(Mt) – Bella Capelli – A Paul Mitchell Partner School Correlation vs

FIND A SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay

WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT (23% of final grade) Summer 2020 – DUE July 15th, at midnight The purpose of the written assignment is to extend your scientific thinking about psychological issues, both in terms of the principles of scientific thinking and also in terms of whether current claims are consistent or inconsistent with previous research in psychology. It’s highly likely you have come across claims and ideas regarding human behavior before, but perhaps not stopped to fully analyze whether these claims and ideas are scientific, and whether they are supported by good quality evidence. We would also like you to demonstrate an awareness of various issues to do with research methods. As guiding principles, Lilienfeld et al. (p.30-35 in the 3rd edition, p. 22- 27 in the 2nd edition, or p. 37-43 in the 1st edition) have set out some principles of scientific thinking, and we will talk about these principles in class. The six guiding principles are: 1) Ruling out rival hypotheses: Findings consistent with several different hypotheses need additional research to decide which hypothesis is best supported. When looking at a pattern of results that has been reported, it is important to ask “are there any alternative hypotheses that could explain this pattern of data?” The rival hypotheses that are most important to rule out are those that could also explain the specific results that have been described. It is useful to consider how we could attempt to rule out these alternative hypotheses. 2) Correlation vs. causation: An association between two things does not imply a cause and effect relationship. If a pattern of results was produced simply by measuring two different things and comparing them, we cannot say anything definitive about whether one of these things caused the other. It’s always important to ask whether the causal connection that is claimed or implied (e.g. A causes B) could be reversed (i.e. B causes A) or whether a third variable could explain the relationship (i.e. C causes A and B to go together). 3) Falsifiability: Claims must be capable of being disproved. In other words, we should be able to think of a way to test whether or not a claim is true. If the claim is made in such a way that there’s no good way to test it, the claim is not really scientific. 4) Replicability: Findings must be capable of being duplicated following the same methodology. In addition, the most reliable claims are those that have converging evidence for them. We can only really be confident in a claim if it has been tested in multiple different ways and all of them point to the same effect. 5) Extraordinary claims: Science is, for the most part, a cumulative process, where new claims represent small advances over older ones. A claim that contradicts what we already know, or that seems to promise radical new benefits, must have a lot of evidence to back it up. The bigger the claim, the more evidence must be provided. 6) Parsimony (a.k.a. Occam’s razor): If two hypotheses explain a phenomenon equally well, select the simpler one. The simpler one is not necessarily correct, but we shouldn’t make our explanations more complicated than necessary. In addition, Lilienfeld et al. have outlined some warning signs related to pseudoscientific claims (see p. 22-24 in the 3rd edition, or p.14-15 in the 2nd edition): 1) Overreliance on anecdotes: Testimonials from others can be hard to verify, hard to generalize and fail to inform us about cause-and-effect relationships. In general, statements that are backed up with data gathered from a study are to be preferred over statements that reflect the opinion of just a single person. Any single person’s observations may be based on an unrepresentative sample and may be influenced by biases (including a social desirability bias or biases in memory). 2) Meaningless psychobabble: Technical jargon and scientific-sounding words can sound convincing but be essentially meaningless. We should be wary of claims that rely on confusing terminology. 3) Talk of ‘proof’ instead of ‘evidence’: Science provides evidence that either supports or refutes certain ideas we have about the world. But ‘proving’ an idea is almost impossible because future research may show us that our existing ideas are incorrect, or at least only partially true. 4) Exaggerated claims: when a claim makes big promises or implies a huge shift in how the world works, how we think, etc. Accepting the claim would mean that a lot of what we think to be true would actually be false (the claim contradicts what we know about the world). For your assignment, I would like you to read the research description presented later in this document and… a) analyze the claims being made according to 2 of the above 6 principles of scientific thinking. It may be the case that the research does a good job of following some of these 6 scientific principles, but does not do a good job of following others. If you think the research does a good job of following one of the principles that you have chosen to write about (e.g. you think it does a good job in ruling our rival hypotheses), provide a detailed response as to why you think that. If you think the research does not do a good job of following one of the principles (e.g. it fails to consider rival hypotheses), please provide a comprehensive answer and say what would need to be done to make sure the research follows the principle (e.g. what the rival hypotheses might be and how they might be ruled out). You will probably find that you have more interesting material to write about if you try to look for the ways that the research fails to follow a scientific principle, than if you look for the ways it succeeds. In other words, try to find what the researcher did wrong rather than what they did right. The research description has been specially created so that it fails to abide by some – but not all – of these scientific principles. b) analyze the claims according to 1 of the above 3 warning signs related to pseudoscientific claims. The research descriptions also contain one (or more) of the warning signs of pseudoscience. So pick one of the three warning signs from the list and discuss how it applies to the