Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2014/Religiosity and mental health

Great start!

Hi - I found this chapter quite interesting to read especially because I am not a religious person and find it interesting to analyse another point of view by looking at religiosity as a coping strategy for improved psychological wellbeing. I found the way it is currently worded to be quite formal and may be difficult to interpret for a layperson not subject to education in the realm of psychology, so it may be that you just need to word things less formally, or consider using case studies to break up the research findings. It is also difficult to work out what emotion theories have been applied for this topic, but I realise that this is not yet complete and further information will be included, most likely, the theories aspect. Case studies may assist with explaining the more complex discussion points such as theory and allow the reader to interpret the theories and understand their own behaviour by comparing it to the case studies presented. Case studies may allow for explanation of a scenario where religiosity has assisted in the improvement of psychological wellbeing through grief and loss or other aversive events. I hope you find these suggestions useful. Ashlee U3030139 (discuss • contribs) 01:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Writing Style

Hi Jacqui! I think what you have so far is great it seems to be coming together as an interesting discussion. In terms of the feedback you were seeking on moodle in relation to your writing style, I thought that so far it is appropriate and you are articulating your points well and in an understandable manner. However I did notice the comment above suggest it might be a bit difficult for a lay person to understand, so I guess it is a matter of finding the right balance. Perhaps you should have a family member or friend (someone not familiar with the field and writing style) to read over to see if they can follow the chapter easily. If they can interpret the information you're doing a good job of explaining it! In terms of your referencing, I do not think that you are referencing too much at all, I think it is a good amount. For me, when I am reading and critiquing your points you are making, I can see you have research and have the references to back up what you are saying - which makes your chapter credible. Also, there was a very minor error in your opening quote by Freud (needed the word 'if' instead of "is') so I just fixed that one up for you :) Other than that I think so far, so good. --U3083529 (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

General Suggestions

Hi

I've just had a quick look through and I agree with Ashlee's comments above (and also think the suggestion of having a friend with no psych knowledge read it is a good idea). That said, I don't necessarily think there is a problem with the language, but I would suggest explaining some of the terms. For example, I would expand on mental health in the first instance to define its meaning in this context (are you talking about mental health issues, well-being, motivation or emotion?). This would also apply to terms like 'intrinsic religiosity'.

Also, from discussions with James I was under the impression you had to have a clear topic of emotion or motivation. You may have discussed this with him, and I may be wrong, but I think you need to pick one or the other. You've mentioned both so far, so I wasn't clear which one you had chosen. The good thing is this topic has so many aspects to look at, for example whether religion is correlated with guilt and/or happiness, or whether it correlates with motivation for certain behaviors.

Just a couple of other little things:

Anything that is a statement really needs a reference (for example "Persons with this viewpoint have the adamant belief that religion is detrimental to both humanity as a whole and the individual’s psychological functioning and well-being."). If you don't have a source, but you think it's pretty clear you could always start the sentence with something like 'It could be suggested that....'

I'm not sure you need the title Overview, though I'm not sure you'd lose points for it.

You've chosen a fascinating topic, and reading your chapter was very thought provoking. I thought the 'practical implications' section was a great idea.

I look forward to reading updated versions!

Chelsi CFD (discuss • contribs) 02:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi!,

Really excited that you're tackling the Religious/health perspective. Religion and faith is not often, if ever, discussed in relation to psychology and mental health and I was very excited to see someone doing it for the assessment.

I agree that it is written well but for an layperson they may find it hard to follow at all times. Maybe interjecting with a simple sentence to sum up important points would be helpful. Also, i'm not sure which topic, motivation or emotion you are heading towards? or if you can do both? Case studies are also a really practical way of making a point accessible and relatable to the reader. Overall, great! and I look forward to having another read when your finished. --Dsalvestro (discuss • contribs) 04:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

- Thankyou both for your comments. I fround them especially effective in examining the weaknesses in my work. An outsiders perspective really helps. I have taken both of your suggestions into consideration and will make a few changes on the issues that were brought to my attention in the next few days. I still have a long way to go but I am slowly making progress. Goodluck in your work also and thankyou so much for your help. --JacquelineSpence (discuss • contribs) 06:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi, your chapter is looking great! I noticed one of the other users mentioned that you didn't focus exclusively on either motivation or emotion but I wouldn't be super concerned about this- the topic that I am doing (Imagery and motivation) also ties emotion into quite a bit of the content I discuss, mainly because emotion is so closely linked with motivation (ie. it is often the emotion that we are feeling that motivates us to pursue a certain goal). I do agree with the others that it may be beneficial to get a family member to read over the chapter and then you can simplify or expand on some areas to make sure that it suitable for a wide audience. I also think that it would be good to pop in a few pictures or tables just to make it a bit more fun to read. However you may already be preparing to do this as I noticed your not quite finished. Anyway, well done! Hope this was useful. --Emily (discuss • contribs) 23:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Heading casing

FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use: ==Cats and dogs== rather than ==Cats and Dogs== -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

interactive

hey Jacqui, It looks like you have covered a lot in your chapter, quite in depth which is good. From looking at other chapters in 2013 that were graded highly, you might do well if you now focus on making it a bit more interactive/more interesting to the reader? more pics, perhaps a quiz or something that gets the reader to think about their own experiences or knowledge to date. I know you are still developing it so understand you might be leaving these things to the end... Also if there are key words in your text perhaps if you highlight them or underline? I'm not sure what others think, but when I've read other chapters if something is highlighted it helps make the concept stand out to me as being important to take notice of. In regards to your writing style, I agree with the others comments on having a friend or family member read it, they might find it a bit academic/psychological, so maybe when you are self-editing see if you can change some of the wording to be a bit more 'everyday' language? Doing well though! sally Smelle24 (discuss • contribs) 23:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

a few comments

Hi Jacqui I just read your chapter and I agree with others that you've chosen a fascinating topic and I enjoyed reading it as it offered some different perspectives that I hadn't thought of. I corrected a few minor typos. Just to explain one of the changes I made, even though in standard Australian English it is spelt organisation, when referring to the World Health Organization, its typically spelt organization as that is the formal name of the organisation(so I popped a z in and deleted the s). I wondered if you may be able to bring your practical examples to life a bit more by adding a bit more detail. For example, when you refer to people turning towards religion during the Holocaust, you may wish to briefly refer to particular individuals, stories or writers that demonstrate that. I was also planning to make a similar comment to other readers about the language being a little hard to access. You might find it useful to have a look into writing in Plain English. You will probably find plenty of guides to this on the internet or in the library which may help you in editing your chapter. A few suggestions include writing active sentences rather than passive sentences and not using a complicated word when a simpler one will work. For example, your statement "Persons with this viewpoint have the adamant belief that religion is detrimental to both humanity as a whole and the individual’s psychological functioning and well-being" could be reworded to along the lines of "People with this view believe that religion is harmful to humanity and can also affect an individual's mental health." I think particularly given the requirement for this assignment to be a lay-person's guide I think you shouldn't go wrong writing in a slightly less formal style on this occasion. Good luck with finishing it off, you've done a great job so far on a really good topic. Claire Cdrake2014 (discuss • contribs) 11:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

logic and writing style:

Hi, as others have commented, this is an interesting topic. Just some comments from a reader's point of view.

1. During the overview, you were talking about religion, is religion and religiosity the same thing? This replacement of religiosity by religion is not very sound in logic. As you said later, religiosity does not only cover religion, but also spiritual beliefs. For people who don't have a religion, but have spiritual beliefs, they may also enjoy the benefits of religiosity. My guess is religiosity is about personal belief systems. It is likely that having a belief system is good for personal welling. But religion is more like the institution side of beliefs, organised structure. One does not need to be involved in religion to have religiosity.

2. You overview writing style is very charged. And because of the religion/ religiosity thing, I feel the overview could be misleading in a way. As you start talking about religiosity later, it becomes more interesting. If I were you, I would start by asking questions about religiosity and religion, for example, challenge people to think about the differences.

3. Let's see a few examples from the overview in more detail: My comments are incorporated.

Numerous studies have substantiated the various undeniable benefits (how undeniable, citation?) of religious involvement (again, what if I have spiritual beliefs, but not involved in religion?) to mental health. However, its prominence (so far, what evidence you covered has called for use of this word?) in mental health literature and education is minimal (you are citing something from 1969. A lot of recent research has shown interest in this area, hence your topic) due to many researchers’ limited appreciation of the entity in itself (you could say, according to these researchers) (Marx & Spray, 1969).

These are but simple, unbiased answers (answers to a transcendent question is hardly to be simple, or unbiased) to the transcendent question:

Also, the quote from Freud, I feel it is out of context too. Would you think Freud would be so simplistic in his writing? From my reading of Freud, I understood it this way: religion is like a fantasy structure, in the sense that it is man-made and comforts us. We derive what we need psychologically and emotionally, from things we ourselves made: our beliefs, our imagination. If we see through this, we will no longer fight, kill for our religious believes, or believe the God we believe is the only and real God. If we could embrace the possibility that everybody can have his own God, then we are more mature beings.

