A mixed-method investigation into measurement reactivity to the experience sampling method: The role of sampling protocol and individual characteristics

Abstract

Since the introduction of the experience sampling method (ESM), there have been concerns that the repeated assessments typically related to this method may alter the behavior, thoughts, or feelings of participants. Previous studies have offered mixed results with some studies reporting reactive changes while others failed to find such effects. Our aim was to investigate under which circumstances ESM induces reactive effects.Students (N = 151) were randomly assigned to receive a questionnaire containing 30 or 60 items 3, 6, or 9 times per day for 14 days. A random sample of 50 participants took part in qualitative interviews after the end of the data collection. We investigated changes over time in the data, while taking into account the sampling protocol and characteristics of participants, and analyzed qualitative reports of measurement reactivity.Decreases in completion time, within-person variance of ratings and subjective reports of habituation point towards the existence of a habituation period. While participants also reported increases in emotional awareness in interviews, ESM measures indicated a decrease in emotional awareness over time. Changes in behavior were rare in quantitative and qualitative reports. Positive affect was found to decrease over time in the ESM data and various changes in affect, emotion regulation, and thoughts were reported in interviews. Individual characteristics and sampling protocol had inconsistent effects on changes over time.The current results suggest that ESM induces reactivity. These reactive changes may be particularly relevant to researchers investigating within-person variability, completion times, affect, or emotional awareness.

Microdosing psychedelics – Does it have an impact on emodiversity?

“…Similarly, among the negative valence emotions, during microdosing days the proportion represented by "ashamed, humiliated, or disgraced" was significantly higher. That "awe, wonder, or amazement" was found to take a more prominent place during microdosing days among positive emotions is in line with results from a recent experimental study (van Elk et al, 2021). However, the results regarding the decrease prevalence of "joyful, glad, or happy" among the positive emotions and the increased prevalence of "ashamed, humiliated, or disgraced" among negative emotions, are surprising.…”

“…However, a cautionary note regards our outcome of interest, i.e., a rich emotional life, whose measurement may be the biggest obstacle in compliance. Furthermore, previous research has shown that ESM studies have a habituation period (Eisele et al, 2022), i.e., participants could respond differently throughout the study period of investigation because of getting used to the items presented and also because of the intensive nature of data collection. In our sampling strategy we allowed for breaks in between the observations days and in our analyses we introduced dummies for the observation days, actions meant to address such concerns.…”

“…As such, this mechanism requires further investigation. Addressing the above limitations with a stricter design, i.e., participants with no prior experience of microdosing, as well as a double blinded procedure and dose control, and including measures of emotional awareness and expectations (Eisele et al, 2022;Kaertner et al, 2021), would allow a deeper understanding of how the microdosing practice impacts the human emotional ecosystem.…”

“…We also added an indicator variable differentiating between the period before and after March 5th 2020 in order to account for the two waves of data collection that were a result of the pandemic. In order to address possible habituation effects due to participants getting used to fill in the surveys (Eisele et al, 2022), we included dummies for the observation days.…”

For better or for worse? Visualizing previous intensity levels improves emotion (dynamic) measurement in experience sampling.

“…The 10 discrete emotions that participants had to rate at each measurement occasion were happy, excited, enthusiastic, pleased, relaxed, sad, down, irritated, anxious, and stressed (the specific order was randomized across momentary assessments). The selection of these emotion items was based on their natural occurrence in daily life (ensuring sufficient within-person variability; Eisele et al, 2021) and their balanced combination of different valence and arousal levels (the two most prominent dimensions that underlie our emotional experience according to the circumplex model of affect; Russell, 1980). In our analyses, we considered global momentary positive (PA) and negative affect (NA) composite scores by averaging all same-valenced emotion items at each measurement occasion.…”