research. You should discuss the warning sign in general (e.g. why it is not appropriate to rely on anecdotal evidence when making claims) and how it applies to the specific research that is being described (e.g. what anecdotes are mentioned in the research description and why they are problematic). c) analyze the research scenario and the claims it makes in relation to 2 different aspects of the research methods discussed in class or in Lilienfeld et al. (2017) in Chapter 2. In the lecture and textbook, a number of other issues related to research methods have been discussed. Below are some examples of things you might look for in the scenarios. Remember though that not every point will relate to every scenario and you may even find other weaknesses in research design that are not listed below: . (1) Reactivity – refers to the often-social nature of data collection in psychology and how the act of observation might impact the data. In other words, is it possible that the participants in the study changed their behaviour because they knew that they were being observed? If participants react to being observed, then researchers may no longer be observing the kind of behaviour that they really wanted to observe. . . (2) Social desirability bias – this refers 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. In other words, is it possible that participants in the scenario 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? If so, perhaps the experimenters will obtain results that won’t reflect people’s behaviour outside of their specific study. . (3) Unrepresentative or biased sample – this refers to the possibility that the sample of participants in the scenario may not reflect the full range of people about whom we are interested in making conclusions (i.e. the population). In other words, is it possible that the researchers in the scenario studied only a small and biased sample of people? If so, try to think about how the biased sample may have affected the results that the researchers found. . . (4) Confounding variables – when conducting an experiment, a confounding variable is something that systematically 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 (the thing we deliberately manipulated between the experimental and control groups) or the confounding variable (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 scenario 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? . . (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. 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. . . (6) Validity of the measures – this refers to the idea that even though we might have a measure that is highly reliable (i.e., a set of weighing scales) this measure would be inappropriate for measuring certain psychological characteristics (for example, intelligence or perfectionism). The degree of validity then is the degree to which the measure we are using has some relationship with the thing we are trying to measure. . . (7) Ethics – There are many issues surrounding ethics and the study of human (and animal) behavior. One of the key features is to safe-guard the wellbeing and dignity of the individuals taking part in the investigation. This includes making sure the individual has the opportunity to provide voluntary informed consent, has the right to withdraw from the investigation and is fully debriefed as to the nature and purpose of the investigation after data collection. Apply two aspects of research methods to your selected scenario. When you identify flaws in the research methodology in the scenario, provide a comprehensive explanation of the flaw and also say what would need to be done to improve the research methodology in the scenario. WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT MARKING GUIDE For each scientific principle and each aspect of the research methods that you choose to write about, give it a heading and write just a single paragraph about it. You should allocate approximately 150-200 words to each of the 2 scientific principles, 150-200 words for the warning sign, and another 150-200 words to each of the aspects of research methods (there is no need for a specific introduction or conclusion in this paper). So, your written assignment should be somewhere between 750 and 1000 words long in total (but please adhere to the max word count for each section). Each scientific paragraph you write will be marked out of 4 marks, and so the written assignment will be out of 20 marks. We will use the following criteria: 1. SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES (2 scientific principles, approximately 300 – 400 words) 0 mark 1 mark 2 marks 3 marks 4 marks 8 MARKS – no answer or wholly inappropriate answer – significant misunderstanding or inappropriate application of principle – fair application of principle to scenario, but several omissions – good application of principle to scenario, with few omissions – comprehensive discussion of principle as applied to scenario 2. PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CLAIM (1 pseudoscientific claim, approximately 150 – 200 words) 0 mark 1 mark 2 marks 3 marks 4 marks 4 MARKS – no answer or wholly inappropriate answer – significant misunderstanding or inappropriate application of principle – fair application of principle to scenario, but several omissions – good application of principle to scenario, with few omissions – comprehensive discussion of principle as applied to scenario 3. RESEARCH METHODS 8 MARKS (2 aspects of research methods, approximately 300 – 400 words) 0 mark 1 mark 2 marks 3 marks 4 marks – no answer or wholly inappropriate answer – significant misunderstanding or inappropriate application of principle – fair application of principle to scenario, but several omissions – good application of principle to scenario, with few omissions – comprehensive discussion of principle as applied to scenario TOTAL: 20 MARKS FORMATTING AND SUBMISSION – – Please include a cover sheet with your name, student number, date, instructor’s name and course code. Please do not submit a paper copy or email your assignment to me Use headings to name each scientific principle, warning sign, and research methods that you choose (the headings do not count towards the word count) Full sentences and paragraphs must be used, bullet form is not acceptable. Please stay within the word limit of each section (I will have to stop marking any section that is 10% over the word limit) Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt Font, double spaced 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. 