Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2014/Trust and emotion

Edits and feedback

Helloo, just dropping by with some minor edit suggestions and feedback that will hopefully help in some way, shape or form.

Firstly, I did like the the Quick quiz, I felt like I was really learning something as I was reading. It provided good feedback and engagement for me as the reader. I also noticed that for Q2, option C may have a spelling error. I thought that maybe you meant risk taking instead of "risking taking".

Secondly, I think you communicated the topics and theories well in your writing and also used an engaging writing style rather than just presenting the facts. Maybe in the theory section where you briery introduce the theories you could accompany them with a simple example or sentence which may relate them back to trust. For example, say for affective priming in affective infusion model, what could this look like in a simple example? I guess it might bring more fluency throughout the whole piece.

And last suggestions.... well, maybe you could look at the wider implications of mistrust, sort of in the developmental or pathology realm of things (i.e. emotional disorders). Or in contrast, even highlight/summarise the beneficial aspects of trust and emotion for good balance :P Like studies that look at weather or not trust could improve social quality, well-being and performance, and if (or how) that relates to emotion. You did mention a few positive aspects here and there. That could possibly give a more rounded perspective on trust and emotion, and their implications for wellbeing.

Anyways, was a good read ☺ Good luck with all the final edits and all. U3084402 (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

maybe look into betrayal

Hi, I had an idea in regards to your topic. I think it would be really interesting and relevant to look at the role of betrayal when addressing how trust is related to emotion. A quick google search brought this up:

"Betrayal trauma theory ( Freyd, 1996) suggests that individuals cope with traumatic betrayals, such as childhood sexual abuse, by blocking awareness for the betrayal. This betrayal blindness allows the dependent individual to persist in critical attachment bonds. Although betrayal blindness can be adaptive in abusive contexts, its overutilization can increase vulnerability for victimization in later relationships, perhaps by interfering with the ability to make wise decisions about trust."

This is very interesting because it suggests that a break down of trust does not necessarily mean a break down of attachment (in an emotional sense) with that person. Anyway, hope it comes along well! Joelthebaws (discuss • contribs)

General Comments

Hi

Just a couple of suggestions:

I'd consider changing the heading 'Define Emotion and Trust' to 'Defining Emotion and Trust'.

I think if you're going to say 'Researchers have long been interested' then you may need to reference it.

It felt a little like the topic of integral and incidental emotions came out of no where. I wonder if it would blend a little better if you started that paragraph with something like 'With that theory in mind it is important to highlight the distinction between integral and incidental emotions'.

The first time you refer to the Myers & Tingley research I think you need to move the the year in brackets to after their names. This is in the paragraph starting 'Using the same emotion induction technique'. You might want to check this throughout the rest of the chapter also.

You mention these researchers - Joskowicz–Jabloner and Leiser, but there is no date. I suspect you'll need a date for this.

I'm not sure whether the names of the models you've used, as well as things like Oxytocin, need to have capitals. It might be worth checking the journal articles to see if they used capitals or not.

You could use the 'link' button to create a hyperlink for the Free Hugs Campaign (instead of having the URL beside it. Alternatively, you could expand on what this campaign is and put the link at the bottom of the page under External Links.

I hope you don't mind, but I also made a couple of small changes to your page. Just things like I removed the word 'it' from 'Put it simply' and deleted some commas.

The chapter is really well set out, and flows well. It was a very interesting read!

