Talk:Memory conformity/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 February 2020 and 2 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SofiaM80.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Jtiller11[edit]

I think this could be put into different words to make it sound better. I also think that it needs more information explaining it. Jtiller11 (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ritapsych250[edit]

The introduction could be clearer and easier to read if it was broken up into several paragraphs. Consider focusing on three or four of the main points of memory conformity and then building short paragraphs off of those topics. Ritapsych250 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC) ritapsych250[reply]

Comments[edit]

The article and reference are put together well, there was a minor grammar error in the sentence and i am not sure in what direction they may have been going...(interaction after a certain even is more likely to have their thoughts persuaded into something other than what they actually witnessed.) after a certain ("event?")That is what i would change about the article Rameyer13 (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The changes made by Jesanchrs were very useful, however I believe that the sources need to be cited differently. Additionally I think that there needs to be in-text citations. --Jamccammond (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

psych 101-43 After Critiquing Jesanchrs on the information given indeed was interesting and enlightening, I believe that a better source could had been used, I added information to further benefit this article, as well as a new source. --JC92scc (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- This page was mentioned as needing help when I signed in, and I hope my example about Hess is not to far out there, but it seemed to fit in quite well, showing effects of memory conformity. After those two original people identified Hess everyone after just assumed it was him. Of course he went on to the Nuremberg Trials and was imprisoned in Spandau Prison for the rest of his life. Scslate (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal with Memory Conformity[edit]

We should discuss this here, but honestly, what is there to discuss? These are two articles about the same subject. If I wouldn't have a job, I could do the merging myself, but unfortunately, I don't have the time for it... Lova Falk talk 15:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Education program[edit]

We are three students from a Davidson College cognitive psychology class have taken on the subject of "Memory Conformity" for a Wikipedia group project.

Expand Definition of Memory conformity
Source monitoring (source memory) is an important part of memory conformity in terms of internal confidence in attribution of a memory and should be introduced early in the article.[1]. The social influence of memory conformity should also be explored early on. Research shows that external sources can heavily influence a subjects memory, and that the subjects level of conformity varies based on the perceived credibility of the external source. [2]
Expand Three Main Types
We would also like to expand the overview and turn the three categories - normative influences of memory conformity, informative influences of memory conformity, and post event memory distortion - into larger headings within which we can explore the specifics of memory conformity. [3]
Normative influences - Asch study on social conformity as a factor in memory conformity..[4] We would attempt to add specific examples of memory conformity with largely normative influences. Social anxiety may increase the normative influence on memory report. [3] Social type of an individual might affect their willingness to be externally influenced. [5] Other Examples. [6][3] [2]
Informative influences - Lack of internal confidence in terms of validity of memory leads to external memory conformity. We can discuss the affects of the balance between self confidence and perception of memory accuracy in self vs. other. Examples .[7] [8] [9]
Post-Event Memory Distortion - Information/discussion that unconsciously affects a subjects memory of a particular event. Particularly important for witness testimony and post-event information exposure.[10] [11] [12] We Should also look into the affects of hindsight bias on reporting.[5]
By expanding the overview we would also remove the repetitive material from the Memory conformity defined section
Expand Implications section
Memory conformity has obvious clutural/legal implications. We hope to add other famous examples of the legal implications of memory conformity and look into implications of witness interaction, and cross examination. [13] [10] [14]
Clarify postwarning section
We are also hoping to clarify the post warning section. We think that the post warnings section should be changed to post-event information (if that is what post warnings are supposed to generally encompass). This can be broken down into post event information that reduces memory conformity, or post event information causes memory conformity.
Ways to reduce Memory Conformity[11] [15] Initial internal memory recall may help reduce external conformity.[3]



FOR DAVIDSON PEER REVIEWS The version before our first edit of the actual main space was at 04:11, 20 March 2013‎ (by Jonesey95) and our last edit was at 04:34, 20 March 2013‎. You can find both in the history.



