Motivation and emotion/Book/2015/Affect intensity
What is affect intensity and how does it affect our emotional lives?
Overview[edit | edit source]
It is no secret that people react differently to the same experiences. This is not only the case for what kind of response an individual has, but how strong that response is. There are people who are noticeably happy when something good happens. It might be that they can't stop smiling or they are bubbling with positive energy. At the other end of the spectrum, there are people who has a good experience and is much less enthusiastically happy. They might just react by quietly smiling. These people, while both having an appropriate emotional response to the stimuli, differ in their emotional responsiveness.
The concept of affect intensity provides an explanation for these differences in people’s responses (Geuens & De Pelsmacker, 1999; Rubin et al., 2012). It relates to the strength of the reaction an individual has to emotional stimuli (Geuens & De Pelsmacker, 1999; Rubin et al., 2012). Affect-intense people have stronger responses to the same stimuli as their affect-stable counterparts (Geuens & De Pelsmacker, 1999; Rubin et al., 2012). This means that affect-stable people demonstrate higher resistance to emotional stimuli, and require stronger emotional stimuli than affect-intense people to elicit not only a strong response, but any response at all (Geuens & De Pelsmacker, 1999; Rubin et al., 2012).
Research suggest that affect-stable people also have more balanced emotional responses and fluctuation than affect-intense people due to their lower emotional responsiveness (Geuens & De Pelsmacker, 1999; Rubin et al., 2012). This basically means affect-intense people experience more frequent emotional fluctuations, higher highs, and lower lows (Geuens & De Pelsmacker, 1999; Rubin et al., 2012). Understanding and measuring one’s affect intensity can be a useful tool in achieving a more complete picture of the emotional processes and stability of one’s self and others (Engelberg & Sjöberg; 2003; Thompson et al., 2011).
Understanding affect intensity[edit | edit source]
Affect intensity is a stable psychological characteristic that determines the strength of an individual's response to emotional stimuli (Basso et al., 1994). Studies have found that these differences are a result of psychological, not physiological, differences (Larsen et al., 1986).
Despite the consistency of the psychological construct of affect intensity, there are a number of factors that impact the strength of an individual’s emotional response (Larsen et al., 1986). There are three main factors that have been linked to an individual's emotional responsiveness:
- The intensity of the stimulus. Stronger stimuli result in a more intense emotional response (Larsen et al., 1986). For example an individual will have a stronger negative emotional response to the death of a friend, than losing their keys.
- Factors that cause changes in the reactivity of the nervous system (Larsen et al., 1986). For example caffeinated beverages elevate the reactivity of an individual’s nervous system, whereas alcohol reduces it.
- The individual’s stable, internal psychological characteristics (Larsen et al., 1986). For example, someone with a high arousal potential would respond differently to an individual with low arousal potential.
A longitudinal study measured the emotional stability of a group of university students over 56 consecutive days (Larsen et al., 1986). The participants were asked to complete a daily mood survey (Larsen et al., 1986). The study found that some of the participants reported stronger emotions than the others (Larsen et al., 1986). These participants also demonstrated greater emotional volatility, as their responses indicated they fluctuated between positive and negative emotions more frequently than the low-intensity participants (Larsen et al., 1986). It seemed unlikely that individuals in the same environment were experiencing more intense and varying emotional stimuli than others (Larsen et al., 1986). This suggested that their psychological processes were responsible for these differences. The study also found that the majority of individuals who reported more intense positive responses were also reporting stronger negative emotional responses (Larsen et al., 1986).
This is but one of the numerous studies that have supported the theory that affect-intense people are more likely to experience stronger responses to both negative and positive stimuli than those who have low affect intensity (Basso et al., 1994; Larsen et al., 1986). This explains the emotional volatility associated with high affect intensity (Larsen et al., 1986). Imagine being impacted by almost all emotional stimuli you are exposed to, regardless of the nature of the stimulus. It makes sense that your mood would fluctuate because you have very little control over your reactions to stimuli. Inversely, it also stands to reason that affect-stable people demonstrate reduced volatility because only strong stimuli elicit a response from them that is likely less intense than that experienced by their less stable counterparts (Basso et al., 1994).
|
Emotional responsiveness factors:
|
Measuring affect intensity[edit | edit source]
Affect intensity is predominantly measured through self-report measures. Other measures such as the use of diaries and parental reporting have been used. These methods are less quantifiable, reliable, and cost effective than a self-report questionnaire (Larsen et al., 1986).
