need help

WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT 2 (14%)

The purpose of the second written assignment is to continue your practice at scientific thinking about psychological issues. For this assignment, you will need to read another description of (made-up) research on a psychological topic (called “The Magic of Holding Hands” which begins on page 3 and: (1) think about how the principles of scientific thinking apply to it, like you did for the first assignment, but now also; (2) critically analyze the research methods used in the research description.

For the first part of the written assignment, you should analyze the claims being made according to two of the six principles of scientific thinking (see Written Assignment 1 for a list of these). It is up to you to select the most relevant principles but in every case, try to find the principles that the research description fails to follow. Just like in Assignment 1, when writing this part of Assignment 2 you should first define the general principle, then provide a detailed response showing how the research description specifically fails to follow the principle. Finally, try to say what would need to be done to make sure the research description follows the principle. (For this part of Assignment 2, please pick two of the six scientific principles to discuss – do not use any of the three warning signs of pseudoscience for Assignment 2.)

For the second part of the written assignment, analyze the research description and the claims it makes to identify two different problems (or flaws) with the research methods that were used. In our class, a number of issues related to research methods have been discussed and six different types of problems with research are described below. Discuss how two of these problems occur in the research description. When you identify the problem or flaw in the research methodology, make sure to define the problem (e.g., reactivity) in your own words, provide a comprehensive explanation of how the problem might have affected the research, and also say what would need to be done to improve the research methodology (to fix the problem) in the research description.

Research Flaw 1: Reactivity – this term refers to how the act of observing someone might change their behaviour and so also change the data you collect from them. In thinking about this issue, consider whether it is possible that the participants in a study might have changed their behaviour just because they knew that they were being observed by the researcher. Also consider, if participants probably did change their behaviour because they knew they were being observed, what effect that might have on the results from the study. If participants react to being observed by changing their behaviour, then researchers may no longer be observing the kind of natural behaviour that they really wanted to observe.

Research Flaw 2: Social desirability bias/positive impression management – these terms refer to the possibility that people may not always tell the truth when asked questions, or may attempt to improve their performance on a task to impress the experimenter. Is it possible that participants in the research description gave untruthful answers in response to questions in order to look good? Alternatively, do you think participants in a study may have tried extra hard at something in order to impress the experimenter? Again, consider what effect this might have on the results from the researcher’s study. How might the researcher’s results been different if the researcher’s participants had not been trying hard to impress the researcher?

Research Flaw 3: Unrepresentative or biased sample – this term refers to the possibility that the sample of participants in the research description may not reflect the full range of people about whom we are interested in making conclusions (i.e., the population). Is it possible that the researchers studied only a small and/or biased sample of people? If the researchers make claims about people in general, but there was something about the sample of people they studied that made them different from the general population, then this is potentially a problem. If researchers studied a biased sample, try to think about how the biased sample may have affected the results that the researchers found.

Research Flaw 4: Confounding variables– when conducting an experiment, a confounding variable is something that differs between the experimental and control groups, which confounds (or confuses) our interpretation of the study. In other words, the presence of a confounding variable means that we can’t be sure whether the independent variable (i.e., the thing we deliberately manipulated between the experimental and control groups) or the confounding variable (i.e., something that also varies between the experimental and control groups, but which we did not mean to vary) is responsible for the results of the study. If the research description describes an experiment, does that experiment contain a confounding variable? If it does, could the confounding variable be an alternative explanation for the results of the study?

Research Flaw 5: Lack of a control group – remember that in an experiment, we create an experimental group for whom we have manipulated an independent variable (e.g., we increase the amount of violent TV a group of children watches) to try to determine the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable (e.g., we look to see if watching more violent TV increases aggression in this group of children). However, we also need to study a control group for whom the independent variable has not been manipulated (in this case, a group of children who do not watch more violent TV than usual). It is the comparison of the experimental group with the control group that tells us the effect of the manipulation of the independent variable. Was the study lacking a control group? If so, how might that change the interpretation of the study?

Research Flaw 6: Invalid measures – this term refers to the question of whether or not we are sure that we are really measuring the thing we want to measure. For example, if a study claims to show an influence on people’s creativity, try to think about whether or not the measures that are used are really measures of creativity. Do they measure everything we might want to call creativity or not? Do they even measure creativity at all, or are they perhaps measuring something else instead? So, in general, try to think about what the researchers claim to have measured. Then, compare what they say they have measured with what they actually measured. Are those things the same, or are the researchers’ measures not really measuring what they say they are?

