Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE)

1. Abstract

The Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE) is a brief, 12-item self-report instrument developed by Ed Diener and colleagues (2009, 2010) to assess the affective component of subjective well-being (SWB). Designed to overcome the structural, conceptual, and linguistic limitations of earlier affective inventories—most notably the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)—the SPANE captures subjective feelings across a 4-week recall window using a balanced array of broad, valence-saturated descriptors and specific discrete emotions. Six items assess positive feelings (SPANE-P: positive, good, pleasant, happy, joyful, contented) and six assess negative feelings (SPANE-N: negative, bad, unpleasant, sad, afraid, angry). Respondents evaluate each item along a 5-point frequency scale ranging from 1 (Very rarely or never) to 5 (Very often or always). In addition to individual subscale scores ranging from 6 to 30, the instrument yields an affect balance index (SPANE-B = SPANE-P − SPANE-N), which ranges from −24 to +24 and quantifies the net emotional equilibrium of an individual. Psychometric evaluations across diverse cross-cultural, clinical, and general population cohorts consistently demonstrate high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α typically ≥ .81 to .89; McDonald’s ω ≥ .85), robust 1-month test-retest reliability (.62 to .68), well-defined two-factor orthogonal or weakly correlated structural solutions, and strong convergent validity with life satisfaction, depression, psychological flourishing, and dispositional extraversion and neuroticism.

2. Keywords

Scale of Positive and Negative Experience, SPANE, Subjective Well-Being, Affect Balance, Positive Affect, Negative Affect, Emotional Well-Being, Psychometrics, Diener, PANAS Alternative

3. Authors

The SPANE was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by a team of leading researchers in positive psychology, cross-cultural psychology, and psychometrics:

• Ed Diener, Ph.D. (1946–2021) — Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA, and The Gallup Organization. Widely recognized as “Dr. Happiness,” Diener was the pioneer of empirical research into subjective well-being.
• Derrick Wirtz, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, Canada. Specialist in social-cognitive determinants of subjective well-being and memory for emotional experiences.
• William Tov, Ph.D. — School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University, Singapore. Expert in daily diary methodologies, ecological momentary assessment, and cultural variations in well-being.
• Chu Kim-Prieto, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, The College of New Jersey, USA. Researcher focused on culture, emotion regulation, and affective processes.
• Dong-won Choi, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, California State University Channel Islands, USA. Focuses on emotion, cultural cognition, and measurement invariance.
• Shigehiro Oishi, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Chicago (formerly University of Virginia), USA. Renowned scholar of cultural psychology, socio-ecological psychology, and psychological richness.
• Robert Biswas-Diener, Ph.D. — Positive Acorn, Portland, Oregon, USA. Widely published researcher in positive psychology coaching, subjective well-being across diverse cultural groups, and strengths-based interventions.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE) is to provide an efficient, comprehensive, and psychometrically sound assessment of affective well-being that reflects both positive and negative subjective experiences over an extended temporal window. Prior to the development of the SPANE, the most commonly employed measure of affect in psychology was Watson, Clark, and Tellegen’s (1988) Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Although psychometrically robust within its intended parameters, the PANAS focuses almost exclusively on states of high activation and arousal (e.g., active, alert, enthusiastic, inspired vs. distressed, jittery, nervous, hostile). Consequently, it systematically underrepresents or omits low-to-moderate activation emotional states that are central to human emotional life, such as tranquility, contentment, affection, or general sorrow.

Furthermore, the PANAS omits general, valence-defining terms, which limits its ability to capture holistic affective valence. By contrast, the SPANE was explicitly constructed to incorporate three broad, valence-defining positive descriptors (positive, good, pleasant) and three broad, valence-defining negative descriptors (negative, bad, unpleasant), alongside three discrete positive emotional terms (happy, joyful, contented) and three discrete negative emotional terms (sad, afraid, angry). This hybrid architecture gives the scale distinct theoretical and practical utility:

