Talk:Social undermining

Mental heath is unclear
The Mental health section is deliberately ambiguous. It tries to beat around the bush with the conclusions and only allows for the idea that "it depends on the victim". Please edit to introduce more explicitness on the conclusions of the research. 117.221.186.125 (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awilliams001 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

1.Asuncion, A. G., & Mackie, D. M. (1996). Undermining social stereotypes: Impact of affect-relevant and behavior-relevant information. Basic And Applied Social Psychology, 18(4), 367-386. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1804_1

2.Benyamini, Y., Medalion, B., & Garfinkel, D. (2007). Patient and spouse perceptions of the patient's heart disease and their associations with received and provided social support and undermining. Psychology & Health, 22(7), 765-785. doi:10.1080/14768320601070639

3.Cranford, J. A. (2004). Stress-buffering or stress-exacerbation? Social support and social undermining as moderators of the relationship between perceived stress and depressive symptoms among married people. Personal Relationships, 11(1), 23-40. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00069.x

4.Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. (2008). Creating and undermining social support in communal relationships: The role of compassionate and self-image goals. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 95(3), 555-575. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.555

5.Crossley, C. D. (2009). Emotional and behavioral reactions to social undermining: A closer look at perceived offender motives. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 14-24. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.06.001 Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 14-24. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.06.001

6.Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Pagon, M. (2006). The social context of undermining behavior at work. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 101(1), 105-126. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.04.005

7.Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., Tepper, B. J., & Aquino, K. (2012). A social context model of envy and social undermining. Academy Of Management Journal, 55(3), 643-666. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.0804

8.Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy Of Management Journal, 45(2), 331-351. doi:10.2307/3069350

9.Finch, J. F. (1998). Social undermining, support satisfaction, and affect: A domain-specific lagged effects model. Journal Of Personality, 66(3), 315-334. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00014

10.Gant, L. M., Nagda, B. A., Brabson, H. V., Jayaratne, S., Chess, W. A., & Singh, A. A. (1993). Effects of social support and undermining on African American workers' perceptions of coworker and supervisor relationships and psychological well-being. Social Work, 38(2), 158-164.

11.Garber, B. D. (2004). Therapist Alienation: Foreseeing and Forestalling Third-Party Dynamics Undermining Psychotherapy With Children of Conflicted Caregivers. Professional Psychology: Research And Practice, 35(4), 357-363. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.35.4.357

12.Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M., & Eissa, G. (2012). Bottom-line mentality as an antecedent of social undermining and the moderating roles of core self-evaluations and conscientiousness. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 343-359. doi:10.1037/a0025217

13.Hershcovis, M. (2011). 'Incivility, social undermining, bullying. . .Oh my!': A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 499-519. doi:10.1002/job.689

14.Hepburn, C., & Enns, J. R. (2013). Social undermining and well-being: The role of communal orientation. Journal Of Managerial Psychology, 28(4), 354-366. doi:10.1108/JMP-01-2013-0011

15.Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1125-1133. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1125

16.Joseph, N. T., Myers, H. F., Schettino, J. R., Olmos, N. T., Bingham-Mira, C., Lesser, I. M., & Poland, R. E. (2011). Support and undermining in interpersonal relationships are associated with treatment response to a trial of antidepressant medication. Psychiatry: Interpersonal And Biological Processes, 74(3), 240-254. doi:10.1521/psyc.2011.74.3.240

17.Oetzel, J., Duran, B., Jiang, Y., & Lucero, J. (2007). Social support and social undermining as correlates for alcohol, drug, and mental disorders in American Indian women presenting for primary care at an Indian health service hospital. Journal Of Health Communication, 12(2), 187-206. doi:10.1080/10810730601152771

18.Mackert, M., Stanforth, D., & Garcia, A. A. (2011). Undermining of nutrition and exercise decisions: Experiencing negative social influence. Public Health Nursing, 28(5), 402-410. Vinokur, A. D., & Van Ryn, M. (1993). Social support and undermining in close relationships: Their independent effects on the mental health of unemployed persons. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 65(2), 350-359. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.350

19.McCaskill, J. W., & Lakey, B. (2000). Perceived support, social undermining, and emotion: Idiosyncratic and shared perspectives of adolescents and their families. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(7), 820-832. doi:10.1177/0146167200269007

20.Terrance, C., & Matheson, K. (2003). Undermining reasonableness: Expert testimony in a case involving a battered woman who kills. Psychology Of Women Quarterly, 27(1), 37-45. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-2-00005

