scholarly journals Why We Eat What We Eat: Assessing Dispositional and In-the-Moment Eating Motives by Using Ecological Momentary Assessment (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah Ronja Wahl ◽  
Karoline Villinger ◽  
Michael Blumenschein ◽  
Laura Maria König ◽  
Katrin Ziesemer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Norms ◽  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Affect Regulation ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Data Matrix ◽  
Great Promise ◽  
Interindividual Differences ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Momentary Assessment

BACKGROUND Why do we eat? Our motives for eating are diverse, ranging from hunger and liking to social norms and affect regulation. Although eating motives can vary from eating event to eating event, which implies substantial moment-to-moment differences, current ways of measuring eating motives rely on single timepoint questionnaires that assess eating motives as situation-stable dispositions (traits). However, mobile technologies including smartphones allow eating events and motives to be captured in real time and real life, thus capturing experienced eating motives in-the-moment (states). OBJECTIVE This study aimed to examine differences between why people think they eat (trait motives) and why they eat in the moment of consumption (state motives) by comparing a dispositional (trait) and an in-the-moment (state) assessment of eating motives. METHODS A total of 15 basic eating motives included in The Eating Motivation Survey (ie, liking, habit, need and hunger, health, convenience, pleasure, traditional eating, natural concerns, sociability, price, visual appeal, weight control, affect regulation, social norms, and social image) were assessed in 35 participants using 2 methodological approaches: (1) a single timepoint dispositional assessment and (2) a smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA) across 8 days (N=888 meals) capturing eating motives in the moment of eating. Similarities between dispositional and in-the-moment eating motive profiles were assessed according to 4 different indices of profile similarity, that is, overall fit, shape, scatter, and elevation. Moreover, a visualized person × motive data matrix was created to visualize and analyze between- and within-person differences in trait and state eating motives. RESULTS Similarity analyses yielded a good overall fit between the trait and state eating motive profiles across participants, indicated by a double-entry intraclass correlation of 0.52 (<italic>P</italic>&lt;.001). However, although trait and state motives revealed a comparable rank order (<italic>r</italic>=0.65; <italic>P</italic>&lt;.001), trait motives overestimated 12 of 15 state motives (<italic>P</italic>&lt;.001; <italic>d</italic>=1.97). Specifically, the participants assumed that 6 motives (need and hunger, price, habit, sociability, traditional eating, and natural concerns) are more essential for eating than they actually were in the moment (<italic>d</italic>&gt;0.8). Furthermore, the visualized person × motive data matrix revealed substantial interindividual differences in intraindividual motive profiles. CONCLUSIONS For a comprehensive understanding of why we eat what we eat, dispositional assessments need to be extended by in-the-moment assessments of eating motives. Smartphone-based EMAs reveal considerable intra- and interindividual differences in eating motives, which are not captured by single timepoint dispositional assessments. Targeting these differences between why people think they eat what they eat and why they actually eat in the moment may hold great promise for tailored mobile health interventions facilitating behavior changes.

scholarly journals Why We Eat What We Eat: Assessing Dispositional and In-the-Moment Eating Motives by Using Ecological Momentary Assessment

10.2196/13191 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e13191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah Ronja Wahl ◽  
Karoline Villinger ◽  
Michael Blumenschein ◽  
Laura Maria König ◽  
Katrin Ziesemer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Norms ◽  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Affect Regulation ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Data Matrix ◽  
Great Promise ◽  
Interindividual Differences ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Momentary Assessment

