{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036542515811665496, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004919184820801124, 'mean_word_length': 5.56221198156682, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Affective dimensions of odor perception: a comparison between Swiss, British, and Singaporean populations.

Do affective responses to odors vary as a function of culture? To address this question, we developed two self-report scales in the United Kingdom (Liverpool: LEOS) and in Singapore (city of Singapore: SEOS), following the same procedure as used in the past to develop the Geneva Emotion and Odor Scale (GEOS: Chrea, Grandjean, Delplanque et al., 2009). The final scales were obtained by a three-step reduction of an initial pool of 480 affective terms, retaining only the most relevant terms to describe odor-related subjective affective states and comprised of six (GEOS) or seven affective dimensions (LEOS and SEOS). These included dimensions that were common to the three cultures (Disgust, Happiness Well-being, Sensuality Desire, and Energy), common to the two European samples (Soothing Peacefulness), and dimensions that were culture specific (Sensory Pleasure in Geneva; Nostalgia and Hunger Thirst in Liverpool; Intellectual Stimulation, Spirituality, and Negative Feelings in Singapore). A comparative approach showed that the dimensional organization of odor-related affective terms in a given culture better explained data variability for that culture than data variability for the other cultures, thus highlighting the importance of culture-specific tools in the investigation of odor-related affect.