User talk:KatiePetti/sandbox

Edwards, M. S., Moore, P., Champion, J. C., & Edwards, E. J. (2014). Effects of trait anxiety and situational stress on attentional shifting are buffered by working memory capacity. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 28(1), 1–16. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2014.911846

Stuart, G., & Hulme, C. (2000). The effects of word co-occurance on short-term memory: Associative links in long-term memory affect short-term memory performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 796–802. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.26.3.796 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatiePetti (talk • contribs) 14:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Schultebraucks, K., Rombold-Bruehl, F., Wingenfeld, K., Hellmann-Regen, J., Otte, C., & Roepke, S. (2019). Heightened biological stress response during exposure to a trauma film predicts an increase in intrusive memories. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(7), 645–657. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1037/abn0000440.supp (Supplemental)

Smith, A. M., Davis, F. C., & Thomas, A. K. (2018). Criterial learning is not enough: Retrieval practice is necessary for improving post-stress memory accessibility. Behavioral Neuroscience, 132(3), 161–170. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1037/bne0000240

Quas, J. A., Castro, A., Bryce, C. I., & Granger, D. A. (2018). Stress Physiology and Memory for Emotional Information: Moderation by Individual Differences in Pubertal Hormones. Developmental Psychology, 54(9), 1606–1620. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1189373&site=eds-live

Smith, A. M., Race, E., Davis, F. C., & Thomas, A. K. (2019). Retrieval practice improves item memory but not source memory in the context of stress. Brain and Cognition, 133, 24–32. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1016/j.bandc.2018.12.005

Eivani, M., Alijanpour, S., Arefian, E., & Rezayof, A. (2019). Corticolimbic analysis of microRNAs and protein expressions in scopolamine-induced memory loss under stress. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 164. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1016/j.nlm.2019.107065

Thomas, A. K., & Karanian, J. M. (2019). Acute stress, memory, and the brain. Brain and Cognition, 133, 1–4. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1016/j.bandc.2019.04.004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatiePetti (talk • contribs) 13:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Quach, D. (2014). Differential effects of sitting meditation and Hatha Yoga on working memory, stress, anxiety, and mindfulness adolescents in a school setting.

Roozendaal, B. (2002). Stress and Memory: Opposing Effects of Glucocorticoids on Memory Consolidation and Memory Retrieval. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 78(3), 578–595. doi: 10.1006/nlme.2002.4080

Saffran, E. M., & Martin, N. (n.d.). Short-term memory impairment and sentence processing: a case study. Neuropsychological Impairments of Short-Term Memory, 428–447. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511665547.021

Deficits in short-term memory in posttraumatic stress disorder. (1993). American Journal of Psychiatry, 150(7), 1015–1019. doi: 10.1176/ajp.150.7.1015

Musić, S., & Rossell, S. (2016). Stress, Memory, and Memory Impairment. Stress: Concepts, Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior, 145–152. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-800951-2.00017-0

Howe, M. L. (2011). Chronic Stress and Maltreatment in Early Memory Development. The Nature of Early Memory, 137–156. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195381412.003.0017

Taverniers, J., Taylor, M. K., & Smeets, T. (2012). Delayed memory effects after intense stress in Special Forces candidates: Exploring path processes between cortisol secretion and memory recall. Stress, 16(3), 311–320. doi: 10.3109/10253890.2012.721824

Boals, A., Rubin, D. C., & Klein, K. (2008). Memory and coping with stress: The relationship between cognitive–emotional distinctiveness, memory valence, and distress. Memory, 16(6), 637–657. doi: 10.1080/09658210802083098 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatiePetti (talk • contribs) 22:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Our team decided to contribute a Wiki article related to stress and memory. The topic aligns with our class content and there is a great deal of peer-reviewed, up to date, relevant information on the topic. I found several articles that could be used and will post them below. Concerning the edit of our article I have several ideas for contributing to this article. First, the article needs a well polished introduction and could use an introductory thesis. This is going to be tricky because the information currently contained in the article is random and unorganized. A well designed introduction would offer the reader a guide in introducing article as well as what to expect from it’s summary. Second, the article is too technical for the average reader. It reads as though it’s author pasted technical journal articles together rather than summarized them. Our team could summarize the articles in a less technical manner to make the article approachable for the average reader. If we were to develop a thesis, we need to add a conclusion. One advantage to this would be it would be a great place to add a section that contains ideas for future research.

