| Title |
Testing the Effectiveness of 3D Film for Laboratory-Based Studies of Emotion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0105554 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel L. Bride, Sheila E. Crowell, Brian R. Baucom, Erin A. Kaufman, Caitlin G. O'Connor, Chloe R. Skidmore, Mona Yaptangco |
| Abstract |
Research in psychology and affective neuroscience often relies on film as a standardized and reliable method for evoking emotion. However, clip validation is not undertaken regularly. This presents a challenge for research with adolescent and young adult samples who are exposed routinely to high-definition (HD) three-dimensional (3D) stimuli and may not respond to older, validated film clips. Studies with young people inform understanding of emotional development, dysregulated affect, and psychopathology, making it critical to assess whether technological advances improve the study of emotion. In the present study, we examine whether 3D film is more evocative than 2D using a tightly controlled within-subjects design. Participants (n = 408) viewed clips during a concurrent psychophysiological assessment. Results indicate that both 2D and 3D technology are highly effective tools for emotion elicitation. However, 3D does not add incremental benefit over 2D, even when individual differences in anxiety, emotion dysregulation, and novelty seeking are considered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 33% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| France | 1 | 6% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Belgium | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 78% |
| Scientists | 3 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 58 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 12 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 23 | 39% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 25% |