Considering how to classify "emotional" episodes via ecological momentary assessment

The future of technology-mediated just-in-time interventions requires detecting moments when skills would be most useful. For example, affect regulation skills could be provided during emotional episodes. But how do researchers (and clinicians) operationalize "emotional" episodes? In this study, we use secondary data from an 8-day ecological momentary assessment study (n = 197) where participants rated emotional adjectives of positive (e.g., joyful, calm, relaxed) and negative (e.g., sad, angry, anxious) feelings on a 0-100 scale and a categorical subjective determination of emotion 5×/day. We compared three different ways of classifying whether a moment was "better" (i.e., more positive), "worse" (i.e., more distressing), or typical/as usual affect: (Option A) elevated level of affect for positive and/or negative affect (e.g., whether the rating was high or low on the scale itself), (Option B) a 17-point deviation from the person's own average on positive and a 12-point deviation for negative affect, and (Option C) the participant's own categorical determination of better, same, or worse. Results revealed that affect level (Option A) and the participant's own subjective determination (Option C) resulted in more moments classified as emotional than person-centered deviations, especially person-centered deviations on negative affect. In validating all classification methods, we found that "worse" was associated with more problems (e.g., lower thought clarity and willpower, greater experiential avoidance and rash action urges) than "affect as usual" using all options. We discuss implications for how researchers and clinicians can use technology to find "emotional" moments in future studies, with the aim of guidance toward just-in-time momentary interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).