User:Psyhistorykn

Hi my name is Katie and I'm a junior psychology major at the University of Dayton.~~katie

References Fraser, C., Gouge, C., & Billig, M. (1971). Risky Shifts, cautious shifts and group polarization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 7-30.

Moscovici, S., Doise, W., & Dulong, R. (1972). Studies in group decision: II. Differences of opinion and group polarization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2,385-399

Bordens, K.S. & Horowitz, I.A. (2002) Social Psychology Second Edition. New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. 313-313

Taylor, J. & MacDonald, J. (2002). The effects of asynchronous computer-mediated group interaction of group processes. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 260-274.

Lee, E.J. (2007) Deindividuation effects on group polarization in computer-mediated communication: The role of group identification, public self-awareness, and perceived argument quality. Journal of Communication 57, 385-403.

Group Polarization Outline •The “choice risk” subsection needs to be expanded. •Expand it with more information about cautious risks and choice risks in general. •Cautious risk is only mentioned in passing and has no sources linked to it. •Use Fraser article •One study (Fraser) found that cautious did follow cautious •It also found that women tended to lean more toward the cautious and men more toward the risky, but not much else was mentioned but gender so will probably leave this out. •Would also seem that risky polarization is stronger than cautious polarization •Factors surrounding choice risks (interaction, group personality) can also be mentioned. •Moscovici’s article looked at the importance of interaction in relation to group polarization. •The internet subsection also needs to be edited. •While Sia’s article did find an increase in group polarization another study (Taylor) done around the same time did not find an increase, or did not find consistency. •However, a recent study did seem to agree with Sia’s article to a certain point. •The main focus is that internet interaction needs to be anonymous and public •There is difference between pubic and private impact •Anonymous blogs vs. twitter and facebook which are more public in nature and not anonymous •Overall it should be mentioned that internet and group polarization •The paragraph on bullying also needs to be looked at because while it was being used as an example there are no studies mentioned with it.

My sandbox

Hi Katie, this is Brittany, your student editor! Below I have listed my comments underneath the relevant question. Good Luck! I make several recommendations, but you have done more research than I have, so feel free to disagree! Let me know if you have any questions! Bb.1025 (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Does the lead section provide a stand-alone concise summary of the article? See: Lead section and for an even more thorough treatment see: Guide to writing better articles.

Given the length of the article, another sentence or two could be added. For example, a large section of the article relates to places and instances where group polarization has been shown, so the lead section may allude to the varied application of group polarization. Also, there is an inner link to a nonexistent wiki page attitude.

2. Does the contribution appear to be cut and pasted from an existing source without appropriate citation?

There are a few places where a citation would generally be necessary in a scholarly article. The The Real Life Applications section in particular contains multiple speculative or observational statements that are not backed up with a citation. Specifically, in the government, policy, and law section, there is only 1 reference for three paragraphs of information. There are no references for the war and violent behavior section. I see you have begun to flesh out and validate the internet section, perhaps you could broaden your scope and tackle the entire applications section as you find available research. If you are not able to find any sources that support the current content, you may consider deleting or condensing what is there now so as not to overemphasize an area that has had little research.

3. Is field-specific jargon avoided where possible and explained where necessary? I.e., is the general lay audience of an encyclopedia adequately kept in mind by the author and student-editor?

Generally, the article is lay friendly. As you are editing the choice shifts section, however, I recommend making clear the differences between risky shift, cautious shift, and choice shift. I had to read it several times before understanding that the definition lie in the nature of the decision being made, rather than the riskiness of the attitude. Perhaps this would be a good place to provide examples. A risky shift i.e., becoming more hateful or extreme versus cautious shift i.e., retreating from strong views. You could use whatever examples make sense from your research. The history does cover risky shift pretty well, so perhaps clarifying in terms of cautious and choice.

4. Are wikilinks, i.e., links to other Wikipedia articles, provided where appropriate?

There are many internal links in the article already. You may consider linking to more people, where Wikipedia articles exist. For example, some of the research/researchers mentioned may have articles that elaborate on the given topic. In the major empirical findings section, there are no internal links. You may find opportunity to link some of those findings or studies within Wikipedia.

5. Does the contribution maintain a neutral point of view, consist of verifiable statements, and avoid becoming original research/opinion?

