David OPRIŞ & Bianca MACAVEI
Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Abstract
At present, in the scientific literature concerning negative emotions and distress the unitary model of distress is the dominant model. According to this model, high levels of distress are conceptualized as a high level of negative affect while low levels of distress are conceptualized as a low level of negative affect. The binary model of distress, initially elaborated by Albert Ellis (1994), describes distress as a binary construct, consisting of two distinct components: functional negative emotions and dysfunctional negative emotions. In the present study, using 72 first year undergraduate students as subjects, we tested hypotheses based on the two models of distress: the unitary model and the binary model. The outcome shows qualitative differences between functional negative emotions and dysfunctional negative emotions, gaining support for the binary model of distress. Promising practical implications for psychotherapy are discussed.
Key words: distress, unitary model of distress, binary model of distress, functional and dysfunctional negative emotions, irrational beliefs, schemas, appraisal
Pages: 181-195
The Unitary Model of Distress
The main model used in the last decades to conceptualize distress is the unitary model. According to this model, negative emotions are described as a unitary construct (Russel & Carroll, 1999). High levels of distress refer to a high level of negative emotions, while low levels of distress refer to a low level of negative emotions (Beck & Beamesderfer, 1974). It is believed that negative emotions of a certain type (for example, depression/sadness type emotions) always vary together in the same way, the only difference between them being of intensity (sadness is less intense than depression). According to this model, in a negative situation, high levels of distress produce high levels of negative emotions, while low levels of distress produce low levels of negative emotions (David & Avellino, 2003). Emotional descriptors, which according to common sense describe different negative emotions (for example: sad vs. depressed) are considered (a) synonyms for the same emotional experience (for example: sad and depressed are two different labels for the same emotional experience) or (b) as referring to the same underlying construct (for example: dysphoric) with labels representing differences in intensity (for example: depressed is more intense than sad). When the functional-dysfunctional aspect of the emotions is taken into account, the distinction is made only by their intensity (for example: high sadness and depressed mood are typically considered dysfunctional while low sadness and depressed mood are typically considered functional) (David et al., 2005).
As mentioned before, this model is widely used today.
The Binary Model of Distress
On the basis of an extensive clinical practice Ellis (1962, 1994) formulated the binary model of distress (David, Schnur & Belloiu, 2002). For the first time he categorized negative emotions as functional or dysfunctional based on qualitative differences rather than on quantitative ones (i.e. intensity) (Ellis 1994; Ellis & Harper, 1975). A central role in this theory is played by irrational beliefs. Irrational beliefs, as well as rational beliefs, are evaluative cognitions, or personal representations of reality. Evaluative cognitions can be flexible or rigid, in this way being classified as rational or irrational. Irrational beliefs are rigid, absolutistic beliefs, expressed in the form of “musts”, “shoulds” and “oughts”. Beside the core irrational belief of demandingness (DEM), irrationality is also expressed in the form of catastrophic thinking (AWF), low frustration tolerance (LFT), and global negative evaluation or self-downing (SD). Rational beliefs are based on flexible premises, being expressed as desires and preferences. Rational beliefs enable a person to evaluate a situation as moderately negative, to express a tolerant attitude, acceptance of imperfection and flexibility regarding the chances of an event appearing (Dryden & DiGiuseppe, 2003). Within the REBT framework, irrational beliefs are considered responsible for the appearance of dysfunctional emotions, while rational beliefs are responsible for the appearance of functional emotions (Ellis, 1994).
Dysfunctional negative emotions have one or more of the following characteristics: a) lead to experiencing of pain and mental unease; b) motivate the person to execute behaviors opposed to his/her goals; c) prevent the person from engaging in behaviors necessary to reach his/her goals. On the other hand, functional negative emotions have one or more of the following characteristics: a) bring to attention the fact that something is blocking the reach of the goals, but do not disengage the individual from the attempt of reaching personal goals; b) motivate the person to execute behaviors which lead to personal growth; c) encourage the effective use of behaviors necessary to reach the personal goals (Dryden & DiGiuseppe, 2003).