Frholcomb (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Lindsay Blum (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Luwulsin (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Revlin, Russell (2007). Human Cognition : Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Worth Pub. p. 185-186. ISBN 0-7167-5667-6.
  2. ^ a b Horry, Ruth (2012). "Memory conformity for confidently recognized items: The power of social influence on memory reports". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 48 (3): 783–786. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.010. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Cite error: The named reference "Horry" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c d Wright, Daniel B. (1 June 2009). "When Eyewitnesses Talk". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 18 (3): 174–178. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01631.x. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Cite error: The named reference "Wright" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ Bordens, Kenneth S. (2002). Social Psychology (2nd ed. ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 9781410604934. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); line feed character in |publisher= at position 18 (help)
  5. ^ a b Mazzoni, Giuliana (1 February 2007). "Hindsight Bias, the Misinformation Effect, and False Autobiographical Memories". Social Cognition. 25 (1): 203–220. doi:10.1521/soco.2007.25.1.203. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Bright-Paul, Alexandra (1 August 2012). "Children's memory distortions following social contact with a co-witness: Disentangling social and cognitive mechanisms". Memory. 20 (6): 580–595. doi:10.1080/09658211.2012.690039. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Allan, Kevin (NaN undefined NaN). "Memory conformity and the perceived accuracy of self versus other". Memory & Cognition. 40 (2): 280–286. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0141-9. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ Wright, Daniel B. (NaN undefined NaN). "Memory conformity affects inaccurate memories more than accurate memories". Memory. 20 (3): 254–265. doi:10.1080/09658211.2012.654798. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ Skagerberg, Elin M. (1 January 2008). "Manipulating power can affect memory conformity". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 22 (2): 207–216. doi:10.1002/acp.1353. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ a b Paterson, Helen M. (1 July 2012). "Can a witness report hearsay evidence unintentionally? The effects of discussion on eyewitness memory". Psychology, Crime & Law. 18 (6): 505–527. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2010.510117. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Cite error: The named reference "Paterson" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b Bodner, Glen E. (1 December 2009). "Reevaluating the potency of the memory conformity effect". Memory & Cognition. 37 (8): 1069–1076. doi:10.3758/MC.37.8.1069. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ French, Lauren (1 April 2008). "You say tomato? Collaborative remembering leads to more false memories for intimate couples than for strangers". Memory. 16 (3): 262–273. doi:10.1080/09658210701801491. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  13. ^ Carlucci, Marianna E. (NaN undefined NaN). "The south beach study: Bystanders' memories are more malleable". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 25 (4): 562–566. doi:10.1002/acp.1720. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  14. ^ Valentine, Tim (NaN undefined NaN). "The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 25 (4): 554–561. doi:10.1002/acp.1768. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  15. ^ Paterson, Helen M. (1 January 2011). "Combating Co-witness contamination: Attempting to decrease the negative effects of discussion on eyewitness memory". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 25 (1): 43–52. doi:10.1002/acp.1640. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

.

Comments from other editor(s)[edit]

Hi Frholcomb, Lindsay Blum, and Luwulsin! I didn't check all of your sources, but those I checked were all WP:primary sources, that is, results of single studies. However, Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay! Wikipedia articles should be based 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. So please, reconsider your choice of sources and use secondary sources instead! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 19:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

While your additions sound interesting and are overall probably an improvement over what was already in the article it is really a pity that only one (Wright 2009) of your 4 references added is a review. Why don't you search for high quality secondary sources instedad of using sub-optimal sources that should probably be eliminated in the future? The article needs secondary references instead of primary articles.--Garrondo (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the input. We are a small group of students working through a psychology class to help improve the page, and are admitted wikipedia novices. We are used to be being pressured to find primary sources to support claims, but we are trying to find more general review sources for wikipedia. Thanks again for the help.

Frholcomb (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, I know who you are as I have commented in most of your class-mates article's talk pages (and even in the talk page of the class project)... You might find useful to have in your watchpage all the articles of your companions. As I have told some of them take a look at WP:MEDRS, a guideline for sourcing medical articles in wikipedia but that fully applies to psychology. Reason for using reviews is because wiki is an encyclopedia, and use of secondary sources is the best way to remain neutral in an article. Bests. If you have any doubts feel free to ask here or in my talk page... And by the way, thanks for your answer, some of your class have not really responded to comments. Keep up the good work. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should really change some of your sources. It is really to give undue weight(See: WP:weight) to use 5 times the same primary reference... and at the moment this is exactly the thing you are doing with Horry 2012, Wright 2009 or Gabbert 2003. Please stop adding badly referenced content and use instead reviews, at least for the most commonly used references. As second year students or anonymous editors we are not capable of deciding what is truly important for an article. Secondary sources, such as books ore reviews are the sources capable of giving this perspective.--Garrondo (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks again for the help. We've been trying to find sources that are more wikipedia appropriate, are these sources the more general reviews that we should be looking for? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]Frholcomb (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason my new sources wont appear here on the talk page? You can find these four new sources on my user page (user:frholcomb).Frholcomb (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Hewitt, Lauren Y. (2013). "Speaking order predicts memory conformity after accounting for exposure to misinformation". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0377-4. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Gabbert, Fiona (2006). "Memory conformity: Disentangling the steps toward influence during a discussion". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 13 (3): 480–485. doi:10.3758/BF03193873. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Schneider, Dana M. (1996). "Response conformity in recognition testing". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 3 (4): 481–485. doi:10.3758/BF03214550. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Lindsay, D. Stephen (2007). "Order effects in collaborative memory contamination? Comment on Gabbert, Memon, and Wright (2006)". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 14 (5): 1010–1010. doi:10.3758/BF03194137.
  5. ^ Hirst, William (2012). "Remembering in Conversations: The Social Sharing and Reshaping of Memories". Annual Review of Psychology. 63 (1): 55–79. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100340. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

