Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tolerance of Negative Affective States (TNAS): Development and Evaluation of a Novel Construct and Measure

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognitive Therapy and Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the present research was to develop and evaluate a novel conceptual model and measure of Tolerance of Negative Affective States (TNAS). Exploratory factor and parallel analyses and subsequent confirmatory factor analyses supported a hierarchical multi-dimensional model of TNAS. We observed one higher-order factor, labeled Tolerance of Negative Emotions, and six lower-order factors, including, FI Tolerance of Fear-Distress, FII Tolerance of Sadness-Depression, FIII Tolerance of Anger, FIV Tolerance of Disgust, FV Tolerance of Anxious-Apprehension, and FVI Tolerance of Negative Social Emotions. A series of tests documented that TNASS sub-scale scores demonstrate internal consistency as well as convergent and discriminant validity. We discuss the findings with respect to understanding the nature of the emergent TNAS construct and its measurement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In contrast to other identified emotions and affective states, the emotion construct/term contempt was not included. Relative to other emotions, contempt has been identified as potentially unfamiliar and inaccessible and therefore unreliably reported upon by research subjects (Wagner 2000). Moreover, relative to other identified affective states, contempt has been scrutinized as a discrete emotion (Russell 1994).

References

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

  • Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, D. H., Allen, L. B., & Choate, M. L. (2004). Toward a unified treatment for emotional disorders. Behavior Therapy, 35, 205–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588.

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, A., Trafton, J., Ilgen, M., & Zvolensky, M. J. (2008). An evaluation of the role of smoking context on a biobehavioral index of distress tolerance. Addictive Behaviors, 33, 1409–1415.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, A., Zvolensky, M. J., Vujanovic, A. A., & Moos, R. (2009). Anxiety sensitivity, distress tolerance, and discomfort intolerance: A hierarchical model of affect sensitivity and Tolerance. Behavior Therapy, 40, 291–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, A., Marshall-Berenz, E. C., & Zvolensky, M. J. (2011a). Multi-method evaluation of distress tolerance measures and construct(s): Concurrent relations to mood and anxiety psychopathology and quality of life. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 2(3), 386–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, A., Vujanovic, A. A., Leyro, T., & Zvolensky, M. J. (2011b). Distress tolerance: Research synthesis and future directions. In M. J. Zvolensky, A. Bernstein, & A. A. Vujanovic (Eds.), Distress tolerance. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 822–848. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

  • Byrne, B. M. (2009). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. (1999). Basic emotions. In T. Dalgleish & M. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geisinger, K. F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6, 304–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch, R. (1983). Factor Analysis. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., Wilson, K. G., Bissett, R. T., Pistorello, J., & Toarmino, D. (2004). Measuring experiential avoidance: A preliminary test of a working model. Psychological Record, 54, 553–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling. Concepts, Issues, and Applications (pp. 76–99). London: Sage.

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

  • Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Izard. C. E., Dougherty. F. E., Bloxom. B. M. L., and Kotsch, W. E. (1974). The Differential Emotions Scale: A method of measuring the subjective experience of discrete emotions. Unpublished manuscript. Vanderbilt University. Nashville. TN.

  • Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1996). LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

  • James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D. (1995). The signs of appeasement: Evidence for the distinct displays of embarrassment, amusement and shame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 441–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, R. J., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1999). Measurement issues in emotion research. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 40–60). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leyro, T. M., Zvolensky, M. J., & Bernstein, A. (2010). Distress tolerance and psychopathological symptoms and disorders: A review of the empirical literature among adults. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 576–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (1985). Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in addictive behavior change. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003). Personality traits (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McHugh, R. K., Daughters, S. B., Lejuez, C. W., Murray, H. W., Hearon, B. A., Gorka, S. M., and Otto, M. W. (2011). Shared variance among self-report and behavioral measures of distress intolerance. Journal of Cognitive Therapy and Research, 35(3), 266–275. doi:10.1007/s10608-010-9295-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, C. N. (2007). Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: A commentary and elaboration on barrett (2007). Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 859–867.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computer, 32, 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olatunji, B. O., & Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B. (2009). Anxiety sensitivity and the anxiety disorders: A meta-analytic review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 974–999.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orsillo, S. M., & Roemer, L. (2005). Acceptance and mindfulness-based approaches to anxiety: Conceptualization and treatment. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J. A. (1994). Is there universal recognition of emotion from facial expression? Psychological Bulletin, 115, 102–141.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling, Second edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Simons, J., & Gaher, R. (2005). The Distress Tolerance Scale: Development and validation of a self report measure. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 83–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Are shame, guilt, and embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1256–1269.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, H. L. (2000). The accessibility of the term “contempt” and the meaning of the unilateral lip curl. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 689–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of the brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zvolensky, M. J., Arrindell, W. A., Taylor, S., Bouvard, M., Cox, B. J., & Stewart, S. H. (2003). Anxiety sensitivity in six countries. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 841–859.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zvolensky, M. J., Vujanovic, A. A., Bernstein, A., & Leyro, T. (2010). Distress tolerance: Theory, measurement, and relations to psychopathologyy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 406–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zvolensky, M. J., Bernstein, A., & Vujanovic, A. A. (Eds.). (2011a). Distress tolerance. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zvolensky, M. J., Leyro, T., Bernstein, A., & Vujanovic, A. A. (2011b). Distress tolerance: Historical perspectives, theory, and measurement. In M. J. Zvolensky, A. Bernstein, & A. A. Vujanovic (Eds.), Distress tolerance. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Dr. Bernstein recognizes the funding support from the Israeli Council for Higher Education Yigal Alon Fellowship, the European Union FP-7 Marie Curie Fellowship International Reintegration Grant, the Israel Science Foundation, the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical LRP, Psychology Beyond Borders Mission Award, the University of Haifa Research Authority, and the Rothschild-Caesarea Foundation’s Returning Scientists Project at the University of Haifa.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, 31905, Haifa, Israel

    Amit Bernstein & Hadas Brantz

Authors
  1. Amit Bernstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hadas Brantz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amit Bernstein.

Appendix 1: TNASS

Appendix 1: TNASS

Below, you will be asked to rate how tolerant you are of a number of emotions.

First, please read the following description of tolerance and intolerance of emotions until it is clear to you.

Now, please think about instances in the past year in which you felt each emotion listed below. Then, please rate how tolerant you typically were of feeling each emotion over the past year.

Please check only one box per emotion item below. Please complete all items. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bernstein, A., Brantz, H. Tolerance of Negative Affective States (TNAS): Development and Evaluation of a Novel Construct and Measure. Cogn Ther Res 37, 421–433 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-012-9471-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-012-9471-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation