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

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)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Progress monitoring[edit]

Hello, psychologists. This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this worth keeping and improving? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Duplicative articles?[edit]

Wikipedia now has two articles that appear to me to be duplicative in topic: ‪Brief psychotherapy and ‪Brief psychoanalytic therapy‬. The first has been here for some years; the second is a brand new article by a new user. Neither has inline citations. I am wondering if these should be merged, and the "psychoanalytic" one redirected to the "psychotherapy" one. I don't know enough about the field to make that decision, or to do the merge myself, so I am bringing it here for your consideration. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but as I understand these terms, psychotherapy is a general term that could refer to therapy following the approach/perspective of any of the schools of psychotherapy; psychoanalytic therapy‬ is a particular kind of therapy that uses psychoanalysis. Therefore, these articles aren't exactly the same; brief psychoanalytic therapy‬ is one kind of brief psychotherapy. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Apparent Movement[edit]

Hello, psychologists. I posted about this old draft at WT:WikiProject Neuroscience#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Apparent Movement, but I should have remembered from my undergraduate psych classes that perception stuff belongs here. Please join the discussion there if you are interested.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

New student training modules[edit]

Hello everyone,

The Wiki Education Foundation has gone ahead with some changes to the student training. Of particular interest is the addition of a new section intended for students who may touch medical articles, including psychology.

This section of the training is now live, here.

Thanks to BlueRasberry for contributing to this project, and we are, as always, looking for further suggestions and feedback!

Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

new article Psychecological science- needs eyes[edit]

Psychecological science could use some critical eyes. I'm not convinced it's a distinct field rather than just a neologism. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete Databases for psychologists?[edit]

Pls see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Databases_for_psychologists#Databases_for_psychologists. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Split Category:American Psychological Association academic journals?[edit]

Pls see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_30#Category:American_Psychological_Association_academic_journals. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Imagined contact hypothesis on hold[edit]

I am currently reviewing Imagined contact hypothesis and it is currently on hold pending changes. Since the primary author, a student, hasn't edited since Nov 2014, I am posting here to see if one of you would be willing to make the corrections necessary. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal of Trustworthiness to Trust (social sciences)[edit]

Some time ago I proposed merging Trustworthiness to Trust (social sciences). There was some discussion of it, but not a large response. It's probably safe to merge them, and I will if no one else responds soon, but I figured I would bring it to the attention of anyone who is interested, so I am posting notices on the related WikiProject talk pages. Cheers,  DiscantX 21:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The scope of article Depression (mood)[edit]

Interested parties please read and comment on the discussion about that the scope of the article Depression (mood) on it's talk page, section "scope". (sorry I do not know how to link to a section on a talk page). Jim Derby (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new article on mental health and the American prison system[edit]

Hello! My name is Magen and I am an undergraduate student at Rice University. This semester, as part of an upper-level course on human development, I am interested in creating an article on mental health in the American prison system. I can't find any information on this topic currently on Wikipedia except for a section within the Prison Abolition Movement article, which, accordingly, is framed in relation to that political stance. This article would address the prevalence of mental illness within the prison system (according to one study done by the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are currently more people with mental illnesses in jails and prisons than in hospitals), proposed causes of this prevalence/its relation to deinstitutionalization, the psychiatric care inmates receive while incarcerated, the different experiences of inmates with mental illnesses vs. inmates who do not have mental illnesses, and advocacy surrounding this issue/proposed reforms. I have identified these topics through a review of the relevant research, and I plan to draw on scholarly sources available to me through my university, including journals such as Criminal Justice and Behavior, American Psychologist, Psychiatric Services. The Journal of Law and Criminology, American Journal of Public Health, etc. If you are interested in knowing more about my current bibliography, feel free to ask. This is only my second contribution to Wikipedia (my first was "Homelessness among LGBT youth in the United States," which received a B-Class rating), so I am more than open to feedback, ideas, cautions, etc. My most immediate question is what the article should be titled. This is, of course, related to community norms about talking about mental illness. Which is more accepted on Wikipedia: "person with a mental illness," "persona with a mental disorder," "mentally ill person," "mentally disordered person," or something else? Depending on what is accepted, the title of my article might be something like "Mentally ill people in United States prisons," modeled after the existing article "LGBT people in prison." What do you think? Thank you so much for your time and feedback. I hope this posting finds you well! Magenstat (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you interested in bringing up the main article of this project, Psychology, to good article status?[edit]

