Beliefs about emotion usefulness are nuanced

Degree of Personal Reference and Emotional Valence Predict Affective Distress

Datos Bibliográficos

ID7149963
AutoresJosh Shulkin (0000-0001-8999-212X, University of Colorado Colorado Springs), Michael A Kisley (0000-0001-8019-3233, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, autor de correspondencia), Andrew Lac (0000-0002-8035-3628, University of Colorado Colorado Springs)
Año2025
Volumen39
Número4
Páginas740-756
Fecha de publicación2025-05-19
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaCognition & Emotion (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0269-9931 • E-ISSN: 1464-0600
EditorialInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/02699931.2024.2391586
PMID39150045
OpenAlexW4401646038
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas1
Referencias citadas38

531) replicated these findings and employed confirmatory factor analyses to psychometrically assess the distinctiveness of these emotion belief dimensions. Evaluating a two-factor model, four-factor model, and three-factor bifactor model, results showed that both the four-factor and bifactor models fit the data well, whereas the two-factor model did not. These findings suggest that beliefs about emotion in general and beliefs about one's own emotions may not be fundamentally distinct, but rather different dimensions of the same underlying emotion usefulness belief

Cognitive psychology · Confirmatory factor analysis · Developmental psychology · Distress · Optimal distinctiveness theory · Structural equation modeling · Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development · Clinical Psychology · Cultural Differences and Values · Emotions and Moral Behavior · Psychology · Social Psychology