Mood as Information: The Regulatory Role of Personality

Marszał-Wiśniewska, Magdalena; Zajusz, Dominika

doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1210-7_23

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All conducted three-way ANOVAs (separately for neuroticism and separately for action vs. state or volatility orientation) were not significant (p > .05). These results are in line with our assumptions based on the results obtained in an earlier study (Marszał-Wiśniewska & Zajusz, 2010).…”

Section: The Influence Of Neuroticism and Volitional Traits On The Cosupporting

confidence: 93%

“…First, participants underwent mood induction by reading happy and sad stories (respectively an excerpt of a funny family tale, and an excerpt of the testimony of a homeless person) while listening to background musical pieces: Scott Joplin's "Pine Apple Rag" and Eric Satie's "Gnossienne no 1" for positive and negative mood, respectively (cf. Marszał-Wiśniewska & Zajusz, 2010). Later participants answered four masking questions about the presented material (such as "Do you know the musical instrument used in this track?"…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Individuals with a high emotional reactivity, conversely, prefer low levels of stimulation -they choose behaviors that protect them against too intense a stimulation, such as procrastination in decision-making or focusing attention on bad feelings and the possible causes, as opposed to solutions (typical for state orientation). The existing empirical results (Eliasz & Klonowicz, 2001;Marszał-Wiśniewska, 1999;Marszał-Wiśniewska & Zajusz, 2010) showed that low emotional reactivity (related to a high need for stimulation) favors the development of action orientation (which finds expression in the high stimulation behavior), whereas high emotional reactivity (related to a low need for stimulation) favors the development of state orientation -manifested in the low stimulation behavior. This internal coherence occurs when one's action vs. state orientation makes one provide oneself with the appropriate dose of stimulation, as determined by one's psychological mechanisms of emotional reactivity (of temperament).…”

Section: Individual Differences In the Context-dependent Effect Of Moodmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The term of "internal coherence/ incoherence" is legitimate within the framework of Strelau's (1996Strelau's ( , 2008 regulative theory of temperament, according to which ineffective regulation of stimulation is partly caused by a mismatch between biologically determined temperamental possibilities and personality mechanisms, as well as developed needs, and within the transactional model of temperament (where temperament and personality are viewed as transactionally related components of a general stimulation regulation system; Eliasz, 1985Eliasz, , 1990Eliasz & Klonowicz, 2001). The studies by Marszał-Wiśniewska and Zajusz (2010), found that that the context-dependent effect of mood is modified only by mutual relations of action vs. state orientation with emotional reactivity of temperament. In particular, this effect is not simply impacted by single individual factors.…”

Section: Individual Differences In the Context-dependent Effect Of Moodmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This approach is hardly used both in the psychology of individual differences, which is dominated by the classic top-down model (Watson, 2000), as well as in experimental psychology of emotions based on a bottom-up model (see Rusting, 1998). However, this approach can better predict and explain the context-dependent effect of mood by the disclosure of the specific impact of certain personality traits (temperamental, volitional, cognitive) in different situations on the one hand, and on the other, it shows the limitations of overall accuracy: some dependencies are true only for a certain condition and for people with certain personality traits (Marszał-Wiśniewska & Zajusz, 2010;Martin et al, 1993). Nonetheless, the question of whether the contextdependent effect of mood is a general phenomenon or an inter-individual diverse (i.e., depending on stable personality traits) has still no clear answer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Context-dependent effect of mood: the regulatory role of personality

Zajusz-Gawędzka¹,

Marszał-Wiśniewska²

2015

Polish Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explored the influence of the context-dependent effect of mood as well as individual differences in neuroticism and action vs. state/volatility orientation on predecisional processing in a multiattribute choice task. One hundred and twenty participants acquired information about choice options after filling out personality questionnaires. Results showed that participants in a positive mood processed the information longer in enjoy than in done-enough context. In turn, participants in a negative mood processed the information more selectively in enjoy than in done-enough context. It also appeared that this effect is reinforced for participants with low neuroticism and volatility orientation, while it is weakened for those with low neuroticism and action orientation. Results were interpreted in accordance with the differential-processual approach.

show abstract

Section: The Influence Of Neuroticism and Volitional Traits On The Cosupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Individual Differences In the Context-dependent Effect Of Moodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Individual Differences In the Context-dependent Effect Of Moodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Context-dependent effect of mood: the regulatory role of personality

Zajusz-Gawędzka¹,

Marszał-Wiśniewska²

2015

Polish Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Clarifying Problems in Behavioural Control: Interface, Lateness and Consciousness

Corr

2010

Eur J Pers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The target paper highlights a number of unresolved issues that, I believe, continue to impede the construction of a viable model of behavioural control in personality psychology; namely, (a) the relationship between controlled and automatic processing (the 'interface' problem') and (b) the time it takes for controlled processes, including consciousness, to be generated (the 'lateness' problem). The diversity of views expressed in the commentatories indicates that these are, indeed, real and unresolved problems. This response is structured around the following key questions. (1) How long-term goal planning interfaces with the automatic machinery of behaviour? (2) The extent of the impact of the 'lateness' of controlled (including conscious) processes for building models of behavioural control? (3) How best to characterise the personality traits associated with the FFFS, BIS and BAS? (4) How does the BIS control mismatch detection, the generation of error signals, and response inhibition and switching? (5) Is consciousness really a necessary explanatory construct in models of behavioural control? (6) Might neural 'crosstalk' of encapsulated action-goal response systems point to the functional significance of consciousness? (7) What are the implications of issues raised in the target paper for lexical and social-cognitive approaches to personality? I conclude by re-iterating the importance of the problems of 'lateness' and 'interface' for the construction of a viable model of behavioural control sufficient for the fostering of theoretical integration within personality psychology as well as affording the building of conceptual bridges with general psychology.

show abstract