• Universal Coverage of Affective Experiences: By including general evaluative feelings (e.g., “pleasant,” “unpleasant”), the SPANE allows respondents to integrate idiosyncratic feelings, sensory pleasures, somatic discomfort, physical pain, engagement, or existential fulfillment that are not indexed by discrete emotion words.
• Assessment of Frequency Rather than Intensity: A critical design feature of the SPANE is its focus on the frequency of emotional experiences (“Very rarely or never” to “Very often or always”) rather than their intensity. Decades of affective science (Diener, Larsen, Levine, & Emmons, 1985; Diener, Sandvik, & Pavot, 1991) indicate that frequency of positive affect is the primary driver of high subjective well-being, whereas intensity correlates heavily with neuroticism, emotional reactivity, and physiological arousal.
• Clinical and Intervention Utility: The SPANE is widely used in clinical psychology, counseling, and positive psychological interventions. Because it tracks positive feelings (SPANE-P), negative feelings (SPANE-N), and the net balance between them (SPANE-B), practitioners can evaluate whether an intervention primarily dampens psychological distress, cultivates positive affect, or shifts the dynamic equilibrium of the patient’s emotional life.
• Cross-Cultural Suitability: Because culture strongly influences which specific emotions are valued (e.g., high-arousal excitement in Western cultures versus low-arousal calm in East Asian cultures; Tsai, 2007), the inclusion of broad descriptors allows the SPANE to capture well-being across diverse cultural paradigms without ethnocentric lexical bias.

5. Psychological Construct

The SPANE is rooted in the tripartite conceptualization of subjective well-being articulated by Diener (1984), which bifurcates SWB into a cognitive component (global life satisfaction and domain satisfactions, as measured by instruments like the Satisfaction with Life Scale) and an affective component (the presence of positive affect and the relative absence of negative affect). The SPANE models the affective component across three operationalized dimensions:

5.1 Positive Affect (SPANE-P)

The positive experience dimension reflects the frequency with which an individual experiences positive subjective states over the previous four weeks. The SPANE-P comprises six items: three general valence markers (Positive, Good, Pleasant) and three discrete emotional states spanning different levels of arousal (Happy, Joyful, Contented). Rather than measuring mere sensory pleasure or transient physical euphoria, SPANE-P captures an experiential baseline characterized by hedonic tone, subjective vitality, and inner contentment. For instance, the inclusion of Contented ensures that low-arousal, serene positive states are captured alongside high-arousal states such as Joyful.

5.2 Negative Affect (SPANE-N)

The negative experience dimension indexes the frequency of distressing, aversive, and dysphorically valenced experiences over the preceding month. Like its positive counterpart, SPANE-N comprises three general evaluative descriptors (Negative, Bad, Unpleasant) and three canonical, basic negative emotions (Sad, Afraid, Angry) drawn from classic emotion taxonomy (Ekman, 1992). The general descriptors capture amorphous, diffuse, or somatic discomfort (such as chronic fatigue, burnout, or somatic pain), while the discrete items index distinct motivational-emotional systems: depression/loss (Sad), anxiety/threat detection (Afraid), and frustration/goal blockage (Angry).

5.3 Affect Balance (SPANE-B)

The affect balance dimension is an integrative index of hedonic equilibrium, calculated by subtracting the total negative affect score from the total positive affect score (SPANE-B = SPANE-P − SPANE-N). Deriving from Bradburn’s (1969) pioneering affect balance paradigm, this construct reflects the net affective tone of an individual’s consciousness. Affect balance is not simply the inverse of psychological distress; it represents the net experiential ratio of positive-to-negative states, which has been shown to predict biological outcomes (such as immune functioning, cardiovascular health, and cortisol regulation), social relational success, occupational performance, and psychological resilience.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the SPANE draws upon several landmark theoretical frameworks in affective neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and positive psychology:

6.1 The Circumplex Model of Affect and Valence-Arousal Space

The structural underpinnings of the SPANE address key insights from Russell’s (1980) Circumplex Model of Affect, which posits that all affective states arise from two independent neurophysiological systems: valence (pleasure vs. displeasure) and arousal (activation vs. deactivation). Traditional instruments like the PANAS disproportionately sample the high-activation quadrants of the circumplex (e.g., active, enthusiastic, nervous, jittery). By purposefully including items located in low-activation quadrants (e.g., contented, sad) and overarching valence anchors that span all arousal levels (e.g., good, bad, pleasant, unpleasant), the SPANE accurately represents the full affective circumplex without requiring lengthy item batteries.

