![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Hi, I am attempting to expand this article. Gray's Biopsychological Theory of Personality [this theory has been renamed Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory] has a stub page that may be better incorporated into the Reinforcement sensitivity theory page with respect to origin of the theory [or at the very least linked to it internally]. I would also like to expand this article to include information on critique and revisal of this theory, and add internal and external links to reverse orphan status. I also aim to summarize current applications of the theory in anxiety disorder research. Please make suggestions regarding how best to expand this article and integrate it into larger Wikipedia encyclopedia. Plroseman ( talk) 18:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am a graduate student in personality psychology. I hope you do not mind but I decided to add some information to this article.( Kasob ( talk) 22:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC))
Hello, since this part of article:
was not cited and contained mistakes, I removed it. ( Kasob ( talk) 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC))
Hi, I am adding sections to Origins, Revisal, Critique, and expanding this article. Please direct me to appropriate edits. Thank you! Plroseman ( talk) 17:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, LauraHale, thank you again for your feedback. I left comments directly on your talk page as per your instructions. Please direct me further. Mathew Townsend, the new section for "Renaming Impulsivity" was a mistake. This section is now incorporated under the general RST. The issue is relevant for applications of the theory. As per your critique, I believe "Applications" may be a better title: specifically, the applications of this theory and BIS/BAS measurement scales to anxiety disorders occurred in the past and continues today. The workplace performance applications of this theory are more recent, but equally relevant. Thank you for your timely feedback. Plroseman ( talk) 03:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The origins and evolution section was confusing. It seems like this section should show the progression from Eysenck’s work through Grays biopsychological theory and further evolution and refinement into RST. It’s the Origins and Evolution of RST, but we don’t get all the way there. We have another whole section on Gray’s theory before we get to RST. I suggest making the “Origins” section a brief but more complete summary OR incorporating the Gray’s theory section into the “origins” section to give a more cohesive narrative. Note: while it’s true that a Wikipedia article is not supposed to “tell a story”, when you’re relating the history of a person or idea, I believe that having a cohesive narrative is still important.
The nomenclature used to describe the BAS, BIS and FFS systems is difficult and jargony. Unless you can point to another Wikipedia page that explains things like “catecholaminergic action” or “septohippocampal system”, I think they need to be explained here, just a sentence or two describing where they are and what they do. My understanding is that these articles should be accessible to a lay person. The third paragraph of the “Separable and Joint Subsystems Hypothesis” section also seems to suffer from this. I don’t think that referring to main effects and statistically significant interactions is appropriate for a lay person. This may need to be dumbed down.
When you say “high BAS” or “high BIS”, I'm not always sure what you mean. Is it high BAS "activation", "sensitivity" or a score on an RST measure. It seems like "high BAS" should always be followed by one of these nouns.
In general, you often refer to the BAS and BIS without the article, ‘the’. I think this is incorrect, but I’m not a hundred percent sure about that. My reasoning is that if you replaced the acronym with the full name, you would need the article so it should be included. When referring to BAS activation or scores, of course, this wouldn’t apply.
I think you need a few sentences to introduce RST when you get to it’s main section halfway down the page. Jumping into the redefinition bullet points feels a little abrupt.
Overall, very good work. I learned quite a bit in reading your article! Armsbf11 ( talk) 00:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Overall, excellent work. This article is packed with information and covers wide ground. Attention to detail is one of the huge strengths of this article. I do have a suggestions that you may consider. I will go over them below.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Velvsop (
talk •
contribs)
16:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at Wake Forest University 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
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Hi, I am attempting to expand this article. Gray's Biopsychological Theory of Personality [this theory has been renamed Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory] has a stub page that may be better incorporated into the Reinforcement sensitivity theory page with respect to origin of the theory [or at the very least linked to it internally]. I would also like to expand this article to include information on critique and revisal of this theory, and add internal and external links to reverse orphan status. I also aim to summarize current applications of the theory in anxiety disorder research. Please make suggestions regarding how best to expand this article and integrate it into larger Wikipedia encyclopedia. Plroseman ( talk) 18:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am a graduate student in personality psychology. I hope you do not mind but I decided to add some information to this article.( Kasob ( talk) 22:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC))
Hello, since this part of article:
was not cited and contained mistakes, I removed it. ( Kasob ( talk) 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC))
Hi, I am adding sections to Origins, Revisal, Critique, and expanding this article. Please direct me to appropriate edits. Thank you! Plroseman ( talk) 17:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, LauraHale, thank you again for your feedback. I left comments directly on your talk page as per your instructions. Please direct me further. Mathew Townsend, the new section for "Renaming Impulsivity" was a mistake. This section is now incorporated under the general RST. The issue is relevant for applications of the theory. As per your critique, I believe "Applications" may be a better title: specifically, the applications of this theory and BIS/BAS measurement scales to anxiety disorders occurred in the past and continues today. The workplace performance applications of this theory are more recent, but equally relevant. Thank you for your timely feedback. Plroseman ( talk) 03:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The origins and evolution section was confusing. It seems like this section should show the progression from Eysenck’s work through Grays biopsychological theory and further evolution and refinement into RST. It’s the Origins and Evolution of RST, but we don’t get all the way there. We have another whole section on Gray’s theory before we get to RST. I suggest making the “Origins” section a brief but more complete summary OR incorporating the Gray’s theory section into the “origins” section to give a more cohesive narrative. Note: while it’s true that a Wikipedia article is not supposed to “tell a story”, when you’re relating the history of a person or idea, I believe that having a cohesive narrative is still important.
The nomenclature used to describe the BAS, BIS and FFS systems is difficult and jargony. Unless you can point to another Wikipedia page that explains things like “catecholaminergic action” or “septohippocampal system”, I think they need to be explained here, just a sentence or two describing where they are and what they do. My understanding is that these articles should be accessible to a lay person. The third paragraph of the “Separable and Joint Subsystems Hypothesis” section also seems to suffer from this. I don’t think that referring to main effects and statistically significant interactions is appropriate for a lay person. This may need to be dumbed down.
When you say “high BAS” or “high BIS”, I'm not always sure what you mean. Is it high BAS "activation", "sensitivity" or a score on an RST measure. It seems like "high BAS" should always be followed by one of these nouns.
In general, you often refer to the BAS and BIS without the article, ‘the’. I think this is incorrect, but I’m not a hundred percent sure about that. My reasoning is that if you replaced the acronym with the full name, you would need the article so it should be included. When referring to BAS activation or scores, of course, this wouldn’t apply.
I think you need a few sentences to introduce RST when you get to it’s main section halfway down the page. Jumping into the redefinition bullet points feels a little abrupt.
Overall, very good work. I learned quite a bit in reading your article! Armsbf11 ( talk) 00:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Overall, excellent work. This article is packed with information and covers wide ground. Attention to detail is one of the huge strengths of this article. I do have a suggestions that you may consider. I will go over them below.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Velvsop (
talk •
contribs)
16:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at Wake Forest University 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
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)