Talk:Affect theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is there any professional criticism available on affect theory? I've applied affect theory on myself and did not achieve optimal mental health. I actually felt more neurotic through the process of maximizing my positive affect and minimizing my negative affect.--Philosophistry 14:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello Philosophistry,

On the basis of what you say here, and it is,of course, a brief remark, I would respond in the following way.

I focus on your "minimizing my negative affect". My question would be how did you go about doing this?

The theory says we "minimize negative affect" by expressing all affect.

1) We want to maximize interest and joy. 2) We want to minimize: anger, fear, distress, disgust, dismell and shame. 3) We achieve #'1 and 2 by expressing all affect. 4) We need a set of rules or "scripts" that we learn in order to optimally achieve #'s 1 and 2.

Minimizing negative affect does not mean NOT expressing it it means expressing it.

Maybe this is the way you read it but it "sounds" like you tried the tactic of repressing the negative?


Negative affect[edit]

Negative affect was redirecting here. I have changed the redirect to Affect (psychology). Seems more appropriate.Anthony (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs review for citations / original research[edit]

Hi all, this article needs a review for improved citations. Melody.waring (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Affect theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

On "Adoption": the assertion that Tomkins' List of affects is incomplete[edit]

Affect theory as described by Tomkins leaves space for 'humor' as an emotion or script resulting from the affect 'enjoyment-joy' and explicitly discusses laughter as a more sudden and intense point of 'enjoyment-joy'.

Enjoyment-joy is characterized by a decrease of intensity. So 'humor' as noted by Rburtonresearch, the "response to a conflict between negative and positive affects," is a sharp reduction in this tension/conflict, which is experienced as affective intensity. Thus humor is an emotion linked to the affect enjoyment-joy.

Should I simply excise the section on humor or expand it with this definition?

My source: Shame in the Cybernetic Fold: Reading Silvan Tomkins Author(s): Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick and Adam Frank Source: Critical Inquiry, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Winter, 1995), pp. 496-522 Published by: The University of Chicago Press

Lolaglass (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

10th affect?[edit]

Affect theory will die out if none of its proponents ever get horny. Just saying :) Malick78 (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)