Personality and Individual Differences 77 (2015) 143–148

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality effects and sex differences on the International Affective

Picture System (IAPS): A Spanish and Swiss study
Anton Aluja a,b,⇑, Jérôme Rossier c, Ángel Blanch a,b, Eduardo Blanco a,b, Maite Martí-Guiu a,b,
Ferran Balada b,d
a
Department of Psychology, University of Lleida, Catalonia, Spain
b
Institute of Biomedical Research, Lleida, Spain
c
Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
d
Autonomous University of Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present study analyses the relationship between Anxiety and Impulsivity personality factors and
Received 29 July 2014 emotions, by controlling for country and sex effects in a sample of Spanish and Swiss university students.
Received in revised form 10 December 2014 Emotions were assessed through the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) of pictures (valence/
Accepted 27 December 2014
arousal) using the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) procedure. The mixed valence/arousal groups’ pictures
were formed according to Tok, Koyuncu, Dural and Catikkas procedure (2010). Results showed that
females scored significantly higher in Anxiety factor and men in Impulsivity factor in both countries.
Keywords:
The effect of sex was highly significant for Anxiety (N2: 0.12), but there was no significant effect of the
IAPS
SAM
country. Also, females obtained higher scores in the four valence/arousal pictures groups. The sex effect
Personality was particularly robust for negative valence–high arousal (N2: 0.13). Impulsivity correlated with high rat-
Anxiety ings of positive valence–high arousal while Anxiety correlated with high ratings of negative valence–high
Impulsivity arousal and with high ratings of negative valence–low arousal in both sexes, although scores were higher
for females. Structural Equation Modelling confirmed these relationships. Nevertheless, Anxiety and
Impulsivity explained only a small amount of the accounted variance of the self-reported valence and
arousal of the pictures.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the neurophysiological components of human emotion through

Personality consists in an integration of feelings, actions,
thoughts and desires that are emotionally processed (Revelle &
Scherer, 2010). Therefore, personality, values and emotions can
be related (Aluja & García, 2004; Kaspar & Köni, 2012). The Interna-
tional Affective Picture System has been used extensively in the
study of emotions (IAPS; Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1990, 1997).
Emotions evoked by the IAPS have been assessed both subjectively
and objectively.
The subjective assessment of IAPS uses a pictographic system
called Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) to assess the emotional con-
tent of the pictures in valence (ranging from feeling pleasant to
unpleasant) and arousal (ranging from feeling quiet to active)
dimensions (Bradley & Lang, 1994). The objective assessment is
based on the recording of electrophysiological data or neuroimag-
ing techniques. Lang et al. (1990) developed a framework to study
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of Lleida, Avda.
De l’Estudi General, 4, 25001, Lleida, Catalonia, Spain.
E-mail address: aluja@pip.udl.cat (A. Aluja).
the startle reflex, a non-voluntary response in an electromyogra-
phy signal recorded from the orbicularis oculi muscle. According
to Lang’s model, the emotional system subdivided into aversive
(unpleasant) and appetitive (pleasant) motivational systems.
Unpleasant pictures relate with high startle reflex response, while
pleasant pictures relate with low startle reflex response.
Personality results of this field have shown that Neuroticism is
related to negative emotions and extraversion to positive ones
(Costa & McCrae, 1986). Higher scorers in the Eysenck’s Neuroti-
cism factor have generally shown a reduced startle reflex to dis-
gust-inducing film-clips, although their responses were enhanced
in fear-inducing film-clips. Those individuals scoring higher in
Neuroticism show greater startle reactions under fearful condi-
tions than those who score lower in Neuroticism, even though
the latter show greater startle when evoking disgust. A possible
explanation could be that Neuroticism seems to affect the motiva-
tional power of the adaptative mechanisms that operate in front of
aversive stimuli (Wilson, Kumari, Gray, & Corr, 2000). Subjects
scoring high in Cloninger’s Harm Avoidance show a modulation
to unpleasant pictures (Corr, Kumari, Wilson, Cleckley, & Gray,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.058
0191-8869/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
144 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 77 (2015) 143–148
1997). Moreover, Canli, Sivers, Withfield, Gotlib, and Gabrieli
(2002) report a positive correlation between extraversion and acti-
vation of the amygdala indicating that emotional responses to
pleasant stimuli evoked by happy facial expressions are modulated
by extraversion. Tok, Koyuncu, Dural, and Catikkas (2010) examine
the relationship between subjective IAPS emotions and the Big Five
personality model and show positive correlations between Neurot-
icism and openness with high ratings of positive valence–low
arousal pictures, and negative correlations between extraversion
and positive valence–high arousal. The structural equation analysis
shows that variance accounted for personality range from 4% to
14% (average 7%).
Gray (1981) reformulates the Eysenck’s model by incorporating
the constructs of Anxiety (Behavioral Inhibition System –BIS–) and
Impulsiveness (Behavioral Approach System –BAS–). Subjects scor-
ing high in Neuroticism and low in extraversion would be anxious,
while those scoring high in Neuroticism and extraversion would be
impulsive. Corr (2002), according to the two independent subsys-
tems, hypothesised that affective reactions to unpleasant stimuli
should be stronger in participants with high Anxiety, with no
effects of Impulsivity; and affective reactions to pleasant stimuli
should be stronger in participants with high Impulsivity, with no
effects of Anxiety. Despite of this, predictions based on this were
not confirmed.
In the second Gray’s formulation, the theory incorporates sev-
eral changes related to Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) that
can be found in McNaughton and Corr (2004, 2008). The most
significant modification was the parsing of fear from Anxiety, a pri-
mary fight/flight/freeze system (FFFS) underlying responsiveness
to conditioned and unconditioned threat, while Anxiety was now
driven by the revised BIS which now detected and resolved the
potential conflict between the BAS and the FFFS.
However, several authors have found a relationship between
Gray’s RST and the emotional content pictures of IAPS. Caseras
et al. (2006) report a significant interaction between the Sensitivity
to Punishment (SP) group (high vs low) and emotional content
stimuli. The pictures that evoked an increased startle response were
those of accidents, threats of interpersonal violence, mutilation
scenes and bloody injuries (for details, see Caseras et al., 2006). Only
high SP participants show an increase of the startle response. Higher
scores in Impulsivity and Sensitivity to Reward (SR) should relate to
greater modulation of the startle reflex when exposed to pleasant
pictures (Aluja, Blanch, Blanco, & Balada, 2015).
The aim of the current study is to explore and analyse the rela-
tionships among Anxiety, Impulsivity and emotions measured sub-
jectively by the SAM. We use different personality scales from
Eysenck’s, Gray’s and Zuckerman’s models and the assessment of
the IAPS pictures in two countries. Nevertheless, we assume that
other Anxiety or extraversion measures as Cloninger’s and Big Five
questionnaires, as harm avoidance, Neuroticism or extraversion
are represented in similar personality constructs. According to
the literature, it is expected that inhibited or anxious subjects pres-
ent a higher response to unpleasant pictures while those with
impulsive personality traits obtain higher scores in pleasant pic-
tures. These relationships are supposed to be stronger in females,
because they tend to present higher emotional levels than males
(Bradley, Codispoti, Sabatinelli, & Lang, 2001). Important differ-
ences by country are not expected.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The sample was formed by 847 students of Psychology of the
universities of Lausanne (Switzerland; n = 428; Males: 175;
females: 253) and Lleida (Spain; n = 419; males 131; females:
288). The mean age of the Swiss students was 24.17 (SD: 8.36)
and mean age of the Spanish students was 21.65 (SD: 3.85). There
were significant age differences between Spanish and Swiss sub-
jects (p < 0.001; d: 0.39).
2.2. Selected IAPS pictures
There were 60 pictures of the International Affective Picture
System (IAPS) classified into 5 groups depending on their extreme
scores in affective valence and arousal (high or low) according to
the Spanish norms (Moltó et al., 1999): (a) 12 pleasant-high arou-
sal, (b) 12 pleasant-low arousal, (c) 12 unpleasant-high arousal, (d)
12 unpleasant-low arousal, and (e) 12 neutral. In line with Tok
et al. (2010), neutral pictures were not used in the current data
analysis, as we focus on pleasant and unpleasant pictures. Never-
