Interesting topic! Social cooperation is a very broad piece of terminology, so it may be useful to consider studies involving specific demographics. This particular paper investigated external motivation as a causation of [behaviour in childhood]. Rewards and punishments as a predictor of social cooperation in children appears to be a popular amongst research so consider that when choosing articles. Furthermore the psychological models in this paper may be valuable to consider when writing your own. My recommendation for the direction of this paper would be to research and explain the topic in relation to different populations, especially as the effect of rewards/punishments tends to vary between childhood, adulthood and the elderly. I think it would be interesting to highlight these differences/similarities throughout your research.
For further research, this journal article may be of interest. The meta-analysis explores the effectiveness of costs and rewards on social cooperation, interestingly the study suggests a lack of significance between rewards and punishments as incentive to cooperate, this may contradict a number of other findings.
U3175218 (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi mate, this is all really good stuff and a great start to the assessment. One thing I think you could delve into is the biology of rewards, punishments and social cooperation. Maybe explain what parts of the brain effect our desire for rewards and our avoidance of punishments. Even delving into an explanation of how people with damaged brains might not fully be able to cope in a typical situation as most people. In addition, you could look at what effects bodily chemicals may have on our perception of rewards, punishment and social cooperation. U3175664 (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
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.
Add direct links to evidence. To do this: View the page history, select the version of the page before and after your contributions, click "compare selected revisions", and then use this website address as a direct link to evidence for listing on your user page. For more info, see Making and summarising social contributions.
Well developed 2-level heading structure, with headings that directly relate to the core topic.
Sections which include sub-sections should also include an overview paragraph (which doesn't need a separate heading) before branching into the sub-headings.
Avoid providing too much background information. Briefly summarise generic concepts and provide internal wiki links to further information. Then focus most of the content on directly answering the core question(s) posed by the chapter sub-title.
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 UCLearn Canvas, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.
Overall, this chapter provides a good overview of relevant research.
Some relevant research is well reviewed and discussed in relation to theory. Great to see the meta-analysis cited. To improve, provide more details about this study since it provides some of the best evidence about the topic. Any other relevant meta-analyses?
When describing important research findings, consider including the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful.