Assessment of Affect Integration: Validation of the Affect Consciousness Construct

Abstract

Affect integration, or the capacity to utilize the motivational and signal properties of affect for personal adjustment, is assumed to be an important aspect of psychological health and functioning. Affect integration has been operationalized through the affect consciousness (AC) construct as degrees of awareness, tolerance, nonverbal expression, and conceptual expression of nine discrete affects. A semistructured Affect Consciousness Interview (ACI) and separate Affect Consciousness Scales (ACSs) have been developed to specifically assess these aspects of affect integration. This study explored the construct validity of AC in a Norwegian clinical sample including estimates of reliability and assessment of structure by factor analyses. External validity issues were addressed by examining the relationships between scores on the ACSs and self-rated symptom- and interpersonal problem measures as well as independent, observer-based ratings of personality disorder criteria and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. [DSM–IV]; American Psychiatric Association, 1994).

Acknowledgments

The study has used data from the Norwegian Multisite Study of Process and Outcome in Psychotherapy (NMSPOP), which is supported by grants from the National Program for Integrated Clinical Specialist and PhD Training for Psychologists in Norway. The program is a joint cooperation between the Universities of Bergen, Oslo, Tromsø, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Trondheim), the Regional Health Authorities, and the Norwegian Psychological Association. The program is funded jointly by the Ministry of Education and Research and the Ministry of Health and Care Services.

The Norwegian Multisite Study of Process and Outcome in Psychotherapy (NMSPOP) is supported by grants from Medicine and Health, the Norwegian Research Council; Health and Rehabilitation through the Norwegian Council for Mental Health; the Department of Psychology, University of Oslo; the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oslo; and the Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen.

Notes

At low levels these scales indicate poor awareness and recognition of affects; tendency for being overwhelmed by, unable to cope with, and unable to decode meaningful information from affective activation; along with disavowal and shutdown of bodily expressive acts and inability to articulate and express semantic descriptions of affective experience. At intermediate levels affects are stably recognized and accepted, and both bodily expressive acts and semantic articulation of experience are generally acknowledged. Finally, high levels are characterized by capacity for focused and flexible awareness of nuances according to context and affect intensities, distinct openness to affective activation and its motivating and regulating function, and explicit reflection on the information inherent in the affect with its meanings and consequences for one's understanding of both self and others. At this level the nonverbal and conceptual expressions of affects are clear, nuanced, authentic, and characterized by the experience of choice, responsibility, and awareness of others’ reactions to one's communications (or lack thereof; Solbakken et al., 2009).

For conceptual clarity we refer to scales constituted by mean score of integrating aspects across affects with a capital first letter (e.g., Awareness, Tolerance), while applying small first letters when referring to the aspect scores on the single item level (e.g., awareness of Interest/Excitement) or speak in general of these capacities.

We use the terms pleasant versus unpleasant affects rather than the more commonly used positive versus negative affects as an appreciation of the inherently adaptive nature of all affects. No affect can as such be defined as positive or negative; it can, on the other hand, be adaptively or maladaptively organized and integrated.