theless, we consider the neutral pictures for future analysis.
2.3. Personality questionnaires
The Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ)
consists in 99 items which measure the following personality
domains: Impulsive Unsocialized Sensation Seeking (ImpSS),
Neuroticism-Anxiety (N-Anx), Aggression-Hostility (Agg-Host),
Activity (Act) and Sociability (Sy). Alpha reliability coefficients of
the ZKPQ range between 0.72 and 0.83 (Zuckerman, Kuhlman,
Teta, Joireman, & Kraft, 1993). We only used ImpSS, N-Anx and
Agg-Host scales.
The I7 (IVE, Impulsiveness, Venturesomeness and Empathy) is a
54-item questionnaire in a yes/no format that includes three
scales: Impulsivity (Imp; 19 items), Venturesomeness (Ven; 16
items) and Empathy (Emp; 19 items). The alphas for Impulsivity,
Venturesomeness and Empathy were 0.84, 0.85 and 0.69, respec-
tively, for males; and 0.83, 0.84 and 0.69, for females (Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1978). We only used Venturesomeness and Empathy
scales because Impulsivity is closely related to the ImpSS of the
ZKPQ (Aluja & Blanch, 2007).
The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Ques-
tionnaire (SPSRQ) is a 48-item questionnaire in a yes/no format
that includes two 24-item scales: Sensitivity to Punishment (SP)
and Sensitivity to Reward (SR) (Torrubia, Avila, Moltó, & Caseras,
2001). The alphas for SP and SR alpha were 0.75 and 0.83. The
SPSRQ was developed according to the first formulation of Gray’s
RST.
2.4. Procedure
The slides of the 60 pictures were projected in lecturing time.
Below each of the examples slides, we inserted the SAM. For the
60 pictures, the subjects were asked to assess both valence and
arousal dimensions using the SAM procedure in a paper and pencil
form (See Fig. 1). There was an inter-trial interval of 15 s between
pictures, so there was enough time to assess both variables. After
the projection of the pictures, students filled in the personality
questionnaires.
With the purpose to represent in one single variable the valence
and arousal scores of a group of pictures, a weighted score (s) was
calculated according to the region of the valence and arousal
dimension1 for n = 24 pictures, twelve for valence (V), and twelve
for arousal (A), and where j and k are constant values representing
0.75 for positive valence and high arousal, and 0.25 for negative
valence and low arousal. Four s values were obtained for the mixed
valence/arousal groups of pictures: positive valence–high arousal
Pn
1
s¼ i¼1 ðV i j þ Ai kÞ.
 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 77 (2015) 143–148
VALENCE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Happy Unhappy
Fig. 1. The Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) used to rate the affective dimensions of valence and arousal.
(PVHA), negative valence–high arousal (NVHA), positive valence–
low arousal (PVLA) and negative valence–high arousal (NVLA). This
procedure was the same as used by Tok et al. (2010) (See Fig. 2).
2.5. Data analysis
For each country, we compared the means of personality ques-
tionnaires and the pictures assessments for men and women by
using Cohen’s d (1988). The effects of sex, country and gender x
country in a general linear model (GML) were also controlled. Per-
sonality inventories were grouped into Anxiety and Impulsivity
factors according to principal components analysis. There were
obtained partial correlations controlling for age and country
between the assessment of personality traits and pictures. Several
regression models were obtained by SEM in order to observe the
contribution of personality to the assessment of unpleasant images
according to sex.
3. Results
3.1. Anxiety and Impulsivity personality factors
We have done an exploratory factor analysis by means of prin-
cipal components and an orthogonal rotation with the purpose to
study the relationships among the seven personality variables.
The results were integrated in two factors with Scree test and
eigenvalue P1 criteria: one for Anxiety and another for Impulsiv-
ity. The Anxiety factor was integrated by N-Anx (0.762), SP (.82)
and Emp (0.55) (27.02% of the variance) and the Impulsivity factor
by ImpSS (0.69), Agg-Host (0.68), SR (0.69) and Ven (41) (30.27%
of the variance). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Ade-
quacy was 0.63. The Bartlett’s test of Sphericity obtained an approx-
imated Chi-Square of 1363.191 for 21 degrees of freedom (p < 0.001).
Notice that Agg-Host is grouped into the Impulsivity factor. In this
case, Agg-Host correlated 0.29 (p < 0.001) with ImpSS and 0.36
(p < 0.001) with SR. The correlation between both factors was zero.
3.2. Comparisons by sex for country, alpha reliability and country and
sex effects
Table 1 displays the comparisons by sex and country of the per-
sonality variables and the 4 groups of slides in the affective valence
and arousal combination (Tok et al., 2010). Women appeared to be
more anxious (d:0.49 and 0.93.; Cohen, 1988) and more soci-
able in the Spanish than in the Swiss sample (d: 0.56 and
0.12), more sensitive to punishment in Switzerland than in Spain
(d:0.46 and 0.16) and more empathic in both countries (d:0.69
and 1.16). In contrast, men tend to appear as more impulsive (d:
0.18 and 0.31), more sensitive to reward (d: 0.49 and 0.46) and
2
Factorial loading.
145
AROUSAL
9 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Aroused Calm
9
Arousal
5
Spain Boys
Spain Girls
Switz Boys
Switz Girls
1
1 5 9
Valence
Fig. 2. Placement of the 60 IAPS pictures in a 2-dimensional plotted in affective
space defined by SAM valence and arousal ratings.
more daring (d: 0.47 and 0.62). Females scored significantly higher
in the Anxiety factor and males in the Impulsivity factor. Results
have a similar tendency in both countries.
Women obtained higher ratings in NVHA, PVLA and NVLA.
Results were also similar in both countries. There was an average
medium effect of the country in Neuroticism-Anxiety (N2: 0.06)
and NVLA (N2: 0.09), but the effect of sex was larger in Empathy
(N2: 0.16), and in the Anxiety factor (N2: 0.11 and NVHA (N2:
0.13). There was not a significant effect of sex by country. The reli-
ability of personality scales and pictures assessment was satisfac-
tory, except in the case of the Empathy scale in both countries.
3.3. Correlations between personality and IAPS pictures
Table 2 displays a correlation matrix between the groups of
combined valence/arousal pictures and personality variables by
controlling for sex and country in the entire sample. PVHA corre-
late with Impulsivity (ImpSS, SR, and Venturesomeness) and Anx-
iety (N-Anx, SP and Empathy) with NVHA and NVLA.
3.4. Structural Equation Modelling analysis (SEM)
Considering the strong sex differences obtained in the assess-
ment of valence and arousal dimensions in both countries and
the sex differences in personality, we analysed the effect of both
in the subjective pictures assessment (SAM) using a Structural
Equation Modelling analysis (SEM). A SEM analysis addressing
the four models (PVHA, NVHA, PVLA, NVLA by males, females
and all together) was performed by using the AMOS Statistical
Package (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999).
 146 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 77 (2015) 143–148

