DOI:10.2478/v10237-011-0033-8Sport Science Review, vol. XIX, No. 5-6, December 2010 Affect in Sporting Activities: a Preliminary Validation of the Worcester Affect Scale Clare RHODEN • Julia WEST he overly long psychometric measures available for affect may have Tcaused difficulty measuring this construct during physical activity (Barkoff & Heiby, 2005; Wilhelm & Schoebi, 2007). This paper aims to create a two-item affect scale to measure feeling states during physical activity. In study 1 ninety-four participants completed the PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) and the newly designed Worcester Affect Scale (WAS) measuring positive and negative affect. In study 2, seven participants completed two 20km cycle time trials in the laboratory. PANAS and WAS were administered prior to and after the trials and WAS was reported at frequent regular intervals during each time trial. Preliminary validation of the WAS was confirmed with significant correlations between the WAS and PANAS. The WAS scale is quick and easy to administer and was sensitive in measuring fluctuations in affect within a 20km cycle time trial. Future work is needed to examine the fluctuations in affect and clarify the relationship between positivity and negativity. Keywords: Affect, mood, emotion, measurement. Introduction Psychological research has acknowledged the importance of affect in developing an understanding of human behaviour and cognition (Fazackerley, Lane & Mahoney, 2004; Kramer & Yoon, 2007; Martin, Anderson & Gates 2000; Watson & Clark, 1997). Thus mood, emotion and affect have received much attention in many areas of sport and exercise psychology (Jones, Lane, Bray, Uphill & Catlin, 2005; Lane, Beedie & Stevens, 2005; Watson & Clark, 1997). As there is a common difficulty with access to and therefore, measurement of participants during sporting situations, assessing the effects and changes of affect, mood or emotion during activity have not been well documented (Baker, 71 Affect in Sport Activities Denniston, Zabora, Polland & Dudley, 2002; Malouff, Schutte & Ramerth, 1985; Västfjäll & Gärling, 2007; Wilhelm & Schoebi, 2007). This important process may have been hindered in the past due to the overly long psychometric measures available (Barkoff & Heiby, 2005). This paper proposes to address this issue by seeking to create and validate an affect scale which could be used to collect feeling states during a physical activity. Thus the specific aims of the study are to provide a rationale for a very brief measure and to validate this measure using previously established, valid and reliable tools. Moods and emotions have both been described as affective feelings (Neumann, Seibt & Strack, 2001). However, more explicit definitions describe emotion as an immediate response to a specific stimulus, whereas mood is considered to be a less intense more general response which is not linked to a triggering stimulus (Diener & Iran-Nejad, 1986; Jones, 2003; Lane et al., 2005). Affect is usually related to an overall concept of valence encompassing both mood and emotion and classifying them as positive or negative (Barkoff & Heiby, 2005; Lane et al., 2005). Additionally, the resultant person by situation interactions which occur in every day experiences can influence or impact on an individuals’ psychological state and have been collectively described as affect (Duncan & Barrett, 2007). Whilst many authors seem to use the terms emotion, mood and affect synonymously; this usually occurs when discussing general factors such as valence and during discussion of positive or negative descriptors and constructs (Bartels, 2007; Bryant, Yarnold & Grimm, 1996; Bye, Pushkar & Conway, 2007; Haddock, Zanna & Esses, 1994;; Laurin & Nicolas, 2008; Neumann et al., 2001; Smith, 2006; Weinstein, Mermelstein, Hankin, Hedeker & Flay, 2007). Where an individual experiences fear as a negative affect this can be related to other negative affects such as anger or sadness (Watson & Clark, 1992). This is also found with specific types of positive affect, for example, those experiencing love tend to also experience joy (Diener, Smith & Fujita, 1995; Watson & Clark, 1992). Further evidence provides support for this, finding that different mood elements can be correlated together resulting in a common broad dimension of affect (Diener et al., 1995; Ekkekakis, 2008; Tellegen, Watson & Clark, 1999; Watson & Clark, 1992, 1997; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). Extensive research in this area demonstrates robust and significant evidence for a hierarchical structure where positive and negative affect are acknowledged as two broad dimensions (Watson & Clark, 1997). Within this hierarchical model, the lower level experiences of affect equate to specific descriptors such as