Talk:Affect (psychology)

message: This section looks like nutty original research to me. Ben Finn 22:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Affect logic

message: I have deleted this section. Most readers are unlikely to understand it in its current form.  
Here is what I deleted:
:"Affects and moods give a direction to thought contents. In accordance with its phylogenetically developed purpose, the intellect is a “scanning mechanism” that searches for adequate realization options according to current drives and inhibitions. Particularly in complex societies, it is frequently seen how one-sided analyses can be performed by individual persons and interest groups and the problems of others are negated or undervalued. Analyses are sometimes derived from selfish anticipated solution approaches. The accuracy of the knowledge and the evaluation of various application options are frequently not kept separate here. Due to this presumptuousness justified by affect logic, pluralistic conditions are useful and necessary. If specific thought contents are highly engaged affectively, these are sometimes affectively “blocked” or corresponding theoretical alternatives are factored out. Under certain conditions, our reasoning ability exhibits a distinctive feature recognized by psychoanalysis in which certain one-sided, partially subconscious and misguiding decision preferences develop over the course of life for avoiding or escaping uncomfortable affects (e.g. fear). Apparent unambiguousness in “either x or y” is then frequently preferred to the view of the systemically interconnected variability of aspects of reality (“both x and y”). This can lead to contrasting theory formation. Examples for such opposing world views are rationalism and empiricism, materialism and idealism, left and right ideologies."  
Su-Laine Yeo 08:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted jargonistic blather

message: This article is completely off the mark. In clinical assessment, mood is the emotion being expressed; affect is the intensity. So one might say that a person's affect is "blunted", "flat", "neutral", "expansive", "intense" etc. I'll check my sources and rewrite completely. kibi 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the resolution status of this issue? Has the material changed (here or at the :Affect display article-fork), or is this problem still out-standing? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 10:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clinical assessment

message: According to the new (2006) APA dictionary, what's discussed here is "affect display". It is possible to have "incongruence" between "affect" and "affect display". According to the same source affect is the experience of emotion, but, in consulting other sources, I got somewhat different terms. I'm going to copy this text to a "Affect Display", either a new entry or if the existing entry is a stub or worse. DCDuring 23:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Affect Display

message: I have deleted sections preoccupied with the idea that incongruence of affect is an insincere attempt to fake a way out of an institution. Feel free to revert if you do not agree with my action.  --Mattisse 23:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feel free to revert 

message: Now that Wiktionary has more accurate definitions for affect and affective, there isn't anything in either article except the unreferenced reference to the arts. DCDuring 04:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time I am writing this, the article has taken an excellent turn, imho. Thanks. --Robert Daoust 01:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marking this  since the sourcing and textual dearth problems have been solved (though sourcing style is an utter wreck; addressed separately below). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 10:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not much content in either article

message: The word "affect" (noun) is not in wide public use. The APA definitions don't make a sharp distinction in meaning between "affect" and "emotion". Most articles and books on emotion spend some time making clear how the words are being used within the article or book. 
Although the word "affect" may be used by clinicians to mean what the APA labels as "affect display", it would be confusing to build an article around "affect" to cover the "affect display" concept. There is now the beginnings of an "affect display" article.
Accordingly, shouldn't "affect" become a DAB page, letting users go to "emotion", "affect display", or even "feeling"? (APA reserve "feeling" for the subjective experience of emotion.) There may be other things that a DAB page could handle as well.
There is almost certainly some value on some parts of the "affect" article. A formal effort to merge might attract desirable attention to the effort to improve the emotion article and sort out the merge issues. Thoughts? DCDuring 18:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We would not merge an article about a psychology term of art which describes apparent/experienced but sometimes self-delutional perception of emotion (or apparent/observed but often feigned display of alleged emotion, now a separate article at :Affect display), with the article on "emotion" in general. We may well want :Emotion to link to this article with  or a "See also" entry there, but these are obviously not redundant articles at all.  At any rate, :Affect already is a DAB page, and this is now :Affect (psychology), so I'm marking this merge proposal moot. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 10:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Shouldn't this be merged with Emotion?

