Literature DB >> 35175074

Little evidence for consistent initial elevation bias in self-reported momentary affect: A coordinated analysis of ecological momentary assessment studies.

Eric S Cerino1, Stefan Schneider2, Arthur A Stone2, Martin J Sliwinski3, Jacqueline Mogle4, Joshua M Smyth3.   

Abstract

Response bias characterized by decreases in self-reported subjective states when measured repeatedly over short time-frames is a potential concern in social science. Recent work suggests that this initial elevation bias (IEB) is pronounced among young adult students' self-reports of affect when using ambulatory methods, but it is unclear if such bias extends broadly across samples, designs, and constructs. We examined the conditions wherein reliable and robust IEB may manifest by conducting a coordinated analysis of seven ecological momentary assessment (EMA) studies with diverse lifespan samples to test the generalizability of IEB across study designs and affective constructs (momentary negative and positive affect). Overall, evidence for substantial IEB across studies was weak. No reliable evidence emerged for IEB in negative affect, with evidence for a small magnitude IEB for positive affect when comparing initial reports with reports made 1 week later, although the latter was not evident in other comparisons and was attenuated to nonsignificance when controlling for temporal factors. The magnitude and direction of IEB varied, but in mostly nonsystematic ways, as a function of study design and affective valence. Meta-analytic summary revealed consistently low combined effect sizes (Cohen's ds ranging from -.05 to .14). We found little evidence that IEB in momentary affect is sufficiently reliable, robust, or generalizable across designs and constructs to pose broad and/or serious concerns for EMA studies. Nonetheless, we recommend systematically examining the potential for IEB across study designs and constructs to help identify the conditions/contexts where IEB may or may not manifest. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35175074      PMCID: PMC9038639          DOI: 10.1037/pas0001108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Assess        ISSN: 1040-3590


  17 in total

1.  Receiving support as a mixed blessing: evidence for dual effects of support on psychological outcomes.

Authors:  Marci E J Gleason; Masumi Iida; Patrick E Shrout; Niall Bolger
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2008-05

2.  Features of interviews questions associated with attenuation of symptom reports.

Authors:  C P Lucas; P Fisher; J Piacentini; H Zhang; P S Jensen; D Shaffer; M Dulcan; M Schwab-Stone; D Regier; G Canino
Journal:  J Abnorm Child Psychol       Date:  1999-12

Review 3.  Reactivity of measurement in health psychology: how much of a problem is it? What can be done about it?

Authors:  David P French; Stephen Sutton
Journal:  Br J Health Psychol       Date:  2010-03-04

4.  Examining the effects of perceived social support on momentary mood and symptom reports in asthma and arthritis patients.

Authors:  Joshua M Smyth; Matthew J Zawadzki; Alecia M Santuzzi; Kelly B Filipkowski
Journal:  Psychol Health       Date:  2014-02-25

5.  Initial elevation bias in subjective reports.

Authors:  Patrick E Shrout; Gertraud Stadler; Sean P Lane; M Joy McClure; Grace L Jackson; Frederick D Clavél; Masumi Iida; Marci E J Gleason; Joy H Xu; Niall Bolger
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-12-18       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Can End-of-day reports replace momentary assessment of pain and fatigue?

Authors:  Joan E Broderick; Joseph E Schwartz; Stefan Schneider; Arthur A Stone
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2008-12-13       Impact factor: 5.820

7.  The accuracy of pain and fatigue items across different reporting periods.

Authors:  Joan E Broderick; Joseph E Schwartz; Gregory Vikingstad; Michelle Pribbernow; Steven Grossman; Arthur A Stone
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2008-05-01       Impact factor: 6.961

8.  Intensive momentary reporting of pain with an electronic diary: reactivity, compliance, and patient satisfaction.

Authors:  Arthur A Stone; Joan E Broderick; Joseph E Schwartz; Saul Shiffman; Leighann Litcher-Kelly; Pamela Calvanese
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 6.961

9.  A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael Borenstein; Larry V Hedges; Julian P T Higgins; Hannah R Rothstein
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2010-11-21       Impact factor: 5.273

10.  Meta-analyses and Forest plots using a microsoft excel spreadsheet: step-by-step guide focusing on descriptive data analysis.

Authors:  Jeruza L Neyeloff; Sandra C Fuchs; Leila B Moreira
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2012-01-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.