MEMORANDUM
To: Claire Eccles
From: Hilton Ma
Date: October 5, 2020
Subject: Peer Review of ‘Cognitive Dissonance’
Hello Claire,
This is my peer review after having read your definition of ‘cognitive dissonance’. You’ve done a great initial draft; However, there are several areas I recommend change. I have made several comments and suggestions that may improve it.
Opening Comments:
While I have briefly touched on the concept of cognitive dissonance before in sports psychology class, I believe your definition would be understandable by those that have not seen this concept before. My understanding of cognitive dissonance from your definition, is that it occurs when there is a contradiction between the individual’s actions and beliefs.
Overall, this initial draft was very well done. The formatting of this draft allowed for easy identification of each section. The definition was understandable, but some area could use some refining to improve understanding upon first read. Changes to minor errors and changes in word choice would reduce confusion, and allow easier comprehension of the topic.
Suggestions
The first area I would recommend change is the word choice in parenthetical definition. With my understanding on the concept, the words, “unsettling contradictions”, does not immediately remind me of the definition to cognitive dissonance.
Another area of change would be in the sentence definition. I am referring to the line 1, “cognitive dissonance is a theory that we experience psychological stress that occurs when we hold opinions, ideas, or values that are inconsistent with our behaviour outcomes”. In this particular case, the words, ‘that occurs’, is redundant and causes confusion to the reader. While not necessarily incorrect, I also suggest editing the narrative in sentence definition from first person view to third person view. This would increase the professionalism of the definition.
Your formatting of the expanded definition allows for easy understanding of which expansion strategy you utilized. It is clear that the expansion strategies used are history, negation, examples, and visual; but, the expanded definition is missing the introductory paragraph. Following the textbook’s examples on pages 404 – 407, the missing introductory paragraph should include the sentence definition and brief the reader into the topic.
Also in the expanded definition, while the history of the terminology is interesting, does not provide much in terms of increasing reader understanding. Instead, I recommend elaboration on the causes of dissonance, as well as on how to change it, while possibly shortening the history section. While how to change it is touch upon in the example and visual section, I perceive those components to be crucial to the reader’s understanding of the topic; and as such, would benefit from a worded explanation.
Overall Impression
Overall, I thought this was a good first draft. With some reworking and polishing, this could be a phenomenal definition.
The key changes required are the word choice, word redundancies, as they do not clearly define the terminology or cause confusion. Also, the missing introductory paragraph in the expanded definition is another key area required.
Areas I thought were exceptional were the formatting, and the expanded strategies of negation, examples, and visual. The formatting allowed for clear separation of the components, while the negation, examples, and visual were purposeful.
I’m looking forward to reading your final draft.
Sincerely,
Hilton
Link to Claire’s Assignment 1-3 on the term ‘Cognitive Dissonance’:
Leave a Reply