--Original published at Gracie's Blog

Summary

The idea that depression is the worst in the winter season is a controversial concept discussed and tested by researchers. Several different surveys and questionnaires were provided for people to take and compare their symptoms of depression throughout the seasons. The well known hypothesis was that the lack of sunlight exposure is a big factor that increases depression symptoms, but is depression really affected by the winter season? Back in 1984 the idea of seasonal affective disorder (SAD) came about and the first studies were facilitated. Patterns of experiencing seasonal affective disorder occurs when symptoms are more apparent in the fall and winter, but subside or decrease in the spring and summer.
The majority of the research about the seasonal affective disorder was found due to the Seasonal Pattern Assessment Questionnaire. This questionnaire asks participants questions pertaining to their mood from a year or more ago. There were problems with this study though as the whole questionnaire was not supporting the definition of depression according to DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) which made the results hard to analyze, and as talked about before, the way someone felt a year ago may be hard to track. Another study done by Kerr and colleagues in 2013 found in a course of several years, when participants rated their depression, that there was no significant relationship between light exposure and depression. The fault of this study was the participants were all from the U.S. Midwest and Northwest. Eventually a more accurate depression questionnaire was designed called the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8). The studies show that latitude, sunlight exposure, and seasons do not affect depression.
The media article contradicts the common thought that winter affects depression, but CNN gives a study supporting that seasonal affective disorder is a myth. A total of 34,294 adults from the United States were asked questions during a study at Auburn University of Montgomery regarding their depression symptoms two weeks prior to when the questionnaire was taken. The large number of 34,294 was split and each group took the questionnaire during one of the four different seasons so the results showed how depressed people felt during the various seasons. The results from this study showed that there were no signs of seasons affecting depression, nor does sunlight exposure or geographical latitude play a role in depression. The media states that other studies finding that depression is worse in the winter chose participants who were experiencing mood changes in the winter to help support their theory of seasonal affective disorder.

Media Article: file:///C:/Users/Gracie/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/For%20Gracie%20(2).pdf
Scholarly Article:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2167702615615867

Reflection
While deciding what all to include in my summary of the research article I looked at the information pertaining to the studies done in order to find whether or not seasons play a role in depression. The well known myth is the during the winter season, depression is worse than during the warm and sunny seasons. I made sure to include how the main three studies done to support that seasons, light exposure, and geographical latitude do not worsen symptoms of depression like people may think. Throughout the research article there was a lot of insignificant information listed, which did not have a lot of meaning. I chose to write about the Seasonal Pattern Assessment Questionnaire first because that was one of the first questionnaire developed and used to find that seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is not real. The Seasonal Pattern Assessment, Kerr’s study, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 all were the main studies that first gave results showing that there were no signs of SAD. Throughout the research article, I found that the information was hard to transfer into my own words due to the amount of studies mentioned. I was not sure how specific I should be when explaining each study’s results. When discussing the media article, summarizing the main concepts were easier because the language used was simple to understand and the article overall did include an abundant amount of unnecessary information. When writing the pop culture article critique, I found that finding information to critique was a bit easier because the results were not as specific and not a whole lot of information was present. The scholarly article was more complicated overall when writing a critique because the language was advanced and a lot more information was present, and I did not know what all of the information meant. Overall, I have a lot of respect for journalists because they have to translate information into their own words and understand the context. Along with comprehending the text, journalists have to make their work interesting in order be successful and to keep people reading their work.

--Original published at Isabella's Psychology Blog

Narcissism is an epidemic in America, at least according to the older generations of Americans. According to the research article “The Narcissism Epidemic Is Dead;  Long Live the Narcissism Epidemic” by Wetzel, this narcissism epidemic is not only nonexistent but it probably never happened at all.

Variables used in the research was narcissism and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) survey. Narcissism was a dependent variable defined by high scores on the NPI survey. The NPI survey is a dependent variable since the participants had to answer their own survey.

