Running Head: A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 1

A Review and Evaluation of an Open-Source Mood Assessment,

the Brief Mood Introspection Scale

Rachael M. Cavallaro

University of New Hampshire

Victoria Bryan

University of New Hampshire

John D. Mayer

University of New Hampshire

A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 2

Abstract

The Brief Mood Introspection Scale (BMIS) is an open-source, 16-item assessment of current mood regularly used in psychological research. The scale has two sets of scales: one pair of scales assesses mood using Pleasant-Unpleasant and Arousal-Calm dimensions; the other (less used alternative) assesses mood using Positive and Negative Affect. However, since its publication in 1988, there have been no systematic reports of its usage pattern, norms or of evidence for its validity. The present meta-analysis aims to (1) identify the nature of the studies that employed the BMIS (i.e. research areas and design), (2) establish the norms for the BMIS the scale means, standard deviations, and reliabilities, and (3) evaluate for the BMIS’s validity.

One hundred and fifty studies that utilized the BMIS over a five-year timespan (2016-2011) were identified, including 27 studies that reported information pertinent to the scale’s norms. Our findings indicated that BMIS was primarily used in experimental research, and that its norms were similar to those from the original report. We make recommendations for use of Likert response scales and scoring conventions. A more qualitative review suggested that the Pleasant-

Unpleasant mood scale had considerable evidence for its validity from its relation to criteria.

KEY WORDS: Brief Mood Introspection Scale; Mood; Meta-Analysis; Mood Assessment

A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 3

A Review and Evaluation of an Open-Source Mood Assessment,

the Brief Mood Introspection Scale

The Brief Mood Introspection Scale (BMIS) is an open-source mood scale, consisting of

16-mood adjectives such as “happy” and “fed up” that participants use to rate their current mood state (Mayer & Gaschke, 1988). Since its introduction in 1988, the BMIS has been used in more than 200 published articles across a variety of research areas including self-control, mood and emotion, social psychology and relationships, and cognition, according to a search on PsycINFO.

The first mood adjective scales originated in the early 1950’s in response to the development of the mood-altering pharmaceuticals—which had shown early promise for the treatment of mood and anxiety (McNair & Lorr, 1964; Nowlis, 1965; Nowlis & Nowlis, 1956).

For such scales, respondents were instructed to rate the degree to which adjectives such as happy, angry, or sad described their current mood. Renewed interest in mood scales grew during the 1980’s, as the understanding of emotion increased (e.g., Ekman, Levenson & Friesen, 1983), and interest grew as to the possible influence of mood on cognition, and of cognition on mood

(e.g., Beck, Epstein & Harrison, 1983; Bower, 1981; Isen, Shalker, Clark and Karp, 1978,

Zajonc, 1980). These interests led to a fresh look at measures of mood, including mood adjectives (Watson & Tellegen, 1985). The Brief Mood Introspection Scale (BMIS) is one of several mood-adjective scales developed in the 1980s as a result, including the widely used

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; see Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) and the

Russell Affect Grid (Russell, Weiss, & Mendelsohn, 1989).

The present work re-examines the psychometric properties of the BMIS by employing a meta-analysis of 98 articles (203 studies) that utilized the scale between January 1st, 2011 and

July 31st, 2016. Normative data for the assessment is provided along with some additional A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 4 evidence of the scale’s validity. From our findings, we make suggestions regarding the use and reporting of results using the BMIS.

The Brief Mood Introspection Scale

Structure of the Brief Mood Introspection Scale

The 16-item Brief Mood Introspection Scale (BMIS) was originally developed as a subset of the 62-adjective Mood-State Introspection Scale (Mayer & Gaschke, 1988); the general layout of the scale is depicted in Figure 1.

The two-dimensional simple structure of mood

In the 1950s, researchers had asked participants to describe how they were feeling on the first mood adjective checklists: Lists of moods such as “happy,” “angry,” and “afraid.” Such scales often included many terms—sometimes over 100. The correlations among the test items were factor analyzed in the hopes of reducing the number of variables to a smaller number of affective dimensions. In one of the first such studies, Green and Nowlis (1957) suggested there were eight such dimensions; McNair and Lorr (1964) recommended between five and seven .

Revisiting the issue in the 1980s, researchers such as Russell, and Watson and Tellegen focused on a far simpler analysis of mood using two broad dimensions (Russell et al., 1989;

Watson & Tellegen, 1985). Specifically, in their unrotated factor extractions forcing two factors, they obtained two dimensions labeled I. Pleasant-Unpleasant mood and II. Arousal-Calm mood.

This appealing two-dimensional solution mapped onto early theories of mood and simplified these earlier solutions in a way that was conducive to further research. There emerged an at-least temporary consensus in the 1980s that two-dimensions provided a relatively good, more parsimonious, depiction of mood than what had come before (Mayer & Gashke, 1988; Russell et A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 5 al., 1989; Watson & Tellegen, 1985), but see also some contemporary revisions (e.g., Gregg &

Shephard, 2009; Wilhelm & Schoebi, 2007).

