Affect Dynamics or Response Bias? The Relationship Between Extreme Response Style and Affect Dynamics in a Controlled Experiment

被引:0
作者
Henninger, Mirka [1 ]
Vanhasbroeck, Niels [2 ]
Tuerlinckx, Francis [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Basel, Fac Psychol, Missionsstr 62A, CH-4055 Basel, Switzerland
[2] Univ Amsterdam, Fac Social & Behav Sci, Psychol Methods, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[3] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Fac Psychol & Educ Sci, Res Grp Quantitat Psychol & Individual Differences, Leuven, Belgium
关键词
affect dynamics; intensive longitudinal data; measurement; response biases; extreme response style; LOCATION SCALE-MODEL; MULTIPROCESS IRT MODELS; INTRAINDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY; INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES; AFFECTIVE INSTABILITY; MARKETING-RESEARCH; COGNITIVE THERAPY; SHORT-TERM; BIG; PERSONALITY;
D O I
10.1037/pas0001370
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Intensive longitudinal data (ILD) have become a popular data format to capture people's momentary affect in everyday life. Besides describing persons' average affect over time, ILD are also often used to describe affect dynamics-that is, how affect changes over time-such as intraindividual variability or moment-to-moment temporal dependencies. Given that ILD studies mostly use self-report rating data, there is an increasing concern that response biases, such as extreme responding, might impact the estimates of affect dynamics. In this study, we assessed the relationship between extreme responding and affect dynamics in a controlled experiment. In a highly powered sample with N = 1,398 persons, we measured extreme responding using background questionnaires and repeatedly induced affect using a probabilistic reward task with T = 140 trials per person. Our results suggest that people with high extreme response style trait levels show substantially higher measures of affect variability. However, extreme responding is neither associated with moment-to-moment temporal dependencies nor with participants' reactivity to affective stimuli. We conclude with a discussion on the importance of evaluating measurement in ILD for psychological assessments and outline potential areas for future research to improve assessments of affect dynamics.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 121 条
[1]   Using multidimensional item response theory to evaluate how response styles impact measurement [J].
Adams, Daniel J. ;
Bolt, Daniel M. ;
Deng, Sien ;
Smith, Stevens S. ;
Baker, Timothy B. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL & STATISTICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2019, 72 (03) :466-485
[2]  
Asparouhov T., 2023, Bayesian analysis using Mplus: Technical implementation
[3]   Individual differences in response scale use: Mixed Rasch modelling of responses to NEO-FFI items [J].
Austin, EJ ;
Deary, IJ ;
Egan, V .
PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2006, 40 (06) :1235-1245
[4]   The role of response styles in the assessment of intraindividual personality variability [J].
Baird, Brendan M. ;
Lucas, Richard E. ;
Donnellan, M. Brent .
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN PERSONALITY, 2017, 69 :170-179
[5]   Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation [J].
Baumgartner, H ;
Steenkamp, JBEM .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 2001, 38 (02) :143-156
[6]   Response style analysis with threshold and multi-process IRT models: A review and tutorial [J].
Bockenholt, Ulf ;
Meiser, Thorsten .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL & STATISTICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2017, 70 (01) :159-181
[7]   Modeling Multiple Response Processes in Judgment and Choice [J].
Boeckenholt, Ulf .
PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 2012, 17 (04) :665-678
[8]   Measurement and Control of Response Styles Using Anchoring Vignettes: A Model-Based Approach [J].
Bolt, Daniel M. ;
Lu, Yi ;
Kim, Jee-Seon .
PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 2014, 19 (04) :528-541
[9]   Addressing Score Bias and Differential Item Functioning Due to Individual Differences in Response Style [J].
Bolt, Daniel M. ;
Johnson, Timothy R. .
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 2009, 33 (05) :335-352
[10]   Affective variability in depression: Revisiting the inertia-instability paradox [J].
Bos, Elisabeth H. ;
de Jonge, Peter ;
Cox, Ralf F. A. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2019, 110 (04) :814-827