PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL

DIFFERENCES

Gender Differences in Negative Affect and Well-Being:

The Case for Emotional Intensity
Frank Fujita, Ed Diener, and Ed Sandvik
University of Illinois

Affect intensity (AI) may reconcile 2 seemingly paradoxical findings: Women report more negative
affect than men but equal happiness as men. AI describes people's varying response intensity to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

identical emotional stimuli. A college sample of 66 women and 34 men was assessed on both
positive and negative affect using 4 measurement methods: self-report, peer report, daily report,
and memory performance. A principal-components analysis revealed an affect balance component
and an AI component. Multimeasure affect balance and AI scores were created, and t tests were
computed that showed women to be as happy as and more intense than men. Gender accounted for
less than 1% of the variance in happiness but over 13% in AI. Thus, depression findings of more
negative affect in women do not conflict with well-beingfindingsof equal happiness across gender.
Generally, women's more intense positive emotions balance their higher negative affect.

When researchers ask, "Which gender experiences more un-
happiness?'' the answer is usually that women experience more
negative emotions than men. For example, in a nationwide sur-
vey in 1960, American women reported having more emotional
problems than American men (Gurin, Veroff, & Feld, 1960).
Women report more of the unpleasant affect symptoms of de-
pression than do men (Comstock & Helsing, 1976; Eaton &
Kessler, 1981; Frerichs, Aneshensel, & Clark, 1981; Husaini,
Neff, & Stone, 1979; Levitt & Lubin, 1975; Murrell, Himmel-
farb, & Wright, 1983; Pearlin, 1975; Rosenfeld, 1980; Silver-
man, 1968). Women report more dissatisfaction with their
marriages and their health than men, and women state that
they "have had less than their share of happiness in life" more
often than do men (Campbell, 1981, p. 130). When interrupted
while at home, school, work, or leisure, more women report
moods of unhappiness than do men (Cameron, 1975). These
findings raise questions about the cause of women's unhappi-
ness.
To explain women's unhappiness, Ellen McGrath, the chair
of the 1987 American Psychological Association Task Force on
Women and Depression, asked rhetorically, "How could any
woman not be depressed, at least sometimes, living in our
current society?" (Landers, 1988). McGrath's implication is that
women's unhappiness is caused by their societal status. With-
Preparation of this article was supported in part by National Insti-
tute of Mental Health Training Grant MH-15140. We gratefully ac-
knowledge the perceptive comments of Karla Brock and anonymous
reviewers on a draft of this article and the invaluable help of Dennis
Gallagher during data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ed
Diener, University of Illinois, Psychology Department, 603 East Dan-
iel Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1991, Vol. 61, No. 3, 427-434
Copyright 1991 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/91/!
out arguing either for or against this position, we will examine
evidence that suggests that the consideration of additional fac-
tors is also important.
Paradoxically, in most surveys, women report as much over-
all happiness as do men. In the same 1960 American national
sample in which women expressed having more emotional dif-
ficulties, they reported nearly the same overall level of happi-
ness as did men (Gurin et al., 1960). To the item "Taking all
things together, how would you say things are these days—
would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too
happy?" women's responses were similar to men's (Bradburn &
Caplovitz, 1965, p. 9). In a European sample, women reported
being more satisfied with their overall life than did men (Haa-
vio-Mannila, 1971). In a cross-cultural study, Alex Michalos
(1987) surveyed 6,000 college students in 23 countries, and his
data revealed that women reported being as happy as or hap-
pier than men. Larson (1978) reviewed the well-being literature
and found "No consistent sex differences in well-being for older
persons on any type of measure." Acrossfivelarge quality-of-
life surveys conducted between 1972 and 1978, women consis-
tently reported that they were happier than men, although the
magnitude of the difference was not considered large (Herzog,
Rodgers, & Woodworth, 1982). Thus, women frequently report
being just as happy as men, and women frequently report being
depressed at twice the rate that men do.
Given these seemingly contradictory findings, one possible
explanation would be that men and women are equally happy.
Perhaps both genders experience emotional difficulty at about
the same rate, but men are more reluctant than women to admit
that they have a problem and to seek help for it. Studies that
have attempted to verify this reticence in men, however, have
failed to do so (Amenson & Lewinsohn, 1981; Bryson & Pilon,
1984; Clancy & Gove, 1974; King & Buchwald, 1982).

