See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317178520

Self-Assessment Manikin

Chapter · January 2017

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_77-1

CITATIONS READS

9 13,717

2 authors:

Teah-Marie Bynion Matthew T Feldner

University of Arkansas Canopy Growth Corporation
7 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS 157 PUBLICATIONS 5,119 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

An Evaluation of the Validity of a Script-Driven Imagery Procedure View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Teah-Marie Bynion on 20 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

S
Self-Assessment Manikin
Teah-Marie Bynion and Matthew T. Feldner
Department of Psychological Science, University
of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Definition
The Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) is a picture-
oriented questionnaire developed to measure an
emotional response (Bradley and Lang 1994). The
questionnaire is designed to measure three fea-
tures of an emotional response that have been
identified as central to emotion in research
conducted by Lang and colleagues (Lang et al.
1993). Specifically, there are single-item scales
that measure valence/pleasure of the response
(from positive to negative), perceived arousal
(from high to low levels), and perceptions of
dominance/control (from low to high levels).
Introduction
Several theorists have explained human emotions
as responses to environmental challenges that
increase the individual’s likelihood of survival.
While there is ongoing debate regarding what
the defining features of an emotion are, emotions
can be broadly conceptualized as “adaptive action
tendencies that occur in response to changes
# Springer International Publishing AG 2017
V. Zeigler-Hill, T.K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_77-1
inside or outside the organism, specifically
changes that challenge states and systems neces-
sary for survival” (p. 25; Keil and Miskovic
2015). Emotions can be measured across at least
three different modes of response: physiological,
cognitive, and behavioral (Lang 1985). Within
this broad approach to defining emotion, there
are at least two major perspectives adopted for
more specifically understanding emotions. The
first approach can be referred to as a “discrete
emotions” perspective. Within this perspective,
emotions are generally thought to be specific,
cross-cultural, innate, systemic responses
(Ekman 1992). For example, fear can be thought
of as a discrete emotion that across cultures is
characterized by elevated physiological arousal,
perceived threat, and escape behavior (Barlow
2002). In contrast to the discrete emotions per-
spective, the dimensional perspective suggests
that emotions are responses to environmental
stimuli that vary along dimensions of key features
or characteristics. Within the dimensional per-
spective on emotion, theory and empirical work
has converged to suggest at least three core fea-
tures to an emotional response (i.e., valence/plea-
sure, arousal, and dominance/control; Osgood
et al. 1957). These dimensions are theorized to
respond somewhat independently resulting in
dimensions that can differentially respond across
time to emotion eliciting events (Mehrabian and
Russell 1974).
2 Self-Assessment Manikin
History and Structure
Self-reports are commonly used to measure the
three dimensions of an emotional response. Prior
to the SAM, the Semantic Differential Scale
(SDS; Mehrabian and Russell 1974) was a widely
used measure for measuring valence, arousal, and
control. However, with this measure came signif-
icant limitations, including a laborious data set
that was cumbersome to analyze and was difficult
to use with individuals who were non-English
speakers (Bradley and Lang 1994).
In order to address limitations of previous
dimensional measures of emotion, Lang (1980)
devised the SAM to assess an emotional response
to an object or event. The SAM is a picture-
oriented instrument containing five images for
each of the three affective dimensions that the
participant rates on either a 9- or 21-point scale.
While the SAM instrument was initially adminis-
tered via computer and uses a 21-point scale, a
pencil-and-paper version also exists that has
respondents place an “X” either on or between
each of the five figures (resulting in a 9-point
scale). The meaning of each scale is described to
respondents, and they are asked to place the “X”
on a figure (or between figures) that best repre-
sents how they currently feel. Valence is depicted
from positive (a smiling figure), to neutral, to
negative (a frowning figure). Arousal is depicted
ranging from high arousal (eyes wide open) to low