N-Anx: Neuroticism-Anxiety; SP: Sensitivity to Punishment; Emp: Empathy; ImpSS: Impulsive Sensation Seeking; Agg-Host: Aggression-Hostility; SR: Sensitivity to Reward; Ven: Venturesomeness; PVHA: positive valence–high
The results of the four models are displayed in Table 3. The
effect of personality on the Anxiety factor was stronger and signif-
Country  sex effects

icant in females in NVHA and NVLA respectively (v2:113.21;

0.01

0.01
0.01

0.01

0.02
0.00

0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
N2

p < 0.001; GFI: 0.96; CFI: 0.93, TLI: 0.83 and RMSEA = 0.09;
v2:103.19; p < 0.001; GFI: 0.96; CFI: 0.90, TLI: 0.83 and
RMSEA = 0.08) (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The variance accounted
for 3% (R2: 0.01 and 0.03). The effect of personality on the Impulsiv-
12.17
9.44
3.64

9.77
0.93

0.42

0.25
0.33

0.11
17.04
4.04
0.05

0.05

0.70
ity factor was also stronger and significant just in females in PVHA
F

(v2:113.21; p < 0.001; GFI: 0.96; CFI: 0.90, TLI: 0.83 and
0.16

0.12

0.13
0.10
0.02

0.01

0.05
0.06

0.03

0.08
0.03
0.00

0.00

0.00
RMSEA = 0.09). The variance accounted for 3% (R2: 0.03). Moreover,
N2

females obtained a significant relationship with NVHA and NVLA

Sex effects

group pictures with similar goodness-of fit-indices. Nevertheless,

97.51
17.93

43.27
55.96

26.92

76.46
6.37
165.52

0.22

112.29

0.37
126.96

25.80
1.06

the accounted variance was low (1% and 6%).

