Review Article

Measurements of Acute Affective Responses to

Resistance Exercise: A Narrative Review
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/acsm-tj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD36ls6+OKM7O0mviXj4XDrhC+DBOEUwQNREAqUD2kUnC4= on 07/17/2020

Cory Beaumont, Paula-Marie M. Ferrara, and Kelley Strohacker

days (1). A higher proportion (51.6%) of

ABSTRACT adults in the United States report meeting
Exercise-related affect should be measured in task to avoid rebound effects (i.e., the aerobic guidelines compared with the
immediate increases of positive valence, likely due to the relief of exercise cessation), 29.3% of adults who report meeting the
but the general timing and frequency of affect measurement is unclear with respect muscle strengthening guidelines (2). Promot-
to resistance exercise, which has a discontinuous nature (i.e., the entirety of the ing the adoption of, and the regular partici-
bout is broken up by periods of rest). This narrative review aims to synthesize literature pation in, resistance exercise is important
regarding the affect measurement protocols during acute resistance exercise. A because of the unique health benefits one
systematic search of three databases yielded 28 articles, 26 describing total- may receive, including increased bone den-
body sessions, one focused on lower-body exercise, and one focused on upper sity, increased lean body mass, decreased
body exercise. In-task ratings were recorded in only 12 studies, based on either fat mass, and positive effects on insulin sensi-
set completion (e.g., after every, or every third set) or time (e.g., after the midpoint tivity, glucose metabolism, and resting meta-
exercise, every 10 min). All ratings occurred during rest intervals, but prompt speci- bolic rate (3,4).
ficity was reported in only two studies and framed as “right now” rather than “during Researchers posit that positive affective
exercise.” Overall, protocols varied and raise concerns that rebound effects cannot
responses to exercise may improve adherence
be ruled out because ratings were not taken during physical exertion. Conversely,
and adoption rates (5). Core affect can be
a higher standard of reporting is necessary to determine that prompts were designed
understood as the foundation of emotions
to capture accurate in-task affective responses. Specifically, researchers should in-
dicate the precise verbiage used to obtain in-task ratings, especially if prompts are and mood states and, under the circumplex
given postset. Future research should also seek to identify the peak (i.e., most salient model of affect, is composed of varying de-
point) of a set to represent the in-task affective responses. grees of pleasant/unpleasant states com-
bined with activated/deactivated states (6).
An exercise–affect–adherence chain has
been proposed (7,8), which theorizes that exercise produces an
immediate positive or negative affective response, and that the
INTRODUCTION
direction and magnitude of this response will influence behav-
Many of the leading noncommunicable diseases observed in
ioral maintenance or attrition. Recently, the Affective–Reflective
adults (e.g., obesity, cardiovascular disease, and type II diabetes)
Theory of physical inactivity and exercise was developed and
can be, in part, prevented or treated through regular participation
posits that there are both automatic associations and more con-
in physical activity and/or exercise (1). With regard to aerobic
scious, reflective evaluations to exercise-related stimuli (9), and
activity, experts recommend that adults engage in the metabolic
that the interaction between these factors will influence exercise
equivalent of 150 min of moderate-intensity aerobic activity per
behavior. Within the framework of the Affective–Reflective The-
week, 75 min of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity per week, or
ory of physical inactivity and exercise, an individual’s affective ex-
a combination thereof (1). Experts also recommend that adults
periences during exercise (“in-task affect”) over time would
should participate in moderate-load muscle strengthening activ-
influence future exercise participation.
ities, targeting all major muscle groups (quadriceps, hamstrings,
Most work centered around the exercise–affect–adherence
gluteus maximus, pectoralis, deltoids, latissimus dorsi, biceps,
chain has been conducted using aerobic exercise and has pro-
triceps, and rectus abdominis) on two or three nonconsecutive
vided important insight (5,10,11). In particular, research supports
a Dual Mode Model (12) of affect, such that aerobic activity per-
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
formed below an individual’s ventilatory threshold typically pro-
Address for correspondence: Cory Beaumont, MS, NSCA-CSCS. The University duces more positive affect than aerobic exercise performed above
of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1914 Andy Holt Avenue HPER Building 314 Knoxville, TN an individual’s ventilatory threshold, which will typically produce
37996 (E-mail: cbeaumo1@vols.utk.edu). negative ratings of affect. This difference is believed to be on
2379-2868/0511/e000126
account of individuals’ ability to devote attention to cognitive
Translational Journal of the ACSM factors such as self-efficacy and exercise-related goals when in-
Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine tensity is below their ventilatory threshold. Conversely, when

http://www.acsm-tj.org Translational Journal of the ACSM 1

Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
intensities result in individuals crossing their ventilatory thresh-
old, attention shifts to interoceptive factors that may be unpleas-
ant, such as rapid heart rate, increased respiratory rate, and
muscular strain and fatigue. Another influential finding is that
the in-task affective response differs from affective responses
measured after an exercise bout (13). In particular, a rebound
effect commonly occurs, in which participants may report de-
creases in affect over time during continuous aerobic exercise
but report more positive ratings immediately after cessation of
exercise (14,15). The explicit assessment of in-task affect is im-
portant because these ratings have been found to predict the
levels of participation in future exercise (16–18), as well as the
intention to continue participation in aerobic activity (19,20),
whereas postsession ratings do not.
