Talk:Mood repair strategies

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Biola University supported by APSWI and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable source tags

I've been working through the sources to work out which claims are primary and which are secondary, but it seems it needs to be explained here first. So fair enough.

In regard to Lischetzke (2006) "Why Extraverts Are Happier Than Introverts: The Role of Mood Regulation", the paper is looking at the difference in mood regulation between extraverts and introverts. Clearly it is a primary source for any claim in regard to that research. However, the first part of the paper (pp 1127-1132) is a literature review of prior research into the field. In this WP article the paper is only used in relation to the literature review, so for that claim it can reasonably be seen as a secondary source, so I don't see it as a problem there.
The second paper, Detweiler-Bedell & Salovey, (2003) "Striving for happiness or fleeing from sadness? Motivating mood repair using differentially framed messages" is generally being used for claims for which it is a primary sources. Thus in most cases it doesn't seem to be a valid choice given that it is being used to support factual claims in relation to the author's research. The exception is "They are commonly assigned as homework by therapists in order to help positively impact individuals who are experiencing dysphoria or depression." While a single quote isn't available, the first part of the article (pp 628-630) is a summary discussing mood repair and homework in regard to cognitive therapy. For that I don't see it as unreliable - the various claims are supported by references, rather than original research. That's separate to other places where it is used in the article - it only seems to be a reasonable source for the single claim, and is a primary source where it is used elsewhere. - Bilby (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #1, Lischetzke

The text cited to PMID 16787431 is:

Extensive listing and studying of these techniques started in the mid 1990's. It has primarily focused on the differences in the individuals to whom the mood repair strategies are given and how the strategies prove effective on each type of person. While various personality types may be more receptive to mood repair strategies it appears that there has been some success in working with all types of individuals.

By the way, it should be 1990s, not 1990's.
What does "it" refer to? What does "listing" mean?
In general the text is incomprehensible, so a quotation from the source will help to sort this. It would help to have comprehensible text in the article, but "It appears that" ... "all types of invidividuals" are broad statements that cannot be based on primary sources and should be sourced to a general, recent, broader review.

Please provide here on talk the relevant portions of the paper, including the discussion sections with methodological limitations and issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #2, Detweiler

The text cited to that non-Pubmed-indexed paper is:

Various mood repair strategies are most commonly used in cognitive therapy. They are commonly assigned as homework by therapists in order to help positively impact individuals who are experiencing dysphoria or depression.

Note the link to major depressive disorder (an easter egg link for depression-- what are we telling the reader?)
Various strategies are most commonly used in CT? I don't know what that is attempting to say.
Then we see "commonly" again in the next sentence, with a claim that these (ill-defined at this point) strategies are effective in Major depressive disorder, when there is plenty of evidence that CBT is not effective in severe depression.
If this article wants to make claims about efficacy of individual strategies in specific conditions, it needs to use review sources. There are some in the article Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).
And finally, the cited source does not verify the text in the article; the "Homework" section of the cited paper does not mention severe or major depression, and it specifically discussed CBT (which is effective for milder depression) and does not cover any of whatever this vague "various strategies" are-- it mentions CBT for unipolar depression. I suspect such issues are throughout this article, which is yet another reason it should be written to recent high-quality secondary reviews rather than a patching together of primary or less than high quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think I'll just drop it at this stage. I had hoped to help you to fix the problems you had identified, but if I have to fight for every claim in the article I think I'd be better off just going elsewhere. I'm not that interested in the topic. Hopefully you or someone else will be more inclined to handle the issues. Thankyou for your comments. Hopefully they'll prove useful. - Bilby (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even convinced (yet) that there's a valid article here, and don't yet know that it's even fixable. Review sources would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great topic, sloppy writing

I found this article interesting but the writing is really quite bad. You either need to use an acronym for Mood repair strategies or you need to mention it less. Also, the word "individual" is overused to the point of confusion. Use a pronoun sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.255.137 (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mood repair strategies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140601002903/http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/jjoormann/publications/joormann_siemer_2004.pdf to http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/jjoormann/publications/joormann_siemer_2004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]