F

4. Discussion
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.01

0.01

0.02
0.02

0.02
0.04

0.09
0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00
Country effects(1)

N2

We developed Anxiety and Impulsivity independent factors,

which were obtained through a principal components analysis.
.033
6.48
0.56
19.48

15.19
14.53

15.69
37.84

85.74
4.60

1.30

1.01
0.30
28.02

The Anxiety factor was formed by Neuroticism-Anxiety, Empathy

F(2)

and Sensitivity to Punishment, while the Impulsivity factor was

formed by Impulsive Unsocialized Sensation Seeking, Aggression-
0.78

0.51
0.78
0.72

0.78

0.94
0.95
0.92
0.94
0.80

0.70

Hostility, Venturesomeness and Sensitivity to Reward. Notice that,

a
–

–
–

in this case, Aggression-Hostility is grouped into the Impulsivity

factor. An explanation for this can be that Unsocialized Sensation
1.16
0.93
0.46

0.31
0.11
0.46
0.62

0.42

0.69
0.33
0.36
1.03
0.07

0.00

Seeking presents a high correlation with Eysenck’s Psychoticism,

d

which is also related to Aggression-Hostility Zuckerman’s person-

ality traits (Aluja, Escorial, García, García, Blanch, & Zuckerman,
8.14
4.58

2.13

3.49
3.65

9.14

3.19
0.87
0.96
23.18
4.60

4.08
3.07

7.05

2013).
Females (n = 253)

Note: (1) Effect size N2: small: 0.01; medium: 0.06; large: 0.13. (2)F significance: >4.04: p < 0.05; >6.48: p < 0.01; >10.17: p < 0.001.
SD

No country or personality effects were found, except for a med-

ium effect in the Anxiety factor, possibly mediated by sex differ-
ences. Previous studies in personality variables using Swiss and
0.24
0.13
128.86
23.92

15.48

74.19
24.14
10.81
10.97

9.26

8.46
6.90
9.70

70.70
Mean

Spanish samples did not show important country differences

arousal; NVHA: negative valence–high arousal. Positive valence–low arousal; NVLA: negative valence–low arousal.

(Aluja, Rossier, Garcia, & Verardi, 2005). We found only a medium

country effect in negative valence–low arousal IAPS pictures group.
0.91
0.96
25.83
11.57
8.69
4.21
4.67
2.75
3.94
3.51

3.23

7.21
3.51
4.00
Males (n = 175)

This lack of significant differences in IAPS pictures has been found

SD

in other cross-cultural studies (Drače, Efendić, Kusturica, & Landžo,

Switzerland

2013). Nevertheless, culture can affect the subjective assessment of

24.51

11.39

71.85
22.93
8.84

10.49
7.25

10.62
0.67
0.27
128.68
12.70

63.70
6.70
Mean

some content of IAPS’ pictures. For instance, the affective reactions

of Chinese and American adults towards IAPS are similar but signif-
icantly different in erotic and facial pictures (Hu, Wei, & Guo,
0.73
0.82

0.75
0.74
0.75
0.82

0.92
0.97
0.96
0.93
0.40

2005). Spain (Catalonia) and Switzerland (French speaking area)

a

–
–
Means comparisons by sex for country, alpha reliability and country and sex effects.

share a similar culture.

We found a medium to large sex effect for the Anxiety factor
0.49
0.16
0.69
0.18

0.49
0.47
0.51
0.33

0.94
0.38
0.10

0.03

0.08
1.00

and high ratings of negative valence–high arousal and positive

d

valence–low arousal; and a small effect for negative valence–low

3.54

5.18

3.82
3.61
3.94
3.88

5.87

2.53
0.99
0.99
21.57
4.50

2.01

6.06
Females (n = 288)
SD

Table 2
Pearson correlations between self-reported valence and arousal combination groups
and personality for males, females and all subjects.
136.46
21.53