Although the literature focused on affective responses to
resistance exercise is not as extensive as the aerobic literature,
interest in the field appears to be growing. A recent systematic
review was conducted regarding the role resistance exercise
has on the influence of affect, anxiety, and mood (21). The re-
view synthesizes 32 studies, provides recommendations to ex-
ercise participants, and provides insight into future research.
Cavarretta et al. suggested that rest intervals and repetition du-
ration (i.e., cadence of exercise) should be self-selected, and ex-
ercisers should save their favorite exercise for the conclusion of
a bout. However, they provided little detail regarding the na-
ture of the affective response measurements within the studies
included for analysis. The instrumentation used was docu-
mented, but no details were provided regarding the details
Figure 1: Search strategy following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
2 Volume 5 • Number 11 • Summer 2020
Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
timing, frequency, or analyses of such measures. It is important
to note that some of the instruments cited in the review of
Cavarretta et al. that are commonly implemented throughout
the literature (e.g., Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and
Subjective Exercise Experiences Scale) do not necessarily repre-
sent the entire domain of affect, leading researchers to encourage
the use of the Feeling Scale (FS) and the Felt Arousal Scale (FAS)
to assess the dimensions of the affect circumplex (22–24). The
in-task experiences are crucial, as demonstrated in the aerobic
literature, but currently there is no broadly accepted protocol
to clearly define measurement of in-task affect for discontinu-
ous activity spanning various exercise, such as resistance exer-
cise. Thus, the purpose of the present review is to synthesize
the available literature regarding the timing of affective mea-
surements during resistance exercise with the aim of moving
toward a more deliberate, standardized method of measuring
the resistance exercise experience. With a clearer understand-
ing of affective responses to resistance exercise, further insight
can be added into the exercise–affect–adherence chain.
METHODS
A systematic search of published literature related to the
affective response to resistance exercise was conducted be-
tween August and September 2018. Given the lag between
the initial search and the manuscript preparation, a follow-
up search of published literature was conducted again in
December 2019 to cover more recent articles published after
September 2018. The search methodology is reported in a
Measurements of Acute Affective Responses to Resistance Exercise: A Narrative Review
fashion similar to the guidelines described in the Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
(25) to be objective and replicable. However, because of the
nature of the research question, results of the search are pre-
sented in a narrative fashion.
Search Strategy
A visual representation of the search strategy according to the
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-
Analyses guidelines is shown in Figure 1. Peer-reviewed articles
were retrieved from PubMed, PsycInfo, and SportDiscus. Ten
terms related to affective response (“core affect,” “affective valence,”
“Feeling Scale,” “positive affect,” “negative affect,” “enjoyment,”
“pleasure,” “exercise experience,” “mood,” and “emotion”) were
searched in conjunction with four terms related to resistance exercise
(“resistance training,” “weight training,” “strength training,” and
“resistance exercise”), resulting in 40 individual searches per
data base.
Inclusion Criteria
For an article to be included in the final analysis, the following
criteria were applied: 1) written in English, 2) resistance exercise
as the only mode of physical activity, 3) affective responses were
a primary study outcome, and 4) measurements of affect were
taken during each session, rather than just the conclusion of a
resistance training program. No restrictions were placed for pub-
lication date or participant demographics, nor were there criteria
related to the method of affective measurement (i.e., any validated
instrumentation used for measurement was acceptable). The first
author conducted the full literature search of all three databases,
performed the screening of titles and abstracts, and evaluated
the publications that were deemed eligible for full reads. The last
author conducted an independent screening of the titles and ab-
stracts, as well as evaluating the studies’ eligibilities to be included
in the narrative review. An agreement of 100% was reached for
the articles assessed in the current review.
Analysis
The initial search of all databases generated 898 titles. After
removing duplicate titles, the total was reduced to 414. After
screening the titles and abstracts, 32 articles were deemed eligible
for a full review. Of the 32 articles reviewed, 9 studies were ex-
cluded based on the following criteria: interventions investigated
the effects of resistance training on core affect over time, rather than
during every session (7 articles); publication was not peer-reviewed
(i.e., a dissertation, 1 article); and publication itself was a systematic
review (1 article). One article was included from an additional
source. The second search, conducted in December 2019, used
the same strategy described above and yielded six more recent titles.
Of these, four articles were added to the results, and two were ex-
cluded because of their chronic study design. In total, 28 studies
met all inclusion criteria. Because a variety of loads was used across
the studies (i.e., 60% of 10-repetition maximum [RM], 100% of
5RM), a normalized load value (%1RM) was calculated based
on accepted conversions (e.g., 10RM = 75% of 1RM) for studies
that did not use 1RM. Results are discussed in a narrative format
to address the aim of describing procedures implemented to mea-
suring affective responses to acute resistance exercise.