I have already mentioned my concerns with the real life applications section providing verifiable references. One thing I may consider is the theme of controversy within this article. There are two different headings titled controversy, and I think the article does a good job at presenting different findings that are in conflict with each other. I am not sure, however, how “controversial” the findings are. It seems more like there is different evidence for the theories and sometimes no evidence. You may consider altering the wording, especially the second heading, to reflect the various findings rather than as an argument of whether group polarization exists or not, because clearly, it has been shown in many situations.

6. Are facts cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date, except those that are added to provide historical relevance to the article? Are additional references for further reading provided? All of the references appear to be reputable as they are from psychological journals or books. While many of them are older (from 1970’s) there are many newer ones as well. Because the findings have not significantly changed, I think it is valid to use these sources, as long as newer articles replicate the findings. There is a nice mix of research from the past 40 years, and I think it adds strength to the article.

7. Is the contribution clear; written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain clear prose; free of redundant language?

For your paragraph elaborating on internet, you seem to be discussing more than one finding/concept. You mention the difference between lab and field experiments, the time frame variable, and also the difference between computer environment and face to face. You also mention the authors three times in this paragraph, which is not necessary. You may want to rework this paragraph/section to be clear on what the main and pertinent findings are regarding group polarization on the internet.

8. Are the grammar, verb tenses, and spelling correct? Common mistake: multiple verb tenses throughout article. (Most of the topics of these articles describe past events, so use past tense consistently throughout. "The plaintiff argued...The defendant responded...The court decided..." NOT The Plaintif argues...The defendant responds...The court decides...")

Didn’t see many problems here…

9. Is the page categorized appropriately?

I would integrate the “major empirical findings” throughout the article as support for the various topics. I see on the talk page someone brought it up. For example, there are studies on jury decisions. These might fit well in the law application section.

10. In general, are the reasons why the article topic is notable made clear, providing enough detail on important aspects, without providing too much detail on minor points?

I feel the article has nice balance, and will be even better after some of the other issues are addressed. If the social comparison theory and persuasive arguments theory are the two main theories, they may warrant more attention, but it seems as though another student may be working on that.

11. Are links provided to publicly-available versions of all primary sources, such as original articles? Are citations done properly? As far as the citations, you may consider adding the doi’s to all of the journal articles to make them more consistent. Some references include a doi but others do not. Also, some articles use the authors full first name while others use initials. Since more of them use initials, you should change them all to be that way in order to be consistent. Also, the style of referencing the edition and page numbers is inconsistent throughout the reference list. Make sure they all follow the same format. It seems as though most are using APA so I would follow APA guidelines to ensure consistency in the references.

12. Are references formatted properly?

All of the references consistently use footnotes, aside from when the author is mentioned in the text. I see that you are having trouble inserting a footnote. As a suggestion, if you go into the article’s edit page, you can reference to see how the other footnotes were creating. By mimicking the same format, you can hopefully get it to work!

13. Is the "educational assignment" template included on the article's discussion page?’

Yes!

Specific 1. Cite-check every reference in the article. That means, look at each reference and confirm that it supports the point that the article cites it for.

2. Make sure that the citations are formatted in a consistent manner and that none of them are simply a bare URL.

3. Once you are familiar with the subject matter of the article, try to think of a relevant aspect of the topic that is not covered at all or not covered enough and add that need and the need for relevant sources as a comment to the Talk page of the article.

4. If some aspect of the article could be better illustrated by adding an image (cc-licensed or public domain and available from Wikimedia Commons) then add that need and the need for suitable captions for the image as a comment to the Talk page of the article.

The last two references do not follow the footnote format. Not sure if there was difficulty there, but be sure to address that issue. The references appear to be relevant and from valid sources for the points they are making. There are no bare URLS. As a recommendation for topic to cover, I noticed that in the conclusion that it randomly mentions groupthink and potential solutions being similar, but nowhere in the article does it discuss group polarization and the relation to groupthink. In your revision, you also casually mention groupthink with no elaboration. You could discuss the similar causes to groupthink and group polarization. Perhaps this could become a subsection in order to lay a foundation and set straight the differences and similarities between the two, because they may be confused by the lay person. I do not see a strong benefit in adding an image to this article that would provide value added contribution beyond breaking up the monotony of text. If anywhere, I could see an illustrative example in the applications section, of group polarization in action, but even then, without a good picture, it risks looking tacky.