Different standards shape everyday judgments of low and high wellbeing in individuals with and without psychopathology: A diary-based investigation

Abstract

Abstract People can easily rate and express their current affect levels, but the cognitive foundations for such judgments are poorly understood. We examined whether comparisons to varying standards underlie fluctuating affect judgments within-person (i.e., throughout daily episodes) and between-person (i.e., high vs. low levels of psychopathology). Clinical and non-clinical participants recorded subjective affect for each distinct episode for one week. Participants briefly described current, best, and worst daily episodes, which we coded for presence and type of comparison standard (social, past temporal, criterion-based, counterfactual, prospective temporal, and dimensional). Participants also rated their engagement with these standards and the respective affective impact. During best episodes, participants reported more downward (vs. upward) comparisons that resulted in positive affective impact. In worst episodes, upward (vs. downward) comparisons were more frequent. In best and worst episodes, we most frequently identified past-temporal and criterion-based comparisons, respectively. The clinical group engaged more often with criterion-based standards and tended to be more negatively affected by them, amid consistently lower affect levels across all episode types. Our data suggest that judgments of affect and well-being may indeed rely on comparative thinking, whereby certain standards may characterize states of low affect and poor mental health.