Talk:Construal level theory

Untitled

Peer Review for Psy406

Intro: I like the explanation, but I feel like the wording could be modified just a bit so as to make it more clear. If it read a little more concisely, using less of your voice and just noting the facts, I think it would be a better way to introduce the very basics of the topic. For example: instead of saying “The general idea is that…” just start that sentence with “The more distant an object is from the individual, the more abstract it will be thought of.” Further, I’d end this sentence here and start fresh with the next one to make it easier to read. I know it’s a broad topic to cover, so the intro should be really basic and easy to process. There are a few grammatical issues that would help as well; try to make your sentences less involved. Also, the bit about advertising, while a useful fact to include, seems out of place in the introduction.

Temporal Construal: I like this explanation a lot. The example with the children, for me, makes it quite clear in regards to the levels of construal thinking. I made a few minor edits for grammar and such. It seems that when you pluralize “construal” you are saying “construal’s.” It’s not possessive in this case, so use “construals” instead even through it comes up as being spelled incorrectly. I won’t correct the rest of them, but just be aware.

Perceptions: Again, the explanation is good. The only suggestion I would make is that the way you’ve written it is a little redundant and leads to a few clarity issues. Alternate how you are beginning your sentences for an easy fix. Judgments: Be sure to check your grammar through this one. The information is explanatory, so that’s working well. I believe you are noting a study in it though? You mention “they” at some point, but your reader will not know to whom you are referring. Just clarify this.

Stereotyping: a’okay!

Categorization: I’m a little confused reading this. The beginning is all right (again, read for grammar!), but the second part about events really doesn’t help me understand how we use categories.

Decisions: Good again, but the last part about procrastination is incorrect I believe. You say that high-level thinking is used for nearer events? Just check it out.

Interpersonal: I know I’m a grammar freak. When you’re talking about a person using “one” as a pronoun, it is a singular noun. So, when you refer to that person later, you should use “he or she” or “his or her” rather than “they.” This paragraph is informative, but I think I am only processing it well because I already know about this theory. Try to shorten your sentences a little to put it more in layman’s terms. Read over it and look for grammar and ways to make it a little more concise.

Self-Regulations: I like this one. I would only suggest splitting it into two paragraphs right after your mention of there being two methods in thinking. And, check for grammar.

Social Power: Yup.

Politeness: Good information and examples. Fix the grammar, and then the sentences will be shorter too. This will really help to make it more concise and flow better.

Social Conflict: Good! Check grammar.

EHerman2015 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference names

If the exact same reference is used multiple times, you can use the reference name feature to group them under the same footnote. It makes the references section much easier to navigate. I did one here for reference. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer View

I feel as if the introduction of the idea of what construal level theory is good. I think you should give an example to the readers when you state "the general idea is that the more distant an object is from the individual..." after saying this part you should write what an example of how a person may distance the object which cause them to think more abstract about so people can get a clearer idea of what you are trying to say. Yes there is an example of it in the introduction but I feel as if it should come right after that sentence so the reader can get more of a clear idea of what is being said and I think the introduction will flow more easily if more it around some more. I think after you finish your introduction you should state how all the different subtypes are related to the disorder. Just so the readers understand how they are related to the subject matter before you talk about each section. When I was reading the different sections I understood what you were talking about and I felt like you gave good examples of what each subtype. But I think it will make more sense of you introduce them first because while I was reading I was thinking how they correlate other than you stating for example "the planning fallacy is also included in CTL". In the social distance section you should should read over for grammar there are certain sentences where I understand what you are trying to say but I don't think you read over your work to clearly make your point. For example "In order to talk more in depth about social distance one must first understand what a social group" the thought is not completely stated. Another sentence that doesn't make sense to me is "People are drawn to social group for much different reason" I think you mean for many reason I think that will make more sense. Even though I know this is not done yet I think different sections such as Stereotyping I feel like you should use more example of how people use abstract and concrete thinking can create different stereotypes that are basically universal or if how culture can play a part on how we use are thinking to create different stereotypes. Over all I feel as if there is a lot of information on this topic. I feel as if maybe someone should read the work out loud to get rid of different simple mistakes. But other than that I feel as if everything is going in the right direction for the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholder (talk • contribs) 01:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments on content and organization

Lead paragraph: I like the simplicity of the explanation in the lead paragraph, but I think it should also be mentioned very briefly that there are different types of psychological distance, as this will set the reader up better for the rest of the article. Also, the information about advertising can go into a subsection but is not important enough to be part of the lead. Also, since Yaacov Trope is the author of this theory, his name should appear in the lead of the article.

