Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Apr 2.
Published in final edited form as: Behav Res Methods. 2015 Sep;47(3):773–787. doi: 10.3758/s13428-014-0500-0

Ratings for Emotion Film Clips

Crystal A Gabert-Quillen 1, Ellen E Bartolini 1, Benjamin T Abravanel 1, Charles A Sanislow 1
PMCID: PMC6445277  NIHMSID: NIHMS610606  PMID: 24984981

Abstract

Film clips are widely utilized to elicit emotion in a variety of research studies. Normative ratings for scenes selected for these purposes support that selected clips correspond to the intended target emotion, but studies reporting normative ratings are limited. Using an ethnically diverse sample of college undergraduates, selected clips were rated for intensity, discreteness, valence, and arousal. Variables hypothesized to affect the perception of stimuli (i.e., gender, race-ethnicity, and familiarity) were also examined. Analyses generally indicated that males reacted strongly to positively valenced film clips, while females reacted more strongly to negatively valenced film clips. Caucasian participants tended to react more strongly to film clips, and there was some variation by race-ethnicity across target emotions. Finally, familiarity with films tended to produce higher ratings for positively valenced film clips and lower ratings for negatively valenced film clips. Findings provide normative ratings for a useful set of film clips for the study of emotion, and underscore factors to be considered in research that utilizes scenes from film for emotion elicitation.

Keywords: emotion elicitation, emotional films, validation, discrete emotions, affect dimensions, gender differences

Clips of scenes from popular films are frequently used in studies of emotion and mood induction, but fewer than a dozen studies have provided normative ratings for film clips. Historically, researchers relied primarily on self-produced film clips that were not tested for efficacy or given normative ratings (Scott, 1930). More recently, researchers have begun using segments from feature length films, and several groups have studied how such clips elicit specific target emotions (Gross & Levenson, 1995; Hewig et al., 2005; McHugo, Smith, & Lanzetta, 1982; Philippot, 1993; von Leupoldt et al., 2007). Researchers often select clips based intuition about what they may elicit, but without empirical ratings for what they actually elicit. Among those studies where researchers attempt to obtain standardized ratings, there are many variations in the type of material used, such as those with no sound (Hagemann et al., 1999; Hewig et al., 2005; Tomarken, Davidson, & Henriques, 1990), those limited to black and white (McHugo et al., 1982), or those not produced in English (Philippot, 1993; Schaefer, Nils, Sanchez, & Philippot, 2010).

Gross and Levenson (1995) produced a comprehensive set of film clips and went to great lengths to offer standardized data about the degree to which the clips elicited specific target emotions. They also articulated a theoretical and methodological approach to developing stimuli, and their set is the most widely cited set of film clips for emotion elicitation. This was also one of the few studies conducted in an English-speaking population. Moreover, they reported that their film clips were more effective at eliciting target emotions more discretely than those from prior work (e.g., Philippot, 1993).

Although Gross and Levenson’s (1995) stimulus set remains widely cited (e.g., Christie & Friedman, 2006; Fernandez et al., 2012; Jung & Young, 2012; Miller, Zielaskowski, Maner, & Plant, 2012; Rohrmann, Hopp, Schienle, & Hodapp, 2009) and has been replicated internationally (e.g., Sato, Noguchi, & Yoshikawa, 2007), the normative ratings of the films it examines are nearly two decades old. This, along with attendant cultural changes, raises questions about how well their stimulus set might apply to contemporary audiences (e.g., shots of the NYC skyline pre-9/11). The present study was partially motivated by an unpublished pilot mood-induction study with university students in which several participants reported that the Bambi scene, which was identified by Gross and Levenson (1995) to elicit sadness, instead elicited anger.

Since Gross and Levenson (1995), there has only been one other published study that has identified and validated film clips in an English-speaking population. However, while the authors added seven new clips, the majority of the film clips were from Gross and Levenson’s existing database (Rottenberg, Ray, & Gross, 2007). Though some researchers do utilize film clips for which there are normative ratings, other labs are prone to use film clips developed in-house for which there are no published normative ratings (e.g., Boiten, 1998; Erisman & Roemer, 2010; Thake & Zelenski, 2013; Vianna & Tranel, 2006; Waldstein et al., 2000). This practice limits generalizability across laboratories. Findings may also be confounded because, without normative ratings, it is unclear to what extent the clips elicit the target emotion. The same scene may also be perceived differently depending on participant factors such as the observers’ gender, race-ethnicity, or their familiarity with the material.

Emotion elicitation using film clips may be further complicated by the disparate ways in which researchers have conceptualized emotion. Some researchers have categorized emotions based on the assumption that emotions are discrete and have measured the extent to which films discretely elicited these emotions. Frequent examples of such emotions include anger, sadness (Hagemann et al., 1999), fear (Philippot, 1993), amusement, contentment, contempt, relief, and embarrassment (Gross & Levenson, 1995). These researchers argue that emotions can be easily discriminated against, citing autonomic distinctions between emotions (i.e., anger, disgust, fear; Levenson, 1992). Other researchers have conceptualized emotion in broad, overarching, dimensional terms, using valence (i.e., pleasant vs. unpleasant) and arousal to measure different emotional states (e.g., McHugo et al., 1982). Researchers who conceptualize emotions in affective dimensions argue that some emotions (i.e., anger, disgust, fear) have patterns of overlap that are often confounded (Barrett, 2006; Christie & Friedman, 2004). Some researchers have described a hybrid discrete-dimensional model that combines both views and is more consistent with recent findings (cf. Christie & Friedman, 2004). Assessing both the discreteness of the target emotion and the affective dimensions of emotions elicited by a standardized set of film clips allows researchers to measure emotions using either of these conceptualizations.

The present study created and validated (i.e., provided normative ratings for) a database of short film clips to elicit emotions for use in laboratory studies. We sought to build on and extend prior work by: (1) including ratings scales based on the categorical DES-like scales used by Gross and Levenson (1995) for purposes of comparison, (2) utilizing dimensional ratings scales modeled after those developed for the International Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1999), and (3) examining sources of variability among participants. We also explored whether film clips might be perceived differently based on subject gender, race-ethnicity, and whether or not participants have previously viewed the film (hereafter, familiarity).

Method

Participants

Participants consisted of 304 (128 males and 170 females, 6 participants did not report their sex) undergraduate students recruited from Introductory Psychology courses at a small northeastern university. All participants were between the ages of 18 and 23 years (M = 18.9, SD = 1.1). Approximately half of the participants were Caucasian (51.8%), while 33.6% reported being African American, Asian, or Hispanic. The remaining 14.6% of participants were another race-ethnicity or more than one race-ethnicity. This participant pool is more diverse than the University as a whole. Ethical approval was obtained from our local review board and the study protocol adhered to all APA ethical guidelines.

Stimuli

Students in the university Film Studies Program provided suggestions for scenes for films for each of nine emotions. Based on these suggestions as well as a review of prior studies, eighteen film clips were selected to represent positively valenced emotions (i.e., amusement, excitement, and happiness) and negative emotions (i.e., anger, disgust, fear, sadness, and surprise1). Neutral film clips (i.e., calmness) were considered to have no valence. The target emotions were selected after a review of the precedent set in previous film database studies and other studies of emotion elicitation stimuli (Ekman & Friesen, 1976; Lang et al., 1999; Lundqvist, Flykt, Öhman, 1998). The emotion ‘excitement’ was included in order to capture a specifically high arousal, positive emotional state. Calmness was included to represent a relaxed but positive state (cf. Hewig et al., 2005).

The selection of eighteen total film clips for inclusion in the study resulted in two scenes for each of the nine target emotions: amusement (Modern Times and The Hangover), excitement (300 and The Bourne Identity), happiness (Remember the Titans and Wall-E), calmness (Pride and Prejudice and Searching for Bobby Fischer), anger (Crash and Gentleman’s Agreement), disgust (National Lampoon’s Van Wilder and The Fly), fear (Psycho and The Ring), sadness (My Girl and The Shawshank Redemption), and surprise (D.O.A. and The Departed).

The eighteen film clips ranged in length from 1 minute and 5 seconds to 6 minutes and 33 seconds, with an average length of 3 minutes and 19 seconds. Specific details of the scene, including length, background music, and plot details, were taken into account when determining start and end times in order to concisely provide an intelligible context. All clips were from feature-length films, produced (and presented) in English, and commercially available for purchase. No two clips were from the same film. See Appendix A for detailed descriptions of the clips.

The eighteen film clips were divided into two sets of nine scene types. To control for order effects, the order of clips in each set was pseudo-randomly ordered to create three presentation sequences for each set, resulting in six total presentation sequences. In this arrangement, no more than two films of a particular valence appeared consecutively. See Appendix B for the variations in each presentation sequence for each of the two sets.

Measures

Following the viewing of each clip, participants completed a modified version of the Post Film Questionnaire (Rottenberg et al., 2007). Participants responded to the extent they experienced each emotion ranging from 0 (not at all/none) to 8 (extremely/a great deal). Participants were provided the option to write in emotional terms that they may have felt but were not included in the form; however, there were not enough responses to warrant analysis (3% of responses) and responses varied. The form used in the present study was expanded to include a modified version of the IAPS ratings system, utilizing rating scales rather than the mannequin system for valence and arousal; Lang et al., 1999). Participants indicated how they felt while viewing each clip from 0 (unpleasant/relaxed) to 5 (pleasant/aroused).

Procedure

As with prior studies, participants viewed film clips in small groups (Gross & Levenson, 1995; Hagemann et al., 1999; Hewig et al., 2005; Schaefer et al., 2010; von Leupoldt et al., 2007). Group size varied from 1–17 participants (average size of 8.9)2. The number of participants who viewed the two sets of nine films was relatively even (46.9% of sample in group 1 vs. 53.1% of sample in group 2). After all participants arrived, they completed an informed consent and demographics form. Participants were amply spaced in a large lecture hall and instructed not to communicate with one another until the study was over. Each could comfortably see the projector screen. The film clips were projected onto a screen with an LCD projector. Lighting level was dimmed so that both the projector screen and questionnaires were easily visible. An introductory “practice” film clip, the introduction sequence from the series Planet Earth, was shown to each group of participants to ensure all participants understood the procedure. After the introductory clip, participants were prompted to fill out the first post-film questionnaire and invited to ask questions about the procedure. When all participants were ready, the first experimental clip was presented. Participants were instructed to fill out a post-film questionnaire after they viewed each clip. Each session lasted about one hour.

Data analyses

Film clip ratings were characterized by the intensity and discreteness with which they elicited each of the nine target emotions. The average score of each target emotion represented intensity. To determine how discretely a scene elicited a target emotion, we identified instances where the target emotion was at least one point greater than the nontarget emotions. For each participant, we counted the number of such instances. The discreteness score was the proportion of these instances over the total number of nontarget emotions. For the target emotion amusement, for example, if the participant’s amusement rating was at least 1-point greater than seven of the eight nontarget emotions (but less than 1 point for the others), the discreteness score for that participant was .87 (cf. Rottenberg et al 2007). This score was then averaged for all participants for each specific film clip to produce an average discreteness score for that clip. The average discreteness score for each clip could range from .00 (i.e., on average, target emotion was not 1-point or greater than any nontarget emotions) to 1.00 (i.e., on average, target emotion was 1-point or greater than all nontarget emotions).

Results

Overall, analyses revealed intense and discrete film clips for a majority of the target emotions (Tables 1 and 2). ANOVAs revealed gender, race-ethnicity, and familiarity differences on emotion for several films (Tables 3, 4, and 5).

Table 1.

Average Intensity Ratings (M, SD) of Target Emotions by Movie

Target Emotions
Amuse
 Excite
 Happy
 Calm
 Anger
 Disgust
 Fear
 Sad
 Surprise
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Modern Times 5.20 2.0 2.44 2.1 2.98 2.3 2.75 2.5 1.00 1.7 .73 1.6 .55 1.2 .81 1.5 1.52 1.8
The Hangover 6.78 1.4 4.39 2.1 4.74 2.2 3.52 2.5 .16 .5 1.41 2.0 .60 1.4 .22 .7 1.97 2.3
300 3.89 2.6 4.77 2.5 1.53 2.1 2.12 2.4 .13 .5 1.00 1.7 1.76 2.2 .82 1.7 1.30 1.9
The Bourne Identity 4.47 2.4 5.69 1.7 2.28 2.3 1.51 2.1 .34 1.0 .21 .9 1.93 2.7 .36 1.1 2.29 2.5
Remember the Titans 4.84 2.4 6.02 2.1 6.01 2.1 1.96 2.1 .34 .9 .21 .6 1.11 1.9 .73 1.4 1.27 2.0
Wall-E 5.72 1.6 3.82 2.3 6.00 1.8 5.77 1.9 .25 1.0 .53 1.4 .20 .9 .75 1.7 .56 1.2
Pride & Prejudice 2.52 2.1 1.62 1.9 4.36 2.4 6.25 1.9 .88 1.8 .12 .7 .20 .7 .42 1.1 .30 .8
Searching for Bobby Fischer 3.21 2.0 1.56 1.7 2.30 2.2 4.89 2.2 1.16 2.2 .21 .9 .17 .6 1.26 2.1 1.80 2.3
Crash 1.15 1.8 1.13 1.6 .11 .4 1.00 1.5 6.18 2.0 6.56 2.1 2.70 2.6 4.34 2.6 2.98 2.7
Gentleman’s Agreement .97 1.7 .78 1.5 .28 .9 2.66 2.4 3.86 2.5 3.50 2.7 .59 1.2 3.39 2.5 1.99 2.2
National Lampoon’s Van Wilder 4.55 2.4 1.89 2.3 1.49 2.1 2.09 2.5 .97 1.6 6.98 1.6 .43 1.3 .50 1.2 3.34 2.8
The Fly 1.74 2.3 1.76 2.1 .28 1.0 .80 1.5 .43 1.1 6.52 2.2 3.65 2.7 1.36 2.2 3.48 2.6
Psycho 1.91 2.2 2.51 2.3 .31 .9 1.05 1.6 1.56 2.2 2.73 2.5 4.53 2.5 2.37 2.4 3.40 2.7
The Ring 2.07 2.3 2.87 2.5 .30 .8 .93 1.6 .78 1.5 3.16 2.7 5.30 2.4 1.12 1.8 3.16 2.6
My Girl .71 1.4 .27 .7 .13 .5 2.50 2.4 1.16 1.8 .56 1.3 .82 1.6 6.38 1.9 1.04 1.9
The Shawshank Redemption 1.27 1.9 .60 1.1 .54 1.2 2.69 2.5 1.43 2.1 1.09 2.0 2.33 2.5 6.88 1.5 2.40 2.6
D.O.A. 2.90 2.2 2.49 2.2 .93 1.7 3.46 2.5 .18 .6 .15 .7 .95 1.5 .21 .9 4.01 2.6
The Departed 3.13 2.8 4.23 2.4 1.25 2.1 1.12 2.0 1.40 2.2 2.01 2.4 2.78 2.6 1.26 2.1 4.78 3.0
Open in a new tab

Note: Results for target emotions are shaded.

Table 2.

Average Discreteness Score (M, SD) of Target Emotions by Movie

M SD Range
Amusement
 Modern Times .88 .21 .00 – 1.00
 The Hangover .92 .12 .06 – 1.00
Excitement
 300 .77 .31 .00 – 1.00
 The Bourne Identity .88 .14 .00 – 1.00
Happiness
 Remember the Titans .80 .22 .00 – 1.00
 Wall-E .80 .20 .00 – 1.00
Calmness
 Pride & Prejudice .92 .19 .00 – 1.00
 Searching for Bobby Fischer .81 .27 .00 – 1.00
Anger
 Crash .79 .18 .00 – 1.00
 Gentleman’s Agreement .65 .34 .00 – 1.00
Disgust
 National Lampoon’s Van Wilder .90 .19 .00 – 1.00
 The Fly .89 .23 .00 – 1.00
Fear
 Psycho .72 .31 .00 – 1.00
 The Ring .79 .27 .00 – 1.00
Sadness
 My Girl .96 .11 .00 – 1.00
 The Shaw shank Redemption .96 .17 .12 – 1.00
Surprise
 D.O.A. .70 .36 .00 – 1.00
 The Departed .68 .39 .00 – 1.00
Open in a new tab

Table 3.

