Culture and affect: the factor structure of the affective style questionnaire and its relation with depression and anxiety among Japanese

Abstract

BackgroundAffective styles are assumed to be one of the underlying processes of depression and anxiety maintenance. However, little is known about the effect of depression and anxiety and the cultural influence of the factor structure. Here, we examined the cross-cultural validity of the Affective Style Questionnaire and its incremental validity for the influence on depression and anxiety.MethodsAffective Style Questionnaire was translated into Japanese using standard back-translation procedure. Japanese university students (N = 1,041) served as participants. Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II, Toronto Alexithymia Scale, Rumination and Reflection Questionnaire, Brief COPE, Self-Construal Scale, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale were administered.ResultsExploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed that the Affective Style Questionnaire comprised four factors: Concealing, Adjusting, Holding and Tolerating (CFI = .92, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .07). The measure’s convergent and discriminant validity was substantiated by its association with various emotion regulation measures. Regression analyses showed that negative influence of Adjusting, Holding, Reappraisal (β = -.17, -.19, -.30) and positive influence of Suppression (β = .23) were observed on depression. For anxiety, Adjusting and Reappraisal was negatively influenced (β = -.29, and -.18).ConclusionsReliability and validity of the Affective Style Questionnaire was partly confirmed. Further study is needed to clarify the culturally dependent aspects of affective styles.

Factor Structure of the Affective Style Questionnaire in Flemish Adolescents

“…The factor correlations were high and significant (Table 3 ), ranging from 0.57 between Adjusting and Concealing to 0.93 between Tolerating and Adjusting. We also performed an ICM-CFA of the Japanese four-factor model ( Ito & Hofmann, 2014 ), which resulted in slightly better fit statistics than the three-factor model, but the overall model fit was still poor: χ 2 (98) = 1626.025, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.849; TLI = 0.815; RMSEA = 0.099 [0.094, 0.103]. When CFA-models fit the data this poorly, it is common practice to examine the modification indices and to relax the restrictive CFA-constraints by allowing for cross-loadings and item correlations.…”

“…In an independent clusters model-CFA (ICM-CFA), each item is allowed to load on one factor, in this case the respective subscale, and all other factor loadings are constrained to be zero. This procedure was used in the Japanese study ( Ito & Hofmann, 2014 ). However, Asparouhov, Muthén, and Muthén ( 2009 ) and Marsh and colleagues ( 2009 ) have argued that because of its use of a strict measurement model, CFA has a number of disadvantages.…”

“…In the German study, the original factor structure was replicated and the scale showed good psychometric properties ( Graser et al, 2012 ). In the Japanese study, four instead of three factors were found in a factor analysis: the three original factors (adjusting, concealing and tolerating) plus an extra factor which the authors labelled holding ( Ito & Hofmann, 2014 ). This fourth factor reflected the ability to keep emotions under control via self-restraint.…”

Positive emotion in distress as a potentially effective emotion regulation strategy for depression: A preliminary investigation

“…Associations with positive affect and reappraisal, which is related to greater experience of positive emotion (Gross & John, ), reflected that the PEIDS included the ability to access positive emotion in a distressed state. The correlation with the ASQ adjusting subscale also indicated that the PEIDS had one aspect of response modulation: assessing the ability to modulate the emotional experience and expression in response to the demands of a given context (Hofmann & Kashdan, ; Ito & Hofmann, ). In line with our expectations, associations between the PEIDS and ASQ concealing, holding, and tolerating; ERQ suppression; RRQ‐S rumination and reflection; and PANAS negative affect schedule ranged in magnitude from small to medium.…”

“…The items are measured on a five‐point Likert scale. The reliability and validity of the ASQ has been demonstrated with a sample of Japanese participants (Ito & Hofmann, ). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a four‐factor structure and added a new factor, holding the emotion, to original factors in a Japanese sample (Ito & Hofmann, ).…”