RESULTS
General Study Characteristics
Across the 28 studies included in the analysis, the majority of
sample sizes ranged from 10 to 32 individuals, with one relatively
large sample size of 104. Fifteen studies included individuals who
were at least recreationally trained (26–40), eight studies included
http://www.acsm-tj.org
Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
sedentary individuals (41–48), and five studies did not report
training status of participants (49–53). Total-body training proto-
cols were implemented across all studies, with the exception of
one that targeted lower-body exercises exclusively (46) and one
that targeted upper-body exercises (38), with variability in resistance
exercise mode, exercise order, and the exercises included. Authors
explicitly stated the use of a familiarization session in seven studies.
A normalized load range of 15% to 100% of 1RM was imple-
mented across all studies, with a relatively even distribution of 13
low load (<60% 1RM) and moderate load (60%–80% 1RM;
19), with a relatively low presence of high load (>80% 1RM;
5) conditions. All studies used acute exposure to resistance exercise
conditions ranging from one experimental session (41,42,44,49) to
five experimental sessions (32). Given the importance of measuring
in-task affect specifically during exercise, Supplemental Table 1,
http://links.lww.com/TJACSM/A98, provides summaries only for
studies wherein measurements were taken during the exercise ses-
sion. Results herein are organized based on how authors reported
measuring affective responses.
Posttraining Session Affect
Of the 28 articles included for analysis in current review, 14 took
measurements of affective responses only pre- and postsession
(32–37,40,45,48–53). Two studies (27,39) obtained ratings of af-
fect postsession only, with no measurements taken before the bouts
of exercise. It is important to acknowledge these articles and their
appearance in the systematic search. However, because of the focus
of this narrative review, which is to assess the timing of affective
measurements, more attention will be given to the remaining arti-
cles in subsequent sections.
Time-Based In-Task Measurement of Affect
Five studies measured in-task affect using predetermined time
intervals (26,28,42,44,46). Nosrat et al. (44) and Ciccolo et al.
(42) followed identical protocols to examine the effect of a single
bout of bodyweight resistance exercise on individuals’ core affect.
Participants assigned to the experimental groups performed
bodyweight circuits alternating between upper- and lower-body
exercises for a total of 10 exercises. Control groups watched educa-
tion videos unrelated to exercise. Each exercise in the experimental
condition was performed for 30 s with 90 s of rest between exer-
cises. The investigators measured affect presession, every 10 min
(“mid”), immediately postsession, and 10 min postsession (“de-
lay”) via FS and FAS scores. Nosrat et al. (44) reported increases
on the FS greater than 1 point from pre- to postsession and from
presession to delay with exercise compared with control groups. Al-
though the experimental group showed an increase on affect at the
“mid” measurement, and the control group showed a decrease at
the same time point, neither the change nor the between-group dif-
ference was significant. Ciccolo et al. (42) reported significantly
greater increases of approximately half of a point in FS from
presession to delay, with no significant change or difference between
groups at the “mid” measurement. Finally, Herring et al. (46)
measured affect based on time intervals as well, taking measure-
ments using the Profile of Mood States—Brief Form every
11 min and 40 s, which was explicitly identified as following the
completion of an individual exercise. On separate days, partici-
pants completed three sets of 10 repetitions using 70% of estimated
1RM and four sets of 10 repetitions with 15% of estimated 1RM,
which the authors classified as a placebo condition. Vigor was rated
significantly higher in the 70% condition compared with the pla-
cebo and the no-treatment control condition, and fatigue was rated
as significantly lower in the 15% placebo condition compared with
the 70% condition.
Alternatively, Bellezza et al. (26) and Chmelo et al. (28) mea-
sured affect presession, during, and postsession using the order
Translational Journal of the ACSM 3
of exercises to determine the midpoint for in-task measurements.
Bellezza et al. examined the influence of exercise order on affective
responses. The protocol used a condition of machine and cable ex-
ercises, progressing from small muscle groups to large, whereas a
second condition implemented the opposite order. Bellezza et al.
took affect measurements presession, during (i.e., upon completion
of the middle exercise in the sequence), postsession, and 10 min
postsession using FS and FAS scores. Significant increases in affect
during the session (increase of ~0.6 points on the FS) and at
10 min postsession (increase of ~0.75 points on the FS) occurred
in the small-to-large condition, and a nonsignificant increase
(less than 0.5 points on the FS) in affect occurred from pre- to
postsession in the large-to-small condition. In the large-to-small
condition a small, nonsignificant decrease in affect during the ses-
sion of approximately 0.2 points on the FS was reported. Chmelo
et al. (28) compared the affective response with resistance exercise
performed with cable machines when exercises were performed in
front of a mirror versus the same exercises performed without a
mirror. Affective measures using FS, FAS, and Activation Deacti-
vation Adjective Checklist scores were taken presession, in the
middle of the session (“following lateral raises”; p. 1070), imme-
diately postsession, and 15 min postsession. When using a mirror,
FS values increased less than 1 point on the FS during and imme-
diately postsession. When exercises were done without a mirror,
FS values increased by approximately 1 point on the FS from
pre- to postsession. The difference between conditions was
not significant.
Set-Based Measurement of Affect
The investigators of seven studies chose to take measurements
of affect based on working sets of resistance exercise. Five of the
six studies took measurements after every set (30,38,41,43,47).
