Mood states and vigorIn past resear

Mood states and vigor
In past research, vigor has been studied predominantly as a mood state, hardly as an emotion, and primarily in clinical samples. However, in actual research practice, virtually identical techniques, such as gift-giving, were used for inducing positive moods as well as positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2002). The Profile of Mood States (POMS). The Profile of Mood States (POMS: McNair et al., 1971) was one of the earliest measures of any positive mood, and included, among the six subscales of different moods, an eight-item subscale gauging vigor, using items like feeling cheerful, lively, alert, active and vigorous. In the studies using the POMS, results that concern the vigor subscale have often been reported. In the area of sports psychology, a recent meta-analysis of studies that have used the POMS in association with either athletic achievement or athletic performance (Beedie et al., 2000) found a moderate effect size between the POMS vigor subscale and performance outcomes. Studies that have used the POMS and its vigor subscale to predict physiological outcomes abound in the literature. For example, the vigor subscale was found to positively predict sleep quality (Bardwell et al., 1999), as well as shorter duration of recovery from injury (Quinn and Fallon, 1999). As Payne (2001) noted, different aspects of the construct validity of this scale have been extensively studied, but primarily with clinical samples such as cancer patients, drug abusers and brief psychotherapy patients, with hardly any past use in work organizations.

Other measures of vigor as a mood state. Following the above limitations of POMS, the Brunel Mood Scale, largely based on it and including simplified items but the same dimensions as POMS, was developed (Terry et al., 1999). Its vigor scale was found to be positively associated with athletic (Lane and Lane, 2002) and scholastic (Lane et al., 2005) performance. Yet another widely used measure of mood is the Activation-Deactivation Adjective Check List, available in short and long forms (Thayer, 1996). It includes a subscale that gauges energy level. Mood inventories developed by other researchers also include measures of vigor or energy levels. The UWIST Mood Adjective Checklist (Matthews et al., 1990) includes a subscale of energetic arousal that contained eight items, including the four items of ‘active’, ‘energetic’, ‘alert’, and ‘vigorous’, and also four tiredness items, like ‘sluggish’, ‘tired’, and ‘passive’ (Payne, 2001). Matthews et al. (1990) reported that the subscale of energetic arousal was negatively correlated with workload and that it was the only mood measure sensitive to drugs. This review of past attempts to gauge vigor leads to the following conclusions. First, vigor has hardly been studied at work; in most past studies, respondents were mentally ill persons, students, or sportsmen. Second, in all past research, vigor has been conceptualized to reflect one form of energy – physical strength. This differs from the current focus on vigor as an affective experience at work reflecting three interrelated forms of energetic resources. Third, most measures of vigor as a mood state were based on the theoretical position that the pair of vigor and fatigue, burnout or tiredness represents bipolar affective states that cannot be experienced simultaneously. This theoretical position is reflected in the practice of reverse-scoring tiredness or fatigue items in the vigor scales to arrive at a total score representing the positive mood of vigor. This practice has been followed by several researchers who have assessed vigor either as a component of job-related affective well-being (Daniels, 2000; Payne, 2001), or as a stress reaction (Williams and Cooper, 1998). In contrast, I argue for the theoretical position that vigor and burnout are obliquely related and do not represent the extreme poles of the same continuum, perhaps with the exception of situations characterized by very high levels of stress (Reich and Zautra, 2002). This theoretical position rests first on the fact that the biological systems underlying approach and avoidance activations have been shown to be basically independent (Cacioppo et al., 1999). Second, positive and negative affective states are physiologically represented in different systems (Davidson, 2000). Third, positive and negative affective states are known to have different antecedents (Baumeister et al., 2001), may function relatively independently (Davis et al., 2004), and are differentially represented in peoples’ behaviors (Gendolla, 2000). Therefore, it could be concluded that the affective state structure is flexible, and that the relationships between positive and negative affective states is not bipolar but bivariate. The set of studies on engagement by Schaufeli and his colleagues (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004) is not covered here because these investigators have defined the vigor component in the conceptualization of engagement as comprising high levels of energy, motivation to invest effort at work, and resilience; it follows that they refer to vigor as a cluster of different evaluative or attitudinal facets and not as an affective state. In sharp contrast, vigor, as conceptualized in this chapter, refers to it as an affective state and does not confound it with motivational processes or with individuals’ behaviors following encounters with adverse events – namely resilience (Davidson, 2000). Vigor at work can be experienced with or without encounters with adverse events. While I have proposed above that vigor and motivation to invest effort at work are closely related, they belong to different conceptual domains, those of affect and action orientations, respectively.