First of all: I really appreciate your willingness to learn and improve your article. You have shown more interest than the average in your class. Keep the interest and good work, and please do not feel intimidated. Sometimes long-time editors forget who it was our initial editions, and also we do not have the patience or mood to explain things slowly. Nevertheless the more you comment and aks (as you have already done the easier will be that editors get involved to help.

I have fixed sources so they appear. You have to add {{Reflist|close} after them to create a list

Regarding sources:

First a definition of primary source in science: they are mainly first-hand experiments and investigations. Authors analize data. Hint: if there is statistics or methods section it is most commonly a primary article

Second a definition of secondary source in science: they are reviews of many first-hand experiments (also meta-analysis). Authors instead of analizing data "analyze" previous works, ellaborate from the previous results and generalize conclussions. Hint: if there is no results section it is probably a review.

Third a definition of peer-review: peer review is the proccess of quality assurance in scientific journals by which a work (either primary or secondary) is judged and critized so the author has to make ammendments before publication. It is independent of tha article being primary or secondary.

From a fast look at the abstracts

  • Hewitt says " We explored this question using data from five previous memory conformity experiments." so it is an experiment, a primary article NOT a review
  • Gabbert says "Participants were tested in pairs. The two members of each pair encoded" so it is a primary article NOT a review
  • Lindsay is a comment on Gabbert. A comment is an exception: they ellaborate on a previous article (albeit a single one) and their peer-review is less stringent than for articles (it would be similar to a letter to the editor). Conclussion: not a good source and certainly not a review.
  • Hirst: THIS IS A REVIEW (AND IN A GOOD JOURNAL). If you read all of them you will quickly notice that this one is the more general one, the one with more references, probably the most neutral... If you want an overall picture of the field its the first one you should read. Your best refence up to the moment. I would certainly try to find other similar ones, but also I would use it to source as much of the article as I can (However if you use it many times be careful with copyright issues)

Ideas to find further sources: Good secondary reviews are usually also found in books for investigators (usually more correct and in-depth content than books for students). Try to look for some of those books in google scholar and then in your University library. You can look specifically for exclusively for reviews in the bio-med library pubmed, but not sure if there is a similar feature for social sciences.

Minor comment: you do not need to say your user name: whenever you sign there is a link to your user page and talk page from your signature...:-) that is precisely why it is important to sign in talk pages.

Bests, --Garrondo (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is all very helpful. I will be sure to pass on that information to my classmates. So even the Hewitt article that takes a more general view while incorporating multiple sources is still overly specific? Thanks again, I will look more into our libraries resources for review articles. Frholcomb (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest and interactions. Regarding the source: well... I have just taken a look to the article (previously only to the abstract) and it seems it is a rarity... I seems it is something between a a meta-analysis (which would be secondary) and a primary article: they use previous data and reanalyse it (and therefore they are close to a meta-analysisi); however they do it to test novel hypotheses (and therefore it is a primary result). Also the initial review it makes is more in-depth than what is usually the norm. While it is useful to make clear cut classifications between references, truth is that quality is not black and white. This source would be in the grey zone :-). My recommendation: try to find a better one if possible, but you can probably use it for specific conclussions.--Garrondo (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection edit request on 27 March 2017[edit]

Frevangelion (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK Discuss 00:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at St. Charles Community College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by Primefac (talk) on 16:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Memory_conformity/Archive_1&oldid=1153005018"