Forgive the direct way I talk. Hope the comments are helpful. --Xlc (discuss • contribs) 23:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Writing style comments

Your writing style is rather formal and set point, that I feel that non-psychology background people may not quite understand some terms and concepts used throughout the text. However, I feel this piece is writing very well, despite how formally it is written, and the piece is structured and flows very nicely. I especially like the incorporation of case studies at the end of each section to help demonstrate the content with and to real life scenarios, that is very clever and informative especially if the reader happens to be a non-religious and non-psychology background person. Furthermore, if I had someone who wanted to know how religion and religiosity can have an effect on mental health, I would certainly send them to this chapter to gain background information and understanding. I quite enjoyed this chapter and found it to be an interesting read. U3084341 (discuss • contribs) 23:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Word count

Hi there!

I plan to read through your chapter tomorrow, I just printed it off.

I just noticed that your word count is 5,493 words, more than 1,000 words over word count (everything on the page, including references and table of contents are included in the word count). This most probably will result in a significant deduction in marks. Hopefully you have time to read through it and reduce the word count before it’s due. I had to do this too.

Also, just quickly, your external links section is below your references section. I think this should be opposite.

Anyway, I shall read your entire chapter tomorrow morning and get back to you with any further feedback. Good luck! Laney3691 (discuss • contribs)

Some More Feedback

You have certainly chosen a great topic. I am still reading through your chapter, but I will add things here as I go.

1. Under the overview the sentence "However, it has been proven that religious involvement's ... and precarious behaviours (Jung, 1933)." As far as I know we can never say 'proven', it 'suggests', or 'proposes', but never 'proven'. Also this is a long confusing sentence. I had to read it twice, so it is perhaps best if you break it down into two shorter sentences.

2. The bit These are but simple, unbiased answers to the transcendent question "what can religiosity do for one’s mental health" I find this very confusing. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I don't think it is getting your point across. Does this refer to the overview or the rest of the article? I take it that you are talking about the overview, but that is not what it sounds like. Perhaps because "These are..." is the start of a new paragraph. I would suggest making it the last sentence of the previous paragraph rather, so that you can get the idea that it is still part of the same thought/argument.

Also, what makes this question transcendent as such? You will first need to explain why the question is transcendent otherwise it makes no sense. You have to spoon feed the readers. I would suggest rather saying something like "However, these explanations are simplistic and does not sufficiently answer the thought provoking question “What can religiosity do for one’s mental health?" Or something to that effect. But, I would leave out the transcendent and unbiased, simply because you did not sufficiently argue in your overview as to why are making those statements.

Hope this info was helpful. Linssen (discuss • contribs) 02:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there again!

Firstly, I completely agree with what Linssen has said above.

This may sound harsh. But you state that your work is unbiased, but I found it quite the opposite. Your later sections are very good, and explore religion in detailed, almost completely unbiased way. But, you never actually compare how the mental state/health of religious vs non-religious people. And while I agree that religion can be very helpful in many aspects of life, including improving mental health, I am sure that this doesn’t mean that non-religious people wouldn't be able to gain the same improvement/benefits via other methods, but you never go into this. A good academic article should look at a suggestion/arguments from every angle, not just the side the author supports. A look at atheists could help you here.

Also furthermore, the introductory/overview section I found to be completely biased, and it left me feeling alienated and a bit insulted. I am very sure this is not your intention at all, rather I simply wish to inform you that your strong language can be taken the wrong way. For example, you introductory questions for the reader to ponder, to me, a non-religious person, seem to suggest that being non-religious person I am not able to reach maturity, will be less motivated and less emotionally stable than my religious counterpart. While, yet again, I am very sure this was never you intention, and I take little offence, I thought it was best to let you know that your chapter can be perceived in many different ways. Maybe you could use less loaded questions and language to make this smoother.

On a different note. As people have commented before, some of your language is a bit too formal and hard to follow.

Also, in your section under "religion as a coping mechanism" it almost sounds as though you are condoning self-harm, may a quick reword here would help.

Also, under " religiously and development" you have a set of facts. Upon reading these facts I questioned them immediately. So I went to the source. Firstly, your citation says 2014, where the article was actually written in 2005. Furthermore, all the sources they used are over 10 years old, making them out of date. Here is a website stating much more recent Australia statistics, which are quite different to the statistics you report: White Cloud Foundation - Depression Facts.

Lastly, while most of your report is very formal, some sections deviate from this and are not very academic, for example, stating that you are unbiased, and using words that are completely capitalized to express a point.

In general though, I found your chapter very interesting, and I learnt a lot. I hope my comments don't insult. Rather, I hope to help you make you chapter the best it can be by being honest. I can see this chapter has a lot of potential.

Best of Luck! Laney3691 (discuss • contribs)

Feedback

Thank you for your feedback on my page. I took into account what you said and made a few changes :). I just read your chapter, very interesting topic, and I really like your choice of layout and the use of quotes to engage the reader. My only critique would be your word limit as you seem to be over 5,500 words in total. If there was any way you could cut down on some words that would be advantageous for you just to save you from getting marked down for it. Overall great work and good luck with your final touches :) Chernayy (discuss • contribs) 03:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

From the author

Hi guys! Just wondering how you calculated the word count? I searched my page through wiki and it came up with around 3900 words so i thought i was right on track. Any feedback would be much appreciated! Thankyou

Hi there!!