Research participants were undergraduates between the ages of 18 to 24 years old from the years 1992 to 2015. The three colleges participants can from where the University of California Berkeley, the University of Illinois and the University of California Davis. Throughout the years the research was being performed researchers put extra emphasis on each of these three colleges.

Research participants were selected from three non-randomly selected universities, so the study is only generalizable to students from these three universities. Research participants were placed in groups based on ethnicity and gender. Each category of people was analyzed and compared to the results of all of the NPI tests. Group assignment was done by ethnicity and gender there was no random assignment in grouping participants. Random assignment is a defining feature of an experiment. Causal claims can only be made through true experiments. Research without random assignment cannot make causal claims.

The results of the research were a decline in narcissism. Results of the study are only generalizable to the undergraduate students from the University of California Berkeley, the University of Illinois and the University of California Davis. This group of people is very small compared to the general population of young people in America. The researchers were wrong to generalize their results to the wrong population. Also since the research was not a true experiment so no causational clauses can be made either. This study alone cannot disprove the narcissism epidemic it can be used to help other research disprove the existence of the narcissism epidemic.

Reflection:

My summary had the small word limit of 367 words making it hard to include all the research information into the word limit. The most important information needed in the article was, an introduction, five critical question answers, and research results were included. An introduction and conclusion were included since both are essential to writing since they hook the reader in and closes the article. Answering the five critical questions shows that the writer understands the research article.

Another thing I did was tell the reader how to interpret the research article. I did this because my word limit was so short I could not be able to include enough information to allow the reader to form their own opinion about the research article. After writing the introduction and about the five critical questions I did not have enough words to explain the research without inserting my own opinions. I was able to include a few sentences about how I reached my opinion on the research article.

To reduce my word count, I also combined the results my opinions on the research, and the conclusion in the last paragraph of the article. The reason for this was that the results supported my opinion on the research. The conclusion was included in the last paragraph since I did not have enough words left for another paragraph. Also, the result of an experiment and an opinion on the research are both topics usually at the end of an article so adding the conclusion to the paragraph read naturally.

In my rough draft, I was extremely harsh for my conclusion of the article. At one point I even included the statement “the research does not matter.” I did this because I disliked the pop culture article “The Myth of the American Narcissist” by Laura Entis over exaggerated research results, so I want to be realistic while writing my article. Instead of being realistic I went into the territory of being hostile. Later I changed my article’s wording so that it was not hostile but critical. This critical writing approach is very different from Laura Entis’ article which over exaggerated the results of the research.

The main differences from the Laura Entis article and my own were our approaches on the five critical questions. While writing my article, my main objective was to answer the five critical questions. Answering the five critical questions took up half of my summary. Laura Entis’ article was made up of a short introduction and a three-question interview with one of the researchers of the study. Though Entis did not answer all of the five critical questions (Entis).

For the critical question of optimizing variables of the experiment both me and Entis had the same answer. Entis did not include any mention of the critical question of how participants were selected. Then Entis did not answer the question of how participants were assigned into groups. In my article, I answered the critical questions of how the participants were selected and how participants were assigned to groups. More critical questions I answered clearly but Entis did not as if the research allowed for causal claims and if the researches generalized the results correctly. Entis did not answer these questions directly but gave enough evidence for a reader knowledgeable about causal claims and generalization can figure out the answers for themselves (Entis).

From the pop culture, scholarly, and media production assignments I learned about journalism and strategies for reading research papers. When reading a research paper look out for the answers of the five critical questions. By finding the answers to the five critical questions, a reader is able to understand how the research was performed and judge if the conclusion the researchers came up with was correct or not.

In journalism, the writer needs to understand the research paper they are citing and write something not only accurately relays the information from the research paper but is also interesting to the reader. Also, journalists have word limit too. So this means even if they want to the journalist could not include all the information from the research paper without the article being extremely dense and similar to the abstract of the research paper. So in order to write something interesting within their word limit, a large amount of research cannot be included in the article. By writing these articles, I gained a higher respect for journalists. Journalists summarize research papers into short articles the general public can easily read.

