User talk:Jdinuoscio/sandbox
Overall, the edits seemed to all benefit the page. However, there is some need for reorganization and citation.
First, the additions in the introduction seem to be too deep for the introduction paragraph of the article and redundant with information in the “Research” section. The introduction is intended to give readers a basic understanding of the concept in a few sentences. The findings of the Schachter and Singer study as well as the White study can be discussed later in the article. Without these two, the opening would be much easier to understand and give readers a quicker and cleaner understanding of misattribution of arousal.
The added information in the results section are properly cited, but the studies mentioned in the introduction do not have a Wikipedia-style citation. If these studies stay in the introduction or move to another part of the paper, they need to be properly cited. The number of the resource in your works cited section needs to be bracketed and included after the study is referenced.
Despite a few issues with organization and citation, all of the changes seem to be very clear and accurate. Based on my quick reading of the studies included in the article, the information presented is true to the statements made in the papers themselves. Furthermore, they were presented very clearly and assist in the reader’s understanding of misattribution of arousal. JeffreySzczecinski (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Your edits seem to greatly enhance the clarity and conciseness of the page. The first addition to the introduction provided a more in-depth definition of the topic. The research by Schachter and Singer (1962) helped to provide even more analysis and support on the subject matter. However, I felt a bit confused by the discussion of the "Two Factor Theory of Emotion". I think that this information is beneficial enough to have it's own paragraph, maybe even its own section granted more research and explanations.
You seem to have some great research that backs the misattribution of arousal, however you do not go into much details about the specific experiments. The "Experiment" section of the page could be improved by adding the specific details of the studies by White et al. (1981) and Schachter and Singer (1962). In keeping the organization of the page, the "Experiment" section could simply have subsections - one for each experiment discussed throughout the page. The research that you found pertaining to the topic is beneficial and supportive of your overall discussion, however I think with more depth and explanation it could improve the page even more.
Overall, your additions to the page provide clarity and expansion to the topic. By expanding on the research and experiments you have already reviewed, readers would be able to understand the empirical evidence even further. Hauseaf (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The additional information expands the article tremendously, however some simplification may be needed to make the article understandable to a general audience. In the introduction, the information should be simplified into a brief overview using layman's terms, rather than a quick, in-depth description which can be expanded upon in the body of the article.
When using psychological terms in the article, you should hyperlink the term to an existing wikipedia article so that all relevant information is easily accessible to readers who may not be familiar with each turn.
To further clarify the article, I would revise the headings. Experiments, Research, and Results are similar to each other and could be combined since the experiments are research and the results should be explained when describing the experiment anyways. I would use Research as a main heading and provide subheadings for each experiment so multi-paragraph explanations are easier to read. It will also keep the information from appearing as a wall of text, like this talk page.
The citations need to be corrected to wikipedia style so access to the studies providing the information in the article can easily be found.Leytp (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I am really surprised at the paucity of content on this Wiki. Misattribution of arousal is such a fascinating subject. I am glad you and your team are going to beef the page up a bit. Overall I think you did a job fleshing out the topic. You discuss a number of really interesting studies and also bring in a historical perspective on both the earliest studies as well as recent developments in modeling this process. As far as I know you have accurately presented the findings of the research you discuss and in general I could easily follow what you were saying. I think that the page organization is a bit peculiar. You obviously are just working within the framework that was given to you, but I would recommend changing the headers around a bit. The organization of the information itself makes sense, it just seems odd to keep the Experiment and Results sections set off from the Research section where most of your information is placed. It is also misleading given that the Dutton and Aron (1974) study discussed in this section was not the first paper on the misattribution of arousal. You did a good job of keeping an unbiased tone while presenting recent developments in the literature, such as the newer model proposed by Allen et al. Overall, I think you are making a number of positive contributions to this Wiki.
Here are some other suggestions for improvement:
1) A lot of the sentences are a bit wordy. I realize this can be hard to overcome, especially when you cannot rely upon technical jargon to tidy things up. Here are some examples: “They found that if someone was physiologically aroused without being aware or knowing why they were aroused, that person would think that the arousal came from a thought that was previously in their memory.” Perhaps you could shorten this to something like: “They found that if someone was physiologically aroused without being aware of it, they would attribute their arousal to a recent thought in their memory.” Another example is the definition of confederate as “someone who was involved in the study but the participant did not know that they were a part of the study”. I would shorten this to something like “a participant who is also covertly collaborating with/an associate of the researchers”. “In one of the studies they conducted to test this” can just be shortened to “in their # study” or simply “in one of their studies”.
2) There are a few areas where I found your wording somewhat confusing. Here are some examples: “Essentially, it is an error in connecting the physiological conditions one experiences in an excited state to the proper mental state”. I am not sure exactly what this means. What is the “proper mental state”? “Previously in their memory” is a bit confusing given that they would necessarily be unable to access it if it was no longer in their memory. I would change “showed symptoms like an elevated heart rate” to “produced/caused symptoms” because epinephrine is not showing these symptoms. I am not sure what you mean by “how they reacted with the confederate attempting to initiate an emotion”. Are you talking about how the participants reacted when the confederate attempted to produce an emotional state in them? Why did you write “another study by Savitsky…” I do not see anywhere before this on the page where these authors are mentioned. Stating that the “Response-Facilitation model demonstrates…” does not make sense, because the model is not demonstrating anything. It is the study conducted by Allen et al. that demonstrates the relationship you describe. The Response-Facilitation model is simply a better way to explain these and other related findings.
3) I would elaborate on the methods used in a few of the studies you mention. For example: In the Schachter and Singer (1962) study it is not clear how the confederate manipulated the emotional state of the participants. How were anger and euphoria produced? It would be helpful to elaborate on how participants were led to attribute their arousal to noises in the Savistky et al. study. How did they manipulate whether subjects were aware of their arousal in the Allen et al. study? You wrote “exercise” but this does not really explain the difference between the arousal-awareness and arousal-unaware conditions.
4) Put an in-text citation for the Schachter and Singer study discussed at the top of the page.
ThePhilosophyof9 (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I like that you begin with both an example and an explanation of how this phenomenon fits into broader theory (though you should link out to the two-factor theory of emotion page. You also add a lot of depth to the page with the new research you include.
There are some places where the phrasing creates potential inaccuracies. E.g. "Fear is not the only emotion that can cause a misattribution of arousal."-- emotions do not CAUSE misattribution, they RESULT FROM misattribution. Likewise, in the opening paragraph, saying "Misattribution of arousal can be involved in processing of emotion, romantic situations, and understanding of physical exertion" inappropriately compares what misattribution IS (an influence on emotion processing) from examples of situations where it may happen (romantic situations & physical exertion, among others.)
You appear to be missing several citations (e.g., nothing in the first 2 paragraphs is cited). This is a very serious omission that needs to be corrected. On a more stylistic note, be thoughtful about how you introduce the studies you cite-- for instance, you say "Misattribution of arousal can also influence how much confidence one feels before completing a task. Another study by Savitsky, Medvec, Charlton, and Gilovich focused on..." However, there's only ONE study by these authors on this page, and it's the first paper you describe-- how is it therefore "another" study?
More broadly, I'd encourage you to think about how the page is organized. It seems odd to have "experiment" "results" and "research" as 3 separate categories-- it Might more sense to have "Initial Demonstration" and "Subsequent research" as major categories, with "Experiement" and "Results" as subheadings in the first section. Regretscholar (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)