Animal
Topic: Animal testing
Side one: Pro animal testing
Sidd two: Anti animal testing
3 years ago 30
PSYC3480FinalPaperHandoutFall2023.pdf
animaltestingoutline.docx
PSYC3480FinalPaperGradingRubricFall2021.pdf
PSYC3480FinalPaperHandoutFall2023.pdf
PSYC 3480: Social Cognition Final Paper: Applying Social Cognition to Current Events
Worth 200 points | Due: Tuesday, December 5th by 11:59pm Paper Requirements:
• The paper must be formatted in APA style, 6th edition (i.e., double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, and have 1-inch margins).
• The majority of the information included in the paper must be in your own words. I am not looking for textbook information. I’m looking for your work and applications. Still, all sources either paraphrased or quoted are required to be properly cited.
• The paper must have at least 750 words (Acceptable range: 750-1000 words).
• English language conventions/grammar & flow will be graded. Paper Instructions & Required Content:
1. Introduction: Identify a current controversy or societal issue.
o Discuss a brief history of your chosen issue and where the issue stands today.
o Identify the two (or more) “sides” to the argument or issue & discuss the main argument(s) from each side.
2. Cognitive Limitation/Biases: For each side, identify and discuss 3 cognitive limitations/biases that have impacted the controversy (This means that you’ll need 6 total). Be sure to do the following for each:
o In your own words, describe the cognitive limitation or bias.
o Clearly describe how the cognitive limitation/bias has had an impact on the thinking or spread of misinformation on that side of the controversy
3. Conclusion: Reflect on some of the small and realistic things that can be done on both sides to begin to try to overcome these cognitive limitations to improve understanding and improve this issue moving forward.
o For example, how can people change their approach? What can one do to improve how they understand the news and information they receive from social media? What can be done in a home or classroom setting?
Paper Deadline & Late Submission Policy:
• Deadline: 11:59 pm on Tuesday, December 5th
• Papers will be submitted through a TurnItIn link on Blackboard and carefully checked for plagiarism. Plagiarism will result in a 0 for the paper. Students are encouraged to turn in their paper early and review their plagiarism report. Students are allowed the opportunity to remedy any issues flagged by the system and resubmit their paper up until the final deadline for the paper.
• Late Submissions: Late submissions will only be accepted up until Thursday, December 7th by 11:59pm
• Finals received on 12/6 from 12:00am – 11:59am will be docked 30 late points o Highest grade possible = 85%
• Finals received on 12/7 from 12:00pm – 11:59pm will be docked 50 late points o Highest grade possible = 75%
animaltestingoutline.docx
2
Student’s Name.
Department/ Faculty
Professor’s Name
Course Code & Name
Date
Animal testing has a deep-rooted history, stretching back centuries as an integral part of early medical experiments that eventually became pivotal in scientific research. It played a fundamental role in advancing medications, vaccines, and surgical procedures. However, this practice hasn't been without its ethical dilemmas, sparking ongoing debates about the treatment of animals within laboratory settings. Presently, while animal testing remains prevalent in scientific inquiry, a burgeoning global movement stands in opposition. This movement is fueled by ethical considerations, the emergence of technological alternatives, and discussions about the reliability of using animals as models to predict human responses (Goodman & Check, 2002).
Supporters of animal testing staunchly advocate its necessity for medical progress, asserting its pivotal role in ensuring the safety and efficacy of products before human trials. They emphasize historical breakthroughs attributed to animal testing and highlight the perceived absence of equally effective alternatives (Goodman & Check, 2002).. On the opposing side, detractors vehemently argue against animal testing, viewing it as ethically unacceptable due to concerns about animal welfare, the uncertainty surrounding the applicability of results to humans, and the availability of technological advancements that offer viable alternatives to traditional animal models.
