User talk:Leytp/sandbox

I think the edits so far on this page are good. I like that you corrected the additive/subtractive to upward/downward counterfactual thinking and explained what those are in a way that makes sense to the lay reader. I also thought it was great that you elevated some of the language to make the sentences make more sense while still appealing to the lay reader. It's hard to tell if three overall edits have been made. Thus far, it seems like the only changes addressed were in relation to the upward/downward counterfactual thinking and cleaning up the example of the olympic medals. I'm not sure if you guys have other ideas in mind on what to change, but I think you have a good start so far and that the language is wikipedia appropriate. Keep it up! Jdinuoscio (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I really liked the changes made to line 86. The wording is much more concise and easy to understand, definitely matches the wikipedia writing style much better than it did before. I also agree with Jdinuoscio's comment that adding the upward/downward section makes it a lot easier to understand. However, my one suggestion would maybe try to connect the upward/downward section to the additive/subtractive section, just to make it a little clearer to understand how they are different from each other. Other than that I really liked all the changes you made to the wording and I think you're doing a great job! Kayesmak (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A strength is that in the section of types of counterfactuals, direction was added to show that there are distinctions in counterfactual thinking. Another constructive change was in the examples section, downward versus upward counterfactual thinking was more clearly defined. The Wikipedia page is clear, concise and easy to comprehend. The organization of the page does make sense, but the types of counterfactuals could be linked to the theories that describe the type. For example, to explain self-focused vs. other-focused counterfactuals, Construal Level Theory gives an explanation to the phenomenon. Construal Level Theory contains a component called the social distance theory which states that as a person’s psychological distance (self- reference point from an object) increases, he or she thinks of that object more abstractly. This demonstrates why people produce more counterfactuals for themselves than for others.

One weakness is the need to provide examples to explain concepts. Give an example in the Upward vs. Downward counterfactual thinking section. You could say an upward counterfactual thought is, “If I would have brushed my teeth, then I wouldn’t have gotten a cavity.” A downward counterfactual thought could be, “Although I got a cavity, at least I did not have to have oral surgery.” Also a recent evidence section could be added which could show the current work that is being performed with counterfactual thinking and how it can be applied to the real world. Rim and Summerville (2014) recently published a paper demonstrating the effect that temporal distance has on counterfactual thinking. Another interesting study was by Scholl and Sassenberg (2014) that showed the effects that power has on counterfactual thinking. Jbo235 (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Jbo235

The edits here are quite minimal and make only a very small addition to the depth of the article. The addition of counterfactual direction is the main substantive addition, and I'd echo the reviewers in encouraging you to add an example (either from a paper or hypothetical)-- you might also consider linking out to the regret page when talking about upward counterfactuals. On the whole the quality of the writing is quite clear, and you've made very nice edits to improve the clarity and brevity of existing text. Consider whether there is more information that you can add in your next revision. Regretscholar (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)