Alves et al. (41) aimed to compare the acute affective response after
each exercise set with overall session affect (i.e., pleasure/displeasure
felt for the whole session, measured 30 min postsession) under
self-selected loads. Study participants were instructed to self-
select a load that felt “comfortable” for five exercises (barbell curl,
leg curl, lat pulldown, leg extensions, and bench press) and com-
pleted three sets of 10 repetitions. Affect was measured after every
set as well as 30 min postsession using FS scores. Authors reported
no significant difference between mean values of in-task affect and
session affect, with positive affective responses for all exercises.
Greene and Petruzzello (30) compared affective responses with
70% and 100% of 10RM using a combination of free weight
and resistance machines. Affect was measured presession, after
every exercise set, and at five time points postsession using FS,
FAS, PACES, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Positive affect
was significantly greater when using 70% of 1RM (scores ap-
proximately a + 3 on the FS) compared with 100% of 1RM
(scores approximately a + 1.5 on the FS), and in-task affect was
significantly correlated with a decrease in enjoyment only in the
100% of 1RM condition. Elsangedy et al. (43) measured affect af-
ter every working set used FS scores and allowed for self-selected
load when performing the protocol exercises on resistance ma-
chines. Results indicated that average self-selected load was
>51% of 1RM (14%–31% variability of load), and the mean
FS score for all exercises was between 0 and 1, indicating a more
neutral response, although a large intersubject variability of
>45% was noted by the authors. The authors speculate that this
large intersubject variability of mean FS scores was accounted
for by the overhead press and biceps curl exercises eliciting nega-
tive affect rating from three and two participants, respectively.
Richardson et al. (47) measured affect after every working set
using the Physical Activity Affect Scale and FS, with an interest
in how responses would vary based on velocity of movement
and the load used. On separate days, participants performed three
4 Volume 5 • Number 11 • Summer 2020
Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
sets of 14 repetitions using 40% of predicted 1RM with the concen-
tric phase performed as quickly as they could, and three sets of
seven repetitions with 80% of predicted 1RM with a 2-s concentric
phase. The authors report no significant difference in FS scores be-
tween conditions and slightly more favorable affect scores captured
with the Physical Activity Affect Scale for the heavy condition com-
pared with the light condition. Finally, Vasconcelos et al. (38) inves-
tigated the effect that traditional sets compared with cluster sets
would have on the affective response in men who were resistance
trained for at least 6 months. Participants performed cluster sets
(i.e., 3 sets of two blocks, each block containing four repetitions
and separated by 20 s) of machine chest press and seated rows.
The load used for exercises was equivalent to 75% of the partici-
pant’s 1RM. Authors used the FS to measure affect after every set
and found no significant difference between affect when exercises
were completed in traditional format or cluster sets.
Authors of the remaining two studies measured affect after ev-
ery third set (the last set of an exercise) (29,31). Focht et al. (29)
implemented three separate conditions; prescribed load (40% of
1RM or 70% of 1RM) and self-selected load, with all exercises
performed using resistance machines. Affect was measured with
the FS presession, after every third working set, postsession, and
15 min postsession. The average self-selected load was 57% of
1RM. Results indicated a significant increase in FS scores during
the exercise bout, immediately postsession, and 15 min postsession,
all compared with baseline, when using 40% of 1RM and the self-
selected load condition. Focht et al. also found, when using 70% of
1RM, a significant decrease in FS scores of approximately 2 points
(from slightly above +2 to slightly above 0) during the exercise
bout, with a significant increase to approximately +3 on the FS
15-min postsession. In a study conducted by Portugal et al. (31),
self-selected load (all exercises ultimately performed at “low to
moderate intensity”) was used once again, as well as three pre-
scribed load conditions, all using resistance machines. Affective re-
sponse was measured via FS and FAS scores obtained presession,
after every third set, 10 min postsession, and 20 min postsession.
Results indicated an interaction effect on FS between control and
the 80% of 1RM condition, with 80% of 1RM showing a signifi-
cant trend of decreased FS scores as each exercise was completed.
There was no effect between control and either the 40% of 1RM
condition or the 60% of 1RM condition.
DISCUSSION
The current review has provided a synopsis on literature
related to the affective responses to acute bouts of resistance
exercise. Although a majority of the studies purportedly
measured in-task affect, measurement protocols varied across
studies and consistently seemed to occur during resting periods
within the total-body training protocol. Time was used as a de-
terminant for measuring in-task affect in five studies (26,28,
42,44,46). The in-task affect of each participant was measured
just once at a particular time point (i.e., session midpoint) in all
such studies, aside from Herring (46), who measured in-task
affect for each participant at three time points within the bout.
Of these studies, the midpoint of the exercise sequence was
used to represent participants’ in-task affect in two study designs
(26,28), whereas simply measuring affect every 10–12 min was
used as the representative in-task affective response in the other
three study designs (42,44,46). In the remaining six studies with
measurements of in-task affect, ratings were taken after each ex-
ercise set in four studies (30,41,43,47) and after every third exer-
cise set in two studies (29,31), yielding a range of 4 and 21
measurements of in-task affect in each study. Finally, with the
Measurements of Acute Affective Responses to Resistance Exercise: A Narrative Review
exception of two studies (30,43), interindividual variability in af-
fective response was not reported.