11.84
15.25

75.11

26.14
9.66
7.76
9.17

0.29
0.14

76.80
10.08

7.60
Mean

PVHA NVHA PVLA NVLA

M F M F M F M F
N-Anx .04 .01 .05 .10 .02 .02 .07 .19
0.92

25.62
4.47

4.53
2.89
3.93
3.54
4.84
3.83

3.53
4.10

1.10

10.90
8.70

SP .01 .06 .16 .05 .10 .19

Males (n = 131)

.08 .02
SD

Emp .06 .02 .10 .11 .08 .07 .00 .10

ImpSS .08 .17 .02 .09 .12 .01 .03 .03
7.92

10.36
7.64

9.41

70.26
0.21

134.57
21.92

13.66

11.26

67.35
0.20
11.03

25.08

Agg-Host .04 .06 .02 .12 .13 .02 .02 .12

Mean
Spain

SR .10 .10 .05 .03 .11 .00 .01 .04

Ven .19 .28 .02 .12 .07 .05 .05 .13
Anxiety .02 .10 .12 .14 .03 .02 .12 .20
Venturesomeness

Impulsive factor

Impulsivity .12 .22 .04 .02 .16 .02 .01 .00

Anxiety factor

Note: r P 0.09; p < 0.05; r P 11, p < 0.01; r P 15 p < 0.001. N-Anx: Neuroticism-
Agg-Host
Empathy

Anxiety; SP: Sensitivity to Punishment; Emp: Empathy; ImpSS: Impulsive Sensation

N-Anx

ImpSS

NVHA
PVHA

NVLA
PVLA

Seeking; Agg-Host: Aggression-Hostility; SR: Sensitivity to Reward; Ven: Venture-

Table 1

Age

SR
SP

someness; PVHA: positive valence–high arousal; NVHA: negative valence–high

arousal. Positive valence–low arousal; NVLA: negative valence–low arousal.
 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 77 (2015) 143–148 147

Table 3
Maximum likelihood parameter estimation for suggested path model: Estimatesa, T-values R2 and goodness-of-fit indices.

PVHA NVHA PVLA NVLA

M F M F M F M F
a
Anxiety .98 .09 .36 2.03⁄⁄ .21 .19 .23 .88⁄⁄⁄
a
Impulsivity 2.13 3.82⁄⁄⁄ .08 .72⁄ .96⁄ .04 .05 .11
v2 59.36 113.21 .59.36 113.21 60.04 103.19 60.04 103.19
df 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21
GFI .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96
CFI .93 .90 .93 .93 .90 .90 .90 .90
TLI .88 .83 .88 .83 .83 .83 .83 .83
RMSEA .08 .09 .08 .09 .08 .08 .08 .08
R2 .01 .03 .01 .03 .02 .01 .01 .06

Note: T-values signification: 1.96 : .05; 2.57 : .01 ; 3.29 : .001. ⁄p < .05; ⁄⁄
p < .01; ⁄⁄⁄
p < .001.

