Emotion & Affect Psychology

Parent: Applied Human Psychology · researched 2026-05-31T21:39:49.500Z· 24 sources · 8 concepts · skill emotion-and-affect-psychology

The evidence-based science of emotion: what it is, how it arises, how it

Emotion & Affect Psychology

The evidence-based science of emotion: what it is, how it arises, how it [source]
spreads, and how to regulate it - applied to two operator problems: [source]
The customer's emotion: de-escalating a furious stakeholder, reading the [source]
mood of a room, not getting infected by a tense call. [source]
Your own emotion: staying regulated in an escalation, not letting a bad [source]
mood color a judgment, not over-dreading a hard conversation. [source]
This skill owns emotion mechanics. Where emotion shades into a syndrome [source]
(chronic stress, burnout, resilience) it hands off to [source]
performance-and-resilience-psychology; where it shades into moving someone [source]
(persuasion, trust, adoption) it hands off to the relevant sibling. The handoff [source]
lines are in the SKIP block above - honor them so the family stays non-redundant. [source]
A note on honesty: emotion science is contested and partly unreplicated. [source]
There is no agreed-upon list of "the emotions". The most popular applied advice [source]
("name it to tame it", "EQ predicts success", "always reappraise") is each [source]
either oversold or context-dependent. This skill flags every one of those. [source]

1. Appraisal theory — emotion is about meaning, not events

The foundational insight (Lazarus): an event does not cause an emotion [source]
directly. Your appraisal of the event does. The same outage makes one [source]
customer curious ("interesting, let's dig in") and another furious ("this will [source]
get me fired") - because they appraise it differently. This is the lever: [source]
**you cannot always change the event, but you can almost always influence the [source]
Lazarus split appraisal into two steps: [source]
Primary appraisal: Is this relevant to my goals, and is it good or bad? [source]
The event is classified as harm/loss (damage done), threat (harm [source]
coming), or challenge (a hard but winnable opportunity). Threat and [source]
challenge can attach to the same situation - the difference is largely in [source]
Secondary appraisal: *Can I cope with it? What are my resources and [source]
options?* High perceived coping → challenge emotions (engagement, determination). [source]
Low perceived coping → threat emotions (anxiety, dread, anger). [source]
Scherer's Component Process Model (CPM) formalizes appraisal into a sequence [source]
of Stimulus Evaluation Checks run very fast and roughly in order: [source]
Relevance: novelty, intrinsic pleasantness, goal relevance. [source]
Implication: causal attribution (who/what caused it), goal conduciveness, [source]
urgency, outcome probability. [source]
Coping potential: control, power, ability to adjust. [source]
Normative significance: does it fit my standards, values, self-concept? [source]
CPM treats emotion as a process, not a fixed state: the checks unfold over [source]
time, and the emotion is the synchronized pattern across components (cognition, [source]
physiology, action tendency, expression, feeling). It is the most detailed and [source]
most testable appraisal model. [source]
Operator moves (appraisal is the master lever): [source]
Re-appraise the customer's event toward "challenge" and toward high coping. [source]
"This is a bad week, and it's a configuration issue we know how to fix, and [source]
here's the plan" attacks both the primary (threat→challenge) and the secondary [source]
(low→high coping) appraisal. You are not denying the problem; you are changing [source]
Diagnose which appraisal is driving the heat. Anger usually follows an [source]
other-blame attribution + a should-not-have-happened normative check. Anxiety [source]
follows low control / low coping. Naming the driver tells you what to address: [source]
attribution ("here's what actually happened, and it wasn't you") for anger, [source]
control ("here are the three levers you still have") for anxiety. [source]
> Appraisal also underpins the stress literature (Lazarus & Folkman's [source]
> challenge-vs-threat). That stress/coping framing lives in [source]
> performance-and-resilience-psychology; this skill owns appraisal as the [source]
> general engine of all emotion, not just stress. [source]

