Advertisement

Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 641–663 | Cite as

Capturing Affective Well-Being in Daily Life with the Day Reconstruction Method: A Refined View on Positive and Negative Affect

  • Dave MöwischEmail author
  • Florian Schmiedek
  • David Richter
  • Annette Brose
Research Paper

Abstract

In the last years, there has been a shift from traditional measurements of affective well-being to approaches such as the day reconstruction method (DRM). While the traditional approaches often assess trait level differences in well-being, the DRM allows examining affective dynamics in everyday contexts. The latter may ultimately explain why some people feel more happy than others (e.g., because they experience more gratification during everyday experiences). Even though DRM research has increased in the last years, little is known about the structure of affective well-being in everyday life, and potential structural differences of affect at the within- and between-person level have rarely been considered. We thus thoroughly examined the structure of affective well-being in daily life, using data from a nationally representative sample (N = 2401) of the German Socioeconomic Panel Innovation Sample that were obtained with the DRM. Multilevel structural equation models revealed that (1) affective well-being in daily life cannot be reduced to the two global dimensions positive and negative affect (PA and NA) but that the structure of NA is more nuanced; (2) the emerging subfacets of NA have distinct associations with global indicators of well-being (e.g., life satisfaction); (3) there are structural differences of affective well-being at the within- and between-person level, and (4) the relationships between affect subfacets and activities such as “work” can be opposed at the within- and between-person level. These results show that a more differentiated view on the structure of affect contributes to a better understanding of affective well-being in everyday life.

Keywords

Day reconstruction method Positive affect Negative affect Multilevel structural equation modeling Subjective well-being 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by Grant NimoErt1 from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). We thank Eunji Lee for editorial assistance.

References

  1. Anusic, I., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2017). The validity of the day reconstruction method in the German socio-economic panel study. Social Indicators Research, 130(1), 213–232.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1172-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Oerlemans, W., & Sonnentag, S. (2013). Workaholism and daily recovery: A day reconstruction study of leisure activities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 87–107.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjalkebring, P., Västfjäll, D., & Johansson, B. E. A. (2015). Happiness and arousal: Framing happines as arousing results in lower happiness ratings for older adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 706.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjälkebring, P., Västfjäll, D., Svenson, O., & Slovic, P. (2016). Regulation of experienced and anticipated regret in daily decision making. Emotion, 16(3), 381–386.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 579–616.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  7. Brose, A., Voelkle, M. C., Lövdén, M., Lindenberger, U., & Schmiedek, F. (2015). Differences in the between-person and within-person structures of affect are a matter of degree. European Journal of Personality, 29(1), 55–71.  https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(9), 526–536.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-198709000-00004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diener, E., Fujita, F., Tay, L., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2012). Purpose, mood, and pleasure in predicting satisfaction judgments. Social Indicators Research, 105(3), 333–341.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9787-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The handbook of positive psychology (pp. 63–73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Diener, E., & Tay, L. (2014). Review of the day reconstruction method (DRM). Social Indicators Research, 116(1), 255–267.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0279-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engeser, S., & Baumann, N. (2016). Fluctuation of flow and affect in everyday life: A second look at the paradox of work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(1), 105–124.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9586-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamaker, E. L. (2012). Why researchers should think “within-person”: A paradigmatic rationale. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 43–61). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hogarth, R. M., Portell, M., & Cuxart, A. (2007). What risks do people perceive in everyday life? A perspective gained from the experience sampling method (ESM). Risk Analysis, 27(6), 1427–1439.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00978.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hudson, W. N., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2017). Day-to-day affect is surprisingly stable: A 2-year longitudinal study of well-being. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(1), 45–54.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616662129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 306(5702), 1776–1780.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knabe, A., Rätzel, S., Schöb, R., & Weimann, J. (2010). Dissatisfied with life but having a good day: Time-use and well-being of the unemployed. The Economic Journal, 120(547), 867–889.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02347.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kunzmann, U., Richter, D., & Schmukle, S. C. (2013). Stability and change in affective experience across the adult life span: Analyses with a national sample from Germany. Emotion, 13(6), 1086–1095.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for the inconsistent relationships among the stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764–775.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lüdtke, O., Marsh, H. W., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2008). The multilevel latent covariate model: A new, more reliable approach to group-level effects in contextual studies. Psychological Methods, 13(3), 203–229.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B., et al. (2009). Doubly-latent models of school contextual effects: Integrating multilevel and structural equation approaches to control measurement and sampling error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(6), 764–802.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170903333665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Molenaar, P. C., & Campbell, C. G. (2009). The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(2), 112–117.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01619.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angelos, CA: Muthen & Muthen.Google Scholar
  27. Nelson, S. K., Kushlev, K., English, T., Dunn, E. W., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). In defense of parenthood: Children are associated with more joy than misery. Psychological Science, 24(1), 3–10.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612447798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oerlemans, W. G. M., Bakker, A. B., & Veenhoven, R. (2011). Finding the key to happy aging: A day reconstruction study of happiness. The Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 66B(6), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbr040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oishi, S., Kurtz, J. L., Miao, F. F., Park, J., & Whitchurch, E. (2011). The role of familiarity in daily well-being: Developmental and cultural variation. Developmental Psychology, 57(6), 1750–1756.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richter, D., & Schupp, J. (2015). The SOEP innovation sample (SOEP IS). Schmollers Jahrbuch, 135, 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110(2), 145–172.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Russell, J. A., & Feldman Barrett, L. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: Dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 805–819.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference Chi square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multi-level sequential checking. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 92–120). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Schimmack, U. (1999). Strukturmodelle der Stimmungen: Rückschau, Rundschau und Ausschau [Structural models of mood: Review, overview, and outlook]. Psychologische Rundschau, 50(2), 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1–32.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stoeber, J., & Janssen, D. P. (2011). Perfectionism and coping with daily failures: Positive reframing helps achieve satisfaction at the end of the day. Anxiety Stress and Coping, 24(5), 477–497.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2011.562977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stone, A. A., Schwartz, J. E., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., Krueger, A., & Kahneman, D. (2006). A population approach to the study of emotion: Diurnal rhythms of a working day examined with the day reconstruction method. Emotion, 6(1), 139–149.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Struk, A., Scholer, A., & Danckert, J. (2016). A self-regulatory approach to understanding boredom proneness. Cognition and Emotion, 30(8), 1388–1401.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1064363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vansteelandt, K., Van Mechelen, I., & Nezlek, J. B. (2005). The co-occurrence of emotions in daily life: A multilevel approach. Journal of Research in Personality, 39(3), 325–335.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 219–235.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zelenski, J. M., & Larsen, R. J. (2000). The distribution of basic emotions in everyday life: A state and trait perspective from experience sampling data. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(2), 178–197.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1999.2275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dave Möwisch
    • 1
    Email author
  • Florian Schmiedek
    • 1
  • David Richter
    • 2
  • Annette Brose
    • 3
  1. 1.German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF)BerlinGermany
  2. 2.German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin)BerlinGermany
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations