Understanding Daily Life with Ecological Momentary Assessment 1

Author(s):  
David B. Newman ◽  
Arthur A. Stone
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saeideh Heshmati ◽  
Zita Oravecz

Most assessments of well-being have relied on retrospective accounts, measured by global evaluative well-being scales. Following the recent debates focused on the assessment of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being based on the elements of the PERMA theory, the current study aimed to shed further light onto the measurement of PERMA elements in daily life and their temporal dynamics. Through an Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) design (N=160), we examined the dynamics of change (e.g., baselines and intra-individual variability) in the PERMA elements using the mPERMA measure, which is an EMA-adapted version of the PERMA Profiler. Findings revealed that momentary experiences of well-being, quantified via PERMA elements, map onto their corresponding hedonic or eudaimonic well-being components, and its dynamical features provide novel insights into predicting global well-being. This work offers avenues for future research to assess well-being in real-time and real-world contexts in ecologically valid ways, while eliminating recall bias.


Assessment ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (8) ◽  
pp. 1683-1698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacey B. Scott ◽  
Martin J. Sliwinski ◽  
Matthew Zawadzki ◽  
Robert S. Stawski ◽  
Jinhyuk Kim ◽  
...  

Despite widespread interest in variance in affect, basic questions remain pertaining to the relative proportions of between-person and within-person variance, the contribution of days and moments, and the reliability of these estimates. We addressed these questions by decomposing negative affect and positive affect variance across three levels (person, day, moment), and calculating reliability using a coordinated analysis of seven daily diary, ecological momentary assessment (EMA), and diary-EMA hybrid studies (across studies age = 18-84 years, total Npersons = 2,103, total Nobservations = 45,065). Across studies, within-person variance was sizeable (negative affect: 45% to 66%, positive affect: 25% to 74%); in EMA more within-person variance was attributable to momentary rather than daily level. Reliability was adequate to high at all levels of analysis (within-person: .73-.91; between-person: .96-1.00) despite different items and designs. We discuss the implications of these results for the design of future intensive studies of affect variance.


2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 765-774 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Roefs ◽  
B. Boh ◽  
G. Spanakis ◽  
C. Nederkoorn ◽  
L. H. J. M. Lemmens ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document