2. The structure of emotion — three competing models, no winner

There is no scientific consensus on what emotions fundamentally are. Three [source]
camps, often described as fighting a "hundred years' war": [source]
(a) Basic / discrete emotions (Ekman, Tomkins). A small set of biologically [source]
basic emotions - classically **anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, [source]
surprise**: each with (allegedly) a universal facial signal, a distinct [source]
physiology, and a dedicated adaptive function. This is the model behind "read the [source]
microexpression" training. [source]
Caveat - this is the most empirically challenged claim in the field. The [source]
"universal facial expression" link is weak in real-life (non-posed) emotion; [source]
context and culture dominate the read. **Do not bet a customer call on reading [source]
someone's true feeling off their face.** [source]
(b) Dimensional / circumplex (Russell). Emotions aren't discrete categories [source]
but points in a continuous space defined by two axes: valence (pleasant↔ [source]
unpleasant) and arousal (activated↔deactivated). "Tense" = negative valence, [source]
high arousal; "calm" = positive valence, low arousal; "bored" = negative, low. [source]
This is the most useful working frame for operators because it is [source]
action-guiding (see below). [source]
(c) Theory of constructed emotion (Barrett). Emotions are not triggered; [source]
they are constructed in the moment by the brain, which makes meaning of raw [source]
core affect (the basic valence+arousal feeling) using learned **emotion [source]
concepts** shaped by culture and language. There is no fingerprint for "anger" in [source]
the face, body, or brain - "anger" is a category your brain applies, not a thing [source]
it detects. Implication: emotions vary far more between people and cultures than [source]
basic-emotion theory assumes, and emotional granularity (having fine-grained [source]
concepts) is a trainable skill that improves regulation. [source]
Operator working model - use the dimensional frame, hold the rest loosely: [source]
Map the customer onto valence × arousal in real time. Your job in a heated [source]
call is almost always arousal-down first, valence-up second: a furious [source]
customer (negative valence, high arousal) cannot absorb a solution until [source]
arousal drops. Solve the arousal axis (slow down, lower your voice, give them [source]
room to vent) before you try to move valence (the fix, the apology). [source]
Build emotional granularity (Barrett's practical payoff): the more precisely [source]
you can label what you and the customer feel ("this is *frustration about being [source]
unheard*", not just "they're mad"), the better you regulate and respond. Coarse [source]
labels → coarse responses. [source]
Distrust facial reads. Treat expression as a weak, context-dependent cue, [source]
not ground truth. Verify with words. [source]

3. Emotion regulation — Gross's process model (the core toolkit)

James Gross's process model is the single most useful framework here. It maps [source]
where in the emotion-generation timeline you can intervene. Emotion unfolds as [source]
Situation → Attention → Appraisal → Response, and there is a regulation [source]
family at each point. The first four are antecedent-focused (act before the [source]
emotion is in full swing); the last is response-focused (act after). [source]

Reappraisal usually beats suppression — but it's conditional

The most-cited finding: **cognitive reappraisal is generally more adaptive than [source]
expressive suppression.** [source]
Reappraisal (acting early, on meaning) lowers the experience and the [source]
expression of negative emotion, with little physiological cost and **no memory [source]
cost**. Neuroimaging (Buhle et al., 2014, meta-analysis of ~48 studies) shows [source]
reappraisal recruits prefrontal control regions and **down-regulates the [source]
Suppression (acting late, on expression) leaves the inner negative feeling [source]
largely intact, increases physiological activation (sympathetic load), [source]
impairs memory for the interaction, and tends to reduce rapport — [source]
suppressors are experienced by partners as less likable and raise the partner's [source]
blood pressure. It can also blunt positive emotion. [source]
**The crucial caveat - reappraisal is not universally good (Troy, Shallcross & [source]
Mauss, 2013). Adaptiveness is context-dependent**: [source]
When the stressor is uncontrollable (a customer's company reorg, a decision [source]
above your pay grade), high reappraisal ability → lower depression. Reframing [source]
is the right tool when you can't change the thing. [source]
When the stressor is controllable (a fixable bug, a process you own), high [source]
reappraisal ability → higher depression. Here, reframing your feelings [source]
instead of fixing the problem is maladaptive - you should change the situation, [source]
not just reinterpret it. [source]
The mature skill is regulatory flexibility (Bonanno & Burton): match the [source]
strategy to the context, and switch when feedback says it isn't working - not [source]

