Content uploaded by David Bryce Yaden
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Bryce Yaden on Jul 18, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpos20
The Journal of Positive Psychology
Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice
ISSN: 1743-9760 (Print) 1743-9779 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20
The development of the Awe Experience Scale
(AWE-S): A multifactorial measure for a complex
emotion
David B. Yaden, Scott Barry Kaufman, Elizabeth Hyde, Alice Chirico, Andrea
Gaggioli, Jia Wei Zhang & Dacher Keltner
To cite this article: David B. Yaden, Scott Barry Kaufman, Elizabeth Hyde, Alice Chirico, Andrea
Gaggioli, Jia Wei Zhang & Dacher Keltner (2018): The development of the Awe Experience Scale
(AWE-S): A multifactorial measure for a complex emotion, The Journal of Positive Psychology
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1484940
Published online: 18 Jul 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
View Crossmark data
The development of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A multifactorial
measure for a complex emotion
David B. Yaden
a
, Scott Barry Kaufman
a
, Elizabeth Hyde
a
, Alice Chirico
b
, Andrea Gaggioli
b
, Jia Wei Zhang
c
and Dacher Keltner
d
a
Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA;
b
Department of Psychology, Università Cattolica del Sacro
Cuore di Milano, Italy;
c
Department of Psychology, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA;
d
Department of Psychology, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, USA
ABSTRACT
Awe is a complex emotion composed of an appraisal of vastness and a need for accommodation.
The purpose of this study was to develop a robust state measure of awe, the Awe Experience
Scale (AWE-S), based on the extant experimental literature. In study 1, participants (N = 501)
wrote about an intense moment of awe that they had experienced and then completed a survey
about their experience. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a 6-factor structure, including: altered
time perception (F1); self-diminishment (F2); connectedness (F3); perceived vastness (F4); physical
sensations (F5); need for accommodation (F6). Internal consistency was strong for each factor
(α≥.80). Study 2 confirmed the 6-factor structure (N = 636) using fit indices (CFI = .905;
RMSEA = .054). Each factor of the AWE-S is significantly correlated with the awe items of the
modified Differential Emotions Scale (mDES) and Dispositional Positive Emotion Scale (D-PES).
Triggers, valence, and themes associated with awe experiences are reported.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 8 November 2017
Accepted 4 May 2018
KEYWORDS
Awe; emotion; scale;
self-transcendent
experience; factor analysis
Introduction
‘If you think of feelings you have when you are awed by
something –for example, knowing that elements in your
body trace to exploded stars –I call that a spiritual reac-
tion, speaking of awe and majesty, where words fail you.’
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Awe has a long history in philosophy, particularly in
the domain of aesthetics and religious or spiritual experi-
ences. Both Edmund Burke’s(1759/1970 and Immanuel
Kant’s(1764/2007) analyses of the sublime as a compel-
ling experience that transcends one’s perception of
beauty to something more profound are couched in
terms that seem synonymous with the modern under-
standing of awe. Charles Darwin likewise discussed the
capacity for and importance of the emotion of ‘wonder,’
a word that is also closely related to awe. In The Varieties
of Religious Experience (1902/1936), William James
brought intense experiences of awe into the domain of
psychology. Later, Abraham Maslow provided a more
secularized and straightforwardly positive assessment of
awe, characterizing the capacity to experience this emo-
tion as an essential component of the good life: ‘The
most fortunate are those who have a wonderful capacity
to appreciate again and again, freshly and naively, the
basic goods of life, with awe, pleasure, wonder and even
ecstasy’(Maslow, 1970). However, to date, no scale cur-
rently exists that can capture the full depth and breadth
of the awe experience.
The contemporary psychological understanding of
awe comes largely from a foundational article written
by Keltner and Haidt (2003). According to the prototypi-
cal approach presented in this article, the following two
cognitive appraisals are central to awe experiences: the
perception of vastness and the need to mentally attempt
to accommodate this vastness into existing mental sche-
mas. While this definition is widespread in the field, a
more robust definition may be necessary as additional
qualities of awe reveal more of its latent structure.
Importantly, vastness can be either perceptual (e.g., see-
ing the Grand Canyon) or conceptual (e.g., contemplating
eternity). Further, Keltner and Haidt (2003) describe various
‘themes’of awe stimuli, including: threat, beauty, ability,
virtue, and the supernatural. These themes may result from
triggers or interpretations of the awe experience and are
capable of influencing its hedonic tone. An aspect of awe
that is somewhat unusual for an emotion is that it can have
positive and/or negative valence. While negative experi-
ences of awe have been studied (e.g., Gordon et al., 2017;
Piff, Dietze, Feinberg, Stancato, & Keltner, 2015), awe is
more often associated with a positive valence. While awe
was once more explicitly mingled with fear (e.g., Burke,
CONTACT David B. Yaden dyaden@sas.upenn.edu
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1484940
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
1759/1970), awe has come to have a generally more posi-
tive connotation (Bonner & Friedman, 2011). Thus, positive
forms of awe have received more experimental attention
(e.g., Chirico, Yaden, Riva, & Gaggioli, 2016; Chirico & Yaden,
2018; Shiota, Keltner, & Mossman, 2007).
Recent experimental research has explored the rela-
tionships between awe and a number of other psycholo-
gical traits as well as cognitive, affective, and perceptual
processes. Awe has been shown to influence one’s atten-
tion (Prade & Saroglou, 2016; Sung & Yih, 2016) in a way
that tends to be consistent with Fredrickson’sBroaden
and Build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001).
Other works have shown that awe expands perception of
time (Rudd, Vohs, & Aaker, 2012), enhances well- being
(Krause & Hayward, 2015) and leads to prosocial behaviors
(Piffet al., 2015), as well as decreases aggressive attitudes
(Yang, Yang, Bao, Liu, & Passmore, 2016). This emotion can
also affect the way we perceive our bodies, thus leading
us to underestimate its size (van Elk, Karinen, Specker,
Stamkou, & Baas, 2016). Additionally, awe can temporarily
increase spiritual-type beliefs (Van Cappellen & Saroglou,
2012) and the tendency to find intentionality in random
strings of numbers (Valdesolo & Graham, 2014). In terms
of personality, the tendency to experience awe is pre-
dicted by the personality trait of Openness to
Experience (Silvia, Fayn, Nusbaum, & Beaty, 2015). Awe
has even been discussed as an important motivator and
means to maintain interest in science education
(Valdesolo, Shtulman, & Baron, 2017)
However, experimental research on awe has been lim-
ited by the lack of a state measure of awe that is theoreti-
cally robust. In fact, we could not find any validated state
scales for awe. Instead, the literature contains trait mea-
sures of one’s general tendency to experience awe that
include just a few items of interest. By robust, we mean
items that go beyond asking participants to explicitly
assess whether they have felt ‘awe.’For example, the item
‘did you feel awe?’is problematic, as participants may hold
adifferent conceptualization of awe than do researchers.
We also take robust to mean incorporating items that tap
intoanumberofdimensionsofawethathavebeendis-
covered in empirical research –such as those described in
t
henextsection.Thesedimensions–or facets –of awe
likely vary with some degree of independence across var-
ious kinds of awe experiences. Further, because some
aspects of awe may uniquely moderate or mediate out-
comes of these experiences, a robust state measure of awe
necessitates inclusion of these facets.
Facets of awe
Researchers typically do not formally define the nature
of the aspects of awe that have been the subject of
empirical studies. Yet, the implication seems to be that
these aspects are assumed to be ‘facets’of awe. That is,
there exist theoretical dimensions of the awe construct
that have not previously been statistically differen-
tiated. Below, we briefly review major aspects of awe
that have been investigated in previous experimental
research, such as vastness, the need for accommoda-
tion, altered time perception, self-diminishment, con-
nectedness, and physical sensations. The items that
we generated for the AWE-S are derived from the fol-
lowing aspects, or facets, of awe.
