For this assignment, we have placed a press release that describes the results of original psychological research. It is called:
“Are you a worrier? Chances are you’re a GENIUS: Neurotic people are more likely to be intelligent and creative”
What we would like you to do is to read this press release and do Part 1 and Part 2.
PART 1 (double spaced, 2 pages maximum)
Find the original journal article that the press release is based on. I have attached it already.
Now, you need to read through it and compare what the researchers did and the results they actually found, with what is written in the press release. In addition, try to apply your critical thinking skills that you began to develop in PSY to the article. So, think about all those principles of scientific thinking, warning signs of pseudoscience, and aspects of research methodology that you learned about. Try to apply them to the press release and the research that it presents. Your task here is to answer these questions:
In what ways does the press release misrepresent the findings of the original journal article? What are some of the scientific or methodological weaknesses of the research that is being discussed?
We have deliberately written a press release that misrepresents the method, results and/or conclusions of the original journal article on which it is based. In addition, there are scientific and methodological weaknesses with the journal article that we have chosen.
In answering these questions, you should consider the following points:
- a) Are there any factual errors in the press release? In other words, does the press release make factual mistakes concerning things like the number of participants in the study or the results of the study?
- b) Does the press release make causal claims from data that, in the original journal article, are only correlational?
- c) Does the press release make an exaggerated claim about the research; a claim that is too strong or that goes “beyond the data”? For instance, does the press release exaggerate the results by making it sound as though there were bigger differences between the groups of people tested in the study than there actually were? Alternatively, are claims made in the press release about a population that was not studied in the original journal article?
- d) Look carefully at the measures or tasks that the researchers used in the original journal article – does the press release accurately describe those measures or tasks and what they are designed to test? What do you think about those measures or tasks? Are they good measures or tasks, or are there problems with those measures or tasks?
- e) Are there any alternative or rival explanations for the results of the study? Did the researchers try to rule out these rival explanations or not?
- f) Do the authors of the original journal article state any limitations about their research? Do these caveats and limitations make it into the press release?
- g) Are there any warning signs of pseudoscience in the press release? Are there any signs of bias in either the press release or the journal article?
- h) Are there any other ways in which the press release is misleading? Do you think the press release is an accurate summary of the original research paper? If not, why not?
Note: Not all of these questions are relevant to the press release and the journal article. Don’t worry if you can’t answer all of these questions. There are also other types of ways that the press release might be misleading. Just try your best to apply your scientific thinking skills to the press release and the journal article.
GRADING SCHEME FOR PART 1
For Part 1, we would like you to write about FOUR different factual errors/misrepresentations in the press release, and TWO different scientific/methodological weakness of the original research. Each of your six points will be graded out of 2 marks, according to the following criteria:
For factual errors/misrepresentations in the press release:
0 marks = incorrect identification of a factual error/misrepresentation (i.e., you said something in the press release was incorrect, but it was actually correct).
1 mark = you correctly identified something in the press release as a factual error or as a misrepresentation, but you did not state what the correct information was.
2 marks = you correctly identified something in the press release as a factual error or a misrepresentation, and provided the correct information.
For scientific/methodological weaknesses of the research:
0 marks = you incorrectly identified a scientific/methodological weakness (i.e., you said that a problem existed with the research, but this problem did not actually apply).
1 mark = you identified a scientific/methodological weakness that applies to the research, but you either did not clearly and completely explain how the weakness applies to the research, or you did not suggest a way in which the weakness might be overcome.
2 marks = you identified a scientific/methodological weakness that applies to the research and you clearly and completely explained the problem and you suggested how the weakness might be overcome.
TOTAL FOR PART 1 = 12 marks
PART 2 (double spaced, 2 pages maximum)
When you have completed Part 1, your next task is to write your own press release, based on a second research article that focuses on a similar or related topic as the first journal article and press release.