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 (Vahedi, 2020), 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 Vahedi, Z. (2020, July). Research Methods. Psychology 102: Introduction to Psychology I. Lecture conducted from Ryerson 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 et al. (2017) tell us that anecdotes can be misleading in the following ways.” The reference for the textbook at the end of your assignment should look something Lilienfeld, S.O., Lynn, S.J., Namy, L.L., Woolf, N.J., Cramer, K.M. & Schmaltz, R. (2017). Psychology: From inquiry to understanding. (3rd ed.). Toronto, ON: Pearson. All that said, you (really) only need to cite these sources for this assignment. Also, please write this whole assignment in your own words (in other words, PLEASE DO NOT PLAGIARIZE!). Do not use any direct quotes for this assignment. SUBMISSION – Save your assignment as a .doc file – Assignments are to be submitted via D2L before 11.59pm on the due date (July 15th) – Please see the course outline for details of late submission policy (10% per day) – Retain your electronic receipt of submission in case of dispute GOOD LUCK! SCENARIO Catching Fire: How to improve your Instagram picture It’s Saturday night and you decide to upload a new picture on Instagram. After spending an hour deciding on which selfie to post, you select one that is clearly superior to the rest of the fifty or so selfies that you had taken. You post the picture thinking that you will get over a hundred likes at least from your Instagram followers in the next half hour, but you are soon proven wrong when your picture only receives a measly 15 likes. Did I post the wrong picture? How could I possibly know which selfie would result in me getting the most likes? A recent study done by researchers at Ohio University have determined a procedure that will ensure that whatever selfie you post, you will receive the maximum number of likes! Dr. Haymitch Abernathy conducted an experiment and stated: “Ensuring the maximum number of likes and comments on a picture simply comes down to perception. If you increase the specificity of photons hitting your viewers’ retinas, you can increase the likelihood of getting a like! This is done by manipulating the photons in the picture, which leads to the release of oxytocin by the hypothalamus, therefore increasing your Instagram followers’ positive feelings towards your photo.” This unique procedure has originated from Dr. Abernathy’s laboratory, where his research team has spent the last six months fine-tuning a filter that will increase the specificity of photons, which he calls a “scattered-light filter.” The researchers conducted an experiment to determine what type of selfie led to the most number of likes. Dr. Abernathy recruited 30 females from his Introductory Psychology class who were between the ages of 18 and 22. Participants in the study were brought into the lab at Ohio University, and they had their photos taken using a scattered-light filter on a high-quality, digital camera. They were then asked to post their picture whenever they wanted on their Instagram account for a 24 hour period and keep track of how many likes and comments they received in that time. Participants were also asked to report how quickly – in comparison to other pictures they posted – they received likes and comments on their photo. The findings were astounding! The pictures taken using the scattered-light filter on the digital camera resulted in almost twice the number of comments and likes than each of the participants’ last uploaded selfie. Dr. Abernathy explains that this result can be explained by the fact that when light waves have been scattered, they have deeper penetration into a viewer’s eyeball, and stimulate the retina more specifically. This increase in specificity results in an increase in positive perception, and an increased likelihood of liking a picture. Sarah, one of the participants in the study, stated that “I’ve never received so many likes and comments on a picture, and so rapidly as well! I’m definitely going to purchase one of these filters to use from now on!” Dr. Abernathy says that this study proves that by manipulating the photon specificity of the light being projected by your picture, you can ensure that you receive the maximum number of likes and comments on your Instagram photos.

• WE OFFER THE BEST CUSTOM PAPER WRITING SERVICES. WE HAVE DONE THIS QUESTION BEFORE, WE CAN ALSO DO IT FOR YOU.
• Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
• (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
• CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

Why Choose Us?

How It Works

• Click on the “Place Your Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
• Fill in your paper’s requirements in the “PAPER DETAILS” section.
• Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
• Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
• From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.

About AcademicWritersBay.com

AcademicWritersBay.com is an easy-to-use and reliable service that is ready to assist you with your papers 24/7/ 365days a year. 99% of our customers are happy with their papers. Our team is efficient and will always tackle your essay needs comprehensively assuring you of excellent results. Feel free to ask them anything concerning your essay demands or Order.

AcademicWritersBay.com is a private company that offers academic support and assistance to students at all levels. Our mission is to provide proficient and high quality academic services to our highly esteemed clients. AcademicWritersBay.com is equipped with competent and proficient writers to tackle all types of your academic needs, and provide you with excellent results. Most of our writers are holders of master’s degrees or PhDs, which is an surety of excellent results to our clients. We provide assistance to students all over the world.
We provide high quality term papers, research papers, essays, proposals, theses and many others. At AcademicWritersBay.com, you can be sure of excellent grades in your assignments and final exams.