RESEARCH DESCRIPTION

The Magic of Holding Hands

Dr. Francis is interested in investigating the effect of physical touch on anxiety levels. To investigate this topic, she decided to conduct an experimental study. She gathered a sample of 6 married couples (thus, a total of 12 participants made of up 6 males and 6 females) from 50 to 53 years of age who had been married for at least 25 years.

She invited participants into her laboratory to participate in this study. The participants were divided into 2 groups: Group A and Group B. Note that couples were in the same group as their significant others (i.e., husbands/wives).

Each couple in Group A was asked to sit on a couch in front of a Television and watch a romantic movie called “The Notebook”. Participants were instructed to sit so close to their significant other that their bodies would be constantly touching. In addition to this, they were also instructed to hold their significant other’s hand throughout the entire movie. When the movie ended, Dr. Francis walked into the room and handed out 2 questionnaires to each couple and gave the following instructions: “husbands must read out loud each question on the questionnaire to their wives and record their answers. Once all questions have been answered, the wives will ask the same questions from their husbands and record their answers”. The questionnaire was designed to measure anxiety levels through different questions. Dr. Francis waited in the room while participants were asking and answering questions out loud. When all couples completed their questionnaires, Dr. Francis collected the completed questionnaires and left the room.

Each couple in Group B was asked to sit on a couch in front of a Television and watch the same movie that Group A was watching (‘The Notebook’). Couples in Group B had a cushion placed in between them so their bodies would not be touching the body of their significant others. Participants were also instructed to not touch their significant others at all during the movie (i.e., not hold hands, not hug, etc.). When the movie ended, a Research Assistant walked into the room and handed out the same questionnaires that Group A completed to each couple and gave the participants the same instructions that Dr. Francis gave to Group A. The Research Assistant then left the room for participants to begin asking and answering questions out loud. The Research Assistant returned to the room after 20 minutes to collect the completed questionaries.

The results of this study showed that participants in Group A were less anxious compared to participants in Group B. From these results, Dr. Francis concluded that physical touch reduces anxiety levels and included the following in her research article which she titled “The Magic of Holding Hands”: “this study provides empirical evidence for the effect of physical touch on how anxious you feel! To guarantee to never feel anxiety throughout your life, ensure to hold your partner’s hand often, hug them as much as you can and include physical touch in your daily routine.”

Upon wanting to publish her study in a peer-reviewed journal, a reviewer from the journal she submitted her research article to asked Dr. Francis to also present her sample’s demographic data. Dr. Francis realized that all participants in Group A had high socioeconomic status (SES; i.e., higher incomes), while all participants in Group B had low SES (i.e., lower incomes).

Twelve years have passed since the publication of Dr. Francis’ article and still not a single study has replicated her findings. However, despite this Dr. Francis continues to proudly present her findings and conclusions in conferences and TV interviews.

WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT 2 MARKING

For each scientific principle and each research flaw that you choose to write about, give it a heading and write just a single paragraph about it. You should allocate up to 250-350 words to each of the 2 scientific principles you choose and also 250-350 words to each research flaw that you choose. There is no need for a specific introduction or conclusion in this paper. So, your written assignment should be about 1,400 words long in total. However, this is just a guideline! You may find that you covered everything you needed to say in fewer words (i.e., 1,000 words). Or you may find yourself writing a bit more than 1,400 words, and both of those are okay. Just don’t go too far over 1,400 words. The total length of your assignment must be in the range of 900 to 1,500 words, not less or more. Each scientific paragraph you write will be marked out of 3 marks, and so the written assignment will be out of 12 marks. The following criteria will be used:

ANALYSIS OF 2 SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND 2 RESEARCH FLAWS - 12 MARKS

For each principle/flaw

0 mark – no answer or wholly inappropriate answer

1 mark – significant misunderstanding or inappropriate application of principle

2 marks – fair application of principle to scenario, some omissions

3 marks – comprehensive discussion of principle as applied to scenario (a comprehensive discussion describes, in your own words, what the principle or flaw means in general, how it applies to the research description in particular, and how the research description could have done a better job at following the scientific principle or avoiding the flaw)

FORMATTING AND SUBMISSION

FORMAT

Because you will be handing in the paper electronically through the course website, you do not need to include a cover sheet with your name, student number, etc. We do not need a paper copy of this assignment. Full sentences and paragraphs must be used; bullet form is not acceptable. It will be good practice for you to include a reference list in APA format at the end of the paper (see below) but there are no marks assigned for this.