There was, however, one unresolved controversy: whether the unrotated solution described above, or a varimax-rotated version of the factor solution was best. Factor rotations align items on a test into different clusters depending upon specified criteria. Varimax rotation maximizes “simple structure” of factor dimensions: That is, it finds the solution for which moods load as much as possible on one dimension and load minimally on another, “turning up the contrast” between moods. Watson, Clark, & Tellegen (1988) proposed a varimax approach which led to variations on the original two-factor solution, which they labeled Positive and

Negative Affect. They argued the varimax solution was serious alternative for several reasons.

Emerging research at the time suggested that, perhaps, the brain areas responsible for positive and negative emotions might be split across hemispheres (Davidson, Schwartz, Saron, Bennett,

& Goleman, 1979). Moreover, Edward Diener, who was then studying subjective well-being, argued that such well-being might best be conceived as a person’s overall positive and negative feelings about their lives (Diener & Emmons, 1984). Conceived of that way, positive and negative emotion should be measured relatively independent of one another.

The argument for the original, unrotated Pleasant-Unpleasant dimension, that was equally compelling, was that psychological models of affect dating from Wundt & Judd (1897) forward, depicted emotion as falling along such Pleasant-Unpleasant and Arousal-Calm continua.

Moreover, contemporaneous cognitive research emphasized the correspondence between a single

Pleasant-Unpleasant mood dimension and the cognitive evaluation of stimuli as taking place along a Pleasant-Unpleasant continuum (e.g. Osgood & Suci, 1955). This became useful, for example, in research on mood-congruent cognition, in which people more readily retrieved A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 6 cognitive stimuli that matched their moods (Bower, 1981; Drače, 2013; Drače, Efendić & Marić,

2015; Mayer, Gaschke, Braverman & Evans, 1992; Mayer & Hanson, 1995).

Initial Normative Information and Validity Evidence of the Brief Mood Introspection Scale

Mayer and & Gaschke (1988) established the initial normative information for the BMIS, specifically its means, standard deviations and reliabilities. They employed subtractive scoring to calculate participants’ scores on either the unrotated or rotated dimensions of the BMIS. That is, items that are oppositely-scored (e.g., the adjective sad on the Pleasant-Unpleasant Scale) were summed and then subtracted from the sum of the scores of the positively-phrased items (e.g., happy).

Since the scale’s introduction, however, Mayer has recommended reverse scoring opposite-scored items. For example, to calculate how pleasant someone’s current mood is, a participant who rated how sad they currently felt by reporting a 1 on a 4-point Likert scale would have their score “reversed” or converted as 1=4, 2=3, 3=2 and 4=1. All the items are then summed. The procedure eliminates negative scores and allows for the easy calculation of an average endorsement level across all items. Fortunately, one can convert subtractive to reverse- scored procedures algebraically (Mayer & Cavallaro, 2019).

Table 1 reproduces the original-reported means, standard deviations, and reliabilities of the BMIS norms, converted to a 4-point reverse-scored scale. We will use this procedure as our default here and in the remainder of the article.

The original report indicated reliabilities for the pleasant-unpleasant of α = 0.83, arousal- calm mood scale’s reliability lower at α = 0.58, positive-tired of α = 0.77, and negative-relaxed α

= 0.76. Mayer & Gaschke (1988) further suggested that a possible method to raise the reliability of the arousal-calm mood scale would be to use a 7-point Likert scale, instead of a 4-point Likert A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 7 scale—the response scale used in the original work— based on a suggestion by (Nunnally, 1975) that more response options would increase the reliability of a response scale. In the current meta- analysis, we will test if the reliability of the BMIS pleasant-unpleasant and arousal-calm mood scales are affected by the length of the response scale employed.

Lastly, Mayer & Gaschke (1988) also provided evidence for the validity of the BMIS from its content, by choosing eight mood-item pairs from across the mood spectrum, and evidence for its test structure based on factor analysis. An aim of the present meta-analysis is to further contribute to the validity evidence that supports the BMIS by examining the BMIS’s correlations with key criteria (formerly, “criterion validity”; American Educational Research

Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in

Education, 2014).

Current Research

Despite the widespread use of the Brief Mood Introspection Scale (BMIS), its psychometric properties have been left largely unexplored since the original report. With this in mind, we established three goals and several hypotheses for the meta-analysis.

Goals and Hypotheses

We were guided by three goals and tested four hypotheses during the meta-analysis.

Goal One: To Survey Use of the BMIS. First, we intended to describe how the BMIS was being used and the nature of studies (e.g., research areas) in which it was being employed.

Goal Two: To Establish Normative Information for the BMIS. Second, we aimed to establish normative information for the BMIS scales including their means, standard deviations, and reliabilities. A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 8

Goal Three: To Provide a Qualitative Review of Any Key Correlations of the BMIS with Criteria Relevant to its Validity. Our final aim was to contribute to information about the correlation of the BMIS scales with relevant criteria so as to provide further information as to its scale validities. This information would include key correlations between the BMIS and other criteria such as related tests and measures.

We also tested four hypotheses.

