Talk:Hypercorrection (psychology)

Untitled

Hypercorrection (Psychology)

Hypercorrection also known as the hypercorrection effect is a phenomenon that illustrates that high-confidence errors are more likely to be corrected after feedback than low-confidence errors. [1] This term was first coined by psychological scientists Janet Metcalfe and Brady Butterfield of Columbia University in 2001. [2]

Can someone give feedback on this? More coming soon... Jh470 (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I plan to describe the cognitive neuroscience (Psychology) meaning of hypercorrection. In addition, I want to describe why it is important and some evidence. I wanted to add some background of when it was discovered.

Hey, I think it would be good to provide a simple example of hypercorrection immediately following your definition. That way, a passive reader can leave with a decent understanding of hypercorrection (since it is somewhat confusing). Also, is there explicit information regarding when it was discovered/is it extremely necessary? If you find that information, I would suggest that you focus on who realized hypercorrection and maybe including the study (secondary source!). It may be helpful to include a real-world implication for hypercorrection.

There is a linguistic use for hypercorrection so I think there should be a hatnote on both pages in case someone is looking for the linguistic and psychological use.Jh470 (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I am going to add a hatnote to this page in case someone is looking for the linguistic terminology. Jh470 (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to add something about how to take advantage of this effect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jh470 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest adding a hyperlink to an article about feedback in the classroom setting to support your claims, possibly to the Mullet et al., 2014, JARMAC paper explaining that required feedback resulted in higher performance, as well as the Mullet, Butler, Verdin, von Borries, & Marsh, 2014, JARMAC paper where delayed feedback increased exam performance. Courtney Crump (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay I will try to add this. I also want to add a section on application. To talk about how it does not apply in every situation. Please comment if you have anything to add on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jh470 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I was also going to mention including something about time effects in relation to hypercorrection. We've learned that immediate feedback does not give the best long-term retention and correction rates for students, however a slightly delayed feedback (about a week after the test I think?) actually gives better scores and memory in the future. So does delayed feedback play into hypercorrection? If so, how? RosaYang (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I would be wary of including too much information about feedback effects, especially speculatively. Yes, hypercorrection relies on feedback, but the crux of it isn't that feedback changes or doesn't change your belief--the crux is that strongly-held beliefs are more easily changed, so to speak, at least in the short term. It might be worth mentioning something about feedback effects as a sort of related side-note, but I don't think it's wise to have a full tangent about the effect of general feedback or of different time delays in feedback. I personally think that's better left for an article of its own, instead of tacked on in a tangentially-related article here. Jennjiyoun (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think adding something on application is good, but maybe a step further from just how it doesn't apply to every situation. This could have applications to the classroom which would be really interesting to teachers and students, so you may want to explain some examples how in the applications as well as maybe add a link to hypercorrection on articles about teaching techniques. Ceckersley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it'd be great to have some applications, but you should be careful not to be speculative. That is, hypercorrection could indeed have interesting consequences in the classroom, but unless a reliable third party has done research or at least an essay of some sort, it's not our place as wikipedia editors to hypothesize about possible impacts. Jennjiyoun (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this Wikipedia page is a great addition, it is an interesting topic! Something very minor: When you said the sentence below, do you think it would be appropriate to use "misconception" instead of "belief", so that readers know it is incorrect before they have to read the next sentence? I was just thinking of the debunking handbook we read, and how important it is to warn people when stating a myth. "It is a common belief that high-confidence errors are harder to correct. To the contrary, high-confidence errors are easier to correct, which has been shown in several studies."Adaaka (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adamhampton99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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): Ecehanyurukoglu. Peer reviewers: Ask.krier, Jnasco.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

question

you said that the best time to give feed back is when a person is confident about their answer. I'm curious about what you would be suggested for the people with lower confidence are they doomed to failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbere43 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This is an overgeneralization that I will be omitting. Jh470 (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

comments

The example about scallops is misleading; embarrassment is not the same thing as surprise. I don't know of any evidence supporting embarrassment. Elizareader (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Are there other search terms that should redirect to this page - might people want this information but not know the name of the term to search for?Elizareader (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the raindrop example belongs here - the page is about correction, not about how people obtain misconceptions in the first place. Elizareader (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Editing the Intoduction

Added an extra citation and more explanation to the introduction, also deleted the part about "this theory does not suggest making mistakes are necessary to learning", since it was a bit unformal and confusing. What do you think? Ecehanyurukoglu (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Problems

Added a section about problems with the theory regarding the Butler, Fazio and Marsh research (2011) t that suggests "high-confidence errors are more likely to be corrected, but they are also more likely to be reproduced if the correct answer is forgotten." I think it is a very important research to consider when understanding hypercorrection. Advices? Ecehanyurukoglu (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps add to the "Problems" section more about hypercorrection itself (at least use the word) so that these concepts can make more sense together to readers. Jnasco (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Edits made by Ecehanyurukoglu

The additions made by Ecehanyurukoglu about the value of making errors and the problems with hypercorrection were very valuable to this page. It is definitely important to note that the difference between high-confidence answers and low-confidence answers with regards to hypercorrection. That section should probably include a bit more about hypercorrection, though. In order to tie the two concepts together for readers. Great edits! Jnasco (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

The contributions made by this student were valuable in disambiguation and providing clarity to some sentences or paragraphs. The problems section could use a second citation source if one is available. The edit made for explaining why hypercorrection occurs with respect to being made fun of seems more anecdotal and does not have sufficient citation to warrant it.2601:449:C000:6430:E96F:8756:23C0:3ADE (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)