Average Intensity Ratings (M, SD) for Males and Females by Movie Clip

Target Emotions
Sex Amusement Excitement Happiness Calmness Anger Disgust Fear Sadness Surprise
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
MTI M (N = 48) 5.02 2.4 2.32 2.0 2.98 2.4 3.09 2.6 .86 1.7 .66 1.6 .29 .9 .63 1.2 1.45 1.8
F (N = 74) 5.29 1.7 2.53 2.3 2.89 2.2 2.32 2.3 1.15 1.7 .79 1.6 .74 1.4 .99 1.6 1.58 1.8
HAN M (N = 48) 7.10 1.2 4.75 2.2 5.38 1.8 3.81 2.5 .15 .5 1.21 2.1 .60 1.4 .29 .9 1.92 2.4
F (N = 74) 6.57 1.5 4.08 1.9 4.32 2.3 3.33 2.4 .18 .5 1.59 1.9 .58 1.4 .18 .6 1.96 2.3
300 M (N = 45) 5.02 2.3 6.13 1.9 2.84 2.1 2.30 2.5 1.11 1.9 .80 1.7 1.16 2.0 .59 1.3 .89 1.8
F (N = 75) 3.20 2.5 3.85 2.3 .62 1.4 1.96 2.3 .86 1.4 1.12 1.8 2.14 2.3 .95 1.9 1.59 1.9
TBI M (N = 62) 5.03 2.2 5.94 1.7 2.98 2.3 1.94 2.3 .35 .8 .16 .5 1.42 1.9 .21 .6 2.23 2.6
F (N = 73) 4.01 2.4 5.45 1.7 1.66 2.1 1.14 1.8 .51 1.4 .26 1.2 2.41 2.4 .49 1.4 2.40 2.3
RTT M (N = 56) 5.14 2.4 6.30 2.0 6.13 2.3 1.68 2.1 .41 .9 .27 .7 1.27 2.1 .64 1.4 1.38 2.2
F (N = 72) 4.61 2.4 5.75 2.2 5.88 2.0 2.10 2.0 .29 .8 .17 .6 1.03 1.7 .82 1.5 1.22 1.9
WALL M (N = 46) 5.61 1.9 4.37 2.0 5.93 2.0 5.72 2.0 .37 1.1 .52 1.5 .26 1.0 .93 1.9 .54 1.3
F (N = 71) 5.83 1.3 3.53 2.4 6.10 1.7 5.83 1.9 .17 1.0 .52 1.5 .17 .8 .65 1.6 .59 1.2
PRP M (N = 62) 2.50 2.1 1.42 1.9 3.69 2.6 6.06 2.1 .13 .4 .13 .7 .21 .7 .37 1.0 .36 .9
F (N = 73) 2.58 2.1 1.82 1.9 4.92 2.0 6.40 1.7 .14 .6 .11 .7 .19 .8 .48 1.3 .26 .7
SBF M (N = 42) 3.36 2.2 2.05 1.8 2.83 2.5 4.76 2.4 .36 .8 .10 .6 .21 .7 .76 1.7 1.95 2.6
F (N = 73) 3.16 1.9 1.24 1.6 2.03 2.0 4.90 2.2 .35 1.1 .28 1.0 .13 .5 1.61 2.3 1.64 2.0
CRA M (N = 42) 1.36 1.4 1.26 1.6 .17 .44 1.14 1.7 5.62 2.6 5.88 2.8 1.45 2.3 3.86 2.4 2.74 2.8
F (N = 73) 1.00 1.9 1.01 1.6 .06 .29 .90 1.4 6.48 1.5 6.93 1.6 3.41 2.6 4.59 2.7 3.14 2.6
GTA M (N = 58) 1.19 1.7 1.00 1.7 .48 1.2 2.78 2.5 3.58 2.6 3.02 2.5 .50 1.0 2.98 2.5 2.02 2.2
F (N = 74) .82 .8 .64 1.2 .14 .5 2.53 2.3 4.15 2.4 3.97 2.8 .68 1.4 3.73 2.5 2.01 2.3
NLVW M (N = 40) 5.85 2.2 2.85 2.5 2.70 2.4 2.78 2.8 .68 1.6 6.63 1.9 .40 1.4 .45 1.2 2.93 2.9
F (N = 73) 3.75 2.4 1.25 1.9 .68 1.4 1.66 2.1 1.01 1.9 7.18 1.4 .46 1.3 .54 1.2 3.59 2.7
TFL M (N = 60) 2.12 2.5 2.20 2.3 .47 1.2 1.32 1.9 1.15 2.1 5.78 2.7 3.27 2.6 1.50 2.2 3.65 2.5
F (N = 70) 1.29 2.1 1.41 1.9 .11 .6 .26 .7 1.21 2.3 7.27 1.1 4.11 2.7 1.30 2.2 3.44 2.6
PSY M (N = 60) 1.88 2.3 2.90 2.4 .45 1.1 1.25 1.8 1.32 2.0 2.23 2.1 3.82 2.5 2.12 2.3 3.48 2.8
F (N = 70) 1.89 2.2 2.20 2.3 .20 .7 .77 1.2 1.84 2.4 3.27 2.7 5.30 2.2 2.69 2.6 3.40 2.7
RING M (N = 42) 2.79 2.5 3.76 2.5 .45 .9 1.36 1.9 .88 1.5 2.69 2.6 3.88 2.3 1.45 2.1 2.76 2.5
F (N = 72) 1.58 2.1 2.32 2.4 .20 .7 .65 1.4 .72 1.5 3.52 2.7 6.13 2.1 .94 1.6 3.35 2.6
MYG M (N = 46) .98 1.6 .26 .7 .13 .5 2.59 2.5 1.33 2.1 .76 1.7 .76 1.7 6.00 2.1 1.24 2.0
F (N = 70) .50 1.2 .27 .8 .12 .4 2.41 2.3 1.04 1.6 .42 1.0 .86 1.6 6.73 1.5 .83 1.7
SHW M (N = 62) 1.82 2.3 .74 1.2 .71 1.4 3.18 2.4 1.50 2.0 1.24 2.1 2.15 2.5 6.42 1.8 2.24 2.5
F (N = 74) .81 1.5 .50 1.0 .41 .9 2.23 2.0 1.42 2.1 1.00 1.9 2.54 2.5 7.26 1.0 2.59 2.6
DOA M (N = 44) 3.41 2.5 2.66 2.4 1.30 2.1 3.30 2.6 .27 .8 .36 1.1 .75 1.5 .25 1.1 3.66 2.8
F (N = 74) 2.59 2.0 2.39 2.1 .68 1.4 3.52 2.4 .12 .5 .03 .2 1.03 1.6 .18 .8 4.22 2.4
DEP M (N = 62) 4.27 2.7 5.06 1.9 2.06 2.5 1.84 2.4 1.42 2.1 1.21 1.8 1.71 2.3 1.13 1.9 4.35 2.1
F (N = 73) 2.05 2.4 3.44 2.4 .45 1.3 .47 1.1 1.42 2.2 2.75 2.7 3.77 2.5 1.41 2.3 5.27 2.7
Open in a new tab

Note. Results for target emotions are shaded. Numbers in bold represent significant (p < .05) differences in emotion. Numbers in italics represent trend (p > .05–.10) differences in emotion.

Row key: MTI = Modern Times; HAN = The Hangover; TBI = The Bourne Identity; RTT = Remember the Titians; WALL = WALL-E; PRP = Pride & Prejudice; SBF = Searching for Bobby Fischer; CRA = Crash; GTA = Gentleman’s Agreement; NLVW = National Lampoon’s Van Wilder; TFL; The Fly; PSY = Psycho; RING = The Ring; MYG = My Girl; SHW = The Shawshank Redemption; DEP = The Departed.

Table 4.

