4.3 Article

Affect dynamics and well-being: explanatory power of the model of intraindividual variability in affect (MIVA)

期刊

COGNITION & EMOTION
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 188-210

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2021.1993148

关键词

Affect; well-being; emotion regulation; depression; emotional reactivity

资金

  1. Friedrich Schiller University Jena [DRM/2019-13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research has shown that the current indicators used to capture affect dynamics have limited value in predicting well-being, indicating a need to identify more valid assessment methods.
Affective experience is inherently dynamic and short-term changes in affect are supposed to offer important insights into well-being. Past years have shown a tremendous rise in investigations into the relation between affect dynamics and well-being. The indicators that have been introduced to capture unique dynamical aspects of affect, however, have been criticised for being purely statistical measures without theoretical foundation and were shown to have little added value for explaining well-being over and above mean levels of affect. To address these concerns, we applied our newly developed theory-based MIVA model to data on daily affective experience. The MIVA model allows estimating parameters for anchoring, reactivity, and regulation based on affective states in combination with daily events. Everyday affective experience was measured with a high temporal resolution, multiple indicators of well-being (e.g. life satisfaction, depression) were assessed, and the incremental value of the MIVA model parameters in predicting well-being was determined. The MIVA model parameters reflect essential processes that accounted for observed fluctuations in affective experience. Incremental validity for predicting well-being over and above mean levels of affect, however, was low. Together, our results suggest that research on affect dynamics needs to identify how affect dynamics can be assessed more validly.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据