Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOOP (scientific strategy)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mental contrasting. And merge such content as may be desirable per editorial consensus from the history.  Sandstein  19:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

WOOP (scientific strategy)

WOOP (scientific strategy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence for notability of this particular theory. The author already has an article which covers this adequately. The term is essentially unknown (Google finds in this meaning only its own site, Wikipedia, and a PR on LifeHacker), and not even suitable for a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• WOOD. Wish, outcome, obstacle, delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• OPPOSE: This is the second time that User:DGG has nominated this article for deletion; his first request was in December 2014 and that request was rapidly declined, as it should again be declined. DGG's reasons for deletion are not accurate; it is not true that Google returns only three results for this topic, as DGG claims. A Google query returns 2,100 results, and a Google Scholar query returns half a dozen relevant results, the first of which has been cited 60 times in the scholarly and scientific literature. WOOP as a method has only existed for at most a couple of years, but it is already a notable psychological method that was developed by reputable researchers. Note that above DGG calls WOOP a "theory" but this not an accurate description; WOOP is a practical method or strategy, not a theory. This request for deletion is misinformed. Biogeographist (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Although I oppose deletion, I do not oppose renaming the article, as I find the phrase "scientific strategy" to be potentially misleading, as it could be taken to mean "a strategy for doing science" (i.e., a form of scientific method), which it is not. Perhaps "behavioral strategy" would be a better descriptor. Biogeographist (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The author has done other work than on this. The higher cited papers at GScholar I think mainly refer to other work. It may be connected work, but its not necessarily on this. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The higher cited papers at Google Scholar concern mental contrasting with implementation intentions—which, as the WOOP (scientific strategy) article states in its second sentence, is another name for WOOP. The reasons that you have given to justify deletion of this article are inaccurate. This topic meets notability guidelines as much as similar methods such as the GROW model. Biogeographist (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That makes my point: this is his own neologism, that not even he uses consistently in his own papers. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not make your point at all. You are incorrect yet again. First, your male pronouns are incorrect; the primary contributor to WOOP is Gabriele Oettingen, who is a woman, not a man. Second, WOOP is not a neologism as you claim; it is an acronym. Third, there is no inconsistency in usage; WOOP is the popular acronym for the strategy; mental contrasting with implementation intentions is the academic name for the strategy. As above, your reasoning is based on inaccurate premises and deletion of this article is unjustified. Biogeographist (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete or merge to mental contrasting (though that article may have problems of its own, too). For the record, DGG did request speedy deletion (WP:A10) that was denied here (links from Biogeographist above do not work as intended). However, a declined speedy deletion is not really an argument for keeping an article - all it says is that there are no problems with the article that are so urgent that they need rapidly to be taken care of. (Well, actually, it means there is no relevant criterion for speedy deletion, but essentially, the criteria are supposed to fit only the urgent stuff.)

Here, all references save for #6 are from the two authors (Oettingen and Gollwitzer), hence WP:PRIMARY. I cannot get through the paywall but the abstract does not look like WOOP, as opposed to mental contrasting, is a significant part of it. Tigraan (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

note:A declined speedy just means that one other person disagreed, or even agreed it probably should be deleted but didn't think it obvious, or didn;t think it obviously met the criterion. Many times I've declined speedies, but then nominated them for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Merging and redirecting to mental contrasting (as User:Tigraan suggests) would be acceptable, since there is already a section in that article on mental contrasting with implementation intentions (and WOOP). A current preponderance of primary sources in the article is not an argument for deletion (instead Template:Primary sources should be used), given that there are (contra User:DGG) plenty of secondary sources that mention the topic (see, e.g., the Template:Find sources links above, or this Google query). Biogeographist (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are confused between speedy deletion, which is taken care of by administrators for urgent matters (even if the creator of a page insists his copyright-infringing page should stay, it gets killed), and proposed deletion, which is intended for uncontroversial deletions - which means, stuff that could go to standard AfD but is believed by the nominator not to meet any opposition.