427
 428 F. FUJITA, E. DIENER, AND E. SANDVIK
An alternative explanation would be that women are actually
more unhappy than men. Given this explanation, women who
are having emotional difficulties would report in surveys that
they are happy because of a need to conform to societal norms
—one of which is being happy. This explanation, however,
makes it difficult to account for women's self-reported higher
negative affect. If women falsely report being happy only to
appear being happier, they would not accurately report experi-
encing high levels of negative affect. Also, Diener, Sandvik, Pa-
vot, and Gallagher (in press) have shown that to the extent that
people with a high need for approval report higher levels of
happiness, they are actually happier. We propose that gender
differences in affect intensity can explain the paradoxical pres-
ence of both the greater prevalence of negative affect and the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
equal (or greater) overall happiness reported by women.
Affect intensity is the individual difference variable that
refers to one's response intensity to a given level of emotion-pro-
voking stimulation (Larsen & Diener, 1987). People who experi-
ence high levels of negative emotional intensity also tend to
experience high levels of positive emotional intensity (Larsen &
Diener, 1987). Diener, Colvin, Pavot, and Allman (in press)
show that there are emotional costs to having very intense posi-
tive emotions. One of the costs is the experiencing of more
intense negative emotions.
If people who experience high levels of positive affect also
experience high levels of negative affect, it is possible that these
people would report much more distress while also reporting
equal levels of overall well-being. Thayer and Miller (1988) pre-
sent strong evidence of this independence of hedonic level (af-
fect balance) and affect intensity. We propose that, in general,
women are more affectively intense than men. This allows them
to experience both more joy and more sorrow. These gender
differences in affective experience can be used as a basis for
explaining the gender differences in depression found in com-
munity surveys; moreover, affect intensity is equally proficient
in explaining women's equal overall well-being as compared to
men because affect intensity is uncorrelated with hedonic level
(Larsen & Diener, 1987).
Often, when well-being is measured in large nationally repre-
sentative samples, it is with a single self-report item. One of the
chief complaints about this type of measure is that the true
effects of well-being are hopelessly confounded with a self-pre-
sentational bias. When people say that they are happy because
they wish to appear normal, even when they are experiencing a
considerable amount of distress, well-being is difficult to mea-
sure. In the present study, positive intensity, negative intensity,
and global happiness were measured in four different ways.
Our self-report measures are subject to the possible confounds
that plague earlier research (Goldsmith & Walters, 1989). The
observer report and the daily report, however, are free from
confounding stemming from any weak form of social desirabil-
ity bias in which the participant tells a "white lie" to make
himself or herself appear better. The memory performance
measure is also free of any but the strongest form of bias (i.e., the
participant repressing unhappy memories.) Thus, in our study
the gender differences were tested across measures that differ in
their susceptibility to a social desirability artifact.
Another difficulty with previous research is that the effects of
affect intensity and hedonic level are confounded. Hedonic level
in this context refers to the percentage of time spent in an affec-
tive state. Although affect intensity is uncorrelated with he-
donic level (Larsen & Diener, 1987), often items that tap both
constructs are used to measure negative affect. Thus, an item
like "I cry often" depends on both hedonic level and affect
intensity. It is desirable, therefore, to separately measure affect
intensity and hedonic level when investigating gender differ-
ences in negative affect.
In the present study, we divided participants by gender and
measured hedonic level and affect intensity using four different
measurement procedures. Most of the research cited in the in-
troduction used more representative and larger samples than
were used in the present study; unfortunately, however, pre-
vious research has often used a single self-report item as the
dependent variable. In addition, past research efforts have
taken measures of either positive affect or negative affect, but
seldom of both. Because our study includes multiple measures
of positive and negative affect—most of which are not self-re-
port—greater confidence can be placed in thesefindings.Also,
the use of multiple measures helps to assure that artifacts do not
bias the results.
Method
Participants
Participants were 136 students at the University of Illinois who ob-
tained course credit to take part in extended psychological research
and to learn the method of scientific inquiry and empirical measure-
ment. The students completed many self-report measures, gathered
observer-report data, completed memory performance measures of
affect intensity, and produced daily reports of their activities, experi-
ences, and emotions over a 42-day time period. The participants from
whom data were analyzed included 34 men and 66 women. The data
from other participants were not used because these data were incom-
plete. In addition, data from 1 woman and 5 men were completely
removed from the data set because these data were largely incomplete
or showed evidence of being falsified.
Measures
Three affect intensity measures and three hedonic level measures
were used. The three affect intensity measures were based on three
very different methods, as were the three hedonic level measures. Af-
fect intensity was measured with the self-report Affect Intensity Mea-
sure (AIM), a modified AIM for observer reports, and a memory per-
formance measure of affect intensity. Hedonic level was measured us-
ing a self-report summary emotion adjectives scale, a modified version
of this scale for observer reports, and a daily emotion adjectives scale
that was averaged over a 42-day time period.
AIM. The AIM (Larsen & Diener, 1987) is a 40-item instrument
that measures how intensely participants feel emotions. The AIM asks
participants to answer questions like "When I feel happy it is a strong
type of exuberance," and "When I am nervous I get shaky all over."
Notice that these items do not assess how frequently the participant
experiences an emotion, but rather the intensity of the emotion when
experienced. The AIM yields both a positive and negative affect inten-
sity score. Larsen & Diener (1987) report 1-, 2-, and 3-month test-retest
