norms for the international affective picture system (IAPS). Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 27(3), 208–215. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-44462005000300009.
Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 677–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.677.
Rosen, E. (1956). Self-appraisal, personal desirability, and perceived social desirability of personality traits. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52(2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046019.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Rozin, P., Berman, L., & Royzman, E. (2010). Biases in use of positive and negative words across twenty natural languages. Cognition and Emotion, 24(3), 536–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930902793462.
Saucier, G. (2003). Factor structure of English-language personality type-nouns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 695–708. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.695.
Schmidtke, D. S., Schröder, T., Jacobs, A. M., & Conrad, M. (2014). ANGST: Affective norms for German sentiment terms, derived from the affective norms for English words. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1108–1118. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0426-y.
Schönbach, P. (1972). Likableness ratings of 100 German personality-trait words corresponding to a subset of Anderson’s 555 trait words. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2(3), 327–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420020309.
Stöber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.222.
Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.371.
Vazire, S., & Carlson, E. N. (2010). Self-knowledge of personality: Do people know themselves? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(8), 605–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00280.x.
Võ, M. L.-H., Conrad, M., Kuchinke, L., Urton, K., Hofmann, M. J., & Jacobs, A. M. (2009). The Berlin affective word list reloaded (BAWL-R). Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 534–538. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.534.
Võ, M. L.-H., Jacobs, A. M., & Conrad, M. (2006). Cross-validating the Berlin affective word list. Behavior Research Methods, 38(4), 606–609. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193892.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph, 9(2, Pt. 2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848.
Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 224–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00154.
Zipf, G. K. (1936). The psychobiology of language. London: Routledge.
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley Press.
Funding
This study was financed by the Institute’s own funds (Institute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Wording of Rating Instructions (English Translation)
Appendix: Wording of Rating Instructions (English Translation)
Instruction of the valence condition:
-
In the following, words should be rated on their emotional content/emotional meaning. Words can have a positive or negative meaning to varying degrees. Please rate the following words according to whether they have a positive or rather a negative emotional meaning. Any word that has a positive meaning from your personal point of view, should be given a positive value. Those words, which in your opinion have a negative emotional meaning, should be given a negative value. The numeric value should reflect the extent/intensity of emotional content that you associate with this trait. If a word has, in your point of view, a very positive emotional meaning, please insert an ‘x’ in the column labeled with ‘+ 3’. If a word has, in your point of view, a very negative emotional meaning, please insert an ‘x’ in the column labeled with ‘− 3’. Numeric values vary between − 3 and + 3. The value 0 stands for a neutral emotional meaning. Do not restrict yourself to a limited range of the scale, but make use of all values between − 3 and + 3.
Instruction of the social desirability condition:
-
In the following, words should be rated on their social desirability. Personality traits can be socially desirable to varying degrees, that is to say, they correspond to society’s expectations more or less. Please rate the following words according to whether they are socially desirable or undesirable traits. Any word that is considered as a desirable trait in our society, should be given a positive value. Those words, which are considered as undesirable traits in our society, should be given a negative value. The numeric value should reflect the extent/intensity of social desirability that you associate with this trait. If you consider a word as very socially desirable, please insert an ‘x’ in the column labeled with ‘+ 3’. If you consider a word as very socially undesirable, please insert an ‘x’ in the column labeled with ‘− 3’. Numeric values vary between − 3 and + 3. The value 0 stands for traits considered as neutral, that is to say neither desirable nor undesirable. Do not restrict yourself to a limited range of the scale, but make use of all values between − 3 and + 3.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Britz, S., Gauggel, S. & Mainz, V. The Aachen List of Trait Words. J Psycholinguist Res 48, 1111–1132 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019-09649-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019-09649-8