Regardless of whether time or exercise set was used as the
determinant of measuring affect, the participants seemingly
were not actively exercising at the time of measurement. For
example, when participants’ core affect was measured every
10 min by Ciccolo et al. (42) and Nosrat et al. (44), if one fol-
lows their circuit training protocol of 30 s of exercise and 90 s
of rest, the measurement presumably falls before the beginning
of a new exercise set while the participant is recovering. In addi-
tion, for the aforementioned studies as well as those measuring
affect after a working set, no detail is provided to indicate timing
between set completion and affective rating. We recognize that,
in certain contexts (e.g., power lifting, plyometric training),
redirecting attentional focus may compromise safety and that
ratings of affect may only feasibly be implemented during rest
intervals. Although it may seem to be a reasonable alternative
for researchers to take measurements after an active set and
identify in-task affect with clearly worded prompts (i.e., “how
did you feel during the set you just performed?”) to minimize
capturing the rebound effect, this method would capture re-
membered affect, which is a useful but distinct construct (54).
On a related note, only two studies (41,46) included prompt de-
tails, and ratings were specific to the question “how are you feel-
ing right now?” (pp. 4 and 702, respectively), which was
presented to participants after the working set.
Without precise details regarding prompt specifications and
timing, it is impossible to determine whether the researchers
were accurately assessing in-task affect rather than a rebound
effect. A rebound effect, as described previously, is commonly
documented in response to aerobic exercise. This effect is charac-
terized by decreases in affect ratings under exertion, followed by
an immediate reversal to positive ratings of affect after cessation
of activity. This immediate reversal is because of the removal of
aversive stimuli (in this instance exercise and accompanying inter-
oceptive cues) and a return to affective homeostasis (55). Concern
for a rebound effect was noted in only one study (30) included in
the current review, such that analyses were only conducted using
the FS scores of the second set of each exercise, instead of the
third, aiming to “eliminate a potential relief effect from cessation
of individual exercises” (p. 80). Although Greene and Petruzzello
recognized this relief effect and attempted to control for it, there is
a possibility that the same phenomena may occur within each ex-
ercise set, not just the final set, as a result of metabolic clearance of
lactate upon cessation of muscular contraction, and because of
the removal of the physical strain itself. Although not represented
in the results of this review because they did not appear in our
searches, two recently published papers with in-task ratings of af-
fect were brought to our attention. The authors of one study mea-
sured affective responses during the last 2–3 s of a working set,
indicating the feasibility of measuring in-task affect during resis-
tance exercise ((56); preprint). The second study was conducted
by Cavarretta et al. (57) and lends credence to the supposition
that a rebound effect may occur before the final set is completed.
The authors measured affect during the second set (out of three)
and found that interset affect was significantly higher than
intraset affect. Ultimately, if researchers are to make statements
regarding what factors influence the experience and perceptions
during resistance exercise (i.e., load, exercise order, and use of
mirrors), it is crucial to implement consistent measurement proto-
cols to accurately and precisely address in-task affect. On the
http://www.acsm-tj.org
Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
basis of available information, either rebound effects cannot cur-
rently be ruled out for the studies that were included in this review
or minimal reporting standards should be implemented to allevi-
ate concerns regarding interpretation.
The studies included for analysis in the current review also
lack assessment of interindividual differences. Elsangedy et al.
reported mean affective responses such that the aggregate FS
scores across all exercises were between 0 and 1, but they also
reported observing intersubject variability such that >45% of
participant scores for each exercise did not reflect the mean
for a specific exercise. Elsangedy et al. speculated that this discrep-
ancy was due to negative affective scores from certain individuals
for particular exercises, specifically the overhead press and the bi-
ceps curl (43). In comparing preexercise ratings with various time
points (i.e., after a given exercise), Greene and Petruzzello re-
ported that in the 70% of 10RM condition, most participants
either experienced no change in affect (14%–55%) or an in-
crease in affect (36%–50% of participants) during exercise
(30). In a similar fashion examining the 100% of 10RM con-
dition, Greene and Petruzzello reported a similar number of
participants who demonstrated an increase in affect, but less
participants (9%–23%) experienced no changes in affect,
paired with more participants (32%–50%), showing a de-
crease in affect during exercise. In all other studies included
in the current review, only group averages were reported. Var-
iations within a group should be acknowledged (58) because it
is possible that individuals might have personal preferences
that influence affective responses to acute bouts of exercise
(59,60). A landmark study published in 2000 (61) emphasizes
the importance in reporting idiographic results, as opposed to
just nomothetic data. Van Landuyt and colleagues recruited a
homogenous sample (N = 63) to complete the same relative ex-
ercise protocol. When analyzed in aggregate, the average par-
ticipant reported positive FS scores that were consistent over
the course of the protocol. However, idiographic assessments
revealed that only 14.3% of participants demonstrated such
affective patterns, 44.4% of participants reported increased
FS ratings over time, and 41.3% reported decreasing FS scores
over time. This large discrepancy in group versus individual re-
sponses was similarly reported by Greene and Petruzzello, sug-
gesting a similar phenomenon with resistance training. The
interindividual differences to the same stimulus have important
implications for examining affective responses to resistance
training. Authors of a systematic review of periodization litera-
ture (62) confirm this, stating that “data interpretation is being
compromised by persistently ignoring interindividual variation
in responsiveness to experimental protocols.” (p. 31). Although
the authors were not commenting on affective responses di-
rectly, the sentiment is likely relevant to exercise programming
and resultant perceptions as a whole.
