Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
L. Mickes, J. Wixted, Peter Wais (2007)
A direct test of the unequal-variance signal detection model of recognition memoryPsychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14
K. DeSoto (2015)
Computerized methods for collecting confidence ratings: Task influences on patterns of responding
J. Quoidbach, J. Gruber, Moïra Mikolajczak, A. Kogan, I. Kotsou, M. Norton (2014)
Emodiversity and the emotional ecosystem.Journal of experimental psychology. General, 143 6
A. Conger (1974)
A Revised Definition for Suppressor Variables: a Guide To Their Identification and InterpretationEducational and Psychological Measurement, 34
M. Csíkszentmihályi, Reed Larson (1987)
Validity and Reliability of the Experience‐Sampling MethodThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175
K. Berbaum, D. Dorfman, E. Franken, R. Caldwell (2002)
An empirical comparison of discrete ratings and subjective probability ratings.Academic radiology, 9 7
A. Solow, S. Polasky (2006)
Measuring biological diversityEnvironmental and Ecological Statistics, 1
G. Miller (1956)
The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychological review, 63 2
J. Ray (1990)
Acquiescence and Problems with Forced-Choice ScalesJournal of Social Psychology, 130
D. Paulhus, R. Robins, Kali Trzesniewski, J. Tracy (2004)
Two Replicable Suppressor Situations in Personality ResearchMultivariate Behavioral Research, 39
D. Watson, L. Clark (1994)
The PANAS-X manual for the positive and negative affect schedule
Michael Robinson, G. Clore (2002)
Episodic and semantic knowledge in emotional self-report: evidence for two judgment processes.Journal of personality and social psychology, 83 1
Nicholas Brown, A. Sokal, H. Friedman (2013)
The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: the critical positivity ratio.The American psychologist, 68 9
Luis Vaquero, Manuel Cebrian (2013)
The rich club phenomenon in the classroomScientific Reports, 3
G. Stirling, B. Wilsey (2001)
Empirical Relationships between Species Richness, Evenness, and Proportional DiversityThe American Naturalist, 158
Jin Shin, Sang Kim (2006)
A Mathematical Theory of Communication
James Carifio, R. Perla (2007)
Ten Common Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Persistent Myths and Urban Legends about Likert Scales and Likert Response Formats and their AntidotesJournal of Social Sciences, 3
R. Solomon (2002)
Back to Basics: On the Very Idea of “Basic Emotions”Journal for The Theory of Social Behaviour, 32
George Miller (1994)
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. 1956.Psychological review, 101 2
K. Kristjánsson (2003)
On the Very Idea of "Negative Emotions"Journal for The Theory of Social Behaviour, 33
Jacob Fishman, V. Smith (2013)
A Direct Test of theSocial Science Research Network
D. Watson, L. Clark, A. Tellegen (1988)
Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales.Journal of personality and social psychology, 54 6
B. Fredrickson (2012)
Positive Emotions Broaden and BuildAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47
This article examines the concept of emodiversity, put forward by Quoidbach et al. (2014) as a novel source of information about “the health of the human emotional ecosystem” (p. 2057). Quoidbach et al. drew an analogy between emodiversity as a desirable property of a person’s emotional make-up and biological diversity as a desirable property of an ecosystem. They claimed that emodiversity was an independent predictor of better mental and physical health outcomes in two large-scale studies. Here, we show that Quoidbach et al.’s construct of emodiversity suffers from several theoretical and practical deficiencies, which make these authors’ use of Shannon’s (1948) entropy formula to measure emodiversity highly questionable. Our reanalysis of Quoidbach et al.’s two studies shows that the apparently substantial effects that these authors reported are likely due to a failure to conduct appropriate hierarchical regression in one case and to suppression effects in the other. It appears that Quoidbach et al.’s claims about emodiversity may reduce to little more than a set of computational and statistical artifacts.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General – American Psychological Association
Published: Sep 1, 2017
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.