Variations in the Circumplex Structure of Mood

Feldman, Lisa A.

doi:10.1177/0146167295218003

Cited by 156 publications

(174 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

156

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, these results are consistent with previous findings on American samples that described divergence in the circular structure of affect (Feldman, 1995a;1995b). The present study represents an extension of Feldman's pioneering work in other two aspects.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…In fact, Feldman noted that an elliptical structure typically emerged from self-report mood due to the common tendency to emphasize the valence dimension and ignore differences in the degree of activation among affective terms. These differences in individuals' attention to the hedonic and activation components are captured by two new constructs: valence focus and arousal focus (Feldman, 1995a;Feldman, 1995b). Valence focus was defined as the tendency to attend to and report the pleasant or unpleasant aspects of emotional experiences; an index of valence focus was the variance explained by the first factor extracted from a series of repeated selfrated affects.…”

Section: Group Differences and The Structure Of Affectmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Individual Difference Variables, Affective Differentiation, and the Structures of Affect

Terracciano

McCrae

Hagemann

et al. 2003

Journal of Personality

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Group Differences and The Structure Of Affectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Difference Variables, Affective Differentiation, and the Structures of Affect

Terracciano

McCrae

Hagemann

et al. 2003

Journal of Personality

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Amid the individual differences in emphasis on valence and arousal, then, there was a different average pattern observed for the two types of ratings. People seemed to weigh the arousal-based properties of emotion words relatively more than the valence-based properties when making judgments of the words themselves (as evidenced by the fact that arousal dimensions are routinely the first and larger dimension in MDS solutions of similarity ratings for emotion words), yet they weighed valence-based properties relatively more when making judgments of their emotion experience using those words (consistent with the finding that valence dimensions tend to be larger than arousal dimensions in analyses of cross-sectional self-report ratings of experienced emotion ;Feldman, 1995b). Taken together, these findings are an important piece of the puzzle that demonstrate that self-report ratings tell us more than just how a person understands emotion-related words.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Feelings or Words? Understanding the Content in Self-Report Ratings of Experienced Emotion.

Barrett

2004

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

354

318

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People differ in the extent to which their verbal reports of experienced emotion are valence focused or arousal focused. Three multimethod studies are reported to explore whether differential focus reflects individual differences in the cognitive structure of emotion language versus differences in phenomenological experience. Although there was some evidence that valence focus and arousal focus were linked to variations differences in cognitive structure, the findings are also consistent with the view that self-report ratings are being driven by the properties of the feelings that are being reported. Implications for the study of experienced emotion are discussed.People report how they feel using words. In everyday life, when we want to know how someone is feeling, we ask. "How are you feeling?" is one of the most ubiquitous questions in our culture. Likewise, for over half a century, psychologists have relied on self-reports to find out how people feel, and for good reason. Decades of behavioral, cognitive, and psychophysiological research have failed to provide clear and consistent measures that unambiguously correspond to the categories of experienced emotion that are found in Western cultures (e.g., anger, sadness, fear): There are neither distinct autonomic footprints for categories of emotion (Cacioppo, Berntson, Larsen, Poehlmann, & Ito, 2000) nor direct connections between the experience of these emotions and facial movements that are perceived as coordinated "expressions" (Russell, Bachorowski, & Fernández-Dols, 2003). 1 As a result, there is no known objective, external measure of the subjective, internal events that we experience as anger, sadness, fear, and so on. If we want to know whether people feel these emotions, we have to ask them.When self-reports are treated as verbal behaviors that can be observed and studied, people use the same emotion words in very different ways to communicate their feelings. For example, the word tired, which is generally understood to refer to a state that is unpleasant and low in arousal, can be used to communicate a feeling of sleepiness (emphasizing the low arousal property), annoyance and misery (as in "I am tired of this," emphasizing the unpleasantness), or fatigued (emphasizing both low arousal and displeasure properties). A key question facing researchers is whether differences in self-report ratings of experienced emotion reflect differences in actual feelings or merely reflect differences in the way that people understand the words that are used in the rating process. One way to address the question of whether selfreports reflect feelings or language is to examine the granularity in such reports. When asked to report how they feel, some individuals represent their experiences with a good deal of precision (high granularity), whereas others represent their experiences in more global terms (low granularity, primarily in terms of pleasure or displeasure). This article examines whether Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lisa F...

show abstract

“…Adapted from Feldman (1995), fouritems were employed, scored along a 7-point scale (e.g. Calm-Tense), <.07 for all four political brands, (see Table 1 for factor loadings).…”

Section: Participants and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conspicuous political brand interactions on social network sites

Marder

Marchant

Archer-Brown

et al. 2018

EJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2 PurposeAcquiring 'Likes' for a political party or candidate's Facebook pages is important for political marketers. For consumers these 'Likes' are conspicuous, making their political affiliation visible to their network. Our study examines the roles of the undesired socialself and visibility (conspicuous vs. inconspicuous) in predicting consumers' intention to 'Like' political brands. We extend knowledge on the undesired social-self, transference of theory from general marketing to a political domain and provide practical advice for political marketers engaging social network sites. Design/methodology/approachWe gather data from two surveys run with Facebook using electorates in the run up to the UK 2015 and US 2016 elections (n = 1,205) on their intention to 'Like' political brands under different visibility conditions. FindingsData supports the theorized relationship of the undesired social-self with social anxiety intention to 'Like' when 'Liking' is conspicuous. However also indicates that all users -irrespective of proximity to the undesired social-self -prefer to 'Like' inconspicuously. 3 Research limitations/implicationThe research is limited by the generalizability of the specific context and the use of selfreport measures. Practical implicationsPolitical marketers should reconsider promoting conspicuous consumption for that which is more inconspicuous. OriginalityWe provide the first examination of the undesired social-self in driving behavior under different visibility conditions. Furthermore we challenge the extension of existing knowledge of the self-concept within political marketing, based on the 'norm' for consumers' to avoid disclosing political views publically.

show abstract

Variations in the Circumplex Structure of Mood

Cited by 156 publications

References 52 publications

Individual Difference Variables, Affective Differentiation, and the Structures of Affect

Individual Difference Variables, Affective Differentiation, and the Structures of Affect

Feelings or Words? Understanding the Content in Self-Report Ratings of Experienced Emotion.

Conspicuous political brand interactions on social network sites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About