Until now, the existing studies have focused on classifying negative emotions as functional or dysfunctional, based on their relationship with irrational beliefs. Cramer (1985) found positive correlations between irrational beliefs and functional negative emotions as well as between irrational beliefs and dysfunctional negative emotions, in the context of imagined stressful situations. He interpreted the results as inconsistent with the binary model of distress, while supporting the unitary model. Experimental studies, which involved the rehearsal of irrational beliefs to discover their impact on functional and dysfunctional negative emotions were carried out by Cramer and Fong (1991), Cramer and Kupshik (1993). Results showed that repeatedly rehearsing thoughts or reading sentences containing irrational beliefs increased both functional and dysfunctional negative emotions in the context of an imagined stressful situation. This result was also interpreted as supporting the unitary model of distress.
At the beginning of the ‘90s Ellis revised the binary model of distress (Ellis, 1994; Ellis & DiGiuseppe, 1993). This new version posits both functional and dysfunctional negative emotions are correlated with irrational beliefs.
According to Ellis (1994) the emotional response to imagined events can not be assumed to be the same as the emotional response to real-life stressful events, because core irrational beliefs may not be activated in imagined stressful situation. In other words, core irrational beliefs may have a different impact in real life situations than those rehearsed under the direction of an experimenter (David et al., 2005).
Recent studies gain support for the binary model of distress. David et al. (2002) showed that, in the context of remembered stressful events high levels of irrational beliefs lead to dysfunctional negative emotions, while low levels of irrational beliefs lead to functional negative emotions. In another research, David, Schnur and Birk (2004) demonstrated that the level of arousal did not differentiate between functional and dysfunctional negative emotions, as the unitary model would predict. The results suggest that the distinction between functional and dysfunctional negative emotions is not simply in terms of intensity. A third study (David et al., 2005) investigated the relationship between irrational beliefs and functional and dysfunctional negative emotions, but in the context of an intense real-life stressful event. The results showed that in a stressful situation (e.g., upcoming breast surgery) high levels of irrational beliefs were associated with high levels of both functional and dysfunctional negative emotions, while low levels of irrational beliefs were associated with low levels of dysfunctional negative feeling and high levels of functional feelings.
As we have seen, there have already been empirical studies focusing on the relationship between irrational beliefs and functional and dysfunctional negative emotions.
The functionality or dysfunctionality of negative emotions is given by: 1) the subjective experience associated with these emotions, 2) the associated cognitions and 3) the behavioral consequences of the emotions (Ellis & DiGiuseppe, 1993).
Differences at the subjective level between functional and dysfunctional negative emotions were investigated by a number of studies (David et al., 2004; Kassinove, Eckhardt & Endes, 1993). The results indicated only the existence of a quantitative difference (of intensity) between them. The authors showed that the dysfunctional negative emotions are perceived as more intense compared to the functional negative emotions. This finding does not contradict the binary model of distress, as dysfunctional negative feelings tend to correlate with clinical problems, while functional negative emotions seem to be associated with normal emotional reactions of persons facing stressful events (Ellis & DiGiuseppe, 1993).
The objective of this research was to empirically test predictions about the subjective experience of the negative emotions. Divergent hypotheses were formulated based on the two models of distress: the unitary model and the binary model.
Hypothesis 1
Based on the binary model of distress, qualitative differences (how different the emotions are perceived) between dysfunctional and functional negative emotions will be bigger than intensity differences between dysfunctional negative emotions and functional negative emotions. We have taken into account only the prototypical functional and dysfunctional negative emotions from the REBT theory, representing the following types of negative emotions: sadness, fear, anger and guilt. The resulting pairs of emotions are the following, the first word being the functional negative emotion: sad-depressed, concerned-anxious, annoyed-angry and regretful-guilty.
If the unitary model is correct, then qualitative differences between dysfunctional and functional negative emotions will not be bigger than intensity differences between dysfunctional and functional negative emotions.
Hypothesis 2
Based on the binary model of distress we assume that the qualitative differences (how different the emotions are perceived) between dysfunctional and functional negative emotions will be bigger than the qualitative differences between the dysfunctional emotions. Also, the qualitative differences between dysfunctional and functional negative emotions will be bigger than the qualitative differences between functional negative emotions. In the case of this hypothesis we will take into account all the negative emotions that we measured, not only the prototypical ones. Because we focused our research primarily on two types of negative emotions (sadness and fear) we will test this hypothesis on all the measured functional and dysfunctional feelings of these two emotion types.
If the unitary model is correct, then the qualitative differences between dysfunctional and functional negative emotions will not be bigger neither than the differences between the dysfunctional negative emotions, nor than the differences between the functional negative emotions.
