本研究之主要目的在檢驗Watson與Clark提出情緒的三領域模式(Tripartite Model)，其理論認爲負向情緒爲焦慮與憂鬱的共同因素，生理緊張與症狀爲焦慮的特殊因素，而缺乏正向情緒爲憂鬱的特殊因素。546位非臨床之學生及中年成人爲研究對象，以情緒與焦慮症狀問卷、貝氏焦慮量表、貝氏憂鬱量表等進行問卷調查，以性別及年齡共分爲學生女性組、學生男性組、中年女性組及中年男性組四組，將情緒與焦慮症狀問卷(MASQ)所得三個因素結構與焦慮憂鬱情緒的進行相關係數及階層迴歸分析，結果發現(1)焦慮與憂鬱的共同因素爲負向情緒，符合情緒三領域模式所預測。(2)焦慮佔解釋生理抱怨最多的解釋變異量，在四組中其比例介於58%至78%之間，超過非特殊因素的解釋變異量，生理症狀爲焦慮的特殊因素在四組中得到證寶。(3)缺乏正向情緒在預測憂鬱指標時，均未達顯著水準，且不如非特殊因素（即焦慮變項）更能預測憂鬱，缺乏正向情緒爲憂鬱的特殊因素並未得到驗證。最後則針對可能的文化差異及情緒三領域模式進行省思與探討。

The purpose of this study is to test the Tripartite Model which groups symptoms of depression and anxiety into 3 subtypes: symptoms of general distress that are largely nonspecific, manifestations of somatic tension and arousal that are relatively unique to anxiety, and symptoms of anhedonia and low positive affect that are specific to depression. A sample of 546 students and adults were administered measures of depression, anxiety, Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire (MASQ). The groups ace subdivided male students, female students, male adults and female adults groups. According the Correlation analysis and hierarchical regression analyses, the results shows that: (1) anxiety and depression shares a substantial component of general affective distress as the Tripartite Model proposed. (2) From 58% to 78% of the predicted variance in somatic tension and arousal is anxiety-specific that is more than the non-specific factors. (3) anhedonia and low positive affect are unique to depression had not been supported in any groups. The appropriate of Tripartite Model and culture differences are discussed.