Hi, everyone,

I see that the main article of this project, Psychology, was nominated once for featured article status in 2007, but didn't gain that status, and is currently listed as a B class article. I wonder who would be interested in focused, top-to-bottom improvement of the article's sources and overall organization and balance so that the article could be listed as a good article? I've nominated this article for consideration in this month's Core contest to improve vital articles, and I would be delighted to work collaboratively with other project participants to ensure that the Psychology article represents the reliable sources accurately and reflects well on this WikiProject. Are you interested in joining in? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Another editor is making very good suggestions for improvements in the Psychology main article, and a third editor is watching the page closely. I invite anyone else interested in the project to take a look at the discussion at the article talk page. I have gathered about half of the references for the article to begin a top-to-bottom reference check of everything that is cited there now. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I just had the great pleasure of being one of several co-editors who brought the article English language up to good article status, and I think the current status of Psychology is already better than English language had ever been before this month, so I'm inviting all of you who are interested to join in (or look on) as other editors and I push to improve Psychology (which, after all, is the main article for this WikiProject) up to good article status. I've had a good time digging into library resources, both online and in actual physical libraries, to gather reliable secondary sources for improving the article. Feel free to join the fun or to make your constructive suggestions as the article revision continues. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation[edit]

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the articles Domestic violenceGender stereotypes , of interest to this wikiproject, were selected a while ago to be reviewed by external experts. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the articles before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated experts for review (for details, please see each articles' talk page). Any notes and remarks written by the external experts will be made available on the articles' talk pages under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC on psychometrics in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience[edit]

A Request for Comments is in progress at Talk: List of topics characterized as pseudoscience concerning whether psychometrics should be: (1) included in that list; (2) included in that list, but with a notation that it is so categorized by a minority of scholars; (3) excluded from the list. Your participation in the RFC is welcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy[edit]

Valoem (talk · contribs) is requesting to move this back to mainspace, so opinions are sought over at User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy. I'd argue that this has medical/psychological implications, though others' views may vary.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Is "getting lost" a suitable topic for an article?[edit]

Hi, there is currently a draft Draft:Getting lost that has been declined on the grounds that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary (implying that the topic is too trivial to have an article). However, I disagree with the reviewer's assessment of that. Therefore I'm seeking for extra opinions on whether it is suitable or not. Thanks! Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 06:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I absolutely agree that this is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia, and capable of substantial expansion with information about the increased incidence of "getting lost" with advancing age and the onset of dementia, and the frequent occurrence of getting lost in dreams. bd2412 T 04:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe this would be suitable for a section in Orientation (mental). (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


I am working on a draft for the surprisingly article-less topic of guessing (Guessing redirects to Güssing, a small town in Austria, Guess is a disambiguation page). My research suggests that there is a great deal of unspoken psychological activity that goes into making a guess, so I thought it would make sense to ask for input here. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Spoon theory[edit]

Does it meet WP:Notability? So far the article does not meet the "significant attention from independent sources" requirement. I tagged the article, but sb removed the tag without taking action to fix this issue. -- (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


Dear psychology experts: I came across this disambiguation page, which has two items. Is this a useful page, or should it be deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a draft article which could be a replacement for this page, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Murray’s Theory of Personality. It needs some work, though. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello - Assignment[edit]

Hi everyone! My name is Laura and I am new to the Wiki world.

I am currently a student at Virginia Tech, and am double majoring in Biology and Psychology. I am in a class called physiological psychology and for an assignment we must add information to a wiki stub or create a new article on a topic of choice. I decided I would like to add to a stub, and stumbled across one for novelty seeking. I have created some information in my Sandbox and was wondering if there was a way to get your approval before trying to add it to the page. I have copy and pasted it below and I hope it doesn't ruin anything in terms of the formatting.

Thank you for your time and I hope to hear back from someone/all soon!

Laura Giovannoni

Novelty seeking[edit]


Causes and Effects[edit]

Although the exact causes for novelty seeking behaviors is unknown, there may be a link to genetics. Studies have found an area on the Dopamine receptor D4 gene on chromosome 11 that is characterized by several repeats in a particular base sequence. Multiple studies have identified a link to genetics, in particular one conducted by Dr. Benjamin and colleagues, where individuals who had longer alleles of this gene had higher novelty-seeking scores than individuals with the shorter allele ([1]). In another study relating to the gene and financial risk, Dr. Dreber and colleagues found a correlation between increased risk-taking and the DRD4 gene in young males([2]). Although there are studies that support the link between NS and dopaminergic activity via DRD4, there are also studies that do not exhibit a strong correlation. More studies need to be conducted to confirm the importance of DRD4 in novelty seeking.