Affect intensity measure (1984)[edit | edit source]
Larsen’s Affect Intensity Measure (AIM) is a 40-item questionnaire which was developed in 1984 to measure an individual’s emotional response strength (Larsen et al., 1986; Jones et al., 2009). Subjects are instructed to respond to each items by using a 6-point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = almost never, 3 = occasionally, 4 = usually, 5 = almost always, 6 = always) (Larsen et al., 1986).
As is the case with all self-report measures, it is possible that participants will employ deception to provide answers that they believe are more desirable, normal, or socially acceptable (Larsen et al., 1986). The AIM contains deception-detection measures to safeguard against false reporting (Larsen et al., 1986). Since its conception the AIM has been revised in order to take into consideration the evolving understanding of the components that relate to the concept of affect intensity.
Affect intensity and reactivity (1994)[edit | edit source]
In 1994 the AIM was refined to 27 of the original 40 items and renamed the Affect Intensity and Reactivity (AIR) model (Bryan et al., 1996). This model determined an individual’s affect intensity by measuring four factors: Positive intensity, positive reactivity, negative intensity and negative reactivity (Bryant et al., 1996; Jones et al., 2009).
|
AIR's four factors
|
These revised factors provided a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of affect intensity (Bryant et al., 1996). It indicated that an individual’s reactivity to stimuli can vary depending on the nature of the stimuli. Furthermore, it provided a distinction between how reactive an individual is to stimuli, and the strength of said reaction (Bryant et al., 1996; Shimmack & Diener, 1997). There are a number of potential combinations of these two factors; one potential combination is that the individual is highly reactive to negative stimuli, but has low-intensity responses. A practical example is that every time an individual loses their keys they feel worried (highly reactive), however they only feel mildly worried about locating their keys (low-intensity). One proposed reason for the differences in the two factors is that individuals can train themselves to ignore certain stimuli, or suppress certain emotional responses, thus exercising control over their reactivity or intensity.
|
Comparing AIM & AIR
AIM:
AIR:
AIM & AIR:
|
Affect intensity and gender[edit | edit source]
"Men are no more immune from emotions than women; we think women are more emotional because the culture lets them give free vent to certain feelings, feminine ones, that is, no anger please, but it's okay to turn on the waterworks."
-Una Stannard
Traditional gender roles have often assigned women the trait of emotional vulnerability (Diener et al., 1985). From birth males and females are exposed to different expectations and methods of socialisation (Diener et al., 1985). Due to these binary perceptions of gender, it has long been a stereotype that women experience stronger emotional responses, and more frequent emotional fluctuation than men. Do these differences actually exist?
Diener at al.(1985) posited a link exists between affect intensity and gender. These studies have relied upon not only self-report measures, but also physiological monitoring to determine the strength and frequency of the participant’s emotional responses (Diener et al., 1985). Their findings suggested that women experience higher emotional intensity, negative emotional reactivity, and negative intensity than men (Diener et al., 1985).
From a young age males and females are usually nurtured in different ways (Diener et al., 1985; Rudman & Phelan, 2010). Different attributes, attitudes and skills are fostered. Males are encouraged to ignore negative stimuli, and stifle their negative emotional responses (Diener et al., 1985). Diener et al.(1985) attributed their recorded gender differences in affect intensity exist because of these pressures. They suggested men have not only trained themselves to reduce their emotional reactivity and intensity, but they also provide false reports that downplay their affect intensity and reactivity in order to fit societal expectations (Diener et al., 1985).
Females on the other hand are usually subjected to different pressures (Diener et al., 1985; Rudman & Phelan, 2010). Traditional gender roles assign the nurturing responsibilities to women (Diener et al., 1985; Rudman & Phelan, 2010). These roles require emotional intelligence, sensitivity and empathy (Diener et al., 1985; Rudman & Phelan,2010). As a result, women are encouraged to respond to emotional stimuli, even those that are negative (Diener et al., 1985; Rudman & Phelan, 2010). Therefore, due to these differing developmental and social environmental factors, women report more frequent, intense, and negative emotional responses.
The influence of these binary gender roles may not be as strong as they were in the past, however, these traditional gender roles continue to permeate many aspects of our society (Diener et al., 1985; Rudman & Phelan, 2010). Further studies need to be conducted into the subject to determine whether underlying societal influences are responsible for the differing affect intensity or men and women.
Affect intensity throughout the lifespan[edit | edit source]
Anecdotal evidence suggests that teenagers and young adults are more emotionally intense and volatile than adults. This is often attributed to the hormonal fluctuations caused by puberty, and their ongoing cognitive development. One could attribute their heightened or reduced affect intensity to their age or societal role (Cheavens et al., 2008;Diener et al., 1985). Different expectations are placed on people not just based on their age, but also what roles they fill (Diener et al., 1985).
