This measure has been tested in parents of toddlers. In the Lorber et al. (2007; 2016) studies included ninety-seven mothers and their 2- to 3-year-old toddlers who participated in the study in return for a 2.5-hr parenting workshop. Participants were recruited through advertisements for “mothers of toddlers” in community newspapers, flyers posted in the community, phone calls based on published birth records in a local newspaper, and a random-digit-dialing telephone procedure. The mother–toddler dyads (mean child age 31.76 months, SD 6.04 months; 48 girls) had toddlers with Externalizing factor T scores between 32 and 80 (M 55.27, SD 9.19) on the Child Behavior Checklist for 1.5- to 5-year-olds (CBCL/1.5–5; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000). Mothers’ mean age was 35.18 years (SD 4.77 years). They had a median annual family income of $90,000 (from $11,000 to $400,000). All mothers had at least a high school education, 63 had at least some college, and 21 had graduate or professional degrees. Some toddlers had one (n 46) or more (n 21) siblings. Eighty-seven of the mothers were married, and 91 mothers self-identified themselves as Caucasian. This measure has also been used in adult couples.

[+]

Identified

In the domain of romantic couples’ relationships:
Intensity of anger experienced on a moment-by-moment basis by each participant can be reported during a video-mediated-recall playback session, where participants view a video recording of their behavior and rate their experienced anger with a rating dial. Slep, Heyman, and Lorber (in press) used this experienced emotion assay to study couples’ experienced emotion in conflicts and found: (a) coercive processes characterize couples’ conflicts (i.e., a similar active ingredient underlies coercive couple conflict and coercion); (b) a complementary process of de-escalation appears to also exist and is maintained through the same mechanism (i.e., negative reinforcement); (c) negative reinforcement powerfully shapes both partners’ behaviors not only at the termination of conflict bouts, but throughout the conflict as well; and (d) anger escalations and de-escalations can be negatively reinforced by decreases in a person’s own experience of anger in addition to negative reinforcement via partner’s acquiescence. These processes are hypothesized to be associated with health by the same mechanisms as other measures of coercive couple conflict and coercion. As noted in a review of the literature by Robles et al., 2014 (a meta-analysis of 126 published empirical articles investigating relationship quality and physical health), a sizable literature links hostile couple relationships to (a) problems with social-cognitive and affective processes, such as self-regulation of emotion and behavior; (b) physiological stress reactivity processes, especially in the neuroendocrine axes and in immune functioning; and (c) poor health outcomes.
In the domain of parent-child relationships:
Parents’ momentary thoughts and feelings about themselves and their children are related to important dimensions of parenting behaviors (e.g., Bugental, Blue, & Cruzcosa, 1989; Lorber & O’Leary, 2005; Weis & Lovejoy, 2002). As noted in a review of the literature by Repetti et al. (2002, an exhaustive review of the impact of negative family environments on children), a sizable literature links hostile parent-child relationships to (a) problems with social-cognitive and affective processes, such as self-regulation of emotion and behavior; (b) physiological stress reactivity processes, especially in the neuroendocrine axes and in immune functioning; and (c) poor health outcomes.

[+] PMCID, PUBMED ID, or CITATION

Text Citation: Slep, A., Heyman, R., & Lorber, M. F. (2015). Coercive process and intimate partner violence in committed relationships. In T. Dishion, & J. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of coercive relationship dynamics New York: Oxford University Press.

Text Citation: Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2014). Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 140. doi:10.1037/a0031859

Text Citation: Bugental, D. B., Blue, J., & Cruzcosa, M. (1989). Perceived control over caregiving outcomes: Implications for child abuse. Developmental Psychology, 25, 532–539.

Text Citation: Lorber, M. F., & O’Leary, S. G. (2005). Mediated paths to overreactive discipline: Mothers’ experienced emotion, appraisals, and physiological responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 972–981.

Text Citation: Weis, R., & Lovejoy, M. C. (2002). Information processing in everyday life: Emotion-congruent bias in mothers’ reports of parent–child interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 216–230.

Text Citation: Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2002). Risky families: Family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 330-366. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.128.2.330

Measured

In the domain of romantic couples’ relationships:
Rating experienced emotion during a post‐interaction viewing was developed by Gottman and Levenson (1985), who reported a number of findings that support the validity of using video‐mediated recall to elicit moment‐by‐moment reports of experienced affect: (a) partners exhibited nearly the same physiological reactions during the video‐recall procedure as they did during the actual couple interaction—and essentially at the same times (convergent validity); (b) experienced negative affect was [1] higher in the conflict discussion than an events‐of‐the‐day discussion and [2] for unhappy vs. happy couples (discriminative validity); (c) partners ratings corresponded significantly across time (convergent validity); and (d) topographical observational coding was associated with the experienced negative affect intensity (convergent validity).