reliabilities of 0.80. These authors report that the AIM is not correlated
with either happiness or life satisfaction. Finally, the authors report
that a positive correlation between positive affect intensity and nega-
 GENDER AND AFFECT INTENSITY
tive affect intensity is found in diverse samples (Larsen & Diener,
1987).
Observer AIM. In addition to the self-report AIM, the AIM was also
modified for this study for observer use by changing the instructions so
that the observer answered questions as he or she imagined the partici-
pant would answer them. From 7 to 11 observer reports were collected
for each participant. A minimum of three reports from college friends
and three reports from the participant's family were collected. These
reports were averaged and used as the observer AIM score. In a multi-
trait-multimethod study, Larsen & Diener (1985) showed convergent
validity across methods of measuring affect intensity and hedonic level
and discriminant validity between affect intensity and hedonic level
using similar measures.
Memory performance intensity measure. Participants were asked to
recall positive and negative emotional experiences in a timed period.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
In each memory category, participants were given either 2 or 3 min to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
write down as many memories of events as they could. The time de-
pended on the category involved. The four memory categories tested
were lifetime happy events, lifetime unhappy events, last year happy
events, and last year unhappy events. A simple count of the number of
positive memories recalled in the fixed time period was used for the
positive affect intensity measure. The negative intensity measure was
constructed using a simple count of negative memories recalled. The
rationale was that more intense emotional experiences can be recalled
with greater ease; therefore, the recall of greater numbers of emotional
episodes suggests greater emotional intensity.
Hedonic level measures. Twice during the semester, participants
estimated how frequently they experienced various emotions on a scale
of 0% to 100%. Each emotion word rating was then standardized across
subjects. The positive hedonic level measure was constructed by averag-
ing four positive emotion adjectives (happy, pleased, enjoyment/fun,
and joyful). The negative hedonic level measure was constructed by
averaging four negative emotion adjectives (depressed/blue, worried/
anxious, unhappy, and hostile/angry). Like the AIM, this measure was
also modified so that observers answered as if they were the partici-
pants. Also like the AIM, 7-11 observer reports were collected, with a
minimum of 3 reports from college friends and 3 reports from the
participant's family. These reports were averaged to yield observer he-
donic level scores.
Daily mood report. For 42 consecutive days, participants returned a
form that asked them to rate on a 0 to 6 scale (0 = not at all, 6 =
extremely much) how much of several positive and negative emotions
they had experienced that day. Each participant completed the entire
form for both positive and negative emotions each day. Scores for each
emotion token were averaged across the 42 days for each participant
and then standardized across participants. The positive affect measure
was constructed by averaging four positive affect adjectives (happy,
pleased, enjoyment/fun, and joyful), and the negative affect measure
was constructed by averaging four negative affect adjectives (depressed/
blue, worried, unhappy, and hostile).
Results
We first computed internal reliability coefficients. These are
presented in Table 1. As can be seen, the reliabilities were ac-
ceptable for the affect intensity measures and proved very
strong for the hedonic level measures.
Means, standard deviations, and independent t tests for the
12 affect measures are presented in Table 2. On five of the six
intensity measures (both positive and negative), the women's
mean level was found to be more intense than the men's mean
level. On only one of the six hedonic level measures did women
differ from men. This difference was on the self-report positive
429
Table 1
Coefficient Alpha on Four Measurement Methods
of Emotional Intensity
Breakdown of measures
Positive Negative
Measure affect affect
Memory performance intensity .76 .68
Observer intensity (AIM) .77 .70
Self-report intensity (AIM) .91 .74
Daily hedonic level
(daily adjectives) .91 .86
Observer hedonic level
(summary adjectives) .94 .86
Self-report hedonic level
(summary adjectives) .93 .82
Note. #=100.
affect measure, on which women reported more positive affect
than men did.
Next, correlation matrixes were computed for the complete
sample and separately within gender. The complete sample
correlation matrix is presented in Table 3. The within-method,
across-valence correlations are underlined. In the complete
sample matrix, a significant positive correlation was found be-
tween the positive intensity and negative intensity measures
within measurement method. Also, significant negative corre-
lations were found between the hedonic level measures within
measurement method. This finding was expected because af-
fect intensity has been found to be unitary across valence,
whereas positive and negative hedonic level make up a bipolar
affect balance dimension. All affect intensity measures corre-
lated positively with each other across valence and methods. In
addition, all of the hedonic level measures correlated in the
hypothesized direction across method.
The men-only correlation matrix is presented in Table 4.
Most of the correlations were in the expected direction. How-
ever, one of the intensity measures correlated negatively within
measurement method (although insignificantly), contrary to
predictions. A few of the affect intensity measure correlations
across method were also in the direction not hypothesized, but
these correlations were not significant. All hedonic level corre-
lations, however, were in the expected direction.
The women-only correlation matrix is presented in Table 5.
All within-measurement-method correlations were significant
and in the expected direction. All across-method affect inten-
sity measure correlations were positive, as predicted, and all
across-method hedonic level correlations were in the expected
directions.
We submitted the complete sample correlation matrix to a prin-
cipal-components analysis to verify the existence of the two hy-
pothesized factors, affect balance and intensity. Four compo-
nents were greater than one, with eigenvalues of 2.8,2.5,1.3, and
1.2. Only the first two components were retained and were ro-
tated using a varimax rotation to simplify interpretation. In addi-
tion, the application of the scree criterion would suggest
the presence of only two components. The varimax rotated
 430 F. FUJITA, E. DIENER, AND E. SANDVIK