Another topic I learned about from the previous assignments was writing in general. In the writing manuals, I learned many tips which I incorporate in my writing in other classes as well. One of the tips I use the most often is avoiding to use the word that. Also, I write more simple now to avoid making grammar mistakes by trying to overcomplicate sentences.

Overall I learned not only about narcissism but about how research articles become pop culture articles and strategies on how to read research articles. By doing these assignments, it made me look at and experience all the parts a pop culture article is made of.

Work Cited

Entis, Laura. “The Myth of the American Narcissist.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 10 May 2018, http://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201803/the-myth-the-american-narcissist.

Wetzel, Eunike, et al. “The Narcissism Epidemic Is Dead; Long Live the Narcissism Epidemic.” Psychological Science, vol. 28, no. 12, Dec. 2017, pp. 1833–1847, doi:10.1177/0956797617724208.

--Original published at Carly's College Blog

Most refugees and asylum-seekers are unable or unwilling to participate in research studies, especially lengthy demanding ones. This makes their population difficult to study, and makes the data found by researchers at the University of Birmingham significant. This limitation will, however, require further research to develop any type of immediate medical strategies. They studied how post-traumatic stress disorder affects the ability to suppress and recall memories, and if that control could prevent the development of ptsd all together. PTSD is a disorder characterized by intrusive, recurrent, and traumatic memories.

They studied a group of 24 refugees. They were not randomly selected but were chosen based on their demographics and background of trauma. All participants showed symptoms of clinical depression as well. The participants came from European, African, and Asian countries. The researchers assigned the participants into 2 groups, the control and ptsd. They were not randomly assigned, and the number of participants is unequal due to applied double-blind. The ptsd group consisted of 9 males and 2 females. They fulfilled the criteria in the DSM IV for post-traumatic stress disorder. The control group consisted of 10 males and 3 females. These participants were interviewed and had extremely similar “trauma loads.” This is the term used to describe the number of traumatic events and the diversity of an individual’s lifetime experience.

The participants were given a think/no think test after their initial evaluations. It was a three-phase procedure consisting of a training period, the think/no think portion, and was followed by a recognition test. Between both groups, the ptsd patients had difficulty retrieving an episodic memory whether it was intentional or not. The researchers found the more severe an individual’s symptoms were, the more difficulty the individual experienced during memory retrieval.

All while the procedure had taken place, the participants were being monitored by magnetoencephalography, also called MEG. MEGs are used to map neural networks and changes in magnetic fields,  for this study it focused on gamma power. The MEG in this study found that when the participants with ptsd were trying to suppress a memory, their levels of gamma activity increased causing them to fail. This contrasts with the control group, who had lowered their gamma levels and suppressed the memory successfully.

Not only did the participants with ptsd fail to suppress memories, they also showed difficulties trying to retrieve a desired memory. This data presents using memory suppression as a therapy technique is unwise because it does not show reduction of an intrusive thought or memory and could potentially make symptoms worse.

University of Birmingham. “Severely traumatized refugees may not necessarily develop PTSD.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 4 September 2018.

Link: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180904114747.htm

Waldhauser, G., Martin, D., Ruf-Lueschner, M., Muller-Bamouh, V., Schauer M.,      Axmacher, N., . . . Hanslmayr, S. (2018). The neural dynamics of deficient memory control in heavily traumatized refugees. Scientific Reports, 8, 1-12.

Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-31400-x

Reflection:

By playing the role of the reporter and not the reader, it was easier to understand the pressure that reporters experience. I chose to summarize the main points of the study, because going too into detail would most-likely confuse readers or lose their interest. The first thing I chose to leave out were the images and graphs, there were too many, and I honestly did not understand them myself. The content was much easier to understand. I also left out the in-depth descriptions of the participants, procedure and data analysis because it was more concise to accurately summarize it. This was due to word limitations. I can more clearly understand now how some articles can appear misleading due to what the editor chooses to include or leave out. I answered the first three critical questions but left out four and five. This was because I found it harder to “report” them as part of the study without making it sound like an accusation. Trying to include it not allowing for causal claims and saying that it cannot be generalized seemed out of place with the rest of my content.
I think my article compares equally with the original news article. I included the same facts and information as the original but feel as though I elaborated more. I also included a more in-depth description of the actual procedure, along with a more descriptive paragraph surrounding the role the MEG played in the study. The original news article only answered the first three critical questions as well.
Throughout the series of projects on psychology in the media, I was able to look through the eyes of the reporter and understand how they choose their content and meet word limitations. I felt like I learned the most doing this, media production part, because it most resembles the job of the reporter

--Original published at David's Blog

Research Summary 

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder or ADHD is a childhood neuropsychiatric disorder, which is now affecting 10 percent more of the population in the United States. The disorder can preset into early adulthood. A new study came out looking at kids in a time frame of 20 years 1997 to 2016 showing a drastic increase in the percent of children with ADHD. The percent in 1997 to 1998 was around 6.1% later in 2015 to 2016 it rose to about 10.2%. The study is telling scientist that they may need to do more research in the area of childhood ADHD to help find the cause of this increase of children with ADHD. The prominence of ADHD differs all over the world; the study talks about how most of the European countries have a significantly less prominence of ADHD but America has one of the highest showings of ADHD in the world. The statistics of the study was done with in-person interviews and they would select one child if there was one by a computer-generated program. The interviewers would ask an adult such as a parent questions about their child since they know the most about there health. The questions that the parents were asked were “Has a doctor or health professional ever told you that [the sample child] had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or attention-deficit disorder (ADD)?” and “Does [the sample child] currently have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or attention-deficit disorder (ADD)?” The children that were included in the study were in the age range of four to seventeen. It was then found in the studies that the average age of kids who had ADHD were between 10.6 and 10.9 years old.

Reflection 

When writing the summary for the research that was done of children with ADHD in America there were certain things I chose to leave out of the summary. I was given a cap of how ever long the original article was written. This obviously limited the length in which I could write my own article. One thing I left out of my summary was the specific precent of kids with ADHD in different ethnicities. I didn’t find it too important to include that in the article since the main thing was how much ADHD has grown in America.

When looking at the original article that was put out by CNN there are some clear differences. One of the differences was how CNN talked about how they believe the new affordable care might contribute to the rise of ADHD. They also talked about how there is a rise of ADHD in minority groups, which they believe that is also connected to the new affordable health care. These are defiantly important things to include in a news article but I believed I should have left it out of mine to save space.

It was a nice and interesting experience trying to put myself in the shoes of a journalist while I wrote my own article summary. I have already though taken an entire journalist class in my college career since its required for my communication major. So I had some background in what all went into journalism. But the projects helped me get a glimpse at what goes in to writing about psychology specifically which is definitely different from what I wrote before. I’m glad I was able to be apart of the projects to earn more about psychology journalism.

--Original published at AlyssaM

Newspaper Article Link: here

Scholarly Article Link: here

Researchers conducted a study at a University for first year students to see the connections between friends on a neuro level. The researchers began the study by sending out a survey to the entire class of students that were entering a certain field in the graduate program. The survey asked the students about who they hangout with outside of class, or share meal times with, and various situations along those lines. For this, they received complete participation.

The researchers then asked the students if they would like to take part in the neuroimaging part of the study to further their research. The students were told if they agreed to take part, they would get paid for it. A total of 42 students volunteered. The researchers set up controls for the second part of the study to prevent other keys that could alter the results, including handiness.

The students each were hooked up to an fMRI device to measure their brainwaves in response to various videos. The videos clips the researchers showed the students were the same for each and most likely ones the students never seen before.

The researchers noticed similar brain wave activity in closer friends rather than distant friends. They were able to see there was a connection between the two, but they are not yet sure why or what causes the phenomenon. They will not make conclusions making casual claims because they do not have enough data to display that knowledge. However, they are able to predict who are close friends based off of the brain wave activity that takes place during observing the various video clips.

