Talk:Context effect

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 May 2020 and 6 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Srs1016. Peer reviewers: Valerie0Z.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

THE CHT

Is 'the cat' image used in the article actually a classic example? Because the way I read it is:

• 1. Parse letters until whitespace
• 2. Construct word (result: THE - H is astronomically more approximate than A in the absolute typeset average (considering character box width), THE exists, TAH does not, therefore H is the most correct interpretation)
• 3. Continue to parse the second word in the context of the previous letter parsing (result: THE CHT - both H are identical, therefore they cannot be two different characters at once)
• 4. Apply meaningful error correction (Results, from likely to unlikely: THE CHAT, THE CHIT, THE C.H.T., THEN C.H.T., THEN CHAT, ... etc.)
• 5. If it makes no sense in context (here: none given - so not possible) reconstruct possible pieces of information that could fit and search in 'garbage list' (TAH CAT, TAH CHAT, CHT THE, etc.)

I imagine, perhaps the original example image was hand-written (hence the letters were more ambigious), AND the word was part of a sentence where the meaning could be derived from context (e.g. THE CHT GROOMED ITSELF IN THE GARDEN.). The way it is now in the article makes no sense to me whatsoever, even if it were to demonstrate that meaning cannot be derived without meaningful context (you can't know what 'THE CHT' or whatever it is is supposed to mean), it would do a poor job. 77.181.75.213 (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

All of the info was great! However, there were a few grammatical errors. The only ones I noticed were a few commas that needed to be added so nothing big! Also, it wasn't hard for me to understand but it might be for others. It's also a little short, but that could be fixed by adding more citations or links! Overall it was great! good job! MalloryGross (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There was great information on this page! However, it was a little short. There were a great number of references that I'm sure could add to the already good information in the article. Each article was only referenced one time and there is probably more that can be taken from each source- reuse the sources! There should be a citation at the top when talking about the definition of context effects. I loved the layout of the article, with the definition at the top then the subheadings dealing with the different areas of context effects. Great idea to have an "Impact of Context Effects"! It made it very easy to see how context effects impact every day life. There should be some elaboration in the section but the information you have so far is wonderful. The examples of handwriting and studying were very easy to understand and clearly stated. There are no links to other pages throughout this page and it might be helpful to add some. For example, after the sentence "For example, while studying for a test it is better to study in the environment that the test will be taken in (i.e. classroom) than in a location where the information was not learned and will not need to be recalled." You could add a link to the Transfer-appropriate processing page to give the reader more info about that example. The picture examples were perfect, I understood the point clearly and how they related to your topic. The text under the pictures was clear and concise. Very good job with examples! There should be more information about specific studies done, which are in the references that you have already found. It was clear you knew what you were talking about! This is great start, more information and it will spot-on. AlyssaThomas12 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The beginning is understandable and clear but may need a citation. In the section "Cognitive Principles of Context Effects" the information is great but needs more. Maybe explain a little more on top down and bottom up processing for those who have never heard the terms before. Also the sentence "We generally use both types of processing to examine stimuli" is a great point but could be worded in a better way. In the "Impact of Context Effects" the sentence "context can also prime our attitudes and beliefs about certain topics based on current environmental factors and our previous experiences with them." Maybe give an example of this right after to help the reader visualize? Also a concluding sentence might help at the end to summarize what all you have said. Your examples were great! and you had really great points but it just needs more expanding and more sources. The way the examples are shown is great! It would be great if I could see even more studies done on the subject. It all seems neutral, reliable, balanced and clear; elaboration is the only thing.POYNOR (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

To start off, your example of "the cat" is a good one. It really gives the audience a visual of what you mean by psychological context effects. You might want to add some more citations in the overall article. Also when talking about top-down and bottom-up processing, it might be a good idea to explain those more and maybe even use a couple of examples so that the audience clearly understands what they mean. I also think that a study showing psychological context effects would be neat to add in. Overall very well written and great examples. Maddie1013 (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Maddie1013

The structure of the article looks great. You've added links to other articles - good. The intro seems a bit disjointed, so you may want to elaborate a bit or add some better transitions in the paragraph. I would add more content to the cognitive principles section. You discuss why it happens, but not so much what it actually is. You source constructive perception at first and then don't mention it again. Instead you talk about bottom up and top down. What are the relationships? Perhaps use one term consistently? Under impact, elaborate when you discuss the environment and perception. Non-psych people may have no idea what that refers to. The marketing section is sort of vague in it's connection to context. Elaborate more or provide additional examples. Good use of current and classic research. I would try to have 2-3 more references and add categories. Go back through and check punctuation and grammer, but overall good job. 12.188.209.23 (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)dguyla

This structure and content of this article is solid. I noticed most of the sources pertained to examples of concepts explained in the article, but there weren't many that supported claims made. More explanation on other topics that were mentioned in the article would be helpful too. Regardless, this article was good and just needs some more improvement. SirReginald510 (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Psychological context effects/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 05:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the project and thank you for working so hard to create and improve this article. I'm going to fail this for now because I feel it would need to be substantially expanded to meet GA criteria. But that doesn't mean this isn't a good start. Your contributions are much appreciated.

I did a Google Scholar search and a Google Books search, and read some of the results. I feel from the results of that that this topic has been covered sufficiently that a lot more could be written about it.

There are also issues with the style in which the article is written, for example as pointed out in the tags, so it needs a copy edit. If you're interested in improving this, let me know and I can offer more precise suggestions.

I'm also going to move this article to Context effect. This is an uncontroversial move, since naming conventions call for singular nouns (and my Google searches showed that it's normal to refer to the effect in the singular). Also it's not necessary to modify the name (psychological) unless another concept could be mistaken for it. ("titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that" WP:PRECISE). There's a stub at context effects that this must have been a fork of, so we'll redirect both of these to context effect and thereby merge them. The move will preserve your edits and the page history will still show that you are the major contributor to the page.

Again, thank you for all the work you've put into this article, it's hugely improved from the stub it was before. If you're interested in continuing to work on the article to improve it, and eventually get it to GA standards, let me know and I will help however I can. delldot ∇. 05:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)