6.2 The Evaluative Space Model

The SPANE is aligned with Cacioppo and Berntson’s (1994) Evaluative Space Model (ESM), which demonstrates that positive and negative affect are guided by separate underlying motivational substrates: the appetitive (approach) system and the defensive (avoidance) system. Because these neurobiological channels can operate concurrently, positive and negative emotions are not strictly mutually exclusive in momentary experience, although over prolonged temporal aggregates they tend to demonstrate an inverse relationship. By scoring SPANE-P and SPANE-N independently prior to computing SPANE-B, the instrument respects the bivariate nature of affect while allowing for the measurement of affect balance.

6.3 The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions

The inclusion of diverse positive emotional states aligns with Barbara Fredrickson’s (1998, 2001) Broaden-and-Build Theory. Fredrickson posited that whereas negative emotions narrow an organism’s momentary thought-action repertoires toward immediate survival behaviors (fight, flight, or freeze), positive emotions broaden cognitive flexibility, social openness, and psychological resources. The SPANE indexes whether individuals experience a recurring frequency of broadened cognitive-emotional states (positive, joyful, contented) necessary for psychological growth and resilience.

6.4 Temporal Framing and Memory Heuristics

The 4-week recall window of the SPANE is grounded in cognitive research on recall bias and ecological validity. Robinson and Clore (2002) demonstrated that momentary assessments capture momentary emotional states, whereas extended retrospective reports (such as “in general” or “throughout your entire life”) reflect personal semantic beliefs, personality traits, and cultural stereotypes. A four-week recall period provides an optimal compromise: it is sufficiently broad to average out transient day-to-day fluctuations, yet sufficiently brief to remain anchored in episodic memory rather than abstract self-identity.

7. Validity

Empirical investigations across international samples have established extensive evidence supporting the construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the SPANE.

7.1 Convergent Validity

In the seminal validation study by Diener et al. (2010; N = 689 college students across six university campuses), the SPANE demonstrated strong convergent associations with established measures of well-being, affect, and personality:

• Correlations with Satisfaction with Life: SPANE-P correlated substantially with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) at r = .62, SPANE-N at r = −.52, and SPANE-B at r = .68 (all p < .001).
• Correlations with the PANAS: SPANE-P correlated strongly with PANAS Positive Affect (r = .64), while SPANE-N correlated strongly with PANAS Negative Affect (r = .66). Notably, SPANE-B correlated with PANAS affect balance at r = .71.
• Correlations with Psychological Flourishing: SPANE subscales demonstrated high convergence with the Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010), showing correlations of r = .65 for SPANE-P, r = −.46 for SPANE-N, and r = .67 for SPANE-B.
• Convergence with Depressive Symptomatology: SPANE-N and SPANE-B display powerful inverse and direct correlations, respectively, with clinical inventories such as the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), with correlations routinely exceeding |.60| to |.75| (Jovanović, 2015).

7.2 Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by factor-analytic and correlational dissociations between affective well-being and cognitive evaluations of life. Although SPANE-B and SWLS share significant variance as complementary indicators of the overarching SWB construct, structural equation modeling repeatedly confirms that a two-construct model (affective vs. cognitive well-being) fits the data significantly better than a unidimensional model (Δχ² tests, p < .001; Jovanović, 2015; Rahm et al., 2017). Furthermore, SPANE-P correlates positively with Extraversion (typically r ≈ .45 to .55) and minimally with Neuroticism, whereas SPANE-N correlates robustly with Neuroticism (typically r ≈ .50 to .60) and negligibly with Extraversion, corroborating Costa and McCrae’s five-factor personality model of affective dispositions.

7.3 Cross-Cultural and Cross-National Validity

The cross-cultural validity of the SPANE has been confirmed in numerous language adaptations and geographical regions, including:

• China: Li, Bai, and Wang (2013) validated the Chinese version in an extensive sample of 1,885 adults, demonstrating full scalar measurement invariance across gender and age cohorts, and robust convergence with self-esteem and general self-efficacy.
• Japan: Sumi (2014) evaluated the Japanese SPANE, reporting high structural stability and convergent correlations with subjective happiness, life satisfaction, and psychological distress.
• Germany: Rahm, Heise, and Margraf (2017) demonstrated that the German SPANE exhibits strict measurement invariance over time and across gender, with equivalent factor loadings and latent factor structures.
• Southern and Eastern Europe: Jovanović (2015) in Serbia, and Silva and Caetano (2013) in Portugal, confirmed that the SPANE operates identically across diverse socio-economic settings, maintaining distinct two-factor structures and expected correlations with hedonic and eudaimonic indices.