Supporters of animal testing are susceptible to several cognitive limitations and biases that shape their perspectives. Confirmation bias, the tendency to seek information affirming existing beliefs while disregarding contradictory evidence, is prevalent among them (Desmoulin-Canselier & Moutaud, 2019). This bias leads these supporters to predominantly focus on success stories derived from animal testing, conveniently overlooking instances where such tests failed to accurately predict human responses, thus reinforcing their conviction in its efficacy. Moreover, there's a status quo bias entrenched within this group, stemming from their familiarity and comfort with the established practice of animal testing. This bias results in resistance towards alternative methods, underestimating the potential of newer approaches simply because they deviate from the traditional methods they are accustomed to (Nurunnabi et al., 2013). Additionally, optimism bias plays a significant role in their thinking, causing them to overestimate the benefits of animal testing while downplaying its limitations and ethical concerns. This bias fosters an overly optimistic view of the necessity and effectiveness of animal testing, potentially blinding them to the broader ethical and scientific implications.
Individuals opposing animal testing are also subject to various cognitive limitations and biases shaping their viewpoints. Firstly, moral licensing influences this group, allowing them to engage in behaviors contradictory to their stance against animal testing (Madden et al., 2020). They may justify their actions by believing that their ethical choices in other aspects of life compensate for their support or use of products tested on animals, potentially diluting their commitment to their core belief. Secondly, in-group bias can cloud their judgment by causing them to dismiss valid arguments from supporters of animal testing. This bias frames those in favor of animal testing as part of an opposing group, hindering objective evaluation of their stance. Lastly, individuals against animal testing might fall victim to anchoring bias, basing their judgment on emotionally charged images of animal suffering in laboratories (Agell et al., 2015). This bias makes it challenging for them to objectively consider the broader scientific context or acknowledge advancements facilitated by animal testing, as their opinions are anchored to these poignant images.
In conclusion, to overcome these biases entrenched in discussions around animal testing, several practical suggestions can be implemented. Firstly, fostering diverse information exposure is crucial. Actively seeking a wide array of information sources, encompassing diverse viewpoints, scientific studies, and ethical considerations, helps challenge confirmation bias by presenting a more comprehensive perspective. Secondly, emphasizing critical reflection is essential. Encouraging self-reflection among individuals involved in these discussions enables them to recognize and counteract biases. Regularly evaluating beliefs and decisions while considering the influence of biases such as moral licensing or in-group biases aids in fostering more impartial judgments. Lastly, education and awareness initiatives play a pivotal role. Through conducting educational programs and public awareness campaigns that delve into the complexities of animal testing, its ethical implications, and advancements in alternative methods, societies can mitigate anchoring biases and encourage informed decision-making based on a more holistic understanding of the issue.
Reference
Agell, L., Soria, V., & Carrió, M. (2015). Using role play to debate animal testing. Journal of Biological Education, 49(3), 309-321.
Desmoulin-Canselier, S., & Moutaud, B. (2019). Animal models and animal experimentation in the development of deep brain stimulation: From a specific controversy to a multidimensional debate. Frontiers in neuroanatomy, 51.
Goodman, S., & Check, E. (2002). Animal experiments: the great primate debate. Nature, 417(6890), 684-688.
Madden, J. C., Enoch, S. J., Paini, A., & Cronin, M. T. (2020). A review of in silico tools as alternatives to animal testing: principles, resources and applications. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 48(4), 146-172.
Nurunnabi, A. S. M., Afroz, R. D., & Alam, S. N. (2013). Ethical Debate on Animal Research.