Vastness
The perception of vastness is one of the two appraisal
dimensions described by Keltner & Haidt (2003).
Vastness can refer to perceptual vastness, as in viewing
an enormous mountain or a towering building –or it can
refer to conceptual vastness, as in hearing an idea with
enormous implications or meditating on the meaning of
eternity (Yaden et al., 2016). Items intended to measure
vastness include: ‘I feel the presence of something greater
than myself’(Piffet al., 2015). In laboratory settings, a
variety of different methods have been used to elicit
awe through the perception of vastness. Usually, images
or videos of natural scenery are shown to research parti-
cipants (e.g., Prade & Saroglou, 2016; Silvia et al., 2015;
Zhang & Keltner, 2016). Some studies involve actually
taking participants outdoors and exposing them to
sweeping views of natural scenery. For example, Piff
et al. (2015) brought participants out of the lab to view a
grove of very tall eucalyptus trees to induce awe. More
recently(Chirico et al., 2016; Chirico et al., 2017), recom-
mended and utilized virtual reality (VR) to successfully
induce awe by simulating vastness in virtual space with
panoramic views of nature.
Need for accommodation
The need for accommodation is the second appraisal
dimension described by Keltner & Haidt (2003).
Accommodation involves changes to existing mental
schemas in order to mentally process and integrate an
experience. Some have argued that this aspect of awe is
too vaguely defined and has therefore been operatio-
nalized in several different ways in the research litera-
ture (Sundararajan, 2002). For instance, there exist
measures of need for accommodation, as reported in
Schurtz et al. (2012), but they have not been validated.
However, one example of an item that has been used to
measure the need for accommodation as a trait is: ‘I
seek out experiences that challenge my understanding
of the world’(Shiota, Keltner, & John, 2006), though this
item may have some culturally specific connotations
(Razavi, Zhang, Hekiert, Yoo, & Howell, 2016). A study
2D. B. YADEN ET AL.
found that the need for cognitive closure negatively
correlates with the need for accommodation in awe
experience (Shiota et al., 2007). Other components of
the need for accommodation have also been examined,
such as the degree of novelty one experiences, as well
as the degree to which one’s expectations have been
violated upon experiencing awe (Lorini & Castelfranchi,
2007). Finally, the degree of uncertainty one feels has
also been examined as a proxy for the need for accom-
modation dimension (Valdesolo & Graham, 2014).
Time
Awe has been shown to temporarily alter time percep-
tion. In one study, in which awe was induced in partici-
pants by asking them to describe past awe experiences
in writing, participants reported that time had moved
more slowly than did participants who did not write
about or re-experience awe (Rudd et al., 2012).
Alterations to time perception during awe experiences
have been measured with items such as, ‘Time is
expanded’(Rudd et al., 2012). This perceptual change
marks a distinction between awe and other emotions, as
alterations to such fundamental faculties of conscious-
ness are unusual in the emotion literature. Flow
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997) is another example of a mental
state (not an emotion) in which the sense of self and
time is altered, although in flow time appears to speed
up, whereas in awe time typically subjectively slows.
Self-diminishment
Awe has also been shown to diminish, or reduce the
salience of, certain aspects of the self. For example, on
the level of the bodily self, awe can reduce the sense of
one’s own body size (van Elk et al., 2016). In terms of
one’s subjective sense of self, awe has been shown to
reduce one’s‘being and goals’(Piffet al., 2015). Items
used to measure this include ‘I feel small or insignificant’
(Piffet al., 2015).”Though deep theoretical issues arise
from claims about self-loss –one might ask: what is the
self at all? –this brute phenomenological self-report is
common in the theoretical and qualitative literature on
awe (Yaden, Haidt, Hood, Vago, & Newberg, 2017).
Additionally, measures in awe research that ask partici-
pants if their self was in some way diminished have been
shown to be reliable (e.g., Piffet al., 2015). This aspect of
awe has been shown to mediate its relationship with
humility (Stellar et al., 2018).
Connectedness
Feelings of connection to other people and the environ-
ment beyond one’s self feature in experiences of awe
(Stellar et al., 2017; Yaden et al., 2017). When awe is
induced, participants frequently report a deeper sense of
connection with other people and things around them
(Krause & Hayward, 2015;Piffet al., 2015). Items used to
measure this sense of connection include, ‘I feel part of
some greater entity’(Piffet al., 2015). What one connects
to can include a number of different entities, though often
they are considered somehow ‘greater’than one’sself
(e.g., one’s culture, all of humanity, religious or spiritual
entities, or even all of existence). This should also be
subject to further empirical research, but measures used
to tap this aspect of awe have been shown to be stable
and reliable (Piffet al., 2015). This aspect of awe has been
found to increase collective engagnement across indivi-
dualist as well as collectivist cultures (Bai et al., 2017).
Physical sensations
Awe causes predictable changes to one’s physiology.
Several autonomic changes associated with awe have
been recorded. Specifically, a freezing response to awe
stimuli was measured at a psychophysiological level
(Chirico, Cipresso, & Gaggioli, 2016; Chirco et al., 2017)
and at a behavioral level (Joye & Dewitte, 2016).
Moreover, the phenomenon of ‘goosebumps’and chills
have been demonstrated to co-occur during some
experiences related to awe (Algoe & Haidt, 2009;
Maruskin, Thrash, & Elliot, 2012; Schurtz et al., 2012).
Additionally, in the tradition of the facial action coding
of emotions (Ekman & Friesen, 2003), awe has been
studied in terms of its associated facial expressions.
Specifically, research has identified facial expressions
associated with awe such as widened eyes and a
dropped jaw (Shiota, Campos, & Keltner, 2003). Notably,
bodily changes such as these have typically been
observed using physiological measurement equipment,
rather than inquired about via self-report measures.
The present studies
The present studies sought to test whether the facets or
aspects of awe described above, which have been dis-
cussed in theoretical writings and operationalized in
various ad hoc measures used in empirical research, are
in fact factors describing a latent variable of a robust
mental state, or complex emotion, of awe. Based on our
review of the literature summarized above, we hypothe-
sized that we would discover a 6-factor solution describ-
ing experiences of awe. To test this, we generated items
based on previous theoretical writings, trait measures of
awe, and ad hoc awe measures used in experimental
studies. These aspects of awe co-occur with the experi-
ence of the emotion and therefore cannot accurately be
considered ‘outcomes,’which would occur as antece-
dents to the emotion. Note that the items were gener-
ated from facets of awe in the literature and it was not
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 3
our intent to attempt an exhaustive account of aspects
of awe. This measure would be the first state measure of
awe that accounts for granular subjective components of
the complex emotion. Lastly, our items were intended to
tap each of the hypothesized factors without explicitly
mentioning the word ‘awe.’
We compared the resulting items with other awe
measures, the modified Differential Emotions Scale
(mDES) and the awe subscale of the Dispositional
Positive Emotion Scale (D-PES), to establish initial con-
vergent validity. We also explored a measure of person-
ality (BFAS) as well as other theorized aspects such as
triggers, valence, themes, and degree of intensity.
Study 1 –exploratory factor analysis
In Study 1, we administered items related to the experience
of awe to participants using an online survey platform.
Participants were first asked to remember and then write
about a recent, intense awe experience –amethodthathas
been shown to be an effective way to elicit memories of
emotion experiences (Rudd et al., 2012;Shiotaetal.,2007).
Participants then answered a battery of items about their
awe experience. Following data collection, we performed
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on these items.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited through an online invitation
to participate in the study on Amazon’s Mechanical
Turk (M-Turk). The link was provided along with the
description: ‘This research study is designed to gain a
better understanding of awe.’Participants agreed to an
informed consent document and confirmed that they
were over 18 years of age. Participants were compen-
sated about one dollar for their participation. The sur-
vey was administered using Qualtrics, a secure online
survey distribution and data collection program. This
study is part of a larger survey; only the subset of
measures relevant to this study are reported here. The
Institutional Review Board at the University of
Pennsylvania approved this study.
