Matching Items (2)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

153144-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
ABSTRACT

What does it mean to feel an emotion? The nature of emotional

experience has often been described in terms overall conscious experience, termed affect. However, even within affective research there are multiple contradicting theories about the nature and structure of affect. I propose that these contradictions are due to methodological issues

ABSTRACT

What does it mean to feel an emotion? The nature of emotional

experience has often been described in terms overall conscious experience, termed affect. However, even within affective research there are multiple contradicting theories about the nature and structure of affect. I propose that these contradictions are due to methodological issues in the empirical research examining these underlying dimensions. Furthermore, I propose that subjective emotional experience should be examined separately from overall affect. The current study attempts to address past methodological issues by focusing solely on emotional experiences, developing a comprehensive list of emotion items, and including a broad range of emotional experiences. In Study 1, participants were asked to recall an emotional experience and then report their experience of 76 different emotions during that experience. A factor analysis of the emotion ratings revealed a 5-factor categorical structure with categories of Joy, Anger, Sadness, Fear, and Shame/Jealousy. In Study 2, the 76 emotion words from Study 1 were compared in a semantic space derived from a large collection of text samples in an attempt to compare to the results of Study 1. A semantic space derived from a broad range of texts would reflect relationships of emotional concepts. Study 2 revealed a 1-factor structure, drastically different from the structure in Study 1. The implications from Study 2, however, are limited because of the limited range of literature that was used to create the semantic space in which the words were compared. Overall, the results from these studies suggest that subjective emotional experience should be treated as categorical.
ContributorsOsborne, Elizabeth (Author) / Shiota, Michelle N. (Thesis advisor) / Glenberg, Arthur (Committee member) / Neuberg, Steven (Committee member) / Becker, David V. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
154776-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Objective: The present study sought to 1) examine the measurement of emotional complexity (EC) by examining the associations among different indicators of EC (i.e., covariation between positive affect and negative affect; overall, negative, and positive granularity; overall, negative, and positive differentiation) derived from the same data set and identifying a

Objective: The present study sought to 1) examine the measurement of emotional complexity (EC) by examining the associations among different indicators of EC (i.e., covariation between positive affect and negative affect; overall, negative, and positive granularity; overall, negative, and positive differentiation) derived from the same data set and identifying a latent factor structure; and 2) evaluate the predictive ability of EC on psychological distress, emotional well-being, and physical functioning while accounting for stressful contexts. The utility of assessing emotion diversity (ED) as another aspect of EC was also explored.

Methods: 191 middle-aged adults from a community-based study on resilience were asked to complete 30 daily diaries assessing positive and negative affect. At least 6 months later, participants completed a phone interview that assessed distress (i.e., depressive and anxiety symptoms), well-being (i.e., WHO-5 well-being, vitality, social functioning), physical functioning, and perceived stress.

Results: A three-factor solution with latent factors representing overall, negative, and positive EC was identified. Overall EC significantly predicted enhanced physical functioning, but was not associated with distress or well-being. Contrary to study hypotheses, positive and negative EC were not associated with future distress, well-being, or physical functioning, though a trend toward improved physical functioning was noted for positive EC. In contrast, positive and negative ED were both associated with less distress, and better well-being and physical functioning. Overall ED was unexpectedly related to worse outcomes (i.e., more distress, less well-being, decreased physical functioning). Stress did not moderate the relationship between emotional complexity and the outcome variables.

Conclusions: Different indicators of EC represent distinct aspects of emotional experience. Partial support of the hypotheses found. Physical functioning was the only outcome influenced by EC. The inclusion of stress did not change the results. The discrepancy between the findings and those in the literature may be related to reliability of EC indicators and absence of contextual factors. Further exploration of ED revealed a potentially important construct of emotional experience that is deserving of further inquiry.
ContributorsArewasikporn, Anne (Author) / Zautra, Alex J (Thesis advisor) / Davis, Mary C. (Committee member) / Doane, Leah D (Committee member) / Infurna, Frank J. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016