User talk:Dwfelice/sandbox

Interpersonal Deception Theory - working section on added critic of IDT:

Park and Levine (2015) provide additional critical commentary to IDT stating that “because both interactive and noninteractive experiments lead to the same conclusions about truth-bias and accuracy regardless of interactivity, interactivity is not the all-important consideration as IDT claims.” In IDT, a crucial emphasis is placed in the aspect of interactivity to determine deception detection accuracy. However, Park and Levine do not see an empirical basis for this foundational claim of IDT.

Citation: Park, H. S. & Levine, T. R. (2015). Base rates, deception detection, and deception theory: A reply to Burgoon. Human Communication Research (350-366). 17:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Instructor feedback for article draft
Nice start overall. Here are few suggestions for improvement as you revise for the final submission.

The content you added in the "history" section is good, but does not seem to fit the category of history. The first 3 paragraphs could be distributed between a "lead" section and a section about describing deception detection.

Please include citations in the paragraph starting with "Buller and Burgoon initially..." This is a good paragraph, but it just needs proper support documentation.

The online dating content is a nice addition to this article. I think there are a lot of strengths here.

I'm wondering if you might be able to find some recent research that uses IDT rather than research about deception in general. I think adding a section to the article about the current status of the theory and how it has been recently applied would be a nice contribution.

I think your addition in the criticism section is valid and appropriate to include, but the explanation of this criticism could be clarified and elaborated. I think there needs to be a little more context and explanation of the terms used, such as interactivity.

Remember to use proper APA formatting throughout. For quotations you need to include a page number following the quote. For the references section please make sure all of the citations are in proper APA style. The automatic citation tool on Wikipedia is not necessarily accurate APA style. You likely will have to manually edit most sources to fit APA style. Sources such as PsychNet (#3) and Scientific American (#17) are not peer-reviewed scholarly articles. They can be used but they do not count towards your at least 5 peer reviewed journal articles requirement. Jrpederson (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)