Talk:Self-perception theory

This article contains plenty of references, despite the introductory caution that it is lacking in them. The references are in-line rather than parenthetical, an alternate style that also meets APA 6 formatting guidelines but that could confuse a computerized analysis. The article seems quite clear. Geneb000 (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

Could someone please translate the beginning of this article into something people who are not psychologists can understand: "Self perception theory is a an acccount of" what does that mean? And I don't think most people distinguish as much between attitute and behavior as this article assumes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.135.72 (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see an misleading part in the facts presented by the article, an incorrect use of a word "instead":

Self-perception theory differs from cognitive dissonance theory in that it does not hold that people experience a "negative drive state" called "dissonance" which they seek to relieve. Instead, people simply infer their attitudes from their own behavior in the same way that an outside observer might. Self-perception theory is a special case of attribution theory.

There is no contradiction in those two views. People can be driven by negative drive states and still infer their attitudes from their behaviour. Both theories can be valid at once, hence the wrong use of instead.

To editors of the article: if you want to use this note in the article than do so, I am just passing by... Dramenbejs 20:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a vague feeling that the current state of the intro is not improved:

Self-perception theory (SPT) is an account of attitude change developed by psychologist Daryl Bem[1] [2] It asserts that we develop our attitudes by observing our behavior and concluding what attitudes must have caused them. The theory is counterintuitive in nature, as the conventional wisdom is that attitudes come prior to behaviors.

The possibly bad clause being underlined. My personal "conventional" wisdom is that behavior is "regulated" by attitudes, that in themselves are "regulated" by intellect. It is much easier to believe that SPT claims that attitudes and behaviors are interadjusted, so that while behaviors are primary, the attitude apparatus adapts to the main body of behaviors and then repress behaviors not fitting the general pattern that it has erected. This means that the attitude caused by behaviors does not directly conflict with attitudes "causing" behaviors. Or otherwise I'm understanding precisely nothing correctly ... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up in my psychologogy green monster (ISBN 0-618-52718-4, "Psychology", Bernstein et al) but found that my interpretation of the Self-perception theory might be too understanding... so maybe the SPT theory is heavily criticised... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section, "Another study on self-perception theory", is confusing and has sentences with missing fragments! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.98.94 (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]