In the domain of parent‐child relationships: Mothers’ average level of appraisals, emotion, and autonomic responses during video‐mediated recall were associated with their autonomic responses and their children’s misbehavior measured during the live interactions. Less correspondence was found when similar relations were assessed in 10‐s intervals. Additional tests supported concurrent and discriminant validity of the averaged video‐mediated recall measures. Taken together, the results suggest acceptable construct validity, but that the timing of mothers’ thoughts and feelings may differ between live interactions and video‐mediated recall (Lorber, 2007).

[+] PMCID, PUBMED ID, or CITATION

Text Citation: Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1985). A valid procedure for obtaining self-report of affect in marital interaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 151-160.

Text Citation: Lorber, M. F. (2007). Validity of video-mediated recall procedures for mothers’ emotion and child ratings. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 520-528.

[+] Demographics

This measure has been tested in parents of toddlers. In the Lorber et al. (2007; 2016) studies included ninety-seven mothers and their 2- to 3-year-old toddlers who participated in the study in return for a 2.5-hr parenting workshop. Participants were recruited through advertisements for “mothers of toddlers” in community newspapers, flyers posted in the community, phone calls based on published birth records in a local newspaper, and a random-digit-dialing telephone procedure. The mother–toddler dyads (mean child age 31.76 months, SD 6.04 months; 48 girls) had toddlers with Externalizing factor T scores between 32 and 80 (M 55.27, SD 9.19) on the Child Behavior Checklist for 1.5- to 5-year-olds (CBCL/1.5–5; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000). Mothers’ mean age was 35.18 years (SD 4.77 years). They had a median annual family income of $90,000 (from $11,000 to $400,000). All mothers had at least a high school education, 63 had at least some college, and 21 had graduate or professional degrees. Some toddlers had one (n 46) or more (n 21) siblings. Eighty-seven of the mothers were married, and 91 mothers self-identified themselves as Caucasian.
This measure has also been used in adult couples.

Influenced

This measure has not been influenced yet.

Validated

This measure has not been validated yet.

Access Measure

Additional Resources

Video-Mediated Affective Recall Coding Download File

Additional Comments

Please refer to the file in Additional Resources for possible coding procedures and available resources.

SOBC Validation Process

The Science of Behavior Change (SOBC) program seeks to promote basic research on the initiation, personalization and maintenance of behavior change. By integrating work across disciplines, this effort will lead to an improved understanding of the underlying principles of behavior change. The SOBC program aims to implement a mechanisms-focused, experimental medicine approach to behavior change research and to develop the tools required to implement such an approach. The experimental medicine approach involves: identifying an intervention target, developing measures to permit verification of the target, engaging the target through experimentation or intervention, and testing the degree to which target engagement produces the desired behavior change.

Within the SOBC Measures Repository, researchers have access to measures of mechanistic targets that have been (or are in the processing of being) validated by SOBC Research Network Members and other experts in the field. The SOBC Validation Process includes three important stages of evaluation for each proposed measure: Identification, Measurement, and Influence.

The first stage of validation requires a measure to be Identified within the field; there must be theoretical support for the specific measure of the proposed mechanistic target or potential mechanism of behavior change. This evidence may include references for the proposed measure, or theoretical support for the construct that the proposed measure is intended to assess. The second stage of validation requires demonstration that the level and change in level of the chosen mechanistic target can be Measured with the proposed measure (assay). For example, if the proposed measure is a questionnaire, the score on the measure should indicate the activity of the target process, and it must have strong psychometric properties. The third stage of validation requires demonstration that the measure can be Influenced; there must be evidence that the measured target is malleable and responsive to manipulation. Evidence relating to each stage includes at least one peer-reviewed publication or original data presentation (if no peer-reviewed research is available to support the claim) and is evaluated by SOBC Research Network Members and experts in the field.

Once a measure has gone through these three stages, it will then either be Validated or Not validated according to SOBC Research Network standards. If a measure is Validated, then change in the measured target was reliably associated with Behavior Change. If a measure is Not validated, then change in the measured target was not reliably associated with Behavior Change. Why would we share measures that are not validated? The SOBC Research Network values open, rigorous, and transparent research. Our goal is to make meaningful progress and develop replicable and effective interventions in behavior change science. Therefore, the SOBC sees value in providing other researchers in the field with information regarding measures that work and measures that fall short for specific targets. Further, a measure that is not validated for one target in one population may be validated in another target or population.

Want to learn more? For any questions regarding the SOBC Validation Process or Measures Repository, please email info@scienceofbehaviorchange.org.

Identified

Has the mechanism been identified as a potential target for behavior change? This section summarizes theoretical support for the mechanism.

Measured

Have the psychometric properties of this measure been assessed? This section includes information such as content validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.

Influenced

Has a study manipulation led to change in the mechanism? This section addresses evidence that this measure is modifiable by experimental manipulation or clinical intervention.

Not Validated

Has a change in this mechanism been associated with behavior change? This section addresses empirical evidence that causing change in the measure reliably produces subsequent behavior change.