DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF AN INTERNATIONALLY

RELIABLE SHORT-FORM OF THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE

AFFECT SCHEDULE (PANAS)

EDMUND R. THOMPSON
Ritsumeikan University

This article reports the development and validation of a 10-item international Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS) Short Form (I-PANAS-SF) in English. A qualitative study (N = 18) and then an
exploratory quantitative study (N = 407), each using informants from a range of cultural backgrounds, were
used to identify systematically which 10 of the original 20 PANAS items to retain or remove. A same-
sample retest study (N = 163) was used in an initial examination of the new 10-item international PANAS’s
psychometric properties and to assess its correlation with the full, 20-item, original PANAS. In a series of
further validation studies (N = 1,789), the cross-sample stability, internal reliability, temporal stability, cross-
cultural factorial invariance, and convergent and criterion-related validities of the I-PANAS-SF were exam-
ined and found to be psychometrically acceptable.

Keywords: positive affect; negative affect; PANAS; international; cross-cultural; psychometric; scale
development; scale validation

Trait affect has long been a key personality construct in applied psychology (Bradburn,
1969; Zajonc, 1980) and is a variable of growing interest in cross-cultural research (Diener,
Oishi, & Lucas, 2003). The positive and negative dimensions of trait affect delineated by sev-
eral scholars (Diener & Emmons, 1984; Watson & Tellegan, 1985) have formed dependent,
independent, or control variables in numerous studies within and across diverse cultural set-
tings in several disciplines outside of psychology, from business (Staw & Barsade, 1993) to
politics (Levin & Sidanius, 1999). Advancing cross-cultural research on affect requires inter-
nationally valid, reliable, factorially stable, and directly comparable measures (Bontempo,
1993). However, cross-cultural research involving trait affect has been limited in regard to
valid measures because of two problems. First, the diversity and uneven reliability of mea-
surement scales used has compromised meaningful comparison of much existing research.
Second, although psychometrically sound measures of affect exist, notably Watson, Clark, and
Tellegen’s (1988) Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), there are very few well-
validated and reliable translations from their original English.
One viable solution in some circumstances to both these problems is, simply, to use
original English versions of affect measures, something that is becoming increasingly fea-
sible as larger numbers of people in many countries and in specific populations of research
interest become fluent in English. Indeed, this is an expedient that Egloff (1998) appears
to have taken in a study of German university students that uses the PANAS. Moreover, it

AUTHOR’S NOTE: David Watson, Lee Anna Clark, Auke Tellegen, and the American Psychological Association are thanked for
permission to use the original PANAS. Support for this research was provided by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
and Ritsumeikan University. Saulius Barauskas is thanked for first-class research assistance. The useful comments of Junko
Tanaka-Matsumi and two anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged.

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 38 No. 2, March 2007 227-242

DOI: 10.1177/0022022106297301
© 2007 Sage Publications
227
228 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

is an expedient that is greatly attractive in certain cross-cultural research settings where

multiple national and cultural backgrounds can be anticipated and are of specific interest
but cannot necessarily be precisely known in advance. For example, research populations
in many international firms and governmental bodies often comprise individuals from sev-
eral countries who, nevertheless, operate organizationally in English. Moreover, university
student samples, the mainstay of much cross-cultural psychology research, increasingly
comprise students from diverse national backgrounds who nevertheless study in English.
The measure of affect that suggests itself most plausibly as being a useful English
cross-cultural metric is the PANAS (Watson et al., 1988), which has been exceptionally
well validated and cited in more than 2,000 scholarly papers. However, the full 20-item
PANAS has two drawbacks for many cross-cultural settings. First, its emic development in
the United States means that it contains some words that either are colloquial to North
America or are ambiguous in “international” English, as demonstrated in validation stud-
ies (Crawford & Hendry, 2004). Second, although relatively short, the PANAS is still quite
long for studies involving numerous other variables or for use with time-constrained pop-
ulations, such as people in work environments or senior government and business execu-
tives, where respondent fatigue and disaffection through lengthy survey instruments need
to be avoided. The necessity for a brief measure of affect has been addressed by the devel-
opment of a truncated form of the PANAS by Kercher (1992). However, this 10-item
schedule has been criticized for not encompassing adequately the affect domains of the full
PANAS and for including several redundant items that spuriously inflate subscale reliabil-
ities (Mackinnon et al., 1999).
This article seeks to address these problems by developing an international-English
short form of the PANAS (a) that is suitable for use with competent but not necessarily
native-English speakers and (b) that encompasses as fully and nonredundantly as possible
the content domain of the original PANAS while simultaneously minimizing problems of
item vagueness and ambiguity.

CONCEPTIONS AND MEASUREMENT OF

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT

The cross-cultural universality of an affect structure that broadly divides into negative
affect (NA) and positive affect (PA) has been generally established (Almagor & Ben-
Porath, 1989). For example, the NA and PA dimensions of Russell’s (1980) circumplex
model of affect are consistently found to replicate across cultures even when its arousal
dimensions have not always emerged clearly (Russell, 1983; Russell, Lewicka, & Niit,
1989). However, comparative cross-cultural research specifically on positive and negative
elements of affect has been constrained by the use of differing conceptions of how each
affect dimension interrelates and by diverse and nonequivalent measures.
One conception of NA and PA accords with circumplex models in regarding each
dimension as opposite poles on a continuum. An early metric of affect incorporating this
bipolar conception is Nowlis’s (1965) Mood Adjective Checklist (MACL), which contains
36 items that have been used to measure PA and NA as a semantic differential continuum.
However, the MACL is off-puttingly long and has been shown to lack internal reliability
(Watson, 1988). Bradburn’s (1969) much shorter 10-item Affect Balance Scale (ABS)
measures affect as a net balance of bipolar NA and PA and has been translated for cross-
cultural research purposes into a handful of languages, namely Mexican Spanish (Tran &
 Thompson / INTERNATIONAL PANAS SHORT FORM 229

