week 6 peer review
WEEK 6 Cognitive & Affective Basis of Behavior
Assignments
■ Assignments
■ 1. Discussion
■ 2. Peer Review of Partner's Draft Methods, Expected Results, Limitations
Topic: Development
■ The emergence of human emotions
■ The development of children’s concepts of emotion
■ Emotional development in adolescence
■ Emotion and aging
■ Article: Leclerc, C. M. & Kensinger, E. A. (2008). Effects of age on detection of emotional
information. Psychology and Aging, 23(1), 209-215.
Part 1
Choose one concept, research finding, or question that stood out to you in your readings and content assigned for
this week. Find an empirical research article about this that was published in the scientific literature and provide a
summary of that article here answering the following questions. Attach the article to your post, and provide an APA
style reference for it at the bottom of your post.
1. What is the item that stood out to you and why?
2. What did the authors of the study you selected examine in their research? What did they hypothesize and
why (rationale)?
3. What methods did they use?
4. What were the most meaningful findings the authors reported?
5. What is one limitation to their study?
6. How do the findings from this study help you better understand the content from this week?
Part 2
State your hypothesis.
Include the graph you plan to use for hypothetical results in the final paper (screenshot or copy/paste). You may use
the graph from Week 5 draft and modify if needed.
Explain the graph and how it supports your hypothesis.
Peer Review
■ Can you follow the methods?
– Is this section divided into Participants,
Measures/Stimuli and Procedure?
– Do the methods logically relate to the
hypothesis?
– Are all variables defined? Are groups
explained?
Results/Data Analysis
■ Can you see how they would analyze their data?
– Does the data analysis proposed assist in testing the hypothesis?
– Are the appropriate variables analyzed based on hypothesis?
– Does the graph indicate correct variables (groups vs continuous) found in
hypothesis?
0
1
2
3
4
5
Group 1 Group 2
Hypothetical Chart for Groups
IV
Groups of your IV (gender, treatment
group)
D e
p e
n d
e n
t V a
ri a
b le
( a
c c u
ra c y,
s p
e e
d , s e
lf -e
s te
e m
, e
tc )
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
80 70 60 50 40 30 20
V a
ri a
b le
2 (
D V
)
Variable 1 (IV)
Continuous Variables for Correlation
Limitations
■ Do the limitations seem reasonable?
– Is generalizability of results considered?
– Any limitations they may have missed?
APA GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH PAPERS
Methods, Results, Discussion
Methods
■ describes in detail how the study was conducted, including operational definitions of the variables
used in the study.
■ Enables the reader to evaluate the appropriateness of your methods and also permits experienced
investigators to replicate the study.
■ Participants
– Detail the sample's major demographic characteristics, such as age; sex; ethnic and/or racial
group; level of education; socioeconomic, generational, or immigrant status; disability status;
sexual orientation; gender identity; and language preference as well as important topic-
specific characteristics (e.g., achievement level in studies of educational interventions).
– As a rule, describe the groups as specifically as possible, with particular emphasis on
characteristics that may have bearing on the interpretation of results.
Methods
■ Sampling procedures
– Describe the settings and locations in which the data were collected as well as any
agreements and payments made to participants, agreements with the institutional
review board, ethical standards met, and safety monitoring procedures.
■ Research design
– Specify the research design in the Method section. Were subjects placed into conditions
that were manipulated, or were they observed naturalistically? If multiple conditions
were created, how were participants assigned to conditions, through random
assignment or some other selection mechanism? Was the study conducted as a
between-subjects or a within-subject design?
– Experimental manipulations or interventions
– Include the details of the interventions or manipulations intended for each study
condition, including control groups (if any), and describe how and when interventions
(experimental manipulations) were actually administered.
Methods
■ Provide information about (a) the setting where the intervention or manipulation was
delivered,
■ (b) the quantity and duration of exposure to the intervention or manipulation (i.e., how many
sessions, episodes, or events were intended to be delivered and how long they were
intended to last),
■ (c) the time span taken for the delivery of the intervention or manipulation to each unit (e.g.,
would the manipulation delivery be complete in one session, or if participants returned for
multiple sessions, how much time passed between the first and last session?), and
■ (d) activities or incentives used to increase compliance.
Results
■ summarize the collected data and the analysis performed on those data relevant to
the discourse that is to follow.
■ Report the data in sufficient detail to justify your conclusions.
■ Mention all relevant results, including those that run counter to expectation; be sure
to include small effect sizes (or statistically nonsignificant findings) when theory
predicts large (or statistically significant) ones. Do not hide uncomfortable results by
omission.
■ Do not include individual scores or raw data, with the exception, for example, of
single-case designs or illustrative examples
Results
■ Assume that your reader has a professional knowledge of statistical methods. Do
not review basic concepts and procedures or provide citations for the most
commonly used statistical procedures.
■ If, however, there is any question about the appropriateness of a particular
statistical procedure, justify its use by clearly stating the evidence that exists for the
robustness of the procedure as applied.
Discussion
■ Open the Discussion section with a clear statement of the support or nonsupport for your
original hypotheses, distinguished by primary and secondary hypotheses. If hypotheses were
not supported, offer post hoc explanations. Similarities and differences between your results
and the work of others should be used to contextualize, confirm, and clarify your conclusions
■ Your interpretation of the results should take into account (a) sources of potential bias and
other threats to internal validity, (b) the imprecision of measures, (c) the overall number of
tests or overlap among tests, (d) the effect sizes observed, and (e) other limitations or
weaknesses of the study.
■ End the Discussion section with a reasoned and justifiable commentary on the importance
of your findings. This concluding section may be brief or extensive provided that it is tightly
reasoned, self-contained, and not overstated.
Checklist…
■ Re-examine your hypothesis:
■ Methods:
– Are my participants appropriately selected based on my hypothesis?
– If comparing groups, do I include criteria and how many in each group?
– Do my scales measure the variables in my hypothesis?
– Does my procedure explain how participants will take my scales or intervention?
■ Results:
– Do my expected results analyze the variables in my hypothesis?
– Does my graph match the hypothesis in terms of variables and variable type?
■ Limitations:
– Do my limitations take into account other factors that could influence my results?
Don’t forget….
■ Send the draft to your Peer Partner