Lateralisation of diffuse positive and negative affect: Ascribing valence to ambiguous stimuli

Abstract

The available evidence regarding the lateralisation of affect is rather divergent. Interestingly, the common procedure in previous research on affective lateralisation has been to measure hemispheric dominance following exposure to concrete affective stimuli. Therefore, prior research seems to tap primarily into the lateralisation of specific approach–avoidance motivations rather than diffuse affective states. The present research adopted an alternative methodological approach that excluded approach–avoidance motivations and merely studied the lateralised nature of diffuse affect. Participants evaluated ambiguous stimuli presented in either the right or left visual field. Results showed that stimuli presented in the left visual field were significantly more often ascribed a positive meaning compared to information in the right visual field. The present findings are compatible with related lateralised processes and underscore the necessity of distinguishing between specific motivations and diffuse affect.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by grants of The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO grant 402–01–513 and VENI-grant 451–04–063).

We thank Ian McGregor, Philip Gable, and Madelijn Strick for their helpful comments on a draft of this article.

Notes

¹Note that the results of this bipolar measure can be framed in terms of negative as well as positive evaluations.

²This effect was replicated in an unpublished data set using slightly modified stimulus material, t(99)=2.04, p=.045, η²=.04.

³Additional one-sampled t-tests comparing the positive valence ascriptions in each visual field to the chance value of 11 revealed that the number of positive valence ascriptions in the LVF was significantly above chance, t(54)=2.25, p=.028. The number of positive valence ascriptions in the RVF lay below the chance level of 11, but failed to reach significance, t(54)=−1.19, p=.23. It should be noted, however, that chance level does not necessarily reflect the true baseline value, as there is no natural baseline for valence ascriptions.

⁴Performing the analysis on log-transformed reaction times led to similar results.