The emotional state assessment tool: a brief, philosophically informed, and cross-culturally sensitive measure

ABSTRACT

A large empirical literature in psychology has established a two-dimensional model of measuring affect (positive and negative emotion) as well as circumplex-based models. The present series of studies begins with items developed from a philosophical theory of affect, which were iteratively reduced to a 6-factor, 18-item measure of emotional well-being, which provides more arousal-based granularity of positive and negative affect. In study 1 (N = 727), using exploratory factor analysis, we found evidence for the classic two-dimensional structure of affect based on parsimony: 1) positive emotion and 2) negative emotion, in addition to a six-dimensional model closer to circumplex-based approaches based on model fit and other factor analytic criteria, consisting of: 1) cheerfulness, 2) vitality, 3) serenity, 4) sadness, 5) lethargy, and 6) stress. In study 2 (N = 667), using confirmatory factor analysis, we found that the two-factor solution provided inadequate fit, as did other prominent two-factor emotion measures, while the six-factor model provided excellent fit (CFI = .98, RMSEA = .055). The resulting measure, the Emotional State Assessment Tool (ESAT), provides a philosophically grounded, brief, versatile, and more cross-culturally sensitive measure of affect to complement existing measures of affect.

KEYWORDS:

• Happiness
• well-being
• subjective well-being
• positive and negative well-being
• emotion

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Martin E. P. Seligman on the special occasion of this issue for his perennial support for and encouragement of psychological and philosophical collaborations in the study of well-being. We also thank Markus Kneer, Lauren Kuykendall, Seth Margolis, and Rae Jean Proeschold-Bell for their assistance as well as James Pawelski for making the introductions between the authors across disciplinary lines that made this collaboration possible.

Emotional State Assessment Tool (ESAT)

Instructions:

This questionnaire is about your general state of mind in recent weeks. Please read each statement and choose a number between 1-5 that indicates how much of the time the statement applied to you over the past month.

Response Options:

1. Does not apply at all

2. Slightly applies

3. Moderately applies

4. Very much applies

5. Completely applies

Items:

1. Felt nervous

2. Felt anxious

3. Been tense

4. Been too tired to do very much

5. Been low in energy

6. Felt sluggish

7. Felt blue

8. Felt sad

9. Felt depressed

10. Felt full of energy

11. Felt vigorous

12. Felt active

13. Felt happy

14. Been cheerful

15. Been able to laugh about lots of things

16. Felt serene

17. Felt relaxed

18. Felt calm

(randomize)

Scoring:

2 Factor Model:

1. Negative (average of items 1-9)

2. Positive (average of items 10-18)

Six Factor Model:

1. Stress (average of items 1-3)

2. Lethargy (average of items (4-6)

3. Sadness (average of items 7-9)

4. Vitality (average of items 10-13)

5. Cheerfulness (average of items 14-16)

6. Serenity (average of items (17-19)

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. For other examples of collaboration between psychologists and philosophers in developing well-being measures, see, (Margolis et al., 2019, 2020).

2. Emotional state theory was developed as an account of happiness (Haybron, 2008), and ESAT could reasonably be regarded as a happiness scale. But the theory’s central construct, emotional well-being, is of interest regardless of one’s views about happiness (Haybron, 2008), and is our focus here. In recent years variants of this account of happiness have been widely endorsed in the philosophical literature (e.g., Badhwar, 2014; Becker, 2012; Besser-Jones, 2013; De Lazari-radek & Singer, 2014, p.; Haybron, 2020; Kauppinen, 2013; Klausen, 2015; May, 2015; Raibley, 2012; Rodogno et al., 2016; Rossi, 2018; Rossi & Tappolet, 2016; Sizer, 2010; Tiberius, 2018; Višak, 2015).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by Happiness and Well-Being: Integrating Research Across the Disciplines, a joint program by the John Templeton Foundation and Saint Louis University.