Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2018/Cognitive dissonance and emotion

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Topic development feedback

The topic development 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 the chapter plan. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Topic development marks are available via UCLearn. Note that marks are based on what was available before the due date, whereas the comments may also be based on all material available at time of providing this feedback.

Autoroute icone.svg

Title, sub-title, TOC[edit source]

  1. Excellent

User page[edit source]

  1. Good

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. Links 1, 2, and 3 don't go directly to evidence of contributions (it should be easy to see the changes you made at first glance, without any searching)
  2. See suggestions for how to record social contributions

Section headings[edit source]

  1. Basic, 2-level structure proposed
  2. The 2nd and 3rd top-level headings aren't really needed - cover these concepts briefly within the Overview or subsequent sections, with links to dedicated Wikiversity/Wikipedia resources for more info. This will allow the bulk of the structure to be focused on addressing the core topic (i.e., the chapter's sub-title).
  3. Neural mechanisms could just be another theory?
  4. Perhaps explain the theories first, before explaining how they help understand why CD might caught different, specific emotions.
  5. Criticisms and further research suggestions probably don't need their own sections - e.g., drop and merge relevant content into the Conclusion or other main body sections

Key points[edit source]

  1. Reasonably well developed.
  2. Overview - consider putting the example into a feature box. Perhaps consider providing a second case study somewhere where CD is used to trigger positive behavioural change via emotion.

Image[edit source]

  1. OK
  2. Consider expanding image size so that it's easier to see without manually zooming
  3. To improve further, use the image caption to explain how the image connects to/helps to reinforce key points being made in the text

References[edit source]

  1. Did you consult Festinger (1957)? If not, don't cite it.
  2. Use APA style
  3. For latest APA style recommended format for dois see

Resources[edit source]

  1. Good
  2. See also - present in alphabetical order
  3. External links - Include info about source/destination in brackets after the hyperlink - see example

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


Your topic sounds really interesting! The page is laid out well and the images used are good. Just a suggestion, your "picture this" scenario would stand out and attract the reader more if it were put in a feature box. I really enjoyed the crash course video you chose for an external link, however, more external links would help the reader understand your topic more in depth. Well done and can't wait to see the finished product. --Abbsu3163507 (discusscontribs)12:28, 12 October 2018

Feedback[edit source]

This page is coming along great. I think it's very interesting that you have outlined the 4 different types of cognitive dissonance. I didn't know there was different types. I would warn that some of your sources are a bit old. Remember that part of the marking critieria is on the most recent and top research. I find the neural mechanisms of cognitive dissonance very interesting, but maybe consider adding a sentence at the end linking it back to your topic question. Keep your main question in mind as you write to ensure you don't go off track. Overall, great work! TaylorMal (discusscontribs) 06:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like your chapter is going well! I thought your case study was a good one - easy for people to relate to which made it super effective. A couple of suggestions - linking to more pages would give the reader the opportunity to dig deeper if they wanted to. I saw you had done this for 'affect,' but thought you could also just link the headline if you wanted to and save yourself a few words if you're getting close. This may be somewhat out of your topic, but if you want another theory for cognitive dissonance, look up transformative learning theory by Mezirow - it's the same kind of concept, but just a slightly different perspective. Good luck with it all! Cheers, Dot--Foley.d (discusscontribs) 00:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback by Nicole[edit source]

Hi Joannah Thanks for responding to my canvas post. I’m happy to have helped. Unfortunately I think someone was editing your page as I was, and so the things I changed did not work. However, I did make a list of what I did change, so maybe you can change them?

I recommend that you change your case study slightly and add that Jill’s father was a life-long smoker and that doctors attribute his death to his smoking (just to reiterate the fact that she would experience cognitive dissonance if she would continue to smoke). Would you also consider changing the layout of your overview so that your main points may look a bit neater, and that when people first look at it, they can clearly see what you will cover in your chapter? I remember James saying that people read things on a web-page better if it’s not just a big paragraph (or something like that)

Added in-text citation for your Festinger reference.

Also, changed the heading a bit in “What is cognitive dissonance” so that you don’t have to cite the Festinger reference so much. Changed your Harmon-Jones (2000) in-text citation to be more in line with APA formatting- I noticed that you referenced the same article several times in the same paragraph, even though you hadn’t changed the topic to another reference.

In your connectionist model section, I noticed that your Schultz and Lepper (year?) reference had no corresponding reference in the reference list? Also, as per APA in-text citations rules, either put your references at the beginning of a point like this: Van Overwalle & Jordens (2002) or at the end, all in brackets like this: (Van Overwalle & Jordens, 2002)… I haven’t touched that part of your paragraph, but do consider if what you have written is correct? Unsure of whether you’ve put it as you have because you are discussing two Van Overwalle references… I also noticed that you did the same in your “Shame” and “Regret” sections, also referencing to the same article on multiple occasions in the same paragraph, which is unnecessary- I recommend that you amend this.

There was one typo I changed studIES to studies.

As for your reference list, you had the Festinger reference right at the top of the list, so I put it where it needs to go. While going through the rest of your references, I noticed that you had not put the Journal articles in italics, so I added all of them in for you on your references. There were also a couple of references which did not have brackets around the date, so I’ve put them in for you. Some of your journal article titles were capitalised, so I’ve changed them to lowercase as per the APA rules. Some of your doi references were also incorrect as there was a space between the doi: and the actual identifier number which meant that they did not hyperlink correctly- fixed those up for you. There was also one other reference out of order, which I corrected (sorry, can’t remember which one!)

