背景:通常通过自我报告来评估情绪清晰度,但是也做出了被动测量的努力,它具有优势,例如避免了由于社会期望偏见或对情绪清晰度的洞察力不足而导致的潜在反应不准确。在生态瞬时评估(EMA)中对情绪项目的响应时间(RT)可能是情绪清晰度的间接指标。另一个建议的指标是漂移率参数,它假设,除了一个人对情感项目的反应有多快,情绪清晰度的测量还需要考虑参与者在提供回答时的谨慎程度。
目的:本文旨在研究来自EMA情绪项目的RTs和漂移率参数作为情绪清晰度个体差异指标的信度和效度。
方法:次要数据分析是对196名1型糖尿病成年人的数据进行的,他们完成了为期2周的EMA研究,每天完成5至6次调查。如果较低的RTs和较高的漂移率(来自EMA情绪项目)是情绪清晰度的指标,我们假设更高的水平(即,更高的清晰度)应该与更高的生活满意度相关;较低的神经质水平,抑郁症,焦虑,和糖尿病困扰;情绪调节困难更少。因为先前的文献表明情绪清晰度可能是特定的,分别检查了负面影响(NA)和正面影响的EMA项目。
结果:在少量EMA提示的情况下,所提出的情绪清晰度指标的可靠性是可以接受的(即,总共4到7个提示或1到2天的EMA调查)。与期望一致,多个EMA中NA项目的平均漂移率预期与其他指标有关联,如r=-0.27(P<.001)与抑郁症状的相关性,r=-0.27(P=.001)伴有焦虑症状,r=-0.15(P=0.03),情绪调节困难,r=0.63(P<.001),RT到NA项目。NA漂移率更高的人对NA情绪项目的反应更快,有更大的主观幸福感(例如,抑郁症状更少),并且在整体情绪调节方面的困难较少,这些都与对情感清晰度度量的期望一致。与预期相反,平均RT与NA项目的效价,积极影响项目的漂移率,我们的结果没有强烈支持积极影响项目的RT。
结论:研究结果为NA漂移率作为情绪清晰度指标的有效性提供了初步支持,但没有为其他基于RT的清晰度指标提供支持。证据是初步的,因为样本量不足以检测小但潜在有意义的相关性,因为糖尿病EMA研究的样本量被选择用于其他更主要的研究问题。需要进一步研究被动情绪清晰度措施。
BACKGROUND: Emotional clarity has often been assessed with self-report measures, but efforts have also been made to measure it passively, which has advantages such as avoiding potential inaccuracy in responses stemming from social desirability bias or poor insight into emotional clarity. Response times (RTs) to emotion items administered in ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) may be an indirect indicator of emotional clarity. Another proposed indicator is the drift rate parameter, which assumes that, aside from how fast a person responds to emotion items, the measurement of emotional clarity also requires the consideration of how careful participants were in providing responses.
OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to examine the reliability and validity of RTs and drift rate parameters from EMA emotion items as indicators of individual differences in emotional clarity.
METHODS: Secondary data analysis was conducted on data from 196 adults with type 1 diabetes who completed a 2-week EMA study involving the completion of 5 to 6 surveys daily. If lower RTs and higher drift rates (from EMA emotion items) were indicators of emotional clarity, we hypothesized that greater levels (ie, higher clarity) should be associated with greater life satisfaction; lower levels of neuroticism, depression, anxiety, and diabetes distress; and fewer difficulties with emotion regulation. Because prior literature suggested emotional clarity could be valence specific, EMA items for negative affect (NA) and positive affect were examined separately.
RESULTS: Reliability of the proposed indicators of emotional clarity was acceptable with a small number of EMA prompts (ie, 4 to 7 prompts in total or 1 to 2 days of EMA surveys). Consistent with expectations, the average drift rate of NA items across multiple EMAs had expected associations with other measures, such as correlations of r=-0.27 (P<.001) with depression symptoms, r=-0.27 (P=.001) with anxiety symptoms, r=-0.15 (P=.03) with emotion regulation difficulties, and r=0.63 (P<.001) with RTs to NA items. People with a higher NA drift rate responded faster to NA emotion items, had greater subjective well-being (eg, fewer depression symptoms), and had fewer difficulties with overall emotion regulation, which are all aligned with the expectation for an emotional clarity measure. Contrary to expectations, the validities of average RTs to NA items, the drift rate of positive affect items, and RTs to positive affect items were not strongly supported by our results.
CONCLUSIONS: Study findings provided initial support for the validity of NA drift rate as an indicator of emotional clarity but not for that of other RT-based clarity measures. Evidence was preliminary because the sample size was not sufficient to detect small but potentially meaningful correlations, as the sample size of the diabetes EMA study was chosen for other more primary research questions. Further research on passive emotional clarity measures is needed.