21.Vinokur, A. D., & Van Ryn, M. (1993). Social support and undermining in close relationships: Their independent effects on the mental health of unemployed persons. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 65(2), 350-359. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.350

22.Vinokur, A. D., & Vinokur-Kaplan, D. (1990). 'In sickness and in health': Patterns of social support and undermining in older married couples. Journal Of Aging And Health, 2(2), 215-241. doi:10.1177/089826439000200205

23.Vinokur, A. D., & Vinokur-Kaplan, D. (1990). 'In sickness and in health': Patterns of social support and undermining in older married couples. Journal Of Aging And Health, 2(2), 215-241. doi:10.1177/089826439000200205

outline for article

1.	What is social undermining a.	How it effects a person b.	Where it is seen c.	How it can be used d.	Can it be stopped 2.	The categories a.	 Abuse b.	Bullying c.	Workplace d.	Friendships e.	Sabotage/ mind games 3.	References

the brief description The improvements that will be made to the article are there is going to be more information about social undermining by explaining what does it mean and how it affects people differently in their lives. We plan on improving the categories such as abuse, bulling, workplace, friendships, and health. By looking at these different categories it should give a better understanding on how social undermining effects lives of people and how it is addressed in different categories. Awilliams001 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Feedback on outline
The first section should begin with a definition of social undermining. I'm not sure if "where it is seen" and "how it can be used" make sense as two separate sub-topics, as these are probably interrelated. I like that you have categories for different contexts, like bullying and workplace. However, I wouldn't refer to these as "categories"; rather they are mostly contexts in which undermining can occur. I don't see how "abuse" is a category. Abuse seems more like a related construct and not a type of undermining. You only seem to have one reference that refers to abuse at all, so it is unclear what research would form the basis of this section. You may want to consider removing it or fitting into another existing sub-heading if you do not have a big research basis for it.

Also, when you edit on Wikipedia, you should start new sections (by clicking on the "New Section" tab at the top) or use headings (like the one I used here). This makes editing easier. You should not just tack new sections onto the end of existing sections without any headings. Gseidman (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Psy Peer Review
For the Workplace section of the article, I would just read over and fix simple grammar mistakes. I would also reword some of the sentences for example " The findings from this find that" to avoid the overuse of certain words.I like how you mention various different studies, however it seems there are a limited number of resources compared to the number of studies you are mentioning.

For the health section, I capitalized the heading "Health". I would suggest dividing this section up into individual paragraphs based on content. You can keep it under health however I feel it would be helpful to break it down so it flows more, rather than having it bunched together in a giant paragraph. For example the study that starts explaining spouse support could be a separate paragraph. I also noticed there are no references in this paragraph. Make sure to cite so it is not considered plagiarism! There are also some minor spelling errors in this section as well, just needs a read over. --EKarch (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review
As far as content goes, the numerous references to studies is great. It shows solid evidence to back the information you are talking about. However, there seems to be a limited number of actual articles and references used in the article, so I would consider adding more of those (even filling references in throughout the paragraphs that already exist to make sure that all claims are accounted for). In order to add length and clarity, it might be helpful to add more to the very introduction before you jump into the workplace and health sections. In addition, I think expanding on the information and including more general sections about the concept as a whole would make the review more comprehensive.

In reference to clarity, while the information is well supported, different grammatical and sentence errors make it a bit challenging to understand, especially towards the beginning. In the second section, there is a large amount of text. Perhaps consider breaking that up into sub-sections so that it is easier to read. One might introduce the condition or health issue you are referring to, another address the implications of social undermining, and another to discuss the connection to type of relationship between the individuals.

There are a few minor reference corrections to make in the references section, that might impact the actual content area in terms of how material is cited and references are used. Also, I think some kind of explanation would be helpful with the see also list. The terms on that list are not directly related to social undermining or aren't synonyms. Therefore, if there is a connection, perhaps each one should have their own section and paragraph in the paper. Otherwise, a general explanation as to why that section is included would help.

Overall, once more content is added, and the article is divided more concretely, I think it will turn out nicely. Just be sure to proof read. Mtierney01 (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments on content and organization
The lead paragraph needs to be longer and offer a somewhat more detailed explanation of what social undermining is, as Mtierney01 suggested. I also think the first section of the article should provide some general background on what the concept is, providing examples and citing some basic research on the topic.

This article needs a lot of work on writing and clarity. At the very least, this writing needs to be divided into logical paragraphs. But more importantly, much of the article is difficult and sometimes even impossible to understand. There are also numerous grammatical errors throughout. Other times there are phrases that seem out of context and do not make sense – For example, “how it has affected specific races” appears at the end of the second sentence under "workplace", but there is nothing about race in this paragraph, and the phrase itself is confusing, in any context. The previous commenters offered some additional specific examples.