arousal. Results confirmed our first hypothesis because Anxiety
was related to unpleasant pictures (high ratings of negative
valence–high arousal and negative valence–low arousal). On the
other hand, Impulsivity was related to pleasant pictures, but only
for those classified as positive valence–high arousal as these tend
to appear as more attractive to impulsive people. A possible expla-
nation is that impulsive and sensation seeking people show greater
reactivity to intense stimuli (Smith, Davidson, Perlstein, & González,
1990). High sensation seekers (impulsive sensation seeking scale is
integrated in the Impulsivity factor) exhibit neural responses consis-
tent with an overactive approach system, whereas low sensation
seekers exhibit responses consistent with a stronger inhibitory sys-
tem. High sensation seekers have shown stronger fMRI responses to
high-arousal stimuli in brain regions associated with arousal and
reinforcement (Joseph, Liu, Jiang, Lynam, & Kelly, 2011).
Females presented significant higher scores in all the 12 slides
of the group of negative valence–high arousal in both countries.
These findings tend to be confirmed by the Structural Equation
Model analysis, but the variance explained for the all pictures
groups has been low and similar to that reported by Tok et al.
(2010) using a Big Five factor model personality questionnaire.
Notice that Anxiety and Impulsivity factors with the IAPS groups
obtained a correlation which ranged from 0.12 to 0.20 and
explained around the 3% of the variance, which is equivalent to
the SEM results.
Tok et al. (2010) found a significant and positive standardised
weight between Neuroticism and high ratings of positive
valence–low arousal. This was contrary to our results and first
hypothesis. In our study, extraversion was not assessed directly,
but through the Impulsivity factor formed by Impulsivity, sensa-
tion-seeking, Sensitivity to Reward and Aggression-Hostility corre-
lated with extraversion (Aluja et al., 2013). The Impulsivity factor
obtained a significant positive standardised weight while in Tok
et al. (2010), extraversion obtained a significant negative standard-
ised weight in a positive valence–high arousal pictures group.
Objective assessment of the IAPS pictures studies shows that
anxious individuals, highly sensitive to punishment, display
greater intensification of the startle reflex in the context of aversive
stimuli, but impulsive individuals, being more sensitive to reward,
do not show greater modulation of the startle reflex when exposed
to pleasant stimuli, as it was expected (Corr et al., 1995). Unpleas-
ant slides increased the strength of the eye blink while pleasant
slides reduced it. The prediction of Gray’s theory that affirms that
impulsive subjects should show greater modulation to pleasant
stimuli was not supported in Corr et al. (1995). These results were
contradictory with subjective assessment of positive valence–high
arousal and the Impulsivity factor in the current study. Neverthe-
less, in a recent study, subjects higher in Sensitivity to Reward
obtained a higher startle reflex when exposed to pleasant pictures
than those with lower scores (Aluja et al., 2015).
Objective and subjective assessments of the IAPS are not always
consistent (Cuthbert, Bradley, & Lang, 1996). The potential differ-
ences between the objective and subjective IAPS assessment could
be due to the social desirability bias that can affect the subjective
assessment. However, studies that compare individuals with self-
reported repressive coping style and controls do not differ in phys-
iological–emotional responses (Houtveen, Rietveld, Schoutrop,
Spiering, & Brosschot, 2001). The lack of strong relationships
between the personality and emotional pictures is difficult to
interpret. It is possible that some of the pictures seem outmoded.
Another possible explanation for this is that the current sample
is composed by young non graduate students who are habituated
to strong emotional impact scenes in the media. Besides, the IAPS
pictures are static, while short film clips might have more emo-
tional impact.
A limitation of our study was the low variability of the age of
subjects. A sample of young psychology undergraduates might
have affected the generalizability of our results. Because of the
effects of age in Impulsivity and Anxiety, future studies should
be extended to a larger age range in order to analyse possible dif-
ference between age groups and the relationship between person-
ality and emotions. Besides, it is also advisable the use of short film
clips instead of static images.
References
Aluja, A., & García, L. F. (2004). Relationships between Big Five personality factors
and values. Social Behavior and Personality, 23, 619–626.
Aluja, A., & Blanch, A. (2007). Comparison of impulsiveness, venturesomeness and
empathy (I7) structure in English and Spanish samples: Analysis of different
structural equation models. Personality and Individual Differences, 43,
2294–2305.
Aluja, A., Blanch, A., Blanco, E., & Balada, F. (2015). Affective modulation of the
Startle Reflex and the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality in
females. Physiology and Behavior, 138, 332–339.
Aluja, A., Escorial, S., García, L. F., García, O., Blanch, A., & Zuckerman, M. (2013).
Analysis of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman-Aluja Personality Questionnaire (ZKA-PQ)
and its relationship with Eysenck’s and Gray’s personality models. Personality
and Individual Differences, 54, 192–196.
Aluja, A., Rossier, J., Garcia, L. F., & Verardi, S. (2005). The 16PF5 and the NEO-PI-R in
Spanish and Swiss samples: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Individual
Differences, 26(2), 53–62.
