Fundamental dimensions of subjective state in performance settings: Task engagement, distress, and worry.

Abstract

Subjective state constructs are defined within the traditional domains of affect, motivation, and cognition. Currently, there is no overarching state model that interrelates constructs within the different domains. This article reports 3 studies that provide converging evidence for 3 fundamental state dimensions labeled task engagement, distress, and worry that integrate constructs across the traditional domains. Study 1 differentiated the state dimensions by factor analysis of the scales of the Dundee Stress State Questionnaire (G. Matthews et al., 1999). Study 2 showed differential state response to performance of tasks making different cognitive demands. Study 3 showed that states are correlated with differing patterns of appraisal and coping. The 3 stress state dimensions provide a general descriptive framework consistent with transactional accounts of stress and performance.

Perceived Time Progression and Vigilance: Implications for Workload, Stress, and Cerebral Hemodynamics

“…However, the reviewers note that these initial self-report indices are limited because the scales involved appear to have been chosen arbitrarily without an overarching psychometric model of stress states. To develop a more systematic multidimensional framework for understanding transient states of mood, arousal, and fatigue, Matthews and his associates (Matthews et al, 1999(Matthews et al, , 2002 developed the Dundee Stress State Questionnaire (DSSQ) to assess the manner in which stress is experienced as disturbances in affect, motivation, and cognition. The DSSQ features 10 factor-analytically determined scales which measure energetic arousal, tense arousal, hedonic tone, intrinsic task motivation, selffocused attention, self-esteem, concentration, confidence and control, task-relevant cognitive interference, and task-irrelevant cognitive interference.…”

“…The scales themselves are intercorrelated and support a higher-order factor model that differentiates three broader dimensions known as Task Engagement, Distress, and Worry. As described by Matthews et al (2002), Task Engagement incorporates the energetic arousal, motivation, and concentration scales and contrasts enthusiasm and interest in the task with fatigue and apathy. Distress encompasses negative moods and the lack of confidence in one's performance while Worry reflects the level of intrusive thoughts and other negative self-referent cognitions.…”

The contribution of Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory to personality theory

“…The emphasis upon BIS vs. BAS leads to thinking of affect as one bipolar dimension and similarly tends to focus on BIS-BAS as a bipolar dimension. Perhaps this is a misinterpretation, for the evidence for the multidimensionality of affect is compelling (Matthews et al, 2002;Rafaeli and Revelle, 2006). Keltikangas-Järvinen recognizes the problem of measurement with BIS -BAS but do not focus so much on the complexity of a theory where the two systems interact with each other.…”

Heart Rate Monitoring as an Easy Way to Increase Engagement in Human-Agent Interaction

“…Engagement may be seen as a way to increase performance, as in the definition given by (Matthews et al, 2002) for task engagement: an "effortful striving towards task goals". In a broader acceptation, the notion of engagement is also related to fun and accounts for the overall user experience (Mandryk et al, 2006).…”