468 v. AFFECTI vE PROCESSES
but both were highly significant. Higher 
spin has also been linked to low self-  esteem 
(Kuppens et al., 2007). Research is begin -
ning to examine the mechanisms of clinical -
ly relevant individual differences in emotion -
al dynamics. For example, using experience 
sampling data over a 7-day period, Koval, 
Sütterlin, and Kuppens (2016) examined 
the extent to which exposure to, reactivity 
to, and recovery from unpleasant daily life 
events predicted NA inertia. Slow recovery 
from NA elicited by events best accounted 
for inertia, highlighting the role of emotion 
regulation and repair processes in moving 
on from negative emotion when it occurs.
Spin has been found to correlate positively 
with neuroticism, and negatively with agree -
ableness and conscientiousness (Kuppens et 
al., 2007). Although the great majority of 
this research measures emotion using two- 
dimensional affect space, one study has 
linked intraindividual variability in the in -
tensity of specific emotions to the Big Five 
personality factors. Eid and Diener (1999) 
found that higher variability in daily ratings 
of love intensity was associated with higher 
neuroticism; variability in joy ratings was 
positively associated with extraversion; vari -
ability in anger ratings was negatively asso -
ciated with agreeableness; and variability in 
all four negative emotions (fear, anger, sad -
ness, shame/embarrassment) was positively 
associated with neuroticism. However, re -
search has barely scratched the surface in 
examining the predictors and implications 
of emotional dynamics beyond psychologi -
cal disorder.
In a final example of the potential offered 
by the study of emotional dynamics, it is 
possible to examine individual differences 
in the patterning of distinct emotions over 
time—the extent to which different sets of 
emotions tend to “hang together” in one 
person’s experience. This proposal builds on 
a fairly recent approach in personality that 
challenges the assumption that the same 
set of dimensions revealed through factor 
analyses of between-  subjects data (i.e., the 
nomothetic approach) will consistently be 
revealed in factor analyses of data from the 
same person measured over several time 
points (i.e., the idiographic approach; Cer -
vone, 2005; Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Mole -
naar, 2004). The idiographic approach has the potential to reveal profiles and struc -
tures at the individual level that are not eas -
ily observed in the aggregate (Molenaar & 
Campbell, 2009). An idiographic approach 
may also have implications for how we un -
derstand the structure and mechanisms of 
emotional experience.
In a proof-of-  concept of this approach, 
Danvers (2017) used idiographic “P- 
technique” factor analysis to identify the 
dimensions underlying participants’ ratings 
of 16 distinct positive and negative emotions 
across 60 time points. Standard, variable- 
centered factor analyses examining patterns 
of item covariation across participants with -
in a single time point revealed the expected 
two- factor negative emotion and positive 
emotion solution 47% of the time, with an 
additional 35% of time points requiring a 
three-  factor solution. In contrast, person- 
centered, idiographic factor analyses  exam -
ining patterns of item covariation within 
each participant across time points revealed 
a far more diverse set of factor structures. 
A two-  factor solution was revealed for only 
42% of participants, and the two factors 
did not always correspond to positive versus 
negative emotion. Across the sample, be -
tween one and five factors were needed to 
characterize idiosyncratic factor structures 
among the 16 emotion items, and at least 
nine distinct general structural types could 
be identified once the content of factors was 
considered, as well as the number of factors.
Emotion Mediates the Interaction 
between Person and Environment:  
A Social Functionalist Approach
Our review thus far has highlighted four 
major developments in the 21st-  century 
science of emotion. Emotions serve social 
functions. Humans experience and express 
far more than the six distinct emotions 
emphasized in the early years of emotion 
research. The mechanisms of emotion— 
appraisals, awareness of bodily states, and 
genetically influenced central nervous sys -
tem processes—  vary considerably from per -
son to person, and begin to shed light on the 
striking individual differences in emotional 
experience. People vary in the complexity 
and temporal dynamics of their emotional 