I agree that the absence of correct sources right now does not mean they do not exist. However, after some honest tries to find sources (read: search engine), I could not find anything. I expect the nominator to have done the same. Of course it is to be expected for technical subjects like this one, but at the end of the day the WP:BURDEN to find sources is on those who claim notability is there. Tigraan (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding secondary sources, clicking on "news" in the Template:Find sources links above shows relevant articles in, for example, The New York Times, Fast Company, Medical Daily, New York Magazine, The Irish Times, Entrepreneur, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, etc. (in addition to the scientific and scholarly literature accessible at Google Scholar). Biogeographist (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please give a link to one of those articles that specifically discusses the acronym WOOP, as opposed to mental contrasting, because I did not find any. A source that merely discusses mental contrasting is not enough (taking it to the extreme, multiple RS articles discuss psychology, it does not make every subbranch of it notable). Saying sources exist is not enough, the burden is on you. Tigraan (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Tigraan: I don't see how secondary sources are relevant to the discussion at hand, since we have already agreed that a preponderance of primary sources is not a justification for deleting the article, if I am not mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that this page is only a discussion of whether the article should be deleted or not. In other words, I don't see any burden to cite secondary sources within the context of this discussion about deletion when they are easily accessible from the links available from the Template:Find sources links above. If you could explain your reasoning further so I can understand why you are continuing to press the issue of secondary sources here, I would appreciate it.

Nevertheless, since your request is extremely easy to fulfill, I am providing below full citations and quotations from secondary sources in all of the publications listed two paragraphs above, accessible with a simple click on the "news" link in the Template:Find sources links above as I instructed (and thus I find it strange that you say you "did not find any"). I have removed paragraph breaks. Note that the publications in which these articles appeared are important enough that they have their own Wikipedia pages. There are other relevant sources available from the same "news" link in the Template:Find sources links above; these are only a selection.