Williams, 1994), Cantonese, Vietnamese, and Laotian (Devins, Beiser, Dion, Pelletier, &
Edwards, 1997). However, the usefulness of the ABS is limited because it
suffers low internal reliability and poor convergent validity with other affect measures
(Watson, 1988), and, importantly, has been shown to lack cross-national validity in a
38-nation study (MacIntosh, 1998). Moreover, the ABS has repeatedly been found to
reveal two relatively unrelated PA and NA dimensions rather than the single affect con-
struct it was designed to measure (van Schuur & Kruijtbosch, 1995).
Observed empirical unrelatedness of PA and NA measures has lent support to a differ-
ent affect theory that conceptualizes it as constituting relatively discrete and uncorrelated
positive and negative dimensions. Whether or not PA and NA are in fact orthogonal or cor-
related dimensions has been, and remains, a controversial issue (Feldman Barrett &
Russell, 1998; Schmukle, Egloff & Burns, 2002). Diener and Emmons (1984) find that
trait affect conforms to a discrete components structure more than does state affect, with
this latter appearing to exhibit more of a bipolar structure, although Watson (1988) finds
little support for these differences. Warr, Barter, and Brownbridge (1983) find that
response format and items used to measure affect appear to influence the relationship
between PA and NA, for which Watson (1988) finds some support. Watson et al. (1988)
are of the view that PA and NA are broadly independent dimensions of affect and deliber-
ately set out to develop the PANAS as not just as a reliable and brief schedule of affect but
as an optimally “pure” means of measuring maximally orthogonal PA and NA dimensions
(p. 1064). Although they derive measures exhibiting only “quasi-independence” (p. 1066),
the conceptual basis of the PANAS as a measure of mostly discrete and lowly correlating
rather than related PA and NA dimensions has met with huge application by researchers
and substantial empirical support (DePaoli & Sweeney, 2000; Melvin & Molloy, 2000).
Cross-cultural research on PA and NA has been assisted to some extent by the transla-
tion of the PANAS into a limited number of European languages, including Catalan
(Fullana, Caseras, & Torrubia, 2003), Dutch (Hill, van Boxtel, Ponds, Houx, & Jolles,
2005), German (Krohne, Egloff, Kohlmann, & Tousch, 1996) Italian (Terracciano,
McCrae, & Costa, 2003), Russian (Balatsky & Diener, 1993), and Spanish (Joiner, Sandín,
Chorot, Lostao, & Marquina, 1997; Robles & Paez, 2003). However, comparative research
involving other cultural settings has been constrained by a lack of validated translations of
the PANAS into other languages.
In the absence of such translations, researchers have developed non-English scales of
PA and NA in ways that make them not directly comparable with the PANAS. Hamid and
Cheng (1996), for instance, used an emic word-generation procedure rather than etic trans-
lations from English to generate a Cantonese measure of PA and NA, whereas Yik and
Russell (2003) took a more etic approach based on several English affect measures
(Feldman Barrett & Russell, 1998; Larsen & Diener, 1992; Watson & Tellegen, 1985) to
develop another Cantonese PA and NA measure. In Japan, combinations of other mood
scales have been used to develop new Japanese-language measures of PA and NA that are,
again, not comparable directly with the PANAS or other affect measures (Ogawa, Monchi,
Kikuya, & Suzuki, 2000; Yasuda, Lubin, Kim, & van Whitlock, 2003). For Mexico,
Rodriguez and Church (2003) used lexicological procedures to develop new emic Mexican
Spanish PA and NA scales.
The use and development of a diverse range of affect measures will, of course, continue
to be necessary to advance research in some settings. Certainly, the diverse studies cited
above have been useful in confirming that PA and NA appear to constitute universal
230 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

dimensions of trait affect. Now that such studies have largely established the ubiquity of
affect’s positive and negative structure, the use of consistent metrics henceforth would help
facilitate cross-cultural research that directly builds on the huge wealth of existing affect
studies. Most particularly, given its deliberate aim of maximally assessing orthogonal con-
ceptions of PA and NA constructs and its frequent use in many existing research applica-
tions, the development of a short, valid, reliable, and internationally useable English
version of the PANAS would greatly facilitate research where cross-cultural comparisons
and effects are being investigated and for which adequate and comparable native-language
measures either do not exist or would be infeasible to administer.

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE PANAS AND ITS SHORT FORM

THE ORIGINAL PANAS

Watson et al. (1988) developed the PANAS using items from the PA and NA descriptor
word clusters detailed by Zevon and Tellegen (1982). The 20-item PANAS with its 10-item
PA and NA subscales has been validated in several settings inside and outside of the United
States, where it was developed, and has generally been shown to be reliable and consistently
reflective of the lowly, albeit significantly, correlating dimensions of PA and NA (DePaoli &
Sweeney, 2000; Melvin & Molloy, 2000). However, validation studies using structural equa-
tion modeling (Crawford & Hendry, 2004; Crocker, 1997) have found that best-fitting
models are achieved by specifying correlations between error in items that come from the
same word clusters that formed the item pool from which the PANAS was originally derived
(see Zevon & Tellegen, 1982, for descriptors in word clusters). Such item covariances sug-
gest considerable redundancy of the PANAS items closely related to each other in meaning.
Unsurprisingly, therefore, Crawford and Hendry’s (2004) analyses show clearly that the 10
items composing the NA scale form into five significantly covarying item pairs: distressed
and upset, guilty and ashamed, scared and afraid, nervous and jittery, and hostile and irrita-
ble. They also show that the 10 items of the PA scale form into four groups whose constituent
items respectively share variance. Two of these groups contain three covarying items each:
interested, alert and attentive, and excited, enthusiastic, and inspired. Two 2-item groups are
formed by proud and determined and by strong and active. The covariances between the
PANAS items revealed by Crawford and Hendry suggest scope for item reduction without
seriously attenuating the content domain of the PA and NA scales of the PANAS.

