Talk:Self-referential encoding

Feedback on references
Make sure that you provide a thorough explanation of the self-referential encoding effect in normal individuals, and discuss research backing it up. You don't want your entire article to be about how people with particular disorders do not show the same effects as normal individuals. You certainly do want to have sections on those subtopics, but make sure the whole article is not just about that. If you simply search for "self reference effect" on Google Scholar, you will see that all of the early references that come up are about how it operates in normal individuals, not these special cases (e.g., autism). Also, I don't understand what the reference is that says it was written by Self, N. E.Gseidman (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Self-Referential Encoding Article Summary
WHAT IS SELF-REFERENTIAL PROCESSING

One definition of self-referential processing that was discussed was the ability to attribute personality traits to oneself or to “identify recollected episodes as memories of one’s past”. In reference to the ability to recall memories, the authors argue that one of the most important components of doing so successfully is the “feeling that this memory refers to oneself”. Henderson et. al, suggests that in individuals with normal mental functioning it is shown that information about the self is processed and stored more effectively. Authors also research how those with normal mental states show an overall mainly pleasant outlook on themselves as well as the recollection of pleasant past events

BIOLOGICAL BASIS

While self-referential processing is an important component of social science, it has also received attention from a biological standpoint. According to Heatherton et. al, we can use the field of social brain science to understand different social phenomenon and the biological basis they have. In essence, the field examines the “neural underpinnings of social behavior”. Through this research, scientists have discovered that the MPFC (or the medial prefrontal cortex) has an important role in self-referential processing. Moran et. al observed in their study the fact that the MPFC had distinct neural connections to cognitive and emotional aspects of self-reflection — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMcInerney8792 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC) After discussing the research connecting the MPFC to self-referential processing, we can introduce research that supports the connection between self-referential processing and the simulation effect. The research suggests that simulation theory holds; that is, individuals use reference to their own mental states and thoughts to predict those of others, only in situations in which the other individual is deemed to be similar to them and hence, their own thoughts are an appropriate comparison or measure. Along with the MPFC, Lemogne et. al discuss the medial frontal gyrus and the fact that it is central in the functioning of self-referential processing

AUTISM

Combining the discussion of the biological basis for self-referential encoding and the social benefits it offers, we will then discuss some areas in which limitations in this ability are present. One major area in which a lack of self-referential processing ability is that of Autistic individuals. We will include a description of Autism Spectrum Conditions, highlighting the impairment in social functioning and a lack of self-awareness. Given the difficulty for individuals with ASC to explain and access their emotions, it is hypothesized that individuals on the spectrum have difficulty with self-referential cognition. As such, this section would be devoted to explaining how individuals with ASCs differ from other individuals in terms of their development and use of self-referenced information.

DEPRESSION

We will be viewing different results acquired from experiments done using depressed individuals to view their patterns of their personal self-referencing. Lemogne et. al explain that depression is directly related to engaging in a lot of self-referential processing. Individuals dealing with depression more easily recall unpleasant past events than pleasant events and more negative attributions are made about themselves as well. Research supports that depressed individuals are more likely to rate themselves with negative adjectives than nondepressed individuals. Research done by Kuiper et. al shows that the level of depression also contributes to what type of attributions individuals give themselves. The more depressive qualities a person has, the more negative self-reference they will give themselves, and as their depressive qualities get less, so does their negative self-references. The comparisons between those with and without depression in terms of the nature of their self-reference will be researched more thoroughly to find more supportive evidence of the difference.

Feedback on article plan
There appears to be a great deal of research on the biological bases of self-referential encoding. Therefore, the article might benefit from breaking this topic into further sub-sections in order to organize this large body of research. In addition, you should find a way to work in additional research on the cognitive elements of self-referential encoding. Right now you have a lot on the biological part and the applied part (e.g., depression), but it really started out as research on a cognitive process involved in memory, so that should be reflected and probably mentioned early in the article.Gseidman (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

