You are on page 1of 5

Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016) 118–122

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Openness and other Big Five traits in relation to dispositional


mixed emotions
Kate A. Barford ⁎, Luke D. Smillie
The University of Melbourne, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Despite accumulating evidence for concurrent feelings of positivity and negativity (e.g., simultaneous happiness
Received 8 April 2016 and sadness), little is known about individual differences in these mixed emotions experiences. We examined re-
Received in revised form 30 June 2016 lations between a novel measure of dispositional mixed emotions (the Trait Mixed Emotions Scale; TMES) and the
Accepted 1 July 2016
Big Five trait domains and aspects. We derived two a-priori predictions: (1) Openness/Intellect—reflecting cog-
Available online 6 July 2016
nitive flexibility and exploration—would predict the TMES, and (2) Extraversion and Neuroticism—reflecting sus-
Keywords:
ceptibility to positive and negative emotions, respectively—would jointly predict the TMES. Results showed that
Mixed emotions two measures of the Openness aspect of Openness/Intellect positively predicted TMES scores. Extraversion and
Big five Neuroticism did not jointly predict the TMES. Neuroticism positively predicted the TMES, but this reflected the
Openness relation of Neuroticism with dispositional negative emotions. The Volatility aspect of Neuroticism, however,
Extraversion was a positive predictor of the TMES beyond its relation with trait negativity. Our findings inform further
Neuroticism study of differential mixed emotions experiences, and may help consolidate the previous fragmented literature
in this area.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Despite this progress, little is known about individual differences in


mixed emotions. This knowledge gap is surprising, considering the
Mixed emotions are concurrent experiences of positive and negative vast literature on personality and emotion (e.g., Larsen & Ketelaar,
valence (Larsen & McGraw, 2014)1, such as the simultaneous happiness 1991; Reisenzein & Weber, 2009; Smillie, DeYoung, & Hall, 2015;
and sadness one might experience on bittersweet occasions like gradua- Watson & Clark, 1992). Without understanding who tends to experience
tion day (Larsen, McGraw, & Cacioppo, 2001). Mixed emotions research mixed emotions, the description and explanation of this phenomenon
has largely focussed on verifying that opposite valences (i.e., positivity remains incomplete. We address this gap by examining relations be-
and negativity; Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994) can indeed co-occur (e.g., tween basic personality traits and a novel dispositional measure of
Diener & Iran-Nejad, 1986; Larsen & McGraw, 2011). Contrary to prior mixed emotions.
objections (e.g., Russell & Carroll, 1999), the existence of mixed emo-
tions is no longer contentious, nor attributable to artifacts or response 1.1. Individual differences in mixed emotions
biases (see Berrios, Totterdell, & Kellett, 2015; Larsen & McGraw,
2011). Thus, researchers are moving from describing mixed emotions The embryonic individual differences research on mixed emotions
towards theorising explanations for their occurrence. For example, has addressed three distinct phenomena: (1) affective synchrony, (2)
Shuman, Sander, and Scherer (2013) posit a cognitive basis for mixed tolerance for mixed stimuli, and (3) tendencies to experience mixed
emotions, proposing that they arise from simultaneous appraisals (i.e., emotions.2 At least two studies investigated whether traits reflecting
cognitive evaluations) of positivity and negativity in a stimulus or susceptibilities to particular positive and negative emotions (e.g., Extra-
situation. version and Neuroticism) predicted affective synchrony (i.e., the within-
person correlation between positive and negative emotion states
assessed over multiple occasions): One found no association (Rafaeli,
⁎ Corresponding author. Rogers, & Revelle, 2007), whereas the other found some evidence for a
E-mail address: kbarford@student.unimelb.edu.au (K.A. Barford).
