<p>You can simply use a questionnaire based measurement scale. I recommend the PANAS scale by Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988), which has extensive support in literature. It is a <a href="http://booksite.elsevier.com/9780123745170/Chapter%203/Chapter_3_Worksheet_3.1.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">twenty-item questionnaire</a>, utilising 5-point likert scales, that consolidates into two scales: positive, and negative affect. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In recent research, two broad, general factors--typically labeled
  Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA)--have emerged reliably
  as the dominant dimensions of emotional experience. These factors have
  been identified in both intra- and interindividual analyses, and they
  emerge consistently across diverse descriptor sets, time frames,
  response formats, languages, and cultures
  (Clark, 2015).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The measure has cross-cultural support, unlike most measures of state based affect.  </p>

<p><em>Personal note.</em> I use this measure in most of my experiments as its quick and easy to understand for participants, and is easy to respond to. I also regularly find effects with it, even if its not what I was expecting. While it is reductionist in reducing affect into two scales, this actually makes it stronger at picking up change in affect generally. </p>

<p><strong>References</strong> </p>

<p>Watson, D., Clark, L. A., &amp; Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.</p>

<p>Crawford, J. R., &amp; Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non‐clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology.</p>

<p>Clark, D. W. A. L. A. (2015). The PANAS-X: Manual for the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule - Expanded Form, 1–28.</p>

<p>Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and Validation of an Internationally Reliable Short-Form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 227–242. <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297301" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297301</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-26T13:15:06.220Z
2017-01-26T13:15:06.220Z
Comte
<p>I'm doing a quasi-experiment for an assignment, and the dependent variable is emotional response. FMRI is not a feasible option, so is there another good and reliable way to measure emotion without using FMRI? I'd appreciate your suggestions for other instruments.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-26T13:18:27.363Z
I have made a recommendation below, however we would require more detail about the experiment in order to make more specific recommendations.
Comte
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-27T04:27:30.350Z
The only way to reliably/validly measure emotions is self-report.  To increase your confidence, you can also use psychophysiology, facial expressions, behavior, but self-report is pretty much necessary and these other measures aren't sufficient.
mrt
<emotion><methodology><experimental-psychology><psychology><reproducible-research>
Measuring emotion
user14835
# Measuring emotion

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-01-26)

I'm doing a quasi-experiment for an assignment, and the dependent variable is emotional response. FMRI is not a feasible option, so is there another good and reliable way to measure emotion without using FMRI? I'd appreciate your suggestions for other instruments.

**Tags:** emotion, methodology, experimental-psychology, psychology, reproducible-research

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I have made a recommendation below, however we would require more detail about the experiment in order to make more specific recommendations.  
> **username_2**: The only way to reliably/validly measure emotions is self-report.  To increase your confidence, you can also use psychophysiology, facial expressions, behavior, but self-report is pretty much necessary and these other measures aren't sufficient.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-01-26. Score: 1

You can simply use a questionnaire based measurement scale. I recommend the PANAS scale by Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988), which has extensive support in literature. It is a [twenty-item questionnaire](http://booksite.elsevier.com/9780123745170/Chapter%203/Chapter_3_Worksheet_3.1.pdf), utilising 5-point likert scales, that consolidates into two scales: positive, and negative affect.

> In recent research, two broad, general factors--typically labeled
> Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA)--have emerged reliably
> as the dominant dimensions of emotional experience. These factors have
> been identified in both intra- and interindividual analyses, and they
> emerge consistently across diverse descriptor sets, time frames,
> response formats, languages, and cultures
> (Clark, 2015).

The measure has cross-cultural support, unlike most measures of state based affect.

*Personal note.* I use this measure in most of my experiments as its quick and easy to understand for participants, and is easy to respond to. I also regularly find effects with it, even if its not what I was expecting. While it is reductionist in reducing affect into two scales, this actually makes it stronger at picking up change in affect generally.

**References**

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(6), 1063–1070.

Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non‐clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Clark, D. W. A. L. A. (2015). The PANAS-X: Manual for the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule - Expanded Form, 1–28.

Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and Validation of an Internationally Reliable Short-Form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 227–242. <http://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297301>


---

