Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36046007›Full record

ArticleAffective science2022

Some Recommendations on the Use of Daily Life Methods in Affective Science.

Peter Kuppens, Egon Dejonckheere, Elise K Kalokerinos, Peter Koval

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Affective science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. The power of friendships in adolescents' daily lives: Bi-directional within-person associations between friendship interaction quality and affect.Journal of research on adolescence : the official journal of the Society for Research on Adolescence · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A primer on intensive longitudinal psychometrics.Behavior research methods · 2026
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Peter KuppensKU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-2363-2356
Egon DejonckheereKU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7219-7506
Elise K KalokerinosUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3282-6806
Peter KovalKU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2460-0943

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Real-world emotions are often more vivid, personally meaningful, and consequential than those evoked in the lab. Therefore, studying emotions in daily life is essential to test theories, discover new phenomena, and understand healthy emotional functioning; in short, to move affective science forward. The past decades have seen a surge of research using daily diary, experience sampling, or ecological momentary assessment methods to study emotional phenomena in daily life. In this paper, we will share some of the insights we have gained from our collective experience applying such daily life methods to study everyday affective processes. We highlight what we see as important considerations and caveats involved in using these methods and formulate recommendations to improve their use in future research. These insights focus on the importance of (i) theory and hypothesis-testing; (ii) measurement; (iii) timescale; and (iv) context, when studying emotions in their natural habitat.

Indexed as

AffectDaily life methodsecological momentary assessmentEmotionsExperience sampling

Identifiers

PMID36046007
PMCPMC9382967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.