Hypothesis One. The normative information collected will pass two checks as to their integrity. First, we tested whether those studies that provided complete information as to the mood scale employed, response scales (4- versus 7-point) used and scoring method

(subtractive versus reverse) fell within the ranges of possible scores for the BMIS Pleasant-

Unpleasant and Arousal-Calm mood scales provided in Mayer & Cavallaro (2019). Second, we tested whether the means, standard deviations and reliabilities originally reported by Mayer &

Gaschke (1988) fell within the range of the normative data established in this meta-analysis.

Hypothesis Two. The reliability of the Pleasant-Unpleasant and Arousal-Calm mood scales will be statistically significantly higher using a 7-point rather than a 4-point Likert response scale. This hypothesis tested the suggestion in the original article that 7-point response scales would yield higher reliabilities.

Hypothesis Three. The BMIS Pleasant-Unpleasant mood scale scores will rise in response to positive mood inductions and fall after negative mood inductions. Several studies examined the effect of Pleasant and Unpleasant mood inductions and provided pre- and post-test means for the participants in control and experimental groups. We expected that the

Pleasant-Unpleasant mood scale scores would rise after positive mood was induced and would fall after negative was induced. A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 9

Hypothesis Four. The BMIS Pleasant-Unpleasant mood scale will be higher in people who score higher on other measures related to positive affect (e.g., extraversion), and lower in people who score higher on other measures related to negative affect (e.g., loneliness).

Methods

Identifying Empirical Research Using the BMIS

Literature Search. We searched four scholarly databases for articles that had employed the Brief Mood Introspection Scale using ‘Brief Mood Introspection Scale’ as our search term.

(The full name of the scale was used exclusively as ‘BMIS’ returned body-mass-index, i.e.,

BMI). The search period extended from the 1988 introduction of the BMIS (Mayer & Gaschke,

1988) to July 31st 2016 when the examination of the databases began. The four databases were:

(a) PsycINFO, from the American Psychological Association, (b) Academic Search Premier, from EBSCO Publishing that contains peer-reviewed articles from key journals in the social sciences, engineering/sciences and humanities, (c) Health and Psychosocial Instruments (HaPI), from Behavioral Measurement Database Services, that covers health and psychological scales, tests and other measurement tools, and (d) Art & Architecture Source. A brief examination of additional databases (e.g., Google Scholar) indicated no further articles beyond those already uncovered using the above four.

In all, 192 articles, excluding duplicates, were identified from the search before applying screening criteria. To economize coding time, we excluded 81 articles published before 2011, leaving a five-year period from January 2011 to 2016, plus seven months of the then-current search year, i.e., through July 31st of 2016. One hundred and eleven articles remained and were subject to additional inclusion criteria (Figure 2). A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 10

The one hundred and eleven selected articles were next screened according to three inclusion criteria: The research must have been published: (a) in English, (b) in a peer-reviewed journal (i.e. books and theses were excluded), and (c) that employed the BMIS. All research designs and populations were included if the studies met the above criteria. Based on the inclusion criteria, we identified a total of 98 articles that reported 203 studies, of which 150 used the BMIS.

Coding of BMIS Articles

Following the above screening procedures, three independent reviewers from the original selection group went through and coded the 98 final articles, identifying the following information: (a) sample size, (b) sample population (clinical, community, undergraduate and other) (c) BMIS mood scale(s) used (Pleasant-Unpleasant, Arousal-Calm, Positive-Tired,

Negative-Relaxed), (d) response scale used (e.g., 4- versus 7-points) (e) scoring methodology used (e.g., subtractive versus reverse-scored), (f) mood scale reliabilities, (g) means of the mood scale scores (e.g. Pleasant-Unpleasant, Arousal-Calm), (h) standard deviations, (i) whether a factor analysis of BMIS items was conducted, (j) area of research, and (k) research design

(experimental with and without BMIS as covariate check, survey/correlational, etc.).

Any coding disagreements were resolved through discussion amongst the reviewers, who were able to reach a consensus decision in each case. Initially, several additional variables also were coded for, but these later were dropped as of lesser importance or insufficient in number across studies for use (e.g., study-specific t-tests and their p values). The final set of coded variables can be accessed through our open-source data file.

Reconstruction of Missing Scale Usage Information A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 11

On the basis of the above coding, we identified 33 studies that reported everyday mood for the participants including: general correlational studies, pretests of moods in experimental groups, and mood taken for control groups in experimental contexts (Experimentally- manipulated mood was not included owing to our focus on everyday mood). Of those 33 studies,

16 fully reported three key pieces of information: (1) the BMIS scale employed, (2) the response scale (4- versus 7-point) and the (3) scoring method (subtractive versus reversed) used. We were able to recover the missing key information from 11 more studies (from the sample of 33 studies) by using a “possible range” approach and by contacting authors, as described next.

The possible range approach. The means for each of the BMIS’s mood scales fall within specific ranges depending upon the scoring method and response scale combination employed.