PSYC3480FinalPaperGradingRubricFall2021.pdf
Final Paper Grading Rubric Total points possible: 200 points
Grading Criteria
Unacceptable 0 points
Beginning 5 points
Developing 6-10 points
Accomplished 11-15 points
Exemplary 20 points
1. Introduction Paper failed to
include an introduction
Introduction is limited and failed to include information
to effectively introduce the topic
Introduction includes limited information
to attempt to introduce the topic & the two sides of the
argument
Introduction includes some details to
properly introduce the topic & the two
sides of the argument
Introduction includes specific details to fully
and effectively introduce the topic & the two sides of the
argument 2. Cognitive
Limitations/Biases for Side 1
Paper failed to include any content
for side 1
Paper includes at least one limited
argument for side 1
Paper includes at least two limited
arguments for side 1
Paper includes at least 3 limited
arguments for side 1
Paper includes 3 specific & detailed
arguments for side 1
3. Cognitive Limitation/Biases for Side 2
Paper failed to include any content
for side 2
Paper includes at least one weak
argument for side 2
Paper includes at least two weak
arguments for side 2
Paper includes at least 3 weak
arguments for side 2
Paper includes 3 specific & detailed
arguments for side 2
4. Critical Analysis & Content of Arguments
Fails to critically assess topics
Paper includes a weak critical
analysis; Paper relies heavily on textbook
definitions;
Paper includes the beginning of a
developing critical analysis; More of the
definitions and explanations are
copied from the text than not;
Paper includes a developing critical analysis of topic;
Most of the definitions and
explanations are in the student’s own
words;
Paper includes a well- developed critical
analysis of topic; All definitions and
explanations are in the student’s own words;
5. Conclusion Paper failed to include a conclusion
Conclusion is limited and failed to describe what can be done to
improve moving forward
Conclusion includes limited information to describe what can be done to improve
moving forward
Conclusion includes limited but realistic
information to describe what can be
done to improve moving forward
Conclusion includes information to fully,
effectively, and realistically describe what can be done to
improve moving forward
6. Content
All content is extremely weak, off topic, or incorrect; Content contains mostly “filler” or
cliché information;
Most of the content is weak, off topic, or incorrect; Content contains a lot of “filler” or cliché
information
Content offers acceptable
information; Most content is relevant, appropriate, and
correct;
Content provides a good amount of information; All
content is relevant, appropriate, and
correct;
Content provides an excellent amount of
information; All content is relevant, appropriate, and
correct;
Grading Criteria
Unacceptable 0 points
Beginning 1-3 points
Developing 4-6 points
Accomplished 7-9 points
Exemplary 20 points
7. Focus
Student demonstrates a lack of awareness of
purpose and audience; Unclear
focus; Inappropriate tone;
Student demonstrates minimal awareness
of purpose and audience; Marginal ability to provide a
clear focus; Borderline ability to convey appropriate
tone;
Student demonstrates acceptable awareness
of purpose and audience; Somewhat
clear focus; Indication of
understanding of appropriate tone;
Student demonstrates accurate awareness of
purpose and audience;
Mostly clear focus; Satisfactory use of
tone in writing;
Student demonstrates perceptive awareness
of purpose and audience; Clarity of
focus; Deep understanding and
ability to create appropriate tone;
8. Writing Style No entry;
Student’s paper lacks a logical and clear
arrangement of ideas; Fails to use transitions;
Student’s paper includes a fairly logical and clear
arrangement of ideas; Developing use of weak transitions
Student’s paper includes a mostly logical and clear
arrangement of ideas; Good use of clear
transitions;
Student’s paper includes ideas that are
well supported by a clear and logical
arrangement of ideas; Excellent use of clear
transitions;
9. English Language Conventions
No entry;
Paper includes many grammatically
incorrect sentences demonstrates a clear pattern in an error
type; Paper includes many misspellings;
Writing includes numerous repetitive
sentences;
Includes several grammatically
incorrect sentences but does not
demonstrate a clear pattern in any error type; Paper includes some misspellings; Writing includes several repetitive
sentences;
Students writes mostly
grammatically correct sentences with
few errors; Writing maintains accurate
spelling; Writing includes only a few repetitive sentences;
Students writes with an absence of errors in
grammar; Writing maintains accurate spelling; Writing is absent of repetitive
sentences;
10. Word Count Paper is less than 551 words
Paper is between 551-649 words
Paper is between 650-699 words
Paper is between 700-749 words
Paper is between 750-1000 words
PSYC3480FinalPaperHandoutFall2023.pdf
PSYC 3480: Social Cognition Final Paper: Applying Social Cognition to Current Events
Worth 200 points | Due: Tuesday, December 5th by 11:59pm Paper Requirements:
• The paper must be formatted in APA style, 6th edition (i.e., double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, and have 1-inch margins).
