Talk:Deese–Roediger–McDermott paradigm

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 February 2020 and 2 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sydneywilkerson, Czaharris. Peer reviewers: Gdg1500, Kelis Johnson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing Applications Section

The applications section, specifically the commentary on criminal justice and sexual abuse, is misleading for a naive reader. These topics are highly contested and should not be expressly stated as proven applications of the DRM test. The commentary on the criminal justice system references an article that focuses on the effect stress-induced cortisol levels have on the recollection of false memories for men and women. The researchers used a DRM test to compare the results between a control and stress group. They concluded that there was no difference between the two groups taking the DRM test, but had no mention of this result’s implications on the criminal justice system. Therefore the statement, “This suggests that victims and witnesses of stressful crimes are no more likely to create false memories of the crime than they are to create false memories of other everyday events”, has no relevant data behind it and needs to be presented as a possible implication rather than a definite conclusion. I also think it would be effective to touch on and add links of more proposed implications such as the misinformation effect, the phenomenon that a person’s recollection of a witnessed event can be altered after exposure to misleading information about the event, and the reliability of testimonies from children, but also reinforce that this is a highly debated topic. The addition of more information on widely accepted applications such as the methods used to recall information from memory would also be very helpful for the reader. The linked article on this subject has interesting information about how researchers were able to distinguish two types of retrieval processes and the source of false word memories both using a DRM paradigm. These results are both common notions in the field and give the reader a tangible application of the DRM test with robust results.

Sydney Wilkerson

     Similarly, the idea that researchers have turned to DRM lists to study the controversial topic of childhood sexual abuse may be misleading to readers. While the cited study did find that women with recovered memories of CSA exhibited higher rates of false recall and false recognition of critical lures than the other participants, this was found more frequently in neutral word lists. Ultimately, the results of the study indicate that self-reported traumatic experiences are not related to false recall and false recognition. Specifically, in the case of false memory in DRM lists, studies found that fantasy proneness as scored by the DES scale is the main factor rather than self-reported traumatization. 
     An application that may be more relevant to include in considering the DRM paradigm would be examining how the paradigm shifts from children to adults. The study mentioned discusses how younger children show lower rates of false recall and recognition, likely due to a less developed semantic memory and therefore lacking the ability to make connections outside of the word lists given. This topic should be discussed more specifically in the article because there is strong data-backed evidence of these findings that can be used in future research and applications.

Czaharris (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Cole Zaharris

Czaharris (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Cole and Sydney, I really like your suggestion! I agree that the criminal justice and sexual abuse piece in the Application section is misleading and needs some work. I think your suggested edit is clear and explains your stance well. Also, I agree that links should be added links with the implications as this article definitely needs some more scholarly sources (the article even suggests it at the top!). I think it would be helpful to add real-world applications, not only lab experiments: but you have a great start. Gdg1500 (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review: I think your proposed changes are really interesting and important! Following your reasoning, I completely agree that the applications section and the commentary on the criminal justice system needs revision. As a reader, it's very easy to take what is being presented to you as fact and to not question the validity of the claims and implications being made; so, in your project, disentangling what is actually empirically proven in the source studies and explicitly stating it for readers in this article (with an emphasis on selectively using language that is on par with the level of confidence and validity of data and claims, as you mentioned) is a great idea because it prevents naive readers from learning the wrong information and going on to use that in their lives. Thank you for making these changes, great job! Ak509ak509 (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review: I think these suggested edits are well thought out and and represent a good understanding of the limited conclusions that can be drawn in applications from false recall or recognition on word lists to false memories of traumatic events. Something that can be important to address here is the problem of ecological validity and the difficulty psychologists face in trying to bridge the gap between lab studies and real world occurrences. This would contextualize some of the expansion from DRM that further research has suggested. Kelis Johnson (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review: I love how thoughtful your edits are! I think it's very easy as an editor to get carried away interpreting studies and generalizing the effects, but every statement made on the Wikipedia page must be backed by actual evidence, not just an extrapolation of data made by the editor. I'm really glad you were able to correct that misleading implication statement and highlight the uncertainty surrounding the topic so that uninformed readers don't mistakenly take disputed information for widely-accepted fact. Acfly17 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing

We are a part of the project working at Davidson College to enhance the level of psychology topics relative to Cognitive Psychology. We have been assigned to this page and here is our strategy for enhancing the quality of this article:

We are going to begin by creating an short introduction to the article as an overview of the entire article. We are going to completely start over considering the body of the article and expand on the topic using many verifiable sources from various psychology journals, studies, and articles. We are currently researching and wish to create an article that is very clear, easy to read, and easy to follow based upon our research. We are going to create at least 4 subheadings after the introduction and general overview of the DRM Paradigm.

Seth Kindig (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Seth Kindig Seth Kindig (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Taylor Haynes

That proposal is fine.Smallman12q (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deese–Roediger–McDermott paradigm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Smallman12q (talk · contribs) 00:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

While the article is well-sourced, it requires a thorough copyedit to meet GA standards.

Comments

• There are only 3 wikilinks in the text...this is insufficient. Please add more wikilinks.
• Rather than using "Fabiani et. al (2000) " you should described the study in a sentence..."A study at X university, by X researchers conducted in X year found...X"
• The tone is a bit off in places...reading like an essay. For example "The question of why the DRM paradigm still remains. " should be something like "The cause of the DRM paradigm is not fully understood and is the subject of ongoing psychological studies."
• Where possible, terms should be defined where they are used...not after as in "The above explanation is known as activation monitoring theory."
• There are some grammer errors such as "The wanted to determine the..."...should be "They wanted to determine the..."

Smallman12q (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• -Issues went unaddressed.Smallman12q (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

Should the lead section contain more (or different) information? I feel like it does a good job of explaining the basics of the paradigm and what it can show, and gives a taster for what is to come, but the banner at the top of the page suggests it lacks something. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daronsen (talk • contribs) 06:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you that a look at WP:LEAD, it's not necessarily about content but style. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead section has been changed for almost a week now, and there have been no comments, so I will remove the tag, but please comment if you think it still needs work Daronsen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Victoria University of Wellington supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by Primefac (talk) on 16:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)