PANAS SHORT FORM

The only reduced form of the PANAS found in the literature is a 10-item version with
5-item PA and NA subscales (Kercher, 1992). Kercher (1992) did not use structural mod-
eling of covariance as a guide to item elimination but used instead the highest loading
items in the exploratory factor analyses reported by Watson et al. (1988). In consequence,
Kercher’s short form of the PANAS necessarily incorporates items that, as Mackinnon
et al. (1999) have shown, exhibit a high level of covariance and so, therefore, undesirably
diminish content validity while inflating reliability.
Specifically, Kercher’s short form PA subscale incorporates three substantially inter-
correlated items from one of the Zevon and Tellegen (1982) word clusters used to build the
PANAS, excited, enthusiastic, and inspired, plus the items alert and determined. Her NA
 Thompson / INTERNATIONAL PANAS SHORT FORM 231

subscale incorporates two pairs of highly correlated items, distressed and upset, and scared
and afraid, plus nervous. Confirmatory analyses performed on Kercher’s PANAS short
form by Mackinnon et al. (1999) reveal predictable covariances between items with
closely similar meanings. Indeed, Kercher (1992) herself highlights the strong covariance
between scared and afraid in postdevelopment confirmatory analyses she performed on
her short form. Such item redundancy necessarily results in suboptimal content domain
coverage, as noted by Mackinnon et al. (1999).
The full PANAS and Kercher’s short form also suffer from items with ambiguous or
unclear meanings to both native and nonnative English speakers. One PANAS item, jittery,
is classified as colloquial in most dictionaries and might be predicted to be little known by
nonnative English speakers. Moreover, Mackinnon et al. (1999) found that for an
Australian sample the item excited in the short form significantly correlates with both PA
and NA, suggesting that the word has dual meaning, at least in Australia.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHOD

Research was designed to develop from the full 20-item PANAS an internationally use-
able 10-item version. Following the guidelines for valid, reliable, and equivalent short form
development suggested by Stanton, Sinar, Balzer, and Smith (2002) and Smith, McCarthy,
and Anderson (2000), a series of qualitative and quantitative studies was undertaken using
participants from numerous nationalities and cultures, including countries that have never
appeared in literature on affect. The studies aimed to produce a 10-item international PANAS
short form that would (a) account for shortcomings highlighted above, (b) reflect items qual-
itatively assessed to be easy to understand and unambiguous in meaning across different
populations of nonnative English speakers, (c) exhibit strong psychometric properties con-
cerning reliability, cross-sample and temporal stability, and convergent and criterion-related
validity, and (d) provide evidence of cross-national structural equivalence.
Procedurally, to identify which items to remove or retain, a qualitative and then a quan-
titative evaluation of items was undertaken. This was then followed by a series of valida-
tion studies to examine and establish the psychometric properties of the new PANAS short
form. Research was specifically aimed at developing a measure for trait affect.

STUDY 1—QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF PANAS ITEMS

Two focus groups were conducted to investigate the clarity, ease of understanding, and
singularity of meaning of all PANAS items and thereby to provide an initial, qualitative
basis on which to identify poorly performing items for possible elimination.

Sample. Focus groups comprised 9 male and 9 female students at an international, English-
based university in Japan, who came variously from America, Burma, China, Hong Kong,
Hungary, Indonesia, Mexico, Mongolia, the Philippines, Thailand, Tonga, and Vietnam. All
were MBA students, average age 28, except 5 business undergraduates each aged 21.

Results. Some items were considered easy to understand but to have multiple meanings.
Excited was thought to incorporate both positive and negative connotations, the latter
being for some participants a meaning that might be interpreted as close to agitated, and
232 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

close to importunate for others. There was also some suggestion that excited represented
a feeling that was intrinsically transient and therefore more relevant to state than trait
affect. Proud also had a negative connotation, falling somewhere between arrogance and
disdain.
Other words were understood primarily in their literal sense and were, consequently,
largely shorn of the trait, if not necessarily always the state, affect assumed by the PANAS.
The item strong was taken in a literal sense and tended to be associated with physical rather
than the emotional or character strength intended by the authors of the PANAS. Interested
also fell into this literal category, being thought to indicate a state and to need an object of
application to have meaning. An NA item that was taken literally was guilty, which was
regarded as indicating technical culpability for a particular misdemeanor, specifically a crim-
inal offense, rather than a general feeling or mood. Scared was also regarded as a short-term
state in reaction to a given cause rather than a more permanent trait. One item, jittery, was
found to be not clearly understood by all nonnative English speakers.
It was also pointed out that the question and the interval measure suggested by Watson
et al. (1988) were somewhat confusing in that the posed question did not concur with the
response wordings. What Watson et al. in effect ask is, “Indicate to what extent you gen-
erally feel on average [whatever item],” to which it is not syntactically logical to answer
extremely, this being one pole label on the 5-point interval measure. It was further
remarked that the opposite to the pole label of very slightly or not at all used by Watson
et al. ought not to be extremely but more appropriately should be a lot or often so as to pro-
vide a more natural continuum of extent or prevalence of feeling.

STUDY 2—STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF PANAS ITEMS

A quantitative analytical strategy of using both factor analyses and scale reliability tests
was used (a) to examine statistically the wisdom and psychometric feasibility both of elim-
inating the above seven items found qualitatively to be problematic and (b) to identify
objectively a further three items for elimination while simultaneously preserving the con-
tent validity of the original PANAS as intact as possible (Haynes, Richard, & Kubany,
1995) and retaining the PA and NA constructs’ orthogonality.

