Comparability of Emotion Dynamics Derived From Ecological Momentary Assessments, Daily Diaries, and the Day Reconstruction Method: Observational Study

Abstract

Background Interest in the measurement of the temporal dynamics of people’s emotional lives has risen substantially in psychological and medical research. Emotions fluctuate and change over time, and measuring the ebb and flow of people’s affective experiences promises enhanced insights into people’s health and functioning. Researchers have used a variety of intensive longitudinal assessment (ILA) methods to create measures of emotion dynamics, including ecological momentary assessments (EMAs), end-of-day (EOD) diaries, and the day reconstruction method (DRM). To date, it is unclear whether they can be used interchangeably or whether ostensibly similar emotion dynamics captured by the methods differ in meaningful ways. Objective This study aims to examine the extent to which different ILA methods yield comparable measures of intraindividual emotion dynamics. Methods Data from 90 participants aged 50 years or older were collected in a probability-based internet panel, the Understanding America Study, and analyzed. Participants provided positive and negative affect ratings using 3 ILA methods: (1) smartphone-based EMA, administered 6 times per day over 1 week, (2) web-based EOD diaries, administered daily over the same week, and (3) web-based DRM, administered once during that week. We calculated 11 measures of emotion dynamics (addressing mean levels, variability, instability, and inertia separately for positive and negative affect, as well as emotion network density, mixed emotions, and emotional dialecticism) from each ILA method. The analyses examined mean differences and correlations of scores addressing the same emotion dynamic across the ILA methods. We also compared the patterns of intercorrelations among the emotion dynamics and their relationships with health outcomes (general health, pain, and fatigue) across ILA methods. Results Emotion dynamics derived from EMAs and EOD diaries demonstrated moderate-to-high correspondence for measures of mean emotion levels (ρ≥0.95), variability (ρ≥0.68), instability (ρ≥0.51), mixed emotions (ρ=0.92), and emotional dialecticism (ρ=0.57), and low correspondence for measures of inertia (ρ≥0.17) and emotion network density (ρ=0.36). DRM-derived measures showed correlations with EMAs and EOD diaries that were high for mean emotion levels and mixed emotions (ρ≥0.74), moderate for variability (ρ=0.38-.054), and low to moderate for other measures (ρ=0.03-0.41). Intercorrelations among the emotion dynamics showed high convergence across EMAs and EOD diaries, and moderate convergence between the DRM and EMAs as well as EOD diaries. Emotion dynamics from all 3 ILA methods produced very similar patterns of relationships with health outcomes. Conclusions EMAs and EOD diaries provide corresponding information about individual differences in various emotion dynamics, whereas the DRM provides corresponding information about emotion levels and (to a lesser extent) variability, but not about more complex emotion dynamics. Our results caution researchers against viewing these ILA methods as universally interchangeable.

Investigating the relationship between emotional granularity and cardiorespiratory physiological activity in daily life

“…It is possible that participants would have responded differently if they had provided intensity ratings in the moment. However, recent evidence demonstrates moderate to high correlations between affective ratings collected in the moment versus through a day reconstruction method similar to that used in the present study (Schneider et al, 2020). The end-of-day surveys used in the present study also provided participants with some details recorded at the time of the experience sampling moment, theoretically allowing them to re-instantiate earlier experiences with greater fidelity.…”

Emotional Granularity Increases With Intensive Ambulatory Assessment: Methodological and Individual Factors Influence How Much

“…The combination of momentary and daily diary assessment has precedent in the literature (e.g., Businelle et al, 2016 ); it is also not uncommon to assess emotional granularity using daily diary methods in which participants rate emotional events from earlier in the day (e.g., Barrett et al, 2001 ; Dasch et al, 2010 ; for a review, see Thompson et al, 2021 ). It is possible that a two-step approach influenced the data obtained at end of day by, for example, providing an opportunity for initial emotion regulation in the moment (e.g., via affect labeling; Torre and Lieberman, 2018 ) or introducing some recall bias (e.g., Levine and Safer, 2002 ; but see Schneider et al, 2020 ). However, the end-of-day diaries provided participants with details recorded at the time of the experience sampling prompts, in theory allowing them to re-instantiate earlier experiences with greater fidelity.…”

Explaining age differences in the memory-experience gap.

“…Completing an end-of-day diary is not equivalent to rating one’s experiences in the moment (Neubauer et al, 2020) and researchers should be mindful of this. At the same time, while they should not be viewed as substitutes for one another, prior research has shown that momentary and end-of-day assessments demonstrate moderate-to-high correspondence, even for the assessment of several complex emotion dynamics (Broderick et al, 2009; Schneider et al, 2020). Fourth, as noted by Lindenberger et al (2011) and by Maxwell and Cole (2007) cross-sectional models can offer only limited insight into developmental mechanisms underlying age-related changes.…”