Using the Pleasant-Unpleasant mood scale as an example, its possible values using subtractive scoring with a 4-point response are -24 to 24. Its possible values using reverse scoring and a 4- point response scale are between 16 and 64. The complete set of possible ranges of all the BMIS scales using combinations of response scales and scoring methods can be found in Tables 6.1 and

6.2 of the BMIS Technical and Scoring Manual (Mayer & Cavallaro, 2019). So, if a study reported a mean for the Pleasant-Unpleasant scale using a 4-point response scale of mean of M =

57.9 (as did, for example, Chevalier, 2015), only reverse scoring could possibly have been used.

Such deductions allowed us to obtain fully-specified information for an additional six studies, yielding complete information for 22 studies, as indicated in the right-most column of Table 2.

Contacting authors of original papers. In several instances involving large studies that could not be reclassified as fully specified using the ‘possible range approach’ method, we contacted the original authors to obtain a clarification of the methods used. Based on their A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 12 responses, we were able to further classify another five studies as Class One as indicated in the right-most column of Table 2.

The Final Studies Examined

We employed all reported 150 BMIS studies in considering the types of study for which the BMIS was used. Normative data concerning means and standard deviations was limited, conservatively, to the 27 fully-specified studies. Reliabilities were based on nine (n = 839) Class

One and Two studies because reliabilities would be unchanged whether they were scored using a reverse- or subtractive-scoring method.

Results

Goal One: To Survey Use of the BMIS

Of the 98 articles that met our criteria for using the BMIS, from 2011 to 2015 (this excluded seven articles from beginning of 2016), Figure 3 indicates the frequency per year of the

91 articles published 2011 through 2015 (the remaining seven studies appearing in the first part of 2016), as well as the individual studies reported, and the number of participants involved.

Between 13 and 21 studies were published per year and employed between 1,490 to 2,650 participants per annum.

Demographics of the Test-Takers

Of the 98 articles reporting 150 studies that used the BMIS, there were 13,860 participants (7,607 women, 4,379 men and 32 self-identified as ‘other’/nonbinary), with an average age of 22 and a range of 18 to 71 years old. The participants mostly were undergraduates

(79.8%), with 11.7% from various samples coded as “miscellaneous”, 9% from a community sample and 0.4% from a clinical sample. The preponderance of studies were North American and conducted in English. A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 13

Research Areas and Designs

Broken down by area, the BMIS was also used in a wide variety of research areas, including self-control (30%), mood/emotion (18%) and social/relationships (14%) (see Figure 4).

Ninety-three of the 98 articles were primarily experimental in nature. The two chief uses of the scale in the experimental work were (a) at 72%, to ensure that a given experimental manipulation, i.e., that a questionnaire’s color, had its sole effect on environmental attitude, unmediated through any mood change (Muller, 2014). The second use, at 13%, was to check the efficacy of mood inductions, for example, to determine whether the Pleasant-Unpleasant scale indicated effects of a positive mood induction. The third use, at 15%, was to measure a mood dimension as a dependent variable, for example, to determine how different amounts of caffeine effected participants’ arousal.

Goal Two: To Establish Normative Information for the BMIS.

We were interested in obtaining BMIS norms for everyday mood. In these instances, we classified everyday mood as being present in (a) general correlational studies, and (b) pre-tests of experimental groups in experimental studies and (c) pre- and post-tests of control groups in experimental studies. We were able to classify 27 of those studies reporting everyday moods according to their use of a specific BMIS mood scales, accompanied by a specified response scale and scoring method. Collectively, the 27 studies included 2,663 participants.

Table 3 reports the means and standard deviations for each of the four BMIS scales along with the number of studies and participants involved. The top rows include all reports converted to a common, recommended 4-point Likert scale using reverse scoring. Beneath those, the values are indicated for the studies according to those that originally employed 4- or 7-point Likert scales (these all have been converted to a reverse scoring metric). A large number of participants A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 14 compose the normative samples for the Pleasant-Unpleasant and Arousal-Calm scales (Ns =

2589 and 1646), whereas just N = 216 could be found for the Positive-Tired and Negative-

Relaxed scales. (To convert for subtractive scoring, see Mayer & Cavallaro, 2019).

To obtain the normative values, all means and variances (standard deviations were converted to variances for analyses) were weighted by the study N, then summed, and divided again by the total N across studies (cf., Burton, 2016). The weighted standard error of a given mean (e.g., for the Pleasant-Unpleasant mood scale) was calculated by dividing it by the standard deviations of their respective weighted means (e.g., Pleasant-Unpleasant) by the square root of its respective sample size. For the specific equations and variables used to calculate the normative data in SPSS, see the open-source data file.

Did the Normative Information Collected Pass Two Checks as to Their Integrity?

(Hypothesis One)

First, we tested whether the 21 studies that provided complete information as to their response scales (4- versus 7-point) and scoring for “oppositely worded” items (subtractive versus reverse) fell within the ranges of possible scores for the BMIS Pleasant-Unpleasant and Arousal-

Calm mood scales provided in Mayer & Cavallaro (2019). We excluded the studies sorted by range to avoid the circularity inherent in placing studies into a class based on the ranges that we wanted to cross-check. The values of the Class One means and standard deviations all fell within the specified possible ranges of the scales.