Sample. This developmental sample comprised 217 males and 190 females from 38 dif-
ferent countries. In terms of age, 30% were younger than 25, 33% were 25 to 29, and 37%
were 30 or older. Some 88% had completed or were still taking undergraduate degrees.
The sample constituted a subsample of 517 participants who had completed a question-
naire on entrepreneurial intent and who identified themselves as proficient in reading, writ-
ing, and speaking English. The original sample of 517 comprised family and friends of a
class of MBA students at an English-based international university in Japan who volun-
teered to assist with research. As such, the sample perhaps represents the more affluent and
educated strata of individuals who might be encountered in numerous multicultural
research settings, such as transnational firms, intergovernmental organizations, or univer-
sity campuses.

Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses. A confirmatory factor analysis of the

full PANAS did not find adequate support for a well-fitting, two-component PA and NA
model, suggesting problematic performance of some items. The goodness of fit index
 Thompson / INTERNATIONAL PANAS SHORT FORM 233

TABLE 1
Factor Loadings of Exploratory Principal Component Analyses of Original Positive
and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) Items

Analysis of 10 Items
Analysis of Full PANASb Selected for Short Formc

Componentsa 1 2 1 2

PANAS items
Active .72 –.20 .74 –.19
Enthusiastic .72 –.10 — —
Determined .70 –.20 .77 –.16
Attentive .69 –.19 .77 –.15
Inspired .68 –.13 .71 –.10
Strong .63 –.26 — —
Interested .64 –.03 — —
Alert .60 –.08 .70 –.02
Excited .58 .20 — —
Proud .56 –.03 — —
Afraid –.19 .73 –.15 .75
Nervous .00 .72 .00 .76
Scared –.06 .70 — —
Upset –.09 .66 –.13 .68
Guilty –.14 .60 — —
Hostile –.14 .59 –.18 .63
Ashamed –.15 .58 –.11 .63
Jittery –.03 .58 — —
Irritable –.01 .56 — —
Distressed –.04 .28 — —

SOURCE: Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988).

NOTE: N = 407. Principal component analyses with varimax rotation. Item loadings above .30 are in bold.
a. Items appear in order of factor loadings of the full PANAS, not the original PANAS item order.
b. Analysis specifies two component solution.
c. Only the 10 best items from the PANAS are included in analysis.

(GFI) was .89, adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) was .87, comparative fit index (CFI)
was .87, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was .07, indicating that,
by the subjective criteria of fit measures (Bentler, 1988), the PANAS fell marginally short
of a well-fitting model. To help identify poorly performing items using this cross-national
sample, an exploratory principal component analysis with a varimax rotation was under-
taken. Specifying a two-component solution revealed the item strong to have a cross-loading
above the |.25| cutoff used by Watson et al. (1988) in the construction of the original PANAS
(see Table 1), a property that would attenuate the independence of the PA and NA subscales.
The items excited and proud had the lowest loadings on the PA component, perhaps reflec-
tive of their unclear meanings revealed in the qualitative study. The lowest loading three
items on the NA component were irritable, jittery, and, with a very low loading of just |.28|,
distressed.

Item purging. As a first step to reducing the full PANAS, items identified as problem-
atic in the qualitative focus groups were removed, and the reliabilities of the remaining
234 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

items of PA and NA subscales were then calculated. The alpha of .82 obtained for the full
10-item PANAS NA subscale was reduced to .74 after the problematic items of guilty, jit-
tery, and scared were removed. The item distressed prove to have a low item-total corre-
lation of just .20 and was therefore omitted. This left a choice for one further item removal
to be decided between hostile and irritable. The latter was omitted as its exclusion atten-
uated reliability the least. The retained five items of afraid, ashamed, hostile, nervous, and
upset had an acceptable alpha of .74 and together represented each of the five word clus-
ters used in the construction of the original PANAS NA subscale, thereby maintaining the
breadth of the original content domain coverage.
The reliability for the full 10-item PA subscale of .85 only marginally dropped to .82
after the problematic items identified in focus groups of excited, interested, proud, and
strong were removed. This small drop in reliability suggested that these items’ omission
eliminated problematic words that add little to internal reliability. To preserve the original
PANAS’s content domain as intact as possible, it was necessary to keep the items active
and determined, as these came from different word clusters used by Watson et al. (1988)
in the original PANAS’s development. Resultantly, one more item needed to be removed
from either the pair alert and attentive, or, alternatively, from the pair inspired and enthu-
siastic. Each item was removed in turn to assess attenuation of reliability. The resulting
Cronbach’s alphas were all very similar at around .80. Consequently, to determine which
item to remove, factor analyses of all possible PA item combinations together with the five
selected NA items were run to assess which item’s removal produced the factor structure
with the lowest cross-loadings and thereby the highest degree of overall orthogonality. In
the event, the removal of enthusiastic produced the best factor structure, with an average
item cross-loading of |.12|, and none above |.19|, lower than the |.25| cut-off used by
Watson et al. in the construction of the original PANAS (see Table 1). The five selected PA
items of active, alert, attentive, determined, and inspired had an alpha of .80 and compre-
hensively covered the word clusters used in the original PANAS and so, hence, the breadth
of its content domain.

Correlational equivalence. The PA and NA subscales of this reduced short form of the
PANAS were slightly more correlated with each other (r = –.32, p < .01) than the full PA
and NA subscales of the full PANAS (r = –.29, p < .01). However, although these correla-
tions are above the maximum –.23 reported by Watson et al. (1988) in their development
of the full PANAS, they are similar to the larger correlations of –.30 and –.35 reported by,
respectively, DePaoli and Sweeney (2000) and Crawford and Hendry (2004). The correla-
tions between the short and full form subscales were .92 (p < .01) for PA and .95 (p < .01)
for NA. Mean scores for PA and NA subscales of the short form were, respectively, 19.15
(SD = 2.77) and 12.73 (SD = 3.01), roughly half the mean scores of 38.39 (SD = 4.87) and
25.85 (SD = 5.16) found, respectively, for the full PANAS.

STUDY 3—SAME-SAMPLE RETEST

A retest was undertaken with the original development sample for two reasons: (a) to
test if the 10-item International PANAS Short Form (I-PANAS-SF; see Appendix) would
retain adequate psychometric properties when administered as a standalone schedule inde-
pendent of the purged items and (b) to examine whether or not the I-PANAS-SF would
 Thompson / INTERNATIONAL PANAS SHORT FORM 235

TABLE 2
International Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Short Form
(I-PANAS-SF) Exploratory Factor Analyses Loadings and Reliabilities for
Developmental and Validation Samples

Positive Affect Negative Affect

Developmental Validation Validation Validation Development Validation Validation Validation

Sample Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Determined .83 .70 .76 .75 –.14 –.18 –.03 –.12

Attentive .79 .71 .75 .70 –.1 –.19 –.08 –.13
Alert .71 .66 .75 .59 .02 .17 .08 .02
Inspired .65 .65 .61 .67 –.05 –.14 –.24 –.05
Active .61 .66 .66 .68 –.33 –.24 –.24 –.24
Afraid –.07 –.15 –.10 –.08 .81 .77 .81 .76
Nervous –.10 –.11 –.03 –.02 .74 .74 .76 .75
Upset .02 –.05 –.05 –.06 .72 .68 .69 .71
Ashamed –.21 –.19 –.16 –.13 .63 .66 .68 .67
Hostile –.11 –.08 –.09 –.15 .63 .63 .59 .55
Cronbach’s α .78 .78 .76 .73 .76 .76 .76 .72

NOTE: Developmental sample 1 n = 163; validation sample 1 n = 444; validation sample 2 n = 383; validation
sample 3 n = 962. Principal component analyses with varimax rotation. Items are in order of factor loadings for
the developmental sample. Item loadings above .30 are in bold.

correlate at a high enough level with the original full PANAS to be assured that it still mea-
sured the same PA and NA constructs (Smith et al., 2000).

Sample and procedure. Of the original developmental sample of 407, 302 had agreed to
participate in further research. Two months after administering the test questionnaire, these
volunteers were sent a retest questionnaire incorporating the new 10-item I-PANAS-SF. In
an effort to make the question-stem wording both briefer and more syntactically logical
than Watson et al.’s (1988) original, the question was changed to “Thinking about yourself
and how you normally feel, to what extent do you generally feel [item],” and the 5-point
interval measure was anchored never and always. Full responses that could with complete
certainty be matched with test responses were received from 163 participants.

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. An exploratory principal component

analysis with varimax rotation produced a two-factor PA and NA subscale structure (see
Table 2), indicating that the items and revised question wording of the I-PANAS-SF suc-
cessfully tap and reflect the same components of PA and NA of the full PANAS as
intended by Watson et al. (1988). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the goodness of
fit of a two-factor structure, with GFI being .94, AGFI being .90, CFI being .94, and
RMSEA being .066, with a lower bound of .035.
The I-PANAS-SF PA and NA subscales had Cronbach’s alphas of, respectively, .78 and
.76, indicating adequate reliability. The correlation between the two subscales was –.29
(p < .01). The I-PANAS-SF PA subscale had a correlation with the full PANAS PA sub-
scale of .65 (p < .01), and the respective NA subscales had a correlation of .59 (p < .01).
These correlations are similar to the 2-month test-retest reliabilities Watson et al. (1988)
236 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

report for the original PANAS, suggesting that the 10-item I-PANAS-SF compares well
with the full 20-item original in terms of both correlating with the original full form and
temporal stability, both important aspects of short form development (Stanton et al., 2002).

STUDY 4—DIFFERENT-SAMPLE VALIDATIONS

Having found the 10-item I-PANAS-SF’s factorial structure and psychometric proper-
ties to be acceptable in an initial development sample, it was necessary to test the gener-
alizability of these properties across different validation samples.

Samples and procedure. The 10-item I-PANAS-SF was incorporated into three differ-
ent survey instruments that were completed by three new and separate samples that were
derived in a similar manner to the sample used for the developmental studies above. Each
validation sample was entirely independent one from another.
Validation Sample 1 comprised 207 males and 237 females from 52 different countries.
In all, 24% were younger than 25 years old, 36% were 25 to 29, and the rest were 30 or
older. Validation Sample 2 comprised 181 males and 202 females from 47 countries, and
32% were younger than 25, 22% were 25 to 29, and the rest were 30 or older. Validation
Sample 3 comprised 431 males and 531 females from 66 different countries, half being
older than 25 years old. More than 90% of all three samples had completed or were still
taking undergraduate degrees.

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Exploratory principal component analy-

ses of the I-PANAS-SF for each of the three validation samples produced two-component
PA and NA factor structures with no cross-loadings above the |.25| used by Watson et al.
(1988) as an upper bound cutoff in the development of the original PANAS (Table 2).
Across the three samples, the mean item loading for NA was |.70|, with the mean cross-
loading being |.14|; respective figures for PA were |.69| and |.10|. Scale reliabilities across
the three samples prove to be adequate, with their mean Cronbach’s alphas being .76 for
NA and .75 for PA. Confirmatory factor analyses for each sample and a pooled sample of
all three supported the factorial consistency of the I-PANAS-SF, with fit indices averaged
across the three samples and for the pooled sample all indicating adequate fit for the two-
component PA and NA structure. The degree of orthogonality of the PA and NA subscales
was reasonably consistent across the three discrete validation samples, with correlations
ranging from –.25 to –.32, in line with the “quasi-independence” of the full PANAS
(Watson et al., 1988, p. 1066).

Test-retest reliability. To examine the temporal stability of the I-PANAS-SF, it was

included in a follow-up questionnaire sent to 318 volunteers from the 444 Validation
Sample 1 respondents. The retest took place 8 weeks after the test and resulted in 143 ver-
ifiably matchable responses. The test-retest coefficient of reliability for both the PA and
NA subscales turned out to be the same, at .84 (p < .01), suggesting acceptable medium-
run temporal stability. These retest values are a little higher than the .68 and .71 for PA and
NA, respectively, reported by Watson et al. (1988) for an 8-week retest, perhaps reflecting
a reduction in temporal variance that results from the elimination of the least well-
performing items.
 Thompson / INTERNATIONAL PANAS SHORT FORM 237

Convergent and criterion-related validity. The convergent validity of the I-PANAS-SF

was tested using Diener’s (1984) five-item measure of subjective well-being (SWB) and
Lyubomirsky and Lepper’s (1999) four-item subjective happiness scale using the pooled
validation samples. As might be predicted, the PA subscale did indeed correlate positively
with both SWB (r = .33, p < .01) and happiness (r = .39, p < .01). Moreover, the NA
subscale negatively correlated with both SWB (r = –.33, p < .01) and happiness (r = –.51,
p < .01). Hence, convergent validity was lent support. Partial correlations were also run to
control for covariance between PA and NA: PA uniquely correlated with SWB (r = .26, p <
.01) and happiness (r = .29, p < .01) when controlling for NA; NA uniquely correlated with
SWB (r = –.30, p < .01) and happiness (r = –.45, p < .01) when controlling for PA. These
partial correlations lend further support both to the convergent validity of the I-PANAS-SF
and to its ability to measure PA and NA as discrete and lowly correlating constructs.
Establishing criterion-related validity is notoriously problematic because, in Nunnally
and Bernstein’s (1994) words, “obtaining a good criterion may actually be more difficult
than obtaining a good predictor” (p. 96). As the objective of criterion-related validity is to
establish whether or not a predictor correlates as anticipated with a variable external to the
measurement of the predictor, criterion-related validity was tested using gender and age.
Females have been found to score higher on NA and lower on PA than men (Fujita, Diener,
& Sandvik, 1991). Hence, each affect scale of the I-PANAS-SF should predictably corre-
late accordingly with gender as a criterion variable. Age is shown in several studies to cor-
relate positively with PA and inversely with NA (Charles, Reynolds, & Gatz, 2001;
Lawton, Kleban, & Dean, 1993). Therefore, it might be predicted that age will correlate
positively with the PA subscale but negatively with the NA subscale. In the event, being
female was in fact found to be positively but lowly correlated with NA (r = .06, p < .05),
but no significant relationship was found with PA, suggesting only partial support for
criterion-related validity using this criterion. Age was found to correlate as predicted with
both PA (r = .11, p < .01) and NA (r = –.18, p < .01), indicating some degree of criterion-
related validity using this criterion variable.

Cross-cultural validity. As a first step to establishing whether or not that the I-PANAS-
SF is appropriate for use across cultures, its measurement and factorial structure invari-
ances across native and nonnative English speakers were examined following structural
equation modeling procedures suggested by Byrne and Campbell (1999) for cross-cultural
measurement research. Simultaneous confirmatory factor analyses of the pooled sample
using native or nonnative English speaker as the grouping variable were run using covari-
ance matrices and maximum likelihood estimation in Amos 5.0 (Arbuckle, 2003).
No significant difference between the unconstrained model (χ2 = 336.59, 68 df) and a
model constraining measurement parameters only (χ2 = 343.18, df 76) was found (∆χ2 =
6.59, ∆df 8, p > .05), indicating cross-group equivalence of the I-PANAS-SF’s 10-item
parameters. This suggests that, for both native and nonnative English speakers, individual
items contribute in the same way toward each subscale. The difference between models
constraining structural covariance and not constraining structural covariance was also
insignificant (∆χ2 = 10.10, ∆df 11, p > .05), indicating cross-group factorial structure
invariance. Taken together, these tests indicate both the measurement and factorial equiv-
alence across native and nonnative English speakers of the I-PANAS-SF.
Descriptive statistics for countries with 25 or more cases are shown in Table 3. Also
shown in Table 3 are regressions of PA and NA against such countries controlling for age
238 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 3
Country Descriptives and Regressions

Positive Negative
Affect Affect Regressions

n M SD M SD Positive Affect Negative Affect

Age (0.03) 0.06* (0.03) –0.12***

Gender (0.13) –0.01 (0.14) 0.03
Australia 25 19.16 3.39 10.76 3.36 (0.55) –0.02 (0.59) –0.06**
Burma 97 19.09 2.11 13.00 2.70 (0.31) –0.05† (0.33) 0.08**
Canada 25 18.76 2.76 12.92 3.67 (0.55) –0.04 (0.59) 0.03
China 60 18.23 2.13 12.18 2.63 (0.37) –0.09*** (0.40) 0.00
Hungary 100 18.94 2.71 11.76 2.73 (0.30) –0.05† (0.33) –0.05†
India 39 19.56 2.85 11.72 3.02 (0.45) 0.00 (0.48) –0.03
Indonesia 162 18.51 2.46 12.98 2.70 (0.25) –0.11*** (0.27) 0.06*
Japanese 65 17.38 2.82 13.69 3.45 (0.36) –0.15*** (0.39) 0.09***
Malaysia 76 19.17 2.69 13.21 3.00 (0.34) –0.03 (0.36) 0.07**
Philippines 88 20.53 2.86 12.88 3.20 (0.31) 0.08** (0.34) 0.05†
Singapore 58 19.10 2.57 12.62 2.48 (0.38) –0.03 (0.41) 0.02
Taiwan 60 17.33 2.89 13.78 3.07 (0.37) –0.14*** (0.40) 0.08***
Thailand 84 19.39 2.63 14.25 2.98 (0.32) –0.01 (0.35) 0.13***
United Kingdom 29 19.48 2.89 11.21 2.04 (0.51) –0.01 (0.55) –0.03
United States 411 19.73 2.58 11.27 2.66 (0.20) 0.00 (0.22) –0.09**
Vietnam 77 18.26 2.44 12.06 2.73 (0.33) –0.10*** (0.36) –0.02
R2 .08 .10
Adjusted R2 .08 .09
F statistic 8.10*** 10.94***