Thomas, A. K., & Karanian, J. M. (2019). Acute stress, memory, and the brain. Brain and Cognition, 133, 1–4. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1016/j.bandc.2019.04.004

Ricker, A. A., Corley, R., DeFries, J. C., Wadsworth, S. J., & Reynolds, C. A. (2018). Examining the Influence of Perceived Stress on Developmental Change in Memory and Perceptual Speed for Adopted and Nonadopted Individuals. Developmental Psychology, 54(1), 138–150. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1165312&site=eds-live

Smith, A. M., Davis, F. C., & Thomas, A. K. (2018). Criterial learning is not enough: Retrieval practice is necessary for improving post-stress memory accessibility. Behavioral Neuroscience, 132(3), 161–170. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1037/bne0000240

Goldfarb, E. V., Tompary, A., Davachi, L., & Phelps, E. A. (2019). Acute stress throughout the memory cycle: Diverging effects on associative and item memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(1), 13–29. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1037/xge0000472.supp (Supplemental)

Adding a citation assignment: Old paragraph that needs a citation….

Acute stress is a stressor that is an immediate perceived threat.[19] Unlike chronic stress, acute stress is not ongoing and the physiological arousal associated with acute stress is not nearly as demanding. There are mixed findings on the effects of acute stress on memory. One view is that acute stress can impair memory, while others believe that acute stress can actually enhance memory.[citation needed]

Updated paragraph with a citation…..

Acute stress is a stressor that is an immediate perceived threat.[19] Unlike chronic stress, acute stress is not ongoing and the physiological arousal associated with acute stress is not nearly as demanding. There are mixed findings on the effects of acute stress on memory. One view is that acute stress can impair memory, while others believe that acute stress can actually enhance memory (Citation posted below goes here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatiePetti (talk • contribs) 20:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki questions: Availability Heuristic Follow their Lead: -Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? This is a technical article that I find confusing. The Lead does not summarize the information contained within its sections, like Wikipedia recommends, but rather tries to define what Availability Heuristic is and gives an example. After reading the Lead several times and I’m still unsure what Availability Heuristic means or why it’s important. -Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? It does not. It only tries to explain to me what it means. -Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? This article has a variety of well developed sections and are in good sequential order. A good Lead should summarize that information and give the reader a preview of what to expect from reading the article. A Clear Structure: -Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? I’m impressed with this articles organization, especially the sequence of the sections and how many sections it contains. A Balancing Act: -Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? I think the Applications section is most important because it gives me an idea of why research in this area is so important. There is a good variety of sub-sections under this section but several of them could be developed more. I do not see any sections that are unnecessary or off topic, just areas that could be developed more. For instance, the section on Health was too brief, I’d like to hear about more research done in this area. -Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? The author has saved the critiques section until the end of the article. The Ease of Recall as Critique section gave a brief summary, but I feel that more is necessary to help the reader gain an understanding of why that critique is important. -Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No.I think it does a good job presenting research without leaning towards a particular point of view. I’m not sure about saving the section of critique until the end. I’m not sure if it’s the only critique available in research, or if the author intended to present it this way, but it seems to me that since research has been conducted on this topic since the 1970’s there should be more critical evidence available to present. Neutral Content: -Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? I cannot guess the authors perspective on the subject by reading the article. -Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." I don’t see any words or phrases such as these. -Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No, nothing that is not referenced. -Does the article focuses too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. I do think there is a fair amount of negative information in the article. I also wonder if it’s necessary as it sounds as thought the topic is difficult to research and there’s been some controversy on how it is defined. This article has a variety of well developed sections and are in good sequential order. A good Lead should summarize that information and give the reader a preview of what to expect from reading the article. I’m impressed with this articles organization, especially the sequence of the sections and how many sections it contains. Reliable Sources: -Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? All references in this article are from reliable sources including peer-reviewed articles and textbooks. -Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. This article contains quite a bit of content and has a short list of citations. As the article seems to be in it’s developmental stages, this is an area that could be improved upon. -Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! I checked several links and they all supported the information that was stated in the article. Share the Love: (After answering all those questions for the article, write a peer-review letter using the structure provided in the Share the Love section. Finally, paste your peer-review letter into the talk page for the article.) This article has a variety of well developed sections that are in good sequential order. I’m impressed with the Applications section the most because it gives readers an idea of why research in this area is important. The article does a good job presenting research without leaning towards a particular point of view, but the Lead is weak considering how well-developed the rest of the article is, and does not summarize the information contained within its sections, like Wikipedia recommends, but rather tries to define what Availability Heuristic is and gives an example. According to Wikipedia a good Lead should summarize that information contained within the article and give the reader a preview of what to expect from reading each section. After reading the Lead several times I’m still unsure what Availability Heuristic means or why it’s important. There is a good variety of sub-sections, like History, Research, Explanations and Applications and several of them could be developed more as they are all interesting and present the topic differently. I do not see any sections that are unnecessary or off topic, just areas that could be developed more. For instance, the section on Health was too brief, I’d like to hear more about any research done in this area. The author has saved the critiques section until the end of the article and I’m not completely sure why. The Ease of Recall as Critique section gave a brief summary, but I feel that more is necessary to help the reader gain an understanding of why that critique is important. I’m not sure if it’s the only critique available in research, or if the author intended to present it this way, but it seems to me that since research has been conducted on this topic since the 1970’s there should be more critical evidence available to present. I think the single most important thing the author could do to develop this article would be to write a well-developed Lead according to Wikipedia’s recommendations, or add to one of the subsections, like the Health category. The article I am improving, “The Effects of Stress on Memory”, and this article have similarities because my article is also missing a well-developed Lead and it’s very technical to read. After reading this article I’m impressed with the way the author states “In other words…”, as a means to re-summarize very technical information into something that may be better understood by the average reader.

