Talk:Von Restorff effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

I plan to add a section dealing with the Von Restorff effect's implications for the real world by giving a couple of simple day to day examples (i.e. advertising and remembering a grocery list). As far as making an addition to science, I will include an area discussing the Von Restorff effect and how it varies with age. Finally, I will include any major hyperlinks to other relevant pages, particularly the "recency" and "primacy effect" if I am able to work those terms into this page. Any suggestions on how to do so? Cnwobu (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I think the page needs to be divided into two sections:definition and history. Paragraphs 3 and 4 should move to where 5 and 6 are with the history section starting with the line "Von Restorff worked as a postdoctoral assistant..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolette12345 (talkcontribs) 02:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree this should be organized in a better way, but I think paragraphs 5 and 6 should immediately follow paragraph 1. It is much easier to understand when the definition is followed by a classic example. The last sentence of the first paragraph "It is a bias in favour of remembering the unusual" seems out of place and I would recommend grouping it with paragraph the last paragraph(6). This would then be followed by the history behind Mr. Von Restorff. If you're looking for more things to add, I would suggest linking a recent study demonstrating the von Restorff effect, as well as explaining why it happens. Samliu365 (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sam, I like your idea for this specific organizational change. I will probably go ahead and do that but it may or not be futile since we plan on doing a complete overhaul of the page. Including why the VRE happens will be a major point that I will note when doing my edits. Thanks!

I agree with you both about the organizational changes. I would also recommend that you include another example of the Von Restorff effect. The article seems to only contain one, and this one example leads the reader to believing that the Von Restorff effect occurred because of a color change, however, it is possible a word stands out without being highlighted or in a different format. I think it would be valuable to provide at least one example such as how the word "murder" stands out in a list such as "bed, desk, green, chair." Zoeberk (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a small note about von Restorff is that she was female (one user said "Mr. Von Restorff" in an earlier post), so simply make sure any corrections you make are consistent with her correct identification. Jasonbrovich (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Examples[edit]

I think having more examples for this article would be very beneficial for people who are wondering what the effect is and how it works. Possibly showing an example from a secondary source that show a word list with one word being very different could easily explain and exemplify the effectiveness and power of this effect.Ospring1234 (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree examples would be helpful, a photograph of the lists like those of color or words like murder and torture would help. In addition I would include small explanations of the serial positioning effect and other outside examples as well as their links, because some people may know the idea but not the name. If they don't know what the example is describing it becomes much less useful as a learning tool. Courtney Crump (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Courtney

One other suggestion I might make about providing examples (in addition to explaining the two linked effects in the final paragraph) would be to cite some sort of specific experiment, perhaps one performed by von Restorff herself. Jasonbrovich (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Including color in the list may be misleading as it would overlap with the Stroop-task substantially. I agree with those above in using lists from actual experiments so that we can see the exact wording used to detect the effect. Michael O'Sullivan Duke (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Organization[edit]

I now think the page should be split into a definition and then examples. I don't think there is a need for a history of von Restorff as it is hyperlinked to her own Wiki page. A history of her adds nothing to understanding the effect. Instead, this page should focus on the von Restorff effect and what that means. Examples will include one relating to physically changing an item in a list, and the other will demonstrate how meaningfulness can impact recall and produce the effect. Nicolette12345 (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree that including the background information about Von Restorff and her history is rather futile. I think for starters I will go through any information regarding her background and begin removing it! Cnwobu (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that different sections should be made for different examples. I further suggest that the topic of emotionally charged words can provide another great example in showing the Von Restorff effect. A study was done where words like "murder" and "torture" were more easily remembered in a word list than neutrally-charged words. More examples, along with elaboration on these examples can provide more content for this page. Ackelleher17 (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with all the comments mentioned before about adding more examples to allow the reader to get a more explicit sense of what the Von Restorff Effect is. I also think that organizationally, the article jumps around a lot and that can lead to more confusion so I believe a paragraph simply explaining the concept and then a paragraph or two including two to three examples would suffice for this article. Von Restorff's personal history is essentially irrelevant in this case. Qharris232 (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

Don't forget to add the second article you have cited in-text to your references section!

Also, when I was looking at other Wiki pages, some have been criticized for relying on one reference. I completely understand that the page is under construction right now, and perhaps it may be difficult to find other non-original sources; however, it is important to keep in mind that adding relevant references is always great!

One potential area to expand could be looking if there are any age related differences for this effect. I found this article below and here's a part of the abstract: "Although demonstrated numerous times with younger adults and children, this effect has not been found with older adults (Cimbalo & Brink, 1982). In contrast to the earlier study, we obtained a significant von Restorff effect for both younger and older adults using a physical manipulation of font colour. The effect size for older adults was smaller than that obtained for younger adults, confirming a prediction of Naveh-Benjamin's (2000) associative deficit hypothesis, which attributes age-related differences in memory performance to older adults' reduced ability to form associations. The findings are consistent with related research in which older adults demonstrate similar—but smaller—benefits for distinctive information to those for younger adults." http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17470210701626608 Lastly, you could benefit from going to this article and looking at the references they've cited. You may be able to find "non-original" research and/or potential topics to expand your wiki page. Adaaka (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

More clarity/definitions[edit]

This mainly pertains to the second paragraph but I think you need to define "perceptual salience" or link it to its wiki page if it has one, because at the moment, I think the average person will just become more confused. However, the second paragraph as a whole is not very clear. A sentence like "She further argued that the difference between the isolated and surrounding items is not sufficient to produce isolation effects but must be considered in the context of similarity" doesn't really illustrate the Van Restorff effect very well in my opinion. It's a little too long and not straightforward enough. If you want to keep that sentence, you should have another right after that says "For example, [explain concept with simple example or more layman words]." However, you're probably still in the midst of editing so perhaps you already know to clarify this section. RosaYang (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

overall[edit]

i think it might be not be good idea to spend the bulk of the paper talking about the credibility and life of Von Restorfff. i thinking discussing how this effect is being implicated in later studies than his would bring the page more. lastly naming situation were this effect happen are going to go a long way in making your definition clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbere43 (talkcontribs) 19:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I like the theory part, but I do think the article is written for a psychology reader - how could this be made more user-friendly for the average wikipedia reader? Elizareader (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)