Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Intimacy motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hey, read your chapter and did a little bit of grammar corrections. I also changed the casing on your headings since the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. Looks interesting so far, keep going :) - u3119387 8/10/16

Hey, I just thought I might mention that in Cloninger's biosocial theory of personality. ‘Reward dependence’ is a temperament that has a huge impact on social dependency and whether an individual is inclined to share intimately. The higher the reward dependence the warmer and more socially inclined the individual is. low reward dependence can lead to isolation and not sharing of intimate emotions etc. it might not be helpful but i though it was worth mentioning :) --U3080948 (discusscontribs) 05:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Interesting topic! I have attached some recent Journal articles that might be of assistance and offer a slightly different perspective to finish your chapter off. The first article talks about gender differences and women exhibiting higher implicit affiliation motivation than males, meta analytical results and good data to support the findings. The second article discuss the validity and reliability of measures of intimacy and the implications of biases in self report data. Good luck with finishing of your chapter :) (discusscontribs) 17:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey!! I read through your book chapter and absolutely loved the content!! the only thing was that there is a lot of info and something visual to break that up could maybe be an option for you. Good luck!!--Lizzy94 (discusscontribs) 10:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)U3083568 (discusscontribs) 05:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I found an interesting short video on the youtube discussing why we seek intimacy, I think it's relevant to your topic. Hope that's going to be helpful. it's called the urge to merge:why do we crave intimacy. (discusscontribs) 09:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Heading casing[edit]

Crystal Clear app ktip.svg
FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use:

==Cats and dogs==

rather than

==Cats and Dogs==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Avoid having only one sub-section - drop it and integrate into a higher level - or add another sub-section. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ping User:Reneeduffey, to help make sure that this feedback has been received. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:54, 23 October 2016 (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.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png


  1. Overall, this is a basic, but sufficient chapter which could be improved by providing less general background about motivation, a more detailed review of research, and editing to improve grammar and written expression.
  2. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.


  1. Abbreviate the general theoretical material about I-E motivation and SDT. Provide references and links to further information. This would allow more space to apply the theories to the specific topic in more detail.
  2. Little connection is made between the generic theoretical conceptualisation of motivation and the more specific consideration of intimacy motivation.
  3. Problematic aspects of intimacy motivation are not particularly well described e.g., consider linking to other chapters about sexual deviance.
  4. Addition of case studies or additional examples could be helpful.


  1. A reasonable range of research is considered and cited.
  2. Were older sources such as Maslow (1968) directly consulted? If not, don't cite it (or use a secondary citation).
  3. What are the main self-report measures of intimacy motivation? (not mentioned)

Written expression[edit]

  1. Written expression
    1. The quality of written expression could be improved (e.g., see where clarification templates such as [Rewrite to improve clarity], [explain?], [say what?], and [vague] may have been added to the page).
    2. Some paragraphs are overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences.
    3. The Conclusion is somewhat vague - what are the practical, take-home messages for improving our everyday lives?
    4. There is some use of images or tables.
  2. Learning features
    1. Some links to Wikipedia and/or Wikiversity articles were added as external links - these should be changed to interwiki links.
  3. Grammar and proofreading
    1. Check and correct the use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals').
  4. APA style
    1. Put in-text citations in alphabetical order.
    2. Check and correct the APA style for figure captions.
    3. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's Moodle site. Written feedback is provided below, plus see the 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.



  1. Overall, this is a basic, but sufficient presentation.

Structure and content[edit]

  1. Overview
    1. Use the Overview to set up the problem to be solved (the question i.e., the subtitle for the book chapter).
    2. No need to refer to book chapter - focus on the problem to to be solved - this should be a stand alone presentation, with link(s) available to the chapter for more info
    3. Consider using an example to engage viewer interest
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Probably too much content is presented (feels a bit rushed) - be more selective - e.g., work backwards from 3 take-home messages to work out what content needs to be presented - and then focus on only that which is essential to conveying these messages.
    2. Theory was (too?) well covered.
    3. Basic coverage of research.
    4. Perhaps consider using more illustrative examples.
    5. References?
  3. Conclusion
    1. Too general - try to drill down to some practical, take-away messages.


  1. Audio
    1. Reasonable narration, but slow down.
    2. Some pauses/stumbles (minor) - maybe do another take?
    3. Present in the third person (i.e., avoid "I", "my", "we" etc.) because the presentation should be about the topic, not the presenter.
  2. Visuals
    1. Basic - text on half a dozen slides with some images.
    2. Red text on a dark background is difficult to read.
    3. Consider separate slides for the two theories - to make them easier to read and focus on.

Production quality[edit]

  1. Overall, basic, effective production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Rename the title so that it includes at least an abbreviated subtitle (that roughly matches the book chapter).
    2. Link to chapter provided.
    3. Good use of the Description field to provide relevant information.
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Audio narration sounds a bit "roboty"?
    2. Loud keyboard clicks - consider using an external microphone to improve audio recording quality.
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Effective use of simple tools.
  5. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown in at least one location. Creative Commons.
    2. Partial information about the copyright licenses and sources of the images used is provided - provide more detail e.g., the direct links to the sources.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)