Psychological constructs, such as emotions, thoughts, and attitudes are often measured by asking individuals to reply to questions using closed-ended numerical rating scales. However, when asking people about their state of mind in a natural context ("How are you?"), we receive open-ended answers using words ("Fine and happy!") and not closed-ended answers using numbers ("7") or categories ("A lot"). Nevertheless, to date it has been difficult to objectively quantify responses to open-ended questions. We develop an approach using open-ended questions in which the responses are analyzed using natural language processing (Latent Semantic Analyses). This approach of using open-ended, semantic questions is compared with traditional rating scales in nine studies (N = 92-854), including two different study paradigms. The first paradigm requires participants to describe psychological aspects of external stimuli (facial expressions) and the second paradigm involves asking participants to report their subjective well-being and mental health problems. The results demonstrate that the approach using semantic questions yields good statistical properties with competitive, or higher, validity and reliability compared with corresponding numerical rating scales. As these semantic measures are based on natural language and measure, differentiate, and describe psychological constructs, they have the potential of complementing and extending traditional rating scales. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract

I would like to specifically thank family and friends for patiently encouraging and supporting me in endeavoring to write this article. Without them it would not have been possible. Also, a special thank you to

Background. An important outcome from the debate on whether wellness equals happiness, is the need of research focusing on how psychological well-being might influence humans’ ability to adapt to the changing environment and live in harmony. To get a detailed picture of the influence of positive and negative affect, the current study employed the affective profiles model in which individuals are categorised into groups based on either high positive and low negative affect (self-fulfilling); high positive and high negative affect (high affective); low positive and low negative affect (low affective); and high negative and low positive affect (self-destructive). The aims were to (1) investigate differences between affective profiles in psychological well-being and harmony and (2) how psychological well-being and its dimensions relate to harmony within the four affective profiles.Method. 500 participants (mean age = 34.14 years, SD. = ±12.75 years; 187 males and 313 females) were recruited online and required to answer three self-report measures: The Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule; The Scales of Psychological Well-Being (short version) and The Harmony in Life Scale. We conducted a Multivariate Analysis of Variance where the affective profiles and gender were the independent factors and psychological well-being composite score, its six dimensions as well as the harmony in life score were the dependent factors. In addition, we conducted four multi-group (i.e., the four affective profiles) moderation analyses with the psychological well-being dimensions as predictors and harmony in life as the dependent variables.Results. Individuals categorised as self-fulfilling, as compared to the other profiles, tended to score higher on the psychological well-being dimensions: positive relations, environmental mastery, self-acceptance, autonomy, personal growth, and purpose in life. In addition, 47% to 66% of the variance of the harmony in life was explained by the dimensions of psychological well-being within the four affective profiles. Specifically, harmony in life was significantly predicted by environmental mastery and self-acceptance across all affective profiles. However, for the low affective group high purpose in life predicted low levels of harmony in life.Conclusions. The results demonstrated that affective profiles systematically relate to psychological well-being and harmony in life. Notably, individuals categorised as self-fulfilling tended to report higher levels of both psychological well-being and harmony in life when compared with the other profiles. Meanwhile individuals in the self-destructive group reported the lowest levels of psychological well-being and harmony when compared with the three other profiles. It is proposed that self-acceptance and environmental acceptance might enable individuals to go from self-destructive to a self-fulfilling state that also involves harmony in life.