Average Intensity Ratings (M, SD) for Race-Ethnicity by Movie Clip

Target Emotions
Sex Amusement Excitement Happiness Calmness Anger Disgust Fear Sadness Surprise
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
MTI White (N = 73) 5.29 1.8 2.53 2.0 2.96 2.0 2.59 2.5 1.04 1.6 .71 1.6 .59 1.4 .64 1.3 1.48 1.7
African American (N = 11) 4.82 2.8 2.73 2.8 3.27 3.0 3.00 2.5 .64 1.3 .36 .7 .55 .9 .73 1.3 2.64 2.4
Asian American (N = 27) 5.52 2.2 2.63 2.4 3.37 2.6 2.74 2.5 .89 1.8 .52 1.5 .33 .9 1.00 1.7 1.59 1.9
Hispanic (N = 4) 5.00 3.2 .25 .5 2.75 3.8 4.75 3.3 .25 .5 .75 1.0 .00 .0 1.25 1.5 .00 .0
HAN White (N = 62) 6.84 1.3 4.56 2.0 4.94 2.2 3.50 2.5 .15 .5 1.44 2.0 .42 1.1 .24 .8 1.82 2.1
African American (N = 7) 7.14 .7 4.42 2.7 5.00 1.3 2.43 1.9 .29 .8 1.00 2.2 1.57 2.0 .57 1.1 3.29 3.5
Asian American (N = 28) 6.54 1.7 4.21 2.0 4.14 2.7 3.89 2.7 .11 .3 1.29 1.9 .36 1.0 .11 .3 2.39 2.4
Hispanic (N = 7) 7.43 .8 4.86 2.0 5.14 1.6 2.86 2.2 .43 .8 .86 1.5 1.57 2.6 .14 .4 2.71 2.4
300 White (N = 66) 3.79 2.6 4.85 2.5 1.51 2.0 1.58 2.1 1.23 1.8 1.20 1.8 2.15 2.4 1.08 2.0 1.09 1.7
African American (N = 6) 4.83 2.8 5.67 1.4 .50 1.2 2.50 3.0 1.67 2.7 1.00 2.5 .67 1.6 .00 .0 2.00 3.3
Asian American (N = 24) 3.08 2.5 3.71 2.7 1.46 2.1 3.21 2.5 .58 1.2 1.13 1.7 1.79 2.4 .88 1.5 1.71 1.9
Hispanic (N = 6) 4.00 2.5 4.67 2.9 .50 1.2 3.67 3.5 .33 .8 .83 2.0 .67 1.2 .83 1.6 2.17 2.6
TBI White (N = 70) 4.84 2.3 5.90 1.7 2.56 2.3 1.47 2.0 .31 .8 .16 .7 1.99 2.1 .24 .8 2.43 2.4
African American (N = 14) 4.36 2.2 5.00 1.9 2.00 2.0 1.57 2.4 .36 .7 .14 .5 1.71 2.4 .57 1.2 2.77 2.7
Asian American (N = 31) 3.94 2.3 5.90 1.3 1.71 2.2 1.81 2.4 .39 .9 .16 .6 1.61 2.3 .16 .5 1.97 2.6
Hispanic (N = 6) 4.50 1.8 5.50 2.1 2.17 3.1 1.17 1.2 1.50 2.1 .50 1.2 2.00 2.7 1.17 1.8 1.33 2.2
RTT White (N = 73) 5.30 2.2 6.47 1.6 6.62 1.5 1.90 2.0 .19 .6 .12 .5 1.16 1.9 .73 1.4 1.15 2.0
African American (N =11) 5.00 2.9 5.91 2.8 5.91 2.3 2.27 2.1 .45 .9 .27 .6 1.27 1.7 .27 .6 .91 1.3
Asian American (N = 27) 3.37 2.3 5.04 2.6 4.41 2.7 1.74 2.1 .52 1.2 .48 .9 .89 1.7 .85 1.6 1.52 2.3
Hispanic (N = 4) 6.50 2.4 6.25 2.9 6.50 2.4 .50 .6 1.25 2.5 .00 .0 .00 .0 .75 1.5 .75 1.5
WALL White (N = 58) 5.76 1.7 4.03 2.4 6.33 1.6 5.74 2.0 .41 1.4 .64 1.6 .26 1.0 1.02 2.0 .24 .7
African American (N = 8) 6.00 1.1 3.63 2.4 6.13 1.7 6.38 1.8 .00 .0 .00 .0 .00 .0 .00 .0 .75 1.4
Asian American (N = 25) 5.52 1.7 3.68 2.6 5.60 1.9 6.04 1.6 .04 .2 .64 1.6 .24 1.2 .84 1.6 .88 1.5
Hispanic (N = 7) 5.71 2.8 2.43 2.2 5.43 1.4 6.14 1.2 .57 1.5 .43 1.1 .00 .0 .43 1.1 1.29 1.9
PRP White (N = 69) 2.70 1.9 1.61 1.7 4.43 2.0 6.47 1.4 .09 .4 .07 .6 .14 .5 .37 1.1 .25 .7
African American (N = 14) 1.71 2.1 .86 1.5 2.50 2.7 6.21 1.6 .43 .8 .14 .5 .21 .8 .36 1.1 .64 1.3
Asian American (N = 31) 2.77 2.3 1.97 2.0 5.32 2.4 6.81 1.6 .06 .2 .03 .2 .26 1.0 .35 .8 .35 .8
Hispanic (N = 6) 2.17 3.1 1.33 3.3 4.50 2.7 5.67 3.1 .00 .0 .50 1.2 .33 .8 1.50 2.8 .17 .4
SBF White (N = 65) 3.23 2.1 1.82 1.8 2.54 2.2 4.72 2.3 .31 .9 .25 1.0 .17 .6 1.48 2.2 2.11 2.5
African American (N = 4) 3.75 1.7 2.00 2.2 3.00 2.0 4.00 3.6 1.00 2.0 .75 1.5 .00 .0 1.25 2.5 1.75 3.5
Asian American (N = 24) 2.63 1.9 1.46 1.4 2.21 2.4 5.17 2.2 .17 .5 .00 .0 .21 .7 .88 1.9 1.42 2.0
Hispanic (N = 5) 3.80 1.9 .80 1.8 .80 1.8 7.20 .5 .00 .0 .00 .0 .00 .0 .40 .5 1.80 2.2
CRA White (N = 65) 1.23 1.7 1.20 1.7 .08 .3 .82 1.4 6.25 2.1 6.89 1.7 3.17 2.6 4.54 2.5 2.85 2.7
African American (N = 4) .00 .0 1.00 2.0 .00 .0 .50 1.0 7.50 1.0 6.00 4.0 3.25 2.8 6.00 1.4 5.25 3.6
Asian American (N = 24) 1.17 1.7 1.67 1.8 .25 .6 1.75 2.0 5.71 1.8 5.17 2.8 2.13 2.3 3.25 2.6 2.83 2.4
Hispanic (N = 5) .80 1.8 .40 .9 .00 .0 .80 1.3 6.80 1.6 7.20 1.3 2.40 2.9 5.00 3.0 5.80 1.1
GTA White (N = 73) 1.10 1.8 .74 1.4 .22 .6 2.73 2.2 4.12 2.4 3.85 2.7 .53 1.2 3.63 2.4 2.19 2.1
African American (N = 13) .77 1.4 .38 .8 .15 .4 2.46 2.4 2.92 2.9 3.23 3.2 .85 1.7 2.77 2.6 1.92 2.1
Asian American (N = 27) .96 1.8 .81 1.6 .52 1.3 3.07 2.7 3.07 2.2 2.07 1.9 .67 1.3 2.48 2.4 1.56 2.3
Hispanic (N = 5) .20 .5 .40 .9 .20 .5 1.80 2.5 3.80 2.8 2.80 3.1 .60 1.3 2.80 3.0 .60 1.3
NLVW White (N = 61) 3.85 2.5 1.64 2.1 1.21 1.9 1.62 2.4 .93 2.1 7.21 1.4 .38 1.2 .46 1.0 3.13 2.7
African American (N = 6) 6.27 1.7 3.83 3.1 2.00 1.9 2.00 2.2 .67 1.6 7.33 1.2 1.00 2.0 .33 .8 5.00 3.0
Asian American (N = 23) 5.09 2.5 1.96 2.1 1.87 2.5 3.22 2.8 .87 1.4 6.53 1.8 .39 1.2 .30 .8 3.09 2.6
Hispanic (N = 5) 5.80 2.3 2.40 2.6 1.40 1.5 2.00 2.8 .40 .9 7.80 .4 .40 .9 .40 .5 5.20 3.3
TFL White (N = 66) 1.91 2.4 1.89 2.1 .29 .8 .82 1.6 .79 1.7 6.38 2.1 3.48 2.7 1.32 2.1 4.02 2.5
African American (N = 15) 1.33 1.9 .67 1.2 .07 .3 1.00 1.6 .60 1.4 7.07 1.6 3.27 2.7 1.00 1.8 2.80 2.8
Asian American (N = 28) 1.50 2.4 1.79 2.3 .14 .4 .71 1.6 2.36 3.0 6.79 2.3 3.86 2.5 1.46 2.3 2.68 2.5
Hispanic (N = 6) 1.33 2.4 1.67 2.9 .17 .4 1.17 1.6 1.17 1.9 7.00 1.7 2.00 3.1 3.17 3.7 1.83 2.1
PSY White (N = 66) 1.98 2.1 3.00 2.5 .32 1.1 1.14 1.8 1.50 2.1 2.55 2.4 4.38 2.4 2.38 2.5 3.39 2.7
African American (N = 15) 1.93 2.5 1.33 1.7 .33 .7 1.27 1.6 1.07 1.6 2.93 2.6 3.67 2.8 2.13 2.0 3.40 2.5
Asian American (N = 28) 1.93 2.5 2.57 2.2 .29 .6 1.21 1.6 1.54 2.3 2.32 2.5 5.07 2.1 2.04 2.3 3.79 2.8
Hispanic (N = 6) 1.17 2.4 1.50 1.8 .17 .4 .67 .8 2.00 3.2 3.83 2.3 4.67 2.7 3.33 3.1 3.00 3.5
RING White (N = 65) 2.03 2.3 2.78 2.6 .20 .7 .78 1.6 1.00 1.8 3.08 2.6 5.42 2.3 1.17 1.8 3.06 2.6
African American (N =4) 2.25 3.3 3.50 4.1 .75 1.5 .50 1.0 1.50 1.9 2.50 3.0 4.00 4.1 .00 0 3.75 2.9
Asian American (N = 24) 2.63 2.5 3.67 2.5 .50 1.0 1.38 1.8 .38 .9 3.79 2.8 5.04 2.3 1.02 1.7 3.63 2.6
Hispanic (N = 5) 2.20 1.8 1.40 1.7 .00 .0 .20 .5 .40 .9 4.20 2.7 6.20 1.8 1.60 2.1 1.60 2.5
MYG White (N = 58) .81 1.4 .31 .7 .12 .5 2.14 2.2 1.19 1.7 .53 1.1 .86 1.6 6.76 1.5 1.07 1.8
African American (N = 8) .13 .3 .00 .0 .00 .0 2.13 2.4 1.25 1.7 .13 .3 .25 .7 7.25 .9 .00 .0
Asian American (N = 25) .72 1.8 .36 .8 .24 .6 3.24 2.3 1.20 2.1 .88 2.0 .88 1.8 5.36 2.5 1.60 2.5
Hispanic (N = 7) 1.14 1.7 .29 .8 .14 .4 3.86 2.9 1.86 2.6 .71 1.9 .71 1.9 6.71 1.7 .43 1.1
SHW White (N = 71) 1.41 1.9 .63 1.1 .56 1.2 2.79 2.1 1.45 2.0 1.31 2.2 2.04 2.3 6.92 1.2 2.14 2.5
African American (N = 14) .86 1.5 .36 1.1 .29 .8 2.79 2.0 1.57 1.8 1.21 1.8 2.57 2.8 6.21 2.2 2.43 2.0
Asian American (N = 31) .94 1.9 .71 1.2 .68 1.3 3.00 2.6 1.19 1.9 .29 .6 2.52 2.5 7.06 1.7 2.45 2.6
Hispanic (N = 5) .67 1.6 .33 .5 .17 .4 .33 .5 2.50 2.4 1.33 2.4 2.33 3.2 7.33 .5 3.82 2.6
DOA White (N = 65) 3.11 2.3 3.02 2.3 1.20 1.9 3.18 2.5 .17 .6 .06 .3 1.05 1.6 .23 1.1 4.26 2.6
African American (N = 6) 3.17 2.8 .33 .8 .17 .4 4.83 3.2 .67 1.0 1.50 2.3 1.17 1.8 .83 1.3 3.50 2.5
Asian American (N = 24) 2.50 2.1 2.33 2.0 .33 1.1 3.67 1.9 .17 .6 .08 .4 1.08 1.6 .21 .5 4.21 2.4
Hispanic (N = 6) 2.67 2.2 1.83 1.7 .17 .4 6.33 1.2 .17 .4 .00 .0 .50 .8 .00 .0 4.33 2.6
DEP White (N = 70) 3.33 2.9 4.26 2.4 1.41 2.1 1.10 2.0 1.34 2.0 2.03 2.4 2.61 2.5 1.20 2.0 4.99 2.8
African American (N = 14) 3.79 2.6 4.43 2.1 .79 1.4 1.64 2.0 1.29 1.6 1.21 1.6 2.36 2.5 .79 1.8 3.93 3.4
Asian American (N = 31) 2.45 2.4 4.03 2.5 .94 2.1 .77 1.6 1.13 2.2 1.84 2.5 3.06 2.5 1.16 2.0 5.00 2.8
Hispanic (N = 6) 4.67 2.8 5.00 1.7 1.50 3.2 1.67 2.9 2.33 2.6 2.67 2.7 2.53 3.4 2.83 3.2 5.17 3.1
Open in a new tab

Note. Results for target emotions are shaded. Numbers in bold represent significant (p < .05) differences in emotion. Numbers in italics represent trend (p > .05–.10) differences in emotion. N = have not seen the movie, Y = have seen the movie

Row key: MTI = Modern Times; HAN = The Hangover; TBI = The Bourne Identity; RTT = Remember the Titians; WALL = WALL-E; PRP = Pride & Prejudice; SBF = Searching for Bobby Fischer; CRA = Crash; GTA = Gentleman’s Agreement; NLVW = National Lampoon’s Van Wilder; TFL; The Fly; PSY = Psycho; RING = The Ring; MYG = My Girl; SHW = The Shawshank Redemption; DEP = The Departed.