Researchers are fascinated by such a relation and plan to explore it further in the future.

Writing my own research summery was not that bad, as both articles provided plenty of details as to the experiment that had occurred. I did not find writing it challenging because I did write for my high school newspaper for four years. I also worked for Reading Eagle: Voices (a local newspapers student section) for a year and a half. Now I write for the Etownian. As a result of all my newspaper experiences, I know how to shorten and keep it straight to the point without getting to lengthy. Every newspaper I partook in had different requirements for different style articles, so I learned how to stay concise over the years. I didn’t have to sacrifice anything, but I did because some information would have been too complicated for anyone with limited knowledge on psychology. I also left out names and extreme details like so because I find too many names or numbers to keep track of gets confusing. In journalism, it is more important to get the facts and highlight the most key details, rather than every single thing that occurred. It also was a lot of the information I found when reading the articles that dragged out made the point of the article get lost. Even with my background in journalism, I still learned more about it through reading the articles, in particular the scholarly. Before this, I never seen an article as sophisticated as that one is with so many unfamiliar terms. Also I was surprised how often they went and repeated a detail in various sections. This taught me, not all journalism has to be simple and it can be directed towards a more educated population in regards to a specific topic.

--Original published at Jayln's Perspective

Maximum Word Count for the Summary: 407

People tend to assume we are in control of our thoughts, but curious researchers wanted to know: do we actually have complete control over them? Researchers Bhangal, Merrick, Cho, and Morsella conducted two different experiments on college students from the University of San Francisco in order to test whether or not the students were able to control their thoughts. They hypothesized students would subconsciously utilize information they were blatantly told to ignore in order to influence how they answered test questions. Prior to the study, the researchers operationalized their variables by defining the various stimuli as the independent variable, and the test, which measured the information they could recall, as the dependent variable.

In the first experiment, 34 students were each exposed to various stimuli. Before they were shown these different colored objects, they were told to refrain from counting them. Despite the clear instructions from the researchers, when it came time for the test, it was evident about 90% of the students subconsciously counted the objects. In the second experiment, 40 different college students, who were randomly assigned to groups, were given the same test, but were told to either focus on the colors of the shapes or the number of objects which appeared on the screen. Even with instructions to only be conscious of one of these tasks, when tested, 40% of students could not only name the color, but could also recall the number of objects presented.

The results of the experiment supported the researcher’s hypothesis and lead them to further investigate why the students subconsciously retained information when told not to. The researchers concluded the student’s brains created “action sets,” which are used to make decisions concerning future situations. The two tasks caused 40% of the students to create two different action sets, so when asked to recall information, the students subconsciously utilized both pieces of information regardless of being told not to.

In both experiments, the students participated for course credit, which means there was no random sampling. Since there was no random sampling, the conclusions of the study can only be generalized to the specific population tested. The researchers did, however, use random assignment when grouping the participates, and the stimuli, known as the independent variable, was manipulated, thus the researcher’s methods allow for causal claims.

Reflection:

My main focus for this project was to not only summarize the researcher’s results effectively, but I also wanted to weave the five critical questions into the summary. I felt like it was necessary to provide answers as to whether or not the study answered the five critical questions. Even though the majority of the questions were answered in the full research study, the journalist who wrote the pop culture article omitted answers to all but one of the questions. Due to strict deadlines and the dense scientific findings in the full research study, I can only imagine how difficult it is for the journalist to address all of the five critical questions in his articles. This being said, I still think it is important to include whether or not the article could answer the five critical questions because it communicates the validity of an experiment. Although the journalist’s writing is of a higher caliber than mine, compared to the news article, I think I incorporated the use of the five critical questions more effectively.

