Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2013/Nudge motivation

Comments

Hi there I have just been reading through your book chapter, and I have edited some of your work. I would suggest re-wording some of your sentences as they are difficult to read and understand. You may need to restructure the sentence, or focus on your spelling and punctuation. Examples of sentences that are difficult to understand:

This term representativeness refers to the extent in which people are assigned into one category by judging them as how similar they are to another person or their mental image of a person described if for example person A is compared to person B (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).

We are all tempted by things chocolate, nuts, just to name a few defining temptation can be hard but to say it is easier to recognise temptation than being able to define temptation is a good example

We can break temptation into two groups hot and cold hot is when you are so hungry smelling food cooking is absolutely wonderful this is hot

This left Carolyn with the task of deciding which placement of food would be best in the cafeteria according to Thaler and Sunstein (2008) she had five options.

Carolyn because of this impending decision is now acting as a choice architect; she is responsible for organising the way decisions are made in the cafeteria for the selection of food (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).

There are other sentences and paragraphs that could be written more clearly to make it easier for the reader to interpret the information you are trying to convey.

I think it may also be beneficial to define nudge more clearly. The first paragraph is difficult to understand and it is not clear to the reader what the term nudge actually means.

I hope this feedback helps, I look forward to reading your final copy :)

U3037401 (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The academic skills centre may also be able to help you address the comments that I had previously made. Here is a link that you can use to get in contact with them.

http://www.canberra.edu.au/studyskills

U3037401 (discuss • contribs) 08:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

See also section & general feedback

Hi there, I am doing my topic on behavioural economics and habits and I mention Nudge Motivation briefly and I've noticed we share a number of similar topics/concepts. I've linked my page to yours in the see also section, so I hope that's okay. Feel free to do the same if you feel my page is relevant to yours! In your Biases section perhaps you could give a general description of what cognitive biases are? In regards to the gains and losses section, I personally found this article really helpful in understanding how people can be motivated by loss aversion: Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 263-291. Good luck with the rest of your chapter! Ashkrance (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi, this is a very interesting topic, not something I'd even thought of before and the chapter is interesting to read but does have some minor issues. I have fixed up a few grammar type things to make sentences read better. Also you seem to be over referencing. When there is a short paragraph with all the same reference APA says it should have all the sentences referenced but for this format it doesn't really need to go after every sentence as that just makes it harder to read. Something picky that may be just me but I don't like the use of the word few when there are less than three things, it should then be a couple for two. The spacing in your opening overview section needs to be fixed up, the gaps seems to be random and it looks better if they are uniformally spaced. I like the bit with the fly in the urinal and men not wanting to hurt insects or being afraid of them, personally I don't think either of those things would be likely in Aussie men :) Some of your sentences don't make sense and I have fixed them up so they sound better to me, a lot were missing (,)'s, also their and there has been mixed up on occasion. I have also fixed up your reference list with the hanging indent.

Looking forward to reading the rest of the conclusion :) Kari2515 (discuss • contribs) 06:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Chapter review and feedback

This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Chapter marks will be available later via Moodle, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Overall A good attempt on a fascinating chapter, well done. Theory The chapter lacked any theoretical coverage – for future improvement include some theoretical perspectives on nudge motivation – why does nudge motivation work? Why are we motivated to nudge – i.e altruistic motivation, egoistically motivated to nudge? Research The chapter explored some interesting research, good job. Be careful not to rely too heavily on one reference (Thaler reference is cited for majority of chapter). For future improvement, it would benefit the chapter to find wider empirical evidence of nudge motivation studies and include critical analysis of the literature. Written expression The chapter had some written expression issues, a thorough edit before submission can help this. The learning features included figures and case studies, well done. For future improvement try including some in text links and an interactive feature such as a quiz. The APA style was generally solid, good job. Remember to apply APA style to all figures and include DOI or web address for each ref. Great effort!Courtney.reis (discuss • contribs)

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via login to the unit's Moodle site. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener. If you wish to dispute the marks, see the suggested marking dispute process.

Overall Overall a good effort, well done Structure and content The presentation had good coverage of the research covered in the chapter. For future improvement, expand to cover theoretical background and further clarify the self help application to help draw in the viewer Communication The presentation made good use of powerpoint well done. It was quite slowly paced. For future improvement perhaps include images and/or a case study to further engage the viewer Production quality The quality of the presentation was sound, well done. The audio quality was great. Remember to include licensing information. Great effort! Courtney.reis (discuss • contribs)