-I also noticed that the reference of Kitayama, S., Chua, H. F., Tompson, S., & Han, S. (2013) is missing the volume, issue, and page numbers, so I’ve written in Caps where it is so it’s easy for you to find. -Also, with your McGrath, A. (2017) reference, are you certain that the page numbers are correct? -with your Van Veen, V. (2009, 11 1) reference, are you certain that the 11 and 1 are supposed to be in brackets?

Overall, I think what you have written accurately describes cognitive dissonance and emotion. You have linked to various research articles, both in the theoretical sphere as well as in terms of physiological evidence for dissonance. Your paragraphs are, as a whole, well-structured, with few grammatical mistakes, and allow for the reader to have a comprehensive, yet concise overview on the topic. I love how you’ve used a case study, as it really allows the reader to put themselves in a specific mindset of a person who is experiencing dissonance, and you’ve linked back to the case study towards the end of your chapter, which is great. I also enjoyed how you put forward the idea of cognitive dissonance in terms of consumer-choices, and the articles used seem to really match this idea. Also an interesting point on impulse buying. I liked your Future research suggestions as well- these are well-thought out.--NicoleDawnK (discusscontribs) 10:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Theories[edit source]

@Joog 17: email query: listed 2 theories of cognitive dissonance and one theory of emotion however when i am writing my section on the interaction between cognitive dissonance and emotion i am struggling to apply the theories to the actual interaction between dissonance and emotion. I am wondering if we need to connect the theories to the interaction or if its okay to just have one section on the theories and then one on the intersection without mentioning theories.

The key is to address the question, "What are the emotional effects of cognitive dissonance?" throughout the entire chapter, using both theory and research. So, a strong chapter would present theory about the connection between CD and emotion. Regarding the current "Theories of cognitive dissonance and emotion" section:
  1. The circumplex model of affect - as it stands, this section discusses affect, but does not make any mention of CD. Consider increasing the image size so that it is easier to read.
  2. Novel connectionist model - discusses both CD and affect, however description is very abstract - can you either simplify the description or provide a practical example or two that would make sense to a lay audience?
  3. Neural mechanisms of cognitive dissonance - mostly focuses on CD, with brief mention of emotion. Consider provide some examples? Consider including in-text wiki links to more information (e.g., about the brain structures).
Hope this helps. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Self-concordance[edit source]

I suggest linking to and collaborating with the chapter on Motivation and emotion/Book/2018/Self-concordance theory and motivation. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit source]

Hi, loving the chapter it's such an interesting topic! I added italicisation and removed some capital letters from your reference list so it more closely complies with APA, and I also added captions to your figures, as they all should have the Figure Number captions. Great job! --U3160212 (discusscontribs) 08:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Heading casing[edit source]

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

==Cats and dogs==

rather than

==Cats and Dogs==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Chapter review and feedback[edit source]

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

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a very solid chapter.
  2. This chapter is over the maximum word count.
  3. For additional feedback, see comments below and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Relevant theories are well selected, described, and explained.
  2. Basic but sufficient coverage of theory involving the relation between the target constructs is provided.

Research[edit source]

  1. Relevant research is well reviewed and discussed in relation to theory.
  2. When describing important research findings, consider including the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
  3. Greater emphasis on major reviews and meta-analyses would be helpful.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. In general, well written and presented.
    2. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences.
    3. Some paragraphs are overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences.
  2. Layout
    1. Avoid having sections with only one sub-section at a level.
    2. Avoid long headings which include citations (reduces readability/navigability).
    3. See earlier comments about heading casing.
    4. Sections which include sub-sections should also include an introductory paragraph (which doesn't need a separate heading) before branching into the sub-headings.
  3. Learning features
    1. Interwiki links are used, but rather than embedded see also links, add interwiki links for the first mention of key words.
    2. Creative use of images.
    3. No use of tables.
    4. Basic use of quizzes.
    5. Good use of case studies.
  4. Spelling, grammar, and proofreading.
    1. Check and correct use of commas (e.g., use serial commas).
  5. APA style
    1. Refer to each Table and each Figure at least once within the main text.
    2. Numbers under 10 should be written in words (e.g., five); numbers 10 and over should be written in numbers (e.g., 10).
    3. Direct quotes need page numbers.
    4. References are not in full APA style e.g.,
      1. Check and correct italicisation.
      2. Do not include issue numbers for journals which are continuously numbered within volumes.

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's Canvas 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.


Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is an excellent summary presentation that makes effective use of simple tools.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Well selected and structured content - not too much or too little.

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation is fun, easy to follow, and interesting to watch and listen to.
  2. The presentation makes effective use of text and image based slides with narrated audio.
  3. Well paced.
  4. Some of the font size should be larger to make it easier to read.
  5. The visual communication is effectively supplemented by images.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The full chapter title and sub-title are used in the video title - this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  2. The full chapter title and sub-title are used on the opening slide - this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  3. Audio and video recording quality was excellent.
  4. A copyright license for the presentation is provided.
  5. A link to and from the book chapter is provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)