ChelsiCFD (discuss • contribs) 07:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Hey Xuelian! Just had a read through of your chapter and it is a very interesting topic. I made some minor edits (I hope you don't mind!) on things such as replacing some words that were more suitable, or changing the order of words so that the sentence was easier to follow, I also put "Emotion as Information Model" in italics within it's section just so readers could distinguish it better when reading, and tidied up some in text references. However, may I suggest it might be a good idea just to go over your chapter again to refine some points (For example, with this point "This is especially the case the judgement itself concerns our affective response (how much do you like a person) or when the task at hand is complex or demanding" I couldn't edit it because I was unsure of what you were trying to say here). And then one last comment! within the theoretical model section I was finding it hard to follow - you have explained it pretty well, but I think its just the fact it is a bit of a dry subject where you can easily get lost with all the new terms. Perhaps you could use some examples that readers could relate to in order for them to understand? Maybe you could even use Jenny's case (if possible at all) as I noticed at the beginning you insinuated that we will keep referring back to Jenny's case, but I don't think you have done this as of yet.

I hope this is useful to you. But other then that, well done so far!  :) --U3083529 (discuss • contribs) 08:09, 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 02:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A couple of ideas and feedback

Hi, I have not put a chapter up yet but thought I would offer some feedback. I hope it is of some use and not rubbish.

General phraseology –I quite enjoyed the questions throughout. Engaging the reader in a conversational style while conveying literature.

Referencing looks pretty good throughout, except perhaps the paragraph Trust Betrayal and Emotions. You may want to put 2011 next to Lee and Sekart’s names and the year of reference for Joskowicz–Jabloner and Leise

Definition of emotion paragraph The distinction between mood and emotion is useful and a very important inclusion, I like it here. Is it worth explaining briefly or rewording identifiable referent? What is the clarity of emotion that differs from mood? It might just be me not sitting comfortably with the term. An expanded expression might indicate that there is a flow on process or a trigger, so the definition holds a clue about the models of influence you later discuss. I really like the punch point at the end of the paragraph, a great phrase you have used here. Could this sit higher in the order after the sentence on cognitive appraisals? I think it really conveys a great message about the duality of process you then describe.

Definition of trust. I like the final line of the definition, it brings it to the psychological point of view and is very distinct and tangible.

Incidental Discrete Emotions and Trust I really liked the way you summarised Dunn and Schweitzer. Great link to your previous discussion.

Facial Emotion Displays and Trust – a great spot for some pictures if you are looking for graphic content.

You are doing well. u3120810 (discuss • contribs)

Thanks everybody!

Wow, I didn't find your feedback until now! Thanks to everybody. you have given me some really good feedback. I will look into them now. --Xlc (discuss • contribs) 05:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A few comments

Hi Xuelian

You've done a great job with your chapter. I've made a minor edit to the text. In terms of some broader comments, I thought your real-life case study was a very good choice. I wondered if you are planning to come back to it again at the conclusion? It might be good to tie it together. I was impressed with how you have managed to cover a lot of theories while also keeping this very readable. The quiz looks good too and I thought it worked well being in the centre of the chapter, rather than at the end, to reinforce learning as you are going along. Claire Cdrake2014 (discuss • contribs) 10:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi Xuelian, Your page looks really good, and is easy to understand and very interesting. Trust is such a big factor in our lives that its good to have a further understanding! thanks ! --U3084587 (discuss • contribs) 01:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC) u3084587

Simplified title layout

FYI, I simplified the title layout - keep it simple and clean. Coloured backgrounds can make it more difficult for people with visual disabilties to read. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Final Suggestions

Hi Xuelian

I've been meaning to say thanks for your feedback on my page, it was very helpful.

A couple of last minute suggestions/queries?

Do you need to a reference for the info on your second paragraph under Overview?

This sentence was a little hard to read - In comparison to mood, another type of affective state that is more diffuse, longer in duration with no clear referent, emotion is shorter in duration, more intense and has an identifiable referent. I wonder if you moved it around a little, maybe something like 'In comparison to mood, which is another type of affective state that is more diffuse and longer lasting with no clear referent, emotion is shorter in duration...

You appear to have some headings with all caps, the standard in wiki is only the first word and proper nouns have caps.

