Talk:Personality psychology

message: This section (Philosophical assumptions) includes no references. Given the lack of sources, why is it so prominent (e.g., the first section, and a major section)?  These might be useful dimensions, but there are others. Moreover, the 'versus' structure is misleading. Different theories may emphasize one end more than the other, but most recognize a role for both (e.g., nature and nurture).  Finally, I hope to return and clarify this, but I think this structure (i.e., these particular dimensions) may be lifted from a textbook (potentially plagiarism, or close paraphrasing), possibly Walter Mischel's.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayzzee (talk • contribs) 05:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for finding this. I think you have a good argument that this page is plagiarized. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical assumptions 

message: I have removed the following text from the "personality theories" section for the time being:
Critics of personality theory claim personality is "plastic" across time, places, moods, and situations.
Changes in personality may indeed result from diet (or lack thereof), medical effects, significant events, or learning. However, most personality theories emphasize stability over fluctuation. The definition of personality that is most widely supported to date is attributed to the neurologist Paul Roe. He stated personality to be "an individual's predisposition to think certain patterns of thought, and therefore engage in certain patterns of behaviour".
I think the criticism needs to be included somewhere, but not right at the start of this section and a proper citation is needed. The definition attributed to Paul Roe seems pretty reasonable, but I'm not clear who Paul Roe actually is or where this definition came from. I have replaced the text with a definition from an undergraduate textbook. Smcg8374 (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition in Theories section 

message: Personality and Social Media
In recent years, social media sites have become extremely prevalent, especially among adolescents and young adults. In response to this rapid increase in online social networking, the influences in these sites must be considered when studying individual’s personality development. Various psychological theories and studies demonstrate how social media may affect personality, including how personality can shapes one’s social media use and also inversely how social media use can shape one’s personality. Understanding the relationship between social media and personality can reveal how social networking sites and other forms of social media may have both a positive and negative influence on their users’ personalities, including socialization effects, personal effects, and personality disorders.
Theoretical Implications
•	Erikson’s Identity Formation
•	Five Factor Model
o	Extraversion
o	Neuroticism
o	Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness
•	Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs
•	Attachment Theory
•	Need For Cognition (NFC)
Social Effects 
•	Media Violence
•	Socialization 
o	Positive/Negative Socialization
o	Interpersonal Competency 
Positive Influences 
•	Multitasking
•	Active Engaging
•	Innovation
Associated Personality Disorders 
•	Addiction
•	Egocentrism/Narcissism 
•	Depression
•	Anti-Social Personality Disorder
•	A.D.D/A.D.H.D
o	Distractions  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduhe (talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personality and Social Media 

message: As part of a Senior Psychology course at Clemson University I will be editing and expanding this page. I am new to Wikipedia so any advice would be much appreciated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmr14260 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome Kmr14260! Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay. Wikipedia articles should not be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 15:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Advice

message: Just letting everyone know I have made a few small changes to the page and I have also added a section on Evolutionary Personality Psychology.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmr14260 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'm not, by any means, an expert in the field (I just happen to watch it on my watchlist), I'd say your changes and additions look good. Keep up the good work and good luck with your course! :) FallingGravity (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Changes

message: Out of curiosity, from the views of some editors more experienced with this subject, how applicable is that template?
#It seems a good deal of the page has been cited, as other talksections have noted.
#I'm not entirely sure whether the MoS issues have been addressed, nor the OR, because I've skimmed - (but there's nothing that seems to obviously stand out, apart from the one section already flagged as a how-to)
#The lists and whatnot can be copyedited, so that's less of an issue, although I do still see them.
#*This is what I intend to do if this is an appropriate time; and why I ask for this confirmation on the first two content issues.
Anyway - please let me know whether the content issues have been addressed to suitable levels, in order to update the state of the cleanup and ensure it co-ordinates with y'all editors here. Thanks. Techhead7890 (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot to read the GA review. Silly me. Looks like there's nothing broken with the verifiability and accuracy of existing content then, even if that was 2 years ago, and I guess I'll start work tomorrow on a copyedit, and update the template to be more accurate. If you have any suggestions or whatnot to watch, then leave them below here. Techhead7890 (talk) 11:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Techhead7890! As I explained in my edit summary, I thought that the article was not at all in such a  bad shape that it needed a template on top. Still, as you noticed, there are some issues. I made a todo list with the help of the text of the cleanup-template and the text of the GA-review. I'm sure you can improve on this list. Lova Falk talk 10:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup template from Apr 2012 and viability of copyedit 

message: This talk page is pretty long, and contains material from as long ago as 2005. I propose to archive everything prior to the Good Article review, which was done two years ago, in December, 2011. There are a few items from after that time that were erroneously put at the start of the page. I'd relocate them to their proper chronological sequence. 
I'll leave this open for a few days to see if there are any objections. (Remember, when material is archived, it is still easily available. It's just out of the way.) Lou Sander (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Lou Sander! Great plan! Please feel free to do so. With friendly regards! Lova Falk talk 18:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Lou Sander (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lova Falk talk 09:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Personality psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110415060017/http://www.psychometrics.ppsis.cam.ac.uk:80/page/255/mypersonality-database.htm to http://www.psychometrics.ppsis.cam.ac.uk/page/255/mypersonality-database.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello everyone,
I have just added a section to the article which focuses on the drive theory of personality as proposed by Dollard and Miller in the 1930s. I have done the research for this portion of the article in the context of a personality psychology course. Please let me know if anything is missing. 
Thank you. Phaedrus101 (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added sections on drive theory 

message: Is there a specific reason why there is no mention or discussion of the Big Five personality traits? It’s the most rigorous typology and used in social science. --Reagle (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no big 5?