message: Someone who cares a lot about this article needs to clean up the citation styles; the article is a confusion and annoying mix of inline [1]-style citations, correct but untemplated Harvard-style referencing, correct and -templated referencing (I think, anyway; I'm pretty sure I saw some in there), and incorrect pseudo-Harvard referencing.  Without a really clear reason for using Harvard referencing, inline citations are preferred at Wikipedia, per WP:CITE. And they need to use , , etc., to provide and consistently format source details. 
Even if a clear reason for Harvard style is available, this would still mean that the WP:CITE references need to be converted to Harvard style, and the bogus ones corrected to proper Harvard style, and all of them templated with our Harvard referencing templates instead of being bare text insertions (like (Johnson 1980)), since those provide no reader-useful links to Harvard-style footnotes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 09:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation cleanup 

message: The sentence below, which cites popular psychology, has no support in the scientific literature.  It should be removed.
"One current theory in popular psychology, the lateralization of brain function, holds that one half of the brain deals mainly with the affective or emotional, while the other half deals mainly with the cognitive or rational. In certain views, the conative may be considered as a part of the affective,[2] or the affective as a part of the cognitive.[3]."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.36.229 (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just rewritten the bit about lateralization but doubt it belongs in the introduction. If there's no objection, I'll remove it in a week. As for "conative" = "affective" "affective" = "cognitive", I have no problem with it staying, unless it is false. Anthony (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory section 

message: It has been suggested (2 March 2008) that Affect display be merged into this article. 
Disagree. Affect display is an important and broad enough subject to warrant its own article. This is like suggesting "Timber construction" belongs in the article "Timber", or "Baseball" in the article "Ball". Anthony (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Affect Display into this article

message: It has been suggested (15 June 2008) that Affect (philosophy) be merged into this article. 
Disagree. The point of this article is to give the psychological perspective on the term and concept - as opposed to that of other disciplines such as philosophy. Anyway, at the moment the Affect (philosophy) article is 3 bad sentences. Anthony (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Affect (philosophy) into this article

message: It has been suggested (22 November 2008) that this article be merged into Affective science. 
Disagree. One article (Affect - psychology) discusses a phenomenon as it is conceptualised in psychology. The other discusses a branch of science. It is not possible to properly deal with the meaning of affect in psychology in a couple of paragraphs under a subheading in Affective science. Each merits its own article. Your thoughts would be appreciated so we can resolve this soon. Anthony (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge this article into Affective Science

message: Whose opinion would that be? Why is this category needed and if so, let's get some primary source reference material going. Otherwise, I move to delete. --Amy (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning in art 

message: Affect can be instrumental in decision-making and judgments. Affect serves as information, can spotlight information important for the decision, a motivator for information processing and behavior, and as common currency for comparisons. 
Peters, E., Lipkus, I., & Diefenback, M.A. (2006). The functions of affect in health communications and in the construction of health preferenes. Journal of Communication, 56, 140-162.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Songm (talk • contribs) 22:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Functions of affect 

message: I removed the section below from the article Affection (section Psychology). There was a proposal to merge this section with this article (Affect), but I thought it was wrong to keep the section there. So now I paste it here (apart from a part that was about affection). If anybody feels s/he wants to use parts of this section and paste it into Affect, you are so welcome! Lova Falk talk 17:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section from Affection - Psychology 

message: Perhaps merge section "arousal" with arousal?  MathewTownsend (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  unclear what arousal has to do with affect - suggest removing section 

message: from Taxonomy of Learning By Roland E. Pittman - at least pages 10-11. See  MathewTownsend (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That book states, on page 127, that it was copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. Therefore, if I understand correctly, the Wikipedia article is not a copyright violation. —Tanner Swett (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, it's from PediaPress, which is partnered with the Wikimedia Foundation, and all the content is taken from Wikipedia.  Thus not a copyvio.  —Soap— 04:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyvio found 