1 positive association (Wilt, Funkhouser, & Revelle, 2011). Critically,
Mixed emotions have also been defined as emotional experiences opposite in both va-
lence and arousal (i.e., physiological excitation) (e.g., Russell & Carroll, 1999). However,
2
the incremental utility of arousal in describing emotion beyond valence has been Others have also investigated cross-cultural differences in mixed emotions (e.g.,
contested (Kron, Goldstein, Lee, Gardhouse, & Anderson, 2013). Therefore our definition Miyamoto, Uchida, & Ellsworth, 2010), but in this paper we restrict our focus to individual
of mixed emotions refers only to valence. differences in personality.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.002
0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K.A. Barford, L.D. Smillie / Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016) 118–122 119

however, a positive correlation between positive and negative emotion traits reflecting cognitive styles such as construal level, ambiguity toler-
states (i.e., synchrony) does not necessarily indicate mixed emotions. ance, and dialectical thinking — which, whilst distinct from one another,
For example, consistent reports of zero positive and zero negative emo- can all be conceptually linked with the Openness/Intellect domain
tions would produce a perfect correlation between the two ratings de- (DeYoung, 2014; Furnham & Marks, 2013). Further, because mixed
spite an absence of emotion — mixed or otherwise (see Shimmack, stimuli are inherently uncertain in terms of their helpful (i.e., positive)
2001). Therefore, affective synchrony studies cannot reveal who experi- or harmful (i.e., negative) nature (Cacioppo, Larsen, Smith, & Berntson,
ences more mixed emotions. 2004), the propensity for individuals high on Openness/Intellect to cog-
Differential tolerance for mixed stimuli and experiences has also nitively explore such uncertain stimuli (DeYoung, 2013) might produce
been studied, particularly in research concerning reactions to mixed the conflicting appraisals thought to underlie mixed emotions (Shuman
emotional advertising. Perhaps unsurprisingly, individuals with low et al., 2013). Finally, conceptualisations of Openness/Intellect, as cap-
trait tolerance for ambiguity have lower tolerance for mixed advertise- tured by McCrae and Costa's (1997) statement that “Open individuals
ments (Janssens, De Pelsmacker, & Weverbergh, 2007). Conversely, in- have access to more thoughts, feelings, and impulses in awareness,
dividuals with high construal levels — reflecting a tendency to think and can maintain many of these simultaneously” (p. 838, emphasis
abstractly rather than concretely — have a greater tolerance for mixed added), allude to this hypothesis. We also investigated a secondary hy-
advertisements (Hong & Lee, 2010). Although this research does not di- pothesis, that Extraversion and Neuroticism might jointly predict TMES
rectly implicate who experiences more mixed emotions, traits related to scores. Because these two traits reflect susceptibility to certain positive
mixed emotions experiences may be similar to those that predict toler- and negative emotions, respectively (Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991; Smillie,
ance for mixed stimuli. Cooper, Wilt, & Revelle, 2012), this potentially implicates them in simul-
To our knowledge, just two studies have directly investigated differ- taneous experiences of positivity and negativity.
ential tendencies to experience mixed emotions. Both employed daily-life
experience-sampling methodologies (see Mehl & Conner, 2012). In the 2. Method
first (Hui, Fok, & Bond, 2009), participants reported emotional re-
sponses to one positive and one negative event weekly for fifteen 2.1. Participants and procedure
weeks. Negative events elicited more mixed emotions than positive
events overall, but trait dialectical thinking (i.e., the tendency to balance American participants (N = 141; 64.5% female; 77% Caucasian; aged
evaluations and tolerate contradictions) positively predicted mixed 18–70, M = 31.21, SD = 10.48) were recruited using Amazon's Me-
emotional responses to positive events. A more recent study (Koots, chanical Turk—a diverse and practical participant pools for behavioural
Realo, & Allik, 2012) explored relations between mixed emotions and research (Burmeister, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011, but see also Paolacci &
the five basic personality domains (the Big Five, see John, Naumann, & Chandler, 2014)—and paid a rate of ~US$8 per hour. This sample pro-
Soto, 2008). Extraversion (i.e., sociability and boldness) and Openness/ vides 85% power to detect the average effect size in personality psychol-
Intellect (i.e., curiosity and imagination) positively predicted simulta- ogy (r ~ 0.25, Fraley & Marks, 2007). After providing informed consent,
neous positive and negative emotion states in daily-life samples, where- participants responded to a randomised series of Qualtrics™ question-
as Conscientiousness (i.e., orderliness and reliability) was a negative naires. All procedures received ethical approval.