joy, happiness, sadness and fear. At the higher level these specific descriptors align together and represent the two non specific broad dimensions of affect (Watson & Clark, 1997). Variations in negative and 72 Sport Science Review, vol. XIX, No. 5-6, December 2010 positive affect are related but largely independent of one another (Watson & Clark, 1997). The evidence suggests that positive and negative affect are the two major consistent factors across different time frames/ response formats/ rotational themes and within, between tests also supports these as higher order factors (for a detailed review see Watson & Clark, 1997). Thus assessment of affect within this hierarchical framework requires a focus on measuring the higher order factors of positive and negative affect (Watson & Clark, 1997). Lower order assessment of affect has been more complex with many similar mood states and emotional response scales being developed in the absence of an underlying theoretical framework (Carels, Coit, Young & Berger, 2007; Lane et al., 2005; Malouff et al., 1985; Martin et al., 2000; Terry, Lane, Lane & Keohane, 1999; Watson & Clark, 1997). However, the continuing discussion concerning mood and emotion as lower order factors is beyond the scope of this study (see Watson & Clark, 1997 or Lane et al., 2005 for a review). This paper acknowledges the proposed hierarchical framework suggested by Watson & Clark (1997) and focuses on measuring the situation feelings using the higher order factors of positive and negative affect. Further in a contrasting major model of affect (Russell’s, 1980 Circumplex model) containing two principal dimensions; pleasantness/ unpleasantness, activation/ deactivation, it has been shown empirically that Watson and Clark (1997) concept of positive and negative affect align with the pleasantness and unpleasantness in the activated state (Feldman Barrett and Russell, 1998; Yik, Russell & Suzuki, 2003). It may be logical to assume that exercise equates to an activated state and hence this study proposes to measure affect during activity utilising the positive and negative definitions represented in the activated state of the Circumplex model (Yik, Russell & Suzuki, 2003; Watson & Clark, 1997). Physical activity and sport has been shown to have beneficial positive effects on affect (Barkoff & Heiby, 2005; Carels et al., 2007; Jones, 2003; Russell, Pritschet, Frost, Emmett, Pelley, Black & Owen, 2003). In some instances, the difficulty in measuring affect pre and post activity seems to be timing the administration of the instrument to enable sufficient time for completion and being confident that the upcoming or previous activity is responsible for the resulting data. However, whilst these studies have measured affect before and after activity there is little evidence for assessing this construct during actual performance. Performance is determined by both psychological and physiological variables thus sampling at a higher frequency, in line with physiological protocols, will enable interdisciplinary analysis and a greater understanding of the causes of successful sports performance. In many dynamic situations, where positive and negative affect may change rapidly, researchers need to use as brief a measure 73 Affect in Sport Activities as possible. These quick assessments of affect may provide a reduction in respondent burden resulting in more valid responses (Baker et al., 2002; Malouff et al., 1985; Västfjäll & Gärling, 2007; Wilhelm & Schoebi, 2007). Furthermore, asking for frequent data during investigation may be impractical within the sporting activity using current measures. Therefore, brief versions of common affect measures are necessary. Various shortened versions have already been created (Bryant et al., 1996; Malouff et al., 1985). The Profile of Mood States (POMS; McNair, Lorr & Droppleman, 1971) is a commonly used measure for mood in the sport and physical activity domain. The Profile of Mood States – Short Form (POMS-SF; Shacham, 1983 in Malouff et. al, 1985) and the Brunel Mood Scale (BRUMS: Terry et al., 1999) have both been developed from the original POMS instrument in an attempt to provide a more useable and less time consuming measures. However, the POMS is a 65-item scale and takes approximately 5-7 minutes for a healthy individual to complete, those who are physically ill may take up to 3 times longer (Baker et al., 2002; Curran, Andrykowski & Studts, 1995). Even using the shortened version of the POMS (POMS-SF) response time is only reduced by 50% which may still preclude their usage in some situations (Baker et al., 2002). Furthermore, the POMS bases its normative values on college students and psychiatric outpatients who may perceive, for example vigor and fatigue, in a totally different way (Baker et