Participant characteristics. Participants (N = 501)
were adults (over 18) drawn from the U.S. and were
mostly white (67.3%, n = 227; Asian 17.2%, n = 86; black
6.4%, n = 32; and Hispanic 6.4%, n = 17), Christian
(46.1%, n = 231; atheist 13.4%, n = 67; Hindu 12.6%,
n = 63), educated (all were at least high school edu-
cated; 47%, n = 239 had bachelor degree), and
balanced between females and males (Male = 51.5%,
n = 258; Female = 48.3%, 242; other = .2%, 1).
Procedure
Participants were asked to identify a recent, intense
awe experience using directions adapted from Piff
et al. (2015). Specifically, the instructions read: ‘Please
take a few minutes to think about a particular time, fairly
recently, when you felt intense awe.’After identifying
their awe experience, participants were asked to write
about it. The next section of the instructions read: ‘Now
that you have chosen a SINGLE experience of intense awe,
please describe your experience in about 2 full paragraphs
in the box below. While you are writing, please focus as
much as possible on the experience itself, rather than
what led up to it, what happened afterwards, or your
interpretation of the experience. Try to be as descriptive
and specific as possible.’
Measures
The Awe Experience Scale. Participants responded to 61
items about aspects of their awe experience.
Participants were asked specifically to answer regarding
the single awe experience they had just described in
writing. Each item was rated on a 7-point scale
(1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Moderately Disagree,
3 = Somewhat Disagree, 4 = Neutral, 5 = Somewhat
Agree, 6 = Moderately Agree, 7 = Strongly Agree).
Other scales and items to establish convergent valid-
ity and to perform exploratory analyses were also
included in this survey, but these responses were
pooled for analysis in Study 2 and are described there.
Data analyses
Study 1 focused on exploring the factor structure of the
AWE-S.
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
Factor solutions were generated using SAS with a Promax
rotation and an Equamax pre-rotation. The oblique pro-
max rotation method was chosen due to the assumption
that factors would significantly positively correlate with
one another and the equamax pre-rotation was included
in order to preserve variance (Gorsuch, 1983). Parallel
Analysis (PA; Horn, 1965), Minimum Average Partialing
(MAP; Velicer, 1976), and Scree tests (Cattel, 1966)were
used in order to estimate the number of factors and
standards of stability and reliability were applied to drop
error factors and arrive at an adequate factor solution.
Results
EFA was conducted. PA recommended 9 factors, MAP
recommended 7 factors, and Scree Analysis suggested
9 factors. When computed, factor solutions with 8
4D. B. YADEN ET AL.
factors or higher contained error factors due to fewer
than two items loading on these factors. A 7-factor
solution produced an error factor due to inadequate
alpha (α= .< .7), composed of three items. Twelve items
did not load on any factors and two items loaded on
multiple factors; these items were dropped. A 6-factor
solution therefore provided the maximum number of
stable and reliable factors.
Items were trimmed in order to reduce participant
burden. A state measure that is relatively brief that can
be taken quickly is desirable as the duration of the state
in question may be somewhat fleeting and disturbed
by the process of providing answers to a measure, so
brevity is a virtue in this context and for this reason we
dropped error factors rather than adding items. On the
reduced item set, the top five loading items from each
factor were retained. The six-factor solution was then
re-computed on SAS using the same pre-rotation and
rotation (hyperplane count was optimized at K = 3). On
the reduced 30-item set, PA recommended 6 factors,
MAP recommended 9 factors, and Scree analysis recom-
mended 6 factors. The seventh factor was dropped as it
contained only two items, a common criterion for drop-
ping factors.
1
The AWE-S therefore includes 30 items total, with 5
items per factor. Each factor showed strong internal
reliability. Standardized alphas were as follows: (F1)
altered time perception α= .91; (F2) self-diminishment
α= .89; (F3) connectedness α= .87; (F4) vastness
α= .85; (F5) physical sensations α= .81; (F6) need for
accommodation α= .80. The scale total also demon-
strated strong reliability (α= .93).
Factor loadings were good (Table 1), as all were
between .4 and .8, with the exception of two items in
factor 1, which were high (.86). However, the semantic
diversity between these items is notable: ‘I noticed time
slowing’and ‘I sensed things momentarily slow down.’
While both items clearly refer to the concept of time
dilation, the high factor loadings were likely not due to
semantic factors such as similar terms or phrasing.
Subscales demonstrated some skew and kurtosis, which
was expected because the prompt asked for an awe-inspir-
ing experience, so we expected scores on awe-related
items would be somewhat high. However, skewness and
kurtosis indicators were within acceptable range (> |.2|).
Means, skewness, and kurtosis are reported in Table 2.
Discussion
EFA on these items revealed six stable and reliable
factors with strong internal consistency. This factor
structure and reliability remained consistent after
items were trimmed to ease participant burden.
Study 2 –confirmatory factor analysis
In this study, we confirmed the factor structure of the
AWE-S in a separate sample. We then compared the
AWE-S with other measures of awe. We also explored
themes, triggers, valence, and intensity, each of which
has been discussed in the theoretical literature.
Methods
Participants
The methods used in Study 2 were similar to Study 1. A
Qualtrics survey was distributed using M-Turk.
Table 1. AWE-S item loadings.
Item
Factors
123456
I sensed things momentarily slow
down.
0.86 . . . . .
I noticed time slowing. 0.86 . . . . .
I felt my sense of time change. 0.78 . . . . .
I experienced the passage of time
differently.
0.76 . . . . .
I had the sense that a moment
lasted longer than usual.
0.68 . . . . .
I felt that my sense of self was
diminished.
. 0.79 . . . .
I felt my sense of self shrink. . 0.76 . . . .
I experienced a reduced sense of
self.
. 0.76 . . . .
I felt my sense of self become
somehow smaller.
. 0.75 . . . .
I felt small compared to everything
else.
. 0.6 . . . .
I had the sense of being connected
to everything.
. . 0.77 . . .
I felt a sense of communion with all
living things.
. . 0.73 . . .
I experienced a sense of oneness
with all things.
. . 0.69 . . .
I felt closely connected to humanity. . . 0.67 . . .
I had a sense of complete
connectedness.
. . 0.67 . . .
I felt that I was in the presence of
something grand.
. . . 0.76 . .
I experienced something greater
than myself.
. . . 0.75 . .
I felt in the presence of greatness. . . . 0.71 . .
I perceived something that was
much larger than me.
. . . 0.71 . .
I perceived vastness. . . . 0.46 . .
I felt my jaw drop. . . . . 0.79 .
I had goosebumps. . . . . 0.66 .
I gasped. . . . . 0.63 .
I had chills. . . . . 0.59 .
I felt my eyes widen. . . . . 0.53 .
I felt challenged to mentally process
what I was experiencing
. . . . . 0.74
I found it hard to comprehend the
experience in full.
. . . . . 0.68
I felt challenged to understand the
experience.
. . . . . 0.62
I struggled to take in all that I was
experiencing at once
. . . . . 0.54
I tried to understand the magnitude
of what I was experiencing.
. . . . . 0.46
n= 501. Loadings less than .40 are not shown.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 5
Participant characteristics. Study participants (N = 636)
were recruited using the same methods as in Study 1. A link
to an online survey about awe on Qualtrics was posted on
Amazon’sMechanicalTurk.Thissample had similar char-
acteristics to those of Study 1 –Male (51%, 325; female
48.7%, 310; other .2%, 1), White (72.2%, 460; black 10.5%,
67; Asian 7.7%, 49; Hispanic 5.5%, 35), Christian (46.5, 296;
none 15.9%, 101; agnostic 15.1%, 96; atheist 12.4%, 79) and
otherwise similar to those in Study 1.