Sandmire (2016) for “Psychological and autonomic effects of art making in college-aged students”
Now what we would like you to do is to write an accurate press release about this second journal article. In this press release you should report the major ideas and findings of the second journal article in a simple and interesting way. Your press release should include the following sections:
- a) INTRODUCTION – Begin by introducing the reader to the topic in some interesting way. Try to make the introduction attention grabbing without over-sensationalizing the issues.
- b) SUMMARY OF THE STUDY – You should then describe the research question that the article discusses and the data/results it contains. Try not to get bogged down in the details here; the most important thing here is to try to summarize the question that the study addressed and the results they found in a way that highlights what is most interesting. Try to briefly answer the following questions: What hypotheses were the researchers who conducted the study trying to address? Why did they come up with those hypotheses? What did the researchers find in their study? Did their results support their hypotheses or not? How did they interpret their results? For each element of the summary, write at a level that would be easily understood by an undergraduate audience, and make sure that you explain any technical terms that you use (e.g., “predictive validity”, “fluid intelligence”, “pre-operational stage”, “secure attachment”, “basic emotions”).
- c) IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH – Talk about the implications of the research that you read, by discussing practical applications that the research findings have for everyday life or everyday people (e.g., how we can apply the research findings to real-life issues or how the research findings matter to everyday life or everyday people such as children, parents, teachers, and policy makers).
- d) CONNECTIONS WITH THE FIRST JOURNAL ARTICLE – Discuss the connections between the second journal article and the journal article that you read for Part 1 of the assignment. Compare and contrast the findings of the article that you read for Part 1 with the findings of the article that you just read for Part 2. What is similar about the results of the two studies? What is different about the results of the two studies? If the two studies found different results, comment on why you think they found different results. (e.g., Did they study different samples? Did the two studies use different measures? etc.)
- e) FUTURE DIRECTIONS – Address future directions that the research might go in – talk about additional studies that might be interesting to conduct in the future. Describe why this new study would be interesting or important.
- f) REFERENCES – At the end of your press release, create a reference section. In it, you need to write out an APA-style References section for the two journal articles that you used to create your press release. The journal articles that you will read for this assignment all have an APA- style References section, so you can use the way that those articles have written their references as a guide as to how to write yours.
GRADING SCHEME FOR PART 2
Your press release for Part 2 will be graded out of the following number of marks: Introduction = 0-2 marks
Summary of: hypotheses/background to study = 0-2 marks method/procedure of study = 0-2 marks
findings/results of study = 0-2 marks Implications of study = 0-2 marks
Connections between the two articles = 0-2 marks Future directions = 0-2 marks
References = 0-2 marks
Overall quality of writing = 0-2 marks
TOTAL FOR PART 2 = 18 marks
Notes on writing, formatting, and submitting your assignment:
a) Please explicitly label the different parts of the assignment with headings (i.e., Part 1, Part 2)
b) Please keep the length of each part within 2 pages (double spaced). If students write more than the maximum limits of a paper, it makes it impossible to apply a fair grading standard to all students in the class. So please, be fair, and do not write too much!
c) When writing your press release, you must use your own words for everything you write about. In particular, do not use any quotes from the journal articles.
d) Remember, the reader of your press release (in theory) will not have read the original article that you read, so you must write about it in clear and simple language.
A note on reading journal articles
Don’t worry too much about trying to decipher and understand the study or studies presented in the journal articles. When creating your own press release your job is not to exhaustively report on the articles’ contents, especially the potentially complicated experimental procedure and results/statistical analyses. Instead of that kind of “bottom-up” approach, try a “top-down” or “working-backward” approach – think of the kind of “story” you want to write for your press release, based on your understanding of the study or studies. The goal is to write an informative, accurate, interesting press release that readers want to read, not to drag yourself through the sometimes-impenetrable details of a typical empirical research article for its own sake – you’ll have plenty of time for that in more senior courses! In particular, you can mostly ignore the complex statistics – things like, M = -173.75, t(150) = – 8.45, p < .001 – that you will encounter in the Results section of the articles. The results of the study will usually be explained in simpler language elsewhere in the article, often at the beginning of the Discussion section.
Sample Solution
