Some previous researchers have found that affect can be described in terms of two dimensions (pleasure and arousal), while others have noted three dimensions are needed (pleasure, arousal, and dominance). The competing claims were tested by creating stimuli with factors previously demonstrated to elicit responses of arousal or dominance, asking respondents to rate the stimuli, and contrasting correlations between ratings and the stimulus factors. Under the two-dimensional theory, the planned contrasts should be zero, while under the three-dimensional theory, the planned contrasts should be nonzero. Results supported the three-dimensional model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological Association. (2001) Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. (5th ed.) Washington, DC: Author.
2.
AttneaveF. (1957) Physical determinants of the judged complexity of shapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 221–227.
3.
BerlyneD. E. (1974) Verbal and exploratory responses to visual patterns varying in uncertainty and in redundancy. In BerlyneD. E. (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. New York: Wiley. Pp. 121–158.
4.
ChipmanS. F. (1977) Complexity and structure in visual patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 269–301.
5.
CohenJ. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
CohenJ.CohenP. (1993) Applied regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
EvansD. R.DayH. I. (1971) The factorial structure of responses to perceptual complexity. Psychonomic Science, 22, 357–359.
8.
HeiseD. R. (1965) Semantic differential profiles for 1,000 most frequent English words. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, No. 8, 1–31 (Whole No. 79).
9.
JakobovitsL. A. (1966) Comparative psycholinguistics in the study of cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 1, 15–37.
10.
MehrabianA. (1995) Framework for a comprehensive description and measurement of emotional states. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 121, 339–361.
11.
MehrabianA. (1996) Pleasure-arousal-dominance: a general framework for describing and measuring individual differences in temperament. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 14, 261–292.
12.
MehrabianA.O'ReillyE. (1980) Relating the three-factor theory of temperament to other personality constructs. In MehrabianA. (Ed.), Basic dimensions for a general psychological theory: implications for personality, social, environmental, and developmental studies. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain. Pp. 95–114.
13.
MehrabianA.RussellJ. (1974) An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
O'RourkeJ. (1998) Computational geometry in C. (2nd ed.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer. Press.
15.
OsgoodC. E.MayW. H.MironM. S. (1975) Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning. Urbana, IL: Univer. of Illinois Press.
16.
OsgoodC. E.SuciG. J.TannenbaumP. H. (1957) The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: Univer. of Illinois Press.
17.
QuinlanP. T. (1991) Differing approaches to two-dimensional shape recognition. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 224–241.
18.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (1991) Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L.RubinD. B. (2000) Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer. Press.
20.
RussellJ. A. (1991) Culture and the categorization of emotions. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 426–450.
21.
SchlosbergH. (1954) Three dimensions of emotion. Psychological Review, 61, 81–88.
22.
StampsA. E. (2000) Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
23.
ValdezP.MehrabianA. (1994) Effects of color on emotions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 394–409.
24.
ZusneL. (1970) Visual perception of form. New York: Academic Press.
