Are retrospective assessments means of people’s experiences?:Accounting for interpersonal and intrapersonal variability when comparing retrospective assessment data to ecological momentary assessment data

Retrospective Assessment (RA) scores are often found to be higher than the mean of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) scores about a concurrent period. This difference is generally interpreted as bias towards salient experiences in RA. During RA participants are often asked to summarize their experiences in unspecific terms, leaving room for personal interpretation. As a result, participants may use various strategies to summarize their experiences. In this study, we reanalyzed an existing dataset (N = 92) using a repeated N = 1 approach. We assessed for each participant whether it was likely that their RA score was an approximation of the mean of their experiences as captured by their EMA scores. We found considerable interpersonal differences in the difference between EMA scores and RA scores, as well as some extreme cases. Furthermore, for a considerable part of the sample (n = 46 for positive affect, n = 56 for negative affect), we did not reject the null hypothesis that their RA score represented the mean of their experiences as captured by their EMA scores. We conclude that in its current unspecific form RA may facilitate bias, although not for everyone. Future studies may determine whether differences between RA and EMA are mitigated using more specific forms of RA, while acknowledging interindividual differences

A review of explicit and implicit assumptions when providing personalized feedback based on self-report EMA data

Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) in which participants report on their moment-to-moment experiences in their natural environment, is a hot topic. An emerging field in clinical psychology based on either EMA, or what we term Ecological Retrospective Assessment (ERA) as it requires retrospectivity, is the field of personalized feedback. In this field, EMA/ERA-data-driven summaries are presented to participants with the goal of promoting their insight in their experiences. Underlying this procedure are some fundamental assumptions about (i) the relation between true moment-to-moment experiences and retrospective evaluations of those experiences, (ii) the translation of these experiences and evaluations to different types of data, (iii) the comparison of these different types of data, and (iv) the impact of a summary of moment-to-moment experiences on retrospective evaluations of those experiences. We argue that these assumptions deserve further exploration, in order to create a strong evidence-based foundation for the personalized feedback procedure

Are Retrospective Assessments Means of People’s Experiences? Accounting for Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Variability when Comparing Retrospective Assessment Data to Ecological Momentary Assessment Data

Retrospective Assessment (RA) scores are often found to be higher than the mean of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) scores about a concurrent period. This difference is generally interpreted as bias towards salient experiences in RA. During RA participants are often asked to summarize their experiences in unspecific terms, leaving room for personal interpretation. As a result, participants may use various strategies to summarize their experiences. In this study, we reanalyzed an existing dataset (N = 92) using a repeated N = 1 approach. We assessed for each participant whether it was likely that their RA score was an approximation of the mean of their experiences as captured by their EMA scores. We found considerable interpersonal differences in the difference between EMA scores and RA scores, as well as some extreme cases. Furthermore, for a considerable part of the sample (n = 46 for positive affect, n = 56 for negative affect), we did not reject the null hypothesis that their RA score represented the mean of their experiences as captured by their EMA scores. We conclude that in its current unspecific form RA may facilitate bias, although not for everyone. Future studies may determine whether differences between RA and EMA are mitigated using more specific forms of RA, while acknowledging interindividual differences

Mini-workshop (Emotions conference 2019)

A primer on VAR models at the Emotions 2019 conference

Are Retrospective Assessments Means of People’s Experiences? Accounting for Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Variability when Comparing Retrospective Assessment Data to Ecological Momentary Assessment Data

Retrospective Assessment (RA) scores are often found to be higher than the mean of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) scores about a concurrent period. This difference is generally interpreted as bias towards salient experiences in RA. During RA, participants are often asked to summarize their experiences in unspecific terms, which may indeed facilitate bias. At least in this unspecific form, the summary that participants apply to their remembered experiences can take many different forms. In this study, we reanalyzed an existing dataset (N = 92) using a repeated N = 1 approach. We reported on interindividual differences between EMA data and RA score, and assessed for each participant whether it was likely that their RA score was an approximation of the mean of their experiences as captured by their EMA data. We found considerable interpersonal differences in the difference between EMA scores and RA scores, as well as some extreme cases. Furthermore, for a considerable part of the sample (n = 46 for positive affect, n = 60 for negative affect), we did not reject the null hypothesis that their RA score represented the mean of their experiences as captured by their EMA data. We conclude that in its current unspecific form, RA may facilitate bias, although not for everyone. Future studies may determine whether more specific forms of RA reduce bias, while acknowledging interindividual differences

A Pre-Post Design for Testing Insight from Personalized Feedback about Positive Affect in Contexts

Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) data about people’s self-reported experiences can be summarized and reported back to them as a so-called personalized feedback report. A popular form of personalized feedback concerns people’s positive affect in different environments and activities. The goal of this type of feedback is to provide participants insight into contexts that are associated with particularly high or low positive affect. Then, they may seek these contexts out more or less often respectively. However, the extent to which participants gain insight from this type of personalized feedback has not yet been quantified. In this study, we tested whether participants indeed gained insight from personalized feedback about their average positive affect in different contexts. We did this using a pre-post design, in which we compared estimates that participants made of their average positive affect in different contexts before and after receiving their personalized feedback to their respective personalized feedback (N = 133). For a subsample of participants (n = 77), we mistakenly provided feedback that was consistently higher than the actual average of their EMA data. We found that participants generally changed their estimates in the direction of both the ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ personalized feedback. These findings suggest that people may be inclined to adjust their perception towards their personalized feedback, even when the feedback is flawed