Arbuckle, J., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4 user’s reference guide. Chicago:
Smallwaters Corp.
Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Sabatinelli, D., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and
motivation II: sex differences in picture processing. Emotion, 1(3), 300–319.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: the self-assessment
manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and
Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49–59.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136–162).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Canli, T., Sivers, H., Withfield, S. L., Gotlib, I. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Amygdala
response to happy faces as a function of Extraversion. Science, 296, 2191.
Caseras, F. X., Fullana, M. A., Riba, J., Barbanoj, M. J., Aluja, A., & Torrubia, R. (2006).
Influence of individual differences in the Behavioral Inhibition System and
148 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 77 (2015) 143–148
stimulus content (fear versus blood-disgust) on affective startle reflex
modulation. Biolological Psychology, 72, 251–256.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (second ed.).
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corr, P. J. (2002). J. A. Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity theory: tests of the joint
subsystems hypothesis of anxiety and impulsivity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 33, 511–532.
Corr, P. J., Kumari, V., Wilson, G. D., Cleckley, S., & Gray, J. A. (1997). Harm avoidance
and affective modulation of startle reflex: A replication. Personality and
Individual Differences, 19, 47–71.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1986). Cross-sectional studies of personality in a
national sample: I. Development and validation of survey measures. Psychology
and Aging, 1, 140–143.
Cuthbert, B. N., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1996). Probing picture perception:
Activation and emotion. Psychophysiology, 33, 103–111.
Drače, A., Efendić, E., Kusturica, M., & Landžo, L. (2013). Cross-cultural validation of
the ‘‘International Affective Picture System’’ (IAPS) on a sample from Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Psihologija, 46(1), 17–26.
Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness: Their
position in a dimensional system of personality description. Psychological
Reports, 43, 1247–1255.
Gray, J.A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality, In H.J. Eysenck (Ed.) A
model for personality (pp 246–276).
Houtveen, J. H., Rietveld, S., Schoutrop, M., Spiering, M., & Brosschot, J. F. (2001). A
repressive coping style and affective, facial and physiological responses to
looking at emotional pictures. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 42,
265–277.
Hu, S. H., Wei, N., & Guo, W. T. (2005). Cross-cultural study of affective reactions of
Chinese and American healthy adults. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology,
13(3), 265.
Joseph, J. E., Liu, X., Jiang, Y., Lynam, D., & Kelly, T. H. (2011). Neural Correlates of
Emotional Reactivity in Sensation Seeking. Psychological Science, 20(2),
215–223.
Kaspar, K., & Köni, P. (2012). Emotions and personality traits as high-level factors in
visual attention: a review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–14.
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1990). Emotion, Attention, and the
Startle Reflex. Psychological Review, 97, 377–395.
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1997). Motivated attention: Affect,
activation, and action. In P. J. Lang, R. F. Simons, & M. T. Balaban (Eds.), Attention
and Orienting: Sensory and Motivational Processes (pp. 97–135). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McNaughton, N., & Corr, P. J. (2004). A two-dimensional neuropsychology of
defense: fear/anxiety and defensive distance. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Review,
28, 285–305.
Moltó, J., Montañés, S., Poy, R., Segarra, P., Pastor, M. C., Tormo, M. P., et al. (1999).
«Un nuevo método para el estudio experimental de las emociones: El
International Affective Picture System (IAPS). Adaptación española». [A new
method for the experimental study of the emotions: The International Affective
Picture System (IAPS). Spanish adaptation]. Revista de Psicología General
Aplicada, 52, 55–87.
Revelle, W., & Scherer, K. R. (2010). Personality and emotion. In The Oxford
Companion to the Affective Sciences. Oxford University Press.
Smith, B. D., Davidson, R. A., Perlstein, W. M., & González, F. (1990). Sensation-
seeking: Electrodermal and behavioral effects of stimulus content and intensity.
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 9, 179–188.
Tok, S., Koyuncu, M., Dural, S., & Catikkas, F. (2010). Evaluation of International
Affective Picture System (IAPS) ratings in an athlete population and its relations
to personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 461–466.
Torrubia, R., Avila, C., Moltó, J., & Caseras, X. (2001). The Sensitivity to Punishment
and Sensitivity Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray’s
anxiety and impulsivity dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 31,
837–862.
Wilson, G. D., Kumari, V., Gray, J. A., & Corr, P. J. (2000). The role of neuroticism in
startle reactions to fearful and disgusting stimuli. Personality and Individual
Differences, 29, 1077–1082.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Teta, P., Joireman, J., & Kraft, M. (1993). A
comparison of three structural models of personality: The big three, the big five,
and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 757–768.