Wiki questions Facial Expression Follow their Lead: -Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Lead’s must be the most difficult portion to develop in Wikipedia articles because although this article does have a well developed Lead, it does not exist from Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia says that a good Lead should summarize the sections of the article, which this Lead does not, it just starts right into the theories on facial expression. -Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? It does not. The Lead in this article does not summarize the article, but rather starts giving information about facial expressions and emotions. -Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? A summary of the article is missing. A Clear Structure: -Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? I found the sections to be organized. I feel that additional sections could be added however. I know Eckman with the primary researcher who conducted studies on emotions and facial expressions, but I also know that there’s been follow-up research since and it seems to not be presented in this article. A Balancing Act: -Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? I found the section on gender and facial expression most interesting. I’d like to see that section more developed. -Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Although the article does a good job presenting criticisms in several areas, it seems as though there are more areas that could be developed since this field is highly researched. When I took the class “ motivation and emotion” our professor presented research on how computers can be programmed to read emotions, and how they often fail miserable because the process of reading emotion in so complex. This would be a fun section to add. -Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? I think this article does a good job in its attempts to show research and then it’s criticisms. It does a better job than most articles. Neutral Content: -Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? I cannot. The article presents research and criticisms in several sections. -Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." I don’t see any areas with these statements that are not cited. -Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." The author does not because anywhere claims like these are stated there is a citation. -Does the article focuses too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. I admit this is the first article I’ve read with so much time given to criticisms, but I think it’s necessary as I know from taking the class “motivation and emotion” this is a difficult field to study. Reliable Sources: -Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? No. I found literally dozens of places where citations are needed. I do not see any places where the reliable sources are not reliable. -Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. There is quite a bit of research presented using Eckman. Although he was a primary researcher in this field I know there are other viewpoints that could be presented. Some of the early research done by Darwinw would be interesting. Or adding the Jamesian perspective which theorizes that the physical act of facial expressions are what creates emotions. The social constructivist view point is shown in this article, but there is so much research using this perspective that more could easily be added. -Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! There are many unsourced statements in this article. Adding citations would be an area of improvement. I checked several links and they support the information that was presented, and are credible, but many citations are missing. Share the Love: (After answering all those questions for the article, write a peer-review letter using the structure provided in the Share the Love section. Finally, paste your peer-review letter into the talk page for the article.) This is a fascinating article and there were several things that were done well. The article does a good job balancing research with its criticism. I think this is especially necessary because it’s a difficult field to conduct research in and much early research, done by people like Charles Darwin and James Lange, has been highly criticized or improved upon. I appreciate the sections on Sign Language and Eye Contact because they show how broad and complicated studies in this field are. Because research in this field dates back to 1872 when Darwin published his “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals”, I would consider structuring the article based on a research timeline. This would also create an opportunity to add to the historical research done by Darwin and create a section dedicated to the James Lange Theory of Emotion, which is highly criticized but important and unique to this field of research. There is also interesting contemporary research done by researchers like Reddan who have attempted to create computer software that can read emotions. As you can imagine this was a huge challenge, and most software failed. Adding a timeline would make the article easier to navigate and would make it more comprehensive by creating opportunities to add historical and contemporary studies. I think the single most important thing the author could do to improve this article would be creating a timeline. The article I have chosen to review, “The Effects of Stress on Memory” ,and this article, do not have many similarities. Unlike my article I found this article to be approachable to most readers because it is not too technical. Although it’s missing citations in several areas it has a strong list of reliable sources. I will have to follow-up with the improvements this team makes on this article as I find this field fascinating. Processing Fluency Follow their Lead: -Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? No. This article has two short sentences of information and needs to be re-written. According to Wikipedia good leads should not summarize the information in the article but rather summarize the content of