8. Reliability

The SPANE exhibits high reliability across diverse demographic groups, clinical populations, and language translations.

8.1 Internal Consistency

In the original validation study by Diener et al. (2010; N = 689), the internal consistency coefficients were robust across all subscales:

• SPANE-P: Cronbach’s α = .87
• SPANE-N: Cronbach’s α = .81
• SPANE-B: Cronbach’s α = .89

Subsequent international psychometric studies have consistently replicated these values, often reporting McDonald’s ordinal omega (ω) values between .86 and .92. For example, in a Serbian community sample (Jovanović, 2015), Cronbach’s α was .84 for SPANE-P and .80 for SPANE-N. In a large Chinese validation study (Li et al., 2013), Cronbach’s α reached .92 for SPANE-P, .91 for SPANE-N, and .92 for SPANE-B. In an Italian study of working adults (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2015), α was .88 for SPANE-P and .84 for SPANE-N.

8.2 Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Because the SPANE assesses affect over a four-week recall period, it is designed to measure affective tendencies and sustained emotional states over time, rather than immediate transient mood fluctuations. In the original evaluation by Diener et al. (2010), test-retest reliability across a 1-month interval yielded the following stability coefficients:

• SPANE-P: r = .62
• SPANE-N: r = .63
• SPANE-B: r = .68

These coefficients fall within the optimal range for affective measures: high enough to demonstrate temporal stability, yet sensitive enough to register authentic fluctuations in individuals’ life circumstances and psychological state over time. In longitudinal interventions, the SPANE shows significant sensitivity to change following positive psychological exercises, mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).

9. Factor Analysis

The underlying dimensionality of the SPANE has been rigorously scrutinized using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across dozens of independent samples worldwide.

9.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood EFA with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax, Oblimin) rotations consistently yield a two-factor structure. Eigenvalue analysis routinely identifies two dominant components with eigenvalues exceeding 1.0 (typically > 4.0 for the first factor and > 1.5 for the second factor), while scree plots show a distinct break after the second factor. Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 12 load strongly on the positive affect factor (standardized loadings typically ranging from .65 to .88), with near-zero cross-loadings on the negative affect factor. Conversely, items 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11 load heavily onto the negative affect factor (standardized loadings ranging from .58 to .84), showing minimal cross-loadings.

9.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

CFA studies have systematically tested competing structural models: (a) a single-factor unidimensional model where all 12 items reflect a single bipolar affect continuum, (b) a two-factor orthogonal model where positive and negative affect are completely uncorrelated, and (c) a two-factor oblique (correlated) model where positive and negative affect are negatively correlated latent factors.

The correlated two-factor model provides an excellent fit to the empirical data across independent studies, whereas the single-factor bipolar model exhibits unacceptable fit. Representative structural equation modeling fit indices reported in published literature include:

• Diener et al. (2010): Two-factor oblique model confirmed clear separation of positive and negative latent factors with an inter-factor correlation of approximately r = −.60.
• Li et al. (2013) [Chinese Cohort, N = 1,885]: χ²/df = 3.82, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .975, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .968, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .048 (90% CI [.043, .054]), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .032.
• Jovanović (2015) [Serbian Cohort, N = 553]: CFI = .962, TLI = .951, RMSEA = .057 (90% CI [.047, .068]), confirming superior fit over rival structures.