predictor. Different facets of Neuroticism (i.e., negative and unstable
emotionality) predicted incidences of mixed emotions in opposite di- 2.2. Measures
rections: anxiety negatively, and depression and impulsiveness posi-
tively. To our knowledge, Koots et al.’s (2012) study is the first to 2.2.1. The Trait Mixed Emotions Scale (TMES)
investigate the relation between major personality domains and the We developed the TMES to measure the frequency with which one
tendency to experience mixed emotions. generally experiences simultaneous positive and negative valence (see
supplementary materials). The TMES consists of 13 mixed items (e.g.,
1.2. The present study: rationale and predictions both happy and sad), including three items adapted from a pre-existing
mixed emotions scale (Berrios, Totterdell, & Kellett, 2013), presented
The sparse individual differences research on mixed emotions is dif- alongside five positively valenced items (e.g., happy), five negatively
ficult to synthesise, given the focus on somewhat idiosyncratic traits valenced items (e.g., sad), and two relatively neutral items (e.g., intense)
(e.g., dialectical thinking, construal level, etc.), and inconsistent mixed (Russell, 1980). Participants rated how often they generally feel each of
emotions measures (e.g., affective synchrony, etc.). Like Koots et al. the 25 items on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very frequently). Total TMES
(2012), we employed the Big Five personality taxonomy: a comprehen- scores were calculated by summing responses to the 13 mixed items.
sive yet parsimonious organising framework for personality traits (John Scores on the purely positive and purely negative items were also to-
et al., 2008). Because these broad domains hierarchically subsume taled to create trait positivity and trait negativity measures to investi-
narrower personality traits (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007), under- gate as potential covariates.
standing their relations with trait mixed emotions may help synthesise
research associating mixed emotions with narrower traits. To quantify 2.2.2. The Big Five aspect scales
mixed emotions, we developed a novel measure dispositional mixed The Big Five Aspect Scales (BFAS) measure the Big Five trait domains
emotions measure (the Trait Mixed Emotions Scale; TMES), paralleling (i.e., Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and
the foundational studies on individual differences in trait measures of Openness/Intellect), and the two lower-order aspects of each domain
positive and negative emotions (e.g., Watson & Clark, 1992). The (i.e., Politeness, Compassion, Orderliness, Industriousness, Assertive-
TMES was constructed to assess the broad, generalised tendency to ex- ness, Enthusiasm, Withdrawal, Volatility, Openness, and Intellect)
perience mixed emotions, rather than specific incidences of mixed emo- (DeYoung et al., 2007). Each domain measure consisted of 20 descrip-
tions throughout idiosyncratic situations in daily-life (as in Hui et al.’s, tive statements (10 per aspect). Participants rated how well the state-
2009, and Koots et al.’s, 2012). ments (e.g., warm up quickly to others) described them on a scale from
We derived two predictions regarding trait correlates of disposition- 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Average scores were calcu-
al mixed emotions. Our primary prediction was that Openness/Intellect, lated for all domains and aspects.