There should be a section on “Social undermining in close relationships”, as this is a major area of research on this topic.

Workplace: I would recommend changing the heading “Workplace” to say “Social undermining in the work place”. Some sentences are confusing because they use technical terms which are not appropriate for the Wikipedia audience and appear to use said terms incorrectly. For example “Vinkour found in his study those predictive inverse relations between perceptions that there was significant predictive inverse relationship between perceptions of undermining and measures of mental health and personal well-being.” I assume that all that is being implied here is that Vinokur (uncited) found that those who perceived greater social undermining in the workplace reported poorer mental health and personal well-being.

Mental health: The beginning of this section makes several claims without citations. Also, “the patient” is referred to, but it’s not clear what the context is for “the patient” – Are we talking about someone who is in a hospital or just anyone who is battling an illness and may experience support/undermining from a loved one?

Also, several of the discussions of research feel very incomplete. For example “Depending on the relationship between the patient and their loved one the person that is giving support they can give undermining plus support within the same interaction which can increase the depressive symptoms. So having more social support and less social undermining can improve treatment out of a patient depending on the type of stress level the person is enduring from the people in their lives.” So, “depending on the relationship” – so what aspects of the relationship or types of relationship have different effects? Also, “depending on the type d stress” – so for what kinds of stressful situations is undermining more harmful?

It seems that the authors are suggesting that Joseph et al (2011) found that undermining is actually beneficial? I highly doubt that this is correct. The whole description of this study is rather confusing.

Generally, this section needs to be better organized. It largely reads as a string of study descriptions that are not connected to each other. It is difficult to get any general sense of the topic or what the research shows, overall, by reading this. This section also needs to be divided into logical paragraphs.

Citations: The citing style should be to use footnotes, which are sometimes used correctly, but other times, in text citing seems to be done in APA style. Only a footnote is necessary for the citation; the authors’ names do not need to be listed. Also, research is referred to without being cited, an issue mentioned by the other commenters, as well. For example, “Vinkour found….”. I also believe this refers to research by Vinokur. Also, direct quotes, for the most part, should not be used on Wikipedia. Research and theory should be described in layman’s terms, paraphrased by the authors of the Wiki article. There are several references at the end that are spaced oddly and are not part of the footnoted material.Gseidman (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Health section especially in need of clarification and condensing
This health section is excessively wordy and poorly organized. The examples of research are solid, but the phrasing used to try and explain them is confusing and sometimes outright contradictory. For example, what does it mean that both high levels of social undermining and high levels of social support can improve a patient's course of treatment? What treatment is that and for which condition? Clinical depression? Further, the third paragraph only mentions its tangential relevance to social undermining at the end of the third sentence.

These examples are not only excessive but sometimes barely relevant. While the technical content may be good, the sheer size is an eyesore and summarization is lacking to say the least. Paragraphs like these need to start with an introductory summary of their contents, a main point that will then be supported by the content which follows. Although having a solid conclusion sentence is also a good idea, lacking a proper introduction to a paragraph renders a conclusion sentence useless. If the reader has to slog through seemingly unrelated content before ever learning how this content is related, then it is not written in an encyclopedic style. That assumes that the content is related at all; the nutrition and exercise section, for example, seems to be only barely related as an example of where social undermining has an impact, and has little or nothing to do with the phenomenon of social undermining itself. True as it may be that social undermining can play a role in health and nutrition or vice versa, that warrants a sentence or two at best, and not such a lengthy and tangential section.

It would help if someone better versed in psychology/psychiatry and copy editing than myself would go through this section and cut it down to its most psychologically relevant points. Points should be stated clearly so that the article flows well and its information is readily accessible, instead of nested within excessive and partially related examples like it is now. Condensing the information and stating all those points clearly and together, then following with examples, would considerably improve the section's readability to a layperson. 67.168.84.199 (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

replace flags for full references
hi, i saw that in this edit you replaced 3 flags for full references with the same raw link to pubmed.

this makes no sense: first a raw link is no full reference, second, this 2004 article by a JAMES A. CRANFORD isnt what the text called for. Horwitz et al. (1998, Cutrone 1996 and Vinokur & Vinokur & Vinokur- Kaplan, 1990. can you tell me why you did this, please? --Wuerzele (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Look I get that you believe I was wrong so I reverted it. What more do you want from me? --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 07:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)