Hypothesis 3
According to the binary model of distress, the qualitative differences between dysfunctional and functional negative emotions will be bigger than the intensity differences between dysfunctional and functional negative emotions. We will take into account all the dysfunctional and functional negative emotions of sadness and fear types.
According to the unitary model of distress, the qualitative differences between dysfunctional and functional negative emotions will not be bigger than the intensity differences between dysfunctional and functional negative emotions.
Method
Participants
The participants were 72 undergraduates from Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania (61 women and 11 men; mean age 23). Only first year students were admitted. The participants completed two questionnaires.
Measures
The first questionnaire evaluates the qualitative differences between dysfunctional and functional negative emotions (how different the emotions are perceived), the second one evaluates the comparative intensity of emotions. These questionnaires were in Romanian.
These two questionnaires were developed by the authors. The starting point was POMS-SV scale (DiLorenzo, Bovbjerg & Montgomery, 1999), from which the items of the “Tension/Anxiety” and “Depression” subscales were used. Other items were selected from the POMS scale (McNair, Lorr & Droppelman, 1971), from the same two subscales. Using a dictionary of synonyms more words having a very close meaning to those already in the list were added. This way, we managed to produce a list of 41 words. To classify them as representing functional or dysfunctional emotions, the words were rated by 3 experts from the Psychology Department of Babes-Bolyai University and from the Romanian Association of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies. The scores ranged from “-2” (completely dysfunctional) to “+2” (completely functional). Also, every word was put into one of the following categories: 1) sadness, 2) fear and 3) other type of emotion. We eliminated all the words upon which a consensus was not reached regarding the functional/dysfunctional aspect or regarding the type of emotion. The remaining words were all used in the experiment. For every word a functionality/dysfunctionality score was computed, ranging from “+6” (functional) to “-6” (dysfunctional). The scores are presented in Appendix 1.
The entire list of words was used for both questionnaires. Pairs of words were generated in the following way: a) one functional emotion word and one dysfunctional emotion word were put together; b) two functional emotion words were paired; c) two dysfunctional emotion words were paired.
For the sadness-type 12 pairs of words resulted naming functional-dysfunctional emotions, 3 pairs of functional-functional and 6 pairs of dysfunctional-dysfunctional emotions. In the case of fear-type the resulting pairs of words were: 8 of functional-dysfunctional emotions, 4 of functional-functional and 3 of dysfunctional-dysfunctional emotions.
Also, we introduced pairs of words naming other types of emotions: anger and guilt. For these types of emotions we used only the prototypical words for the functional and dysfunctional emotions, according to Ellis (Ellis, 1994).
The participants’ task in the case of the first questionnaire was to evaluate the qualitative differences between the emotion words contained in a pair. The instruction was the following: “Your task is to evaluate how much the words below describe different emotions. The scores will range from 0 (=no resemblance between emotions) to 4 (= same emotion)” (see Appendix 2).
For the second questionnaire, the participants’ task was to evaluate the differences in intensity between the emotion words in the pairs. The instruction was the following: “Your task is to comparatively evaluate the intensity of emotions from a pair of words. The scores will range from 0 (=very low intensity) to 4 (=extremely high intensity), for each emotion” (see Appendix 3).
Procedure
Participants completed both questionnaires. The order of presentation was always the same, the first one being the questionnaire that evaluated the qualitative differences. The reason for this was that the intensity of the emotions is easier to evaluate and, if presented first, it would have influenced the evaluation of the qualitative differences.
Statistical Analysis Methods
The statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 10. A level of .01 for α was used for all the statistical tests.
For the testing of the hypotheses we used the paired t test, given that the same subjects completed both questionnaires.
For all comparisons we also computed the effect size and the statistical power. In the case of the paired t test the effect size is represented by f, the following values being used for reference: f=0.10 – small effect size; f=0.25 – medium effect size; f=0.40 – big effect size. In the case of statistical power the smallest value accepted as satisfactory is 0.80. (Cohen, 1992)
Results
Hypothesis 1
For every type of emotion, we compared the difference between the scores from the first questionnaire (the higher the score, the smaller the resemblance between emotions) with the scores from the second questionnaire (the difference between the intensities of emotions).
There already are studies showing that dysfunctional feelings are more intense than functional ones (Kassinove, Eckhardt & Endes, 1993). Based on our data we obtained a significant difference (t=-7.54; p<.01) between the sum of the functional emotions intensities and the sum of dysfunctional emotions intensities. For this reason, when we calculated the difference of intensity we always extracted the functional emotion’s intensity from the dysfunctional emotion’s intensity.