The first paragraph under Emotion-as-Information Model has 'for example' twice (I think I partly noticed because they were both in my line of vision at once). I wonder if you'd be best to re-word one.

with this sentence - associations and memories related to the node is also activated, I think it might need to be 'are activated'.

this line confused me: We are interested in: What is the role of emotion in trust development in these two approaches?. Maybe you could reword it, or put inverted commas around the question.

I think (if you have the space for extra words) it may look more balanced if you included another quiz towards the bottom of the page. That said, I don't think it's necessarily essential!

Your page is looking really good. I like how you've broken things up and it reads really well. You may want to be cautious with your use of colours - I think James mentioned on Moodle to use them sparingly.

Other than that, well done. You've done a great job!

ChelsiCFD (discuss • contribs) 08:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Chelsi. I have made some changes. There are a few places that I have not changed. I am a little bit concerned about the use of colours. I understand that James warned us about coloured background. I wonder whether it is ok to have boxes that I used. I will have a read again tomorrow.--Xlc (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I am also concerned whether I have integrated theories and research enough, whether I have covered enough theories. Wow, big changes look daunting now.--Xlc (discuss • contribs) 10:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Editing

Hi Xuelian, I hope it is ok but I just made some small edits on your page. You had some 'question for thinking' boxes where you applied Jenny's story to the research. Great idea! I think it should be 'question for thought' though. I changed this on your page, please feel free to revert if you don't like it. I also changed a sentence in the section regarding the free hugs campaign. Originally it was 'For some reasons he had to come home', I changed it to 'For various reasons he had to return home to Australia' because I thought that flowed better. Overall I thought the content was great! Well done :) --U3053066 (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I like your changes:)

--Xlc (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi, I have not seen your page for a while. Great job, it reads well and looks very engaging.

I just added a when and replaced a full top with a comma. u3120810 (discuss • contribs)U3120810 (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

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 - well done. Structure and content The presentation is sufficient as a basic recorded presentation of the relationship between trust and emotion. The presentation successfully integrates both theory (2x theoretical models) and research and demonstrates flow between concepts, however, the content itself is somewhat dry (academic) and could be improved by including case studies and other examples. A useful overview was given at the beginning of the presentation to orientate the viewer to the direction the presentation would take. In-text referencing to match the end of text reference list would improve the presentation as at times it is difficult for the viewer to establish whether the information is fact or personal opinion. A conclusion and take home message is provided. Communication Communication is ok (clear but not particularly engaging) and generally well-paced. Communication using image and illustrative examples is very basic including only a few images and diagrams. The presentation could be improved significantly by using more colour, images, illustrative examples and interactive slides – this would make the presentation more engaging for the viewer. Production quality Production quality, tools (Brainshark) and slides used were basic. Sound and picture quality was good and there were little mistakes made. A reference list is provided as are acknowledgements for the images used, however, the correct way to acknowledge these images may need further exploration. A creative commons license and copyright license is provided. There is a link to and from the book chapter.

RenaeLN (discuss • contribs) 07:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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 an excellent chapter. It is very readable, interesting, and interactive, and it is soundly based on relevant theory and research. For additional feedback, see below and see my copyedits. Theory Theory is well covered, with excellent explanations of the separate concepts (emotion and trust) and two theories. It could be helpful to explain the similiarities and differences between the the two theories? e.g., how could each be used to explain the case study? Research Several useful, relevant studies were explained. In-text citations were very well used. When describing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship. Written expression This chapter is well written, with a user-friendly style appropriate to the target audience. The chapter benefited from a well developed Overview with focus questions and Conclusion The chapter benefited from obtaining early comments as it was developed. Learning features Some interwiki links were included in the See also section, but more could be added in-text. The case study and quizzes were particularly effective; images with captions were well utilised. Spelling, grammar and proofreading Some relatively minor aspects could be improved - see the and tags APA style In general, APA was excellent. In-text citations should be in alphabetical order e.g., Forgas, 1995; Clore & Hutsinger, 2007 - > Clore & Hutsinger, 2007; Forgas, 1995

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)