Table 5.

Effects of Familiarity on Emotions by Movie Clip (M, SD)

Target Emotions
Sex Amusement Excitement Happiness Calmness Anger Disgust Fear Sadness Surprise
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
MTI N (N = 99) 5.14 2.0 2.48 2.5 3.20 2.3 2.84 2.5 .78 1.4 .55 1.2 .48 1.1 .72 1.2 1.77 1.8
Y (N = 31) 5.52 1.9 2.39 2.2 2.39 2.2 2.29 2.2 1.74 2.2 1.32 2.4 .77 1.6 1.13 2.0 .77 1.5
HAN N (N = 19) 5.74 1.8 3.37 1.9 3.42 1.9 3.37 1.9 .21 .5 1.42 2.3 .68 1.5 .21 .7 3.21 2.5
Y (N = 105) 6.97 1.20 4.57 2.0 4.98 2.1 3.48 2.5 .16 .5 1.41 2.0 .58 1.4 .22 .7 1.74 2.2
300 N (N = 53) 3.00 2.5 3.66 2.4 .64 1.4 1.75 2.4 .98 1.4 1.28 1.9 2.38 2.5 1.15 2.1 1.53 1.9
Y (N = 69) 4.58 2.4 5.63 2.2 2.24 2.3 2.41 2.4 .95 1.7 .77 1.6 1.27 1.9 .55 1.3 1.12 1.8
TBI N (N = 70) 4.00 2.4 5.47 1.9 1.40 1.9 1.30 1.8 .57 1.4 .33 1.2 2.14 2.4 .44 1.4 2.48 2.6
Y (N = 67) 4.96 2.3 5.91 1.5 2.39 2.4 1.73 2.3 .28 .7 .09 .3 1.70 2.0 .27 .7 2.09 2.3
RTT N (N = 50) 4.22 2.4 5.62 2.4 5.34 2.5 1.86 1.9 .58 1.2 .36 .8 1.22 2.0 .76 1.4 1.64 2.0
Y (N = 81) 5.22 2.3 6.26 1.9 6.42 1.8 2.02 2.2 .19 .5 .11 .5 1.05 1.8 .70 1.4 1.05 2.0
WALL N (N = 40) 5.53 1.7 3.18 2.3 5.40 1.9 5.43 2.3 .13 .6 .50 1.4 .28 1.0 .45 1.2 1.13 1.6
Y (N = 79) 5.81 1.5 4.13 2.3 6.29 1.7 5.95 1.6 .31 1.2 .52 1.5 .17 .8 .91 1.9 .27 .9
PRP N (N = 86) 2.20 1.9 1.26 1.6 3.97 2.3 5.99 2.0 .15 .6 .19 .8 .27 .8 .43 1.0 .35 .5
Y (N = 51) 3.06 2.2 2.24 2.2 5.04 2.3 6.69 1.7 .10 .4 .00 .00 .08 .4 .41 1.3 .22 .7
SBF N (N = 109) 3.12 1.9 1.47 1.6 2.12 2.1 4.88 2.1 .34 1.0 .19 .8 .19 .6 1.30 2.1 1.83 2.2
Y (N = 8) 4.88 2.5 3.00 2.2 5.00 2.4 5.63 3.0 .50 1.1 .50 1.4 .00 .00 .75 1.7 1.63 3.0
CRA N (N = 74) 1.19 1.8 1.00 1.6 .04 .2 .99 1.5 5.99 2.1 6.39 2.4 2.60 2.7 3.95 2.6 3.49 2.6
Y (N = 143) 1.07 1.8 1.31 1.7 .19 .5 .98 1.5 6.51 1.6 6.84 1.5 2.83 2.5 4.98 2.5 2.12 2.6
GTA N (N = 133) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Y (N = 1) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
NLVW N (N = 95) 4.29 2.5 1.87 2.3 1.26 2.0 1.88 2.3 1.03 1.9 7.21 1.2 .51 1.4 .49 1.2 3.69 2.7
Y (N = 20) 5.75 2.1 1.95 2.2 2.67 2.5 3.17 3.2 .06 .2 5.90 2.5 .06 .2 .50 1.1 1.50 2.3
TFL N (N = 130) 1.72 2.3 1.78 2.1 .28 .9 .82 1.5 1.14 2.2 6.51 2.2 3.67 2.7 1.35 2.2 3.46 2.6
Y (N = 3) 2.33 2.5 1.00 1.0 .00 .0 .00 .00 2.00 3.5 7.00 1.0 3.00 3.6 1.67 2.9 4.33 .6
PSY N (N = 95) 1.92 2.3 2.35 2.2 .23 .8 1.07 1.6 1.73 2.4 2.98 2.5 4.71 2.5 2.52 2.4 3.96 2.7
Y (N = 38) 1.89 2.1 2.92 2.6 .50 1.0 .97 1.7 1.16 1.6 2.11 2.4 4.11 2.3 2.00 2.5 2.00 2.3
RING N (N = 69) 1.60 2.1 2.37 2.6 .21 .7 .74 1.4 .71 1.5 3.38 2.7 5.99 2.0 1.06 1.7 3.57 2.6
Y (N = 49) 2.71 2.5 3.58 2.3 .44 1.0 1.21 1.9 .90 1.5 2.83 2.6 4.35 2.5 1.21 1.9 2.58 2.4
MYG N (N = 96) .67 1.4 .23 .6 .09 .4 2.64 2.4 1.05 1.7 .64 1.4 .68 1.5 6.20 2.0 1.27 2.0
Y (N = 23) .91 1.6 1.39 2.2 .27 .8 1.91 1.9 1.64 2.0 .23 .6 1.39 2.2 7.13 1.1 .05 .2
SHW N (N = 93) 1.08 1.6 .59 .9 .56 1.1 2.41 2.1 1.43 2.0 1.39 2.2 2.62 2.5 6.86 1.5 3.16 2.6
Y (N = 45) 1.67 2.4 .62 1.3 .49 1.2 3.27 2.4 1.44 2.1 .49 1.1 1.71 2.4 6.91 1.5 .82 1.6
DOA N (N = 117) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Y (N = 1) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
DEP N (N = 77) 2.42 2.6 3.62 2.3 .71 1.7 .66 1.4 1.38 2.1 2.44 2.7 3.48 2.6 1.30 2.2 5.97 2.3
Y (N = 60) 4.05 2.7 5.00 2.2 1.93 2.4 1.70 2.4 1.43 2.2 1.47 2.0 1.88 2.4 1.22 2.1 3.25 3.0
Open in a new tab

Note. Results for target emotions are shaded. Numbers in bold represent significant (p < .05) differences in emotion. Numbers in italics represent trend (p > .05–.10) differences in emotion. N = have not seen the movie, Y = have seen the movie

Row key: MTI = Modern Times; HAN = The Hangover; TBI = The Bourne Identity; RTT = Remember the Titians; WALL = WALL-E; PRP = Pride & Prejudice; SBF = Searching for Bobby Fischer; CRA = Crash; GTA = Gentleman’s Agreement; NLVW = National Lampoon’s Van Wilder; TFL; The Fly; PSY = Psycho; RING = The Ring; MYG = My Girl; SHW = The Shawshank Redemption; DEP = The Departed.

Amusement

Modern Times and The Hangover

The intensity rating for Modern Times was 5.2 (SD = 2.0) and the average discreteness score was .88 (range: .00–1.00; least discrete from calmness (.76)). The amusement intensity rating for The Hangover was 6.8 (SD = 1.4) and average discreteness score was .92 (range: .62–1.00, least discrete from happy (M = .78)). This film also had a high intensity rating for happiness (M = 4.7, SD = 2.2) and excitement (M =4.4, SD = 2.1). Males rated The Hangover more amusing than females (F (1, 120) = 4.44, p = .04). There was no significant race-ethnicity difference for amusement for The Hangover (ps > .05). Those who had seen The Hangover before rated it more amusing (F (1, 122) = 14.07, p < .001) than those who did not. There were no significant gender, race-ethnicity, and familiarity differences for amusement for Modern Times (ps > .05).

Excitement

300 and The Bourne Identity. 300 (M = 4.8, SD = 2.5) had a lower excitement intensity score than The Bourne Identity (M = 5.7, SD = 2.4). The excitement average discreteness score for 300 was .77 (range: .00–1.00), which was lower than The Bourne Identity (M = .88; range: .00–1.00). Participants rated these films high on amusement (M = 3.9, SD = 2.6; M = 4.5, SD = 2.4, respectively), and both were least discrete from amusement (Ms = .53 and .59, respectively). Males rated 300 more exciting (F (1, 117) = 30.74, p < .001) than females. There was no significant difference in race-ethnicity for excitement for 300 (p > .05). Seeing 300 before produced higher ratings for excitement (F (1, 119) = 22.76, p < .001) than those who had not seen the film. There were no significant gender, race-ethnicity, or familiarity differences for excitement for The Bourne Identity (ps > .05).