Results (Indonesian) 1:

Serikat suasana hati dan semangatDi masa lalu penelitian, semangat telah dipelajari dominan sebagai negara suasana hati, tidak sebagai emosi, dan terutama dalam klinis sampel. Namun, dalam prakteknya sebenarnya penelitian, hampir identik teknik, seperti pemberian hadiah, yang digunakan untuk merangsang positif moods serta emosi positif (Fredrickson, 2002). Profil negara Mood (POM). Profil Mood Serikat (POM: McNair et al., 1971) adalah salah satu langkah-langkah awal setiap suasana hati yang positif, dan termasuk, antara subscales enam dari berbagai suasana hati, delapan-item subscale mengukur semangat, menggunakan barang-barang seperti merasa ceria, ramai, waspada, aktif dan kuat. Dalam studi yang menggunakan POM, hasil yang menyangkut subscale semangat sering telah dilaporkan. Dalam bidang psikologi olahraga, meta-analisis terbaru studi yang telah digunakan sebagai dalam asosiasi dengan prestasi atletik atau kinerja atletik (Beedie et al., 2000) menemukan ukuran moderat efek antara POM Semangat hasil subscale dan kinerja. Studi yang telah menggunakan POM dan subscale semangat yang memprediksi hasil fisiologis berlimpah dalam literatur. Sebagai contoh, subscale semangat ditemukan untuk positif memprediksi kualitas tidur (Bardwell et al., 1999), serta durasi yang lebih singkat pemulihan dari cedera (Quinn dan Fallon, 1999). Sebagai Payne (2001) mencatat, berbagai aspek validitas membangun skala ini telah diteliti secara ekstensif, tetapi terutama dengan sampel klinis seperti pasien kanker, obat pelaku dan psikoterapi singkat pasien, dengan hampir tidak ada masa lalu menggunakan dalam kerja organisasi. Other measures of vigor as a mood state. Following the above limitations of POMS, the Brunel Mood Scale, largely based on it and including simplified items but the same dimensions as POMS, was developed (Terry et al., 1999). Its vigor scale was found to be positively associated with athletic (Lane and Lane, 2002) and scholastic (Lane et al., 2005) performance. Yet another widely used measure of mood is the Activation-Deactivation Adjective Check List, available in short and long forms (Thayer, 1996). It includes a subscale that gauges energy level. Mood inventories developed by other researchers also include measures of vigor or energy levels. The UWIST Mood Adjective Checklist (Matthews et al., 1990) includes a subscale of energetic arousal that contained eight items, including the four items of ‘active’, ‘energetic’, ‘alert’, and ‘vigorous’, and also four tiredness items, like ‘sluggish’, ‘tired’, and ‘passive’ (Payne, 2001). Matthews et al. (1990) reported that the subscale of energetic arousal was negatively correlated with workload and that it was the only mood measure sensitive to drugs. This review of past attempts to gauge vigor leads to the following conclusions. First, vigor has hardly been studied at work; in most past studies, respondents were mentally ill persons, students, or sportsmen. Second, in all past research, vigor has been conceptualized to reflect one form of energy – physical strength. This differs from the current focus on vigor as an affective experience at work reflecting three interrelated forms of energetic resources. Third, most measures of vigor as a mood state were based on the theoretical position that the pair of vigor and fatigue, burnout or tiredness represents bipolar affective states that cannot be experienced simultaneously. This theoretical position is reflected in the practice of reverse-scoring tiredness or fatigue items in the vigor scales to arrive at a total score representing the positive mood of vigor. This practice has been followed by several researchers who have assessed vigor either as a component of job-related affective well-being (Daniels, 2000; Payne, 2001), or as a stress reaction (Williams and Cooper, 1998). In contrast, I argue for the theoretical position that vigor and burnout are obliquely related and do not represent the extreme poles of the same continuum, perhaps with the exception of situations characterized by very high levels of stress (Reich and Zautra, 2002). This theoretical position rests first on the fact that the biological systems underlying approach and avoidance activations have been shown to be basically independent (Cacioppo et al., 1999). Second, positive and negative affective states are physiologically represented in different systems (Davidson, 2000). Third, positive and negative affective states are known to have different antecedents (Baumeister et al., 2001), may function relatively independently (Davis et al., 2004), and are differentially represented in peoples’ behaviors (Gendolla, 2000). Therefore, it could be concluded that the affective state structure is flexible, and that the relationships between positive and negative affective states is not bipolar but bivariate. The set of studies on engagement by Schaufeli and his colleagues (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004) is not covered here because these investigators have defined the vigor component in the conceptualization of engagement as comprising high levels of energy, motivation to invest effort at work, and resilience; it follows that they refer to vigor as a cluster of different evaluative or attitudinal facets and not as an affective state. In sharp contrast, vigor, as conceptualized in this chapter, refers to it as an affective state and does not confound it with motivational processes or with individuals’ behaviors following encounters with adverse events – namely resilience (Davidson, 2000). Vigor at work can be experienced with or without encounters with adverse events. While I have proposed above that vigor and motivation to invest effort at work are closely related, they belong to different conceptual domains, those of affect and action orientations, respectively.