As a second check, we examined whether the values reported for the scale in the original

BMIS report (i.e., Mayer & Gaschke, 1988) fell within the range of the norms reported in this meta-analysis. Indeed, where the samples were largest, the differences were minimal, as indicated in the side-by-side comparison in Table 4. The differences were on the order of about A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 15

1.5 scale points on the Pleasant-Unpleasant scale (48-point range), and the same for the Arousal-

Calm scale (36-point range). They were relatively larger, at 1 and 2-points difference on the

Positive and Negative affect scales (21 and 18-point ranges), where the samples were smaller.

Were the Reliability of the Pleasant-Unpleasant and Arousal-Calm Mood Scales

Statistically Significantly Higher Using A 7-Point Rather Than a 4-Point Likert Response

Scale? (Hypothesis Two)

We calculated the reliabilities of the BMIS by averaging the respective reliability coefficients for a given scale type (i.e., a 7-point pleasant-unpleasant scale). We repeated the process using Fisher Z transformations, but as there was no appreciable difference, we report the original means here.

As predicted, the reliability for the Pleasant-Unpleasant mood scale was slightly higher using the 7-point response scale compared to the 4-point response scale (α = .83 versus .81), t(838) = 8.86, p > .05). There was, however, no difference between the 4- and 7- point Arousal-

Calm mood scales’ reliabilities, albeit the 4-point response scale’s reliability was marginally higher (α = .58 versus .57), t(302) = -.825, n.s.. The difference between using a 7- versus a 4- point scale for either the Pleasant-Unpleasant or Arousal-Calm scales, were trivial at best.

Did The BMIS Pleasant-Unpleasant Mood Scale Scores Rise in Response to Positive Mood

Inductions and Fall after Negative Inductions? (Hypothesis 3).

Pleasant-Unpleasant mood. Six studies reported pre- and post-values for Pleasant-

Unpleasant mood (Drače, 2013; Drače, Efendić, & Marić, 2015; Knight, Brewer, Ball, DeWitt &

Marsh, 2015; Lee, Forbey & Ritchey, 2011; van Damme, 2013; van Damme & Seynaeve, 2013).

Examining those six, there was no overall difference between the pre-test means of the mood- induction and control groups. The same studies indicated that the Pleasant-Unpleasant mood A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 16

scale rose when positive mood was induced (t (524) = -8.88, p > .05), with a pre-test (Mweighted =

47.05, SDpooled = 4.80), and post-test scores (Mweighted = 49.61, SDpooled = 4.41). There was also a mean gain in pleasant mood observed in the positive mood induction group compared to the control group, again indicating there was an overall gain in positive mood (d = -0.61). The

Pleasant-Unpleasant mood scale fell when negative mood was induced (t (548) = 15.32, p > .05). pre-test (Mweighted = 41.58, SDpooled = 5.64) and post-test scores (Mweighted = 46.79, SDpooled =

5.42).There was also a mean loss in pleasant mood in the negative mood induction group compared to the control group, again indicating there was an overall loss in positive mood (d =

0.90).

Arousal-Calm mood. The two studies above by van Damme also examined arousal-calm inductions (across four specific mood inductions). Pre-test (Mweighted = 26.65, SDpooled = 3.24) to post-test scores (Mweighted = 28.26, SDpooled = 3.43) for the Arousal-Calm mood scale rose for specific-inductions of high-arousal moods happiness and anger (t (401) = -6.82, p > .05). There was also a mean gain in arousal observed in the arousal induction group compared to the control group, indicating there was an overall gain in arousal (d = -0.95). Similarly, pre-test (Mweighted =

26.65, SDpooled = 3.47) to post-test scores (Mweighted = 25.89, SDpooled = 2.85) for the Arousal-Calm mood scale fell when specifically-calmer moods of serenity and sadness were induced (t (399) =

3.34, p > .05). However, the control group’s arousal-calm scores fell more than in the calm induction means, indicating the control condition may itself have been relaxing (d = -0.26).

Did the BMIS Pleasant-Unpleasant Scale Correlate with Other Measures Related to

Positive Affect (e.g., Extraversion), and Negatively Correlate with Measures Related to

Negative Affect (e.g., Loneliness)? (Hypothesis Four) A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 17

Convergent Validity. Additional evidence for the validity of the BMIS was obtained from two studies (n=1,560) by exploring how the Pleasant-Unpleasant mood scale correlated with other known assessments of mood and related personality characteristics.

Greitemeyer, Mugge & Bollermann (2014) (N = 1244) found the Pleasant-Unpleasant mood scale was negatively correlated with the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (r = - .32) and positively correlated with the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (r = .43) and the nine-item version of the Antonovsky's Sense of Coherence Scale (defined as meaningful existence; r = .51). Totan

(2014) (N = 316) also found that the Pleasant-Unpleasant mood scale was positively correlated with the Flourishing Scale (r = .26), the Self-Liking/Self-Competence Scale-SLSC (r = .46) and the Emotional Approach Coping Scale (r = .39).