message: I propose a new subsection for this article that would be called "Motivational Intensity", which is a topic closely related to arousal (already addressed in relation to affect in this article). Maschone (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Affect can have at least three components, including valence, arousal, and motivational intensity. There is a subtle distinction between arousal and motivational intensity, but arousal involves the actual physiological response to a stimulus (such as breathing rate, blood pressure) whereas motivational intensity is the strength of the propulsion to avoid or encounter a stimuli. Arousal measurements can indicate motivational intensity, but they are distinct constructs. Differences in affective state can influence mental processes. One such cognitive process that has been the focus of research is cognitive scope, which can be described as broad or narrow and measured with tasks of attention, perception, categorization, and memory.  Early research suggested that perhaps affect valence influenced cognitive scope, namely that negative-valenced affects (like sadness) confer narrow cognitive scope whereas positive-valenced affects (like happiness) confer broader cognitive scope. Most recently, another theory has emerged that the motivational intensity actually effects cognitive scope. In particular, induced disgust and sadness, negative affective states varying in motivational intensity (high motivational intensity and low motivational intensity respectively) resulted in differential consequences on an attention task, for example. So, this research among other articles have supported the idea that affect high in motivational intensity confer a narrower cognitive scope whereas emotions low in motivational intensity confer a broader cognitive scope. Maschone (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Researchers Eddie Harmon-Jones, Philip A. Gable and Tom F. Price (2013)http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Direct.asp?AccessToken=9I5Q9IJ8XKKEKJEUDPM9X4D5XMDX8999M&Show=Object have been conducting research whether positive affect always broaden the mind and negative affect always narrows the mind. A main impact of the study was the influence of motivational intensity. The findings of the study showed that the positive or negative affective valence state had no impact on whether the mind was broaden or narrowed. Instead, the broadening and narrowing of the mind relied solely on the motivational intensity. Findings showed that high motivational intensity leads to a narrowed cognitive scope whereas low motivational intensity leads to a broadened cognitive scope. Studying and learning about the effects of motivational intensity is beneficial because it has been linked to studies of psychopathic patients and alcoholic addictions. With the addition of this section, it would be important to discuss the relationship motivational intensity has with affect and cognitive scope. As well as compare older research of motivational intensity with more recent research and discoveries.Kaseymoo1 (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Researchers Eddie Harmon-Jones, Philip A. Gable and Tom F. Price (2013)http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Direct.asp?AccessToken=9I5Q9IJ8XKKEKJEUDPM9X4D5XMDX8999M&Show=Object gathered from their research that the effect of emotions depends on low or high in motivational intensity. Harmon-Jones focused on the changes of the N1 component when comparing emotive and neutral pictures. There was larger N1 amplitudes in response to appetitive and aversive pictures when manipulating local attentional scope compared to global. This shows that motivational intensity and attentional scope are bidirectional. Harmon-Jones’ experiment provides new evidence that the original idea that positive affect broadens and negative affect narrows only applies to low motivational positive affects and high motivational negative affects. This means that low motivationally intense affective states broaden cognitive scope and high motivationally intense affect states narrow cognitive scope, regardless of affective valence. Allong22 (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivational Intensity  

message: Why is it given such prominence, let alone in the lede? --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conation??? 

message: Just for the information of anyone watching this article, I am a student working on this section for a class in college. I am doing research and will be posting a paragraph or two with citations and links to further clarify this section.
Cbladh1 (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affect Tolerance edits 

message: Sorry but as a new student in psychology, this first statement tells me nothing useful without examples of usage of the word: 'Affect, in psychology, refers to the underlying experience of feeling, emotion or mood'. Strayan (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless without examples of usage 

message: — Assignment last updated by Thatbaddie205 (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

message: — Assignment last updated by Wc802 (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Mind-Body, section 18

message: — Assignment last updated by Jovanna.lanbaxter (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Mind-Body, section 16