Happiness

Remember the Titans and Wall-E

Both were rated high on happiness (M = 6.0, SD = 2.1; M = 6.0, SD = 1.8, respectively), and Remember the Titans was also rated high on excitement and amusement (M = 6.0, SD = 2.1; M = 4.8, SD = 2.4, respectively). Wall-E was rated high for calmness and amusement (M = 5.8, SD = 1.9; M = 5.7, SD = 1.6, respectively). The happiness average discreteness scores were the same for Remember the Titans and Wall-E (M = .80; range: .00–1.00). For Remember the Titans, happiness was least discrete from excitement (M = .34); for Wall-E, happiness was least discrete from calmness (M = .41). There were no gender differences for Remember the Titans and Wall-E. There was a significant difference in race-ethnicity for happiness for Remember the Titans (F (3, 115) = 8.41, p < .001). Post-hocs revealed that Caucasian participants rated Remember the Titans as more happy compared to Asian American participants (p < .001). There was no significant difference in race-ethnicity for happiness for Wall-E (p > .05). Those who had seen Remember the Titans and Wall-E rated the clips happier (F (1, 129) = 8.31, p < .005; F (1, 116) = 6.68, p = .01, respectively) than those who had not seen the film.

Calmness

Pride and Prejudice and Searching for Bobby Fischer

Pride and Prejudice was rated high on calmness (M = 6.3, SD = 1.9), and also 4.4 (SD = 2.4) for happiness. The average discreteness score was .92 (range: .00–1.00; least discrete from happy (M = .70)). Searching for Bobby Fischer was rated lower for calmness (M = 4.9, SD = 2.2), but all other intensity ratings were below 3.21. Also, the average discreteness score was lower (M = .81; range: .00–1.00; least discrete from amusement (M = .64)). There were no significant gender differences for calmness for Pride and Prejudice and Searching for Bobby Fischer (ps > .05). There was no significant difference in race-ethnicity for calmness for Pride and Prejudice (p > .05). There was a trend difference in race-ethnicity for calmness for Searching for Bobby Fischer (F (3, 98) = 2.17, p = .09). Post-hocs revealed that Hispanic participants rated Searching for Bobby Fischer as more calming compared to Caucasian participants (p = .09). Those who had seen Pride and Prejudice rated the clip more calming (F (1, 135) = 4.30, p = .04) than those who had not. There was not a significant familiarity difference for calmness for Searching for Bobby Fischer (p > .05).

Anger

Crash and Gentleman’s Agreement. Crash produced high anger (M = 6.2, SD = 2.0) and disgust ratings (M = 6.6, SD = 2.1). The anger average discreteness score for Crash was .79 (range: .00–1.00). Gentleman’s Agreement anger ratings were low (M = 3.9, SD = 2.5), as was the average discreteness score (M = .65; range: .00–1.00). Both films were least discrete from disgust (Ms = .15 and .36, respectively). Females rated Crash higher on anger (F (1, 113) = 5.14, p = .03) compared to males. There was not a significant gender difference for anger for Gentleman’s Agreement (p > .05). There were no significant differences in race-ethnicity for anger for Crash and Gentleman’s Agreement (ps > .05). There were no differences among those who had seen and those who had not seen Crash for anger (p > .05). Only one participant had seen Gentleman’s Agreement, therefore, group differences for familiarity could not be analyzed.

Disgust

National Lampoon’s Van Wilder and The Fly

The disgust rating for National Lampoon’s Van Wilder was 7.0 (SD = 1.6), the highest intensity rating among the 18 film clips. Disgust had an average discreteness score of .90 (range: .00–1.00) for National Lampoon’s Van Wilder. Disgust was least discrete from amusement (M = .75) due to participants giving it a high intensity score (M = 4.5, SD = 2.4). A disgust intensity rating of 6.5 was elicited for The Fly (SD = 2.2) and had a lower average discreteness score (.89; range: .00–1.00; least discrete from fear (M = .83)). There was not a significant gender difference for disgust for National Lampoon’s Van Wilder (p > .05). Additionally, females rated The Fly more disgusting than males (F (1, 128) = 18.24, p < .001). There were no significant differences in race-ethnicity for disgust for National Lampoon’s Van Wilder and The Fly (ps > .05). Those who had seen National Lampoon’s Van Wilder rated the clip less disgusting (F (1, 113) = 11.89, p = .001) than those who had not. There was no difference among those who had seen and those who had not seen The Fly for disgust (p > .05).

Fear

Psycho and The Ring

Participants rated Psycho as more fearful (M = 4.5, SD = 2.5; average discreteness score: M = .72; range: .00–1.00) compared to The Ring (intensity: M = 5.3, SD = 2.4; average discreteness score: M = .79; range: .00–1.00). Fear was least discrete (M = .57) from surprise (intensity: M = 3.4; SD = 2.7) for Psycho, while fear was least discrete (M = .65) from disgust (intensity: M = 3.2, SD = 2.7) for The Ring. Females rated Psycho and The Ring (F (1, 128) = 13.23, p < .001; F (1, 112) = 28.43, p < .001, respectively) as more fearful than males. There were no significant differences in race-ethnicity for fear for Psycho and The Ring (ps > .05). There was no difference among those who had seen and those who had not seen Psycho for fear (p > .05). Individuals who had seen The Ring before rated it less fearful (F (1, 115) = 15.05, p < .001) than who had not.

Sadness

My Girl and The Shawshank Redemption

My Girl elicited a sadness intensity rating of 6.4 (SD = 1.9; see Figure 1a) and the average discreteness score was .96 (range: .00–1.00). The sadness intensity rating for The Shawshank Redemption was higher (M = 6.9, SD = 1.5) and had an average discreteness score of .96 (range: .12–1.00). These films received higher average discreteness scores than the other films. Sadness was least discrete from calmness for both films (Ms = .86 and .91, respectively). Females found My Girl and The Shawshank Redemption to be sadder compared to males (F (1, 114) = 4.62, p = .03; F (1, 134) = 11.52, p = .001, respectively). There was a significant difference in race-ethnicity for sadness for My Girl (F (3, 98) = 4.13, p = .008). Post-hocs revealed that both Caucasian participants (p = .009) and African American participants (p = .06) rated My Girl as sadder compared to Asian American participants. There was no significant difference in race-ethnicity for sadness for The Shawshank Redemption (p > .05). Those who had seen My Girl also produced greater emotions of sadness (F (1, 117) = 4.67, p = .03) compared to those who had not. There were no significant differences in gender and familiarity for The Shawshank Redemption for sadness (ps > .05).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Mean intensity of emotional ratings (a) for My Girl (b) in Crash grouped by gender.

Surprise

The Departed and D.O.A. Both clips were rated low for surprise (M = 4.8, SD = 3.0; M = 4.0, SD = 2.6, respectively). The average discreteness score for surprise for The Departed and D.O.A. was lower than the other film clips (Ms = .68 and .70, respectively). Surprise was least discrete (M = .57) from excitement (M = 4.2, SD = 2.4) for The Departed while it was least discrete (M = .52) from calmness (M = 3.5, SD = 2.5) for D.O.A. Females rated The Departed more surprising (F (1, 133) = 3.40, p = .07) than males. Males rated D.O.A. more disgusting than females (F (1, 115) = 6.36, p = .01). There were no significant differences in race-ethnicity for surprise for The Departed and D.O.A. (ps > .05). Those who had not seen The Departed rated the clip more surprising (F (1, 135) = 36.30, p < .001). Only two participants had seen D.O.A., therefore, group differences could not be analyzed.

Analyses of Arousal and Valence

Overall, the majority of the film clips produced intense emotion ratings (overall range: 3.9–7.0) and there was narrow range of average discreteness scores (overall range: .65-.96). Even so, some emotions were more distinct than others. Therefore, based on the model proposed by Lang and colleagues (1999), the clips were also assessed in terms of participants’ ratings of arousal (relaxed vs. aroused) and valence (unpleasant vs. pleasant). The ratings of the film clips’ relationships to one another were examined in a scatterplot (see Figure 2 & Table 6), with arousal represented on the vertical axis and valence represented on the horizontal axis. The results did resemble other studies examining the two-dimensional affective space represented in a scatterplot (e.g., Christie & Friedman, 2004; Eerola & Vuoskoski, 2011), though they varied somewhat from the U-shaped pattern from the IAPS norming (Lang et al., 1999). Of the current set of film clips, Crash, Psycho, The Fly, and The Ring were illustrative of Quadrant I, representing stimuli that were rated as low valence and high arousal. Quadrant II, which contains stimuli rated as pleasant and arousing, was the least representative of the U-shaped pattern from the IAPS (Lang et al., 1999). It consisted of the films 300, The Bourne Identity, Remember the Titans, and The Departed. My Girl and The Shawshank Redemption, National Lampoon’s Van Wilder, and Gentleman’s Agreement were the films that fell into Quadrant III, which contains stimuli that were rated as unpleasant and relaxing. Quadrant IV, which includes stimuli rated as high valence and low arousal, consisted of the films The Hangover, Modern Times, Wall-E, Pride & Prejudice, Searching for Bobby Fischer, and D.O.A.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Location of film clips in two-dimensional affective space.

Table 6.

