Talk:Personality psychology

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Personality psychology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 06:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose overall is pretty good. Regarding MOS, see WP:WTW. I see the use of the word "pioneering" in the lead, the word "seminal" in the body, and that's only from the first cursory skimming of the article. The "See also" section repeats some of the pages linked in the text. Those links should not be repeated per WP:SEEALSO. Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, but that bit on Allport's description of nomothetic vs. idiographic is not mentioned in the body at all.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are references, but not enough inline citations. There are HUGE amounts of text that require citations. Also, the citation style needs to be uniform. "Allport (1937)" is not an appropriate way to cite in this article, given the other inline citations.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Most major aspects are addressed. I did find the talk on psychosexual development to be lacking. There isn't even a wikilink to it. However, at points it seems to ramble and lose focus. For instance, why start talking about personality tests in the "Social cognitive" section when there is a later section on personality tests? Then, it goes into Mischel's work immediately after that, and there's no flow. The bit on Personal Construct Psychotherapy also seems to have been shoehorned in there. Per WP:TERSE, that should be trimmed down to a brief paragraph, and anyone looking for more detail on it can follow a wikilink there. Also, I don't know what to make of that "Personality and inner experience" section. If it requires expansion, why are you nominating for GA? As of now, it gives undue weight to one researcher's study. Also, the section on personality tests could use more description. Which of the tests are objective and which are projective?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I can't give this a checkmark due to issues in #2 and #3. Based on my personal knowledge of the subject, I don't see any major problems here, but there are some places where certain studies/individuals get undue weight.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   It's not required that you add more, but I feel an article of this length should have more than one image, and higher up in the article. Check here to see if there's anything else of use. If there's not, don't worry about it.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I think there is potentially a good article in here, although I can't pass it in its current shape. The examination of the subject is comprehensive (or comprehensive enough) and written in the appropriate tone. However, there is work to be done before I can pass it. The prose needs to be checked for words to watch, the "Personality and inner experience" section needs to be expanded and integrated meaningfully or removed, and inline citations are needed all over. I'll put this on hold and give you a week to get this to GA standards.

I am going to fail this article now, as an editor has produced evidence at Talk:Personality_psychology#Philosophical_assumptions that suggests some serious plagiarism on this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morganbmark95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Philosophical assumptions

This section (Philosophical assumptions) includes no references. Given the lack of sources, why is it so prominent (e.g., the first section, and a major section)? These might be useful dimensions, but there are others. Moreover, the 'versus' structure is misleading. Different theories may emphasize one end more than the other, but most recognize a role for both (e.g., nature and nurture). Finally, I hope to return and clarify this, but I think this structure (i.e., these particular dimensions) may be lifted from a textbook (potentially plagiarism, or close paraphrasing), possibly Walter Mischel's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayzzee (talk • contribs) 05:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Returning to this, I've consulted a recent edition of Mischel's personality textbook, and it looks like this is not the source. (It's possible that it is from an earlier edition, but also likely that I am simply misremembering.)

I have, however, found an online source with nearly identical wording, so this extended quote is probably not appropriate for wikipedia, unless wikipedia is the source of this post, see: http://tipstrickcheat.blogspot.com/2009/01/philosophical-assumptions.html

I have found a similar treatment online, so this could perhaps be another source if people want to keep a section like this: http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/persintro.html (The phrasing is different, and there are a few additional dimensions.) Ideally, more attention and primary sources would be used in creating this section. comment added by Jayzzee (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for finding this. I think you have a good argument that this page is plagiarized. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting list of conflicts, but why is there no Person vs. Situation? The question of whether situational or dispositional variables are the primary cause of behavior has been the source of major conflict in the psychological field. Personality psychology has always been at the forefront of this debate, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. I would not be opposed to writing it in if no one has any objections.Croweml11 (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

When thinking about the term personality, we think about the different characteristics we embody as individuals.IamTLEE (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition in Theories section

I have removed the following text from the "personality theories" section for the time being:

Critics of personality theory claim personality is "plastic" across time, places, moods, and situations.

Changes in personality may indeed result from diet (or lack thereof), medical effects, significant events, or learning. However, most personality theories emphasize stability over fluctuation. The definition of personality that is most widely supported to date is attributed to the neurologist Paul Roe. He stated personality to be "an individual's predisposition to think certain patterns of thought, and therefore engage in certain patterns of behaviour".

I think the criticism needs to be included somewhere, but not right at the start of this section and a proper citation is needed. The definition attributed to Paul Roe seems pretty reasonable, but I'm not clear who Paul Roe actually is or where this definition came from. I have replaced the text with a definition from an undergraduate textbook. Smcg8374 (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Personality and Social Media

Personality and Social Media In recent years, social media sites have become extremely prevalent, especially among adolescents and young adults. In response to this rapid increase in online social networking, the influences in these sites must be considered when studying individual’s personality development. Various psychological theories and studies demonstrate how social media may affect personality, including how personality can shapes one’s social media use and also inversely how social media use can shape one’s personality. Understanding the relationship between social media and personality can reveal how social networking sites and other forms of social media may have both a positive and negative influence on their users’ personalities, including socialization effects, personal effects, and personality disorders.