Table 1. Qualitative – quantitative difference in the case of prototypical functional and dysfunctional negative emotions
| Prototypical emotions (F-D) |
t |
p |
|
| Sadness | Sad-depressed |
4.085 |
p<.01 |
| Fear | Concerned-anxious |
9.021 |
p<.01 |
| Anger | Annoyed-angry |
5.128 |
p<.01 |
| Guilt | Regretful-guilty |
5.019 |
p<.01 |
Table 1 presents the paired t test. The effect sizes are big, being over 0.40 for each type of emotion, and the statistical powers are significant, with values above 0.80.
The obtained results are all statistically and practically significant, and consistent with the hypothesis formulated based on the binary model.
Hypothesis 2
For testing this hypothesis we used the first questionnaire. This time we took into account not only the prototypical emotions, but all pairs from the sadness and fear type emotions.
We calculated the qualitative difference between functional and dysfunctional emotions by summing all the differences obtained in pairs of functional-dysfunctional emotions.
For the qualitative differences between the functional emotions we used only functional-functional pairs, while for the qualitative differences between the dysfunctional emotions we used only the dysfunctional-dysfunctional pairs.
The t test results are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Comparisons between emotions
|
Comparisons between |
t |
p |
|
| Qualitative difference between functional and dysfunctional emotions | Qualitative differences between emotions of the same type (functional emotions) |
4.689 |
p<.01 |
| Qualitative difference between functional and dysfunctional emotions | Qualitative differences between emotions of the same type (dysfunctional emotions) |
1.679 |
p>.05 |
| Qualitative differences between emotions of the same type (functional emotions) | Qualitative differences between emotions of the same type (dysfunctional emotions) |
2.278 |
p<.05 |
Given the inconclusive results, we refined our analysis. Suspecting a negative influence of the lowest scoring items at the functionality/dysfunctionality feature, we eliminated them from calculations. From the sadness-type emotions we eliminated one functional word (“unhappy”, score 2) and two dysfunctional words (“miserable”, score -1; “lonely”, score -2). From the fear type emotions we eliminated two functional items (“agitated”, score 1; “fearful”, score 1).
The new results are presented in Table 3.
We obtained a significant statistical and practical effect, these results being congruent again with the hypothesis formulated based on the binary model of distress.
Table 3. Comparisons between emotions
|
Comparisons between |
t |
p |
|
| Qualitative difference between functional and dysfunctional emotions | Qualitative differences between emotions of the same type (functional emotions) |
3.75 |
p<.01 |
| Qualitative difference between functional and dysfunctional emotions | Qualitative differences between emotions of the same type (dysfunctional emotions) |
4.09 |
p<.01 |
| Qualitative differences between emotions of the same type (functional emotions) | Qualitative differences between emotions of the same type (dysfunctional emotions) |
0.588 |
p>.05 |
Hypothesis 3
To test this hypothesis we used all the functional-dysfunctional pairs from sadness and fear emotion types.
The qualitative differences between functional and dysfunctional emotions were obtained by adding the individual differences observed on the pairs, using the scores from the first questionnaire. The difference in intensity was calculated in the same way, but by using the scores from the second questionnaire. We also calculated these indicators in the condition when the lowest scoring items at the functionality/dysfunctionality feature from the scales were excluded (see discussion at Hypothesis 2).
The results of the t test are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Qualitative-quantitative general comparison between functional and dysfunctional emotions
|
t |
p |
|
| Qualitative-quantitative general difference |
14.62 |
p<.01 |
| Qualitative-quantitative general difference (excluding the lowest scoring items on functionality feature) |
16.57 |
p<.01 |
Both differences prove significant at a p<.01, supporting the hypothesis based on the binary model. We also obtained a big effect size and significant values for the statistical power.
Discussion
The results we obtained support the hypotheses formulated based on the binary model of distress, while being inconsistent with those formulated on the basis of the unitary model of distress.
Results are significant both statistically and practically. The effect size (f) and the statistical power values indicate a large magnitude of the studied phenomenon. From a psychological point of view, this would suggest big qualitative differences at the subjective level, between functional and dysfunctional emotions.
Analyzing the results separately for each hypothesis, we can say, based on the first hypothesis, that in the case of the 4 types of studied emotions (sadness, fear, anger, guilt), at the subjective level, the prototypical functional and dysfunctional feelings are perceived as being different. This is true for the following prototypical emotions: sad-depressed, concerned-anxious, annoyed-angry and regretful-guilty.