A study was conducted which tested the relationship between age and affect intensity. Sixty three families were surveyed (Diener et al., 1985. Of the 242 participants, the majority of the participants were college or high school students (Diener et al., 1985. All of the family members were required to complete mood scales (Diener et al., 1985). The results found that not only did the parents report greater affect-stability, but they also reported lower negative intensity and negative reactivity (Diener et al., 1985). The study found that the participants under the age of 29 years reported higher intensity, suggesting there is a link between age and affect intensity (Diener et al., 1985). It was posited that differences in biological processes or cultural expectations may be the cause for these differences (Diener et al., 1985). Younger individuals may experience naturally higher autonomic arousal than older people, thus resulting in more intense emotional responses. Younger people are not subjected to the same cultural expectations as adults (Diener et al., 1985). Adults are expected to exercise greater control over their emotions than young adults and teenagers (Diener et al., 1985).
As is the case with many of questions regarding affect intensity, further study needs to be conducted to determine the cause for these differences. Future studies could determine the nature of these differences by monitoring the physiological components of the emotional responses.
Affect intensity and daily life[edit | edit source]
Understanding and quantifying one’s affect intensity can provide insight into the reasoning behind one’s behaviour and emotional reactions to everyday life and experiences.
Intimacy[edit | edit source]
The closer someone is to a person, the more intense their feelings are for them (Hackenbracht & Gasper, 2013; Dizén & Berenbaum, 2008). The theory that a strong positive correlation between intimacy and affect intensity exists almost seems like an obvious conclusion to make (Hackenbracht & Gasper, 2013). It stands to reason that closer relationships elicit stronger emotional responses from an individual if something good or bad happens to the other person (Hackenbracht & Gasper, 2013).
Working off this theory, one can assess the strength of an individual’s emotional reactions to determine how close they feel to another person (Hackenbracht & Gasper, 2013). For example, it is reasonable to assume you would experience more intense feelings of concern if your partner were significantly injured, than if it were a casual acquaintance.
Feelings of closeness have been found to not only influence how an individual reacts to a situation, but also how they believe they would hypothetically react (Hackenbracht & Gasper, 2013). Feelings of closeness, therefore, have a significant effect upon an individual’s emotional judgement processes (Hackenbracht & Gasper, 2013). Simply put, by measuring the intensity of an individual’s hypothesised or actual emotional reactions we can determine how close they are to another person (Hackenbracht & Gasper, 2013).
The nature of the intense emotional response can also provide information on the nature of the relationship (Hackenbracht & Gasper, 2013). For example, imagine you have a strong antagonistic relationship with someone and they lose their job and you experience an intense feeling of happiness. This unconventional response is still indicative of the strength of your relationship with the person, but it also reflects the adversarial element to your relationship (Hackenbracht & Gasper, 2013).
Having a greater awareness of one’s emotional responses to the successes and failures of others is useful in providing an indication of not only the strength the relationship between the two, but also their underlying dynamics (Hackenbracht & Gasper, 2013). Assessing these factors could be useful in helping someone realise that they are not as close to a friend as they once thought, or that their once amicable relationship has since turned adversarial and may no longer be worth pursuing.
Consumer behaviour[edit | edit source]
"Good advertising does not just circulate information. It penetrates the public mind with desires and belief."
-Leo Burnett
Consumer culture is a huge part of everyday life. Advertising is present in almost all forms of media such as radio and television. Advertising usually relies upon emotionally evocative language or images, or facts in order to elicit a certain response from the audience.
A study was conducted into the relationship between an individual’s affect intensity and their reaction to advertising (Moore & Homer, 2000). They compared the emotional response strength of affect-stable and affect-intense people to both fact-based and emotion-based advertising (Moore & Homer, 2000). The results indicate the affect-intense people experience stronger responses to emotion-based advertising (Moore & Homer, 2000). Furthermore, it concluded that both affect-intense and affect-stable people have the same response strength to fact-based advertising (Moore & Homer, 2000).
These findings are significant because it means that affect intense people are more vulnerable to emotionally manipulative advertising (Moore & Homer, 2000). For example if an affect-intense and affect-stable person were to watch a charity advertisement depicting starving children, the affect-intense person would be more likely to donate due to their more intense negative emotional responses.
Being aware of one’s vulnerability or resistance to emotionally manipulative advertising can provide a foundation of improved emotional, and consequently, financial control (Moore & Homer, 2000; Thompson et al., 2011).