• The majority of the information included in the paper must be in your own words. I am not looking for textbook information. I’m looking for your work and applications. Still, all sources either paraphrased or quoted are required to be properly cited.
• The paper must have at least 750 words (Acceptable range: 750-1000 words).
• English language conventions/grammar & flow will be graded. Paper Instructions & Required Content:
1. Introduction: Identify a current controversy or societal issue.
o Discuss a brief history of your chosen issue and where the issue stands today.
o Identify the two (or more) “sides” to the argument or issue & discuss the main argument(s) from each side.
2. Cognitive Limitation/Biases: For each side, identify and discuss 3 cognitive limitations/biases that have impacted the controversy (This means that you’ll need 6 total). Be sure to do the following for each:
o In your own words, describe the cognitive limitation or bias.
o Clearly describe how the cognitive limitation/bias has had an impact on the thinking or spread of misinformation on that side of the controversy
3. Conclusion: Reflect on some of the small and realistic things that can be done on both sides to begin to try to overcome these cognitive limitations to improve understanding and improve this issue moving forward.
o For example, how can people change their approach? What can one do to improve how they understand the news and information they receive from social media? What can be done in a home or classroom setting?
Paper Deadline & Late Submission Policy:
• Deadline: 11:59 pm on Tuesday, December 5th
• Papers will be submitted through a TurnItIn link on Blackboard and carefully checked for plagiarism. Plagiarism will result in a 0 for the paper. Students are encouraged to turn in their paper early and review their plagiarism report. Students are allowed the opportunity to remedy any issues flagged by the system and resubmit their paper up until the final deadline for the paper.
• Late Submissions: Late submissions will only be accepted up until Thursday, December 7th by 11:59pm
• Finals received on 12/6 from 12:00am – 11:59am will be docked 30 late points o Highest grade possible = 85%
• Finals received on 12/7 from 12:00pm – 11:59pm will be docked 50 late points o Highest grade possible = 75%
animaltestingoutline.docx
2
Student’s Name.
Department/ Faculty
Professor’s Name
Course Code & Name
Date
Animal testing has a deep-rooted history, stretching back centuries as an integral part of early medical experiments that eventually became pivotal in scientific research. It played a fundamental role in advancing medications, vaccines, and surgical procedures. However, this practice hasn't been without its ethical dilemmas, sparking ongoing debates about the treatment of animals within laboratory settings. Presently, while animal testing remains prevalent in scientific inquiry, a burgeoning global movement stands in opposition. This movement is fueled by ethical considerations, the emergence of technological alternatives, and discussions about the reliability of using animals as models to predict human responses (Goodman & Check, 2002).
Supporters of animal testing staunchly advocate its necessity for medical progress, asserting its pivotal role in ensuring the safety and efficacy of products before human trials. They emphasize historical breakthroughs attributed to animal testing and highlight the perceived absence of equally effective alternatives (Goodman & Check, 2002).. On the opposing side, detractors vehemently argue against animal testing, viewing it as ethically unacceptable due to concerns about animal welfare, the uncertainty surrounding the applicability of results to humans, and the availability of technological advancements that offer viable alternatives to traditional animal models.
Supporters of animal testing are susceptible to several cognitive limitations and biases that shape their perspectives. Confirmation bias, the tendency to seek information affirming existing beliefs while disregarding contradictory evidence, is prevalent among them (Desmoulin-Canselier & Moutaud, 2019). This bias leads these supporters to predominantly focus on success stories derived from animal testing, conveniently overlooking instances where such tests failed to accurately predict human responses, thus reinforcing their conviction in its efficacy. Moreover, there's a status quo bias entrenched within this group, stemming from their familiarity and comfort with the established practice of animal testing. This bias results in resistance towards alternative methods, underestimating the potential of newer approaches simply because they deviate from the traditional methods they are accustomed to (Nurunnabi et al., 2013). Additionally, optimism bias plays a significant role in their thinking, causing them to overestimate the benefits of animal testing while downplaying its limitations and ethical concerns. This bias fosters an overly optimistic view of the necessity and effectiveness of animal testing, potentially blinding them to the broader ethical and scientific implications.
