Experience sampling research in psychopathology: opening the black box of daily life

Abstract

A growing body of research suggests that momentary assessment technologies that sample experiences in the context of daily life constitute a useful and productive approach in the study of behavioural phenotypes and a powerful addition to mainstream cross-sectional research paradigms. Momentary assessment strategies for psychopathology are described, together with a comprehensive review of research findings illustrating the added value of daily life research for the study of (1) phenomenology, (2) aetiology, (3) psychological models, (4) biological mechanisms, (5) treatment and (6) gene-environment interactions in psychopathology. Overall, this review shows that variability over time and dynamic patterns of reactivity to the environment are essential features of psychopathological experiences that need to be captured for a better understanding of their phenomenology and underlying mechanisms. The Experience Sampling Method (ESM) allows us to capture the film rather than a snapshot of daily life reality of patients, fuelling new research into the gene-environment-experience interplay underlying psychopathology and its treatment.

Positive affect measured using ecological momentary assessment and survival in older men and women

“…trast, negative affective states were not associated with greater mortality after covariates had been taken into account. EMA and other measures of current affect are increasingly being used to investigate variations in positive well-being with age (21), relationships with wealth (20), and psychopathology (22). The association with mortality corroborates findings that have used retrospective questionnaires to measure affect (3).…”

“…EMA is the only "real-time" procedure involving the collection of a number of ratings of how a person feels over a period of time. It allows variations in mood over time and in relation to events to be explored (22). Here, we report the association between PA measured by using EMA and mortality over an average 5-y follow-up period in a large sample of men and women aged 52 to 79 y.…”

Modeling the Interplay Between Psychological Processes and Adverse, Stressful Contexts and Experiences in Pathways to Psychosis: An Experience Sampling Study

“…The primary aim of the current study therefore was to examine how stressful contexts and experiences (event-related, activity-related, and social stress), affective disturbance (ie, negative affect), cognitive bias (ie, enhanced threat anticipation), and anomalous experiences (ie, aberrant salience) combine to increase the intensity of PE in daily life. We used the Experience Sampling Method (ESM), 30 a structured diary technique, in a sample of individuals with a first-episode psychosis (FEP), individuals with ARMS, and controls to test the following hypotheses (figure 1): within each group, (1) stressful contexts and experiences in daily life increase the intensity of PE via pathways through affective disturbance, enhanced threat anticipation, and aberrant salience; (2) affective disturbance increases the intensity of PE through enhanced threat anticipation and aberrant salience; and (3) enhanced threat anticipation increases intensity of PE through experiences of aberrant salience. We furthermore hypothesized that the indirect effects of stressful contexts and experiences on PE through affective disturbance, anomalous experiences, and cognitive bias are greater in FEP than in controls, ARMS than in controls, and FEP than in ARMS.…”

The role of stress‐regulation genes in moderating the association of stress and daily‐life psychotic experiences

“…The strengths of this study include the comparison of a non‐clinical and early‐psychosis sample, the use of ecologically valid measures of symptoms, and stress in real‐life during multiple time points over a week enhancing the reliability of GxE research 66 and the estimation of two risk haplotypes increasing the power to detect genetic associations 67. Limitations of the study include its cross‐sectional nature, which limits interpretations about the causal effects of GxE interactions.…”