CHAPTER 8 Measures of Affect Dimensions Gregory J. Boyle 1 , Edward Helmes 2 , Gerald Matthews 3 and Carroll E. Izard 4 1 University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; 2 James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia; 3 University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA; 4 University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA One can capture different forms of affect depending on the instructions provided about timeframe. For example, ‘How you feel right now’ would measure momentary or fleeting emotional states, ‘How you have been feeling for the past week or past few weeks’ would measure longer-lasting mood states, and ‘How you feel in general’ would measure a disposition/trait construct. While transient 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 À e.g., MCI, STPI; or emotional state vs. mood state vs. trait À 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., stateÀtrait 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 190 Measures 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.