Social interaction[edit | edit source]
Successful social interaction is reliant upon an individual's ability to accurately interpret, and appropriately respond to, emotional cues (Engelberg & Sjoberg, 2004). Affect-intense people have reported lower levels of loneliness, and better work-life balance.Based on the information already available, it is likely that the affect-intense, who experience heightened emotional awareness and reactivity, are more successful at navigating social situations (Engelberg & Sjoberg, 2004).
This hypothesised relationship was studied by testing the correlation between emotional intelligence, and affect intensity and reactivity (Engelberg & Sjoberg, 2004). Emotional intelligence is an individual's ability to not only manage their own emotions, but identify and adapt to the emotions of others (Engelberg & Sjoberg, 2004). Emotional intelligence has a strong focus on interpersonal interactions. The study posited that affect intensity is a component of emotional intelligence, therefore affect-intense individuals are more emotionally intelligent than the affect-stable (Engelberg & Sjoberg, 2004).
The study found affect-intense and emotionally reactive people are more attuned to the shifts in moods of others, making them more adaptive to emotional changes (Engelberg & Sjoberg, 2004).
Affect intensity and psychopathology[edit | edit source]
Outside of normal variation, high affective intensity can be symptomatic of mental illness. Emotional instability presents as a symptom of a number of psychological disorders, therefore, measuring an individual's affect intensity can identify risk factors or maladaptive emotional responses.
Bipolar disorder (BD)[edit | edit source]
Bipolar disorder is characterised by irregular and intense emotional responses (Mathieu et al., 2014; Henry et al., 2008). Typically BD is associated with rapid transitions between manic and depressive states, however its symptoms are more extensive (Mathieu et al., 2014).
BD-sufferers experience even higher highs and lower lows than those who fall within the healthy range of affect intensity. BD showcases the power of affect intensity when its influence is amplified beyond healthy levels. The behaviour of BD-sufferers differ depending on whether they are currently in the throes of a manic of depressive episode (Mathieu et al., 2014; Henry et al., 2008). The underlying causes for said behaviour, emotional dysregulation and intensity, remain the same (Mathieu et al., 2014). Abnormally high affect intensity and reactivity have been documented as risk factors and indicators of BD (Mathieu et al., 2014).
The refined four-factor model of affect intensity, as measured by the AIR model provides a more reliable method of identifying BD (Mathieu et al., 2014). The original uni-factor AIM would only identify the presence of abnormally high affect intensity, which can be symptomatic of other mental illnesses (Mathieu et al., 2014). The AIR model identifies positive intensity and reactivity, as well as negative intensity and reactivity. The distinctive fluctuating and intense polarity of BD is easier to identify when using this more advanced model (Mathieu et al., 2014).
Borderline personality disorder (BPD)[edit | edit source]
Bornovalova, Matusiewicz & Rojas (2011) define Borderline personality disorder(BPD) as:
...a severe and persistent mental illness characterised by pervasive affective, cognitive, interpersonal, and behavioural dysfunction, including emotional labilitiy, interpersonal disturbances, and engagement in risky or impulsive behaviours (p .744).
The cause of BPD has been attributed to a genetic predisposition that is exacerbated by childhood abuse (Bornovalova et al., 2011). Studies have identified irregular emotional processes as risk factors for BPD (Bornovalova et al., 2011). These risk factors include high negative reactivity and intensity; and high affectivity, intensity, and instability (Bornovalova et al., 2011). These emotional imbalances result in heightened vulnerability to negative stimuli and stronger reactions to said stimuli by BPD-sufferers (Bornovalova et al., 2011). Both BPD and high affect intensity have been found to be more prevalent in women, further supporting the hypothesised correlation between the two (Bornovalova et al., 2011; Diener et al., 1985).
Studies have suggested that the harmful behaviours associated with BPD, such as substance abuse and self-harm can be linked to high negative intensity and reactivity (Bornovalova et al., 2011; Gratz, 2006; Veilleux et al., 2014). BPD-sufferers have lower distress tolerance than healthy individuals. Meaning when they are subjected to emotionally distressing stimuli, they are more likely to engage in harmful behaviour (Bornovalova et al., 2011).
Measuring and understanding the influence of these underlying psychological processes can grants a BPD-sufferer a greater sense of control (Thompson et al., 2011). Instead of feeling overwhelmed and hopeless in the face of their symptoms, they can acknowledge them, and in turn work on managing them. For example, by realising they respond destructively or violently to negative stimuli, they can work with their therapist to develop coping strategies through treatment programs such as dialectical behaviour therapy (Bornovalova et al., 2011).
