Talk:Big Five personality traits and culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology  
WikiProject icon This 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Suggest merge with Big Five personality traits[edit]

This article is a subset of Big Five personality traits and should be merged with that article, IMO. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. On the one hand, I can kind of see that argument (although a merge with Hierarchical Structure of the Big Five would be inappropriate IMO). However, there is a HUGE amount of research on the Big Five as it is the most prominent model in personality psychology, and I think it may be valuable to have multiple pages on Big Five research. The Big Five page could easily be ten times longer than it currently is, and I think having pages like the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, Trait theory, Hierarchical Structure of the Big Five, etc. is valuable, given the breadth of existing research. Additionally, this is a huge field of research that is still developing, and cross-cultural research is extremely popular within the field of psychology.
However, I am working on this article as part of a graduate course in personality psychology, so I admit that I have some bias toward keeping this article separate, at least until early May. :) I am also very aware that although merging this article (and all the others in my class that are based on the Big Five) would seem to result in a really long Big Five article (to me), I am new to Wikipedia, so maybe that is perfectly reasonable within the culture of Wikipedia. Carps11 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Seems reasonable; at the very name the name of this article is rather bad. On a surface, at least, it makes as much sense as an article on "pizza with pineapple topping" being separate from that on "pizza". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 06:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Please provide continued discussion and indicate Support / Oppose positions at Talk:Big Five personality traits.
SBaker43 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Some feedback[edit]

Just wanted to give you some feedback on your article! I checked for copy-edits and didn't find too many - well written! First a few things I liked about your article.

First, I really liked how you present both sides of the argument for whether or not the FFM is accepted across cultures. I feel like you clearly addressed both viewpoints from a NPOV - great job! I also thought you did a great job of adding wikilinks to pieces of info that might be confusing to a reader. One addition I think you could make is in regards to smallman's suggestions on the course talk page. He mentioned that since a wiki article isn't an essay, you don't always need to use things like "in addition" and "lastly", etc. I know this is totally counter intuitive to the way we've been taught to write as graduate students. But I think it might help out your article a bit if you skim through it and omit a few of these types of phrases and make the language sound a little more direct.

In the section on differences - I think it might be helpful to put "robust" in more simpler terms. Or maybe wikilink to a definition of this word? Just thought that might trip up a reader who isn't quite as familiar with that term.

I also really like the Controversy section because, again, it provides another side of the story. I realize that the controversy is implied, but I feel like it might be helpful to be a bit more explicit about why each of these things is a controversy and how that controversy relates to differences in cultures. Again - I realize all the info is already there, but just emphasizing it more explicitly might help the reader follow the logic.

Regardless of the debate on whether or not to merge, I think this article contains relevant and well-researched content on a very interesting issue. Majobc11 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think you've done a good job! I've made a couple copyedits I caught, plus few little edits that I think make the language a little more simple and clear and to make it flow a little better - you're welcome to change them back if you want. (One change in particular, in the "Similarities" section - I generalized the language a bit more, but that might be going against how you're trying to present the information.)

A couple of suggestions:

  • In the second sentence, are you trying to talk about personality as a widely studied subfield of psychology in general, or cross-cultural psychology in particular? Whichever way you want to present it, it's a little unclear at present.
  • Maybe remove the word "important" from the beginning of the second sentence? I know it seems kind of trivial, but I think saying that it's widely studied (which is a verifiable fact) automatically implies that it's important, without having to state it on the wiki page (which could come off as not NPOV). I'll leave that decision up to you though.
  • This is kind of what Brett was talking about, but in the "Differences" section, you probably don't need the "It's important to point out..." part of the first sentence - just go ahead and state that "Evidence does show that differences in Big Five standing do exist between cultures." Same with "Some research compares ..." in the second sentence, the "however" in the 4th sentence, etc. I know it seems weird to just jump from one statement to the next without transition sentences/words, but I think that's what they want here. Along the same lines, you can probably get rid of the very last sentence - there doesn't really need to be a conclusion sentence.
  • I'm a little unclear on the description of the "Modernization" trait in the CPAI section - does it reflect the continuum of attitudes towards traditional beliefs (ranging from agreeing to disagreeing with traditionalism), or is it a trait that is the contrast to/opposite of endorsing traditional Chinese beliefs?

Aside from those suggestions (very doable, I think), it's a good article! I think it's really interesting and really important for an understanding of the validity of the Big Five. Allexe11 (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Need more recent sources[edit]

  • Per WP:MEDRS, articles cited should be no older than five to ten years. If this is such a hot topic, why aren't more recent sources available? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS specifically refers to "biomedical information in articles". Nowhere is there any reference to psychology. Insisting that psychology articles that contain no biomedical information comply with WP:MEDRS seems draconian and unjustified. Unless you can get an admin to back you up on this, it would seem that you are trying to promote a personal agenda contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. --Smcg8374 (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
If this is such a hot topic, why aren't more recent sources available? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Why did you just repeat a question you added earlier? More pointedly, why do you claim that more recent sources are not available? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? I have just done a search of ScienceDirect using the keywords "Big five AND culture" and I found a number of recent articles, including one published as recently as 2012. E.g. [1] [2] [3]
That was just one simple search of one database, so I have just scratched the surface of the topic. Before trying to discredit the topic, how about doing some basic research yourself? And what about my question about the applicability of WP:MEDRS to personality related topics? From reading the MEDRS guidelines, it seemed pretty clear that the guidelines are intended specifically to refer to information about treatment of medical conditions. This topic is unrelated to medical treatments, so why should MEDRS apply? Have you received advice from an admin in this regard? What authority do you have to tell editors what sources they are allowed to use? Unless you can cite a legitimate ruling by WP admins on this topic, you are just applying your own opinion on the matter. --Smcg8374 (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)