Table 2 variables by standardizing each measure and summing across

Descriptive Statistics on 12 Measures of Affect methods. The six intensity measures (positive self-report, nega-
Intensity and Balance tive self-report, positive observer report, negative observer re-
port, positive memory, and negative memory) were summed to
Breakdown of measures create a single multimethod affect intensity score. The coeffi-
Measure Positive Negative cient alpha of the multimethod intensity score was 0.70. This is
properly interpreted as a validity coefficient, the amount of
Memory intensity multimethod agreement about affect intensity. The six hedonic
Men level measures were combined by addition, after the signs of the
M 19.853 15.912 negative hedonic level measures were reversed, to create a sin-
SD 7.644 7.145
Women gle multimethod affect balance score. This is analogous to sub-
M 23.136* 19.227* tracting the negative affect from the positive affect to create an
SD 6.968 6.302 affect balance score. The coefficient alpha of the multimethod
t 2.159 2.380 affect balance score was also .70. This also is properly inter-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Observer intensity preted as a validity coefficient, because it is the amount of mul-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Men
M 81.647 45.097 timethod agreement about affect balance. To compare the
SD 7.679 4.158 genders on the multimethod intensity variable, we performed
Women an independent sample t test yieldinga value of 3.90, p < .001.
M 86.270* 48.337** Likewise, to compare the genders on the multimethod affect
SD 9.784 5.280 balance variable, an independent sample t test was performed,
t 2.399 3.113
Self-report intensity yielding a nonsignificant value of 1.05, p > .10. Converting t
Men values into R2 or percentage of variance explained shows that
M 79.412 45.853 gender accounts for less than 1% of the variance in affect bal-
SD 12.517 7.394 ance, whereas it accounts for over 13% of the variance in affect
Women intensity.
M 86.379* 48.424
SD 13.017 7.553
t 2.568 1.624
Daily hedonic level Discussion
Men
M -0.168 0.672 The results of this study offer support for the idea that
SD 3.946 4.029 women in the United States experience emotion more strongly
Women than do men. The t tests provide evidence that women differ
M 0.165 -0.099 from men in the intensity of their emotions—both positive and
SD 3.616 3.124
negative emotions. However, there is little evidence of affect
t 0.423 1.058
Observer hedonic level balance differences between the genders. The principal-compo-
Men nents analysis, used as a condensation of the complete sample
M -0.423 -1.048 correlation matrix, provides evidence that affect intensity is
SD 3.273 3.027 unitary across affect valence. This means that ifa person experi-
Women ences strong negative emotions, that person is more likely to
M 0.711 0.198
SD 3.630 3.517 experience strong positive emotions. More specifically, in the
t 1.530 1.756 total sample correlation matrix, the positive and negative affect
Self-report hedonic level intensity measures correlated significantly and positively within
Men method. This gives stronger support for the idea that the people
M -1.055 0.379
SD 5.120 5.992 who experience strong positive emotions are the same people
Women who experience strong negative emotions. There were a few
M 1.532* -0.267 unexpected correlations in the men-only sample correlation
SD 5.858 4.980 matrix, although these may be attributable to the relatively
t 2.180 0.573 small sample of men.
Note, n for men = 34; n for women = 66. Hedonic level measures are The results of these studies help clarify past anomalies. Al-
sums of standardized items. though women scored significantly higher on almost all of the
*p<.05. **p<.01. intensity measures, they did not differ from men on most of the
hedonic level measures. Based on these findings, one would
predict that, if researchers only collect negative emotion data
component loadings are listed in Table 6. The first component and the items used tap both hedonic level and affect intensity,
(balance) was composed of the variables hypothesized to be they would find women experiencing more negative affect than
hedonic level variables, and the positive and negative variables men. One would also predict that, if researchers collect data
loaded with opposite signs. The second component (intensity) that balances the positive affect against the negative affect, then
was composed of the variables hypothesized to be affect inten- the gender differences will disappear. Thus, the paradox of past
sity variables, and the variables all had positive factor loadings. research is replicated; women score higher on negative affect
We constructed multimethod affect balance and intensity even though they are not lower on global happiness. This para-
 GENDER AND AFFECT INTENSITY 431
Table 3
Complete Sample Correlation Matrix
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Memory intensity
1. Positive 1.000
2. Negative .598 1.000
Observer intensity
3. Positive .206 .250 1.000
4. Negative .133 .229 .336 1.000
Self-intensity
5. Positive .189 .295 .518 .212 1.000
6. Negative .145 .175 .189 .444 .344 1.000
Daily hedonic level
7. Positive .168 .055 .349 -.058 .274 -.121 1.000
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

