Talk:Barnum effect

message: I noticed a later section of the article that gave information on later studies. However, it was not immediately obvious which studies produced these conclusions. Anyone with an expertise on the subject care to add the references? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Later Studies

message: As the term "Barnum effect" seems to be much more popular than "Forer effect" (e.g., 20.000 vs 600 results in Google and only 90 for the personal validation fallacy), we should perhaps consider changing the title of the article. In all cases, there should be more consistency in the use of the term throughout wikipedia. For example, the List of cognitive biases refers to Barner whereas Selective thinking refers to Forer. Dragice 09:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Daniel 13:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article had more information, I'd agree. I teach my students about the Barnum effect. However, this article doesn't have much information. It's largely taken up by Forer's description. It needs more information, like outside sources referencing the Barnum effect, before we bother moving it. Doczilla 15:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Six years later, the article alleges that "The Forer effect is more frequently referred to as The Barnum Effect." - even if it doesn't have much to say about Barnum, if it's agreed to be the WP:COMMONNAME for the effect, the article title should reflect that. --McGeddon (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be weakly opposed to moving the article to Barnum effect. We should make a determined effort to use particularly Reliable Sources when determining what name to use. I suspect that we'll find a balance of usage, between "forer effect", "barnum effect", "barnum statements", and fallacy of "personal validation" or "subjective validation". In the text of the article, we should make this clear, and give details as to the origin and overtones of each "name". Number of googlehits is insufficient, for this decision. –Quiddity (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

text: It's not a contradiction if he was just famous for saying things like this in general.--173.238.223.80 (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia's naming policy is neutral and should not be influenced by a desire, however noble or well-intentioned, to honor an individual for their work. For better and for worse the "Barnum Effect" is by far the more common description, and thus, WP:COMMONNAME dictates we adhere to that - as has already been noted above. That's why earlier proposals to move the page failed. --Katangais (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Barnum or Forer?

message: Changed the reference to P. T. Barnum from "a notorious scam artist" to "a notorious hoaxer" - the former was simply untrue. If anyone needs further reading, see here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.44.106 (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: P. T. Barnum - a hoaxer, not a scam artist

message: Potentially slightly off topic but, er, these Forer Demonstration list things sound a lot like fortune cookie fortunes from the 1960s and perhaps even today -- the reason being readily apparent. Would anyone like to trace the relationship in the main article or the one for fortune cookies? FurnaldHall (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation to Fortune Cookie Fortunes

message: Is the first syllable long or short?
:short. JoeSmack Talk 18:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: I changed the wording of the text under the "Horoscopes" heading for clarity. The sentence, I presume, is referring to horoscope interpretations often done in printed publications like newspapers and the like. The horoscope article, on the other hand, focuses almost entirely on the diagram of the same name. It seems, therefore, inconsistent to say that there are perceived predictive powers in newspaper horoscopes when the linked article is about something entirely different, which is why I felt it better to distinguish between the two. Sam 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So does that make sense? Sam 17:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... in common usage, "horoscope" refers to those bits in newspapers in which astrological predictions are made. In other words, what the sentence is saying is: 'horoscopes are popular in the media because people are fooled by the Forer effect'. In view of this, "interpretations" doesn't fit well IMO. I take your point about wikilinking to horoscope though - perhaps we should leave it unlinked? Or link to Wikitionary? Mikker (...) 02:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I realize this is a lot of wind for such a small thing. If no one else has any thoughts I'll just drop it. Sam 17:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording regarding horoscopes

message: Rather than write in something that I can't immediately validate.  I do however recall reading about "Cold Reading" (which makes "good" use of the Forer Effect) where it says that people are generally more likely to accept negative criticism as accurate in relation to how authoritive the presentor is.
That is, if it's just some random person, they're significantly more likely to discredit negative information immediately.  But if you say that it's a computer program designed by a team of Ph.D.s that is infallible, they're much more likely to accept negative information.
So, I'm thinking of wording the "as long as most of the information is positive" in the variables for effectiveness to something similar to "as long as there is a high amount of positive information or perceived authority in the process." --Puellanivis 00:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I recall... 

message: As it's written now, there's no evidence that Forer's students exhibited the Forer effect. If they were merely asked to rate how well the 'analysis' applied to them, OF COURSE they gave it a high rating  -- it really is an excellent description of what it means to be a human being. But there's no evidence in the article that any of the students was duped into thinking that the statement was specifically TAILORED for him/her as opposed to others. Doops |  talk 05:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing. Technically Forer asked them to rate their results for accuracy, but just how specific he was about what that means we can't know. What about the original study- has anybody here read it? (There seem to be no online copies, which is understandable considering the year the thing was published, and whatnot). -AceMyth 04:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What were Forer's students rating? 