Background Why do we eat? Our motives for eating are diverse, ranging from hunger and liking to social norms and affect regulation. Although eating motives can vary from eating event to eating event, which implies substantial moment-to-moment differences, current ways of measuring eating motives rely on single timepoint questionnaires that assess eating motives as situation-stable dispositions (traits). However, mobile technologies including smartphones allow eating events and motives to be captured in real time and real life, thus capturing experienced eating motives in-the-moment (states). Objective This study aimed to examine differences between why people think they eat (trait motives) and why they eat in the moment of consumption (state motives) by comparing a dispositional (trait) and an in-the-moment (state) assessment of eating motives. Methods A total of 15 basic eating motives included in The Eating Motivation Survey (ie, liking, habit, need and hunger, health, convenience, pleasure, traditional eating, natural concerns, sociability, price, visual appeal, weight control, affect regulation, social norms, and social image) were assessed in 35 participants using 2 methodological approaches: (1) a single timepoint dispositional assessment and (2) a smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA) across 8 days (N=888 meals) capturing eating motives in the moment of eating. Similarities between dispositional and in-the-moment eating motive profiles were assessed according to 4 different indices of profile similarity, that is, overall fit, shape, scatter, and elevation. Moreover, a visualized person × motive data matrix was created to visualize and analyze between- and within-person differences in trait and state eating motives. Results Similarity analyses yielded a good overall fit between the trait and state eating motive profiles across participants, indicated by a double-entry intraclass correlation of 0.52 (P<.001). However, although trait and state motives revealed a comparable rank order (r=0.65; P<.001), trait motives overestimated 12 of 15 state motives (P<.001; d=1.97). Specifically, the participants assumed that 6 motives (need and hunger, price, habit, sociability, traditional eating, and natural concerns) are more essential for eating than they actually were in the moment (d>0.8). Furthermore, the visualized person × motive data matrix revealed substantial interindividual differences in intraindividual motive profiles. Conclusions For a comprehensive understanding of why we eat what we eat, dispositional assessments need to be extended by in-the-moment assessments of eating motives. Smartphone-based EMAs reveal considerable intra- and interindividual differences in eating motives, which are not captured by single timepoint dispositional assessments. Targeting these differences between why people think they eat what they eat and why they actually eat in the moment may hold great promise for tailored mobile health interventions facilitating behavior changes.

scholarly journals Understanding the Office: Using Ecological Momentary Assessment to Measure Activities, Posture, Social Interactions, Mood, and Work Performance at the Workplace

Buildings ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lina Engelen ◽  
Fabian Held
Keyword(s):  
Social Interactions ◽  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Work Performance ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Invasive Method ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Momentary Assessment

Studying the workplace often involves using observational, self-report recall, or focus group tools, which all have their established advantages and disadvantages. There is, however, a need for a readily available, low-invasive method that can provide longitudinal, repeated, and concurrent in-the-moment information to understand the workplace well. In this study, ecological momentary assessment (EMA) was used to collect 508 real-time responses about activities, posture, work performance, social interactions, and mood in 64 adult office workers in three Australian workplaces. The response rate was 53%, and the time to fill out the survey was 50 seconds on average. On average, the participants were sitting, standing, and walking in 84%, 9%, and 7% of survey instances, respectively. The participants reported they were working alone at their desks in 55% of all reported instances. Reported mood varied up to nine points within one person over the course of the post-occupancy observations. EMA can be used to paint a rich picture of occupants’ experiences and perceptions and to gain invaluable understanding of temporal patterns of the workplace, how the space is used, and how aspects of the workplace interact. This information can be used to make improvements to the physical and social workspaces and enhance occupants’ work performance and mood.

scholarly journals Affect fluctuations examined with ecological momentary assessment in patients with current or remitted depression and anxiety disorders

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. A. Schoevers ◽  
C. D. van Borkulo ◽  
F. Lamers ◽  
M.N. Servaas ◽  
J. A. Bastiaansen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Anxiety Disorders ◽  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Affect Regulation ◽  
Depression And Anxiety ◽  
Remitted Depression ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Ema Data ◽  
Momentary Assessment ◽  
A Current