the article. This is missing in this article. -Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? The lead does not give the reader enough information because it does not reflect any information contained within the article. -Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? It’s what is missing in the lead that shows it needs to be re-written. The lead does not cover the 5 W’s. A Clear Structure: -Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? This is a short article so it’s difficult to answer whether or not it’s organized well. Currently there is not enough informational sections to organize. I feel that more sections need to be added. A Balancing Act: -Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Again, this article is too short to answer these questions. This article contains Lead, Research and Applications sections. The Research section is the largest and the Lead and Application sections are short. To add to this article I would recommend re-writing the sections Lead and Applications. -Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? I do feel that the section on Research is well written in terms of the way the information is presented. I like the lead sentences, they give me an idea of what to expect in each paragraph. I have a clear understand of Processing Fluence after reading that section. There are good introductory sentences in every paragraph. I’d say that is a strong point in this article. There is only one neutral perspective in this article. I wonder if research is minimal on this subject? That would be an interesting section to add to this article: Limitation in research and ideas for future studies. Because the article presents how Fluency can affect judgments, maybe they can present an argument to this theory of it’s available in research. -Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No. I feel it presents the information without trying to persuade my point of view. Possibly because the article is neutral and does not present opposing viewpoints but rather presents research. Because the point of the article is to show how Fluency can change or impair judgements, possibly adding an opposing viewpoint to this could make it even more neutral. Neutral Content: -Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? The point of the article is to show that processing fluency can change or impair judgements. Based on the research that is presented, which supports that claim, I’d guess that the author supports this. -Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No -Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No -Does the article focuses too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. No. It’s focus is to present information on how fluency can impair judgement. It’s lacking on presenting information with an opposing viewpoint. Maybe that could be another section if there’s enough research to support this. Reliable Sources: -Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? The article only cites journal articles, with the exception of one Boston GLobe article on research, but there are several statements that are made without being connected to a source. -Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No I think there is a good assortment of research articles presented in this article. -Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! There are several sources personal statements, that I think contribute to a syntactical error. I checked several reference links and they were all presented accurately and worked fine. Share the Love: I’m impressed with this groups designated article because it’s content is engaging and relevant to the field of cognitive psychology. Although brief, I find the section on applications to be the most notable because it presents information regarding why processing fluency is important in business and marketing and how using it’s components can enhance these fields. This made me aware of why research in the area of fluency affecting judgement is important and how beneficial it is to our economy. Overall I felt the article is well-written and did not require much revision, but did need a well developed Lead (introduction) section, a few in-text citations and adding to the Additions sections. Concerning the Lead, Wikipedia recommends the lead to be about 1-4 paragraphs and should answer who, what, when, where and why. I think writing the Lead will be a challenge for this group for this reason: there is not enough sections contained within the article to develop a Lead under these guidelines, therefore my recommendations would depend on how the group plans to proceed in the articles development. If the group is planning to develop additional sections for this article then the Lead will be easy to develop because wikipedia states that a good Lead does not summarize the topic, but summarizes the article itself. If the group does not to add sections to the article the Lead could still benefit from a more thorough summary of the Research and Application sections. Concerning the single most important thing the group could do to improve their article I think they could choose from two things, 1-Adding to the Applications section which would make the article more engaging by showing how research in the field is important to real-life, or 2- developing a good Lead by summarizing the information contained within the two sections, or possible more sections if they plan to add additional sections to the article. The article I’ve chosen to review “The effects of Stress on Memory”, suffers some of the same developmental errors that this groups article suffers from. Both articles need a well developed Lead, both articles are missing in-text citations in places that should contain sources and both are in need of additional sections. Furthermore, both articles contain information that is important, one article information is important in the field of business and marketing and the other is important in the field of mental health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatiePetti (talk • contribs) 13:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)