Accepting the second and the third hypotheses means that, considering all the emotions from the sadness and fear types, we can make a difference between functional and dysfunctional emotions, other than that based only on intensity. These results can be interpreted as showing that the distinction between functional and dysfunctional emotions is due both to their different intensities and to the fact that they are considered different emotions. In this context, it is important to notice that conclusive results were obtained after a number of emotional words, both functional and dysfunctional, with the smallest functionality scores being eliminated. This leads us to raise a question regarding the dichotomous character of the functionality concept.
General discussion
The functionality or dysfunctionality of negative emotions is given by: 1) the subjective experience associated with these emotions, 2) the associated cognitions and 3) the behavioral consequences of the emotions (Ellis & DiGiuseppe, 1993). Until now, the studies testing the two models of distress, the unitary and the binary models, focused mainly on the relationship between the irrational beliefs and the functional and dysfunctional emotions (David et al., 2005).
The present study addresses the subjective experience associated with the emotions, by showing the existence, at the subjective level, of qualitative differences between functional and dysfunctional emotions. There already are studies showing differences of intensity (David et al., 2004; Kassinove, Eckhardt & Endes, 1993) but, to our knowledge, this is the first research producing direct empirical support for qualitative differences.
We consider the obtained results as an important argument in favor of Ellis’ binary model of distress.
There are important theoretical and practical implications of these results. From a theoretical point of view, they provide a strong argument in favor of the binary model of distress. In the process of adopting this new model, psychotherapy will have to change its goals. From now on, the target will have to move from a global reduction of the negative emotions to the reduction of only dysfunctional ones, the functional negative emotions having the important role of motivating the person (David et al., 2005). New evaluation instruments will also have to be created and adapted. One of the first practical consequences of this research is the possibility to create an assessment tool, which can independently evaluate the functional and the dysfunctional negative emotions.
This study has some limits; first, subjects were recruited from the general, clinically healthy population. To extend these results to the clinical domain, the research must be replicated on a clinical sample. A second limitation is given by the fact that the participants were tested in normal conditions, without increased levels of stress. In stressful situations, the results may have been different. Another limit of the study is that all the subjects were young adults, not entirely representative for the general population. Larger and more heterogeneous samples will have to be used in the future.
REFERENCES
Beck, A. T., & Beamesderfer, A. (1974). Assessment of depression: The depression inventory. In P. Pichot (Ed.), Modern problems in pharmacopsychiatry: Psychological measurements in psychopharmacology (pp. 151-169). New York: Karger, Basel.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin. 112, 155-159.
Cramer, D. (1985). Irrational beliefs and strength versus inappropriateness of feelings. British Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 3, 81-92.
Cramer, D., & Fong, J. (1991). Effect of rational and irrational beliefs on intensity and “inappropriateness” of feelings: A test of rational-emotive theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4, 319-329.
Cramer, D., & Kupshik, G. (1993). Effect of rational and irrational statements on intensity and “inappropriateness” of emotional distress and irrational beliefs in psychotherapy patients. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 319-325.
David, D., & Avellino, M. (2003) A synopsis of Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT); Basic/ Fundamental and Applied Research. http://www.rebt.org/synopsis.htm
David, D., Montgomery, G. H., Macavei, B., & Bovbjerg, D. H. (2005). An empirical Investigation of Albert Ellis’ Binary Model of Distress. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 499-516.
David, D., Schnur, J., & Belloiu, A. (2002). Another search for the “hot” cognitions: Appraisal, irrational beliefs, attributions, and their relation to emotion. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 15, 23-131.
David, D., Schnur, J., & Birk, J. (2004). Functional and dysfunctional feelings in Ellis’ cognitive theory of emotion; An empirical analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 869-880.
DiLorenzo, T. A., Bovbjerg, D. H., Montgomery, G. H. (1999). The application of a shorted version of the profile of mood states in a sample of breast cancer chemotherapy patients. British Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 315-325.
Dryden, W., & DiGiuseppe, R. (2003). Ghid de terapie raţional-emotivă şi comportamentală. Cluj-Napoca, Editura ASCR.
Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart.
Ellis, A. (1994). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy (Rev. Ed.). Secaucus, NJ: Birch Lane.