In the article, there are some difficulties and kinks that need to be worked out with the citations so when it is cited as [name of author(s)] once the citation issues are fixed, those citations will be fixed as well BMcInerney8792 (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review
Content- Content-wise, I think you guys are in great shape! This looks like a very solid draft and the information was clear, concise, and understandable to a general reader. I'll admit that your topic is slightly difficult to understand but you guys write it in a way that is more understandable for the reader. The reference to studies throughout the entire article really helps the article come to life. Great job with content! Organization- As I said before, you guys seem to have a very solid article so there's not much to critique! Your organization is set up really well. I like how you summarized things first, next gave background information, then led into the three types, and ended with biological information. I also like how you did not jump into the types right away and gave lots of information first. It reads just like a normal wikipedia article- you guys totally know what you're doing! Clarity- The article flows very well and transitions are done really well from one section to the next. I got a little confused at this part under Theoretical Background: Structural (Big font or small font?), Phonemic (Rhymes with xxx?), Semantic (Means same as xxx?), or Self-reference (Describes you?). I know it's still a draft, so maybe you guys just aren't finished yet, i was just wondering what the parentheses meant. Tone-While reading the article, I did not sense any biases leading one way or the other. I'm sure an average reader would say the same thing. Referencing Format-I'm still not sure how to reference the correct way like you guys do, so I'm about to sneak over to your page and learn how! Reference format is perfect! Reference Use-So far, all your references are put to great use! I like how you use multiple sources within one section. It seems as if you guys have an abundance of information and you reference them all very creatively throughout your article. Overall, it's hard to critique something so solid. My only suggestion would be to maybe include one more category under Applications. You already have Autism and Depression, I think adding one more "disorder" would make it flow just a little bit better, especially if you guys are still looking for more information to add. Other than that, I wish I was actually able to give you guys real suggestions but you obviously know what you're doing. Keep up the great work guys!--Ndaher7 (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review
The content of this article was overall very understandable and covered the entire topic succinctly, starting from the intro and developing into the different more complex aspects of the self-referential encoding process. I think the depression and autism sections are great applications of the self-referential encoding. I did think thought that it could be made a bit more clear that they are supposed to be examples of those applications, maybe through making a list of applications in the application section. Also it wasn’t entirely apparent how they overall connect to the theory of the self-referential encoding process. There also seemed to be a very abrupt ending with no real ending or concluding section. It might be nice to end with a more universal application maybe, such as how this can be applied to people in general, just as a suggestion. I thought the organization of the article was great, it just flows from one topic into the next, becoming more complex with each subtopic. The clarity of how each section correspond to the other was great, and said in a way that people who are not familiar with psychology can understand. The tone also seemed to remain very neutral and positive, giving each section an equal amount of information and level of importance. Overall I thought it was a great article with very explanatory and comprehensible information that fits very well in the Wikipedia format. DTrucksess (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments on content
Lead paragraph: I think the first sentence of the paragraph is unnecessary. I think it would be best to combine it with the second sentence, but only to make the basic point that we need to keep track of and organize info and find some way to keep it all together. Then in the next sentence you can say that the self offers an organizing principle. I don’t understand why the word “effect” appears in parentheses at the end of the second to last sentence. I also think the lead paragraph could do a slightly better job of preparing the reader for the sections that follow (e.g., the different explanations for how self-referential encoding works, the applications). Not to go into any detail about these topics, but just mention them in the lead.

Self-concept and self-schema: The second sentence here is unclear. I also do not understand what the word mills in brackets refers to, perhaps a citation? In this section there are some technical terms that are not defined or not used properly.

The Type A/B personality section seems too tangential to merit its own section. If anything, it serves as an example of how self-schemas work, but there is no reason that this particular research should be highlighted so extensively. It merits perhaps a sentence or two in this section.

The section on the self-reference effect and its explanations is very well-organized.

In the depth of processing subsection, the sentence “Self-discrepancies demonstrate the properties that are necessary for cognitive structures” doesn’t seem to set up the paragraph. Self-discrepancies refer to a different phenomenon and are not discussed in this paragraph. The Depression section uses a lot of technical terminology and much of it reads in a technical manner that may not be appropriate for a general audience.

General comments: Make sure to cite all of the references. For example Einstein and Hunt are discussed at the beginning of the dual process section, but there is no citation for their specific work.

When using a technical term for the first time in a particular subsection, don’t rely on the abbreviation. It would be helpful to mention the full name of the term again if it’s just appearing for the first time in the section. The mPFC is mentioned in a lot of different sections.

Proof-read for grammar and spelling and avoid overly casual language that’s not appropriate for written communication, such as “go along with”.

Make sure to correct all inline citations. There seem to be a few times when authors’ names are mentioned as a parenthetical citation instead.

For the image under theoretical background, is this image in the public domain? That is, is it readily available free of charge from the publisher? If it’s part of a copy-righted article, you can’t use it. It’s also uncited here, which makes it more problematic. You can summarize it as a table or in the text of your article (with appropriate citation), but including the exact table from the article violates copyright.Gseidman (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)