情绪回忆任务:并列回忆和认知为基础的影响量表。

Ying Li, Annasya Masitah, Thomas T Hills
{"title":"情绪回忆任务:并列回忆和认知为基础的影响量表。","authors":"Ying Li,&nbsp;Annasya Masitah,&nbsp;Thomas T Hills","doi":"10.1037/xlm0000841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Existing affect scales typically involve recognition of emotions from a predetermined emotion checklist. However, a recognition-based checklist may fail to capture sufficient breadth and specificity of an individual's recalled emotional experiences and may therefore miss emotions that frequently come to mind. More generally, how do recalled emotions differ from recognized emotions? To address these issues, we present and evaluate an affect scale based on recalled emotions. Participants are asked to produce 10 words that best described their emotions over the past month and then to rate each emotion for how often it was experienced. We show that average weighted valence of the words produced in this task, the Emotional Recall Task (ERT), is strongly correlated with scales related to general affect, such as PANAS, Ryff's Scales of Psychological Well-being, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales, and a few other related scales. We further show that the Emotional Recall Task captures a breadth and specificity of emotions not available in other scales but that are nonetheless commonly reported as experienced emotions. We test a general version of the ERT (the ERT general) that is language neutral and can be used across cultures. Finally, we show that the ERT is valid in a test-retest paradigm. In sum, the ERT measures affect based on emotion terms relevant to an individual's idiosyncratic experience. It is consistent with recognition-based scales, but also offers a new direction toward enriching our understanding of individual differences in recalled and recognized emotions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":504300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition","volume":" ","pages":"1782-1794"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Emotional Recall Task: Juxtaposing recall and recognition-based affect scales.\",\"authors\":\"Ying Li,&nbsp;Annasya Masitah,&nbsp;Thomas T Hills\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xlm0000841\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Existing affect scales typically involve recognition of emotions from a predetermined emotion checklist. However, a recognition-based checklist may fail to capture sufficient breadth and specificity of an individual's recalled emotional experiences and may therefore miss emotions that frequently come to mind. More generally, how do recalled emotions differ from recognized emotions? To address these issues, we present and evaluate an affect scale based on recalled emotions. Participants are asked to produce 10 words that best described their emotions over the past month and then to rate each emotion for how often it was experienced. We show that average weighted valence of the words produced in this task, the Emotional Recall Task (ERT), is strongly correlated with scales related to general affect, such as PANAS, Ryff's Scales of Psychological Well-being, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales, and a few other related scales. We further show that the Emotional Recall Task captures a breadth and specificity of emotions not available in other scales but that are nonetheless commonly reported as experienced emotions. We test a general version of the ERT (the ERT general) that is language neutral and can be used across cultures. Finally, we show that the ERT is valid in a test-retest paradigm. In sum, the ERT measures affect based on emotion terms relevant to an individual's idiosyncratic experience. It is consistent with recognition-based scales, but also offers a new direction toward enriching our understanding of individual differences in recalled and recognized emotions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":504300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1782-1794\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000841\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/4/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000841","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/4/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

现有的情绪量表通常包括从预先确定的情绪清单中识别情绪。然而,基于识别的清单可能无法捕捉到个人回忆的情感经历的足够广度和特异性,因此可能会错过经常出现在脑海中的情感。更一般地说,回忆起来的情绪和识别出来的情绪有什么不同?为了解决这些问题,我们提出并评估了一个基于回忆情绪的情感量表。参与者被要求说出10个最能描述他们在过去一个月里的情绪的词,然后对每种情绪出现的频率进行评分。我们发现,情绪回忆任务(ERT)中产生的单词的平均加权效价与与一般情感相关的量表,如PANAS、Ryff心理健康量表、生活满意度量表、抑郁、焦虑和压力量表以及其他一些相关量表有很强的相关性。我们进一步表明,情绪回忆任务捕捉到的情绪的广度和特异性在其他量表中是无法获得的,但这些情绪通常被报道为经历过的情绪。我们测试了ERT的通用版本(ERT general),它是语言中立的,可以跨文化使用。最后,我们证明了ERT在测试-重测试范式中是有效的。总而言之,ERT测量基于与个体特质经验相关的情绪术语。它与基于认知的量表是一致的,但也为丰富我们对回忆和识别情绪的个体差异的理解提供了一个新的方向。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Emotional Recall Task: Juxtaposing recall and recognition-based affect scales.

Existing affect scales typically involve recognition of emotions from a predetermined emotion checklist. However, a recognition-based checklist may fail to capture sufficient breadth and specificity of an individual's recalled emotional experiences and may therefore miss emotions that frequently come to mind. More generally, how do recalled emotions differ from recognized emotions? To address these issues, we present and evaluate an affect scale based on recalled emotions. Participants are asked to produce 10 words that best described their emotions over the past month and then to rate each emotion for how often it was experienced. We show that average weighted valence of the words produced in this task, the Emotional Recall Task (ERT), is strongly correlated with scales related to general affect, such as PANAS, Ryff's Scales of Psychological Well-being, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales, and a few other related scales. We further show that the Emotional Recall Task captures a breadth and specificity of emotions not available in other scales but that are nonetheless commonly reported as experienced emotions. We test a general version of the ERT (the ERT general) that is language neutral and can be used across cultures. Finally, we show that the ERT is valid in a test-retest paradigm. In sum, the ERT measures affect based on emotion terms relevant to an individual's idiosyncratic experience. It is consistent with recognition-based scales, but also offers a new direction toward enriching our understanding of individual differences in recalled and recognized emotions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信