Methodological arguments are usually invoked to explain variations in the structure of affect. Using self-rated affect from Italian samples (N = 600), we show that individual difference variables related to affective differentiation can moderate the observed structure. Indices of circumplexity (Browne, 1992) and congruence coefficients to the hypothesized target were used to quantify the observed structures. Results did not support the circumplex model as a universal structure. A circular structure with axes of activation and valence was approximated only among more affectively differentiated groups: students and respondents with high scores on Openness to Feelings and measures of negative emotionality. A different structure, with unipolar Positive Affect and Negative Affect factors, was observed among adults and respondents with low Openness to Feelings and negative emotionality. The observed structure of affect will depend in part on the nature of the sample studied.The structure of affect has been extensively studied, but theoretical controversies and empirical inconsistencies remain. In this article we will argue that no single model of the structure of affect can be correct, because different people experience and report affect differently. Individual difference variables that influence affective differentiation moderate the observed structure of affect terms.Elucidating the structure of affect is important for understanding and measuring affective domains. Although many issues related to the structure of affect are controversial, one point of agreement is that two dimensions can parsimoniously describe affective experiences (e.g., Russell, 1980;Watson & Tellegen, 1985; but see Schimmack & Grob, 2000). One-factor solutions appear to be oversimplifications that do not take into account important aspects of core affect, and that explain significantly less variance than two-factor solutions (Diener, Smith, & Fujita, 1995). Three or more factors, by contrast, are not parsimonious and explain little additional variance. With self-rated affect, two dimensions consistently emerge as major factors across many cultures, different descriptor sets, time frames, response formats, and within-and between-subjects designs Watson, 1988;Watson & Clark, 1997). In addition, the two-dimensional framework appears consistent with the existence of more discrete emotions. Many researchers (Church, Katigbak, Reyes, & Jensen, 1999;Diener et al., 1995;Tellegen, Watson, & Clark, 1999)
NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript that the two broad dimensions are hierarchically related to specific emotions such as surprise and joy.Within the two-factor perspective, two rotational variants have been considered in factor analyses of self-reported affect. Usually the first unrotated factor is interpreted as a Valence dimension--pleasant versus unpleasant--and the second unrotated factor as an Activation or Arousal dimension--activated versus deactivated-- (Larsen & Diener, 1992;Russell, 1980). From th...