Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Index · Statistics · Log

Attachment Theory in relation to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs model[edit]

Can someone please investigate the value and validity of this model, particularly as to the claim that it supersedes the Hierarchical model ?

As far as I can tell, 'Attachment theory' per se is not a successor to Maslows' Hierarchy of Needs model.'s_hierarchy_of_needs

While Maslow's model attempts to place a set of developmental stages relative to a person's age and intellectual and emotional growth; Attachment Theory does nothing of the sort.

Attachment theory is at best pedagogical focused with only a small aspect dedicated to development in later adult stages. It says nothing about the internal dynamics of a person's psychosocial development relative to their experiential settings.

The links offered to support the claim over Attachment Theory border on the self-serving. They are highly debatable; particularly with regards to claim that it has replaced Maslow's Hierarchical model.

I should add, that I am a trained educator (Androgogy) with a background in Educational Psychology.

Please consider removing or deleting the reference to 'Attachment Theory' in its present location.

At best, it could be inserted in the criticism area of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have trouble understanding what you are saying. Which Wikipedia article are you criticizing, and which part of it do you think ought to be changed? Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Philip Zimbardo of the Stanford prison experiment[edit]

The article Philip Zimbardo states:

Zimbardo attacked the BBC study, making claims that something must have been wrong since the results were different and even claiming they lied about how they selected who was assigned to being a prisoner or a guard.[9]

The article cites Zimbardo's commentary here which is referring to the BBC prison study found here. It seems to me that "something must have been wrong since the results were different" is an oversimplification of Zimbardo's criticism of the BBC prison study, however, this is beyond my area of expertise so I was hoping someone here might be able to take a look at it. Thanks! - Location (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Location. While I am not sold on the validity of Zimbardo's criticisms myself, I do agree that the wiki-content you are talking about is an unfair characterization. In fact, the entire section has some serious errors in it and I am not convinced that this topic belongs in this biographical article at all. I have boldy opted for removal at this stage. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review: Basking in Reflected Glory[edit]

I think this is a great start to an article. In order to best communicate oneself, we should stray away from passive voice. Also, I found that the use of BIRGing instead of writing out "basking in reflected glory" chopped up the sentences and made it harder for me to read. If we eliminate the acronyms, I think it will read smoother. I also think that reworking some of the sentences to take a more analytic approach would improve the article. The applications section is somewhat limited, adding a new variety of examples should help enhance the reader's understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EWilkerson (talkcontribs) 14:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It says that this wikipedia article includes a list of references but the sources are unclear. Perhaps the person who wrote the page can go and double check to make sure the references are still valid and are cited in a correct format.

It also says that this article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay.   A suggestion is to avoid any  usage of words or phrases that indicate that such as I, think, me, probably, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeheliO (talkcontribs) 19:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wilhelm Wundt nominated for level 4 vital article.[edit]

Hi all, I nominated Wilhelm Wundt for inclusion in the level 4 vital articles (ie the 10,000 most important articles on Wikipedia) in the psychologists category. See Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded#Psychology

We would need at least one more vote within the next 10 days or so for inclusion (assuming there is no opposition).

Cheers. Arnoutf (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think canvassing for votes is a bad idea, but it would be great idea to have more participation by members of the Psych prokject in establishing which psychology articles are vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Multiple Resources Questionnaire[edit]

Dear psychology experts: I have made a start at removing some of the jargon from this draft article by creating a new lead paragraph. While I have some training in this area, it was a long time ago, and I may have inadvertently introduced error. I have placed my suggested lead paragraph below the original one. Can someone who is familiar with this topic please comment? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Scientology sources used as a source in pages::[edit]

I've found a few pages, including the Psychology page itself using Citizens Commission on Human Rights websites as a source. I've removed them and have done a crude search on Google for other pages on Wikipedia that use them. I've removed the ones on the English language Wikipedia, but there's a few in other languages that do. Please ensure that no pages use CCHR (or any other fringe group) as a source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I lose track of the names of all those cover groups for fringe activism. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editing Project[edit]

Hi, this is Chesivoirzr and I am doing a Wikipedia project where I have to edit articles on Developmental Psychology. My goal is to make valuable contributions to editing Wikipedia articles on Developmental Psychology. I would like to get help on the project. Could anybody give me suggestions for Developmental Psychology articles to edit? How could I improve the Wikipedia articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesivoirzr (talkcontribs) 00:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Article Suggestions[edit]