I used the word count add on app thing for chrome, that was recommended we use, and that I assume James will be using. I have a screen shot of this app saying your over word count, I just don’t know how to upload it. It says today that you are at 5,491 words. Furthermore, when I copied and pasted you page into word, it said your word count was 5,563 words. While these are both different, they a both still over. Like, I said though, I believe James will be using the word count add on app.

I think the wikis word count doesn’t include things like the table of contents, references, photo captions, quizzes etc., which are included in the assignments word count. When I exclude these from the word count I still get 4,355 words.

I hope this helps.

Good luck. Madie. Laney3691 (discuss • contribs)

Word count

My book chapter on a word document is close to 4,000 words but when I search for it on wiki it comes up as only around 2,000 so I have a feeling sometimes that word count isn't incorporating everything. Maybe try copy and pasting from the first word of you chapter to the end of your referencing and post it in a word doc that should help you get a more accurate count :) Chernayy (discuss • contribs) 03:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

some minor changes

I had a read of the adjustments you made in the overview. I've noticed a lot of the sentences started with 'alliteratively' and 'however', so I just tweaked the sentences a bit for you. Have a read and if you prefer it the way you had it before, please feel free to undo my edits :)

Linssen (discuss • contribs) 07:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Really Clear

I found this to be a very interesting read and very clear, every topic seems to relate well to the theme :) KeenBean92 (discuss • contribs) 08:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)KeenBean92

Great Work

Well done on this chapter! really engaging and easy to read. the subject matter could have caused concern amongst some people but you've written a very informative and unbiased chapter. The chapter was continuously on topic and it was easy to stimulate an easy flow of reading. good luck!!

--irwin13 (discuss • contribs) 08:26, 27 October 2014

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's Moodle site. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener. If you wish to dispute the marks, see the suggested marking dispute process.

Overall Overall, this is a good presentation on an interesting topic. Structure and content The presentation is well structured and has a logical flow between ideas. Research is integrated adequately. Theory should be more of a focus. It sounds as though the RCOPE is a measure of religiosity, rather than a theory as stated by the author. The 'practical implications' slide is a useful inclusion, and could be expanded by including some illustrative examples. Communication Communication is quite good. The voice-over is well paced, with good expression. Pauses between slides are at times too lengthy, and interrupt the flow of the presentation. The slides are well developed, making good use of colour. The inclusion of more images or figures would be beneficial. Production quality Basic production tools are used adequately. The audio quality is sufficient, but lacks some clarity. The volume is also slightly too low. The visuals are clear. A link back to the chapter is provided. Copyright license information is provided.

ShaunaB - Talk

Chapter review and feedback

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 Moodle, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Overall Overall, this is a reasonable chapter that could be improved in several respects. For more feedback, see these copyedits and comments below. Theory Strive for a balanced, objective tone. There is a tendency displayed towards an overenthusiastic tone about potentially positive influences of religiousity on mental health. Did you consult Jung (1933)? If not, don't cite it. Reeve (2009) and Reeve (2008) are over-used as citations; use primary, peer-reviewed sources Research Some statements were unreferenced - see the tags When describing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship. Was the best available literature reviewed and incorporated into this chapter? e.g., I recommend including this meta-analysis - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-5906.t01-1-00160/abstract and this review - http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1991-30196-001. Also consider http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705681/, http://www.psychosocial.com/IJPR_11/Positive_Effects_of_Religiousness_Yeung_Jerf.html, http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1516-44462006000300018&script=sci_arttext Some of the key references did not seem to be from peer-reviewed sources The methods for key studies should be briefly described, so that there is some indication about the quality of the studies. Written expression Written expression The quality of written expression could be improved (e.g., where clarification templates have been added to the page). Avoid directional referencing (e.g., above, below, as previously mentioned) Avoid one paragraph sections. A section should have at least two paragraphs. Some of the bullet-points should be rewritten into full paragraph format. Some paragraphs are overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences. I disagree with the statement: "Traditionally, minimal research has been conducted in this field, however, as of late researchers and mental health practitioners alike have begun to inquire into the subsequent mental health benefits that advanced religious involvement may engender and inspire.". This topic has been focus of psychological research for several decades. Layout See earlier comments about heading casing Learning features Add links to related chapters e.g., on healing, loving-kindness meditation, stress etc. Grammar and proofreading The grammar of some sentences need to be improved (e.g., see the tags) Check and correct the use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals') APA style The reference list is not in full APA style. The reference list is not in alphabetical order. Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)