Studies // Cited work
Measures of emotion: A review
Mauss, I. B., & Robinson, M. D. (2009). Measures of emotion: A review.
Level D Review doi:10.1080/02699930802204677
What this study supports
Supports the claims that measures tend to reflect dimensions rather than discrete states, converge only modestly, and that there is no gold-standard measure of emotion. Narrative review.
- Who was studied
- Not applicable: a review of experiential, physiological and behavioural measures of emotion.
- Design
- Review
- Level of evidence
- Cross-sectional, observational, qualitative work and narrative reviews.
Claims that rest on it
Each claim states what the site asserts, at what strength, and with what caveat.
EmpiricalLevel DConfidence HIGH
There is no gold-standard measure of emotion: experiential, physiological and behavioural measures converge only modestly and cannot be treated as interchangeable.
- Scope
- Research measurement of emotion in general.
- Caveat
- Based on a narrative review; newer multimodal methods have not changed this conclusion but are not assessed here.
Last reviewed · Review due · no-gold-standard-measure
EmpiricalLevel DConfidence MODERATE
Emotional responses are only partly coherent across systems: during a film inducing amusement and sadness, experience and facial behaviour were highly associated but physiology only modestly, and experiential, physiological and behavioural measures carry unique variance.
- Scope
- Laboratory emotion induction and research measures of emotion in general.
- Caveat
- One laboratory film study and a narrative review; coherence can differ with emotion and intensity, as the difference between amusement and sadness already shows.
Last reviewed · Review due · measuring-response-coherence-limited