I agree with your point that ignoring individual differences is a major weakness of the theory. you could expand your examples to include things like personality and how that affects workplace motivation. - U3156463 (discuss • contribs) 07:02, 31 August 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.
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.
Relevant research is discussed in relation to theory.
However, the indepth focus on several specific studies means that there was a lack of big picture review and synthesis of research literature about the two-factor theory. The individual studies did help to provide some examples.
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.
Overall, the quality of written expression is reasonably good.
Some paragraphs are overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences.
The chapter is well structured, with major sections using sub-sections.
See also - also link to past book chapters
Excellent use of interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. ## No use of embedded links to related book chapters. Embedding interwiki links links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project.
Basic use of images.
Basic use of tables. A better structure for Table 1 would be a 2 x 2 structure, with one factor in the columns and one factor in the rows.