The results of this narrative review have revealed variability
in the methods for measuring affective responses to resistance
exercise. Because of the purported significance of in-task affect
on the continuation of behaviors that should be repeated regu-
larly, it is important to move progressively toward establishing
a framework of measurement that will yield robust data. Mea-
suring in-task affective responses during resistance exercise
poses unique obstacles compared with protocols in aerobic
studies, such as the discontinuous nature of resistance exercise
and the relatively higher risks associated with asking partici-
pants to provide perceptual ratings while under external loads.
Translational Journal of the ACSM 5
Measurement of in-task affect for every repetition would simply
not be feasible or safe. It may be useful to consider measurement
timing based on the peak-end rule heuristic, which states that in-
dividuals make judgments of an experience primarily from the
“peak” (i.e., the most salient point, regardless of positive or
negative valence) and the end of the experience, rather than
the average of each moment in the experience (63). That is, re-
searchers may need to target the peak of each set. Although
the peak of a set has not been unequivocally defined and needs
to be empirically tested, it is reasonable to speculate that the last
repetition of a set fulfills the criteria for the peak, as the physical
and mental strain accumulates throughout the working set.
Broadly speaking, if researchers can consistently measure
affective responses following relatively similar protocols, com-
parison across studies would likely become less cumbersome.
Keeping in mind that a typical resistance exercise session con-
sists of multiple exercises performed for multiple sets that con-
tain multiple repetitions, there are numerous opportunities to
assess affective responses. However, strategic and consistent
patterns of measurement may be achieved from measuring af-
fect: 1) before the start of the session, 2) before and after each
set of each exercise, 3) during the middle and last repetition of
each set, and 4) using clearly worded prompts (e.g., “right
now” or remembered). Finally, the procedures regarding each
of these points should be explicitly and clearly stated with rep-
licable precision. These procedures would allow researchers to
better capture and compare temporal fluctuations in affect,
both in task and during rest, to assess various manipulations
designed to improve experiences during resistance exercise.
With more conducive protocols for cross-study comparison,
it is reasonable to speculate that stronger inferences could be
developed related to how affective responses influence the
maintenance of behavior. These inferences, with a more com-
prehensive understanding of affective responses, could be
translated into strategies to promote long-term adherence of
resistance exercise.
The results and views of this paper do not constitute endorse-
ment by the American College of Sports Medicine. The authors
report no conflicts of interest or sources of external funding.
REFERENCES
1. Piercy KL, Troiano RP, Ballard RM, et al. The physical activity guidelines for
Americans. JAMA. 2018;320(19):2020–8.
2. Harris CD, Watson KB, Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Dorn JM, Elam-Evans L. Adult
participation in aerobic and muscle-strengthening physical activities—United
States, 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62(17):326.
3. Ismail AD, Alkhayl FFA, Wilson J, Johnston L, Gill JM, Gray SR. The effect of
short-duration resistance training on insulin sensitivity and muscle adaptations
in overweight men. Exp Physiol. 2019;104(4):540–5.
4. Byrne HK, Wilmore JH. The effects of a 20-week exercise training program on
resting metabolic rate in previously sedentary, moderately obese women. Int J
Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2001;11(1):15–31.
5. Ekkekakis P, Lind E. Exercise does not feel the same when you are overweight:
the impact of self-selected and imposed intensity on affect and exertion. Int J
Obes (Lond). 2006;30(4):652–60.
6. Russell JA, JJ OP. A circumplex model of affect. Psychology s. 1980;39(6):
1161.
7. Lee HH, Emerson JA, Williams DM. The exercise–affect–adherence pathway:
an evolutionary perspective. Front Psychol. 2016;7:1285.
8. Williams DM. Exercise, affect, and adherence: an integrated model and a case
for self-paced exercise. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2008;30(5):471–96.
9. Brand R, Ekkekakis P. Affective–reflective theory of physical inactivity and
exercise. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research. 2018;48(1):48–58.
10. Ekkekakis P, Petruzzello SJ. Acute aerobic exercise and affect. Sports Med.
1999;28(5):337–47.
6 Volume 5 • Number 11 • Summer 2020 Measurements of Acute Affective Responses to Resistance Exercise: A Narrative Review
Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
11. Focht BC, Knapp DJ, Gavin TP, Raedeke TD, Hickner RC. Affective and self-
efficacy responses to acute aerobic exercise in sedentary older and younger
adults. J Aging Phys Act. 2007;15(2):123–38.
12. Ekkekakis P. The dual-mode theory of affective responses to exercise in
metatheoretical context: I. Initial impetus, basic postulates, and philosophical
framework. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2009;2(1):73–94.
13. Backhouse SH, Ekkekakis P, Biddle SJ, Foskett A, Williams C. Exercise makes
people feel better but people are inactive: paradox or artifact? J Sport Exerc
Psychol. 2007;29(4):498–517.
14. Hall EE, Ekkekakis P, Petruzzello SJ. The affective beneficence of vigorous
exercise revisited. Br J Health Psychol. 2002;7(1):47–66.
15. Parfitt G, Rose EA, Burgess WM. The psychological and physiological re-
sponses of sedentary individuals to prescribed and preferred intensity exer-
cise. Br J Health Psychol. 2006;11(1):39–53.
16. Williams DM, Dunsiger S, Ciccolo JT, Lewis BA, Albrecht AE, Marcus BH.
Acute affective response to a moderate-intensity exercise stimulus predicts
physical activity participation 6 and 12 months later. Psychol Sport Exerc.
2008;9(3):231–45.
17. Liao Y, Chou C-P, Huh J, Leventhal A, Dunton G. Examining acute bi-
directional relationships between affect, physical feeling states, and physical
activity in free-living situations using electronic ecological momentary assess-
ment. J Behav Med. 2017;40(3):445–57.
18. Williams DM, Dunsiger S, Jennings EG, Marcus BH. Does affective valence
during and immediately following a 10-min walk predict concurrent and future
physical activity? Ann Behav Med. 2012;44(1):43–51.
19. Rhodes RE, Kates A. Can the affective response to exercise predict future mo-
tives and physical activity behavior? A systematic review of published evi-
dence. Ann Behav Med. 2015;49(5):715–31.
20. Kwan BM, Bryan A. In-task and post-task affective response to exercise:
translating exercise intentions into behaviour. Br J Health Psychol. 2010;15(1):
115–31.
21. Cavarretta DJ, Hall EE, Bixby WR. The acute effects of resistance exercise on
affect, anxiety, and mood–practical implications for designing resistance
training programs. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2018;1–30.
22. Ekkekakis P. The Measurement of Affect, Mood, and Emotion: A Guide for
Health-Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press; 2013.
23. Ekkekakis P, Petruzzello SJ. Exercise. Analysis of the affect measurement co-
nundrum in exercise psychology: I. Fundamental issues. 2000;1(2):71–88.
24. Ekkekakis P, Petruzzello SJ. Exercise. Analysis of the affect measurement co-
nundrum in exercise psychology: IV. A conceptual case for the affect
circumplex. 2002;3(1):35–63.
25. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting
systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care
interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):
e1000100.
26. Bellezza PA, Hall EE, Miller PC, Bixby WR. The influence of exercise order on
blood lactate, perceptual, and affective responses. J Strength Cond Res.
2009;23(1):203–8.
27. Carraro A, Paoli A, Gobbi E. Affective response to acute resistance exercise: a
comparison among machines and free weights. Sport Sciences for Health.
2018;14(2):283–8.
28. Chmelo EA, Hall EE, Miller PC, Sanders KN. Mirrors and resistance exercise,
do they influence affective responses? J Health Psychol. 2009;14(8):1067–74.
29. Focht BC, Garver MJ, Cotter JA, Devor ST, Lucas AR, Fairman CM. Affective
responses to acute resistance exercise performed at self-selected and im-
posed loads in trained women. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(11):3067–74.
30. Greene DR, Petruzzello SJ. More isn’t necessarily better: examining the
intensity–affect–enjoyment relationship in the context of resistance exercise.
Sport Exerc Performance Psychol. 2015;4(2):75–87.
31. Portugal EM, Lattari E, Santos TM, Deslandes AC. Affective responses to pre-
scribed and self-selected strength training intensities. Percept Mot Skills.
2015;121(2):465–81.
32. Tharion WJ, Harman EA, Kraemer WJ, Rauch TM. Effects of different weight
training routines on mood states. J Strength Cond Res. 1991;5(2):60–5.
33. Arent SM, Alderman BL, Short EJ, Landers DM. The impact of the testing
environment on affective changes following acute resistance exercise.
J Appl Sport Psychol. 2007;19(3):364–78.
34. Arent SM, Landers DM, Matt KS, Etnier JL. Dose–response and mechanistic
issues in the resistance training and affect relationship. J Sport Exerc Psychol.
2005;27(1):92–110.
35. Duncan MJ, Oxford SW. The effect of caffeine ingestion on mood state and
bench press performance to failure. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(1):178–85.
36. Silva JC, Aniceto RR, Oliota-Ribeiro LS, Neto GR, Leandro LS, Cirilo-Sousa
MS. Mood effects of blood flow restriction resistance exercise among basket-
ball players. Percept Mot Skills. 2018;125(4):788–801.
37. Szabo A, Mesko A, Caputo A, Gill ET. Examination of exercise-induced feeling
states in four modes of exercise. JIJoSP. 1998;29:376–90.
38. Vasconcelos GC, Costa BD, Damorim IR, et al. Do traditional and cluster-set
resistance training systems alter the pleasure and effort perception in trained
men? 2019;19:823–8.
