Ambulatory assessment (e.g., ecological momentary assessment) is now widely used in psychological research, yet key design decisions remain largely informed by methodological lore as opposed to systematic inquiry. The present study experimentally tested whether signal-(e.g., random prompt) and event-(e.g., complete a survey every time a target event occurs) contingent recording procedures of interpersonal behavior and affect in social situations yield equivalent quality and quantity of data. Participants (N ϭ 286) completed baseline questionnaires, underwent cluster randomization to either a signal-or event-contingent condition, and then completed 1 week of ambulatory assessment, during which they answered questions about their social behavior and affect tied to their social interactions. Conditions were compared on response frequency, means and variances of interpersonal behavior and affect, correlations between interpersonal behavior and affect within-subject, and associations between momentary behavior and affect and baseline variables (e.g., Big Five traits). Results indicated that signaland event-contingent recording techniques provided equivalent data quality, suggesting that researchers can use the 2 methodologies interchangeably to draw conclusions about means, variances, and associations when examining social interactions. However, results also showed that event-contingent recording returned, on average, a higher number of reported social interactions per individual, and this was true for most time periods of the day. Thus, event-contingent recording may hold advantages for studying frequency and timing of social interactions. Public Significance StatementThis study compared two methods for administering surveys to measure social behavior and mood in daily life, using random prompts throughout the day or asking participants to report only when a social interaction occurs. Results suggest that both methods provide similar data quality, although having individuals report when they experience a social interaction may yield a higher quantity of data.

Ambulatory assessment (e.g., ecological momentary assessment) is now widely used in psychological research, yet key design decisions remain largely informed by methodological lore as opposed to systematic inquiry. The present study experimentally tested whether signal- (e.g., random prompt) and event-contingent (e.g., complete a survey every time a target event occurs) recording procedures of interpersonal behavior and affect in social situations yield equivalent quality and quantity of data. Participants (N = 286) completed baseline questionnaires, underwent cluster randomization to either a signal- or event-contingent condition, then completed one week of ambulatory assessment during which participants answered questions about their social behavior and affect tied to their social interactions. Conditions were compared on response frequency, means and variances of interpersonal behavior and affect, correlations between interpersonal behavior and affect within-person, and associations between momentary behavior and affect and baseline variables (e.g., big-five traits). Results indicated that signal- and event-contingent recording techniques provided equivalent data quality, suggesting that researchers can use the two methodologies interchangeably to draw conclusions about means, variances, and associations when examining social interactions. However, results also showed that event-contingent recording returned, on average, a higher number of reported social interactions per individual and this was true for most time-periods of the day. Thus, event-contingent recording may hold advantages for studying frequency and timing of social interactions.

BackgroundMajor depressive disorder (MDD) is characterized by biases in memory, attention, and cognition. The present study utilized the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) to examine the content of specific autobiographical memories (AMs) recalled by individuals with MDD during an autobiographical memory task.MethodsWe examined various features of the text (including use of affective, cognitive, and self-referential terms), as well as their associations with clinical and cognitive features of MDD (depression severity, autobiographical memory specificity, amygdala activity), in 45 unmedicated adults with MDD compared to 61 healthy controls.ResultsWhen recalling positive memories MDD individuals used the word “I” less, fewer positive words, more words indicating present focus (present tense verbs), and fewer words overall to describe memories compared to controls. When recalling negative memories, MDD individuals used “I” more, more words indicating present focus, and more words overall to describe memories relative to controls. Depression severity was correlated with word count, the use of “I”, and words indicating present focus in negative memories and inversely correlated with word count and the use of “I” in positive memories. Autobiographical memory specificity was correlated with word count, the use of “I”, and words indicating present focus for positive memories and inversely correlated with the use of “I” and words indicating present focus for negative memories.LimitationsDue to the nature of AM recall, we could not control for the number of memories which participants recalled in each mnemonic category.ConclusionsResults align with literature implicating rumination and intensive self-focus in depression and suggest that interventions targeting specific word use may be therapeutically beneficial in the treatment of MDD.

Interpersonal theory organizes social behavior along dominant (vs. submissive) and warm (vs. cold) dimensions. There is a growing interest in assessing these behaviors in naturalistic settings to maximize ecological validity and to study dynamic social processes. Studies that have assessed interpersonal behavior in daily life have primarily relied on behavioral checklists. Although checklists have advantages, they are discrepant with techniques used to capture constructs typically assessed alongside warmth and dominance, such as affect, which typically rely on adjective descriptors. Further, these checklists are distinct from the methodologies used at the dispositional level, such as personality inventories, which rarely rely on behavioral checklists. The current study evaluates the psychometric performance of interpersonal adjectives presented on a visual analogue scale in five different samples. Validity of the visual interpersonal analogue scale (VIAS) approach to momentary assessment was evaluated by comparing its performance with an interpersonal behavior checklist and by examining associations among the VIAS warmth and dominance scales and other momentary and dispositional constructs. Results were generally consistent with an existing interpersonal behavior checklist at the within-person level but diverged somewhat at the dispositional level. Across the five samples, the VIAS generally performed as hypothesized at both the within- and between-person levels.

Interpersonal theory organizes social behavior along dominant (vs. submissive) and warm (vs. cold) dimensions. There is a growing interest in assessing these behaviors in naturalistic settings to maximize ecological validity and to study dynamic social processes. Studies that have assessed interpersonal behavior in daily life have primarily relied on behavioral checklists. Although checklists have advantages, they are discrepant with techniques used to capture constructs typically assessed alongside warmth and dominance, such as affect, which typically rely on adjective descriptors. Further, these checklists are distinct from the methodologies used at the dispositional level, such as personality inventories, which rarely rely on behavioral checklists. The present study evaluates the psychometric performance of interpersonal adjectives presented on a visual analog scale in five different samples. Validity of the Visual Interpersonal Analog scale (VIAS) approach to momentary assessment was evaluated by comparing its performance with an interpersonal behavior checklist and by examining associations among the VIAS Warmth and Dominance scales and other momentary and dispositional constructs. Results were generally consistent with an existing interpersonal behavior checklist at the within-person level but diverged somewhat at the dispositional level. Across the five samples, the VIAS generally performed as hypothesized at both the within-and betweenperson levels. Public Significance StatementThe present study reports on the development of a new method for measuring social behavior in ambulatory assessments. We find that the method performs as would be hypothesized based upon theory and existing empirical research on links between interpersonal behaviors and a variety of emotional and behavioral processes.