Abstract Background There is increasing interest in day-to-day affect fluctuations of patients with depressive and anxiety disorders. Few studies have compared repeated assessments of positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) across diagnostic groups, and fluctuation patterns were not uniformly defined. The aim of this study is to compare affect fluctuations in patients with a current episode of depressive or anxiety disorder, in remitted patients and in controls, using affect instability as a core concept but also describing other measures of variability and adjusting for possible confounders. Methods Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) data were obtained from 365 participants of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety with current (n = 95), remitted (n = 178) or no (n = 92) DSM-IV defined depression/anxiety disorder. For 2 weeks, five times per day, participants filled-out items on PA and NA. Affect instability was calculated as the root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD). Tests on group differences in RMSSD, within-person variance, and autocorrelation were performed, controlling for mean affect levels. Results Current depression/anxiety patients had the highest affect instability in both PA and NA, followed by remitters and then controls. Instability differences between groups remained significant when controlling for mean affect levels, but differences between current and remitted were no longer significant. Conclusions Patients with a current disorder have higher instability of NA and PA than remitted patients and controls. Especially with regard to NA, this could be interpreted as patients with a current disorder being more sensitive to internal and external stressors and having suboptimal affect regulation.

Perceptions of the Meaningfulness of Work Among Older Social Purpose Workers: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (8) ◽  
pp. 1121-1146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Matz-Costa ◽  
Stephanie Cosner Berzin ◽  
Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes ◽  
Cal J Halvorsen
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Meaning In Life ◽  
Healthy Aging ◽  
Meaningful Work ◽  
Affective States ◽  
Social Entrepreneurs ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Momentary Assessment

The ecological momentary assessment (EMA) method was used to examine the antecedents and correlates of older adults’ in-the-moment perceptions of meaning at work. Data were collected six times per day for 7 days from 30 older adults who were mostly social entrepreneurs and who were engaged in purpose work (i.e., work that addresses a social problem or issue). We found concurrent effects of two types of affective states (i.e., relaxed and energetic) and generative work behaviors (i.e., sharing information about one’s work and encouraging/inviting others into one’s work) on three measures of perceptions of meaningful work (i.e., high passion for one’s work, high sense of engagement in one’s work, and high connection to a sense of meaning in life). Feeling energetic had a lagged effect on meaningful work approximately 2.5 and 5 hr later in the day. We consider ways to foster engagement in meaningful work as a path toward healthy aging.

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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
IJsbrand Leertouwer ◽  
Noémi Katalin Schuurman ◽  
Jeroen Vermunt
Keyword(s):  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Assessment Data ◽  
Interindividual Differences ◽  
Retrospective Assessment ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Ema Data ◽  
Momentary Assessment ◽  
Intrapersonal Variability

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.

scholarly journals Participant Training Improves Adherence with Reporting Timeframe for Momentary Subjective Experiences in Ecological Momentary Assessment (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng K. Fred Wen ◽  
Doerte U. Junghaenel ◽  
David B. Newman ◽  
Stefan Schneider ◽  
Marilyn Mendez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Multinomial Logistic Regression ◽  
Cognitive Interview ◽  
Phone Call ◽  
Subjective Experiences ◽  
Coverage Model ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Momentary Assessment

BACKGROUND Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) has the potential to minimize recall bias by having people report on their experiences in the moment (momentary model) or over short periods of time (coverage model). This potential hinges on the assumption that participants provide ratings based on the reporting timeframe instructions prescribed in the EMA items. However, it is unclear what timeframes participants are actually using when they answer EMA questions and whether participant training improves participants’ adherence to the reporting instructions. OBJECTIVE The objectives of this study are to investigate the reporting timeframes participants used when answering EMA questions and whether participant training improves participants’ adherence to the EMA reporting timeframe instructions. METHODS This study used telephone-based cognitive interviews to investigate this question. In a 2x2 factorial design, participants (n=100) were assigned to receive either basic or enhanced EMA training and also randomized to rate their experiences using a momentary (at the moment you were called) or coverage (since the last phone call) model. Participants received 5 calls over the course of one day to provide ratings; after each rating, participants were immediately interviewed about the timeframe that they used to answer the EMA questions. Two raters independently coded the momentary interview responses into timeframe categories (Cohen’s kappa = 0.64 (95%CI: 0.55-0.73)). RESULTS Results from the momentary conditions showed that most of the calls referred to the period during the call (28.6%) or just before the call (49.2%) to provide ratings; the remainder were from longer reporting periods. Multinomial logistic regression results indicated a significant training effect (χ2 (1, 199)=16.61, p<0.001), where the enhanced training condition yielded more reports within the intended reporting timeframes for momentary EMA reports. Cognitive interview data from the coverage model did not lend themselves to reliable coding and were not analyzed. CONCLUSIONS These findings provide the first evidence about adherence to EMA instructions to reporting periods, and that enhanced participant training improves adherence to the timeframe specified in momentary EMA studies.