which reflects the tendency to mentally engage with or, cognitively ex-
plore, uncertain stimuli and ‘the unknown’ (DeYoung, 2013, 2014; 2.2.3. The IPIP-120 openness scale
McCrae & Costa, 1997), would positively predict TMES scores. This pre- The 24-item IPIP-120 Openness scale (Johnson, 2014) was included
diction was based partly on the research linking mixed emotions with to measure Openness/Intellect (i.e., our primary focus in this paper) at
120 K.A. Barford, L.D. Smillie / Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016) 118–122

the narrowest facet level of the trait hierarchy (DeYoung et al., 2007). Intellect became significant, whereas the relations between the TMES
The Imagination, Artistic Interests, Emotionality, and Adventurousness and BFAS Neuroticism and its aspects, and BFAS Industriousness were
facets are good markers of the Openness aspect of Openness/Intellect, no longer significant. This suggests that these zero-order relations
whereas the Intellect facet is a good marker of the Intellect aspect, and were influenced by participants' tendencies to experience negative
Liberalism does not clearly mark either aspect (DeYoung et al., 2007). emotions. We therefore continued to control for trait negativity in the
Participants rated their concurrence with 4 self-descriptors per facet following main analyses.
(e.g., have a vivid imagination) on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree
to strongly agree. Average scores were calculated for the domain scale 3.2. Main analyses
and each facet scale.
3.2.1. Openness/Intellect
3. Results We further examined the hypothesized relation between Openness/
Intellect and the TMES using sequential regression. Trait negativity was
3.1. Preliminary analyses entered at step one, R2 = 0.40, F(1, 139) = 91.15, p b 0.001, and the
BFAS domains at step two, R2ch = 0.06, Fch (5, 134) = 2.74, p = 0.02.
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations BFAS openness/intellect had a positive, significant association with the
between the TMES and the other trait measures. The TMES (α = 0.87, TMES, β = 0.18, t(134) = 2.10, p = 0.04, whilst all other domains
M = 41.36, SD = 7.74), the trait positivity and trait negativity scales, were non-significant predictors (all ps N 0.11)
the BFAS scales, and the IPIP Openness domain scale all had high inter- We then examined the relation between Openness/Intellect and
nal consistency. The IPIP Openness facets had mostly acceptable internal TMES scores at the aspect level (DeYoung et al., 2007). In a second se-
consistency, excluding Adventurousness (which was therefore omitted quential regression, trait negativity was entered at step one (see
from further analysis). above), and the BFAS aspects at step two, R2ch = 0.09, Fch (1, 129) =
Both IPIP Openness (especially its Imagination, Liberalism, and Emo- 2.28, p = 0.02. This showed that BFAS Openness, β = 0.24, t(129) =
tionality facets) and BFAS Openness were positively associated with 2.57, p = 0.01, but not Intellect, β = − 0.03, t(129) = − 0.26, p =
TMES scores. However, BFAS Openness/Intellect, BFAS Intellect, IPIP Ar- 0.79, was a significant positive predictor of TMES scores. BFAS Volatility
tistic Interests, and IPIP Intellect were unrelated to the TMES. BFAS Neu- was also a significant positive predictor of the TMES, β = 0.24, t(129) =
roticism and its aspects (Volatility and Withdrawal) had positive 2.42, p = 0.02. All other aspects were unrelated to TMES scores
relations with TMES scores, whilst BFAS Extraversion and its aspects (ps N 0.11).
(Assertiveness and Enthusiasm) were not associated with the TMES. Finally, the relation between Openness/Intellect and TMES scores
An unpredicted negative association was found between the Industri- was examined at the facet level. After controlling for trait negativity at
ousness aspect of BFAS Conscientiousness and the TMES. No other Big step 1, the IPIP Openness facets were entered at step two, R2ch = 0.10,
Five traits were significantly associated with TMES scores. Fch (5, 134) = 5.40, p b 0.001. IPIP Imagination, β = 0.28, t(134) =
Because there was a large positive correlation between the TMES 4.00, p b 0.001, and Emotionality, β = 0.18, t(134) = 2.51, p = 0.01,
and trait negativity, we re-examined all correlations whilst partialling were significant predictors of the TMES (all other ps N 0.29).
