YawnStim: a standardized and diverse video stimulus set


Abstract

Contagious yawning is often elicited experimentally using a video stimulus, and individual differences in this response may be indicative of variation in important aspects of social cognition. However, researchers often use different and highly variable stimulus sets, making comparisons between studies and across conditions difficult. The lack of diversity within existing stimulus sets also limits the generalizability of previous findings. Here, a free stimulus set called YawnStim is described. YawnStim includes a series of standardized experimental and control videos from a diverse sample of men and women from the following self-identified categories: Caucasian, Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian. Videos are compiled into four conditions, including both (1) uncovered and (2) covered yawns, as well as (3) mouth closed and (4) mouth gaping controls. This stimulus package was validated in a series of five within-subjects laboratory experiments (N = 165). Collectively, results from the individual experiments and accompanying mini meta-analyses demonstrated that both yawning conditions produced amplified self-reported yawning responses. Potential follow-up research both in terms of validation and further applications of YawnStim are discussed.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].