"Name it to tame it" — a popular claim that the lab complicates

Affect labeling (putting feelings into words) is widely promoted as a regulation [source]
tool, and implicit labeling does down-regulate the amygdala in some studies. [source]
But a 2021 study (Nook et al.) found that **deliberately naming an emotion [source]
before reappraising made people feel worse, not better**: naming may [source]
"crystallize" the affective experience into a discrete category and make it [source]
harder to reinterpret. Practical read: with a customer, acknowledging their [source]
emotion ("I can hear this is really frustrating") is about *rapport and feeling [source]
heard, which is valuable - but don't assume forcing a precise label on your own* [source]
feeling will make it easier to reappraise. Sometimes it does the opposite. [source]
Operator regulation playbook (yours, before and during a hard call): [source]
Situation selection/modification first: these are the highest-yield and [source]
most-ignored. Don't take the call dysregulated; change the channel; stage the [source]
In the moment, lead with reappraisal if the trigger is something you can't [source]
control ("their anger is about their situation, not about me"). [source]
If you CAN fix the thing, fix it: don't reappraise your way out of a [source]
problem you should solve (the Troy caveat). [source]
Use response modulation (a slow breath, neutral tone) as a bridge, knowing [source]
suppression alone is costly and visible over time. Pair it with deep acting [source]
(§8), not bare surface suppression. [source]

4. Affect-as-information — when feelings get mistaken for facts

Schwarz & Clore (1983), feelings-as-information theory. People making an [source]
evaluative judgment often ask, implicitly, "How do I feel about it?": and [source]
read their current feeling as information about the object of judgment, even [source]
when the feeling actually comes from somewhere else (the weather, hunger, a prior [source]
argument). In the classic study, people rated their **whole life as more [source]
satisfying on sunny days than rainy days**: unless the interviewer first [source]
mentioned the weather, which made them discount the mood ("oh, that's just [source]
the rain") and the effect vanished. [source]
Two well-replicated implications: [source]
Mood-congruent judgment. A negative mood makes you evaluate ambiguous things [source]
more negatively; a positive mood, more positively. The judgment feels like it's [source]
about the object; it's partly about your affect. [source]
Misattribution & discounting. The effect disappears when the true source [source]
of the feeling becomes salient. Naming the source breaks the illusion. [source]
Processing style. Schwarz & Clore also link mood to how you think: **happy [source]
mood → heuristic, global, top-down** processing (the situation feels safe, coast [source]
on impressions); sad mood → analytic, detail-oriented, bottom-up processing [source]
(something's wrong, scrutinize). Neither is "better" - they fit different tasks. [source]
Don't make a consequential judgment in a strong unrelated mood. Just lost a [source]
deal and now reviewing an unrelated account's health? Your read will skew [source]
negative. Defer, or explicitly ask "is this about the account, or about my day?" [source]
— naming the source is the documented antidote. [source]
Exploit the processing link. Detail work (reviewing a contract, debugging a [source]
config) is better served by a slightly serious/critical mood; big-picture [source]
brainstorming and relationship warmth are better served by a positive mood. [source]
Don't force creative rapport-building when you're in a heads-down critical state, [source]
This is the input side of how emotion biases cognition. The downstream **bias [source]
catalog** (risk-as-feelings, affect heuristic in risk perception, prospect [source]
theory) lives in behavioral-decision-making. [source]

5. Affective forecasting — you're bad at predicting your own feelings

Gilbert & Wilson. People routinely mispredict their future emotions - how [source]
intense and especially how long a feeling will last. Two named biases: [source]
Impact bias: overestimating the intensity of a future emotional reaction. [source]
Durability bias: overestimating the duration. This is the bigger, more [source]
reliably observed error. [source]
Focalism: you focus on the single triggering event and neglect all the [source]
other things that will also fill your days and dilute the feeling. [source]
Immune neglect: you underestimate your psychological immune system: the [source]
unconscious machinery (rationalizing, reframing, finding silver linings) that [source]
quietly attenuates negative affect. Because it works outside awareness, you [source]
don't anticipate it - so you over-forecast how bad and how long the bad event [source]
will feel. Demonstrated across romantic breakups, tenure denial, election losses, [source]
negative feedback, and job rejection: people predicted long-lasting misery; the [source]
actual emotional dip was milder and faster-fading than predicted. [source]
Stop over-dreading the hard call. The escalation you're catastrophizing about [source]
will almost certainly feel less awful, and pass faster, than your forecast says. [source]
Naming "this is impact/durability bias" lowers the avoidance that makes you [source]
procrastinate the call. [source]
Calibrate the customer's catastrophizing - gently. A customer convinced that [source]
an incident "ruins everything" is impact-biased about a negative event. You can [source]
widen the frame (de-focalize): "Six months from now, what will matter is how we [source]
responded - and here's the response." Don't dismiss the feeling; reframe the [source]
Watch the same bias on the upside. Customers over-forecast how good a feature/ [source]
migration will make them feel; manage expectations so the post-purchase dip [source]
(hedonic adaptation) doesn't read as a failure on your part. [source]

6. Emotional contagion — you catch the room's mood automatically

Hatfield, Cacioppo & Rapson (1993/1994), primitive emotional contagion: "the [source]
tendency to automatically mimic and synchronize facial expressions, [source]
vocalizations, postures, and movements with those of another person and, [source]
consequently, to converge emotionally." It runs through three stages, mostly [source]
outside awareness: [source]
Mimicry: you unconsciously copy the other person's expression, posture, [source]
Feedback: your own copied expression/posture feeds back and *induces the [source]
matching feeling* in you (facial-feedback mechanism). [source]
Contagion: you converge on their emotional state. [source]
Two findings with direct operator weight: [source]
People's conscious read of how someone feels is driven by words; their [source]
own caught emotion is driven by the other person's nonverbal cues. So you [source]
can be told "everything's fine" and still catch the underlying tension - trust [source]
Contagion flows toward the higher-arousal / more expressive person and, in [source]
groups, toward the most emotionally expressive member. A panicked customer can [source]
infect a whole account team; one calm, grounded operator can also set the tone. [source]
Manage what you radiate. In an escalation you are a contagion source. A [source]
calm, slow, low-arousal vocal pattern is not just for show - it literally [source]
down-regulates the customer via mimicry→feedback. Co-regulation: you lend [source]
Notice when you've been infected. Mid-call, if your heart is racing and your [source]
pace has spiked, you may have caught their arousal, not generated your own. Name [source]
it internally ("this is contagion") and deliberately reset pace/posture - that [source]
Protect the team. Don't let a single panicked stakeholder set the emotional [source]
baseline of a war-room. Seed it with grounded expressive calm. [source]
> This is the affective channel between people. The cognitive/relational [source]
> channel - trust, rapport, synchrony as a rapport signal - lives in [source]
> trust-and-psychological-safety. They overlap at behavioral synchrony; this [source]
> skill owns the emotion-transfer mechanism. [source]