message: I added "Aunt Fanny effect" to the list of names it is known by. I also created a page with that title and redirected it to this one. Amit@Talk 15:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aunt Fanny Effect 

message: I messaged the author of that site a few months ago, but it doesn't seem that he's gotten around to fixing it yet.
As it is, the autotest is deeply flawed, as it gives 1 point for very poor - meaning that even if you rank every statement as completely untrue, it will still claim that it was "20% correct". I suggested moving the points down by 1 for each rank, and he did agree with that, but again, it doesn't seem like he's gotten to fixing it.
I believe there should be some kind of note explaining to readers that the test is not truly representative of the experiment because of this flaw.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The autotest 

message: This link is in the See Also section, but seems to have nothing to do with this page. Can anyone else see a reason to keep the link? MagiMaster (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann]] 

message: Isn't religious counselling generally done on a one-on-one basis, where the local religious leader gets to know the members of his "flock" and help them individually? Regardless of whether religious counselling is actually helpful, I don't see how religious counselling utilizes the Barnum effect.--173.238.223.80 (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious Counselling?

message: Studies to be examined regarding the Forer [Barnum] Effect:
-Claridge, G., Clark, K., Powney, E., & Hassan, E. (2008). Schizotypy and the barnum effect. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(2), 436-444. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.006
-Mason, O. J., & Budge, K. (2011). Schizotypy, self-referential thinking and the barnum effect. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 42(2), 145-148. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2010.11.003
-MacDonald, D. J., & Standing, L. G. (2002). Does self-serving bias cancel the barnum effect? Social Behavior and Personality, 30(6), 625-630. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2002.30.6.625
-Snyder, C. R., Shenkel, R. J., & Lowery, C. R. (1977). Acceptance of personality interpretations: The "barnum effect" and beyond. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(1), 104-114. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.45.1.104
-Poškus, M. S. (2014). A new way of looking at the barnum effect and its links to personality traits in groups receiving different types of personality feedback. Psichologija, 50, 95–105. Retrieved from http://www.vu.lt/leidyba//dokumentai/zurnalai/PSICHOLOGIJA/Psichologija%202014%2050/95-1050.pdf
(the theoretical model from the article is allready uploaded, but I can't make corrections to the Forer effect page, because I'm assumed to be biased) Mykolas Poskus (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This To Do list is really good.  I'd like to see these changes implemented. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: To Do List for Editing

message: I propose that Subjective validation be merged into Forer effect. They are the same thing. Even footnote number two says so in the Subjective validation article. Spannerjam 07:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above editor that there are enough reliable, secondary sources that mention the Forer effect (sometimes under the name Barnum effect) that there is warrant here for a stand-alone article. Subjective evaluation is a broader, and indeed closely related, topic, and it of course also warrants a stand-alone article. I'll look for more secondary sources to follow up on the suggestions shown on this talk page of primary research literature on the Forer effect. See the general  reliable sources content guideline on why to prefer secondary sources, and especially see the specialized  content guideline on medicine-related articles, which fits very well for articles on psychology, for why secondary sources are the sources to look for as we collaborate in  fixing this article. Thanks for your comments. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The section with the list from the Diagnostic Interest Blank is in violation of copyright. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors  (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? It says he assembled it from an astrology book. Planetjanet (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Violation 

message: randi is a massive figure in this area (public education about trickery, including this specifically) and has been through most of the 20th century. i haven't got the time to start the work & do it all, but i figure mentioning it here might bootstrap randi references where needed. along with harry houdini and penn & teller & other figures who have sorta collectively formed pillars of a skepticism community.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.178.115 (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  james the amazing randi 

message: I honestly have no idea what "Self-serving bias has been shown to cancel the Forer effect" means. From reading the section it seems that self-serving bias could be an explanatory factor for the Barnum effect, as the vague statements people tend to believe are usually positive, or at least not negative. I can't think of any way that it would "cancel" the Barnum effect, or what that would even mean. I read the abstract of the study that was used as a source and was left none the wiser. There's an unexplained gap between the description of the study and the conclusion. The self-serving bias article doesn't mention Barnum effect. I'd be glad if this section was clarified. 80.220.74.45 (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-serving bias "canceling" the Barnum effect 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Well Effect and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 31#Well Effect until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Xurizuri (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Well Effect" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I've just cleaned out a lot of primary research papers from the article. A reliable source (by Wikipedia standards, not by academic standards) for supporting a scientific claim is generally going to be a review or meta-analysis article. To that end, here is a list of reviews (some of which are already used in the article):
* 
*
* 
*  (arguably a review prior to the description of the magician)
*  (examines a set of effects, one of which is the Barnum effect)
Entries in reliable encyclopaedias can also be used:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
--Xurizuri (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review papers for use in the article