CITATIONS

For this assignment, the only sources you should consult are our class lectures/notes and the course textbook. If you would like to cite the class notes in the text of your assignment in APA format, write something like the following:

“As defined in class (Gharehgazlou, 2024), falsifiability refers to whether or not a claim can be tested.”

The reference for the class material at the end of your assignment should look something like this:

Gharehgazlou, A. (2024, September). Scientific methods and research methods in psychology. Psychology 102: Introduction to Psychology I. Lecture conducted from Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON.

If you would like to cite the textbook in the text of your assignment in APA format, write something like the following:

“Lilienfeld, Lynn, Namy, Cramer and Schmaltz (2019) tell us that unrepresentative samples can be misleading in the following ways.”

The reference for the textbook at the end of your assignment should look something like this:

Lilienfeld, S.O., Lynn, S.J., Namy, L.L., Cramer, K.M. & Schmaltz, R. (2019). Psychology: From inquiry to understanding. 4th Canadian edition. Toronto, ON: Pearson.

All that said, don’t worry about citing too much for this assignment. It’s good to practice citing and referencing in APA format, but there are no marks for citing and references in this assignment. Also, please write this whole assignment in your own words. Do not use any direct quotes for this assignment.

SUBMISSION

Save your assignment as a .doc or .docx, or .pdf file. If you use the Pages program, please convert your file to a .doc or .docx or .pdf file before you submit it.

Assignments are to be submitted via the course website before 11:59 pm on Nov. 14th. Please see the course outline for details of late submission policy. Retain your electronic receipt of submission in case of dispute, but please don’t forward this to me unless I specifically ask for it

WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT 2 (14%)

The purpose of the second written assignment is to continue your practice at scientific thinking about psychological issues. For this assignment, you will need to read another description of (made-up) research on a psychological topic (called “The Magic of Holding Hands” which begins on page 3 and: (1) think about how the principles of scientific thinking apply to it, like you did for the first assignment, but now also; (2) critically analyze the research methods used in the research description.

For the first part of the written assignment, you should analyze the claims being made according to two of the six principles of scientific thinking (see Written Assignment 1 for a list of these). It is up to you to select the most relevant principles but in every case, try to find the principles that the research description fails to follow. Just like in Assignment 1, when writing this part of Assignment 2 you should first define the general principle, then provide a detailed response showing how the research description specifically fails to follow the principle. Finally, try to say what would need to be done to make sure the research description follows the principle. (For this part of Assignment 2, please pick two of the six scientific principles to discuss – do not use any of the three warning signs of pseudoscience for Assignment 2.)

For the second part of the written assignment, analyze the research description and the claims it makes to identify two different problems (or flaws) with the research methods that were used. In our class, a number of issues related to research methods have been discussed and six different types of problems with research are described below. Discuss how two of these problems occur in the research description. When you identify the problem or flaw in the research methodology, make sure to define the problem (e.g., reactivity) in your own words, provide a comprehensive explanation of how the problem might have affected the research, and also say what would need to be done to improve the research methodology (to fix the problem) in the research description.

Research Flaw 1: Reactivity – this term refers to how the act of observing someone might change their behaviour and so also change the data you collect from them. In thinking about this issue, consider whether it is possible that the participants in a study might have changed their behaviour just because they knew that they were being observed by the researcher. Also consider, if participants probably did change their behaviour because they knew they were being observed, what effect that might have on the results from the study. If participants react to being observed by changing their behaviour, then researchers may no longer be observing the kind of natural behaviour that they really wanted to observe.

Research Flaw 2: Social desirability bias/positive impression management – these terms refer to the possibility that people may not always tell the truth when asked questions, or may attempt to improve their performance on a task to impress the experimenter. Is it possible that participants in the research description gave untruthful answers in response to questions in order to look good? Alternatively, do you think participants in a study may have tried extra hard at something in order to impress the experimenter? Again, consider what effect this might have on the results from the researcher’s study. How might the researcher’s results been different if the researcher’s participants had not been trying hard to impress the researcher?

Research Flaw 3: Unrepresentative or biased sample – this term refers to the possibility that the sample of participants in the research description may not reflect the full range of people about whom we are interested in making conclusions (i.e., the population). Is it possible that the researchers studied only a small and/or biased sample of people? If the researchers make claims about people in general, but there was something about the sample of people they studied that made them different from the general population, then this is potentially a problem. If researchers studied a biased sample, try to think about how the biased sample may have affected the results that the researchers found.

Research Flaw 4: Confounding variables– when conducting an experiment, a confounding variable is something that differs between the experimental and control groups, which confounds (or confuses) our interpretation of the study. In other words, the presence of a confounding variable means that we can’t be sure whether the independent variable (i.e., the thing we deliberately manipulated between the experimental and control groups) or the confounding variable (i.e., something that also varies between the experimental and control groups, but which we did not mean to vary) is responsible for the results of the study. If the research description describes an experiment, does that experiment contain a confounding variable? If it does, could the confounding variable be an alternative explanation for the results of the study?

Research Flaw 5: Lack of a control group – remember that in an experiment, we create an experimental group for whom we have manipulated an independent variable (e.g., we increase the amount of violent TV a group of children watches) to try to determine the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable (e.g., we look to see if watching more violent TV increases aggression in this group of children). However, we also need to study a control group for whom the independent variable has not been manipulated (in this case, a group of children who do not watch more violent TV than usual). It is the comparison of the experimental group with the control group that tells us the effect of the manipulation of the independent variable. Was the study lacking a control group? If so, how might that change the interpretation of the study?

Research Flaw 6: Invalid measures – this term refers to the question of whether or not we are sure that we are really measuring the thing we want to measure. For example, if a study claims to show an influence on people’s creativity, try to think about whether or not the measures that are used are really measures of creativity. Do they measure everything we might want to call creativity or not? Do they even measure creativity at all, or are they perhaps measuring something else instead? So, in general, try to think about what the researchers claim to have measured. Then, compare what they say they have measured with what they actually measured. Are those things the same, or are the researchers’ measures not really measuring what they say they are?

RESEARCH DESCRIPTION

The Magic of Holding Hands

Dr. Francis is interested in investigating the effect of physical touch on anxiety levels. To investigate this topic, she decided to conduct an experimental study. She gathered a sample of 6 married couples (thus, a total of 12 participants made of up 6 males and 6 females) from 50 to 53 years of age who had been married for at least 25 years.

She invited participants into her laboratory to participate in this study. The participants were divided into 2 groups: Group A and Group B. Note that couples were in the same group as their significant others (i.e., husbands/wives).

Each couple in Group A was asked to sit on a couch in front of a Television and watch a romantic movie called “The Notebook”. Participants were instructed to sit so close to their significant other that their bodies would be constantly touching. In addition to this, they were also instructed to hold their significant other’s hand throughout the entire movie. When the movie ended, Dr. Francis walked into the room and handed out 2 questionnaires to each couple and gave the following instructions: “husbands must read out loud each question on the questionnaire to their wives and record their answers. Once all questions have been answered, the wives will ask the same questions from their husbands and record their answers”. The questionnaire was designed to measure anxiety levels through different questions. Dr. Francis waited in the room while participants were asking and answering questions out loud. When all couples completed their questionnaires, Dr. Francis collected the completed questionnaires and left the room.

Each couple in Group B was asked to sit on a couch in front of a Television and watch the same movie that Group A was watching (‘The Notebook’). Couples in Group B had a cushion placed in between them so their bodies would not be touching the body of their significant others. Participants were also instructed to not touch their significant others at all during the movie (i.e., not hold hands, not hug, etc.). When the movie ended, a Research Assistant walked into the room and handed out the same questionnaires that Group A completed to each couple and gave the participants the same instructions that Dr. Francis gave to Group A. The Research Assistant then left the room for participants to begin asking and answering questions out loud. The Research Assistant returned to the room after 20 minutes to collect the completed questionaries.

The results of this study showed that participants in Group A were less anxious compared to participants in Group B. From these results, Dr. Francis concluded that physical touch reduces anxiety levels and included the following in her research article which she titled “The Magic of Holding Hands”: “this study provides empirical evidence for the effect of physical touch on how anxious you feel! To guarantee to never feel anxiety throughout your life, ensure to hold your partner’s hand often, hug them as much as you can and include physical touch in your daily routine.”

Upon wanting to publish her study in a peer-reviewed journal, a reviewer from the journal she submitted her research article to asked Dr. Francis to also present her sample’s demographic data. Dr. Francis realized that all participants in Group A had high socioeconomic status (SES; i.e., higher incomes), while all participants in Group B had low SES (i.e., lower incomes).

Twelve years have passed since the publication of Dr. Francis’ article and still not a single study has replicated her findings. However, despite this Dr. Francis continues to proudly present her findings and conclusions in conferences and TV interviews.

WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT 2 MARKING

For each scientific principle and each research flaw that you choose to write about, give it a heading and write just a single paragraph about it. You should allocate up to 250-350 words to each of the 2 scientific principles you choose and also 250-350 words to each research flaw that you choose. There is no need for a specific introduction or conclusion in this paper. So, your written assignment should be about 1,400 words long in total. However, this is just a guideline! You may find that you covered everything you needed to say in fewer words (i.e., 1,000 words). Or you may find yourself writing a bit more than 1,400 words, and both of those are okay. Just don’t go too far over 1,400 words. The total length of your assignment must be in the range of 900 to 1,500 words, not less or more. Each scientific paragraph you write will be marked out of 3 marks, and so the written assignment will be out of 12 marks. The following criteria will be used:

ANALYSIS OF 2 SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND 2 RESEARCH FLAWS - 12 MARKS

For each principle/flaw

0 mark – no answer or wholly inappropriate answer

1 mark – significant misunderstanding or inappropriate application of principle

2 marks – fair application of principle to scenario, some omissions

3 marks – comprehensive discussion of principle as applied to scenario (a comprehensive discussion describes, in your own words, what the principle or flaw means in general, how it applies to the research description in particular, and how the research description could have done a better job at following the scientific principle or avoiding the flaw)

FORMATTING AND SUBMISSION

FORMAT

Because you will be handing in the paper electronically through the course website, you do not need to include a cover sheet with your name, student number, etc. We do not need a paper copy of this assignment. Full sentences and paragraphs must be used; bullet form is not acceptable. It will be good practice for you to include a reference list in APA format at the end of the paper (see below) but there are no marks assigned for this.

CITATIONS

For this assignment, the only sources you should consult are our class lectures/notes and the course textbook. If you would like to cite the class notes in the text of your assignment in APA format, write something like the following:

“As defined in class (Gharehgazlou, 2024), falsifiability refers to whether or not a claim can be tested.”

The reference for the class material at the end of your assignment should look something like this:

Gharehgazlou, A. (2024, September). Scientific methods and research methods in psychology. Psychology 102: Introduction to Psychology I. Lecture conducted from Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON.

If you would like to cite the textbook in the text of your assignment in APA format, write something like the following:

“Lilienfeld, Lynn, Namy, Cramer and Schmaltz (2019) tell us that unrepresentative samples can be misleading in the following ways.”

The reference for the textbook at the end of your assignment should look something like this:

Lilienfeld, S.O., Lynn, S.J., Namy, L.L., Cramer, K.M. & Schmaltz, R. (2019). Psychology: From inquiry to understanding. 4th Canadian edition. Toronto, ON: Pearson.

All that said, don’t worry about citing too much for this assignment. It’s good to practice citing and referencing in APA format, but there are no marks for citing and references in this assignment. Also, please write this whole assignment in your own words. Do not use any direct quotes for this assignment.

SUBMISSION

Save your assignment as a .doc or .docx, or .pdf file. If you use the Pages program, please convert your file to a .doc or .docx or .pdf file before you submit it.

Assignments are to be submitted via the course website before 11:59 pm on Nov. 14th. Please see the course outline for details of late submission policy. Retain your electronic receipt of submission in case of dispute, but please don’t forward this to me unless I specifically ask for it