Talk:Mood (psychology)

[Untitled]

Slight edit: Added the "rose-colored / lemon-colored glasses" phrase, since (in my experience) those are more commonly used than the "spectacles" variant. - User:Gingerkitteh

I'm slightly concerned that this phrase might be found offensive by some who consider themselves optimists, since it is often used as a visual image

Slightly concerned! You ought to be very concerned about this whole article. It should not be under Psychology. --Mattisse 01:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Mood is not a term psychologists use when they are trying to explain something. It is folk or lay psychology. The concept of mood is important if normal humans are to have any way of gaining access to the deeper articles in psychology. If someone takes the trouble to look up mood, but find no article or find one that takes them to an article only a psychoanalyst or cognitive neuroscientist or behaviorist could love, WP will not have done its job. If you take the trouble to look in some books on emotion, you will find that psychologists and cognitive neuroscientists have a great deal of trouble giving precise meaning (that they can use) to lay psychology terms. I am creating a short article called Habit (psychology) that is intended to provide a bridge between lay psychology and professional psychology. Formerly if someone clicked on habit, it usually went to Habituation which is not what normal people mean. DCDuring 03:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this post too but for different reasons. There is mood research but this post does not dwell on it. Instead, focusing more on the pop-psychology aspects of Mood. For the real and good reasons given by DCDuring, maybe this article could be split into a vernacular mood article and a psychology mood article. I suggest readings from Watson as well, such as his Mood and Temperament book. The current article is completely cited from one (popular) researcher and as such is problematic. Cwingrav (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Mood is certainly a term used by psychologists, normally in regard to a relatively long lasting positive or negative affective state. Also, consider mood disorders! I'll try to find some more sources to build up this article. --Jcbutler (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that the intro is good, I'm just more concerned about what follows. Thanks for the article! Cwingrav (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Improving this article

This article has substantial problems. It doesn't cite reliable sources, nor does it cite sources correctly, nor does it cite them often. It also includes some irrelevant and potentially questionable information and excludes a decent amount of relevant information. While I don't currently have time to make edits, I just wanted to make a posting that calls attentions to the deficiencies in this article. Slyons123 (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Mood general topic to write about is still an excellent topic. If you would consider changing the flow of your mood paragraph it would enhance the article.As for the structure of your first paragraph mood disorder fits better towards the end. Area's to expand are crowds, etymology and medical by adding information you’re clarifying any question your readers might have. I am not sure who your target audiences is, your writing style needs to fit your target audiences. The style you have currentely is for poeple not in the psyology field. If you want to target people in the psyology field you will need to changes. If you have any comment or question please write me.Mmosier3 (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mood (psychology). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025120035/http://www.basmartin.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Martin-2003.pdf to http://www.basmartin.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Martin-2003.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402091008/http://www.basmartin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Martin-and-Lawson-1998.pdf to http://www.basmartin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Martin-and-Lawson-1998.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140728235403/http://voices.yahoo.com/weather-effects-mood-memory-155844.html to http://voices.yahoo.com/weather-effects-mood-memory-155844.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502153430/http://www.psycheducation.org/emotion/brain%20pix.htm to http://www.psycheducation.org/emotion/brain%20pix.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327022755/http://www.sam-e.com/talk/seven-tips-to-immediately-improve-your-mood/ to http://www.sam-e.com/talk/seven-tips-to-immediately-improve-your-mood/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)