Talk:Attentional bias

message: Hi,
The article has no lead section per WP:LEAD. It also uses words like "we" address the reader and are not encyclopedic in tone. Also, it starts out with a general description of "Attentional bias", but then has several sections focused on smoking, and then ends with a general section on "Neurological basis" which seems to refer to Attentional bias in general, but both sources refer to smoking. Is a better title for this article "Attention bias and smoking"? Also the style manual for articles on wikipedia is not being followed. For example, only the first letter of a section heading should be capitalized. And the use of the box in the lead seems inappropriate and doesn't follow WP:LEAD.  MathewTownsend (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with all this, plus you don't start the article with a definition of attentional bias. Lova Falk talk 15:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues needing to be addressed in the article 

message: I propose that Selective perception be merged into Attentional Bias. To me they seem the same thing. Spannerjam</sub> 16:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. No, they are not the same, but the definition of selective perception is not a good one, and neither is its source. Selective perception is the tendency for expectations to affect perception, whereas attentional bias is the tendency to pay attention to emotionally dominant stimuli and neglect the other ones. So instead of merging, I suggest improving Selective perception. Lova Falk talk 07:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Oppose but merge Selective perception to Confirmation bias instead. To me selective perception and Confirmation bias seem to be the same thing. --Spannerjam 18:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oppose on myself. Selective perception differs from confirmation bias because the definition of selective perception also includes more quickly forgetting a certain type of stimuli. --Spannerjam 08:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: My edit today made the following corrections, prompted by User:JohnDT's comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology:
*Between paragraphs and sections, there should be a single blank line, as multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article; see MOS:LINEBREAKS.
*Punctuation (except dashes) always goes before reference tags, with no intervening space; see MOS:REFPUNCT.
*I removed numerous piped links where they were not necessary; see WP:NOPIPE. I also removed underscores from links since spaces are preferred to underscores in article space, per WP:PNAME#Spaces, underscores and character coding.
*I inserted description lists (definition lists) where they seemed to be appropriate; see MOS:DEFLIST.
*I removed the sentence "Attentional systems are split into three separate subsystems: attentional shifting, engagement, and disengagement" from the lead paragraph (and I removed the associated reference) because there was no explanation of why the sentence was relevant to the definition of attentional bias. You can reinsert the sentence elsewhere in the article with a further explanation of how it relates to attentional bias, if you wish.
I have only corrected the obvious problems noted above, and I have not read the entire article through for other issues such as grammar, logic, and style; on these issues see, e.g., WP:COPYEDIT.
I moved the section on attentional bias in addictive disorders to be adjacent to the section on attentional bias in decision making, followed by the methodological issues in attentional bias research. I think the article would benefit by having an "Overview" section immediately following the lead paragraph that would succinctly summarize the subject in more detail than the lead paragraph provides.
I would strongly recommend that you should include particular page numbers when you cite sources. You can do this using Template:Rp next to ref tags, if you wish. I have not inserted Template:Page needed, but I could have, because there are many instances where page numbers are needed.
Normally I would not explain all my changes as I have done here, but since User:JohnDT is a new user who requested help, I thought that this explanation might serve a didactic purpose. Biogeographist (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections, 3 April 2017 

message: "Abstinence from smoking created a slower reaction time, but a smoke break between study sessions showed increased reaction time."
This can simply be explained by the psychoactive effects of nicotine/tobacco. Trying to associate this with anything else, without acknowledging the effects of nicotine, is ridiculous
This Wikipedia entry should eliminate or completely separate the use of this theory for anxiety/mental health issues and drug addiction.. By default, any kind of psychoactive drug would make it impossible to have a conclusive resultm 2600:1001:B014:52CA:0:4:CE09:D401 (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The smoking study is absolute nonsense