In addition to potential heredity, novelty seeking behaviors are seen with the modulation of dopamine. The overall effect of dopamine when exposed to a novel stimuli is a mass release of the neurotransmitter in reward systems of the brain including the mesolimbic pathway ([3]). The mesolimbic pathway is active in every type of addiction and is involved with reinforcement. Because of this activation in the brain, NS has been linked to personality disorders as well as substance abuse and other addictive behaviors. DRD4 receptors are highly expressed in areas of the limbic system associated with emotion and cognition.

Relation with age[edit]

It is important to note the individual's age with novelty seeking. This behavior will decrease with time, especially as the brains of adolescents and young adults finalize in development. More studies need to be conducted to identify factors of variation including gender, ethnicity, temperament and environment.


  1. ^ Dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4) is associated with Novelty Seeking (NS) and substance abuse: the saga continues . . . Ball et al. September 2001, Volume 6, Number 5, Pages 497-499 [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ Desperately Seeking Sensation: Fear, Reward, and the Human Need for Novelty: Neuroscience Begins to Shine Light on the Neural Basis of Sensation-Seeking by Brenda Patoine. October 13, 2009 [3]


I like it, though it meeds some copy-editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Large scale changes to multiple articles[edit]

There have been recent massive refactorings of articles egocentrism, obedience (human behavior) and minority influence, at least some of which are in this project's scope. Similar changes to another article, egocentric bias, were reverted by JorisvS with an edit summary of "rv: too many poor-quality edits". I'm therefore drawing attention to these other edits as well, so that you can ensure quality of these articles is not compromised. Regards, Samsara 02:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The changes to egocentrism were similarly horrible looking (you were quite right to revert that). Those to the other two are not as superficially terrible. Obedience (human behavior) has been shortened very much and part of a quote has been deleted, in all significantly reducing its quality (so I've reverted it too). Yet, minority influence has more content, the "Studies" section has, correctly, been incorporated into the rest of the article, and the removal of the header "Further research" is also quite appropriate. --JorisvS (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Dependent personality disorder[edit]

Hello. I am interested in adding some significant statistical measures to the dependent personality disorder page. Any feedback is welcome and greatly appreciated. Here is the future added information:

"A 2004 twin study suggests a heritability of .81 for developing dependent personality disorder. Because of this, there is significant evidence that this disorder runs in families. Children and adolescents with a history of anxiety disorders and physical illnesses are more susceptible to acquiring this disorder."

I will cite the textbook of which this information was generated. Here it is: Nolen-Hoeksema, Susan (2014). Abnormal Psychology (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

I think it is necessary to include statistics on how significant the correlation is between the disorder and its prevalence in families.There is limited information in the article about the topic, so I thought this might help. --Kpatelzimbabwe (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Psychology Page[edit]

Where's the fourth I in the 4 I's section of the cultural psychology page? Or are there only 3 I's?

Problems with implicit cognition article[edit]

The article on implicit cognition is not written to the usual Wikipedia level of clarity, readability, and grammatical correctness. The information in the article may very well be correct and helpful, but it needs to be edited.

Thanks for your comments. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and you don't have to register to edit. Feel free to begin the cleanup. It might help the rest of us if you could explain some of the details about your concerns at Talk: Implicit cognition. If you need any help on how to do things around here, place {{helpme}} on your talk page, or ask me on my talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Low frustration tolerance[edit]

Might it be a good idea to reference conditions that are co-morbid with low frustration tolerance? For example, depression[1], Aspberger's syndrome[2], and/or ADHD[3].


Yogator (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Review request of a possible walled garden of Oettingen/Gollwitzer works[edit]

Hello project psychology,

Disclaimers first: I am a complete stranger to psychology, though I know a bit about research in general (and in physics specifically). I checked only archives 6 and 7 in passing for that talk page, feel free to WP:TROUT me if the subject has already been discussed and/or solved.

I came across the AfD for WOOP (scientific strategy) which lead me to mental contrasting and implementation intention, articles for which I would like to see some external review.

Those articles have some issues (for instance, Mental_contrasting#Application is not-very-subtle WP:ADMASQ), but I am wondering whether the whole thing is not WP:UNDUE weight given to the works of Oettingen and Gollwitzer (plus maybe PhD students or close colleagues). The references include maybe 90% of papers where either of the two is author or co-author.

It is not technically a walled garden since those do not link anywhere, but the general idea fits: a specific subdomain of dubious notability with no ingoing or outgoing links (except maybe to very general subjects). I simply cannot tell between a famous subdomain with two world-leading specialists and a crusade by two crazies trying to sell their research/books.