7. Emotional intelligence — real but modest, and badly oversold

Mayer & Salovey's ability model defines EI as a genuine intelligence - a set [source]
of abilities for reasoning with and about emotion, in four branches (in [source]
developmental order): [source]
Perceiving emotion: identify emotion in faces, voices, yourself. [source]
Using/facilitating: harness emotion to aid thinking (e.g., use a serious [source]
mood for detail work - note the tie-in with §4). [source]
Understanding emotion: know emotion vocabulary, causes, and how emotions [source]
blend and transition (e.g., that contempt is anger+disgust, that frustration can [source]
Managing emotion: regulate emotion in yourself and others to reach a goal [source]
(this branch is §3 applied). [source]
Measured by the MSCEIT, an ability test scored by consensus (your answer [source]
vs a large normative sample) or expert scoring (vs 21 emotion researchers). [source]
Built-in weakness: there's no objectively correct answer - a response is [source]
"emotionally intelligent" only if most people endorsed it, so the test arguably [source]
measures conformity to norms and knowing the right move rather than the *ability [source]
to execute* it under fire. [source]
Two rival families, weaker science: [source]
Mixed models (Goleman): self-awareness, self-management/regulation, social [source]
awareness/empathy, relationship management/social skill. Popular in business, [source]
but blends genuine abilities with personality traits and motivation. [source]
Trait EI (Petrides; Bar-On's EQ-i): self-reported emotional self-perceptions; [source]
sits "at the lower levels of personality" and largely overlaps the Big Five. The [source]
trait model essentially subsumes Goleman's mixed model. [source]
The honest critique (state this when someone invokes "EQ"): [source]
"EQ matters more than IQ" is not supported. Meta-analyses: EI correlates with [source]
job performance at roughly r ≈ 0.20 (ability EI) to r ≈ 0.29 (mixed EI) — [source]
modest, not dominant. [source]
Incremental validity is the real problem. When you control for **IQ and the [source]
Big Five, ability-EI's predictive validity drops to ~zero** (2010 [source]
meta-analysis); a 2015 meta-analysis found mixed-EI's contribution to job [source]
performance "non-existent" after those controls. Self-report/trait measures keep [source]
some validity - partly because they're re-measuring personality. EI's link to [source]
transformational leadership shrinks to ρ ≈ 0.11 with method-bias-free data. [source]
Net: EI is a real but small ability, mostly useful as a trainable skill set [source]
(the four branches), not as a magic predictor of success. The branches are worth [source]
developing; the hype is not. [source]
Operator moves: train the branches deliberately - granularity (branch 3) and [source]
managing-others (branch 4) are the highest-yield for customer work. Treat any [source]
vendor "EQ assessment" predicting performance with the skepticism the meta-analyses [source]

8. Emotional labor — the cost of managing feeling for a wage

**Arlie Hochschild, The Managed Heart (1983). Emotional labor** is managing [source]
your feelings and expressions as part of the job - the flight attendant's [source]
mandatory smile, the TAM staying warm and composed through a hostile escalation. [source]
Surface acting: faking the required emotion while feeling something else. [source]
You display calm warmth you don't feel. Creates emotional dissonance (felt vs [source]
shown), and reliably predicts **emotional exhaustion, lower job satisfaction, [source]
poorer service performance, and burnout.** It's the costly one. [source]
Deep acting: actually working yourself into the required feeling (via [source]
reappraisal, perspective-taking, attention) so the display is genuine. Generally [source]
does not carry surface acting's costs; can even support job satisfaction and a [source]
sense of accomplishment. (Caveat: emotional labor of any kind has some baseline [source]
cost; deep acting is less harmful, not free.) [source]
The mechanism is just §3 applied to display rules: deep acting = antecedent [source]
reappraisal of how you genuinely feel; surface acting = response-focused suppression [source]
+ a faked display. The regulation literature's verdict (reappraise > suppress) is [source]
why deep acting beats surface acting. [source]
Choose deep acting on hard calls. Before a hostile escalation, don't just [source]
paste on a smile (surface acting → dissonance → exhaustion). Genuinely reappraise: [source]
"this customer's anger is fear about their job; I'd be scared too." Now the [source]
composure you show is real, and it costs you far less. [source]
Notice chronic surface acting as an early-warning sign. Days of faking [source]
composure you don't feel is the documented on-ramp to burnout. That syndrome — [source]
exhaustion/cynicism/inefficacy, Job Demands-Resources, recovery, detachment - is [source]
owned by performance-and-resilience-psychology. The bridge is here: *surface [source]
acting is one of the demands that feeds it.* Cross over when faking-feeling [source]

