Jump to content

Talk:Attitude (psychology): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Whitmb11 (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 53: Line 53:


Couldn't agree more. This entire page needs a complete overhaul. There's an extreme lack of referencing and major theorists/theories aren't mentioned or are only mentioned in passing <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ponsy67|Ponsy67]] ([[User talk:Ponsy67|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ponsy67|contribs]]) 07:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Couldn't agree more. This entire page needs a complete overhaul. There's an extreme lack of referencing and major theorists/theories aren't mentioned or are only mentioned in passing <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ponsy67|Ponsy67]] ([[User talk:Ponsy67|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ponsy67|contribs]]) 07:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I'd like to add my request for better referencing, please. The studies cited in the main article do not always appear in the reference list or in the list for further reading (the examples I looked up but could not find are Zimbardo et al 1999, Whitley and Kite 2010. Thanks for attention to this. 6/9/2012.
[I'd sign this if I could but I can't get the tilde on my keyboard to work]


== Quibble ==
== Quibble ==

Revision as of 13:03, 6 September 2012

WikiProject iconPsychology Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Positive thinking should not redirect!

What are you guys thinking????

Of course positive thinking should have it's own article! Sheesh!

Microswitch 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


in fact every thing written about attitudes but, their is no information (so far to me)that has not been published about the history of emerging of attitude and hoe really came about.

any response please send it to: zaneen1@yahoo.com


The wiki article pegs my bull-crapto-meter. It should win an award for most uninformative psycho-babble.

Headline text

Reference to 2006 paper in Annual Review of Psychology

I think it would be advised if this article could make use of an article that appeared in the Annual Review of Psychology for 2006 on attitudes. I shall give the full reference when I have found it. ACEO 18:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) The reference is: Crano, W.D. & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and Persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 345-374ACEO 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.6.26 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference for Zimbardo, et al. (1999) is missing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.208.131.243 (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section on attitude assessment needed

There is no separate section on methods to assess attitudes.This is a major omission.Also, would it be good to have a section on how discourse analysis has challenged conventional beliefs about attitudes?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

Is "herpeethetical" even a word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.151.177 (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

df —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.4.2 (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italic textattitude is the name given by puple its nothing but the fight between normal and hifi...........and then in other words its al the crap things in bundel of order


by::::: Acquin Poovanna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.148.217.126 (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

Not only is this discussion of attitude incomplete, the references are shoddy, Breckler, S. J., & Wiggins, E. C. (1992)should be 1989, there's a couple of references in the article that aren't listed, and so on. Furthermore, while APA referencing is understandable given the article, I think footnotes are more convenient overall, this is a webpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niroztaken (talkcontribs) 19:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC) social psychology is key to behavour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.197.180 (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. This entire page needs a complete overhaul. There's an extreme lack of referencing and major theorists/theories aren't mentioned or are only mentioned in passing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponsy67 (talkcontribs) 07:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add my request for better referencing, please. The studies cited in the main article do not always appear in the reference list or in the list for further reading (the examples I looked up but could not find are Zimbardo et al 1999, Whitley and Kite 2010. Thanks for attention to this. 6/9/2012. [I'd sign this if I could but I can't get the tilde on my keyboard to work]

Quibble

"The cognitive response is a cognitive evaluation of the entity that constitutes an individual's beliefs about the object." This sentence is difficult to understand and causes a lot of troubles. Please rearrange it and make it simpler and streamlined. ༄༅།།གང་ཐུ་ཡཱ།། (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figure of Speech !!!

Can anyone please give me an information as to which figure of speech does the word ATTITUDE come under ??.... The only information i got is that it is an Inflection of a Noun. Kinly provide your valuable answers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.155.5 (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Attitude Structure Needed

It may be useful to include a section on the structural components of attitudes, for example, attitude accessibility and attitudinal ambivalence. Adding a section including these constructs may also provide an opportunity to include information concerning consistency between attitudes and behaviors. Whitmb11 (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]