8. Negative -.079 -.091 -.124 .041 -.115 .247 -.370 1.000

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Observer hedonic level

9. Positive .139 -.210 .217 -.205 .020 -.038 .198 -.164 1.000
10. Negative -.120 .122 -.088 .462 -.058 .182 -.254 .053 -.475 1.000
Self-hedonic level
11. Positive .170 -.228 .219 -.051 .070 -.084 .290 -.186 .564 -.309 1.000
12. Negative -.136 .128 -.001 .207 .107 .251 -.182 .199 -.223 .369 -.416 1.000

Note. N = 100. Underlined correlations are within method, across hedonic level.

dox is resolved in our data, however, because the college women
also scored higher on all positive affect intensity measures.
Therefore, it appears that more intense positive emotions tend
to counterbalance the more intense negative emotions when
subjects report their global happiness. These results are highly
consistent with data based on national samples. For example,
Wood, Rhodes, and Whelan (1989) reviewed a number of stud-
ies in which women reported more positive affect than men;
greater reports of negative affect by women are many (e.g.,
Gurin et al., 1960). Thus, the present study using diverse mea-
sures converges with simple self-report studies that used more
heterogeneous subject samples.
It may be profitable to consider these findings in a field re-
lated to the experience of negative affect, depression. In an
excellent review, Nolen-Hoeksema (1987) explored many causal
explanations for the gender differences in clinical depression
and proposed her own theory. We may use a parallel theory to
apply to community survey findings of gender differences in
depression, which are mostly driven by differences in experi-
enced negative affect (Newmann, 1984). That is, Nolen-Hoek-
sema (1987) outlined a theory to explain gender differences in
clinical depression; we will use a similar theory to attempt to
understand gender differences in negative affect—the differ-
ences that create the gender differences found in community
surveys of depression.
Nolen-Hoeksema (1987) discussed the possibility that gender

Table 4
Men-Only Correlation Matrix
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Memory intensity
1. Positive 1.000
2. Negative .622 1.00
Observer intensity
3. Positive .001 .147 1.000
4. Negative -.102 -.057 -.174 1.000
Self-intensity
5. Positive .071 .297 .283 -.124 1.000
6. Negative -.109 .035 .126 .268 .428 1.000
Daily hedonic level
7. Positive .219 -.121 .329 -.216 .041 -.140 1.000
8. Negative -.095 -.045 -.044 .320 -.169 .234 -.321 1.000
Observer hedonic level
9. Positive -.002 -.118 .116 -.346 -.039 -.177 .452 -.277 1.000
10. Negative -.075 .104 -.146 .338 -.000 .221 -.488 .120 -.588 1.000
Self-hedonic level
11. Positive -.168 -.349 .223 -.091 -.085 -.188 .569 -.125 .348 -.463 1.000
12. Negative .054 .278 .110 .143 .180 .203 -.056 .065 -.342 .354 -.368 1.000
Note, n = 34. Underlined correlations are within method, across hedonic level.
 432 F. FUJITA, E. DIENER, AND E. SANDVIK