Procedure
In this study, we administered the same prompt for
participants to write about their experiences of awe
followed by the 30 items of the AWE-S that were iden-
tified in Study 1. We also administered the modified
Differential Emotion Scale (mDES), the Dispositional
Positive Emotion Scale (D-PES), Big Five Personality
(BFAS), as well as exploratory items for other awe
aspects (theme, valence, triggers).
Measures
Awe items
In Study 2, participants responded to the 30 AWE-S items
about aspects of their awe experience identified in Study 1.
Again, participants were asked specifically to answer
regardingasingleaweexperiencethattheyhadjust
described in writing on the same 7-point Likert scale
described in Study 1. Again, the overall scale showed a
high internal consistency (Cronbach Alpha = .92). Each
scale also displayed a strong reliability: (F1) altered time
perception α= .85; (F2) self-diminishment α=.81;(F3)
connectedness α= .89; (F4) vastness α= .88; (F5) physical
sensations α= .89; (F6) need for accommodation α= .81.
Descriptive statistics for factors were similar to sample 1
(see Table 3).
The modified differential emotion scale (mDES)
We administered the mDES (Fredrickson, Tugade,
Waugh, & Larkin, 2003), a scale that measures the
degree to which one has felt different emotions over
the past 24 hours. Each item presents three related
words that signify a cluster of emotions (e.g., ‘awe,
wonder, astonishment’or ‘serene, content, peaceful’).
To establish the convergent and divergent validity of
the AWE-S, we slightly modified the instructions of this
scale to make it a state measure referring specifically to
the awe experience participants had described in writ-
ing. We expected that the awe cluster of emotions from
the mDES would correlate highest with the AWE-S.
Participants were pooled from study 1 and study 2
resulting in a sample size of (N = 1137). This scale
captures the two main clusters of the affective experi-
ence: the positive and the negative. Thus, 11 items are
devoted to measuring positive emotional experiences,
while 10 items assess negative emotional states. In this
sample, the positive emotions subscale showed good
internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha = .87) and the
negative emotions subscale also displayed high reliabil-
ity (Cronbach’s Alpha = .93). See scale descriptive sta-
tistics in Table 4.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for each AWE-S factor in sample 2.
Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Factors Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
F1 Time 4.83 0.06 1.46 2.14 −0.71 0.10 0.15 0.19
F2 Self-loss 4.35 0.06 1.60 2.56 −0.33 0.10 −0.72 0.19
F3 Connectedness 4.99 0.06 1.43 2.04 −0.78 0.10 0.24 0.19
F4 Vastness 5.63 0.05 1.22 1.50 −1.21 0.10 1.62 0.19
F5 Physiological 5.02 0.05 1.36 1.84 −0.67 0.10 0.06 0.19
F6 Accommodation 4.76 0.06 1.40 1.95 −0.45 0.10 −0.44 0.19
Total AWE-S 4.93 0.04 0.98 0.96 −0.55 0.10 0.50 0.19
n= 636
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for AWE-S factors in sample 1.
Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Factors Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
F1 Time 4.83 0.07 1.48 2.20 −0.73 0.11 0.07 0.22
F2 Self-loss 4.63 0.07 1.53 2.33 −0.56 0.11 −0.38 0.22
F3 Connectedness 5.03 0.06 1.33 1.76 −0.67 0.11 0.15 0.22
F4 Vastness 5.56 0.05 1.19 1.42 −0.97 0.11 0.87 0.22
F5 Physiological 4.85 0.06 1.36 1.86 −0.58 0.11 −0.04 0.22
F6 Accommodation 4.99 0.06 1.26 1.59 −0.62 0.11 0.05 0.22
Total AWE-S 4.98 0.05 0.10 0.10 −0.65 0.11 0.49 0.22
n= 501
6D. B. YADEN ET AL.
The dispositional positive emotion scale (D-PES)
We administered the D-PES (Shiota et al., 2003). The
D-PES is a trait measure that includes subscales of
one’s tendency to experience a number of different
positive emotions –awe, joy, contentedness, pride,
humor –in daily life. This trait measure provides
some additional convergent and divergent validity of
the AWE-S, as we expected AWE-S scores would corre-
late with the awe subscale of the D-PES. This was
administered in study 2 (N = 636). In this sample,
Cronbach’s alpha for each scale was: joy (6 items),
0.89; contentment (6 items), 0.95; pride (4 items*),
0.78; love (6 items), 0.88; compassion (5 items), 0.90;
amusement (5 items), 0.83; awe (6 items), 0.82. See
scale descriptive statistics in Table 5.
The big five aspect scales (BFAS)
To examine which personality factors were associated with
awe experiences, we included a Big-5 measure of person-
ality. We expected, based on previous findings, that the
AWE-S would correlate with Openness to Experience. This
scale was administered only with study 2 (N = 636).
Other awe aspects
Other items were also administered, in order to assess:
theorized ‘themes’that characterized participants’awe
experiences (i.e., Beauty, Threat, Ability, Virtue,
Supernatural), triggers of the experience (e.g., natural
scenery, witnessing great skill, being in the presence of a
leader, etc.), valence including positive (Scale of 1–4;
M = 3.57, SD = .79), negative (Scale of 1–4; Mean = 1.21,
Std Dev = .67), and a 7-point measure ranging from
negative to positive (Mean = 6.34, Std Dev = 1.360), and
the overall intensity (Scale of 1–5; Mean = 4.20, Std
Dev = .845) of their awe experience. These were single-
item measures included for exploratory purposes.
Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis
We performed Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). To
test the fit of the 30-item 6-factor model for CFA, we
used EQS multivariate software to compute
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Root Mean-Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA).
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of mDES: mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis.
Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Factors Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
Amuse 2.3 0.031 1.046 1.093 0.21 0.073 −1.16 0.145
Angry 1.31 0.022 0.736 0.541 2.371 0.073 4.642 0.145
Ashamed 1.27 0.02 0.689 0.475 2.559 0.073 5.614 0.145
Awe 3.59 0.021 0.703 0.494 −1.816 0.073 3.01 0.145
Scared 1.53 0.027 0.914 0.835 1.571 0.073 1.216 0.145
Serene 3.06 0.029 0.989 0.979 −0.75 0.073 −0.537 0.145
Glad 3.26 0.028 0.935 0.874 −1.115 0.073 0.234 0.145
Disgust 1.29 0.022 0.729 0.532 2.625 0.073 5.921 0.145
Grateful 3.23 0.028 0.95 0.902 −1.021 0.073 −0.033 0.145
Embarrassed 1.39 0.023 0.783 0.613 1.932 0.073 2.655 0.145
Hope 3.12 0.027 0.924 0.854 −0.813 0.073 −0.256 0.145
Hate 1.29 0.022 0.729 0.532 2.565 0.073 5.533 0.145
Inspiration 3.24 0.027 0.917 0.841 −1.097 0.073 0.317 0.145
Guilt 1.32 0.022 0.739 0.547 2.332 0.073 4.452 0.145
Interest 3.27 0.025 0.84 0.705 −0.957 0.073 0.169 0.145
Sad 1.36 0.024 0.794 0.631 2.173 0.073 3.617 0.145
Love 2.91 0.031 1.033 1.068 −0.519 0.073 −0.925 0.145
Content 1.34 0.023 0.771 0.594 2.14 0.073 3.381 0.145
Proud 2.68 0.031 1.036 1.073 −0.222 0.073 −1.115 0.145
Stress 1.67 0.029 0.988 0.976 1.209 0.073 0.119 0.145
Tenderness 2.86 0.03 1.01 1.021 −0.473 0.073 −0.885 0.145
n= 1137
Table 5.. Descriptive statistics of D-PES: mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis.