NOTE: N = 1,789. Regressions are positive affect and negative affect, respectively, regressed on country dum-
mies, age, and gender. Figures in parentheses are standard errors. Constant not shown. Age runs from 15 to 84,
divided into 5-year categories. Gender is dummy coded with females 1. Countries with fewer than 25 cases con-
stitute contrast variable.
†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

and gender and using countries with fewer than 25 cases as a contrast. Regressions were
also run using a dummy variable, coded nonnative English 1, native English 0, while par-
tialing out country effects, age, and gender to see if language in and of itself appeared to
explain any significant variance in PA an NA. When this language dummy was added to
the models in Table 3, no additional variance was explained for either PA or NA, nor were
mediation effects evident through changes in the size or significance of countries’ stan-
dardized beta coefficients. Although straightforward interpretation of these results is com-
plicated by the potential confounding effects of the country dummies, it would appear that
being a native or nonnative English speaker has no significant effect on either PA and NA
scores produced by the I-PANAS-SF. As such, the differences evident in country betas and
mean scores shown in Table 3 are more likely the product of country-specific factors than
the fact of those respondents being native or nonnative speakers per se. Such country dif-
ferences, if found to be stable, might be the result of variation in affect across cultures or
the artifact of culturally specific response styles (Van Herk, Poortinga, & Verhallen, 2004),
such as the differential national acquiescence tendencies reported by Watkins and Cheung
(1995) or a combination of both. To test the stability of country scores, country samples
greater than 50 were randomly split, and student t tests run between the two halves. Of the
 Thompson / INTERNATIONAL PANAS SHORT FORM 239

11 countries tested, a significant difference was found only for PA for Taiwan (t = 2.20,
df 58, p = .059), suggesting the differential affect scores by country to be broadly stable.
To examine whether or not the I-PANAS-SF is peculiarly susceptible to country-
specific effects either in trait or response style, correlations between standardized within-
country scores for each affect measure with standardized scores for both SWB and happiness
were examined. Following Marshall (1997) and Shaffer, Crepaz, and Sun (2000), scores were
standardized using a z-transformation procedure. Correlations between the standardized
scores prove to be very similar to those between unstandardized scores, with differences in
magnitude of correlation ranging from only .07 to .09, indicating that the I-PANAS-SF is not
peculiarly prone to country-specific effects compared to the two convergent criteria variables
used.
Standardized within-country affect scores were also correlated with the criterion-
related variables of gender and age to assess criterion-related validity with country effects
removed. Correlations between age and, respectively, standardized PA (r = .05 p < .05) and
NA (r = –.11 p < .01) and between gender and standardized PA (r = .00 p > .10) and NA
(r = .04 p < .10) showed a similar pattern, although slightly lower magnitudes, to correla-
tions for unstandardized affect scores with age and gender, suggesting some indication that
the I-PANAS-SF captures individual-level affect largely independent of country effects.

DISCUSSION

LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

Although the samples used for these studies were large, adequate for the necessary sta-
tistical tests undertaken, and included participants from a wide range of cultural back-
grounds, the size of individual country samples was in many cases small, and all were
convenience rather than probabilistic samples. Consequently, further research with larger and
probabilistic country-specific samples will be needed to examine and disentangle potential
country-level effects attributable either to trait or to response-style effects, insofar as these
can practically be separated (Schimmack, Böckenholt, & Reisenzein, 2002; van de Vijver &
Leung, 2000). These developmental and validation studies have also been restricted in the
number of variables that have been used for convergent and criterion-related validity tests.
Although these tests have demonstrated some convergent and limited criterion-related valid-
ity, further research will be needed to examine the validity of the I-PANAS-SF in relation to
stress, psychopathology, and other measures used by Watson et al. (1988) in the development
of the original PANAS.

CONCLUSION

Putting aside the inevitable limitations and the need for further research that accompany
the development of any new metric, the systematic derivation and testing of the I-PANAS-
SF would seem to be adequate to the point whereby it can be offered for cross-cultural
English-based studies as a brief research tool that is reliable, valid, and efficient as a means
of measuring and further investigating PA and NA in the growing number of cross-cultural
research settings that require single-language instrumentation.
240 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

APPENDIX
The International Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Short Form (I-PANAS-SF)
Question, Measure, and Item Order

Question: Thinking about yourself and how you normally feel, to what extent do you generally feel:
Items in order:
Upset
Hostile
Alert
Ashamed
Inspired
Nervous
Determined
Attentive
Afraid
Active
Interval measure: never 1 2 3 4 5 always

REFERENCES

Almagor, M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1989). The 2-factor model of self-reported mood: A cross-cultural replication.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(1), 10-21.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). Amos 5.0 update to the Amos user’s guide. Chicago: SmallWaters.
Balatsky, G., & Diener, E. (1993). Subjective well-being among Russian students. Social Indicators Research,
28(3), 225-243.
Bentler, P. M. (1988). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Bontempo, R. (1993). Translation fidelity of psychological scales. An item response theory analysis of an indi-
vidualism scale. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 24(2), 149-166.
Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine.
Byrne, B. M., & Campbell, T. L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent mea-
surement and theoretical structure—A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30,
555-574.
Charles, S. T., Reynolds, C. A., & Gatz, M. (2001). Age-related differences and change in positive and negative
affect over 23 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 136-151.
Crawford, J. R., & Hendry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct valid-
ity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 43, 245-265.
Crocker, P. R. E. (1997). A confirmatory factor analysis of the positive affect negative affect schedule with a
youth sport sample. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19, 91-97.
DePaoli, L., & Sweeney, D. C. (2000). Further validation of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Journal
of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 561-568.
Devins, G. M., Beiser, M., Dion, R., Pelletier, L. G., & Edwards, R. G. (1997). Cross-cultural measurements of
psychological well-being: The psychometric equivalence of Cantonese, Vietnamese, and Laotian translations
of the affect balance scale. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 794-799.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.
Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 47, 1105-1117.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cog-
nitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403-425.
Egloff, B. (1998). The independence of positive and negative affect depends on the affect measure. Personality
and Individual Differences, 25, 1101-1109.
Feldman Barrett, L., & Russell, J. A. (1998). Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current affect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 967-984.
 Thompson / INTERNATIONAL PANAS SHORT FORM 241