List of references collapsed by Tigraan (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Friedman, M.D., Richard A. (22 December 2014). "Science: Dare to dream of falling short". The New York Times: D5. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "It seems like an obvious and deceptively simple concept, yet according to the author, only one in six people spontaneously thinks this way when asked what accomplishment is foremost in his or her mind. Of course, people can spend years in psychotherapy exploring the reasons they have failed to succeed, too often with little to show for their efforts. But insight, as most mental health professionals know, is rarely sufficient to change behavior, and Dr. Oettingen says such therapy is probably unnecessary for many people. Instead, she offers a simpler and faster alternative, an extension of her empirically validated mental contrasting exercise. She calls it WOOP—which stands for "wish, outcome, obstacle, plan." According to preliminary data the author presents, mental contrasting can lead to better eating habits, an improved exercise regimen and greater control over alcohol consumption, among other benefits. Dr. Oettingen has even developed a free app for your smartphone, called, appropriately, WOOP." LaVine, Lindsay (7 October 2014). "Why dreaming about the future makes you less likely to achieve your goals". Fast Company. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "The process can be broken down into four steps, known as "WOOP" (Wish, Outcome, Obstacle and Plan). Here's how it works: 1. Identify a "wish" that's important to you. Ask what it is you really want. It should be something that's challenging for you, but possible to achieve within a certain period of time. For example, becoming more comfortable speaking during business presentations. 2. Think of the best outcome you associate with achieving your goal. In the public speaking example, it could be visualizing yourself getting your message across in an engaging presentation or answering every question without getting flustered. Oettingen suggests letting your mind go and imagining how good it would feel to accomplish your goal. 3. Identify the obstacles in your way. Ask yourself, "What is it in me that stands in the way?" You can only control the way you act, and you can't change your boss or control how those in your company react, Oettingen explains. In the example, it could be that you tend to talk too fast when you're nervous, or you're afraid of forgetting what you want to say. 4. Formulate a "plan" for how you will overcome the obstacle. Think about what action you can take when you encounter the problem, and formulate it in an "if/then" statement. For example, "If I'm nervous, then I'll remind myself of the other successful presentations I've given in the past," or "If I'm afraid of forgetting key points, then I will spend more time preparing my remarks, or have an index card with key words to jog my memory." To start, Oettingen suggests finding some time, whether it's on your commute or at lunch, to focus. In other words, you can't WOOP while responding to emails or helping your kids with their homework." Castillo, Stephanie (9 December 2014). "WOOP, there it is: psychological process challenges power of positive thinking". Medical Daily. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "Oettingen has spent years researching the power of positive thinking, deciding it is better replaced with an approach she shortens to WOOP: Wish, outcome, obstacles, and plan. "Think about a wish that is dear to you," Oettingen said. "What is it you really want? This could be a big, New Year's–resolution-type ambition, like running a marathon or losing a certain amount of weight, but it doesn't have to be." Identifying these wishes, she added, helps a person define their goal—and it's also the first step towards realizing those hopes and dreams." Dahl, Melissa (9 December 2014). "Positive thinking doesn't work; here's what does". New York Magazine. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "Oettingen explained the plan to Kaufman; it's a delightful little acronym that spells WOOP. Wish: First, define your goal. "Think about a wish that is dear to you," Oettingen said. "What is it you really want? This could be a big, New Year's–resolution-type ambition, like running a marathon or losing a certain amount of weight, but it doesn't have to be. "I do it every morning for the next day," Oettingen said on the podcast. Your wish doesn't have to be huge; it just has to be real, something you truly want. Outcome: Here's where a little bit of positive thinking sneaks back in. Keeping your goal in mind, ask yourself: If this wish of mine is fulfilled, what is the best possible outcome? "Very often, it is a feeling," Oettingen said. "You define that outcome, and you imagine that outcome. And once you've imagined the outcome, really immerse yourself in these daydreams." Obstacles: The previous step tends to be where people naturally stop — daydreaming feels pretty nice, after all — but Oettingen isn't done yet. After you've let yourself fantasize for a little while about what it will feel like when your goal is accomplished, bring your mind back down to reality. "Then you say, What is it in me that holds me back from experiencing that wish, that outcome? " Oettingen said. "Very often it's an emotion, it's those same old habits.... And you imagine that obstacle." Plan: "Once you've imagined that obstacle," Oettingen said, "you'll understand what you need to do to overcome it." Come up with an if/then plan—if this obstacle pops up, then you'll do X to get around it and keep going after your goal. Oettingen's research has shown that this method has helped people eat more fruits and vegetables; it's also helped students achieve better grades in school, and it has even helped people act less insecure in their romantic relationships." "Woop it up with this sensible wishing plan". The Irish Times. 7 November 2014. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "What does help is mental contrasting, an exercise that brings together our positive fantasy about the future with a visualisation of the obstacles standing in the way. Try a mental contrasting tool called WOOP – Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan. Here's how it works: 1 Find a quiet place where you won't be disturbed, switch off your devices, and close your eyes. 2 Name a wish that is attainable or realistic for you – say, landing a new client. 