Talk:Forer effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Later Studies

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)

[edit] Barnum or Forer?

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)

Agreed. Daniel 13:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Pronunciation

Is the first syllable long or short?

short. JoeSmack Talk 18:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording regarding horoscopes

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)

So does that make sense? Sam 17:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
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)

Right, but I don't think we should assume our audience does not include specialists who will cast a doubtful eye at such a generalization. A horoscope (that is, the diagram) is the very basis of what is considered "real" astrology (as opposed to the simple "horoscopes" in newspapers) and as such, I think a distinction should be made. One is a diagram that does not inherently claim anything: it merely is a map of celestial bodies and other points. The "horoscope" in common usage is the one claiming to have predictive power. Sam 17:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] I recall...

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)

[edit] What were Forer's students rating?

This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.

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)


In the article it says the teacher gave a personality test beforehand and then gave them the exact same description, so they were duped. Tissueissue 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Tissueissue


Hmm, I was thinking the same thing as Doops. If the test was conducted the way its explained here, it realy doesnt prove anything. Most people would rate that analysis 4 or 5 but it doesnt say whether they thought it singled them out from other people? --Apis O-tang 01:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Aunt Fanny Effect

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)

[edit] The autotest

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)