39. Ribeiro AS, dos Santos ED, Nunes JP, Schoenfeld BJ. Acute effects of differ-
ent training loads on affective responses in resistance-trained men. Int J
Sports Med. 2019;40(13):850–5.
40. Madzima TA, Black JR, Melanson JT, Nepocatych S, Hall EE. Influence of re-
sistance exercise on appetite and affect following pre-sleep feeding. Sports
(Basel). 2018;6(4):172.
41. Alves R, Follador L, Ferreira S, Andrade V, Garcia E, Da Silva G. Do acute feelings
of pleasure/displeasure during resistance training represent session affect in
obese women? J Exerc Physiol Online. 2017;20(2):1–9.
42. Ciccolo JT, Whitworth JW, Dunsiger SI, SantaBarbara NJ, Nosrat S, LaBrec
JE. Acute effects of resistance exercise on affect, arousal, and urge to drink
in temporarily abstinent young adult hazardous drinkers. Am J Addict. 2016;
25(8):623–7.
43. Elsangedy HM, Krinski K, da Silva Machado DG, Okano AH, da Silva SG. Self-
selected intensity, ratings of perceived exertion, and affective responses in
sedentary male subjects during resistance training. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(6):
1795–800.
44. Nosrat S, Whitworth JW, Dunsiger SI, SantaBarbara NJ, Ciccolo JT. Acute ef-
fects of resistance exercise in a depressed HIV sample: the exercise for people
who are immunocompromised (EPIC) study. Ment Health Phys Act. 2017;12:2–9.
45. Levinger I, Goodman C, Hare DL, Jerums G, Morris T, Selig S. Psychological
responses to acute resistance exercise in men and women who are obese.
J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(5):1548–52.
46. Herring MP, O'Connor PJ. The effect of acute resistance exercise on feelings
of energy and fatigue. J Sports Sci. 2009;27(7):701–9.
47. Richardson DL, Duncan MJ, Jimenez A, Jones VM, Juris PM, Clarke ND. The
perceptual responses to high-velocity, low-load and low-velocity, high-load
resistance exercise in older adults. J Sports Sci. 2018;36(14):1594–601.
48. Faro J, Wright JA, Hayman LL, Hastie M, Gona PN, Whiteley JA. Functional re-
sistance training and affective response in female college-age students.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(6):1186–94.
http://www.acsm-tj.org
Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
49. Bibeau WS, Moore JB, Mitchell NG, Vargas-Tonsing T, Bartholomew JB.
Effects of acute resistance training of different intensities and rest periods
on anxiety and affect. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(8):2184–91.
50. Lembke P, Capodice J, Hebert K, Swenson TJ. Medicine influence of
omega-3 (n3) index on performance and wellbeing in young adults after heavy
eccentric exercise. Joss. 2014;13(1):151.
51. McGowan RW, Pierce EF, Eastman N, Tripathi H, Dewey T, Olson K. Beta-
endorphins and mood states during resistance exercise. Percept Mot Skills.
1993;76(2):376–8.
52. McGowan RW, Pierce EF, Jordan D. Mood alterations with a single bout of
physical activity. Percept Mot Skills. 1991;72(3):1203–9.
53. Rehor PR, Stewart C, Dunnagan T, Cooley D. Alteration of mood state after a
single bout of noncompetitive and competitive exercise programs. Percept
Mot Skills. 2001;93(1):249–56.
54. Zenko Z, Ekkekakis P, Ariely D. Can you have your vigorous exercise and en-
joy it too? Ramping intensity down increases postexercise, remembered, and
forecasted pleasure. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2016;38(2):149–59.
55. Solomon RL. Recent experiments testing an opponent-process theory of ac-
quired motivation. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 1980;40(1):271–89.
56. Hutchinson J, Zenko Z, Santich S, Dalton P. Increasing the pleasure and
enjoyment of exercise: a novel resistance training protocol. SportRxiv. 2019.
57. Cavarretta DJ, Hall EE, Bixby WR. Affective responses from different modalities
of resistance exercise: timing matters! 2019;1(5).
58. Gauvin L, Brawley L. Alternative psychological models and methodologies for
the study of exercise and affect. In: Exercise Psychology: The Influence of Phys-
ical Exercise on Psychological Processes. New York: Wiley; 1993, pp. 146–71.
59. Yeung RR. The acute effects of exercise on mood state. J Psychosom Res.
1996;40(2):123–41.
60. Morgan WP. Methodological Considerations. In: Physical activity and mental
health. Washington DC: Taylor & Francis; 1997, pp. 3–32.
61. Van Landuyt LM, Ekkekakis P, Hall EE, Petruzzello SJ. Throwing the mountains
into the lakes: on the perils of nomothetic conceptions of the exercise–affect
relationship. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2000;22(3):208–34.
62. Afonso J, Nikolaidis PT, Sousa P, Mesquita I. Is empirical research on periodization
trustworthy? A comprehensive review of conceptual and methodological
issues. J Sports Sci Med. 2017;16(1):27–34.
63. Kahneman D, Fredrickson BL, Schreiber CA, Redelmeier DA. When more pain
is preferred to less: adding a better end. Psychol Sci. 1993;4(6):401–5.
Translational Journal of the ACSM 7