Theoretical Implications • Erikson’s Identity Formation • Five Factor Model o Extraversion o Neuroticism o Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness • Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs • Attachment Theory • Need For Cognition (NFC)

Social Effects • Media Violence • Socialization o Positive/Negative Socialization o Interpersonal Competency

Positive Influences • Multitasking • Active Engaging • Innovation

Associated Personality Disorders • Addiction • Egocentrism/Narcissism • Depression • Anti-Social Personality Disorder • A.D.D/A.D.H.D o Distractions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduhe (talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice

As part of a Senior Psychology course at Clemson University I will be editing and expanding this page. I am new to Wikipedia so any advice would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmr14260 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Kmr14260! Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay. Wikipedia articles should not be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 15:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Fiupsychology (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

New reliable references and expansion proposed

This is an assignment presented by Florida International University from our Experimental Psychology class. In order to help improve this article we have researched textbooks to add as references to help this information be considered verifiable since it is lacking in references. There was an issue previously raised that there were no references in the area titled Philosophical Assumptions and we have found text books verifying the information to be added in this section as well. Also, in order to improve this article, the warning banner in the Trait Theories section is confusing and clarification on its meaning would be appreciated. Finally, the area titled Personality and Inner Experience recommended being expanded and we have researched and propose to add more information on the topic especially on the methods used in how to measure inner experience. Thank you! Heidi165 (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Heidi, and welcome to Wikipedia! When it comes to sources, I hope you know that Wikipedia articles should not be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well.

The warning template in the Trait Theories sections addresses the following sentences:

It is important to remember that traits are statistical generalizations that do not always correspond to an individual's behavior.

• Does the importance of genetic influences on personality characteristics change across the 5 year period?
• Are genetic influences important for the likeliness of co-twins to change in the same way over the period of time?
• Are there genetic influences on the tendency of the co-twins to change, without keeping in mind the direction of the change

"It is important" is not an encyclopedic statement, it is more a counseling one. And the questions remind more of chapter introduction in a textbook than an encyclopedic article. Instead of asking these questions, we should provide information that answers those questions. Or (if no answers are available) phrase them in a different way, for instance, "it is still an open question if the importance ...."

Looking forward to reading your edits! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 17:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see people using this as an assignment -- I do think that some of the issues raised (around the question of whether this page is veering too close to counseling) could be cleared up with editing, because I think what they reflect, instead, is the fact that some of the issues being reported on are being debated as research gets negotiated (see, for example, discussions of the DSM-5, particularly those under the More Radical Critiques section. I think that some of this could be addressed by reference to more current research on personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvcad (talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Edits

Just to let everyone know I will be continuing to work on editing this page through my Senior Psych lab course with Dr. June Pilcher at Clemson University and as part of the APA initiative.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmr14260 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 11 April 2013‎

Some Changes

Just letting everyone know I have made a few small changes to the page and I have also added a section on Evolutionary Personality Psychology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmr14260 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm not, by any means, an expert in the field (I just happen to watch it on my watchlist), I'd say your changes and additions look good. Keep up the good work and good luck with your course! :) FallingGravity (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup template from Apr 2012 and viability of copyedit

Out of curiosity, from the views of some editors more experienced with this subject, how applicable is that template?

1. It seems a good deal of the page has been cited, as other talksections have noted.
2. I'm not entirely sure whether the MoS issues have been addressed, nor the OR, because I've skimmed - (but there's nothing that seems to obviously stand out, apart from the one section already flagged as a how-to)
3. The lists and whatnot can be copyedited, so that's less of an issue, although I do still see them.
   • This is what I intend to do if this is an appropriate time; and why I ask for this confirmation on the first two content issues.

Anyway - please let me know whether the content issues have been addressed to suitable levels, in order to update the state of the cleanup and ensure it co-ordinates with y'all editors here. Thanks. Techhead7890 (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to read the GA review. Silly me. Looks like there's nothing broken with the verifiability and accuracy of existing content then, even if that was 2 years ago, and I guess I'll start work tomorrow on a copyedit, and update the template to be more accurate. If you have any suggestions or whatnot to watch, then leave them below here. Techhead7890 (talk) 11:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Techhead7890! As I explained in my edit summary, I thought that the article was not at all in such a bad shape that it needed a template on top. Still, as you noticed, there are some issues. I made a todo list with the help of the text of the cleanup-template and the text of the GA-review. I'm sure you can improve on this list. Lova Falk talk 10:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is pretty long, and contains material from as long ago as 2005. I propose to archive everything prior to the Good Article review, which was done two years ago, in December, 2011. There are a few items from after that time that were erroneously put at the start of the page. I'd relocate them to their proper chronological sequence.

I'll leave this open for a few days to see if there are any objections. (Remember, when material is archived, it is still easily available. It's just out of the way.) Lou Sander (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lou Sander! Great plan! Please feel free to do so. With friendly regards! Lova Falk talk 18:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Done! Lou Sander (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Like Lova Falk talk 09:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Personality psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110415060017/http://www.psychometrics.ppsis.cam.ac.uk:80/page/255/mypersonality-database.htm to http://www.psychometrics.ppsis.cam.ac.uk/page/255/mypersonality-database.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Added sections on drive theory

Hello everyone,

I have just added a section to the article which focuses on the drive theory of personality as proposed by Dollard and Miller in the 1930s. I have done the research for this portion of the article in the context of a personality psychology course. Please let me know if anything is missing.

Thank you. Phaedrus101 (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Why no big 5?

Is there a specific reason why there is no mention or discussion of the Big Five personality traits? It’s the most rigorous typology and used in social science. --Reagle (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)