This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Evansalexawiki, Cbladh1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Isnt affect also used to mean simply "current mood" (not appearance of mood)? It certainly is in one psychology book Ive read. Ben Finn 22:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi all I see that you have split into an aritcle on affect and one on affect display and I understand the reasons for this but I still think you need to really highlight the fact that in a mental health setting (at least in Australia - maybe not in the US), 'affect' refers to what is labelled on wikipedia as 'affect display'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.112.38 ( talk) 06:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This section looks like nutty original research to me. Ben Finn 22:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
affect in psychology is the subconscious emotions and feelings of persons. People, when making decisions, refer to their "affective pool" which has negative and positive tags and thus aids decision making. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.1.124.125 ( talk • contribs) .
The most famous researcher concerning "affect logic" is (the psychiatrist ?) Luc Ciompi from Switzerland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.171.79.65 ( talk • contribs) .
I have deleted this section. Most readers are unlikely to understand it in its current form.
Here is what I deleted:
Su-Laine Yeo 08:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have created an article entitled Affect display which began with the complete text of this article. I edited it to a stub with the APA defintion of "affect display", a little of the balance of the text still in this article, and some links to sincerity, deceipt, self-deception, malingering. It's a start. Feel free to work on either this article or the "affect display" article. I don't think that the Affect article text as of the 30 minutes before the time of this comment was worth very much with respect to the generally accepted APA and psych. researchers' use of the term. DCDuring 00:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 {{ Ref harv}}-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 {{ Cite journal}}, {{ Cite web}}, 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)
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)
The current intro is ridiculously short, I can only assume from past experience it's because people can't agree on anything, so they remove anything they don't like. Consequently there's almost nothing left. An absurd situation which makes WP a laughing stock, and an annoyance to try to fix. I think you people are mad.-- Sanjam da prdnem na tebe ( talk) 09:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In psychology the terms affection and affective are of great importance. Experimentalists who? maintain that all emotional manifestations are forms of affection. citation needed Many psychologists have attempted to define or describe the nature of affection; however, experiments on feeling are difficult. Two characterizations of affection have been proposed. In the first, affective phenomena are divisible into categories of pleasurable and non-pleasurable. citation needed The main objections to this are that it does not explain the infinite variety of phenomena, and that it disregards the distinction that most philosophers maintain between "higher" and "lower" pleasures. citation needed. A second characterization is that every sensation has its specific affective quality, some of which may not have a precise name. Wilhelm Wundt maintains that there are three main affective directions which can describe all affective phenomena; these are (a) pleasure and displeasure, (b) tension and relaxation, and (c) excitement and depression. [1]
Two methods of experiment on affection have been tried:
Perhaps merge section "arousal" with arousal? MathewTownsend ( talk) 13:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
from Taxonomy of Learning By Roland E. Pittman - at least pages 10-11. See [1] [2] MathewTownsend ( talk) 21:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Davidson College/Psy 276: Cognitive Psychology (2013 Q4)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
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)
I agree with the proposal that motivational intensity should be new section.
I also agree that a new subsection should be created for motivational intensity.
Why is it given such prominence, let alone in the lede? -- YeOldeGentleman ( talk) 00:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Slicesofky ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ctom1999, Thatbaddie205, Ajr1234, Jshelby9, Pbary psych.
— Assignment last updated by Thatbaddie205 ( talk) 02:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 10 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 1allsmilez1, Allison ze, Elisabeth.Lavi, Keiralaflamme ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Wc802 ( talk) 17:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leozhao8799, Elisabeth.Lavi, Dan derzsi ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Murphypuppy101, Alexandrebd.
— Assignment last updated by Jovanna.lanbaxter ( talk) 17:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Evansalexawiki, Cbladh1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Isnt affect also used to mean simply "current mood" (not appearance of mood)? It certainly is in one psychology book Ive read. Ben Finn 22:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi all I see that you have split into an aritcle on affect and one on affect display and I understand the reasons for this but I still think you need to really highlight the fact that in a mental health setting (at least in Australia - maybe not in the US), 'affect' refers to what is labelled on wikipedia as 'affect display'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.112.38 ( talk) 06:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This section looks like nutty original research to me. Ben Finn 22:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
affect in psychology is the subconscious emotions and feelings of persons. People, when making decisions, refer to their "affective pool" which has negative and positive tags and thus aids decision making. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.1.124.125 ( talk • contribs) .
The most famous researcher concerning "affect logic" is (the psychiatrist ?) Luc Ciompi from Switzerland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.171.79.65 ( talk • contribs) .
I have deleted this section. Most readers are unlikely to understand it in its current form.
Here is what I deleted:
Su-Laine Yeo 08:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have created an article entitled Affect display which began with the complete text of this article. I edited it to a stub with the APA defintion of "affect display", a little of the balance of the text still in this article, and some links to sincerity, deceipt, self-deception, malingering. It's a start. Feel free to work on either this article or the "affect display" article. I don't think that the Affect article text as of the 30 minutes before the time of this comment was worth very much with respect to the generally accepted APA and psych. researchers' use of the term. DCDuring 00:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 {{ Ref harv}}-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 {{ Cite journal}}, {{ Cite web}}, 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)
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)
The current intro is ridiculously short, I can only assume from past experience it's because people can't agree on anything, so they remove anything they don't like. Consequently there's almost nothing left. An absurd situation which makes WP a laughing stock, and an annoyance to try to fix. I think you people are mad.-- Sanjam da prdnem na tebe ( talk) 09:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In psychology the terms affection and affective are of great importance. Experimentalists who? maintain that all emotional manifestations are forms of affection. citation needed Many psychologists have attempted to define or describe the nature of affection; however, experiments on feeling are difficult. Two characterizations of affection have been proposed. In the first, affective phenomena are divisible into categories of pleasurable and non-pleasurable. citation needed The main objections to this are that it does not explain the infinite variety of phenomena, and that it disregards the distinction that most philosophers maintain between "higher" and "lower" pleasures. citation needed. A second characterization is that every sensation has its specific affective quality, some of which may not have a precise name. Wilhelm Wundt maintains that there are three main affective directions which can describe all affective phenomena; these are (a) pleasure and displeasure, (b) tension and relaxation, and (c) excitement and depression. [1]
Two methods of experiment on affection have been tried:
Perhaps merge section "arousal" with arousal? MathewTownsend ( talk) 13:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
from Taxonomy of Learning By Roland E. Pittman - at least pages 10-11. See [1] [2] MathewTownsend ( talk) 21:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Davidson College/Psy 276: Cognitive Psychology (2013 Q4)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
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)
I agree with the proposal that motivational intensity should be new section.
I also agree that a new subsection should be created for motivational intensity.
Why is it given such prominence, let alone in the lede? -- YeOldeGentleman ( talk) 00:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Slicesofky ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ctom1999, Thatbaddie205, Ajr1234, Jshelby9, Pbary psych.
— Assignment last updated by Thatbaddie205 ( talk) 02:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 10 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 1allsmilez1, Allison ze, Elisabeth.Lavi, Keiralaflamme ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Wc802 ( talk) 17:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leozhao8799, Elisabeth.Lavi, Dan derzsi ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Murphypuppy101, Alexandrebd.
— Assignment last updated by Jovanna.lanbaxter ( talk) 17:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)