This article needs a lot of assistance. The wording of the article comes across as a personal essay. I suggest refraining from using words such as: you, they, and instead use words such as: one, the participants. Also the definition and the example are paradoxes. I suggest for that to be corrected or be defined more directly. Lastly, the second paragraph I found the experiment to be very confusing to follow and understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeheliO (talkcontribs) 16:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured[edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Everyday life, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Self-Recognition[edit]

Dear psychology experts: Here's another of those old AfC submissions that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic that should be saved and improved? Right now the title redirects to Mirror test. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Investment Theory of Creativity[edit]

Dear psychology experts: This old draft will soon be deleted. Is this a notable theory that should become an article? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Psychological Association[edit]

Hello. I am very new to Wikipedia editing. I only just discovered the existence of your project. I drafted an article in my user space about a section of the Canadian Psychological Association:,_Canadian_Psychological_Association Later on I notice a page about Divisions of the American Psychological association: with a suggestion that it be merged into the APA page. So I was wondering if maybe my rejected article might be acceptable if it were merged into the CPA page? Thanks for considering this. PhilPsych (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Eating recovery[edit]

what do we do with it - discuss at talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Academia?[edit]

Please see here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Academia. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR)[edit]

This article is covered under Wikipedia psychology and really needs some more editors. Currently I have a dispute with an editor who sees EMDR (the eye component at least) as quackery, the dispute centers on the insistence that skeptic literature (eg. ) is acceptable for use as citations. I don't agree with this, I think peer reviewed psychology and psychiatry journals are preferable. Especially considering much the same information/arguments found in the skeptic literature are available in peer reviewed journals. Of course the mainstream view of EMDR is that it is a scientifically validated treatment 'EMDR is recognised as having the highest level of research evidence for the treatment of PTSD by the Australian Psychological Society (EBPI Review 2010).' You may agree or disagree regarding the sources but this article really would benefit from having more active editors with a psychology background, considering the treatment was created by a psychologist and almost all the research and discussion on it has been published in psychology journals. Thanks Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the direct citation for the "(EBPI Review 2010)" mentioned in the event calendar link? And what do professional societies of psychologists in other countries say about EMDR? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC) On page 11 footnote it states EMDR has Level 1 evidence (the highest level)

American Psychological Association website 'EMDR is an integrative psychotherapy designated by the American Psychiatric Association as highly effective and empirically supported'

From the article: 'EMDR is now recommended as an effective treatment for trauma in the Practice Guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association,[8] the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense,[9] SAMSHA,[10] the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies,[11] and the World Health Organization.[12]' EMDR is accepted as a validated scientific treatment for PTSD by numerous national boards of psychology eg. The American Psychology Association, the Australian Psychological Society, the British Psychological Society, the Canadian Psychological Association etc. That said there are still controversies about the treatment as discussed in journal articles.

There are many good sources already in the article including meta-analyses demonstrating the effectiveness of EMDR , and journal articles discussing the controversies, they just have not been well summarized. The article is just not very good and really doesn't need the addition of poor (skeptic) sources.

I'm surprised it is considered a low importance article on the project's importance scale. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Affective Disorder U.S. State Percentile Change[edit]

I feel the percentile range presented is inaccurate.

Old Post: Although experts were initially skeptical, this condition is now recognized as a common disorder, with its prevalence in the U.S. ranging from 1.4% in Florida to 9.7% in New Hampshire.[1]


  1. ^ Friedman, Richard A. (December 18, 2007) Brought on by Darkness, Disorder Needs Light. New York Times’’.

New Post: Although experts were initially skeptical, this condition is now recognized as a common disorder. [1] SAD's prevalence in the U.S. ranges from 1.4% in Florida to 9.9% in Alaska.[2]


  1. ^ Friedman, Richard A. (December 18, 2007) Brought on by Darkness, Disorder Needs Light. New York Times’’.
  2. ^ Nolen-Hoeksema, Susan (2014). Abnormal Psychology (Sixth Edition ed.). New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Education. p. 179. ISBN 978-1-259-06072-4. 

Bradleyseuntjens (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Better to post this on the article talk page. This 2013 book is a superior source to a 7 year old newspaper article so I don't see any problem, it conforms to WP:MEDRS.Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research[edit]

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)