nucleation

LIT-1469: Feelings change: Accounting for individual differences in the temporal dynamics of affect

2 min read

Properties2
StatusUnavailable — registered 2026-10-23 from Crossref and the PubMed abstract, not read: a lawful copy exists but this client could not fetch it. OpenAlex lists the article as closed (APA). A copy is posted on co-author Zita Oravecz's University of California, Irvine site, apparently among course readings, but its certificate chain ends in a root this client does not trust, so the TLS connection failed. The fetch tool returned 503 for the same address. Failed on access, not availability. Filed for the record's question of how to measure whether an ordering prevails and returns after interruption (QUESTION-268). DynAffect's attractor strength, the pull that ties affect back to a home base after it is perturbed, is the nearest established operational measure of Frijda's resumption mark, though it measures the return of an affective state, not of a ranking's authority. It stays Unavailable until a copy is supplied, not on merit.
Tagsemotion-and-affect, psychometrics, probabilistic-modeling

Graph View

Peter Kuppens, Zita Oravecz & Francis Tuerlinckx (2010), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(6):1042–1060 — DOI-10.1037/a0020962

Key takeaways

Registered, not read. From the abstract:

  • Three processes. “It is hypothesized that individuals are characterized by an affective home base, a baseline attractor state around which affect fluctuates. These fluctuations vary as the result of internal or external processes to which an individual is more or less sensitive and are regulated and tied back to the home base by the attractor strength.” Individual differences in “affective home base, variability, and attractor strength” are proposed to underlie individual differences in affect dynamics.
  • Method. The account is evaluated “by means of a diffusion modeling approach in 2 extensive experience-sampling studies on people’s core affective experiences”, over long (Study 1) and shorter (Study 2) timescales.
  • Reach. The parameters are related to personality and emotion dispositions, and the abstract draws implications for affective dysfunction in psychopathology. Lange et al. (2020, LIT-1436) cite it for the constructionist claim that core affect varies continuously.

Standing in the record

Filed on 2026-10-23 for QUESTION-268, which asks how to measure the three marks of potential that TERM-076 takes from Frijda: priority, persistence and resumption. DynAffect gives two of them an established statistical form. Attractor strength is a rate of return to a baseline after perturbation, which is the shape of resumption. Variability around the home base is the converse of persistence. But what returns in DynAffect is an affective state, a location in core affect, not the authority of one ranking over the system’s conduct. To measure resumption in the record’s sense, the same model would have to be fitted to a different time series: for example, the share of an organization’s or an animal’s conflict decisions that follow the candidate ranking ≿_v, with the home base as its baseline potential and the attractor strength as its resumption. Whether the paper’s model allows that change of variable is a question for the reading. So is the exact form of its diffusion model, which the abstract does not give.

No instruction for machine-learning practice; nothing here belongs in the anthology.

Backlinks