Means and Standard Deviations of Affective Dimensions by Film Clips

Affective Dimensions
Pleasure
 Arousal
M SD M SD
Modern Times 3.50 1.1 2.88 1.2
The Hangover 4.35 0.8 2.77 1.3
300 3.28 1.1 3.46 1.2
The Bourne Identity 3.79 1.0 3.60 1.1
Remember the Titans 4.48 0.8 3.67 1.2
Wall-E 4.73 0.6 1.91 1.2
Pride & Prejudice 4.36 0.8 1.61 1.1
Searching for Bobby Fischer 3.53 0.9 1.77 0.8
Crash 1.50 0.7 3.60 0.9
Gentleman’s Agreement 2.39 0.8 2.73 1.0
National Lampoon’s Van Wilder 1.86 1.1 2.95 1.0
The Fly 1.44 0.9 3.79 1.0
Psycho 1.92 0.9 3.81 1.1
The Ring 1.93 1.1 3.96 1.0
My Girl 2.19 0.9 2.61 1.0
The Shawshank Redemption 2.22 1.0 2.62 1.1
D.O.A. 3.20 0.9 2.47 1.1
The Departed 2.87 1.2 3.82 1.0
Open in a new tab

Discussion

This study provides ratings for set of film clips that target elicitation of nine emotions: amusement, anger, calmness, disgust, excitement, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. The majority of the clips intensely and discretely elicited target emotions, and those that did not raised questions about the degree to which certain emotions may overlap. The results also suggest that gender, race-ethnicity, and familiarity are important considerations for emotion studies that use film clips.

Scenes depicted in the clips varied in how intensely and discretely the target emotion was elicited. Some clips had both high average intensity scores and high average discreteness scores above .90 (i.e., The Hangover, Pride & Prejudice, National Lampoon’s Van Wilder, My Girl, and The Shawshank Redemption). Moreover, in scenes from The Hangover (target: amusement) and The Shawshank Redemption (target: sadness) the variability in the discreteness score was low, suggesting that these scenes reliably elicited the target emotion more discretely. For the majority of these film clips, there were few (if any) nontarget emotions with high intensity ratings.

Moderate discrete ratings (ranging from .75-.89) suggested that other clips elicited medium-to-high intensity ratings for several emotions (e.g., Modern Times, The Bourne Identity, 300, Remember the Titans, Wall-E, Searching for Bobby Fischer, Crash, The Fly, and The Ring). In other words, these clips often produced specific nontarget emotions in concert with the target emotion. For example, The Bourne Identity and 300 elicited high levels of excitement, but these ratings overlapped with amusement. Similarly, Remember the Titans and Wall-E elicited high levels of happiness, but had produced high levels of amusement and excitement. These findings echo Gross and Levenson (1995).

Several film clips produced not only low-to-moderate intensity ratings, but also had low average discreteness scores (i.e., Gentleman’s Agreement, Psycho, D.O.A., and The Departed). Two of these film clips (i.e., D.O.A., and The Departed) were selected to represent the emotion surprise. This emotion was consistently accompanied by nontarget emotions such as amusement and excitement. The patterns of overlapping emotions elicited by some of the films may raise questions about using film clips to elicit certain emotions (e.g., surprise). However, it may instead be the case that certain emotions are not experienced as discretely as others (Barrett, 2006). Similar results were found for surprise in an emotion elicitation study using music, where it was noted that surprise is often problematic as a target emotion in emotion elicitation research (Eerola & Vuoskoski, 2011).

A two-dimensional affective space for individual film clips offers an alternative way to map emotions that might not be wholly discrete. For example, the film The Fly (target: disgust) produced both disgust and fear. This film clip fit into an affective dimension of high arousal and unpleasantness. On the other hand, the film National Lampoon’s Van Wilder (target: disgust), which produced both disgust and amusement, fit into the dimension of low arousal and unpleasantness. This suggests that while certain emotions may sometimes be labeled similarly, a single label might refer to the activation of several concurrent dimensions of emotional experience (i.e., anger, disgust, surprise, and happiness). Support for this suggestion is provided by theories that rest on a hybrid model of emotions (Barrett, 2006; Christie & Friedman, 2004; Vytal & Hamann, 2010). Importantly, consideration of these differences may be relevant to researchers who seek to eliminate as much overlap as possible between the emotions being studied. For example, a study examining physiological responses to emotion may not want to use a clip such as National Lampoon’s Van Wilder because of the dissimilar emotions it produces, whereas a film like The Fly may be a better choice.

In addition to creating and validating a new set of stimuli, our study extends prior work by examining potential effects of gender, race-ethnicity, and familiarity. Gender differences in emotion research have been well studied (Barrett, Lane, Sechrest, & Schwartz, 2000; Barrett, Robin, Pietromonaco, & Eyssell, 1998; Fernandez et al., 2012; Glaser, Mendrick, Germain, Lakis, & Lavoie, 2012; Kemp, Silberstein, & Armstrong, Nathan, 2004). Gross and Levenson (1995) found that females reported emotions at a stronger intensity than males, but did not address differences based on specific emotions. Our findings suggest that across film clips, females react more strongly to negative emotions than do males, which has been found in both subjective (Gard & Kring, 2007) and physiological measures (Fernandez et al., 2012; Kemp et al., 2004). Additionally, males react more strongly to positive emotions than females, and they also tend to attribute positive emotions to negatively valenced films (e.g., finding amusement in The Ring). Researchers who wish to elicit emotions in their participants should be aware that these differences are not limited to specific emotions, and that the content of certain scenes in film clips may also produce different effects for males compared to females. For example, while Crash elicited negative responses among all participants, the response for females was more intense. This may have been due to the gender-relevant content in the scene (i.e., sexual assault of a woman by a man). Researchers should be mindful of gender-relevant content when selecting material for stimuli.

While results were not entirely consistent for differences in race-ethnicity, to the best of our knowledge, we are the first of film clip normative studies to examine race-ethnicity differences in our participants. Overall, it appears that Caucasian participants reacted more strongly to both positive and negative valenced clips; however, these findings were not consistent across target emotions. These findings are consistent with research indicating that Caucasian participants express their emotions more openly compared to some cultures (i.e., Asian American participants; Tsai, Chentsova-Dutton, Freire-Bebeau, & Przymus, 2002). However, our findings on racial-ethnic differences were limited because many of our participants had mixed racial-ethnic backgrounds, and thus comparisons were limited in sample size. On the other hand, the diversity of our sample may generalize better.

We also found that familiarity with a film impacted emotional ratings. Positive reactions to the film were strengthened when participants were familiar with the film clips, perhaps due to participants’ recollections of positive memories of their previous film viewing experience. In contrast, when a negative clip was viewed for the first time, negative emotions were higher. This is also not surprising, as someone who has seen the film before knows what to expect from the film clip and may therefore not be as affected as someone viewing it for the first time. In light of these findings, when researchers are conducting emotion elicitation studies, it will be important to control for participant race-ethnicity and familiarity when material is obtained from popular sources.

While our findings show several factors for researchers to consider when conducting emotion-elicitation studies, the elicitation of emotion may be difficult to control. In addition, in our study, the social impact of participants watching and rating the clips in small groups may have impacted the ratings, particularly because social context can affect reactions and emotional perceptions without awareness (cf. Bourgeois & Hess, 2008), although we tried to minimize this by spacing small groups of participants in a large lecture hall. Many other factors could play a role as well, for instance at what part in an experimental protocol a participant views a clip for emotion elicitation. Rottenberg and colleagues (2007) provide a detailed, cogent consideration of such contextual issues for researchers to bear in mind.

These results provide standardized ratings for a set of film scenes for emotion research. Such standardized sets of film clips allow for comparability across labs. The selected clips generally elicited specific intense and discrete emotions, which were also captured along dimensions of valence and arousal. The results of this study also underscore the importance of considering factors such as gender, race-ethnicity, and familiarity.

Appendix

Appendix A.

Information on film clips and target emotions.

Title Target Emotion Year Categories Start Time End Time Total Time Description
Planet Earth Introduction 2006 N/A N/A N/A 1:01 Introduction sequence from Planet Earth series. Shows animals and nature to background of exciting music.
Modern Times Amusement 1936 Black and White 3:01 6:34 2:59 Scene depicts Charlie Chaplin working in a factory. Starts with the sound of an opening bell and the factory starting operation. Comedy ensues when Chaplin makes mistakes on the assembly line. Ends when he resumes work after a bathroom break.
The Hangover Amusement 2009 New 22:41 28:28 5:47 Starts on a scene of four men giving toasts on a rooftop. The men wake up the next morning to a bizarre scene after a night of heavy drinking. Ends as the men and a baby stand silently in an elevator.
300 Excitement 2006 New 44:16 46:31 2:15 Scene depicts a battle between Persians and Spartans. Starts with an "earthquake" (actually caused by approach of Persian army). The armies approach one another as tension builds. Ends at the beginning of the fight.
The Bourne Identity Excitement 2002 New 52:18 55:32 3:14 Starts when cops pull up alongside a car. A chase scene through streets of Paris ensues. Ends as the car and a motorcycle are driving up a hill.
Remember the Titans Happiness 2000 New 1:39:02 1:45:10 6:08 Scene starts with coach saying "listen up, this is our time". A team wins its final football game and celebrates. End right before the music changes and the voiceover begins.
Wall-E Happiness 2008 New 58:51 1:02:06 3:15 Starts as a white robot flies forward. Two robots dance in outer space and fall in love as people in the spaceship watch and music plays. Ends when the two robots fly away together (before shot of big spaceship).
Pride and Prejudice Calmness 2005 New 1:13 2:50 1:37 Starts on scene of sunrise with birds chirping, just after title of movie disappears. A woman walks around a house. Ends at the pause in music just before a conversation begins.
Searching for Bobby Fischer Calmness 1993 13:12 16:31 3:19 Starts on a scene of woman and children running down a hallway. A man discovers his son knows how to play chess and plays a game with his son. Ends when the boy gets off his chair after the game.
Crash Anger 2004 New 15:34 22:07 6:33 Scene starts in a diner with a man talking on the phone (conversation starts with word "Look") (sets up context for later racism). A cop pulls over a black couple and sexually assaults the wife in front of her husband. Ends with the woman getting back in the car and closing door.
Gentleman S Agreement Anger 1947 Black and White 1:25:27 1:28:22 2:55 A man drives up to and enters a hotel. He tries to get a hotel room, but cannot because he is Jewish. Scene ends when he walks out while people stare at him.
National Lampoon’s Van Wilder Disgust 2002 New 47:22 50:29 3:07 Scene opens on three men in surgical masks holding pastries. Dog semen is inserted into the pastries. A woman delivers pastries to a fraternity, where men eat them. Ends right before the men start to vomit.
The Fly Disgust 1986 1:25:08 1:26:13 1:05 Cut in on a man on the ground with a gun. A creature (half man half fly) vomits digestive enzymes onto the man. End as fly-man looks at the passed-out body of the other man.
Psycho Fear 1960 Black and White 43:22 48:30 5:12 A man checks the guestbook of a hotel and walks up to a woman’s room. The woman is stabbed to death in the shower. Scene ends with a shot of blood draining into shower drain.
The Ring Fear 2002 New 1:39:28 1:42:13 2:45 Scene starts on a man working. His TV turns itself on, and eventually a girl crawls out of the TV and pulls her hair out of her face. (The scene is interspersed with shots of a woman trying to reach man.) Ends on static.
My Girl Sadness 1991 1:23:14 1:25:47 2:33 Starts when a minister walks up to a podium. Scene depicts a young boy's funeral. The boy's friend does not understand her friend's death, tries to give him his glasses so that he'll be able to see, and cries. Scene ends as she runs out of the house.
The Shawshank Redemption Sadness 1994 1:00:49 1:05:03 4:14 Starts with an old man leaving prison. He narrates how hard he finds it to adjust to the outside world and then hangs himself. Ends on image of him hanging (right before scene starts to change).
D.O.A. Surprise 1950 Black and White 0:38 2:52 2:14 Scene opens on a man walking towards a building. He walks down a hallway and turns into the homicide division room, saying he is there to report a murder. Scene ends when he says HE was murdered and the man across the table reacts with surprise (along with the music).
The Departed Surprise 2006 New 2:16:20 2:19:25 3:05 Starts as the camera pans over a scene on a rooftop. Scene shows a confrontation between two men. Ends after DiCaprio has been suddenly shot, on the image of Matt Damon standing in an elevator looking shocked.
Open in a new tab