Table 5
Women-Only Correlation Matrix
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Memory intensity
1. Positive 1.000
2. Negative .548 1.000
Observer intensity
3. Positive .239 .238 1.000
4. Negative .153 .279 .431 1.000
Self-intensity
5. Positive .182 .228 .569 .253 1.000
6. Negative .236 .204 .171 .483 .264 1.000
Daily hedonic level
7. Positive .128 .152 .363 -.014 .397 -.124 1.000
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

8. Negative -.031 -.086 -.136 -.045 -.045 .296 -.404 1.000

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Observer hedonic level

9. Positive .168 -.330 .214 -.238 -.011 -.014 .066 -.079 1.000
10. Negative -.208 .076 -.131 .470 -.152 .132 -.163 .049 -.487 1.000
Self hedonic level
11. Positive .276 -.268 .161 -.136 .061 -.096 .154 -.197 .631 -.322 1.000
12. Negative -.248 .054 -.034 .287 .095 .302 -.263 .296 -.151 .410 -.445 1.000

Note, n = 66. Underlined correlations are within method, across hedonic level.

differences may be one of the following: artifactually produced, that men will distract themselves when they experience a simi-
biologically or genetically determined, psychoanalytically lar unhappy event. In her review, Nolen-Hoeksema detailed one
caused, the result of sex-roles, or a product of learned helpless- of her earlier studies that showed that men report doing things
ness. She found support for each of these hypotheses to be to distract themselves when they are in a depressed mood,
equivocal, with the least support existing for the hypothesis that whereas women report focusing their attention on their de-
gender differences are artifacts. Increasing support was found pressed mood. This tendency, Nolen-Hoeksema hypothesized,
for the other theories listed, with the most support existing for makes the probability of clinical depression greater for women.
the learned helplessness theory. Nolen-Hoeksema went on to We view Nolen-Hoeksema's (1987) theory as applying more
propose a new theory. She posited that it is the way that women directly to findings in the community depression—which is
respond to a predepressive episode that causes the gender dif- conceptually distinct from clinical depression—literature,
ferences in clinical depression. Her hypothesis is that women where gender differences in depression are properly viewed as
ruminate about the causes of their predepressive episode, but gender differences in the amount of affective distress (New-
mann, 1984, 1986). Newmann (1984) dissects the Psychiatric
Evaluation Research Interview, a commonly used community
depression scale, and shows that the gender differences found
Table 6
in community surveys are due to differences in the experienced
Principal-Components Analysis: Rotated Loadings
sadness items and are not due to gender differences on the more
Balance Intensity clinical items. Although there are genuine gender differences in
Variable component component clinical unipolar depression, we see Nolen-Hoeksema's (1987)
rumination theory as applying more directly to findings of
Memory intensity
gender differences in community depression, or negative affect.
Positive .555
Negative .654 Thus, we agree that women generally ruminate about the
Observer intensity causes of their momentary sadness, which results in increased
Positive .695 sadness, whereas men generally distract themselves when they
Negative .601 experience a similar unhappy event. We posit, however, that
Self-report intensity further theoretical and empirical work needs to be done to
Positive .706
Negative .539 determine if gender differences in experienced negative affect
Daily hedonic level are the cause of gender differences in clinical depression.
Positive .574 An important theoretical question is, "What mechanism al-
Negative -.429
Observer hedonic level lows high affectively intense people to experience more negative
Positive .705 affect than low affectively intense people?" In 1987, Larsen and
Negative -.695 his colleagues showed that people with high affect intensity use
Self-report hedonic level the cognitive operations that Beck (1976) proposed (Larsen,
Positive .722
Negative -.604 Diener, & Cropanzano, 1987). Beck's operations are personaliz-
ing, overgeneralizing, and selective abstraction. Personalizing
Note. Loadings of less than .40 are not presented. is a cognitive operation in which a person interprets events in a
 GENDER AND AFFECT INTENSITY
self-referential manner. Overgeneralizing is the cognitive opera-
tion in which a person takes a single event as being representa-
tive of the events in the world at large. Selective abstraction is a
cognitive operation in which a person focuses his or her atten-
tion on the specific, emotion-provoking aspects of events. A
person who interprets events in a self-referential manner, takes
single events as being representative of the world at large, and
focuses attention on emotion-provoking aspects of events will
probably experience more intense emotional outcomes than a
person who does not. A review of these cognitive operations can
lead to an understanding of how people with high affect inten-
sity might be able to experience both more joy and more sad-
ness.
In such a review, Larsen et al. (1987) found that these pro-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
cesses were used in relation to both negative and positive stim-
uli. Flett, Boase, McAndrews, Pliner, and Blankstein (1986)
also found that high AIM scorers have more vivid recall of their
emotions. More vivid recall of past emotional experiences
