Talk:Self-enhancement

Hi. I have updated the content on the self-enhancement page. I have tried to include all the material that was already there but have used more sections and tried to add to the content significantly. Hope everyone approves! Amy Cridge 21:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy Cridge (talk • contribs)

Wow, I'm really impressed at the enormous volume of material, including images and tables, that you've added. Basing it on more than 170 academic references, as you've done, is also very impressive. I think you've taken a major step towards making this a highly rated article. I haven't the chance right now to do a thorough review, but in improving it further I think you need to concentrate on keeping an encyclopedic tone to keep in line with Wikipedia's style:

Don't use "you". E.g. rephrase "whilst you may not gain outright from self-protection, you do not incur the negativity either"
Don't use questions in the text, e.g. "However is this motive always a practical one?" Make a statement instead of a question.
Make sure you explain technical terms when they first occur, e.g. Diagnosticity. Remember that people will be reading this article who read English, but don't know these technical terms.
You don't need "Self-enhancement" in the headings: it's already implicit. You can just have "Outcomes" as a heading for example, and it's clear to the reader that this means "Outcomes of self-enhancement."

I know these might seem arbitrary, but they are requirements of style here on wikipedia. Well done once again. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have made several changes in accordance with some of the comments you provided above, thanks for those! Amy Cridge 15:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy Cridge (talk • contribs)

Heine vs. Sedikides Debate

I don't think the timeline belongs in this article. It's a shame, since obviously a lot of work has been put into it. However, the article needs to focus on explaining self-enhancement using research, not explaining the research itself in terms of details like its publication dates. Psychology isn't about psychologists. I hope the timeline can be used in some other article, maybe a sub-article on cultural differences in self image. I'm moving the timeline out of the article and preserving it here:

In the past decade each author has published in response to each others findings, as listed below.

MartinPoulter (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-enhancing triad

I question the need for so much material in this article on the "self-enhancing triad" of positive illusions. They need to be mentioned, but I think there can be less detail. The positive illusions have multiple explanations, not just in terms of self-enhancement, and we already have adequate articles on them. I note that this article was improved as part of an educational assignment, and that the course included a lot about the self-enhancing triad. That gives an incentive for a student to include it, even though it may not be central to understanding what the self-enhancement motive is. If I see more about positive illusions in the sources that specifically explain self-enhancement, then I'll change my mind. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]