arousal (eyes closed). The arousal scale, using
these same figures, also depicts the intensity of
arousal with additional imagery over the abdomen
area that ranges from high intensity (imagery
representing an explosive-like burst) to low inten-
sity (imagery representing a small pin prick).
Finally, dominance/control ranges from feeling
controlled or submissive (a very small figure) to
feeling in control or dominant (a very large figure;
Morris 1995). Correlations between the original
SDS and SAM were obtained for valence (.94),
arousal (.94), and dominance (.66).
Applications
The SAM is an imagery-based measure that there-
fore can be thought of as language-free. Thus, use
of the SAM is not circumscribed to any one cul-
ture, and it can be easily understood and appro-
priate for use in different countries (Bradley et al.
1992). Similarly, the SAM can be administered
effectively with both children and adults (Lang
1985) as well as various clinical populations
(Bradley and Lang 1994).
Another feature of the SAM that makes it
widely applicable is that it is brief. Due to its
brevity, it can be used to capture emotional
responses to a wide array of emotion elicitation
methods. For example, it has been used before and
after biological challenges (e.g., Feldner et al.
2003) to measure how emotional state changes
in response to these procedures. As a second
example, the SAM has been used to measure
emotional state in numerous advertising studies
(Morris et al. 1994). The SAM is typically used to
measure emotional states (Meagher et al. 2001).
To the best of our knowledge, a version of the
SAM designed to measure emotion-related traits
(e.g., frequent experiences of elevated arousal)
has not been developed.
Conclusion
Overall, the SAM is a brief and nonverbal mea-
sure of emotional state that has been used across a
variety of settings with various populations (e.g.,
gender, age, race; Bradley et al. 1992; Lang 1985).
The SAM is based on dimensional models of
emotion and therefore measures key dimensions
of emotional responding.
References
Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders: The nature
and treatment of anxiety and panic (2nd ed.).
New York: Guilford.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion:
The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differ-
ential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental
Psychiatry, 25(1), 49–59.
Self-Assessment Manikin
Bradley, M. M., Greenwald, M. K., Petry, M., & Lang, P. J.
(1992). Remembering pictures: Pleasure and arousal in
memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn-
ing, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 379–390.
Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cog-
nition & Emotion, 6(3–4), 169–200.
Feldner, M. T., Zvolensky, M. J., Eifert, G. H., & Spira,
A. P. (2003). Emotional avoidance: An experimental
test of individual differences and response suppression
using biological challenge. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 41(4), 403–411.
Keil, A., & Miskovic, V. (2015). Human emotions:
A conceptual overview. In K. A. Babson & M. T.
Feldner (Eds.), Sleep and affect: Assessment, theory,
and clinical implications (pp. 23–44). San Diego:
Elsevier.
Lang, P. J. (1980). Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral
assessment: Computer applications. In J. B. Sidowski,
J. H. Johnson, & T. A. Williams (Eds.), Technology in
mental health care delivery systems (pp. 119–137).
Norwood: Ablex.
Lang, P. J. (1985). The cognitive psychophysiology of
emotion: Anxiety and the anxiety disorders. Hillsdale:
Lawrence Eribaum.
View publication stats
3
Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., Bradley, M. M., & Hamm,
A. O. (1993). Looking at pictures: Evaluative, facial,
visceral, and behavioral responses. Psychophysiology,
30(3), 261–273.
Meagher, M. W., Arnau, R. C., & Rhudy, J. L. (2001). Pain
and emotion: Effects of affective picture modulation.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 63(1), 79–90.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to
environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Morris, J. D. (1995). Observations: SAM: The Self-
Assessment Manikin; an efficient cross-cultural mea-
surement of emotional response. Journal of Advertising
Research, 35(6), 63–68.
Morris, J. D., Bradley, M. M., & Karrh, J. A. (1994).
Assessing affective response to television advertising
using the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM). Working
paper, University of Florida, College of Journalism
and Communications.
Osgood, C., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The
measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of
Illinois.