Assessment of Emotion Dysregulation Using Ecological Momentary Assessment

2019 ◽  
pp. 409-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather T. Schatten ◽  
Kenneth J. D. Allen ◽  
Michael F. Armey
Keyword(s):  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Emotion Dysregulation ◽  
Psychological Treatment ◽  
Multiple Time ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Self Injury ◽  
Multiple Time Points ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Momentary Assessment

As emotion is a dynamic construct, ecological momentary assessment (EMA) methods, which gather data at multiple time points in individuals’ real-world environments, in the moment, are particularly well suited to measure emotion dysregulation and related constructs. EMA methods can identify contextual events that prompt or follow an emotional response. This chapter provides an overview of traditional methods of studying emotion dysregulation and how EMA can be used to capture emotion dysregulation in daily life, both within and independent of psychiatric diagnoses. It reviews the literature on emotion dysregulation and related constructs within specific diagnoses (e.g., depression, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and eating disorders) and behaviors (e.g., suicide, nonsuicidal self-injury, and alcohol use). Finally, it discusses future directions in EMA research, as well as its implications for psychological treatment.

Applied Ambulatory Assessment: Integrating Idiographic and Nomothetic Principles of Measurement

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aidan G.C. Wright ◽  
Johannes Zimmermann
Keyword(s):  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Ambulatory Assessment ◽  
Dynamic Processes ◽  
Specific Assessment ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Access To Data ◽  
Natural Ecology ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Momentary Assessment

Ambulatory assessment (also known as ecological momentary assessment) has enjoyed enthusiastic implementation in psychological research. The ability to assess thoughts, feelings, behavior, physiology, and context intensively and repeatedly in the moment in an individual’s natural ecology affords access to data that can answer exciting questions about sequences of events and dynamic processes in daily life. Ambulatory assessment also holds unique promise for developing personalized models of individuals (i.e., precision or person-specific assessment) that might be transformative for applied settings such as clinical practice. However, successfully translating ambulatory assessment from bench to bedside is challenging because of the inherent tension between idiographic and nomothetic principles of measurement. We argue that the value of applied ambulatory assessment will be most fully realized by balancing the ability to develop personalized models with ensuring comparability among individuals.

Measuring Poly-tobacco Product Use with Ecological Momentary Assessment

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 423-435
Author(s):  
Nicholas G. Griffiths ◽  
Jessica L. Fetterman ◽  
Comreen Vargees ◽  
Hasmeena Kathuria ◽  
Stine Grodal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Tobacco Product ◽  
Longitudinal Methods ◽  
Baseline Questionnaire ◽  
Product Use ◽  
Concurrent Use ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Momentary Assessment

Objectives: Poly-tobacco product use is common among tobacco users, but it is challenging to assess patterns of use in real-life contexts. The objective of this study is to determine whether intensive longitudinal methods are feasible for assessing concurrent use of multiple tobacco products. Methods: Overall, 28 participants completed a baseline questionnaire and 7 days of ecological momentary assessment data collection, including end-of-day, random, and real-time reporting. Results: When estimating use of cigarettes, vaping products, and other products individually, there were moderate correlations between baseline questionnaire estimates, end-of-day estimates, and random estimates (ρ= 0.379–0.640); however, daily totals of all products combined were poorly correlated (ρ = 0.198–0.461). Baseline questionnaire estimates were higher than random estimates for each product (median difference 1.5–7.0 products per day). End-of-day estimates were more consistent with the baseline questionnaire. There was low compliance with real-time product use reports. Conclusions: Random or daily reporting are feasible for poly-tobacco use assessment, but methods are needed to reconcile differences in estimates. Accurate measurement of poly-tobacco product use is needed to assess health impacts and inform policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document