Individuals opposing animal testing are also subject to various cognitive limitations and biases shaping their viewpoints. Firstly, moral licensing influences this group, allowing them to engage in behaviors contradictory to their stance against animal testing (Madden et al., 2020). They may justify their actions by believing that their ethical choices in other aspects of life compensate for their support or use of products tested on animals, potentially diluting their commitment to their core belief. Secondly, in-group bias can cloud their judgment by causing them to dismiss valid arguments from supporters of animal testing. This bias frames those in favor of animal testing as part of an opposing group, hindering objective evaluation of their stance. Lastly, individuals against animal testing might fall victim to anchoring bias, basing their judgment on emotionally charged images of animal suffering in laboratories (Agell et al., 2015). This bias makes it challenging for them to objectively consider the broader scientific context or acknowledge advancements facilitated by animal testing, as their opinions are anchored to these poignant images.
In conclusion, to overcome these biases entrenched in discussions around animal testing, several practical suggestions can be implemented. Firstly, fostering diverse information exposure is crucial. Actively seeking a wide array of information sources, encompassing diverse viewpoints, scientific studies, and ethical considerations, helps challenge confirmation bias by presenting a more comprehensive perspective. Secondly, emphasizing critical reflection is essential. Encouraging self-reflection among individuals involved in these discussions enables them to recognize and counteract biases. Regularly evaluating beliefs and decisions while considering the influence of biases such as moral licensing or in-group biases aids in fostering more impartial judgments. Lastly, education and awareness initiatives play a pivotal role. Through conducting educational programs and public awareness campaigns that delve into the complexities of animal testing, its ethical implications, and advancements in alternative methods, societies can mitigate anchoring biases and encourage informed decision-making based on a more holistic understanding of the issue.
Reference
Agell, L., Soria, V., & Carrió, M. (2015). Using role play to debate animal testing. Journal of Biological Education, 49(3), 309-321.
Desmoulin-Canselier, S., & Moutaud, B. (2019). Animal models and animal experimentation in the development of deep brain stimulation: From a specific controversy to a multidimensional debate. Frontiers in neuroanatomy, 51.
Goodman, S., & Check, E. (2002). Animal experiments: the great primate debate. Nature, 417(6890), 684-688.
Madden, J. C., Enoch, S. J., Paini, A., & Cronin, M. T. (2020). A review of in silico tools as alternatives to animal testing: principles, resources and applications. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 48(4), 146-172.
Nurunnabi, A. S. M., Afroz, R. D., & Alam, S. N. (2013). Ethical Debate on Animal Research.
