Zur Kurzanzeige

dc.date.accessioned2020-12-23T14:29:53Z
dc.date.available2020-12-23T14:29:53Z
dc.date.issued2020-07-21
dc.identifierdoi:10.17170/kobra-202012222884
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/123456789/12379
dc.description.sponsorshipGefördert im Rahmen des Projekts DEALger
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.rightsNamensnennung 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subjectaffect dynamicseng
dc.subjectreliabilityeng
dc.subjectresidual variableseng
dc.subjectstructureeng
dc.subjectpersonality traitseng
dc.subject.ddc150
dc.titleIndicators of Affect Dynamics: Structure, Reliability, and Personality Correlateseng
dc.typeAufsatz
dcterms.abstractResearchers are increasingly interested in the affect dynamics of individuals for describing and explaining personality and psychopathology. Recently, the incremental validity of more complex indicators of affect dynamics (IADs; e.g. autoregression) has been called into question (Dejonckheere et al., 2019), with evidence accumulating that these might convey little unique information beyond mean level and general variability of emotions. Our study extends the evidence for the construct validity of IADs by investigating their redundancy and uniqueness, split‐half reliability based on indices from odd‐numbered and even‐numbered days, and association with big five personality traits. We used three diverse samples that assessed daily and momentary emotions, including community participants, individuals with personality pathology, and their significant others (total N = 1192, total number of occasions = 51 278). Mean and variability of affects had high reliability and distinct nomological patterns to big five personality traits. In contrast, more complex IADs exhibited substantial redundancies with mean level and general variability of emotions. When partialing out these redundancies by using residual variables, some of the more complex IADs had acceptable reliability, but only a few of these showed incremental associations with big five personality traits, indicating that IADs have limited validity using the current assessment practices.eng
dcterms.accessRightsopen access
dcterms.creatorWendt, Leon P.
dcterms.creatorWright, Aidan G. C.
dcterms.creatorPilkonis, Paul A.
dcterms.creatorWoods, William C.
dcterms.creatorDenissen, Jaap J. A.
dcterms.creatorKühnel, Anja
dcterms.creatorZimmermann, Johannes
dc.relation.doidoi:10.1002/per.2277
dc.subject.swdAffektger
dc.subject.swdDynamikger
dc.subject.swdZuverlässigkeitger
dc.subject.swdStrukturger
dc.subject.swdPersönlichkeitsfaktorger
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion
dcterms.source.identifierEISSN 1099-0984
dcterms.source.issueIssue 6
dcterms.source.journalEuropean Journal of Personalityeng
dcterms.source.pageinfo1060-1072
dcterms.source.volumeVolume 34
kup.iskupfalse


Dateien zu dieser Ressource

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Das Dokument erscheint in:

Zur Kurzanzeige

Namensnennung 4.0 International
Solange nicht anders angezeigt, wird die Lizenz wie folgt beschrieben: Namensnennung 4.0 International