Talk:Boomerang effect (psychology)

Boomerang effect (psychology) was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 3, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2013. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)/Psychology 220A (Fall, 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 27 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mitchellweed (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Treyj96.

Streisand effect

This seems related to the Streisand effect. --Shanedidona (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and merger

Here's what I just wrote in the DYK review:

I am not sure that the article has a solid foundation. The basic idea seems to be to equate the boomerang effect with reactance (psychology) but that would make it a redundant content fork. But if you look at the history of the article, one finds that it started as a general account of boomerang effects, i.e. when an action backfires and is counterproductive. This is surely the general meaning of the phrase and we even have the concept on Wikipedia - see WP:BOOMERANG.

The article states that "Hovland, Janis and Kelly first recorded and named boomerang effect in 1953." but this strong claim is supported only by a citation of their own paper and that's not good enough. I find that Robert K. Merton identified multiple types of boomerang effect in his study of WW2 propaganda in 1949 - see Media And Audiences. That sociologist seems prominent in the study of such unintended consequences and it might be best for this article to be folded into that one again.

Andrew (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boomerang effect (psychology)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment from AmericanLemming

Hello. I don't mean to usurp ChrisGualtieri's role as the main reviewer for this article, but one thing that immediately pops out at me is that the lead is not an adequate summary of the article. I would suggest expanding it to be a least one full paragraph, but no more than two full paragraphs, based on the article's length. Just trying to give you something to do while the reviewer completes his review. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got my review to post up tomorrow on my paper, but that is one of issues. I got a more complete review, but no worries. I don't worry about the comments, they always help. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Good Article Checklist

Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Disambig links: No issues
Reference check: No issues

Comments: The article suffers from prose issues and psychological terms that come up as jargon to the reader, that makes the content impenetrable to the layman reader. Though a problem with word choice, grammar and descriptions of the material are sorely in need of a thorough copyedit before tackling the content itself. The writing is sufficiently troublesome to merit its pause. The explanations and theories are in need of inline citations as well, as they are questionable or contentious to readers. This review can be continued after these initial issues are resolved. I'll place it on hold for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If no comments are made within 48 hours, I will fail this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too abstract and scientific

Not an easy read. Lots of specific psychological terms and too few examples, and even those that are cited are not clearly explained. I still don't know if the kids ate their veggies, in what ways managers went easy on the loyalty programs, and what about health messages increased drinking and how this was offset. Wikipedia is not primarily supposed to be an entertainment source but sadly, I didn't really get the interesting and digestible information out of it I was looking for, either. 37.161.195.191 (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@37.161.195.191: I reworded the lead; does it look better? Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why are we calling it reactance?

Reactance specifically refers to a percieved or actual threat of or limiting to a freedom. As an example if I take a toy away from a child and they want it back that's reactance. The ability to play with the toy is the freedom at risk. The boomerang effect you could argue is a facet of reactance or is derived from it. 68.82.9.34 (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Theories of Persuasion

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 04noodle, Emiann1x1 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bobcatterthenatt01, Mrkite412, Accountname43, Franklyn101.

— Assignment last updated by Franklyn101 (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current Research

These results can further be seen in more recent data. A study was conducted in 2022 (released in 2023) by Alex Kresovich about the influence of pop music artists who discuss mental health problems with their younger audiences. The study had two aims. The survey was used to experiment if contemporary pop music artists would be the most efficient spokespeople about this issue. They also experimented with the type of language used.

They tried two types: direct versus mistargeted (referring to the audience as "you" versus more personally as a friend). The findings suggest that using celebrities in public service messages to discuss mental health issues like depression and advocating for support would cause the boomerang effect in its reached audience. In fact, using this strategy with celebrities as the spokesperson would increase the stigmatized beliefs in the US youth (ages 16-24).

Another action of the study showed the celebrities were to use more positive associations to depression in order to view it more positively. However, this action led to an increase in stigma and depression romanticizing from the young audience, both of which are consequential responses to the public health campaign (35). Emiann1x1 (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Theories of Persuasion Spring 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 26 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WesDig11, $unflower93 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Plizington, Lawflower21, Icedcoffee14, Hellomuffin.

— Assignment last updated by Lawflower21 (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

I think that this article contains loads of in depth information pertaining to the boomerang effect. I think there is some room for improvement in some areas however. There is a lack of graphics on this wikipedia page, I know that it may be difficult to depict the boomerang effect, but images/graphics would help make the article feel less wordy by breaking up the long sections of text. I think that there is also room to improve upon the Deliberate Exploitation section, why is reverse psychology mentioned so briefly when it almost like a complete opposite to the boomerang effect. I feel as though an interesting section could be comparing and contrasting the two. Plizington (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

The lead of the article is a bit difficult to understand. The definition feels too wordy, is not concise enough, and honestly looks like ramblings. The rest of the article has numerous spelling and grammatical errors, run-on sentences, and lack of proper citations.

People should always be cited with their first and last names the very first time they are mentioned in an article and can be cited with just their last name afterwards. Citations should always come after the end of a sentence, not in the middle of them.

Much of the article feels like the author was trying too hard to paraphrase and makes the article extremely lengthy in areas where it doesn't have to be. Hellomuffin (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]