Talk:Closure (psychology)

Satirical and bitter?

Is it just me, or is this page extremely satirical and bitter?

Derrick Coetzee 03:26, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yea, it seems pretty silly --Taak 23:51, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

And it is under a ridiculous title. Whatever it ought to be under (if anything), it certainly shouldn't be "sociology". "Social psychology" just maybe, "psychobabble" would be better. Tannin 00:25, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It would be just regular psych, not social psych. --Taak 01:20, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the way it's written is silly. Michael Hardy 22:08, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not silly -- it's really just a part of heuristics and biases (article "Need for Closure"), and belongs in all sciences. It's a legitimate and observable error in decision making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SheetWise (talk • contribs) 18:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closure (science and technology studies)

The addition on closure in STS doesn't really seem to belong in a page Closure (Psychology).... perhaps we need a disambiguation page and a new article for the STS stuff?Bryan 16:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed taken out.--Dwarf Kirlston 00:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term is also used in social construction of technology (SCOT) as described by Wiebe Bijker, Trevor Pinch and John Law, among others. The focus of SCOT-studies is to examine the ways in which technological artifacts, which are part of broader technological systems, are socially constructed by so-called relevant social groups or actors. This in essence often means explaining why an artifact looks the way it does. Closure here refers to the end of the process of social construction, meaning that the artifact no longer goes through dramatic changes. Bijker has exemplified this with the development of the bicycle.

References (closure in technological change)

Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other. Social Studies of Science, 14, 388–441.
Misa, T. J. (1992). Controversy and Closure in Technological Change: Constructing "Steel". In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (pp. 109–139). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Old Harry's Game

To quote satan in Old Harry's Game: "Did someone just use the word 'closure' - where's that sledgehammer?"

Merger proposal

It looks like Cognitive closure (psychology) is a stub which just means the same thing as this. Merge? CRETOG8(t/c) 20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. Cogiati (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive closure

Cognitive closure should be split off into a separate article. Its definition in the article is not consistent with IR theory, for example, as discussed by Lebow in the below article.

Richard Ned Lebow, “Cognitive Closure and Crisis Politics,” in Between Peace and War (1957) pp. 101-119

Cognitive closure is an important phenomenon to consider in examining crisis situtations. I believe Graham Allison discusses this in Essense of Decision—examining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lebow analyses this concept using the July Crisis in 1918 (the events leading to WWI). The sentence in this article covers none of that, and is set within an article that is unrelated. Airborne84 (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive closure

Cognitive closure should be split off into a separate article. Its definition in the article is not consistent with IR theory, for example, as discussed by Lebow in the below article.

Richard Ned Lebow, “Cognitive Closure and Crisis Politics,” in Between Peace and War (1957) pp. 101-119

Cognitive closure is an important phenomenon to consider in examining crisis situtations. I believe Graham Allison discusses this in Essense of Decision—examining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lebow analyses this concept using the July Crisis in 1918 (the events leading to WWI). The sentence in this article covers none of that, and is set within an article that is unrelated. Airborne84 (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.89.125 (talk) [reply]

Opaque statement

The article says: <In studies on creativity, individuals with high need-for-closure ratings had low creativity scores. High scorers more frequently produced novel solutions that motivated and inspired others in their groups,...> Does "high scorers" mean high scorers on need-for-closure or high scorers on creativity? If the former, the first sentence contradicts the second sentence. If the latter, the second sentence seems to have nothing to do with closure. Perhaps "high scorers" should be changed to "individuals with low need for-closure ratings"? Herbsttag (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I don't have access to the article so I don't know either. I guess "high scorers" means high scorers on creativity, because in the sentence before the term "creativity scores" is used, compared to "need-for-closure ratings". Anyway, changing the text in the way you propose without having access to the source, doesn't feel quite right. Hopefully someone comes around who does have access to the source! Lova Falk talk 11:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]