Integrated playbook: the heated-customer escalation

A single scenario tying the mechanisms together. A key stakeholder is furious on a [source]
call - an outage hit them, they're talking about churning, voice raised. [source]
Regulate yourself first (contagion + regulation). You will catch their [source]
arousal (§6). Before reacting: one slow breath (response modulation as a bridge, [source]
§3), and reappraise - "this is fear about their standing, aimed at the situation, [source]
not a verdict on me" (§1, §3). This is deep acting (§8): you generate real [source]
composure, not a fake one. [source]
Drop their arousal before solving (dimensional frame). They're high-arousal, [source]
negative-valence (§2). Do not lead with the fix - they can't process it. Give [source]
room to vent; slow your pace and lower your tone (you're now a calm contagion [source]
source, co-regulating them down, §6). Acknowledge the feeling for rapport — [source]
"I can hear how serious this is for you" - without assuming a forced label tames [source]
it (§3 naming caveat). [source]
Re-appraise their event toward challenge + coping (appraisal). Once arousal [source]
drops: move the primary appraisal threat→challenge and the secondary appraisal [source]
low→high coping - "this is a bad day, and it's a known issue with a clear fix, [source]
here's the plan and the owner" (§1). You're changing what the outage means. [source]
De-focalize their forecast (affective forecasting). If they're catastrophizing [source]
("this ruins everything"), gently widen the time frame: "what'll matter in a month [source]
is how we respond - here's that response" (§5). Reframe durability, don't dismiss. [source]
Mind your own judgment afterward (affect-as-information). Right after a brutal [source]
call, don't make a consequential call on another account - your negative mood [source]
will bleed into it (§4). Name the source; defer the judgment. [source]
Audit your labor over time (emotional labor → burnout bridge). If every call [source]
is surface acting, that's the burnout on-ramp - hand off to [source]
performance-and-resilience-psychology (§8). [source]

Anti-patterns

Reading true feelings off faces. Basic-emotion "microexpression" reads are [source]
weak in real life (§2). Verify with words; treat expression as a soft cue. [source]
"Always reappraise." Reappraising a problem you could fix is maladaptive [source]
(Troy 2013, §3). If you control the stressor, change the situation; reserve [source]
reappraisal for what you can't control. [source]
Bare suppression as your main tool. White-knuckling a neutral face raises your [source]
own physiological load, hurts your memory of the call, and reduces rapport (§3). [source]
Use deep acting, not raw surface suppression (§8). [source]
"Name it to tame it" as a reflex on yourself. Acknowledging a customer's [source]
emotion builds rapport; forcing a precise label on your own feeling can [source]
crystallize it and make reappraisal harder (Nook 2021, §3). [source]
Treating EQ as destiny. "High EQ → success" overshoots the data; EI's validity [source]
is modest and near-zero once IQ + Big Five are controlled (§7). [source]
Solving before de-escalating. Pitching the fix to a high-arousal customer [source]
wastes it - they can't process until arousal drops (§2, integrated playbook). [source]
Ignoring contagion direction. Letting one panicked voice set a war-room's [source]
emotional baseline; forgetting that you infect the room too (§6). [source]
Judging in a borrowed mood. Making an evaluative call while a strong unrelated [source]
mood is active, without naming the source (§4). [source]

Embedded reusable prompt — "Emotion-aware escalation co-pilot"

Paste into an LLM (or use as your own pre-call checklist) to get a structured, [source]
mechanism-grounded plan for a charged interaction. [source]