3 Then imagine for a few minutes what would happen if that wish came true, letting the images flow freely through your mind. 4 Then change things up. Identify the main obstacle inside you that stands in the way, and imagine it for a few minutes. Now on to your plan: If faced with X obstacle, then you will take Y effective action in response. WOOP is simple, easy, and inexpensive, but why does it work? The process either helps people understand that their wishes are attainable, giving them energy and direction, heightening their engagement and prompting them to act; or it helps them realise their wishes are unrealistic, leading them to disengage and freeing them up to pursue other, more promising goals." Reuteman, Rob (10 February 2015). "Attitude: The bright side of negative thinking [interview]". Entrepreneur. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "[Interviewer:] In your book, you take mental contrasting a step further with the introduction of a meditative practice you call WOOP: Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan. It is meant to help people reap the full benefits of mental contrasting. [Oettingen:] Yes, WOOP has another step—the forging of explicit intentions about how to achieve a wish. If you break down the process by which people pursue wishes, you can distinguish two phases: an initial phase in which you weigh your options and decide to commit to a goal, and a second phase in which you plan how to take action to attain the wish. There is a large amount of literature that shows this second phase is helpful in attaining goals. It doesn’t work if you don’t have a strong determination to implement your wishes. You must identify likely obstacles to your goal and approve behavior to overcome the obstacle." Aschwanden, Christie (10 February 2015). "Positive thinking isn't all-powerful: Penalty for failure may help more in reaching goals". The Washington Post. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "In her new book, Rethinking Positive Thinking, Oettingen outlines a mental contrasting strategy called WOOP, for "wish, outcome, obstacle, plan." First, you identify your wish or goal, then you take a moment to imagine how great it will feel to attain it, next you think about obstacles you might encounter and finally you build a plan to overcome these barriers. Smartphone users can download a WOOP app to help them save goals and plans and track progress. Some goals fail when they fall prey to a phenomenon that behavioral economists call hyperbolic discounting, in which immediate rewards seem more alluring than further-off ones, even if they're smaller. "The idea is that our decision-making is distorted by the immediate consequences," says Daniel Reeves, a game theorist who, with his wife, Bethany Soule, founded a company called Beeminder to help people overcome this bug in our mental processing system." Burkeman, Oliver (16 October 2014). "How to be fitter, happier and more successful: stop dreaming and start getting real". The Guardian. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "The technique's full formal name is less than catchy – "mental contrasting with implementation intentions" – so in her book, Oettingen rebrands it as "Woop", for "wish, outcome, obstacle, plan". The acronym sets out the four stages of the process. First, spend a minute or two thinking in detail about something you wish to accomplish; second, vividly imagine the best thing you associate with having achieved that outcome. (That "best thing" might be an emotion, a promotion, praise – anything, really.) Third, ask yourself what internal obstacle's most likely to get in the way. (This isn't about your boss, or your spouse, so much as that weakness inside you that holds you back from better pay or a better relationship.) Finally, formulate an "if-then" plan for what you'll do when that obstacle arises. ("If I find myself feeling terrified when I stand up in front of the audience, then I'll recall how diligently I've rehearsed." "If I find myself checking Twitter, I'll get up from my desk immediately.")" Kamenetz, Anya (30 December 2014). "Financial New Year's resolutions: 'WOOP' it up". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "Oettingen and her team came up with a method they call "Mental contrasting with implementation intentions." Luckily, they also gave it an acronym: WOOP. That stands for Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan. Here's how it works. Step 1: Wish. State what you want. Make the resolution. "I will stop ordering takeout for lunch during the workweek in 2015." Step 2: Outcome. Now is the time to fantasize in detail. Let your mind traverse all the delightful rewards that you'll enjoy from fulfilling this resolution. "I'll save at least $15 a day. And I'll be healthier because I'll cook and plan my meals ahead. And I'll save time and be more productive." Step 3: Obstacle. This is the crux of the process – the "contrasting" part of mental contrasting. You have to think through the circumstances that might stop you from achieving this goal. "I might not have enough time to pack a lunch. Or I might forget." Step 4: Plan. Make a plan for what to do when the inevitable obstacle arises. "I'll put a note in my planner to remind me to make a lunch. And when I make soup, I'll put single-serving containers away in the freezer so I always have something to grab." The WOOP method has been shown to have a powerful impact far beyond its silly name. Studies have shown that it helps people stick to an eating and exercise plan, and helps people bounce back from chronic illness. Students who practice WOOP do more homework, show up for class more regularly and study more. It can even help improve people's relationships. So why not finances?" Painter, Kim (25 January 2015). "Positive thinking? It's not enough to reach your goals". USA Today. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "With additional studies, Oettingen came up with a strategy for turning dreams into action or, when appropriate, new dreams. It goes by the acronym WOOP, standing for: Wish: Let yourself dream about a specific wish for your life. Outcome: Think about the best thing that could happen as a result. Obstacles: Think about the thoughts, behaviors, habits and preconceived notions that might hold you back. Plan: Think about when and where an obstacle will occur and make an "if-then" plan: "If obstacle x occurs, then I will perform behavior y." Someone who wants to walk more might end up with a plan like: "If I feel I do not have time to go for a brisk walk, then I will remind myself: I will be more productive after having been outside." A free WOOP app is available through woopmylife.org. The method could make a huge difference for "people who tend to get stuck in the dreaming part" of pursuing their goals, says Julie Norem, a professor of psychology at Wellesley College. Norem's own research focuses on "defensive pessimism" – a strategy used by some people to successfully deal with anxiety."