PSYC3480FinalPaperGradingRubricFall2021.pdf
Final Paper Grading Rubric Total points possible: 200 points
Grading Criteria
Unacceptable 0 points
Beginning 5 points
Developing 6-10 points
Accomplished 11-15 points
Exemplary 20 points
1. Introduction Paper failed to
include an introduction
Introduction is limited and failed to include information
to effectively introduce the topic
Introduction includes limited information
to attempt to introduce the topic & the two sides of the
argument
Introduction includes some details to
properly introduce the topic & the two
sides of the argument
Introduction includes specific details to fully
and effectively introduce the topic & the two sides of the
argument 2. Cognitive
Limitations/Biases for Side 1
Paper failed to include any content
for side 1
Paper includes at least one limited
argument for side 1
Paper includes at least two limited
arguments for side 1
Paper includes at least 3 limited
arguments for side 1
Paper includes 3 specific & detailed
arguments for side 1
3. Cognitive Limitation/Biases for Side 2
Paper failed to include any content
for side 2
Paper includes at least one weak
argument for side 2
Paper includes at least two weak
arguments for side 2
Paper includes at least 3 weak
arguments for side 2
Paper includes 3 specific & detailed
arguments for side 2
4. Critical Analysis & Content of Arguments
Fails to critically assess topics
Paper includes a weak critical
analysis; Paper relies heavily on textbook
definitions;
Paper includes the beginning of a
developing critical analysis; More of the
definitions and explanations are
copied from the text than not;
Paper includes a developing critical analysis of topic;
Most of the definitions and
explanations are in the student’s own
words;
Paper includes a well- developed critical
analysis of topic; All definitions and
explanations are in the student’s own words;
5. Conclusion Paper failed to include a conclusion
Conclusion is limited and failed to describe what can be done to
improve moving forward
Conclusion includes limited information to describe what can be done to improve
moving forward
Conclusion includes limited but realistic
information to describe what can be
done to improve moving forward
Conclusion includes information to fully,
effectively, and realistically describe what can be done to
improve moving forward
6. Content
All content is extremely weak, off topic, or incorrect; Content contains mostly “filler” or
cliché information;
Most of the content is weak, off topic, or incorrect; Content contains a lot of “filler” or cliché
information
Content offers acceptable
information; Most content is relevant, appropriate, and
correct;
Content provides a good amount of information; All
content is relevant, appropriate, and
correct;
Content provides an excellent amount of
information; All content is relevant, appropriate, and
correct;
Grading Criteria
Unacceptable 0 points
Beginning 1-3 points
Developing 4-6 points
Accomplished 7-9 points
Exemplary 20 points
7. Focus
Student demonstrates a lack of awareness of
purpose and audience; Unclear
focus; Inappropriate tone;
Student demonstrates minimal awareness
of purpose and audience; Marginal ability to provide a
clear focus; Borderline ability to convey appropriate
tone;
Student demonstrates acceptable awareness
of purpose and audience; Somewhat
clear focus; Indication of
understanding of appropriate tone;
Student demonstrates accurate awareness of
purpose and audience;
Mostly clear focus; Satisfactory use of
tone in writing;
Student demonstrates perceptive awareness
of purpose and audience; Clarity of
focus; Deep understanding and
ability to create appropriate tone;
8. Writing Style No entry;
Student’s paper lacks a logical and clear
arrangement of ideas; Fails to use transitions;
Student’s paper includes a fairly logical and clear
arrangement of ideas; Developing use of weak transitions
Student’s paper includes a mostly logical and clear
arrangement of ideas; Good use of clear
transitions;
Student’s paper includes ideas that are
well supported by a clear and logical
arrangement of ideas; Excellent use of clear
transitions;
9. English Language Conventions
No entry;
Paper includes many grammatically
incorrect sentences demonstrates a clear pattern in an error
type; Paper includes many misspellings;
Writing includes numerous repetitive
sentences;
Includes several grammatically
incorrect sentences but does not
demonstrate a clear pattern in any error type; Paper includes some misspellings; Writing includes several repetitive
sentences;
Students writes mostly
grammatically correct sentences with
few errors; Writing maintains accurate
spelling; Writing includes only a few repetitive sentences;
Students writes with an absence of errors in
grammar; Writing maintains accurate spelling; Writing is absent of repetitive
sentences;
10. Word Count Paper is less than 551 words
Paper is between 551-649 words
Paper is between 650-699 words
Paper is between 700-749 words
Paper is between 750-1000 words
- MKT 421 Week 5 Learning Team Assignment Marketing Plan Final Paper and Presentation
- Staffing Plan Paper Week 2 Ind. Assign.
- ECO 205 Week 6 CheckPoint Industry Research Part III Appendix
- DHA Budget
- help?
- Training and Development - Memo on Orientation Program
- Biological System Paper
- PSYC 1001-7 APA 4 TO 6 PAGES
- COM 220-Week 9-Capstone CheckPoint
- Week 3 Can Anyone Guarantee me an A+