out trait negativity (see Table 1). Importantly, controlling for trait nega-
tively did not impact the relation between Openness and TMES scores. 3.2.2. Joint effects of extraversion and neuroticism
However, the relation between TMES scores and BFAS Openness/ Potential joint effects of Extraversion and Neuroticism on disposi-
tional mixed emotions were tested using sequential moderated regres-
sion (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Trait negativity was
Table 1
. Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations (r) and partial correlations (control-
standardized and entered at step one; then, BFAS Extraversion and Neu-
ling for trait negativity; sr) for the Trait Mixed Emotions Scale (TMES) with the Big Five roticism were standardized and entered at step two, yielding a non-sig-
traits, trait positivity, and trait negativity. nificant model, R2ch = 0.03, Fch (1, 137) = 3.05, p = 0.05. BFAS
Extraversion, β = 0.15, t(135) = 2.11, p = 0.04, but not Neuroticism,
TMES M SD α
β = 0.17, t(135) = 1.90, p = 0.06, was as positive predictor of the
r sr
TMES. Entering the interaction term at step three did not significantly
BFAS domains Agreeableness 0.06 0.12 3.82 0.56 0.90 increase variance explained, R2ch = 0.01, Fch (1, 135) = 2.57, p =
Conscientiousness −0.11 −0.07 3.39 0.51 0.84 0.11, and the interaction between BFAS Extraversion and Neuroticism
Extraversion 0.00 0.13 3.42 0.56 0.88
Neuroticism 0.47⁎⁎ 0.11 2.90 0.71 0.93
was a not a significant predictor, β = 0.11, t(138) = 1.60, p = 0.11.3
Openness/intellect 0.14 0.22⁎ 3.82 0.51 0.87
BFAS aspects Politeness 0.03 0.09 3.89 0.62 0.80 4. Discussion
Compassion 0.09 0.12 3.74 0.62 0.88
Orderliness 0.00 −0.12 3.43 0.62 0.81
Industriousness −0.19⁎ 0.00 3.34 0.60 0.81
We examined the associations between basic personality traits and a
Enthusiasm 0.00 0.13 3.49 0.57 0.78 novel measure of the tendency to experience mixed emotions, the
Assertiveness 0.00 0.08 3.35 0.76 0.90 TMES. Our primary prediction, that Openness/Intellect —the domain
Volatility 0.45⁎⁎ 0.16 2.79 0.79 0.90 reflecting cognitive exploration (DeYoung, 2014) and experiential “per-
Withdrawal 0.42⁎⁎ 0.01 3.01 0.74 0.87
meability” (McCrae & Costa, 1997, p. 826) — would positively predict
Intellect −0.06 0.10 3.80 0.61 0.84
Openness 0.29⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎ 3.84 0.60 0.81 the TMES was supported. This relation was clearer at the aspect than
IPIP openness Openness 0.26⁎⁎ 0.24⁎⁎ 3.53 0.48 0.83 the domain level: Openness (and associated facets of Imagination and
IPIP openness Imagination 0.41⁎⁎ 0.35⁎⁎ 3.67 0.87 0.82 Emotionality), but not Intellect, positively predicted TMES scores. More-
Facets Artistic 0.10 0.15 3.88 0.74 0.71 over, these relations were generally unchanged when controlling for the
Intellect −0.03 0.09 3.77 0.73 0.67
Liberalism 0.18⁎ 0.03 3.11 0.84 0.62
strong relation between the TMES and trait negativity. Our secondary
Emotionality 0.29⁎⁎ 0.26⁎⁎ 3.70 0.67 0.60 hypothesis, concerning traits that confer susceptibility to particular pos-
Adventurousness 0.15 0.14 3.32 0.62 0.45 itive and negative emotions — i.e., Extraversion and Neuroticism (e.g.,
Control measures Trait positivity −0.01 0.24⁎⁎ 17.03 3.09 0.76
Trait negativity 0.63⁎⁎ 14.62 3.68 0.78 3
The Extraversion × Neuroticism interaction was also non-significant when we ran the
⁎ p b 0.05. same analysis without controlling for trait negativity at step one, β = 0.11, t(138) = 1.50,
⁎⁎ p b 0.01. p = 0.14.
K.A. Barford, L.D. Smillie / Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016) 118–122 121

Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991) — was not supported. Although Neuroticism samples. Additionally, we strongly encourage future users of the TMES
was positively associated with the TMES, this relation became non-sig- to further improve the three items we adapted from Berrios et al.’s
nificant when controlling for trait negativity. The positive relation be- (2013) mixed emotions scale, as presently these items only imply, rath-
tween the Volatility aspect of Neuroticism and the TMES, however, er than explicitly state, that the emotions being experienced have oppo-
held even whilst controlling for trait negativity. Furthermore, although site valences. For example, the item contrasting emotions at the same
a weak positive relation between Extraversion and the TMES emerged time, could be contrasting positive and negative emotions at the same
when controlling for Neuroticism, this relation was non-significant time. Finally, the main limitation of trait mixed emotions measures is
when controlling for the other Big Five domains. Finally, the interaction that they cannot control for the precise time course of positivity and neg-
between Extraversion and Neuroticism did not predict TMES scores. ativity, meaning some ratings may include experiences of vacillating
The positive relation between Openness and trait mixed emotions positivity and negativity. This could explain the association the TMES
has several implications. First, the unpredicted dissociation of the rela- had with Volatility, which partially reflects emotional instability (exam-
tion between Openness/Intellect and trait mixed emotions at the aspect ple item: ‘change my mood a lot’; DeYoung et al., 2007). Nevertheless,
level narrows down potential mechanisms underlying this relation. Our our findings provide preliminary descriptive evidence regarding who
findings implicate the putative mechanisms underlying Openness (e.g., experiences mixed emotions, and identify candidate traits (i.e., Open-
detection of sensory/perceptual associations), rather than Intellect (e.g., ness, Volatility, and Neuroticism) for closer examination in future stud-
detection of logical patterns in abstract information) (see DeYoung, ies. Such studies could precisely control for emotion time course by
2015, Table 1) in mixed emotions experiences. Additionally, this novel employing continuous moment-to-moment sampling of positively and
finding provokes further research questions regarding the nature of dif- negatively valenced states (e.g., Larsen & McGraw, 2011). Employing al-
ferential mixed emotions experiences. For example, are open individ- ternate techniques to measure mixed emotions (e.g., continuous, mo-
uals more susceptible to mixed emotions due to their tendency to mentary, or experience-sampling measures) is also necessary to
cognitively explore sources of sensory/perceptual information understand the generalizability of our findings. Additionally, the gener-
(DeYoung, 2015) in flexible and divergent ways (Silvia et al., 2008), alizability of our findings should be examined in samples even more cul-
leading to an increased probability of mixed or conflicting appraisals turally and economically diverse than those provided by Amazon's
(Shuman et al., 2013)? Or, do open individuals experience more Mechanical Turk.
mixed emotions because they are more tolerant of ambiguity
(Furnham & Marks, 2013) and therefore less motivated to resolve or 4.2. Conclusions
suppress conflicting valences? Finally, do open individuals volitionally
seek more affectively ambiguous experiences than others, because We presented a theoretically-grounded investigation of the associa-
they find them more novel, interesting, or rewarding (DeYoung, 2013; tions between basic personality traits and a novel measure of disposi-
Silvia, 2006)? Future research may reveal whether Openness confers a tional mixed emotions. Across multiple measures, individuals who
tendency to experience mixed emotions through increased susceptibility scored highly on the Openness aspect of Openness/Intellect reported
to mixed emotions, greater tolerance for mixed emotions, and/or a ten- more frequent mixed emotions experiences. Neuroticism was also asso-
dency to seek mixed emotions experiences. ciated with trait mixed emotions, which appeared to reflect the relation
With regard to the positive relation between Neuroticism and trait this trait has with dispositional negative emotions. However, the Volatil-
mixed emotions, the disappearance of this relation when controlling ity aspect of Neuroticism was positively associated with trait mixed
for trait negativity suggests that people high in Neuroticism tend to ex- emotions beyond its relation with trait negativity. Overall, our findings
perience more mixed emotions only to the extent that they tend to ex- progress the description and explanation of mixed emotions and pro-
perience negative emotions (Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991; Watson & Clark, vide a basis for integrating the fledgling literature on differential
1992). Thus, Neuroticism may be associated with trait mixed emotions mixed emotions experiences.