Mean Std. Dev Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Factor Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
Awe 4.89 0.04 1.08 1.16 −0.42 0.10 −0.01 0.19
Joy 4.62 0.05 1.25 1.56 −0.40 0.10 −0.30 0.19
Contentment 4.84 0.06 1.42 2.03 −0.74 0.10 −0.04 0.19
Pride 4.96 0.04 1.09 1.20 −0.57 0.10 0.42 0.19
Love 4.63 0.05 1.24 1.54 −0.38 0.10 −0.38 0.19
Compassion 5.47 0.04 1.12 1.25 −1.02 0.10 1.39 0.19
Humor 4.78 0.05 1.20 1.43 −0.50 0.10 0.06 0.19
n= 636
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 7
Results
Confirmatory factor analysis
CFI was adequate (.905) and RMSEA was good (.054),
with 90% confidence intervals of .051 and .058. In order
to confirm that the six-factor solution represented the
best fit, we then calculated a 1-factor solution, which
showed inadequate fit: CFI = .481 and RMSEA = .125.
Therefore, the 6-factor model of the AWE-S demon-
strated robust and superior fit.
Inter-factor correlations. We pooled the samples from
Study 1 and Study 2 and calculated inter-factor correla-
tions. All factors showed moderate to strong positive
correlations with one another (Table 6).
Initial validity
We conducted initial validation of the AWE-S by com-
paring it with two other scales that measure a number
of emotions, including awe. We slightly modified one
trait measure (mDES) to make it a state measure, and
we included a trait measure (D-PES).
mDES. The mDES was included in both samples, so
participant data was pooled. Importantly, each item of
the mDES includes three similar emotions (e.g., the awe
item included ‘awe,’‘wonder,’and ‘astonishment’).
In terms of positive emotions, the AWE-S total was
positively and significantly correlated with every positive
emotion cluster (Table 7). Interestingly, the AWE-S total
was slightly more correlated with some positive emotion
clusters (e.g., ‘inspired, uplifted, elevated’and ‘grateful,
appreciative, thankful’)thanwiththeawecluster‘awe,
wonder, astonishment.’However, no other positive emo-
tion cluster was significantly correlated with all six factor
of the AWE-S, except for the awe cluster.
In terms of the mDES positive emotions, after control-
ling for age, gender, education, and SES, the only inde-
pendent predictors of the AWE-S were ‘awe, wonder,
astonishment’(β=.12,p<.01),‘serene, content, peace-
ful’(β=.09,p<.05),‘grateful, appreciative, thankful’
(β=.11,p<.01),‘inspired, uplifted, elevated’(β=.09,
p < .05), ‘interested, alert, curious’(β=.09,p<.01),‘love,
closeness, trust’(β=.13,p<01),andinthenegative
direction ‘glad, happy, joyful’(β= -.18, p < .01),
However, the moderate correlation between the ‘awe,
wonder, astonishment’cluster and the AWE-S is likely due
to a ceiling effect. The ‘awe, wonder, astonishment’item
of the mDES was outside of the acceptable range of
skewness (.494) and kurtosis (3.01), thus accounting for
the constrained variance observed. A histogram of
responses to this item demonstrates its non-normal dis-
tribution (Figure 1).
In terms of negative emotions, the ‘stressed, nervous,
overwhelmed’and the ‘scared, fearful, afraid’clusters
were significantly positively correlated with the total of
the AWE-S (Table 8). After controlling for age, gender,
education, and SES, the only independent predictor of
the AWE-S was the mDES item, ‘stressed, nervous, over-
whelmed’(β= .15, p < . 01). This suggests that awe is a
primarily positive emotion with the possible exception of
feeling stressed, nervous, overwhelmed in response to
the experience, and speaks to awe as a unique state of
being that combines exaltation with fear/reverence
(Harrison, 1975)
D-PES. We also included a trait measure of emotions
that includes an item about one’s dispositional ten-
dency to experience awe. We found that the AWE-S
Table 7. Correlations of AWE-S total and factors with mDES positive emotions.
Factors AWE-S Global score Time Self-loss Connection Vastness Physical Accommodation
Awe, Wonder, Astonishment .23** .10** .07* .19** .41** .19** .09**
Inspired, Uplifted, Elevated .28** .13** .06 .39** .43** .19** .04
Serene, Content, Peaceful .24** .14** .09** .40** .36** .07* .01
Grateful, Appreciative, Thankful .28** .16** .03 .42** .39** .18** .05
Love, Closeness, Trust .27** .21** −.01 .47** .26** .19** .05
Interested, Alert, Curious .19** .09** .04 .13** .26** .17** .14**
Hopeful, Optimistic, Encouraged .26** .15** .00 .42** .34** .18** .07*
Tender, Gentle, Warmhearted .26** .17** .03 .45** .28** .16** .05
Amused, Fun-Loving, Silly .12** .09** −.02 .26** .03 .17** −.01
Proud, Confident, Self-assured .15** .13** −.06* .32** .12** .16** −.02
Glad, Happy, Joyful .18** .07* −.06* .33** .32** .18** −.05
n= 1137; ** = p < .01, * = p < .05
Table 6. Inter-factor correlations of AWE-S factors.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
F1. Time -
F2. Self-loss .44** -
F3. Connection .49** .32** -
F4. Vastness .39** .42** .55** -
F5. Physical .43** .31** .35** .43** -
F6. Accommodation .44** .47** .26** .38** .41** -
n= 1137; ** = p < .001
8D. B. YADEN ET AL.
total was significantly positively related to all of the
other positive emotions. The relationships between
the total and each factor of the AWE-S and the awe
subscale of the D-PES were stronger than for any other
emotion (Table 9). In regards to AWE-S, the correlation
with D-PES Awe was stronger than any of the other
positive emotions.
After controlling for age, gender, education, and SES,
the only independent predictors of the AWE-S total
were the Awe (β= .31, p < .01) and Compassion
(β= .18, p < .01) subscales of the D-PES.
Intensity. An item used to gauge how intense partici-
pants considered their awe experience to be showed
significant positive correlations with the AWE-S total
and for each factor (Table 10). This suggests that higher
scores on the AWE-S generally mean the experience
was more subjectively intense.
Other aspects of awe
We explored the relationship between the AWE-S and
several other single-item measures to investigate other
theorized aspects of awe.
Valence. While participants were asked only to
report a ‘recent, intense’awe experience, awe experi-
ences were reported as overwhelmingly positive
(Figure 2).
Themes. Awe is associated with a number of themes
potentially related to the experience (Keltner & Haidt,
2003), including beauty, ability, virtue, threat, and the
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1234
Degree of Agreement
Kurtosis of mDES Awe Item
Figure 1. Skewness and Kurtosis of mDES Awe Item (N= 1137). Y-axis shows frequency of sample as a percentage and x-axis shows
Likert response options for the item.
Table 8. Correlations of AWE-S total and factors with mDES negative emotions.
AWE-S
_Total Time Self-loss Connection Vastness Physical Accommodation
Stressed, Nervous, Overwhelmed .13** .15** .13** −.06* −.07* .14** .22**
Scared, Fearful, Afraid .07* .01** .12** −.09** −.14** .09** .18**
Angry, Irritated, Annoyed .04 .08** .14** −.07** −.21** .04 .14**
Disgust, Distaste, Revulsion .05 .08** .15** −.06 −.17** .06 .12**
Sad, Downhearted, Unhappy .04 .08** .14** −.08** −.21** .04 .16**
Ashamed, Humiliated, Disgraced .02 .06* .12** −.03 −.20** .01 .09**
Embarrassed, Self-conscious, Blushing .05 .06* .12** .01 −.16** .01 .12**
Hate, Distrust, Suspicious .03 .06* .12** −.05 −.20** .04 .10**
Contemptuous, Scornful, Disdainful .02 .06* .13** −.06* −.22** .02 .11**
Guilty, Repentant, Blameworthy .04 .08** .11** −.02 −.13** .00 .09**
n= 1137; ** = p < .01, * = p < . 05
Table 9. Correlations of D-PES with AWE-S total and factors.