Ellis, A., & DiGiuseppe, R. (1993). Are inappropriate or dysfunctional feelings in rational-emotive therapy qualitative or quantitative? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5, 471-477.
Ellis, A., & Harper, R. A. (1975). A new guide to rational living. North Hollywood, CA: Wilshire Books.
Kassinove, H., Eckhardt, C., & Endes, R. (1993). Assessing the Intensity of “Appropriate” and “Inappropriate” Emotions in Rational-Emotive Therapy. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 7, 111-126.
McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppelman, L. F. (1971). EITS Manual for the Profile of Mood States. San Diego: Educational and Industry Testing Service.
Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 1, 30-30.
Appendix 1
The classification and the scores of the emotions after the experts’ ratings
|
Sadness |
||||
|
Functional |
|
Dysfunctional |
||
|
sad |
4 |
|
useless |
-4 |
|
gloomy |
2 |
|
depressed |
-6 |
|
miserable |
3 |
|
desolate |
-4 |
|
blue |
3 |
|
lonely |
-2 |
|
sorrowful |
3 |
|
helpless |
-5 |
|
upset |
4 |
|
hopeless |
-5 |
|
|
|
|
discouraged |
-3 |
|
|
|
|
depressive |
-6 |
|
|
|
|
shattered |
-5 |
|
|
|
|
unhappy |
-1 |
|
|
|
|
hurt |
-5 |
|
|
|
|
desperate |
-5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fear |
||||
|
Functional |
|
Dysfunctional |
||
|
concerned |
6 |
|
anxious |
-6 |
|
worried |
4 |
|
terrified |
-6 |
|
agitated |
1 |
|
panicky |
-6 |
|
restless |
4 |
|
frightened |
-6 |
|
strained |
2 |
|
scared |
-5 |
|
alarmed |
2 |
|
nervous |
-3 |
|
fearful |
1 |
|
|
|
|
tense |
2 |
|
|
|
Appendix 2
Your task is to evaluate how much the words below describe different emotions. The scores will range from 0 (=no resemblance between emotions) to 4 (=same emotion).
|
gloomy |
unhappy |
|
|||||
|
sad |
upset |
|
|||||
|
worried |
anxious |
|
|||||
|
scared |
nervous |
|
|||||
|
anxious |
nervous |
|
|||||
|
sad |
helpless |
|
|||||
|
depressed |
depressive |
|
|||||
|
sorrowful |
hurt |
|
|||||
|
shattered |
desperate |
|
|||||
|
depressive |
unhappy |
|
|||||
|
sad |
gloomy |
|
|||||
|
sad |
depressive |
|
|||||
|
miserable |
useless |
|
|||||
|
gloomy |
blue |
|
|||||
|
strained |
scared |
|
|||||
|
agitated |
fearful |
|
|||||
|
depressed |
lonely |
|
|||||
|
gloomy |
lonely |
|
|||||
|
discouraged |
useless |
|
|||||
|
tense |
anxious |
|
|||||
|
regretful |
guilty |
|
|||||
|
worries |
fearful |
|
|||||
|
upset |
hopeless |
|
|||||
|
blue |
desolate |
|
|||||
|
alarmed |
frightened |
|
|||||
|
restless |
alarmed |
|
|||||
|
sorrowful |
discouraged |
|
|||||
|
concerned |
worried |
|
|||||
|
restless |
strained |
|
|||||
|
upset |
depressed |
|
|||||
|
concerned |
terrified |
|
|||||
|
terrified |
scared |
|
|||||
|
concerned |
agitated |
|
|||||
|
desolate |
hurt |
|
|||||
|
hopeless |
helpless |
|
|||||
|
miserable |
shattered |
|
|||||
|
restless |
nervous |
|
|||||
|
annoyed |
angry |
|
|||||
|
miserable |
sorrowful |
|
|||||
|
anxious |
terrified |
|
|||||
|
upset |
miserable |
|
|||||
|
lonely |
unhappy |
|
|||||
|
agitated |
panicky |
|
|||||
|
strained |
tense |
|
|||||
|
fearful |
panicky |
|
|||||
|
panicky |
frightened |
|
|||||
|
desperate |
discouraged |
|
|||||
|
blue |
desperate |
|
Appendix 3
Your task is to comparatively evaluate the intensity of emotions from a pair of words. The scores will range from 0 (=very low intensity) to 4 (=extremely high intensity), for each emotion.
Ex:
| emotion A |
|
|||||
| emotion B |
|
3
0
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