because negative emotions are an essential component of mixed emo-
tions. Neuroticism may also be linked with negative and mixed emo- Declaration of conflicting interests
tional experiences through a shared mechanism; specifically, the
mechanism thought to underpin Neuroticism's association with anxiety The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the re-
— sensitivity to the presence of incompatible goals (e.g., approach/ search, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
avoidance conflict; see Corr, DeYoung, & McNaughton, 2013). Interest-
ingly, mixed emotions research and theory suggests that goal conflict Funding
elicits mixed emotions (Berrios, Totterdell, & Kellett, 2014; Cacioppo &
Berntson, 1994; Fishbach & Ferguson, 2007). Potentially, sensitivity to The authors received funding from The Melbourne School of Psycho-
goal conflict may render individuals high in Neuroticism susceptible to logical Sciences.
both mixed emotions and anxiety. Alternatively, goal conflict may elicit
anxiety in neurotic individuals, but mixed emotions in open individuals. Appendix A. Supplementary data
Finally, that Extraversion was not related to trait mixed emotions
suggests that susceptibility to positive emotion (Smillie et al., 2012) is Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
less relevant to mixed emotions than susceptibility to negative emotion. doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.002.
Although speculative, one potential explanation is that individuals tend
to experience more positive than negative emotions at baseline References
(Shimmack, 2001, p. 90); thus, mixed emotions may more often result
Berrios, R., Totterdell, P., & Kellett, S. (2013). Validation of a new mixed emotions scale.
from the addition of negative to positive emotion rather than vice versa.
Poster presented at the second Annual Spring Conference of the White Rose Consortium,
Leeds.
4.1. Limitations to the TMES and generalizability Berrios, R., Totterdell, P., & Kellett, S. (2014). Investigating goal conflict as a source of
mixed emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 29, 263–755. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02699931.2014.939948.
The TMES provides a promising mixed emotions index, with strong Berrios, R., Totterdell, P., & Kellett, S. (2015). Eliciting mixed emotions: A meta-analysis
preliminary reliability scores (see supplementary material) and concur- comparing models, types, and measures. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 428. http://dx.
rent validity demonstrated by its theoretically interpretable relations to doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00428.
Burmeister, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new
major trait domains, but scale validation is an on-going process that will source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science,
need to be continuously addressed as the scale is used in further 6, 3–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980.
122 K.A. Barford, L.D. Smillie / Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016) 118–122

Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative
space: A critical review with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132–140. http://dx.
substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 401–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033- doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.132.
2909.115.3.401. Larsen, J. T., & McGraw, A. P. (2011). Further evidence for mixed emotions. Journal of
Cacioppo, J. T., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K., & Berntson, G. G. (2004). The affect system: What Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1095–1110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
lurks below the surface of feelings. In A. S. Manstead, N. H. Frijda, & A. Fischer (Eds.), a0021846.
Feelings and emotions (pp. 223–242). New York: Oxford University Press. Larsen, J. T., & McGraw, A. P. (2014). The case for mixed emotions. Social and Personality
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation Psychology Compass, 8, 263–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12108.
analysis in the behavioural sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Can people feel happy and sad at the
Corr, P. J., DeYoung, C. G., & McNaughton, N. (2013). Motivation and personality: A neu- same time? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 684–696. http://dx.doi.
ropsychological perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 158–175. org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.684.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12016. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience.