Factors Total AWE-S F1 Time
F2
Self_loss F3 Connection F4 Vastness F5 Physical F6 Accommodation
Awe .38** .28** .17** .43** .30** .23** .19**
Joy .26** .17** .05 .36** .21** .20** .12**
Content .17** .12** −.04 .27** .14** .14** .09*
Pride .20** .19** −.02 .26** .11** .19** .10*
Love .17** .09* .00 .30** .13** .15** .09*
Compassion .31** .18** .14** .32** .32** .23** .10*
Humor .15** .12** .06 .15** .07 .13** .09*
n= 636; ** = p < . 01, * = p < .05
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 9
supernatural. Participants reported experiences fitting
each of these categories, though beauty was the most
frequent (Figure 3).
Triggers. While awe themes may relate to triggers or
interpretations, we asked participants to specifically
indicate what elicited their experience of awe
(Figure 4). We found, echoing the finding that beauty
was the most frequent theme, that natural scenery
was described as the most frequent trigger. We pro-
vided an ‘other’option with the opportunity to write
in a response if the desired response did not appear
on our list. Notably, a number of these write-in
responses referred to childbirth –future studies of
awe should list childbirth as a trigger for intense
awe experiences.
Big five personality. Finally, we examined the relation-
ship between the AWE-S and Big-5 personality factors
(Table 11). At the factor level, AWE-S was significantly
correlated with Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
Extraversion, and Openness to Experience. The only inde-
pendent predictors of AWE-S at the factor level, however,
were Neuroticism (β= .10, p < . 05), Agreeableness (β=.11,
p < .05), and, especially, Openness/Intellect (β=.18,
p < .01). At the aspect level, AWE-S was positively
Table 10. Intensity of awe experience: correlations between the
degree of intensity of the awe experience and AWE-S total and
factors.
Factors Intensity
AWE-S Total 0.37**
F1 Time 0.26**
F2 Self-loss 0.12**
F3 Connectedness 0.25**
F4 Vastness 0.36**
F5 Physical 0.37**
F6 Accommodation 0.25**
n= 636; ** = p < . 01, * = p < .05
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Strongly
Negative
Moderately
Negative
Somewhat
Negative
Neutral Somewhat
Positive
Moderately
Positive
Strongly
Positive
tnemeergAegatnecreP
Valence of Awe Experiences
Figure 2. Valence of Awe. n= 636.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Threat
Supernatural
Virtue
Ability
Beauty
Percent A
g
reement
Themes
Themes of Awe
Figure 3. Themes of Awe. n= 636.
10 D. B. YADEN ET AL.
correlated with compassion, politeness, industriousness,
orderliness, enthusiasm, intellect, and openness, and
negatively correlated with volatility. The only independent
predictors of AWE-S at the aspect level were Withdrawal
(β= .16, p < .05) and Openness (β=.19),p<.01).
Discussion
A 6-factor structure for the Awe Experience Scale
(AWE-S), a robust state measure of awe that taps several
aspects of awe identified in previous empirical and
theoretical work, was revealed in two online surveys.
In Study 1, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of 61 items
administered to online participants (N = 501), revealed
a 6-factor structure. Items were pruned to 30 items and
EFA was recomputed. The 6-factor structure held, with
good internal validity for each factor. In Study 2, the 30-
item AWE-S was administered to participants (N = 636)
using the same methods as in Study 1. Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (CFA) showed that the 6-factor model
has a robust fit. In general, a 6-factor solution with high
internal reliability was found through Exploratory and
Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
To establish convergent, divergent, and construct
validity, the AWE-S (which does not contain the word
‘awe’in any of its items) was compared with the modified
Differential Emotion Scale (mDES) and the Dispositional
Positive Emotion Scale (D-PES). The awe item of the mDES
(awe, wonder, astonishment) was significantly correlated
with every factor of the AWE-S and the total, though some
other clusters of emotions were more strongly related to
individual factors. While the fact that the mDES involves
multiple emotions per item limits the conclusions that can
be drawn, it is still a good indicator that the AWE-S and
the mDES awe item were significantly correlated. The
D-PES is a measure of the tendency to experience a
number of different emotions, but the fact that it is a
trait measure also limits our interpretation. Nevertheless,
0% 10% 20% 30%
Epiphany
Art
Music
Grand Theory or Idea
Powerful Leader
Building or Monument
Great Virtue
Encounter with God
Great Skill
Other
Natural Scenery
Percent A
g
reement
Triggers
Triggers of Awe
Figure 4. Triggers of Awe. n= 636.
Table 11. Correlation of personality with AWE-S total and factors.
Factors Total AWE_S F1 Time
F2
Self_loss F3 Connection F4 Vastness F5 Physical F6 Accommodation
Neuroticism −.05 −.06 .10* −.09* −.07* −.05 −.04
Withdrawal .01 −.02 .14** −.06 −.01 −.02 −.03
Volatility −.09* −.03* .04 −.11** −.12** −.07 .06
Agreeableness .20** .07 .08* .20** .33** .16** .05
Compassion .22** .12** .08* .23** .32** .16** .05
Politeness .15** .01 .07 .14** .28** .13** .04
Conscientiousness .13** .1-* .00 .12** .14** .16** .05
Industriousness .11** .09* −.03 .13** .11** .15** .05
Orderliness .12** .09* .03 .08 .12** >13** .05
Extraversion .10* .13** −.13** .19** .09* .13** .01
Enthusiasm .14** .09* −.08 .24** .18** .18** −.01
Assertiveness .02 .12** −.14** .09* −.02 .04 .02
Openness/Intellect .24** .18** .08 .19** .31** .12** .13**
Openness .25** .17** .11** .23** .35** .13** .10*
Intellect .16* .15** .02 .11** .19** .07 .13**
Note. n = 636; ** = p < . 01, * = p < .05
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 11
the AWE-S and each of its factors were significantly and
strongly associated with the awe subscale of the D-PES.
Lastly, the AWE-S and its factors were strongly correlated
with the overall intensity of the awe experience, as indi-
cated by a single item measure of intensity. We believe
the AWE-S demonstrated adequate convergent, diver-
gent, and construct validity.
We also reported analyses of other aspects of awe.
We found that spontaneous reports of awe were often
overwhelmingly positive, with some (but much fewer)
neutral or negatively valenced experiences of awe. In
terms of themes, there was a spread of responses
across beauty, virtue, skill, threat, and supernatural –
but beauty was the most frequent. An item about
triggers provides more specific information in this
regard, showing that natural scenery was the most
frequent elicitor of awe. We report correlations with
aspects of personality, replicating previous findings
that awe is associated with Openness to Experience
(Shiota et al., 2006; Silvia et al., 2015). However, our
findings extended this prior connection between awe
and Openness to Experience by suggesting that awe is
uniquely associated with a tendency toward engage-
ment with perception, fantasy, aesthetics, and emotions
(Openness) rather than cognitive engagement with
abstract and semantic information, primarily through
conscious reasoning (Intellect; see Kaufman et al., 2016).
In terms of the specific factors of awe in the AWE-S, the
existence of the factors perception of vastness (F4) and the
need for accommodation (F6), suggested some construct
validity, as these are the two appraisal dimensions identi-
fied by Keltner & Haidt (2003) in their foundational article
on awe. Similarly, the next two factors, self-diminishment
(F2) and connectedness (F3), are well supported by the
extant literature. Changes to the self from awe experi-
ences have also been explored empirically (Piffet al.,
2015) and theoretically (Yaden et al., 2017). This study
provides empirical support to the theoretical claims that
awe contains an aspect of self-diminishment and connect-
edness and that these two aspects are separable.
