Talk:Attribution (psychology)/Archives/2016

Verifiability
It would be nice if we had more WP:RS that we could verify on-line what is said in the text. I wanted to use a quote from this in a paper, but since Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference, and I did not have time to go to the library and find the source, I was left with no WP:RS to quote to anyone. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup?
Hi, there's a little talk page talk over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ultimate_attribution_error. It seems that there is some inconsistency in linking, and article doubling. Best left to someone in the know, though. T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Should section on applications have sub-section on learned helplessness?
Why ever does the section entitled Application have a section on learned helplessness? The citation I put in tonight, i.e. Monday June 13 2016 (Abramson, Seligman and Teasdale (1978) in Journal of Abnormal Psychology) makes it clear that this paper is revision of learned heplessness theory, suggesting it can be revised by introduction of attribution theory, making it clear that these are different theories.Vorbee (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not a theory, a group of theories
I really feel that the opening section should clarify that the term attribution theory does not refer to a single theory but a group of theories.Vorbee (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)