Appendix B.

Order of film clips for each of the three sequences for the two response sets.

Set 1 Set 2
Order Sequence 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3
1 Searching for Bobby Fischer 300 The Ring The Fly Pride and Prejudice The Departed
2 D.O.A. The Hangover The Hangover Pride and Prejudice Modern Times Modern Times
3 The Hangover Crash My Girl Modern Times Psycho The Fly
4 The Ring Searching for Bobby Fischer D.O.A. Remember the Titans Remember the Titans Pride and Prejudice
5 300 The Ring WALL-E Gentleman’s Agreement The Departed The Shawshank Redemption
6 National Lampoon’s Van Wilder My Girl Crash Psycho Gentleman’s Agreement The Bourne Identity
7 Wall-E Wall-E 300 The Bourne Identity The Bourne Identity Remember the Titans
8 Crash National Lampoon’s Van Wilder  National Lampoon’s Van Wilder The Shawshank Redemption The Fly Gentleman’s Agreement
9 My Girl D.O.A. Searching for Bobby Fischer The Departed The Shawshank Redemption Psycho
Open in a new tab

Note. Each sequence began with Planet Earth.

Footnotes

1

In our study, film clips depicting surprise were negative; we note that surprise has been depicted positively and negatively in prior work (e.g., Vrticka, Lordier, Bediou, & Sander, 2013).

2

There was only once instance in which one participant viewed the clips alone.

References

  1. Barrett LF (2006). Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the experience of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(1), 20–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barrett LF, Lane RD, Sechrest L, Schwartz GE (2000). Sex differences in emotional awareness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1027–1035. [Google Scholar]
  3. Barrett LF, Robin L, Pietromonaco PR, & Eyssell KM (1998). Are women the “more emotional” sex? Evidence from emotional experiences in social context. Cognition and Emotion, 12(4), 555–578. [Google Scholar]
  4. Boiten FA (1998). The effects of emotional behaviour on components of the respiratory cycle. Biological Psychology, 49, 29–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bourgeois P & Hess U (2008). The impact of social context on mimicry. Biological Psychology, 77(3), 343–352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Christie IC, & Friedman BH (2004). Autonomic specificity of discrete emotion and dimensions of affective space: A multivariate approach. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 51(2), 143–153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Eerola T, & Vuoskoski JK (2011). A comparison of the discrete and dimensional models of emotion in music. Psychology of Music, 39(1), 18–49. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ekman P, & Friesen WV (1976). Facial Action Coding System: A Technique for the Measurement of Facial Movement, . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Erisman SM, & Roemer L (2010). A preliminary investigation of the effects of experimentally induced mindfulness on emotional responding to film clips. Emotion, 10(1), 72–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fernandez C, Pascual JC, Soler J, Elices M, Portella MJ, & Fernandez-Abascal E (2012). Physiological responses induced by emotion-eliciting films. Applied Psychophysiology and Feedback, 37, 73–79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gard MG, & Kring AM (2007). Sex differences in the time course of emotion. Emotion, 7(2), 429–437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Glaser E, Mendrick A, Germain M, Lakis N, & Lavoie ME (2012). Sex differences in memory of emotional images. A behavioral and electrophysiological investigation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 85(1), 17–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gross JJ, & Levenson RW (1995). Emotion elicitation using films. Cognition and Emotion, 9(1), 87–108. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hagemann D, Naumann E, Maier S, Becker G, Lurken A, & Bartussek D (1999). The assessment of affective reactivity using films: validity, reliability, and sex differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 627–639. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hewig J, Hagemann D, Seifert J, Gollwitzer M, Naumann E, & Bartussek D (2005). A revised film set for the induction of basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 19(7), 1095–1109. [Google Scholar]
  16. Izard CE, Dougherty FE, Bloxom BM, & Kotsch NE (1974). The Differential Emotions Scale: A method of measuring the meaning of subjective experience of discrete emotions. Nashville: Vanderbilt University, Department of Psychology. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jung H, & Young MJ (2012). The de-biasing effect of incidental anger on other provided anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25, 435–442. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kemp AH, Silberstein RB, & Armstrong PJ, Nathan PJ (2004). Gender differences in the cortical electrophysiological processing of visual stimuli. NeuroImage, 21, 632–646. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lang PJ, Bradley MM, & Cuthbert BN (1999). International affective picture system (IAPS): technical manual and affective ratings. Gainesville: University of Florida, Center for Research in Psychophysiology [Google Scholar]
  20. Levenson RW, 1992. Autonomic nervous system differences among emotions. Psychological Science, 3(1), 23–27. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lundqvist D, Flykt A, & Öhman A (1998). The Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces (KDEF): Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Psychology section, Karolinska Institutet.
  22. McHugo GJ, Smith CA, & Lanzetta JT (1982). The structure of self-reports of emotional responses to film segments. Motivation and Emotion, 6(4), 365–385. [Google Scholar]
  23. Miller SL, Zielaskowski K, Maner JK, & Plant EA (2012). Self-protective motivation and avoidance of heuristically threatening outgroups. Evolution of Human Behavior, 33(6), 726–735. [Google Scholar]
  24. Philippot P (1993). Inducing and assessing differentiated emotion-feeling states in the laboratory. Cognition and Emotion, 7(2), 171–193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Rohrmann S, Hopp H, Schienle A, & Hodapp V (2009). Emotion regulation, disgust sensitivity, and psychophysiological responses to a disgust-inducing film. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 22(2), 215–236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rottenberg J, Ray RD, & Gross JJ (2007). Emotion Elicitation Using Films In Coan JA & Allen JJB (Eds.), Handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment (pp. 9–29). New York, USA: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Sato W, Noguchi M, & Yoshikawa S (2007). Emotion elicitation effect of films in a Japanese sample. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(7), 863–874. [Google Scholar]
  28. Schaefer A, Nils F, Sanchez X, & Philippot P (2010). Assessing the effectiveness of a large database of emotion-eliciting films: a new tool for emotion researchers. Cognition and Emotion, 24(7), 1153–1172. [Google Scholar]
  29. Thake J, & Zelenski JM (2013). Neuroticism, BIS, and reactivity to discrete negative mood induction. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(2), 208–213. [Google Scholar]
  30. Tomarken AJ, Davidson RJ, & Henriques JB (1990). Resting frontal brain asymmetry predicts affective responses to films. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 791–801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Tsai JL, Chentsova-Dutton Y, Freire-Bebeau L, & Przymus DE (2002). Emotional expression and physiology in european americans and hmong americans. Emotion, 2(4), 380–397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. von Leupoldt A, Rohde J, Beregova A, Thordsen-Sorensen I, zur Nieden J, & Dahme B (2007). Films for eliciting emotional states in children. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 606–609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Vianna EPM, & Tranel D (2006). Gastric myoelectrical activity as an index of emotional arousal. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 61, 70–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Vrticka P, Lordier L, Bediou B, & Sander D (2013). Human amygdala response to dynamic facial expressions of positive and negative surprise. Emotion, 14(1), 161–169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Vytal K, & Hamann S (2010). Neuroimaging support for discrete correlates of basic emotions: A voxel-based meta-analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2864–2885. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Waldstein SR, Kop WJ, Schmidt LA, Haufler AJ, Krantz DS, & Fox NA (2000). Frontal electrocortical and cardiovascular reactivity during happiness and anger. Biological Psychology, 55(1), 3–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES