peer review week 6

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