References

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford University Press. (Primary/secondary appraisal.) [source]
Scherer, K. R. (2009). The dynamic architecture of emotion: Evidence for the component process model. Cognition & Emotion, 23(7). (CPM, Stimulus Evaluation Checks.) [source]
Appraisal theory overview. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appraisal_theory [source]
Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 6(3–4). [source]
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6). (Valence × arousal.) [source]
Barrett, L. F. (2017). The theory of constructed emotion. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(1); and How Emotions Are Made (2017). [source]
Experiments on real-life emotions challenge Ekman's model. Scientific Reports (2023). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-36201-5 [source]
Basic vs constructed emotions, evolutionary perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science (2025). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17456916231205186 [source]
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3). (Process model.) [source]
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12212647/ (Reappraisal vs suppression costs.) [source]
Buhle, J. T. et al. (2014). Cognitive reappraisal of emotion: A meta-analysis of human neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 24(11). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4193464/ [source]
Troy, A. S., Shallcross, A. J., & Mauss, I. B. (2013). A person-by-situation approach to emotion regulation. Psychological Science, 24(12). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24145331/ (Controllability caveat.) [source]
Bonanno, G. A., & Burton, C. L. (2013). Regulatory flexibility. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691613504116 [source]
Nook, E. C. et al. (2021). Emotion naming impedes both cognitive reappraisal and mindful acceptance. Affective Science, 2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9383041/ [source]
Affect-as-information [source]
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–523. [source]
Schwarz, N. (2010). Feelings-as-Information Theory. https://dornsife.usc.edu/norbert-schwarz/wp-content/uploads/sites/231/2023/11/schwarz_feelings-as-information_7jan10.pdf [source]
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2003). Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychological Inquiry. [source]
Affective forecasting [source]
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00355.x [source]
Gilbert, D. T. et al. (1998). Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9781405/ [source]
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(3); and Emotional Contagion (1994), Cambridge University Press. [source]
Hatfield, Bensman, Thornton & Rapson (2014). New perspectives on emotional contagion: facial mimicry and contagion. Interpersona. https://interpersona.psychopen.eu/index.php/interpersona/article/download/3419/3419.html [source]
Emotional intelligence [source]
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In Salovey & Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence. (Four-branch model.) [source]
Mayer, Salovey & Caruso. MSCEIT. https://www.psicothema.com/pdf/3273.pdf [source]
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1). (Validity drops controlling IQ + Big Five.) [source]
O'Boyle, E. H. et al. (2011). The relation between EI and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5). [source]
Emotional intelligence overview, models & critiques. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence [source]
Noba Project. Emotional Intelligence. https://nobaproject.com/modules/emotional-intelligence [source]
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. University of California Press. (Surface vs deep acting.) [source]
Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1). (Links labor to Gross's regulation; surface acting → exhaustion.) [source]
Simply Psychology. Emotional Labor: examples & consequences. https://www.simplypsychology.org/emotional-labor.html [source]
> Cross-references: stress/coping/burnout/resilience → performance-and-resilience-psychology; [source]
> trust/rapport/psychological safety → trust-and-psychological-safety; the cognitive [source]
> bias catalog and risk-as-feelings → behavioral-decision-making; persuasion via [source]
> emotional appeals → persuasion-and-influence-psychology; motivation/adoption → [source]
> behavior-change-psychology. [source]

Children

Appraisal Theory (Lazarus primary/secondary; Scherer Component Process Model) (frontier)
Structure of Emotion (Basic/Ekman vs Dimensional-Circumplex/Russell vs Constructed/Barrett) (frontier)
Emotion Regulation (Gross Process Model; Reappraisal vs Suppression; Troy controllability caveat) (frontier)
Affect-as-Information (Schwarz & Clore; mood-congruent judgment; misattribution) (frontier)
Affective Forecasting & Impact/Durability Bias (Gilbert & Wilson; focalism; immune neglect) (frontier)
Emotional Contagion (Hatfield, Cacioppo & Rapson; mimicry-feedback-contagion) (frontier)
Emotional Intelligence (Mayer-Salovey ability model + MSCEIT vs Goleman/Bar-On mixed) (frontier)
Emotional Labor (Hochschild; surface vs deep acting) (frontier)

Frontier under this node: Affect-as-Information (Schwarz & Clore; mood-congruent judgment; misattribution), Affective Forecasting & Impact/Durability Bias (Gilbert & Wilson; focalism; immune neglect), Appraisal Theory (Lazarus primary/secondary; Scherer Component Process Model), Emotion Regulation (Gross Process Model; Reappraisal vs Suppression; Troy controllability caveat), Emotional Contagion (Hatfield, Cacioppo & Rapson; mimicry-feedback-contagion), Emotional Intelligence (Mayer-Salovey ability model + MSCEIT vs Goleman/Bar-On mixed), Emotional Labor (Hochschild; surface vs deep acting), Structure of Emotion (Basic/Ekman vs Dimensional-Circumplex/Russell vs Constructed/Barrett)

← the whole tree · 3D view· how to read this page