9.3 Measurement Invariance

Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) has demonstrated that the SPANE satisfies the criteria for configural, metric (weak), scalar (strong), and in many cases strict (residual) measurement invariance across genders, age groups, and cultural groups. This confirms that observed differences in SPANE-P, SPANE-N, and SPANE-B scores reflect true differences in affective experiences rather than measurement artifacts.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE)
• Alternative Titles: Diener Affect Scale, SPANE-12
• Authors: Ed Diener, Derrick Wirtz, William Tov, Chu Kim-Prieto, Dong-won Choi, Shigehiro Oishi, & Robert Biswas-Diener
• Publication Year: 2009 (advance online) / 2010 (formal publication)
• Assessment Type: Standardized self-report inventory / psychometric rating scale
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 13 and older); validated across general, student, occupational, and clinical populations
• Administration Format: Individual or group administration; paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted, or mobile ecological momentary interface
• Completion Time: Approximately 2 to 3 minutes
• Number of Items: 12 items total (6 positive feelings, 6 negative feelings)
• Recall Timeframe: Past 4 weeks (“during the past 4 weeks”)
• Response Scale: Authentic 5-point frequency Likert scale:
  • 1 = Very rarely or never
  • 2 = Rarely
  • 3 = Sometimes
  • 4 = Often
  • 5 = Very often or always
• Subscales & Scoring Architecture:
  • SPANE-P (Positive Feelings Subscale): Sum of items 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 12 (Positive, Good, Pleasant, Happy, Joyful, Contented). Score range: 6 to 30. Higher scores indicate greater frequency of positive feelings.
  • SPANE-N (Negative Feelings Subscale): Sum of items 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11 (Negative, Bad, Unpleasant, Sad, Afraid, Angry). Score range: 6 to 30. Higher scores indicate greater frequency of negative feelings.
  • SPANE-B (Affect Balance Subscale): Calculated by subtracting SPANE-N from SPANE-P (SPANE-B = SPANE-P − SPANE-N). Score range: −24 to +24. Positive scores indicate a preponderance of positive over negative affect; negative scores reflect a predominance of negative over positive affect.
• Normative Reference Benchmarks (Diener et al., 2010; N = 689):
  • SPANE-P: Mean = 22.02 (SD = 3.73)
  • SPANE-N: Mean = 15.36 (SD = 3.95)
  • SPANE-B: Mean = 6.69 (SD = 6.88)

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Scale of Positive and Negative Experience was formally published in 2010 (available online in 2009) in Social Indicators Research. In accordance with the explicit philosophy of its principal author, Dr. Ed Diener, the SPANE is placed in the public domain for research and educational purposes.

Permissions and User Rights:

• No Fee / Open Access: The scale is completely free of charge. No payment, formal permission, or licensing agreement is required for researchers, educators, or clinicians to administer the SPANE in non-commercial contexts.
• Commercial Use: Commercial entities utilizing the scale within for-profit platforms or proprietary assessments are encouraged to consult the original authors or their institutional representatives.
• Citation Requirement: The authors request that whenever the scale is reproduced, translated, or cited in published academic reports, proper attribution must be given to the original 2010 validation article (Diener et al., 2010).
• Official Repository: Additional documentation and psychometric profiles can be accessed via academic repositories and Dr. Ed Diener’s official academic archive hosted by the University of Illinois Department of Psychology.

12. References

• Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Aldine.
• Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.401
• Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
• Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., Levine, S., & Emmons, R. A. (1985). Intensity and frequency: Dimensions underlying positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(5), 1253–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.5.1253
• Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Pavot, W. (1991). Happiness is the frequency, not the intensity, of positive versus negative affect. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 119–139). Pergamon Press.
• Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
• Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2015). Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: The role of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE) in Italian workers. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01813
• Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 6(3–4), 169–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411068
• Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300
• Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
• Jovanović, V. (2015). Beyond the PANAS: Incremental validity of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE) in assessing subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 487–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.015
• Li, F., Bai, X., & Wang, Y. (2013). The Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE): Psychometric properties and normative data in a large Chinese sample. PLOS ONE, 8(9), e74201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074201
• Rahm, T., Heise, E., & Margraf, J. (2017). The German version of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE-G): Psychometric properties and factor structure. Diagnostica, 63(3), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000174
• Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 934–960. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.934
• Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714
• Silva, A. J., & Caetano, A. (2013). Validation of the Portuguese version of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE). Social Indicators Research, 111(3), 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0033-4
• Sumi, K. (2014). Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE-J). Social Indicators Research, 118(2), 601–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0432-6
• Tsai, J. L. (2007). Ideal affect: Cultural causes and behavioral consequences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(3), 242–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00043.x
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)