Jenkins Brooke N, Ong Lydia Q, Ong Anthony D, Lee Hee Youn Helen, Boehm Julia K
Department of Psychology, Crean College of Health and Behavioral Sciences, Chapman University, One University Drive, Orange, CA USA.
Center on Stress & Health, University of California, Irvine, CA USA.
Affect Sci. 2024 Jun 13;5(2):99-114. doi: 10.1007/s42761-024-00238-0. eCollection 2024 Jun.
Increasing evidence suggests that within-person variation in affect is a dimension distinct from mean levels along which individuals can be characterized. This study investigated affect variability's association with concurrent and longitudinal mental health and how mean affect levels moderate these associations. The mental health outcomes of depression, panic disorder, self-rated mental health, and mental health professional visits from the second and third waves of the Midlife in the United States Study were used for cross-sectional ( = 1,676) and longitudinal outcomes ( = 1,271), respectively. These participants took part in the National Study of Daily Experiences (NSDE II), where they self-reported their affect once a day for 8 days, and this was used to compute affect mean and variability. Greater positive affect variability cross-sectionally predicted a higher likelihood of depression, panic disorder, mental health professional use, and poorer self-rated mental health. Greater negative affect variability predicted higher panic disorder probability. Longitudinally, elevated positive and negative affect variability predicted higher depression likelihood and worse self-rated mental health over time, while greater positive affect variability also predicted increased panic disorder probability. Additionally, mean affect moderated associations between variability and health such that variability-mental health associations primarily took place when mean positive affect was high (for concurrent mental health professional use and longitudinal depression) and when mean negative affect was low (for concurrent depression, panic disorder, self-rated mental health, and longitudinal self-rated mental health). Taken together, affect variability may have implications for both short- and long-term health and mean levels should be considered.
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-024-00238-0.
越来越多的证据表明，个体内部情感变化是一个与平均水平不同的维度，据此可以对个体进行特征描述。本研究调查了情感变异性与同时期及纵向心理健康之间的关联，以及平均情感水平如何调节这些关联。利用美国中年研究第二波和第三波中的抑郁、惊恐障碍、自评心理健康以及心理健康专业就诊等心理健康结果，分别用于横断面研究（n = 1676）和纵向研究（n = 1271）。这些参与者参与了全国日常经历研究（NSDE II），他们在8天内每天自我报告自己的情感状况，以此计算情感均值和变异性。横断面研究中，更大的积极情感变异性预示着更高的抑郁、惊恐障碍、使用心理健康专业服务的可能性以及更差的自评心理健康。更大的消极情感变异性预示着更高的惊恐障碍概率。纵向来看，随着时间推移，升高的积极和消极情感变异性预示着更高的抑郁可能性和更差的自评心理健康，同时更大的积极情感变异性也预示着惊恐障碍概率增加。此外，平均情感调节了变异性与健康之间的关联，使得变异性与心理健康的关联主要发生在平均积极情感较高时（对于同时期的心理健康专业服务使用和纵向抑郁）以及平均消极情感较低时（对于同时期的抑郁、惊恐障碍、自评心理健康以及纵向自评心理健康）。综上所述，情感变异性可能对短期和长期健康都有影响，应考虑平均水平。
在线版本包含可在10.1007/s42761-024-00238-0获取的补充材料。
