Evaluating dynamics in affect structure with latent Markov factor analysis.

In intensive longitudinal research, researchers typically consider the structure of affect to be stable across individuals and contexts. Based on an assumed theoretical structure (e.g., one bipolar or two separate positive and negative affect constructs), researchers create affect scores from items (e.g., sum or factor scores) and use them to examine the dynamics therein. However, researchers usually ignore that the affect structure itself is dynamic and varies across individuals and contexts. Understanding these dynamics provides valuable insights into individuals' affective experiences. This study uses latent Markov factor analysis (LMFA) to study what affect structures underlie individuals' responses, how individuals transition between structures, and whether their individual transition patterns differ. Moreover, we explore whether the intensity of negative events and the personality trait neuroticism relate to momentary transitions and individual differences in transition patterns, respectively. Applying LMFA to experience sampling data (N = 153; age: mean = 22; SD = 7.1; range = 17-66), we identified two affect structures-one with three and one with four dimensions. The main difference was the presence of negative emotionality, and the affect dimensions became more inversely related when the affect structure included negative emotionality. Moreover, we identified three latent subgroups that differed in their transition patterns. Higher negative event intensity increased the probability of adopting an affect structure with negative emotionality. However, neuroticism was unrelated to subgroup-membership. Summarized, we propose a way to incorporate contextual and individual differences in affect structure, contributing to advancing the theoretical basis of affect dynamics research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Measuring Continuous Affect in Daily Life With Intensity Profile Drawings.

We examined continuous affect drawings as innovative measure of affective experiences over time. Intensive longitudinal data often rely on discrete assessments, containing "blind spots" between measurements. With continuous affect drawings participants visually depict their affect fluctuations between assessments. In an experience sampling study, participants (N = 115) rated their momentary positive and negative affect 6 times daily. From the second daily rating on, they additionally drew their positive and negative affect changes and reported affective events between assessments. They received one measurement burst between assessments daily. The strength of the approach is a substantial amount of informational gain (average 7%) over linearly interpolated points between assessments. The additional information was subsequently categorized into positive and negative affect peaks and valleys, each occurring once a day per person on average. The probability of detecting peaks and valleys increased with reported events. The drawings correlated positively with momentary affect scores from the burst. Yet, the drawing predicted the bursts less well suggesting that the momentary ratings may yield different information than the drawings. Although the timing of retrospective drawings is less precise than individual momentary assessments, this method provides a comprehensive understanding of affective experiences between assessments, offering a unique perspective on affect dynamics.

Development, validation, and comparison of self-report measures for positive and negative affect in intensive longitudinal research.

Affect is central to human functioning. Due to its dynamic nature, it is often studied with intensive longitudinal designs, yet the development and validation of measures for this purpose have received little systematic attention. In the present study, we review theoretical and methodological conceptualizations of affect that are relevant for repeated momentary positive and negative affect measurement. We developed a questionnaire including six dimensional affect and 22 discrete emotion items that allowed us to measure alternative momentary affect constructs with single- and multi-item scores. The items were operationalized into two bipolar, six positive, and six negative momentary affect measures. We compared the measures with three quantifiable criteria of construct validity: the amount of within-person variance, within-person sensitivity to emotional events, and between-person relations to depression and neuroticism. The criteria were empirically investigated with a preregistered experience sampling study (N = 153). We identify the measures with the strongest validity evidence across all criteria and evaluate their suitability for specific research questions, by looking at individual criteria. The overall findings provide strong evidence supporting the use of single-item measures of momentary affect. Furthermore, single items provide an efficient low-burden assessment tool that is comparable across studies. For multi-item scales, it is recommended to combine discrete emotion items of similar intensity, while simply selecting and averaging discrete emotion items is problematic concerning our validity criteria. In the future, we encourage the field to conduct systematic research on the use and interpretation of scores that aggregate different emotion items together. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

On the interplay of borderline personality features, childhood trauma severity, attachment types, and social support.

BACKGROUND: Adverse childhood experiences (ACE) have consistently been associated with borderline personality disorder (BPD). Still, it is not yet entirely understood if and how different types of ACE (emotional, physical, sexual abuse, neglect) relate to different BPD subdomains (affective instability, identity disturbance, negative relationships, self-harm). Insecure attachment and lower perceived social support are associated with both ACE and BPD and may therefore contribute to their relationship. No study so far integrated all these variables in one model, while accounting for their mutual influence on each other. We investigated the interplay of BPD subdomains, ACE, attachment, and perceived social support using a graph-theoretical approach. METHODS: An international sample of 1692 participants completed the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), the Borderline Feature Scale from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI-BOR), the Adult Attachment Scale (AAS), and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) via an online survey. We estimated a partial correlation network including subscales of the CTQ and the PAI-BOR as nodes. We extended the network by including subscales of the AAS and MSPSS as additional nodes. RESULTS: Emotional abuse was the most central node in both networks and a bridge between other types of ACE and BPD features. All domains of BPD except affective instability were associated with emotional abuse. Identity disturbances was the most central node in the BPD network. The association between ACE and BPD features was partly but not fully explained by attachment and social support. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that emotional abuse is an important link in the association between ACE and BPD features, also when taking attachment and social support into account. Findings further suggest an outstanding role of identity disturbance, linking emotional abuse to affective instability and being strongly associated with attachment anxiety.