DeYoung, C. G. (2013). The neuromodulator of exploration: A unifying theory of the role In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology
of dopamine in personality. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 1–26. http://dx.doi. (pp. 825–847). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00762. Mehl, M. R., & Conner, T. S. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook for research methods for studying daily
DeYoung, C. G. (2014). Openness/Intellect: A dimension of personality reflecting cogni- life. New York: Guilford Press.
tive exploration. In R. J. Larsen, & M. L. Cooper (Eds.), The APA handbook of personality Miyamoto, Y., Uchida, Y., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2010). Culture and mixed emotions: Co-oc-
and social psychology, personality processes and individual differences. Vol. 4. (pp. currence of positive and negative emotions in Japan and the United States. Emotion,
369–399). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/ 10, 404–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018430.
10.1037/14343-017. Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk understanding mechanical Turk as a
DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic Big Five Theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188.
33–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.004. Rafaeli, E., Rogers, G. M., & Revelle, W. (2007). Affective synchrony: Individual differences
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 as- in mixed emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 915–932. http://dx.
pects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896. http:// doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301009.
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880. Reisenzein, R., & Weber, H. (2009). Personality and emotion. In P. J. Corr, & G. Matthews
Diener, E., & Iran-Nejad, A. (1986). The relationship in experience between various types (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 54–71). New York, NY:
of affects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1031–1038. Cambridge University Press.
Fishbach, A., & Ferguson, M. J. (2007). The goal construct in social psychology. In A. W. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles Psychology, 39, 1161–1178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0077714.
(pp. 490–515) (2nd ed.). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect.
Fraley, R. C., & Marks, M. J. (2007). The null hypothesis significance testing debate and its Psychological Bulletin, 125, 3–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.1.3.
implications for personality research. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger Shimmack, U. (2001). Pleasure, displeasure and mixed feelings: Are sematic opposites
(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 149–169). New mutually exclusive? Cognition & Emotion, 15, 81–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
York: Guilford. 02699930126097.
Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Shuman, V., Sander, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2013). Levels of valence. Frontiers in Psychology, 4,
Psychology, 4, 717–728. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.49102. 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00261.
Hong, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2010). Feeling mixed but not torn: The moderating role of construal Silvia, P. J. (2006). Exploring the psychology of interest. New York: Oxford University Press.
level in mixed emotions appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 456–472. http:// Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., & Hess, K. I. (2008).
dx.doi.org/10.1086/653492. Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and valid-
Hui, C. M., Fok, H. K., & Bond, M. H. (2009). Who feels more ambivalence? Linking dialec- ity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
tical thinking to mixed emotions. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 493–498. 2, 68–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033644.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.022. Smillie, L. D., Cooper, A. J., Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2012). Do extraverts get more bang for
Janssens, W., De Pelsmacker, P., & Weverbergh, M. (2007). The effect of mixed emotions the buck? Refining the affective-reactivity hypothesis of extraversion. Journal of
in advertising: The moderating role of discomfort with ambiguity. In C. R. Taylor, & D. Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 306–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028372.
-H. Lee (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Buyer Behavior (Advances In International Marketing. Vol. Smillie, L. D., DeYoung, C. G., & Hall, P. J. (2015). Clarifying the relation between extraver-
18. (pp. 63–92). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. sion and positive affect. Journal of Personality, 83, 564–574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five jopy.12138.
trait taxonomy. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of person- Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). On traits and temperament: General and specific factors
ality: Theory and research, 3 (pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guliford Press. of emotional experience and their relation to the five-factor model. Journal of
Johnson, J. A. (2014). Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item Personality, 60, 441–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00980.x.
public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Wilt, J., Funkhouser, K., & Revelle, W. (2011). The dynamic relationships of affective syn-
Personality, 51, 78–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.05.003. chrony to perceptions of situations. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 309–321.
Koots, L., Realo, A., & Allik, J. (2012). Relationship between linguistic antonyms in momen- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.03.005.
tary and retrospective ratings of happiness and sadness. Journal of Individual
Differences, 33, 43–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000061.
Kron, A., Goldstein, A., Lee, H., Gardhouse, K., & Anderson, A. K. (2013). How are you feel-
ing? Revisiting the quantification of emotional qualia. Psychological Science, 24,
1503–1511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797613475456.