Thank you, Tigraan (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I'm not a psych-expert and I'm not even a member of this WikiProject (oops), but I read through those articles and their references and we definitely have some sort of a walled garden issue with these, plus the way the articles are written is not quite encyclopedic. Here are the thoughts i expressed in my edit summaries: Mental contrasting: "This article is an advert and mostly sourced from Oettingen's writings"; Implementation intention: "written like an essay; I also suspect that some of the non-Gollwitzer sources don't directly talk about/refer to the topic of this article specifically"; WOOP (scientific strategy): "This article is an advert and primarily sourced from Oettingen and Gollwitzer's writings"; also Talk:Gabriele Oettingen: "I'm not gonna put tags on this article but I think it's slightly advert-like and too many of the supporting refs are primary sources." — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If Peter Gollwitzer and Gabriele Oettingen are "two crazies" as User:Tigraan suspects above, they are certainly fooling a lot of people, as judged by the number of citations of their work on Google Scholar: author:PM Gollwitzer and author:G Oettingen. Biogeographist (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Citation stats (especially counting self-cites) are not a good measure of scientific value, it gives a rough idea at best. You have a point that they are not unknown in the academic world, but caution is still needed. Michel Maffesoli has huge citation counts... Tigraan (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that caution is always needed, but there is a fine line between caution and innuendo, neutrality and disconfirmation bias, skepticism and pseudoskepticism. It is not difficult to find controversy about Michel Maffesoli; indeed, it is documented in his Wikipedia article. But I have not yet found any controversy about Gollwitzer and Oettingen, and it appears that User:Tigraan has not found any controversy either (correct me if I'm wrong). Gollwitzer and Oettingen have coauthored publications with John Bargh, and some of Bargh's work has recently become controversial after other researchers failed to replicate his findings (this controversy is documented in Bargh's Wikipedia article). Neither Gollwitzer nor Oettingen were coauthors on the studies that failed to replicate. Controversy about Gollwitzer and Oettingen's work could, of course, emerge if other psychologists fail to replicate their studies. Let's hope that such replication attempts continue not only for the sake of science but also to provide more sources for the Wikipedia articles on implementation intention and mental contrasting. To date I have seen nothing written about Gollwitzer or Oettingen that warrants a suspicion of craziness. Biogeographist (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
"To date I have seen nothing written about Gollwitzer or Oettingen that warrants a suspicion of craziness." Neither have I. My rant was more about the principle (more citations = good) than the issue at hand. (By "craziness" I mean being the sole promoters of ideas that the rest of the field views at best as uninteresting and at worse as ludicrous.)
However, as per my discussion of sources at [4], I am fairly sure Oettingen or her editor called every journalist they could for book promotion, so I see a possibility that the drums and trumpets made them more famous than their academic status warrants. (There are countless examples of the mainstream press publishing "scientific" articles that were in reality nothing more than "X answered our phone call and we paraphrased everything they said", or even "we answered X's phone call and…".) This, in turn, might or might not have impacted Wikipedia coverage of related areas, and someone with moderate knowledge of the field could check that better than me. Tigraan (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I see your points. I'm not especially concerned about implementation intention and mental contrasting, but I agree that psychologists in general (and editors that write about the field on Wikipedia) need to pay attention to the issues you raise. Here's a recent article on the subject:
  • Strickland, Brent; Mercier, Hugo (March 2014). "Bias neglect: a blind spot in the evaluation of scientific results" (PDF). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 67 (3): 570––580. doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.821510. PMID 23944157. Experimenter bias occurs when scientists' hypotheses influence their results, even if involuntarily. Meta-analyses have suggested that in some domains, such as psychology, up to a third of the studies could be unreliable due to such biases. A series of experiments demonstrates that while people are aware of the possibility that scientists can be more biased when the conclusions of their experiments fit their initial hypotheses, they robustly fail to appreciate that they should also be more sceptical of such results. This is true even when participants read descriptions of studies that have been shown to be biased. Moreover, participants take other sources of bias—such as financial incentives—into account, showing that this bias neglect may be specific to theory-driven hypothesis testing. In combination with a common style of scientific reporting, bias neglect could lead the public to accept premature conclusions.  Biogeographist (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for production blocking[edit]

Hello everyone,

My name is Ana and I am currently an undergraduate student who enrolled in an independent study course that is asking us to edit existing Wikipedia articles in Psychology. The article I chose to edit was a Psychology stub: production blocking. I realized that it would have been a better idea if someone read over my sandbox draft before I made it go live. Since that already happened, I would really appreciate it if someone took some time to read over my contributions. For future purposes, I will definitely be asking for advice and suggestions before editing an article.

Thank you and I hope to hear from someone soon!

Ana L. Cortez (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)