could contribute to the ruminative style proposed by Nolen-
Hoeksema (1987). Of course, it is possible that the causal arrow
could point in the opposite direction. It may be the case that the
ruminative style could influence encoding and recall of emo-
tion-laden events, leading to the cognitive operations reviewed
above, and in turn, leading to greater affect intensity.
Some researchers might be tempted to think that the use of
such cognitive operations is a "cognitive error." In a review of the
social judgment literature, however, Funder (1987) presents the
thesis that although participants can often be forced to make
"errors" in the laboratory, the underlying processes that cause
the "errors" in the laboratory are not mistakes with respect to a
broader, more realistic frame of reference. Following from
Funder's (1987) logic, we posit that people with higher affect
intensity may come to be that way because higher affect inten-
sity is generally more adaptive for them in their environments.
The paradox that was the focus of this study seems to have
been clarified. The reason that women can be generally both
more depressed and more happy than men is that they gener-
ally experience all emotions more vividly. Realizing the limits of
the present study, we offer it as a heuristic idea for future re-
search. One avenue of future research would be to replicate the
present findings with a larger, more heterogeneous sample.
Diener, Sandvik, and Larsen (1985) report AIM gender differ-
ences across the life span, but thesefindingsare based solely on
self-report data. Another area for research would be to sample
emotions from around the Russell circumplex of emotion
(1980) to determine if gender differences in affect intensity are
consistent across emotions. Are there emotions that women
experience less intensely than men? Do women report greater
amounts of the low-activation emotions (e.g., contented and
calm) or only the more active emotions (e.g., elated, ecstatic, and
joyful)? An additional line of research would be to trace the
development of gender differences in affect intensity. For exam-
ple, Malatesta, Culver, Tessman, and Shepard (1989) report
that mothers react in more emotional ways to female toddlers
than to male toddlers. Yet another avenue of research would be
to measure the extent to which the gender differences in depres-
sion are accounted for by greater female affect intensity and the
extent to which affect intensity does not account for these find-
ings. Roger and Nesshoever (1987) propose an individual differ-
433
ence characteristic called emotional control. Emotional con-
trol-possibly identical to low affect intensity—is made up of
four factors: rehearsal, emotional inhibition, aggression con-
trol, and benign control. Future research will discover whether
affect intensity and emotional control differentially contribute
to higher rates of depression. Finally, another research objective
could be to collect longitudinal data on affect intensity, depres-
sion-related cognitive operations, and depression. Then, one
would be able to construct a path analysis from gender to affect
intensity to cognitive operations to reported negative affect.
This would determine if the causal path that is easiest to imag-
ine is the one actually operating in society.
The present study proposed an alternative perspective for
viewing the higher rates of sadness among women. Although
women may be at a greater risk of experiencing depressive
symptoms, women may also profit from greater affective inten-
sity; a strong case can be made that women experience more
intense joy than men. Alternatively, men may be more inhib-
ited, incapable of reacting positively to pleasant events, and,
therefore, may suffer a more drab emotional life. Similarly, it
can be argued that men tend to be cut off from valuable emo-
tional information to a greater extent than are women. It is also
important to note that there is no evidence that greater affective
intensity interferes with job performance or any other responsi-
bilities or capabilities. In general, we caution researchers
against limiting their focus only to gender differences that per-
petuate the depiction of women as more "fragile" creatures
than men. Specifically, we recommend against an exclusive
focus on the greater amounts of negative affect in women. We
recommend instead that the entire emotional spectrum of both
women and men be used as the focus of future research.
References
Amenson, C. S., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (1981). An investigation into the
observed sex difference in prevalence of unipolar depression. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Psychology, 90,1-13.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New
%rk: International Universities Press.
Bradburn, N. M., & Caplovitz, D. (1965). Reports on happiness. Chi-
cago: Aldine.
Bryson, S. E., & Pilon, D. J. (1984). Sex differences in depression and
the method of administering the Beck Depression Inventory. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 40, 529-534.
Cameron, P. (1975). Mood as an indicant of happiness: Age, sex, social
class and situational differences. Journal of Gerontology, 30, 216—
224.
Campbell, A. (1981). The sense of well-being in America. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Clancy, K., & Gove, W (1974). Sex differences in mental illness: An
analysis of response bias in self-reports. American Journal of Sociol-