General organization: The first subsection of the article should explain what is meant by high and low level construal. Currently, this explanation is at the end of the temporal construal section. I think that you should have a section called “psychological distance” and then it should have subsections of for temporal, spatial, and social. The first part of the current section called “perceptions” should also be a subheading under this main heading, but it should be given a more descriptive title like “Relationships between different types of psychological distance” since that’s what it’s about. You should have another broad heading called “Applications” and under it should be “Social perceptions” (the rest of the perceptions heading), Judgments, Stereotyping, Categorixation, Decision Making, Interpersonal interactions, Self-regulation, etc. for the rest of your sections all the way to the end.

Temporal construal: At the beginning of this section, there must be a sentence in which a general description of temporal construal is given. It should be explained that the term refers to whether or not something is near or distant in time. An example of how far and distant time periods affect construal should be given, describing a simple study that examines temporal construal (with a citation for that study).

Rather than saying that the planning fallacy and time discounting are included in or are aspects of CLT, I think it would be better to say that they can be explained by CLT. I think it minimizes the importantance of these ideas if they are cast only as part of Trope’s theory. Also, when the research in this section is cited, all of it is credited to the 2012 chapter (Which by the way, is cited incorrectly as this chapter has two authors – double check all citations carefully!). In fact, the original studies on the planning fallacy and time discounting were not first reported in the 2012 chapter. You must cite the original research. You can cite the 2012 chapter for bringing together the idea that these phenomena serve as demonstrations of CLT, but you must cite the original studies from their original sources.

Spatial distance: In this section, the example given in the first paragraph is about temporal, not spatial distance (planning in near or distant future with example about a wedding). This paragraph also repeats the same explanation of high and low level construal that appeared earlier. Most of the first paragraph is not relevant to this section. The second paragraph is relevant and provides an example. An example of an actual research study on spatial distance (properly cited) would be useful here as well.

Social distance: This section should begin by explicitly stating some examples of social distance, such as low and high status individuals, ingroup and outgroup members, and similar and dissimilar others. Otherwise, this opening paragraph is somewhat difficult to understand. I think the specific examples in the second paragraph are actually somewhat misleading because they are so specific and suggest that distance is only created through opposites, rather than simple ingoup/outgroup distinctions or dissimilarities. Once again, I think it would be very useful to discuss examples of specific studies in which social distance was manipulated.

Stereotyping: This section is very dense, making it somewhat difficult to understand for someone who is new to this topic. Expanding upon the concepts here would be helpful.

Categorization: Some of this is unclear. In the third sentence, you say that those who are physically distant can be categorized as others, but wouldn’t the theory say that this would be true for any kind of psychological distance (physical, temporal, or spatial)?

Social power: Make it clear that power increases social distance in particular, and once again, cite some specific research studies.

Consumer behaviors: The information on advertising should be moved out of the lead paragraph and into this section. You may want to find additional resources for this as well.

General comments:

You have many subsections where there is an explanation of the general topic (e.g., the stereotyping section), but these sections should also include a description of one or more studies demonstrating the phenomenon (properly citing the specific studies).

Subheadings should be formatted in such a way that only the first word is capitalized unless it’s a proper noun.

Link to other Wiki articles wherever possible. That is, if you mention a topic that has a Wiki article about it, you can link to that Wiki article.

I would also suggest proof-reading for clarity and grammar as suggested by other reviewers.

Citations: You have some citations repeated in your references list. When citing the same article multiple times, it would only appear once in the references list. If you are using the old wiki-mark-up, you need to name the reference by using the “ref name” tag and then using that same name when you list the reference again: Help:List-defined references. If you are using the beta editor, whenever you click to add a reference, it will show you your list of previously used references, so you just have to find the reference you want the existing list. Also see Vqakr’s comment on this talk page for help with this issue. If you are still having difficulties, using the live help chat. Gseidman (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead flagged for tone

Style is excessively parenthetical. I also don't think that high-level and low-level should be handled with bullet points. Best if this goes in a more declarative direction, which ideally would originate from someone who knows the field. — MaxEnt 23:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)