{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02363896848137536, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0035816618911174787, 'mean_word_length': 5.748792270531401, '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}}
Lions, and Tigers, and Implicit Measures, Oh My! Implicit Assessment and the Valence vs. Threat Distinction

Physically threatening objects are negative, but negative objects are not necessarily threatening. Moreover, responses elicited by threats to physical harm are distinct from those elicited by other negatively (and positively) valenced stimuli. We discuss the importance of the threat versus valence distinction for implicit measurement both in terms of the activated evaluation and the design of the measure employed to assess that evaluation. We suggest that accounting for the distinct evaluations of threat and valence better enable implicit measures to provide understanding and prediction of subsequent judgement, emotion, and behavior. Implicit Assessment and the Valence vs. Threat Distinction 3 We recently argued that the mind uniquely evaluates threatening stimuli relative to other negatively (and positively) valenced stimuli (March, Gaertner, & Olson, 2018a, b). Based on this evaluative difference, we suggest that the distinction between physical threat (the potential to cause injury or death) and valence (the evaluative continuum from negative to positive) is important in the interpretation of indirect measures as they relate to human evaluative responses, and that existing measures differ in their propensity to uncover threat responses versus evaluative responses.