ogy, 80, 205-216.
Comstock, G. W, & Helsing, K. J. (1976). Symptoms of depression in
two communities. Psychological Medicine, 6, 551-563.
Diener, E., Colvin, R., Pavot, W, & Allman, A. (in press). The psychic
costs of intense positive affect. Journal of Personality & Social Psy-
chology.
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1985). Age and sex effects for
emotional intensity. Developmental Psychology, 21, 542-546.
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Pavot, W, & Gallagher, D. (in press). Response
 434 E FUJITA, E. DIENER, AND E. SANDVIK
artifacts in the measurement of subjective well-being. Social Indica-
tors Research.
Eaton, W W, & Kessler, L. G. (1981). Rates of symptoms of depression
in a national sample. American Journal of Epidemiology, 114, 528—
538.
Flett, G. L., Boase, P., McAndrews, M. P., Pliner, P., & Blankstein, K. R.
(1986). Affect intensity and the appraisal of emotion. Journal ofRe-
search in Personality, 20, 447-459.
Frerichs, R. R., Aneshensel, C. S., & Clark, V A. (1981). Prevalence of
depression in Los Angeles County. American Journal of Epidemiol-
ogy, 113, 691-699.
Funder, D. C. (1987). Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of
social judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 75-90.
Goldsmith, R. E., & Walters, H. (1989). A validity study of the Affect
Intensity Measure. Journal of Social Behaviorand Personality, 4,133—
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
140.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Gurin, G., Veroff, J., & Feld, S. (1960). Americans view their mental
health: A nationwide interview survey. New \brk: Basic Books.
Haavio-Mannila, E. (1971). Satisfaction with family, work, leisure and
life among men and women. Human Relations, 24, 585-601.
Herzog, A. R., Rodgers, W L., & Woodworth, J. (1982). Subjective well-
being among different age groups. University of Michigan (Ann Ar-
bor): Institute for Social Research.
Husaini, B. A., Neff, J. A., & Stone, R. H. (1979). Psychiatric impair-
ment in rural communities. Journal of Community Psychology, 7,
137-146.
King, D. A., & Buchwald, A. M. (1982). Sex differences in subclinical
depression: Administration of the Beck Depression Inventory in
public and private disclosure situations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 42, 963-969.
Landers, S. (1988, October). Facts confound myths of women, depres-
sion. APA Monitor, p. 5.
Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1985). A multitrait-multimethod examina-
tion of affect structure: Hedonic level and emotional intensity. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 6, 631-636.
Larsen, R. X, & Diener, E. (1987). Affect intensity as an individual
difference characteristic: A review. Journal of Research in Personal-
ity, 21,1-39.
Larsen, R. J., Diener, E., & Cropanzano, R. S. (1987). Cognitive opera-
tions associated with individual differences in affect intensity. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,161-11 A.
Larson, R. (1978). Thirty years of research on the subjective well-being
of older Americans. Journal of Gerontology, 33, 109-125.
Levitt, E. E., & Lubin, B. (1975). Depression. New York: Springer.
Malatesta, C. Z., Culver, C, Tessman, J. R., & Shepard, B. (1989). The
development of emotion expression during thefirsttwo years of life.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 54,
(1-2, Serial No. 219).
Michalos, A. C. (1987). Final progress report on global report on student
well-being: Applications ofmultiple discrepancies theory. Guelph, On-
tario: University of Guelph.
Murrell, S. A., Himmelfarb, S., & Wright, K. (1983). Prevalence of
depression and its correlates in older adults. American Journal of
Epidemiology, 117,173-185.
Newmann, J. P. (1984). Sex differences in symptoms of depression:
Clinical disorder or normal distress? Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 25,136-159.
Newmann, J. P. (1986). Gender, life strains, and depression. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 27,161-178.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1987). Sex differences in unipolar depression:
Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 259-282.
Pearlin, L. I. (1975). Sex roles and depression. In N. Datan & L. Gins-
berg (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Normative life crises
(pp. 191-207). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Roger, D, & Nesshoever, W (1987). The construction and preliminary
validation of a scale for measuring emotional control. Personality
and Individual Differences, 8, 527-534.
Rosenfeld, S. (1980). Sex differences in depression: Do women always
have higher rates? Journal ofHealth and Social Behavior, 21, 33-42.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal ofPersonal-
ity and Social Psychology, 39, 1161-1178.
Seidlitz, L. (1990). Subjective well-being and memory for life events.
Unpublished masters thesis. University of Illinois, Urbana.
Silverman, C. (1968). The epidemiology ofdepression. Baltimore: John
Hopkins Press.
Thayer, J. F, & Miller, M. L. (1988). Further evidence of the indepen-
dence of hedonic level and emotional intensity. Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences, 9, 425-426.
Wood, W, Rhodes, N., & Whelan, M. (1989). Sex differences in positive
well-being: A consideration of emotional style and marital status.
Psychological Bulletin, 106, 249-264.
Received November 22,1989
Revision received June 20,1990
Accepted April 9,1991 •