Discussion

The Brief Mood Introspection Scale is a 16-item, open-source mood scale introduced in

1988 that can be scored for Pleasant-Unpleasant and Aroused-Calm mood, or alternatively, for

Positive-Tired and Negative-Relaxed mood (the latter two representing an approximately 90 degree rotation of the original factors of the scale). Knowing that (a) the scale was regularly used since its introduction but also that (b) little was known about such usage, our goals were several- fold: To better understand the ways in which the BMIS was used, to establish normative information for the BMIS’s mood scales, and to provide a qualitative review—pertinent to the tests validity—of correlations of the scale with criteria, as well as to understand whether mood inductions, for example, influenced the scale means (we predicted they would).

Our approach was to focus in particular on 98 articles published between January 2011 through July 31st of 2016. These articles collective reported 150 individual studies. The largest group of studies employing the BMIS examined experimental manipulations of self-control and A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 18 employed the BMIS to rule out mood effects; other studies examined mood in relation to social relationships, mood itself, and cognition (see Figure 4).

Although the reports of BMIS use were numerous, many of the uses were incidental to the main experimental purpose: For example, one group of researchers checked whether questionnaire color influenced environmental attitudes and used the BMIS to rule out a mood effect. Many such reports, we discovered, lacked any indication as to which BMIS scale was used, and also frequently omitted any statistics such as average mood level. Nonetheless, we were able to identify 27 studies, that included, for example, almost of 2600 participants for the

Pleasant-Unpleasant scale over 25 studies—enough for a reasonable set of norms.

Normative Information and Recommendations Regarding BMIS Scale Use

Reports of Norms

We reported the normative information for the scale as it was used in the literature: That is, the scale is used with both a four- and seven-point response scale and is scored using both reverse and subtractive scoring. That said, it is possible to convert each scoring method into its alternatives and, using such a method, we also converted all the studies to a common, four-point, reverse-scored approach. This provides combined overall norms over all 27 studies, for the mood scales means, standard deviations, and reliabilities.

Test of Whether the Seven-Point Scale is Superior to the Four-Point Scale

For a number of years, we have suspected that the use of a seven-point scale versus a four-scale would have the advantage of increasing the reliability of the arousal-calm scale, which our norms indicated exhibited a reliability of α = .58 in the four-point case. Using the data from the meta-analysis, we were able to ascertain that the use of a seven-point scale in preference to a A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 19 four-point scale made no meaningful difference. This leads us to the following recommendations for use of the scale.

Recommendation of BMIS Scale Use

Our laboratory has recommended for a number of years that the BMIS be scored employing the reverse scoring method. Reverse scoring keeps the scores positive and allows for an easy calculation of the average rate of endorsement of the mood-adjectives on a given scale

(by dividing the mean by the number of items). The findings indicated above regarding the differential reliability of the 4- and 7-point response scales indicate that the use of the 4-point response scale is superior to that of the 7-point scale in that it is simpler for respondents, on the one hand, while providing equally reliable performance as the 7-point scale. Although that may not always be the case for 4- versus 7-point scales, it does appear to apply to mood adjectives, at least on the BMIS. Based on these analyses and rationales, the present authors continue to recommend the use of the 4-point response scale and reverse scoring when employing the BMIS.

Validity Information

Lastly, our findings indicated that the Pleasant-Unpleasant mood scale of the BMIS

(which is most used) has accrued considerable evidence for its validity. Evidence for its validity come from the clear, simple nature of the adjectives employed on the scale. Validity evidence for its response processes come from the fact that self-judgment of mood has remained the gold- standard for evaluating mood—more indicative than biological markers or cognitive indicators, at least in most cases.

This review has also amassed validity evidence from the BMIS’s relation with criteria.

The Pleasant-Unpleasant scale rises with a variety of positive mood inductions and similarly falls in response to negative mood inductions. Although the evidence is more limited, the Arousal- A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 20

Calm scale also appears responsive to mood inductions as expected (i.e., rising with inductions of aroused moods and falling with calmer moods). The Pleasant-Unpleasant mood scale also correlates positively with a number of measures of positive affect-related traits such as the Self-

Liking/Self-Competence scale, and negatively with measures of negative-affect related traits such as the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale.

Summary and Conclusions

This meta-analysis presented information regarding the BMIS scale usage and norms for use by future researchers. The article also indicated the increase in evidence for validity of the scale that was amassed over the studies examined. Collectively, the results indicate that the use of the Pleasant-Unpleasant scale and is pair-mate the Arousal-Calm scale, can provide a reasonable open-source measures of mood dimensions, with the caution that the

Arousal-Calm scale has less-than-desirable levels of reliability. Use of the Positive- and

Negative-Affect scales was scanty and so fewer conclusions can be drawn regarding those scales.

That said, the study also provided some information regarding those scale’s mean and standard deviations. In short, use of the BMIS appears reasonable when a quick, easy measure of

Pleasant-Unpleasant mood is required. Its open-source nature makes it an easy-to-obtain alternative to other scales.

A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 21

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National

Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for Educational and

Psychological Testing (2014th ed.).

Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., & Harrison, R. (1983). Cognitions, attitudes and personality dimensions

in depression. British Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 1, 1–16.

Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36, 129–148.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.2.129

Burton, D. A. (2016, September 25). Composite Standard Deviations. Retrieved November 4,

2019, from http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/composite_standard_deviations.html.

Chevalier, G. (2015). The Effect of Grounding the Human Body on Mood. Psychological

Reports, 116, 534–542. https://doi.org/10.2466/06.PR0.116k21w5

Davidson, R., Schwartz, G., Saron, C., Bennett, J., & Goleman, D. (1979). Frontal Versus

Perietal EEG Asymmetry during Positive and Negative Affect. Psychophysiology, 16, 202–

203.

Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1105–1117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.47.5.1105

Drače, S. (2013). Evidence for the role of affect in mood congruent recall of autobiographic

memories. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 623–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9322-

5 A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 22

Drače, S., Efendić, E., & Marić, N. (2015). The effect of negative mood intensity on

autobiographical recall: Evidence for the underlying role of affect in mood congruence

effect. Review of Psychology, 22, 3–9. https://doi.org/10.21465/rp0022.0001

Ekman, P., Levenson, R. W., & Friesen, W. V. (1983). Autonomic nervous system activity

distinguishes among emotions. Science, 221, 1208–1210.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6612338

Green, R. F., & Nowlis, V. (1957). A factor analytic study of the domain of mood with

independent experimental validation of the factors. In American Psychologist (Vol. 12, p.

438). AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC 750 FIRST ST NE, WASHINGTON, DC

20002-4242.

Gregg, V. H., & Shepherd, A. J. (2009). Factor structure of scores on the state version of the Four

Dimension Mood Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 146–156.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408322002

Greitemeyer, T. (2013). Beware of climate change skeptic films. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 35, 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.002

Greitemeyer, T., Mügge, D. O., & Bollermann, I. (2014). Having Responsive Facebook Friends

Affects the Satisfaction of Psychological Needs More Than Having Many Facebook

Friends. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36, 252–258.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2014.900619

Isen, A. M., Shalker, T. E., Clark, M., & Karp, L. (1978). Affect, accessibility of material in

memory, and behavior: A cognitive loop? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,

1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.1.1 A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 23

Knight, J. B., Brewer, G. A., Ball, B. H., DeWitt, M. R., & Marsh, R. L. (2015). The influence of

mood on the process and content of encoding future intentions. The Quarterly Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 68, 1082–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.975729

Lee, T. T. C., Forbey, J. D., & Ritchey, K. A. (2011). The Impact of Emotional Priming on

MMPI-2 Scale Scores. Assessment, 18, 102–105.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110392496

Mayer, J. D., & Cavallaro, R. (2019). Brief Mood Introspection Scale (BMIS): Technical and

Scoring Manual (3rd Edition). Retrieved from

https://mypages.unh.edu/sites/default/files/jdmayer/files/bmistechnicalandscoringmanual-

3rded-2019-02-26fin.pdf

Mayer, J. D., & Gaschke, Y. N. (1988). The experience and meta-experience of mood. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.55.1.102

Mayer, J. D., Gaschke, Y. N., Braverman, D. L., & Evans, T. W. (1992). Mood-congruent

judgment is a general effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 119–132.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.1.119

Mayer, J. D., & Hanson, E. (1995). Mood-Congruent Judgment Over Time. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295213005

McNair, D. M., & Lorr, M. (1964). An analysis of mood in neurotics. The Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology, 69, 620–627. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040902

Müller, C. (2014). Green Surveys or Green People? Measuring Environmental Attitudes is not

Affected by the Color of the Questionnaire. Journal of Articles in Support of the Null

Hypothesis, 10, 75–82. A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 24

Nowlis, V. (1965). Research with the Mood Adjective Check List. In S. S. Tompkins & C. E.

Izard (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and personality: Empirical studies. Oxford: Springer. (1965-

13287-001).

Nowlis, V., & Nowlis, H. H. (1956). The Description and Analysis of Mood. Annals of the New

York Academy of Sciences, 65, 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-

6632.1956.tb49644.x

Nunnally, J. C. (1975). Psychometric Theory—25 Years Ago and Now. Educational Researcher,

4, 7–21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X004010007

Osgood, C. E., & Suci, G. J. (1955). Factor analysis of meaning. Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 50, 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043965

Russell, J. A., Weiss, A., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1989). Affect Grid: A single-item scale of

pleasure and arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 493–502.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.493

Schumann, K. (2014). An affirmed self and a better apology: The effect of self-affirmation on

transgressors’ responses to victims. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 89–96.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.013

Totan, T. (2014). Distinctive Characteristics of Flourishing, Self-Esteem, and Emotional

Approach Coping to Mood. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 6, 30–40.

https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2014.01.004 van Damme, I. (2013). Mood and the DRM paradigm: An investigation of the effects of valence

and arousal on false memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66,

1060–1081. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.727837 A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 25 van Damme, I., & Seynaeve, L. (2013). The effect of mood on confidence in false memories.

Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 309–318.

https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.769440

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures

of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological

Bulletin, 98, 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.219

Wilhelm, P., & Schoebi, D. (2007). Assessing mood in daily life: Structural validity, sensitivity

to change, and reliability of a short-scale to measure three basic dimensions of mood.

