Emotion, mood, and temperament: Similarities, differences--and a synthesis.
By Elizabeth K. Gray, D. Watson. 2001
137 citations recorded by the source corpus.
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c15cd55d063ebca88b5df49e754e61c163042e00
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- Arnold B. Bakker
- Wilmar B. Schaufeli
- Evangelia Demerouti
- J. Hakanen
- Despoina Xanthopoulou
- Ulla Kinnunen *
- Sabine Sonnentag
- Hans De Witte
Citations in the corpus
- How Abusive Supervision Affects Workplace Deviance: A Moderated-Mediation Examination of Aggressiveness and Work-Related Negative Affect (2016, background): “The type, intensity, and duration of affective responses differ on the basis of the processing of the given event, and these affective responses lead to corresponding workplace behaviors (Gray and Watson 2001).”
- The Effects of Proximity and Empathy on Ethical Decision-Making: An Exploratory Investigation (2009, background): “First, compared to affect, which is trait-like and classified generally as positive or negative (Watson and Tellegen, 1985), emotions arise in response to specific events and situations that are salient to individuals (Fredrickson, 2001; Frijda, 1988; Gray and Watson, 2001).”
- Explaining Vigor: On the Antecedents and Consequences of Vigor as a Positive Affect at Work (2007, background): “Following widely accepted views of emotions and moods (Gray and Watson, 2001), vigor combines elements of a specific emotion in that it is contextualized in individuals’ work situation, but it is closer to a mood state in that it tends to last days and even weeks.”
- Emotion regulation in leader–follower relationships (2008, background): “Researchers typically differentiate between moods, emotions, and emotion-laden judgements (Briner, 1999; Gray & Watson, 2001).”
- Everyday working life: Explaining within-person fluctuations in employee well-being (2012, background): “The notion of states is mainly used when referring to (positive) emotions or affective components of well-being, since emotional states are conceptualized as short-lived reactions to external cues (Gray and Watson, 2001).”
- The Construct Validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and Longitudinal Evidence (2008, background): “Thus work engagement is considered to be more stable than work-related emotions (e.g., contented, enthusiastic, cheerful; see Warr 1990), but less stable than personality traits, such as the Big Five (for the distinction between emotions, moods, and temperament; see Gray and Watson 2001).”
- The validity of FFM personality dimensions and maladaptive traits to predict negative affects at work: a six month prospective study in a military sample (2003, background): “Part of this substantial stability may be attributed to ‘personal dispositions’ such as affective styles (Davidson, 2000) or personality traits (Clark, 2000; Gray & Watson, 2001).”
- Good morning, good day: A diary study on positive emotions, hope, and work engagement (2012, background): “Positive emotions are affective in nature (Gray and Watson, 2001), hope is cognitive in nature (Snyder, 2002), and engagement is defined as an affective-cognitive state of mind (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004), hence combining both perspectives.”
- Differential Susceptibility to Media Effects Model (2013, background): “Second, more transient dimensions (e.g., moods) can last for hours or even days, and are to a certain extent a reflection of one’s general cognitive and affective traits (Gray & Watson, 2001).”
- A diary study on the happy worker: How job resources relate to positive emotions and personal resources (2012, background): “Emotions differ from moods in that that they have a specific cause and are of limited duration, whereas moods are often objectless and last for longer periods of time (Gray & Watson, 2001).”
- Vigor as a Positive Affect at Work: Conceptualizing Vigor, Its Relations with Related Constructs, and Its Antecedents and Consequences (2011, methodology): “Gray and Watson (2001) used the dimensions of duration, focus on the situation, intensity, frequency, and function to differentiate between emotions and moods.”