Biogeographist (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Although "preponderance of primary sources" would not be a reason to delete the article, the lack of secondary sources certainly is an issue. The argument is about the notability of WOOP, and this needs secondary sources per very basic policy (WP:N), and those are typically what is expected to be brought up at AfD. (Note that there are different deletion processes, with different procedures for each; here, we are at WP:AFD.)

Thank you for providing the links above (I collapsed them to avoid cluttering the page). Be aware that "find sources" is not a magical tool that creates reliable sources when there are none, and it has no guarantee to find such sources if they exist. Here is what I think of the links you provided:

Analysis of the sources given above

First of all, I would point out that "reliable sources" is not the only requirement. In fact, the requirement at WP:GNG is threefold: the sources must be (1) reliable, (2) independant of the subject (or "secondary"), and (3) provide significant coverage, all of that at the same time. Now for our current case: [1] is a book review with only a passing mention of WOOP, failing (3). [2] fastcompany.com looks like a reliable source to me. However, it is very clear that this is an interview in disguise ("Oettingen says" at every sentence), hence not independant of the subject, failing (2). [3]: medicaldaily.com does not appear reliable to me (1), and the same problem of pseudo-interview applies (2). [4] is basically a reprinting of the original source (Kaufmann) which may or may not be independant from Oettingen, and I have a hard time believing nymag.com/scienceofus is reliable (right now, that column is running a piece called "32-Year-Old Woman Wakes Up Thinking She’s 15"). Fails (1). [5] could be fine. However, no writer is indicated (it says "copyright Harvard Business Review" and I cannot access that), and the writing seems fishy (borderline advertising) although it could just be the style of it. If I were convinced the author of that piece has not done yet-another-interview-in-disguise from Oettingen, that would be a good source. [6] is an interview, hence not independant of the subject (2), and what the author of a theory/method says about how her theory/method is useful can hardly be considered reliable (1). [7] has only a passing mention of WOOP (3), very similarly to the first reference. [8] is from the Comment is Free section, which is orders of magnitude less reliable than the Guardian itself. It could be a good source, because the author made some effort besides the quasi-interview (adding examples in the WOOP section), but I do not quite see it as reliable. [9]: same remarks: quasi-interview, but with some effort; reliability yet to assess (it's the Chicago Tribune, sure, but what is exactly the editorial model for the "business" section?). [10] is another quasi-interview.

Based on the sources alone, I would be undecided. There seem to be multiple sources that are a bit shaky, in a sea of unusable ones; my personal philosophy in that case is to delete but that is not WP policy. However, my feeling after an hour of digging in the references is that there has been extensive media campaigning from Oettingen and/or her publisher for her later book, and that WP article is possibly part of it. Seeing again and again the same story with the same outline ("positive thinking doesn't work" - expanding the acronym - point to the mobile app) makes it very difficult to me to asssume good faith at that point.

I thereby ask formally Biogeographist to disclose any connection they have with the subject, in accordance with WP:EXTERNALREL, as a preventive measure. Please understand that you are under no obligation to provide identifying information whatsoever; moreover, the only case where direct editing is forbidden is if you are paid for that. This is not to be seen as an attack ad hominem against your arguments, but merely as a preventive measure to be in accordance with policy. Tigraan (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for your thorough analysis, which I find very helpful indeed. I don't really disagree with anything you've said in your analysis of those sources; in fact, I find your analysis eminently reasonable and I admire the seriousness with which you have applied Wikipedia policies. Let me explain what my interest is in this article, as you requested. First, I have no connection whatsoever with this topic, its creator, or with the creator of this Wikipedia article, so I have no conflicts of interest. I only discovered this page a few months ago, and as you can see in my contributions, I have made substantial contributions to articles on unrelated topics. The primary reason I am advocating against simple deletion and in favor of at least merging and redirecting to mental contrasting is because I think WOOP is an interesting acronym for a decision-making strategy that is similar to established articles on other acronyms for decision-making strategies such as GROW, OODA, PDCA, SWOT, VRIO, and yes, even U (well, U is not an acronym; perhaps it is akin to an ideogram). In other words, I think this article adds value to Wikipedia, although I can see why merging and redirecting is a valid editorial decision. Biogeographist (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Merging and redirecting as suggested would be OK with me also. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Note about redirection There is a disambiguation page at Woop. I would be OK with replacing the current entry by "wish, outcome etc., an implementation of mental contrasting" if it correctly describes the thing and no redirection guideline disagrees. Tigraan (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Tigraan that the disambiguation page at Woop needed to be updated, and I just changed it. The previous description there, "a scientific strategy for behavior change", was not optimal given my argument above that the phrase "scientific strategy" is potentially misleading. I also suggest that prior to merge and redirect the parenthetical phrase "scientific strategy" in the article's title should be changed to something else such as "behavioral strategy". Biogeographist (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment I guess that at this point we have consensus to merge to mental contrasting (and changing the redirection from Woop to the correct place). (Please reply if you disagree, obviously)

The question remains of what to merge. I would advocate something rather strict, that goes as follows:

• Scrap all the existing content of Mental_contrasting#Mental_Contrasting_with_Implementation_Intentions_.28MCII.29
• Add a link to Implementation intention; take the first sentence of the lead from there ("implementation intentions are...").
• Add the following:

Oettingen and Gollwitzer suggested the use of implementation intentions for mental contrasting in a four-step strategy "wish, outcome, obstacle, plan" (WOOP). (ref to primary source goes here) The first step ("wish") is to name (etc.) (place here second paragraph of WOOP_(scientific_strategy)#WOOP)

• Change the redirect from Woop, and that's it.

On a side note, I will drop a note on WP:PSYCH to ask for evaluation of implementation intention and mental contrasting. The more I read them, the more it looks like a walled garden which none really cared to check (Mental_contrasting#Application looks like a joke, for instance). Tigraan (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that mental contrasting needs attention from experts; while I think it is a notable topic, currently it is essentially the work of a single editor with an WP:SPA account, User:AntonGollwitzer, who may be the same Anton Gollwitzer who has coauthored studies with Oettingen, e.g. doi:10.1177/1948550613476307.

Implementation intention, on the other hand, is a much more prominent concept in the psychological literature (as far as I have seen) and that article has already received lots of attention from numerous editors. You can request evaluation of both, but mental contrasting is the article that is more in need of attention.

Mental contrasting#Application may look like a joke to you, as you say, but so does a lot of other psychological research to many people. That is why Page Smith said of modern university research: "It is busy work on a vast, almost incomprehensible scale."

I have gone ahead and inserted into mental contrasting all the information that I think should be merged—essentially what was recommended above. All that remains is to redirect, and I will let someone who is more familiar with these procedures do that. Biogeographist (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, if I said what I would do instead of performing the move myself (it wouldn't have taken much more time), it was precisely to wait for other input, but never mind. We should wait AfD closure before redirecting.

When I wrote that Mental contrasting#Application looks like a joke, I do not mean it is bogus research or unbelievable, I mean it fails WP standards by a mile. I have no knowledge of psychology, but what is written, even if completely true, is POV. Imagine if I wrote a similar paragraph for inclusion in Scientology#Auditing:

According to Hubbard, auditing can be easily taught and people can audit themselves .(ref) People can effectively use auditing for a variety of wishes in any life domain (e.g., academic, interpersonal, health). They can use the tool across their life span and regardless of their socioeconomic status or cultural background. Auditing helps to resolve short-term concerns and fulfill long-term wishes as it provides clarity and direction for both, striving for goals and disengaging from them. (etc.)

All these assertions may be true by mere placebo effect. The net effect on the reader is to make the impression that it is a scientifically justified process with well-known effects (which it is not).

In the case of mental contrasting, it may be scientifically justified, but it requires serious sourcing from secondary sources which the article does not provide; and I bet there has not many of them, since only a few people seem to care about the subject (which is quite the norm for specific research projects, no personal attack here). So while it may be true, it is not verifiable because of the lack of sources. Tigraan (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the section Mental contrasting#Application needs to be rewritten. I just made a first attempt, removing the introductory weasel words "Scientific studies show..." and removing all of the sentences that you parodied in your apt Scientology analogy above. I also removed phrases that implied that mental contrasting was the cause of the outcomes of the studies. The excess of primary sources is still a problem, but at least now it is closer to a simple summary of the literature. Biogeographist (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.