The factor related to alterations to time (F1) repre-
sents a notable shift in mental state that may indicate
that awe may be somewhere between an emotion and
an altered state of consciousness. The factor regarding
physical sensations (F5) contains somewhat unusual
items for a self-report emotion scale. However, we sug-
gest that physical sensations are knowable and repor-
table by participants. Awe resembles some kinds of
surprise, as Huron (2006) stated. Hence, much like chills
are not unusual sensations to be associated with forms
of musical surprise (Sloboda, 1991), one can imagine
how an awe experience could elicit a similar physiolo-
gical response. When we encounter something
overwhelming, able to diminish our sense of self, our
body prepares to react. While bodily reactions from awe
are mostly internal, Joye and Dewitte (2016) demon-
strated that awe can lead to a behavioral freezing (i.e.,
longer time reactions) In their research paradigm, the
more intense an awe experience was, the more paral-
yzed participants become in response to it. At the
psychophysiological level, Shiota, Neufeld, Yeung,
Moser, and Perea (2011) consistently found evidence
of the presence of a sympathetic withdrawal during
the experience of awe. Finally, awe has been shown
to be associated with a sudden parasympathetic activa-
tion (Chirico et al., 2017).
Limitations and future directions
This study was limited in several ways. First, we asked
participants to answer items related to an awe experi-
ence that they remembered and wrote about. While
other studies have found this method worthwhile
(e.g., Schurtz et al., 2012; Shiota et al., 2007), questions
remain about the validity of this technique, particularly
due to the constructive qualities of memory for emo-
tion recall (Kaplan, Levine, Lench, & Safer, 2016; Levine,
1997; Levine & Safer, 2002). However, given that rela-
tively large samples are required from EFA and CFA, this
memory recall method seemed indicated. In general,
this scale is intended for use immediately after an awe
experience. We expect this will occur in laboratory set-
tings through triggers such as virtual reality (Chirico,
Yaden, et al., 2016) as well as videos, images, medita-
tion, noninvasive brain stimulation, psychopharmacol-
ogy, and other means.
A second limitation of this study was the sample
characteristics. We drew our participants from online
M-Turk samples. While M-Turk samples have been
shown to be generally representative of the normal
population (Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2012), further stu-
dies on more diverse samples should be done to better
establish external validity.
A third limitation derives from the current lack of a
validated state measure of awe in the research litera-
ture that would allow us to better establish convergent
and divergent validity. While we used well known scales
frequently employed in awe research –the mDES and
D-PES –the relatively nascent quality of this field made
it difficult to establish more robust convergent and
divergent validity. While the significant correlation
between the state measure and an existing trait mea-
sure of awe is a promising starting point, the effect sizes
of the correlations are lower than expected. A ceiling
effect is likely constraining the correlation coefficient,
but this should be investigated in future work.
12 D. B. YADEN ET AL.
Additionally, while there is substantial semantic
diversity between factors, there is some redundancy of
content in items within factors. This was due, in part, to
stay true to existing attempts in the literature to tap
these facets of awe. Despite some semantic redun-
dancy, the items do diverge in their specific terminol-
ogy while maintaining reliability.
In general, this measure may be most useful for those
interested in inducing and measuring various aspects of
awe identified in the extant literature at a more granular
level. In most cases, single awe items as part of larger
emotion scales will suffice to measure awe. This measure
is intended for researchers interested in examining spe-
cific aspects of awe experiences.
There are several future directions in which to take
this research. Further validity studies of the AWE-S are
the most urgent. This scale should be tested using
different methods of awe induction and in diverse sam-
ple (e.g., adolescents, children, elderly populations). The
factors of the AWE-S should also undergo individual
convergent and divergent validity testing. This should
be done using related psychometric scales, including
emotion scales as well as scales measuring intense
subjective experiences such as mystical experience
(Hood et al., 2001; MacLean, Leoutsakos, Johnson, &
Griffiths, 2012) and other varieties of Self-Transcendent
Experience (Yaden et al., 2017). Additionally, the specific
self-related and connection-related processes in awe
have yet to be adequately empirically elaborated and
clarified. We plan to conduct qualitative analysis on the
written descriptions to explore these more nuanced
aspects of awe.
Keltner (2009) has previously distinguished true
experiences of awe from awe-related states (e.g.,
admiration), by requiring the presence of both per-
ceived vastness and the need for accommodation as
components of the experience. Relatedly, it would be
worth investigating which of the six factors identified
through the validation of this scale most frequently
occur and co-occur in awe states. In the case of the
fifth factor, physical sensations (F5), physiological mea-
sures such as heart rate, skin conductance, and others
should be used to compare self-report and physiologi-
cal measures. For example, we would expect higher
scores on the physiological dimension to correlate
with a strong parasympathetic activation (Chirico
et al., 2017; Shiota et al., 2011).
Finally, future research might explore the different
types of awe that may result in different awe experi-
ence profiles. These may, for example, feature the pre-
sence or absence of various factors (e.g., feelings of self-
diminishment) in different circumstances or when
experiences are triggered from different stimuli (e.g.,
natural beauty), or influenced by different ‘flavoring’
themes (e.g. fear). As a result of these efforts, here-
tofore-unknown similarities and differences may
emerge between awe and different emotions and men-
tal states, as well as with other self-transcendent experi-
ences such as flow, mindfulness, love, peak experiences,
and mystical experiences (Yaden et al., 2017).
Conclusion
The AWE-S is a stable and reliable 6-factor state measure
of the complex emotion of awe. This scale synthesizes
previous research on awe and opens up new and inter-
esting research possibilities for exploring various aspects
of awe. This multi-factorial scale makes it possible to
distinguish the different roles each dimension of awe
plays on various subsequent outcomes. Moreover, it
could be possible to induce specific awe themes to dis-
tinguish the consequences and emotional nuances of
different flavors of awe. For now, this measure provides
substantial breadth and depth in the measurement of the
profound and often positive experience of awe.
Note
1. The two items in the dropped seventh factor merged
with the sixth factor in the final solution. These two
items are: ‘I had goosebumps’and ‘I had chills.’
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
David B. Yaden http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9604-6227
References
Algoe, S. B., & Haidt, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action:
the ‘other-praising’emotions of elevation, gratitude, and
admiration. The Journal of Positive Psychology,4(2), 105-127.
doi:10.1080/17439760802650519
Bai, Y., Maruskin, L. A., Chen, S., Gordon, A. M., Stellar, J. E.,
McNeil, G. D., . . . Keltner, D. (2017). Awe, the diminished
self, and collective engagement: Universals and cultural
variations in the small self. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,113(2), 185.
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating
online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.
com’s mechanical turk. Political Analysis,20(3), 351–368.
Bonner, E., & Friedman, H. (2011). A conceptual clarification of
the experience of awe: An interpretative phenomenological
analysis. Humanistic Psychologist,39, 222.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 13
Burke, E. (1759/1970). A philosophical enquiry into the origin of
our ideas of the sublime and beautiful, 1759. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cattel, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors.
Multivariate Behavioral Research,1, 245–276.
Chirico, A., Cipresso, P., & Gaggioli, A. (2016).
Psychophysiological correlate of compex spherical awe sti-
muli. Neuropsychological Trends,79–80.
Chirico, A., Cipresso, P., Yaden, D. B., Biassoni, F., Riva, G., &
Gaggioli, A. (2017). Effectiveness of immersive videos in
inducing awe: An Experimental Study. Scientific Reports,7
(1), 1218. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-01242-0
Chirico, A., Yaden, D., Riva, G., & Gaggioli, A. (2016). The
potential of virtual reality for the Investigation of Awe.
