CHAPTER
8
Measures of Affect Dimensions
Gregory J. Boyle1, Edward Helmes2, Gerald Matthews3and Carroll E. Izard4
1University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia;2James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia;
3University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA;4University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
One can capture different forms of affect dependi ng on the instructions provided about timeframe.
For example, ‘How you feel right now’ would measure m omentary or fleeting emotional states, ‘How you
have been feeling for the past week or past few week s’ would measure longer-lasting mood states, and
‘How you feel in general’ would measure a disposition/tr ait construct. While transi ent emotional states are
relatively brief episodes with clear onset and offset, mood states persist over a somewhat longer timeframe
and tend to fluctuate within a narrower margin of intensity ( Ekman, 1994 ). Mood states fall in-between transi-
tory emotional states and more enduring dispositions/traits ( Fisher, 1998 ). In the English lexicon, anger for
example, is regarded as an emotional state, irritability /irascibility its longer-lasting mood equivalent, and
hostility its enduring trait equivalent ( Fernandez & Kerns, 2008 ). But these words are mere approximations of
meaningful phenomena.
Moods appear relatively stable because they are relatively longer in duration and lower in intensity than their
emotion equivalents. How should the continuum ranging from phasic to tonic affectivity be described and what
terms should be used to describe affective phenomena? Does it make sense to distinguish these phenomena in
terms of the words used in the English lexicon? Perusal of the literature shows there is much confusion over the
terms ‘emotional states’, ‘mood states’ and ‘dispositional states’, such that these terms are often used interchange-
ably, suggesting greater clarity of definition is urgently needed. As just one example of this circularity,
Cox (2002, p. 178) asserted that a mood state refers to ‘ a situation specific, somewhat transient, psychological response
to an environmental stimulus ’. Likewise, Stirling and Kerr (2006, p. 15) defined a mood state as ‘ an emotional state
in response to an environmental stimulus ’. However, this definition does not acknowledge that moods are ‘tonic’
and emotions are ‘phasic’ (to use psychophysiological terminology).
Actually, any single, brief measurement of a transient emotional state is also providing a static cross-sectional
‘snapshot’ of a longer lasting mood or even a trait dimension. Asking respondents to rate ‘ How you feel right now ’
may tap into a momentary emotional episode or it may actually be a ‘snapshot’ of what they have been
experiencing for some time. It appears from the literature on affect measurement that the use of differing affect
terms is rather arbitrary when it comes to distinguishing between fleeting, transient, phasic emotional states,
versus longer lasting, tonic moods, versus motivational dynamic traits versus relatively stable personality traits
versus highly stable, enduring personality traits. In most measures of emotions and mood states, only a few time-
frames are specifically targeted (i.e., state vs. trait /C0e.g., MCI, STPI; or emotional state vs. mood state vs. trait /C0
e.g., DES-IV). There is a distinction between immediate transitory/fleeting states (emotions), versus lingering
states (moods) (cf. Aganoff & Boyle, 1994 ). One measure which specifically provides three separate sets of
instructions designed to tap into each of these forms of affect is the Differential Emotions Scale (e.g., Izard, 1991 ;
Izard, Libero, Putnam, & Haynes 1993 ).
However, it is an oversimplification to regard affective variables as categorical (e.g., state /C0trait distinction),
when in fact there is a continuum of affectivity ranging all the way from fleeting emotional states to relatively
stable enduring traits. Indeed, the PANAS-X ( Watson & Clark, 1999 ) provides instructions related to several
190Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00008-5 ©2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.