Talk:Memory conformity/Archive 1

We are three students from a Davidson College cognitive psychology class have taken on the subject of "Memory Conformity" for a Wikipedia group project.

Expand Definition of Memory conformity

Source monitoring (source memory) is an important part of memory conformity in terms of internal confidence in attribution of a memory and should be introduced early in the article.^[1]. The social influence of memory conformity should also be explored early on. Research shows that external sources can heavily influence a subjects memory, and that the subjects level of conformity varies based on the perceived credibility of the external source. ^[2]

Expand Three Main Types

We would also like to expand the overview and turn the three categories - normative influences of memory conformity, informative influences of memory conformity, and post event memory distortion - into larger headings within which we can explore the specifics of memory conformity. ^[3]

Normative influences - Asch study on social conformity as a factor in memory conformity..^[4] We would attempt to add specific examples of memory conformity with largely normative influences. Social anxiety may increase the normative influence on memory report. ^[3] Social type of an individual might affect their willingness to be externally influenced. ^[5] Other Examples. ^{[6][3] [2]}

Informative influences - Lack of internal confidence in terms of validity of memory leads to external memory conformity. We can discuss the affects of the balance between self confidence and perception of memory accuracy in self vs. other. Examples .^{[7] [8] [9]}

Post-Event Memory Distortion - Information/discussion that unconsciously affects a subjects memory of a particular event. Particularly important for witness testimony and post-event information exposure.^{[10] [11] [12]} We Should also look into the affects of hindsight bias on reporting.^[5]

By expanding the overview we would also remove the repetitive material from the Memory conformity defined section

Expand Implications section

Memory conformity has obvious clutural/legal implications. We hope to add other famous examples of the legal implications of memory conformity and look into implications of witness interaction, and cross examination. ^{[13] [10] [14]}

Clarify postwarning section

We are also hoping to clarify the post warning section. We think that the post warnings section should be changed to post-event information (if that is what post warnings are supposed to generally encompass). This can be broken down into post event information that reduces memory conformity, or post event information causes memory conformity.

Ways to reduce Memory Conformity^{[11] [15]} Initial internal memory recall may help reduce external conformity.^[3]

FOR DAVIDSON PEER REVIEWS The version before our first edit of the actual main space was at 04:11, 20 March 2013‎ (by Jonesey95) and our last edit was at 04:34, 20 March 2013‎. You can find both in the history.

Frholcomb (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Lindsay Blum (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Luwulsin (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

While your additions sound interesting and are overall probably an improvement over what was already in the article it is really a pity that only one (Wright 2009) of your 4 references added is a review. Why don't you search for high quality secondary sources instedad of using sub-optimal sources that should probably be eliminated in the future? The article needs secondary references instead of primary articles.--Garrondo (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the input. We are a small group of students working through a psychology class to help improve the page, and are admitted wikipedia novices. We are used to be being pressured to find primary sources to support claims, but we are trying to find more general review sources for wikipedia. Thanks again for the help.

Frholcomb (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeap, I know who you are as I have commented in most of your class-mates article's talk pages (and even in the talk page of the class project)... You might find useful to have in your watchpage all the articles of your companions. As I have told some of them take a look at WP:MEDRS, a guideline for sourcing medical articles in wikipedia but that fully applies to psychology. Reason for using reviews is because wiki is an encyclopedia, and use of secondary sources is the best way to remain neutral in an article. Bests. If you have any doubts feel free to ask here or in my talk page... And by the way, thanks for your answer, some of your class have not really responded to comments. Keep up the good work. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You should really change some of your sources. It is really to give undue weight(See: WP:weight) to use 5 times the same primary reference... and at the moment this is exactly the thing you are doing with Horry 2012, Wright 2009 or Gabbert 2003. Please stop adding badly referenced content and use instead reviews, at least for the most commonly used references. As second year students or anonymous editors we are not capable of deciding what is truly important for an article. Secondary sources, such as books ore reviews are the sources capable of giving this perspective.--Garrondo (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again for the help. We've been trying to find sources that are more wikipedia appropriate, are these sources the more general reviews that we should be looking for? ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}Frholcomb (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

For some reason my new sources wont appear here on the talk page? You can find these four new sources on my user page (user:frholcomb).Frholcomb (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all: I really appreciate your willingness to learn and improve your article. You have shown more interest than the average in your class. Keep the interest and good work, and please do not feel intimidated. Sometimes long-time editors forget who it was our initial editions, and also we do not have the patience or mood to explain things slowly. Nevertheless the more you comment and aks (as you have already done the easier will be that editors get involved to help.

I have fixed sources so they appear. You have to add {{Reflist|close} after them to create a list

Regarding sources:

First a definition of primary source in science: they are mainly first-hand experiments and investigations. Authors analize data. Hint: if there is statistics or methods section it is most commonly a primary article

Second a definition of secondary source in science: they are reviews of many first-hand experiments (also meta-analysis). Authors instead of analizing data "analyze" previous works, ellaborate from the previous results and generalize conclussions. Hint: if there is no results section it is probably a review.

Third a definition of peer-review: peer review is the proccess of quality assurance in scientific journals by which a work (either primary or secondary) is judged and critized so the author has to make ammendments before publication. It is independent of tha article being primary or secondary.

From a fast look at the abstracts

• Hewitt says " We explored this question using data from five previous memory conformity experiments." so it is an experiment, a primary article NOT a review
• Gabbert says "Participants were tested in pairs. The two members of each pair encoded" so it is a primary article NOT a review
• Lindsay is a comment on Gabbert. A comment is an exception: they ellaborate on a previous article (albeit a single one) and their peer-review is less stringent than for articles (it would be similar to a letter to the editor). Conclussion: not a good source and certainly not a review.
• Hirst: THIS IS A REVIEW (AND IN A GOOD JOURNAL). If you read all of them you will quickly notice that this one is the more general one, the one with more references, probably the most neutral... If you want an overall picture of the field its the first one you should read. Your best refence up to the moment. I would certainly try to find other similar ones, but also I would use it to source as much of the article as I can (However if you use it many times be careful with copyright issues)

Ideas to find further sources: Good secondary reviews are usually also found in books for investigators (usually more correct and in-depth content than books for students). Try to look for some of those books in google scholar and then in your University library. You can look specifically for exclusively for reviews in the bio-med library pubmed, but not sure if there is a similar feature for social sciences.

Minor comment: you do not need to say your user name: whenever you sign there is a link to your user page and talk page from your signature...:-) that is precisely why it is important to sign in talk pages.

Bests, --Garrondo (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that is all very helpful. I will be sure to pass on that information to my classmates. So even the Hewitt article that takes a more general view while incorporating multiple sources is still overly specific? Thanks again, I will look more into our libraries resources for review articles. Frholcomb (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and interactions. Regarding the source: well... I have just taken a look to the article (previously only to the abstract) and it seems it is a rarity... I seems it is something between a a meta-analysis (which would be secondary) and a primary article: they use previous data and reanalyse it (and therefore they are close to a meta-analysisi); however they do it to test novel hypotheses (and therefore it is a primary result). Also the initial review it makes is more in-depth than what is usually the norm. While it is useful to make clear cut classifications between references, truth is that quality is not black and white. This source would be in the grey zone :-). My recommendation: try to find a better one if possible, but you can probably use it for specific conclussions.--Garrondo (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Frevangelion (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK _Discuss 00:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at St. Charles Community College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by Primefac (talk) on 16:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)