Frontiers in Psychology,7, 1766.
Chirico, A., & Yaden, D. B. (2018). Awe: a self-transcendent and
sometimes transformative emotion. In H. Lench (ed.), The
function of emotions. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-
319-77619-4
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow and the psychology of dis-
covery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (2003). Unmasking the face: A guide
to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Ishk.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in
positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of posi-
tive emotions. American Psychologist,56(3), 218.
Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R.
(2003). What good are positive emotions in crisis? A prospec-
tive study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist
attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,84(2), 365.
Gordon, A. M., Stellar, J. E., Anderson, C. L., McNeil, G. D., Loew,
D., & Keltner, D. (2017). The dark side of the sublime:
Distinguishing a threat-based variant of awe. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,113(2), 310. doi:10.1037/
pspp0000120
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Harrison, I. B. (1975). On the maternal origins of awe. The
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child,30(1), 181–195.
Hood, R. W., Jr, Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., Ghramaleki, A. F.,
Bing, M. N., Davison, H. K., . . . Williamson, W. P. (2001).
Dimensions of the mysticism scale: Confirming the three-
factor structure in the United States and Iran. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion,40(4), 691–705.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of
factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika,30, 179–185.
Huron, D. B. (2006). Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychol-
ogy of expectation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
James, W. (1902/1936). The varieties of religious experience.
Oxford, UK: Modern Library.
Joye, Y., & Dewitte, S. (2016). Up speeds you down: Awe-
evoking monumental buildings trigger behavioral and per-
ceived freezing. Journal of Environmental Psychology,47,
112–125.
Kant, I. (1764/2007). Immanuel kant : observations on the feel-
ing of the beautiful and sublime and other writings.
Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R. L., Levine, L. J., Lench, H. C., & Safer, M. A. (2016).
Forgetting feelings: Opposite biases in reports of the inten-
sity of past emotion and mood. Emotion,16(3), 309.
Kaufman, S. B., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray,
J. R., Peterson, J. B., & DeYoung, C. G. (2016). Openness to
Experience and Intellect differentially predict creative
achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of
Personality,84, 248–258.
Keltner, D. (2009). Born to be good: The science of a meaningful
life. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral,
spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition & Emotion,17
(2), 297–314.
Krause, N., & Hayward, R. D. (2015). Assessing whether prac-
tical wisdom and awe of God are associated with life
satisfaction. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality,7(1), 51.
Levine, L. J. (1997). Reconstructing memory for emotions.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126(2), 165.
Levine, L. J., & Safer, M. A. (2002). Sources of bias in memory
for emotions. Current Directions in Psychological Science,11
(5), 169–173.
Lorini, E., & Castelfranchi, C. (2007). The cognitive structure of
surprise: Looking for basic principles. Topoi,26(1), 133–149.
MacLean, K. A., Leoutsakos, J. M. S., Johnson, M. W., & Griffiths,
R. R. (2012). Factor analysis of the mystical experience
questionnaire: A study of experiences occasioned by the
hallucinogen psilocybin. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion,51(4), 721–737.
Maruskin, L. A., Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2012). The chills as
a psychological construct: Content universe, factor struc-
ture, affective composition, elicitors, trait antecedents, and
consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
103(1), 135.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New
York: Harper and Row.
Piff, P. K., Dietze, P., Feinberg, M., Stancato, D. M., & Keltner, D.
(2015). Awe, the small self, and prosocial behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,108(6), 883.
Prade, C., & Saroglou, V. (2016). Awe’seffects on generosity
and helping. The Journal of Positive Psychology,11(5), 522-
530. doi:10.1080/17439760.2015.1127992
Razavi, P., Zhang, J. W., Hekiert, D., Yoo, S. H., & Howell, R. T.
(2016). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in the
experience of awe. Emotion,16(8), 1097.
Rudd, M., Vohs, K. D., & Aaker, J. (2012). Awe expands people’s
perception of time, alters decision making, and enhances
well-being. Psychological Science,23(10), 1130–1136.
Schurtz, D. R., Blincoe, S., Smith, R. H., Powell, C. A., Combs, D.
J., & Kim, S. H. (2012). Exploring the social aspects of goose
bumps and their role in awe and envy. Motivation and
Emotion,36(2), 205–217.
Shiota, M. N., Campos, B., & Keltner, D. (2003). The faces of
positive emotion: Prototype displays of awe, amusement,
and pride. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
1000, 296–299.
Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2006). Positive emotion
dispositions differentially associated with big five person-
ality and attachment style. The Journal of Positive
Psychology,1(2), 61–71.
Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & Mossman, A. (2007). The nature of
awe: Elicitors, appraisals, and effects on self-concept.
Cognition & Emotion,21(5), 944–963.
Shiota, M. N., Neufeld, S. L., Yeung, W. H., Moser, S. E., & Perea,
E. F. (2011). Feeling good: Autonomic nervous system
responding in five positive emotions. Emotion,11(6), 1368.
Silvia, P. J., Fayn, K., Nusbaum, E. C., & Beaty, R. E. (2015).
Openness to experience and awe in response to nature and
14 D. B. YADEN ET AL.
music: Personality and profound aesthetic experiences.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,9(4), 376–384.
Sloboda, J. A. (1991). Music structure and emotional response:
Some empirical findings. Psychology of Music,19(2), 110–
120.
Stellar, J. E., Gordon, A., Anderson, C. L., Piff, P. K., McNeil, G. D.,
& Keltner, D. (2018). Awe and humility. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,114(2), 258–269.
Stellar, J. E., Gordon, A. M., Piff, P. K., Cordaro, D., Anderson, C.
L., Bai, Y., . . . Keltner, D. (2017). Self-transcendent emotions
and their social functions: Compassion, gratitude, and awe
bind us to others through prosociality. Emotion Review,9(3),
200–207.
Sundararajan, L. (2002). Religious awe: Potential contributions of
negative theology to psychology, “positive”or otherwise.
Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology,22, 174–197.
Sung, B., & Yih, J. (2016). Does interest broaden or narrow
attentional scope? Cognition and Emotion,30(8), 1485-1494.
doi:10.1080/02699931.2015.1071241
Valdesolo, P., & Graham, J. (2014). Awe, uncertainty, and
agency detection. Psychological Science,25(1), 170–178.
Valdesolo, P., Shtulman, A., & Baron, A. S. (2017). Science is
awe-some: The emotional antecedents of science learning.
Emotion Review,9(3), 215–221.
Van Cappellen, P., & Saroglou, V. (2012). Awe activates reli-
gious and spiritual feelings and behavioral intentions.
Psychology of Religion and Spirituality,4(3), 223.
van Elk, M., Karinen, A., Specker, E., Stamkou, E., & Baas, M.
(2016). ‘Standing in awe’: The effects of awe on body percep-
tion and the relation with absorption. Collabra,2(1), 4.
Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components
from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika,41,
321–327.
Yaden, D. B., Haidt, J., Hood, R. W., Jr, Vago, D. R., & Newberg,
A. B. (2017). The varieties of self-transcendent experience.
Review of General Psychology,21(2), 143–160.
Yaden, D. B., Iwry, J., Slack, K. J., Eichstaedt, J. C., Zhao, Y.,
Vaillant, G. E., & Newberg, A. B. (2016). The overview effect:
awe and self-transcendent experience in space flight.
Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice,
3(1), 1-11. doi:10.1037/cns0000086
Yang, Y., Yang, Z., Bao, T., Liu, Y., & Passmore, H.-A. (2016).
Elicited awe decreases aggression. Journal of Pacific Rim
Psychology,10(e11), 1–13.
Zhang, J. W., & Keltner, D. (2016).Aweandthenatural
environment. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
mental health (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 131–134). Waltham,
MA: Elsevier.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 15
