Rights statement: ©American Psychological Association, 2019. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. Please do not copy or cite without author's permission. The final article is available, upon publication, at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000616
Accepted author manuscript, 1.08 MB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
| <mark>Journal publication date</mark> | 1/04/2019 |
|---|---|
| <mark>Journal</mark> | Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition |
| Issue number | 5 |
| Volume | 45 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Pages (from-to) | 851-868 |
| Publication Status | Published |
| Early online date | 9/07/18 |
| <mark>Original language</mark> | English |
The influence of emotional content on language processing remains unclear. Previous research conducted in English has obtained contradictory results regarding the effects of valence on word recognition. Whereas some studies indicate that valence predicts recognition latencies such that negative words are processed more slowly than positive words. other studies indicate facilitation of responses to emotional (both positive and negative) compared to neutral words. The authors examined the influence of valence and arousal on word recognition reaction time (RT) using large-scale word naming and lexical decision data-sets in Spanish. They found that linear mixed-effects model estimates revealed a valence but not an arousal effect on reading latencies. The influence of valence was better captured by a graded (RTs to positive words <neutral <negative) than by a categorical (positive <negative) valence effect. A categorical emotional versus neutral effect was not reliably observed. In an advance on previous research, the authors' analyses showed that the valence effect is substantially more prominent in lexical decision than in pronunciation. These results mirror some of those reported previously in English, adding evidence to support their validity, and demonstrating important parallels in word recognition processes in orthographically shallow as well as deep languages.