Fujita, F., Diener, E., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Gender differences in negative affect and well-being—the case for
emotional intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 427-434.
Fullana, M. A., Caseras, X., & Torrubia, R. (2003). Psychometric properties of the Personal State Questionnaire
in a Catalan sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 605-611.
Hamid, P. N., & Cheng, S. T. (1996). The development and validation of an index of emotional disposition and
mood state: The Chinese Affect Scale. Education and Psychological Measurement, 56, 995-1014.
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A func-
tional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238-247.
Hill, R. D., van Boxtel, M. P. J., Ponds, R., Houx, P. J., & Jolles, J. (2005). Positive affect and its relationship to
free recall memory performance in a sample of older Dutch adults from the Maastricht Aging Study.
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20, 429-435.
Joiner, T. E., Sandín, B., Chorot, P., Lostao, L., & Marquina, G. (1997). Development and factor analytic valida-
tion of the SPANAS among women in Spain: (More) cross-cultural convergence in the structure of mood.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 600-615.
Kercher, K. (1992). Assessing subjective well-being in the old-old. The PANAS as a measure of orthogonal
dimensions of positive and negative affect. Research on Aging, 14, 131-168.
Krohne, H. W., Egloff, B., Kohlmann, C. W., & Tousch, A. (1996). Investigations with a German version of the
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Diagnostica, 42, 139-156.
Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Problems and promises with the circumplex model of emotion. Review of
Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 25-59.
Lawton, M. P., Kleban, M. H., & Dean, J. (1993). Affect and age: Cross-sectional comparisons of structure and
prevalence. Psychology and Aging, 8, 165-175.
Levin, S., & Sidaníus, J. (1999). Social dominance and social identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup
favoritism or outgroup derogation? Political Psychology, 20, 99-126.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and con-
struct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137-155.
MacIntosh, R. (1998). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Affect Balance Scale in 38 nations: A research note.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 83-91.
Mackinnon, A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, P. A., & Rodgers, B. (1999). A short form
of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: Evaluation of factorial validity and invariance across demo-
graphic variables in a community sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 405-416.
Marshall, R. (1997). Variances in levels of individualism across two cultures and three social classes. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(4), 490-495.
Melvin, G. A., & Molloy, G. N. (2000). Some psychometric properties of the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule among Australian youth. Psychological Reports, 86, 1209-1212.
Nowlis, V. (1965). Research with the Mood Adjective Checklist. In S. S. Thomkins & C. E. Izard (Eds.), Affect,
cognition and personality (pp. 352-389). New York: Springer.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
Ogawa, T., Monchi, R., Kikuya, M., & Suzuki, N. (2000). Development of the general affect scales. Japanese
Journal of Psychology, 71, 241-246.
Robles, R., & Paez, F. (2003). Study of Spanish translation and psychometric properties of the Positive and
Negative Affect Scales (PANAS). Salud Mental, 26, 69-75.
Rodriguez, C., & Church, A. T. (2003). The structure and personality correlates of affect in Mexico—Evidence
of cross-cultural comparability using the Spanish language. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34,
211-230.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161-1178.
Russell, J. A. (1983). Pancultural aspects of the human conceptual organization of emotions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1281-1288.
Russell, J. A., Lewicka, M., & Niit, T. (1989). A cross-cultural study of a circumplex model of affect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 848-856.
Schimmack, U., Böckenholt, U., & Reisenzein, R. (2002). Response styles in affect ratings: Making a mountain
out of a molehill. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 461-483.
Schmukle, S. C., Egloff, B., & Burns, L. R. (2002). The relationship between positive and negative affect in the
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 463-475.
Shaffer, D. R., Crepaz, N., & Sun, C. R. (2000). Physical attractiveness stereotyping in cross-cultural perspec-
tive. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(5), 557-582.
242 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological
Assessment, 12, 102-111.
Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K., & Smith, P. C. (2002). Issues and strategies for reducing the length of
self-report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55, 167-194.
Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38,
304-331.
Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., & Costa P. T. (2003). Factorial and construct validity of the Italian Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 131-141.
Tran, T. V., & Williams, L. F. (1994). Effect of language of interview on the validity and reliability of psycho-
logical well-being scales. Social Work Research, 18, 17-25.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2000). Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 33-51.
van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y. H., & Verhallen, T. M. M. (2004). Response styles in rating scales: Evidence of
method bias in data from six EU countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 346-360.
van Schuur, W. H., & Kruijtbosch, M. (1995). Measuring subjective well-being: Unfolding the Bradburn Affect
Balance Scale. Social Indicators Research, 36, 49-74.
Warr, P., Barter, J., & Brownbridge, G. (1983). On the independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 644-651.
Watkins, D., & Cheung, S. (1995). Culture, gender and response bias. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26,
490-504.
Watson, D. (1988). The vicissitudes of mood measurement—effects of varying descriptors, time frames, and
response formats on measures of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
55(1), 128-141.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and
negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 219-235.
Yasuda, T., Lubin, B., Kim, J., & van Whitlock, R. (2003). The Japanese version of the multiple affect adjective
checklist-revised: development and validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 93-109.
Yik, M. S. M., & Russell, J. A. (2003). Chinese affect circumplex: I. Structure of recalled momentary affect.
Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 185-200.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking. Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.
Zevon, M. A., & Tellegen, A. (1982). The structure of mood change: An idiographic nomothetic analysis. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 111-112.

Edmund R. Thompson got his PhD from the London School of Economics. He is a professor at the
Graduate School of Management, Ritsumeikan University, Japan. His research interests include interna-
tional management and the impact on this of individual and social psychology.