Conclusion[edit | edit source]
Affect intensity is a relatively stable psychological characteristic that determines not only how one views the world, but how they interact with it. The differences between those who are classified as affect-intense and affect-stable are substantial. Affect-intense people are vulnerable to emotional manipulation, fluctuation, and in extreme cases mental illnesses. There aren't all negatives to this classification, however, they also demonstrate greater emotional intelligence, interpersonal skills, and work-life satisfaction. Affect-stable people, while being more emotionally balanced, are also likely to experience greater difficulty adapting to social situations.
Understanding one's affect intensity can provide an individual with a greater understanding of, and sense of control over, their emotional responses. Emotional reactivity and intensity may have been features that an individual was not aware existed, let alone they were aware of their extensive influence on everyday life. The affect-intense can gain a greater appreciation of the strengths that are associated with their classification, and perhaps use this knowledge to assist in looking for occupations that require highly developed emotional intelligence. Furthermore, they can learn how to control or reduce the negative consequences of their emotional intensity and reactivity. Affect-stable people can also harness the benefits of their classification by seeking out positions that value rationality and emotional stability. Furthermore, they can work on improving their interpersonal skills.
Quiz[edit | edit source]
See also[edit | edit source]
References[edit | edit source]
Bryant, F. B., Yarnold, P. R., & Grimm, L. G. (1996). Toward a measurement model of the affect intensity measure: A three-factor structure. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 223-247.
Cheavens, J. S., Rosenthal, M. Z., Banawan, S. F., & Lynch, T. R. (2008). Differences in emotional experience and emotion regulation as a function of age and psychatric condition. Aging and Mental Health, 12(4), 478-487.
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1985). Age and sex effects for emotional intensity. Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 542-546.
Dizén, M., & Berenbaum, H. (2008). Extreme outcome expectations and affect intensity. Cognition and Emotion, 22(6), 1130-1148.
Engelberg, E., & Sjöberg, L. (2004). Emotional intelligence, affect intensity, and social adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 533-542.
Geuens, M. & De Pelsmacker, P. (1999). Affect intensity revisitedː Individual differences and the communication effects of emotional stimuli. Psychology and Marketing, 16(3), 195-209.
Gratz, K. L. (2006). Risk factors for deliberate self-harm among female college students: The role and interaction of childhood maltreatment, emotional inexpressivity, and affect intensity/reactivity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(2), 238-250.
Hackenbracht, J., & Gasper K. (2013). Feeling more and feeling close: Affect intensity and influences judgement of interpersonal closeness. Social Cognition, 31(1), 94-105.
Henry, C., Van den Bulke, D., Bellivier, F., Roy, I., Swendsen, J., M’Baïlara, K., Siever, L. J., &LeBoyer, M. (2008). Affective lability and affect intensity as core dimensions of bipolar disorders during euthymic period. Psychiatry Research, 159, 1-6.
Jones, R. E., Leen-Feldner, E. W., Olatunji, B. O., Reardon, L. E., & Hawks, E. (2009). Psychometric properties of the affect intensity and reactivity measure adapted for youth (AIR-Y). Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 162-175.
Larsen, R. J., Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1986). Affect intensity and reactions to daily life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 803-814.
Mathieu, F., Etain, B., Daban, C., Raymond, R., Raust, A., Cochet, B., Gard, S., M'Bailara, K., Desage, A., Kahn, J. P., Wajsbrot-Elgrabli, O., Cohen, R. F., Azorin, J. M., Leboyer, M., Bellivier, F., Scott, J., & Henry, C. (2014). Affect intensity measure in bipolar disorders: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Affective Disorders, 157, 8-13.
Moore, D. J., Homer, P. M. (2000). Dimensions of temperament: Affect intensity and consumer lifestyles. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(4), 231-242.
Rojas, S. M., Leen-Feldner, E. W., Blumenthal, H., Lewis, S. F., & Feldner, M. T. (2015). Risk for suicide amongst treatment seeking adolescents: The role for positive and negative affect intensity. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 39, 100-109.
Rubin, D. C., Hoyle, R. H., & Leary, M. R. (2012). Differential predictability of four dimensions of affect intensity. Condition and Emotion, 26(1), 25-41.
Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. A. (2010). The effect of priming gender roles on women's implicit gender beliefs and career aspirations. Social Psychology, 41(3), 192-202.
Shimmack, U., Diener, E. (1997). Affect intensity: Separating intensity and frequency in repeatedly measured affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1313-1329.
Thompson, R. J., Mata, J., Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Gotlib, I. H. (2011). Concurrent and prospective relations between attention to emotion and affect intensity: An experience sampling study. Emotion, 11(6), 1489-1494.
Veilleux, J. C., Skinner, K. D., Reese, E. D., & Shaver, J. A. (2014). Negative affect intensity influences drinking to cope through facets of emotion dysregulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 96-101.