European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-

5759.23.4.258

Wundt, W., & Judd, C. H. (1897). Psychological laws of development. In Outline of psychology.

(pp. 325–328). https://doi.org/10.1037/12908-024

Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American

Psychologist, 35, 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151

A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 26

Table 1.

Original Report of the BMIS Means, Standard Deviations and Reliabilities from Mayer and & Gaschke (1988)a Mean Standard Deviation Reliabilityb Mood Scales Pleasant-Unpleasant 45.05 7.40 0.83 Arousal-Calm 27.50 4.39 0.58 Positive-Tired 17.92 3.98 0.77 Negative-Relaxed 11.92 3.59 0.76 a. Means and Standard Deviations reported using a 4-point response scale and reverse scoring b. Cronbach Alpha (α) c. N = 457 participants

A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 27

Table 2

Studies Reporting Everyday Mood Statistics for the BMIS (Statistics from Correlational studies, Control Groups, and Pre-tests of Experimental Groups) Class of Study (Laboratory Code) Initial Classification of Reclassified as fully usable studies Fully Specified (1) 16 16 Partially Specified Scoring unspec. (2) 6 6 via range Response unspec. (3) 0 none No scoring or response scale (4) 6 2 via author contact Specified w Problemsa (9) 3 3 via author contact Omitted Specific Scale Employed or 2 0 Tailored to Study (5,6,7,8) Totals 33 initial studies, all types 27 usable studies a. Studies that were initially excluded from the meta-analysis due to statistical discrepancies. Specifically, the reported means in these studies fell outside the possible range of scores for the mood scale, response scale and scoring method employed in the studies (Greitemeyer, Mugge & Bollermann, 2014; Greitemeyer, 2013; Schumann, 2014)

A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 28

Table 3

Normative Data for Everyday Mood Using the Brief Mood Introspection Scales Study and Measures of Central Study and Reliabilities sample sizes Tendency and Sample Sizes Dispersion Kstdies Npar Mean Std. Dev. SEM Kstudies Npart Reliab.

BMIS Scales Overall Norms Reported as Four-Point, Reverse-Scored Scales Pleas.-Unpleas. 25 2589 46.14 5.97 0.16 9 839 0.82 Arousal-Calm 16 1646 25.89 3.50 0.25 5 303 0.58 Positive-Tired 3 216 18.85 3.73 0.03 na na na i Negative-Relaxed 3 216 10.19 3.66 0.00 na na na Four-Point Response Scale Alone Pleas.-Unpleas. 16 997 45.58 6.44 0.43 5 349 0.81 Arousal-Calm 9 459 24.86 3.40 0.93 3 216 0.58 Positive-Tired 2 119 19.13 3.30 0.03 na na na Negative-Relaxed 2 119 9.02 3.85 0.00 na na na Seven-Point Response Scale Alone Pleas.-Unpleas. 9 1592 76.97 5.76 0.28 4 490 0.83 Arousal-Calm 7 1187 40.58 3.54 0.38 2 87 0.57 Positive-Tired 1 97 30.02 7.69 0.03 na na na Negative-Relaxed 1 97 17.24 7.21 0.00 na na na

A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 29

Table 4.

Comparing the Scale Values from Mayer and & Gaschke (1988)b to the Present Normative Values Means Standard Deviations Alpha Reliabilities Original Norms Original Norms Original Norms Mood Scales Pleasant-Unpleasant 45.05 46.47 7.40 9.21 0.83 0.82 Arousal-Calm 27.50 25.95 4.39 6.51 0.58 0.58 Positive Affect 17.92 18.85 3.98 3.73 0.77 na Negative Affect 11.92 10.19 3.59 3.66 0.76 na a. Pre-reclassification means and standard deviations for pleasant-unpleasant and arousal-calm scales reported using a 4-point response scale and reverse scoring; positive and negative affect scales were only available after reclassification and therefore could be confounded with the reclassification method; b. Mayer & Gaschke (1988): n = 457) n = 1,668 (k = 16).

A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 30

Figure 1. The Brief Mood Introspection Scale

INSTRUCTIONS: Circle the response on the scale below that indicates how well each adjective or phrase describes your present mood.

(definitely do not feel) (do not feel) (slightly feel) (definitely feel) XX X V VV

Lively XX X V VV Drowsy XX X V VV Happy XX X V VV Grouchy XX X V VV Sad XX X V VV Peppy XX X V VV Tired XX X V VV Nervous XX X V VV Caring XX X V VV Calm XX X V VV Content XX X V VV Loving XX X V VV Gloomy XX X V VV Fed up XX X V VV Jittery XX X V VV Active XX X V VV

A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 31

Figure 2. Flow Chart of the Selection of Relevant Studies

A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 32

Figure 3. Number of Published Empirical Articles and Studies Using the Brief Mood

Introspection Scale (BMIS) and Participants Employed from 2011-2015

A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF AN OPEN 33

Figure 4. Percent of Articles Using the Brief Mood Introspection Scale (BMIS) In Each of the

Eight Research Areas