I purposefully chose to leave out specific statistics, such as the p-value of the results, because although it provides great support for the researcher’s hypothesis, I think details like this are too specific for a summary of the study and its results. I also chose to leave out other complex details, such as the specific colors of the shapes, since this does not help communicate the overall findings of the study. Much like the journalist of the news article, I did not feel as if including very specific details would be appropriate in a condensed summary of the full experiment. For me, the most difficult aspect of this project was knowing I could not exceed 407 words in my summary. At first, I was overwhelmed because there were so many important details, and I had to decide which aspects were the most informative and necessary to include in my summary. Once I began writing, I discovered summarizing was not as much of a challenge as I thought it would be because I have already worked with the pop culture article and the research study in previous papers.

After critically reading a journalist’s article and a research team’s full study, I have learned how important it is to read with the scientific attitude. If one does not read media articles and research studies with humility, curiosity, and skepticism, then they can be quick to accept skewed psychological findings and data. Since we read a pop culture article, I was able to see how journalists wrongfully generalize research studies to “all people.” This made me more aware of biases in the media and how some journalists are willing to distort real scientific findings in order for their articles to receive more views. The full research study taught me how important it is to interact with complicated texts in order to understand the full purpose of the experiment. This project has taught me how essential the five critical questions are when reading over scientific research. I have also learned how to summarize lengthy research more effectively.

Bhangal, Sabrina et al. “Involuntary Entry into Consciousness from the Activation of Sets:           Object Counting and Color Naming” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9, 21 Jun. 2018,       doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01017

“You Don’t Have as Much Control Over Your Thoughts as You May Believe.” Study Find,         Study Finds, 2018, https://www.studyfinds.org/less-ability-control-own-thoughts-than-            believed/

https://www.studyfinds.org/less-ability-control-own-thoughts-than-believed/

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01017/full

--Original published at Taylor'sEtownCollegeBlog

A new study found that meditation has great benefits with decreasing physical responses to anger. Just one session of meditation has a great impact on the responses to anger. A little anger every now and then is normal, while anger everyday and constantly is not. Constant anger leads to raised heart rate, blood pressure, and faster breathing (Fennell et al. 2015).
In the study, it was found that as little as one session of meditation could decrease these physical responses to anger (Fennell et al. 2015). The study took 15 undergraduates from the University of Kansas’s psychology department who had not practiced meditation previously and 12 subjects from random yoga practices around the local area (Fennell et al. 2015). Both groups had their physiological responses recorded and measured by the same person.
Both groups were asked to recall a time in their life where they had experienced extreme anger. They were then asked to write down in extreme detail the event. After the event was recorded, their physiological responses were recorded and measured (Fennell et al. 2015). After the measurement, they were then given a survey asking about their level of anger (Fennell et al. 2015). Finally, the group that had not taken part in meditation was coached through a 20-minute session of meditation (Fennell et al. 2015). This same process was repeated then after the guided meditation.
It was found that after the 20-minute meditation session, there was a difference between the physiological response rates in the non-meditators (Fennell et al. 2015). Also, those who meditated before the study showed an overall lower change in physiological response to anger after the second exposure to anger (Fennell et al. 2015).
This study opens the door to the possible benefits of meditation on the affects to anger on the body but does not give all the answers. With this finding, more research can now be done to see the overall and complete benefit of meditation on the mind and body.
~Taylor

Bibliography
Fennell, Alexander B., et al. “A Single Session of Meditation Reduced Physiological Indices of
Anger in Both Experienced and Novice Meditators.” Consciousness and Cognition, 24
Nov. 2015.

Wei, Marlynn. New Study Shows Brief Meditation Can Reduce Anger. 4 February 2016. 22 September 2018. <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/urban-survival/201602/new-study-shows-brief-meditation-can-reduce-anger&gt;.

 
Reflection:
While writing this research summary, I found it challenging to make the information come across as being interesting while also providing detail. I believe that this is a skill that ultimately causes detail and information to be left out of writing. Because I did not attempt to be interesting or to draw people’s attention, I was ultimately able to include more detail than the journalists can while writing. Luckily, there was not very much information that was not included in the original article that was included in the scholarly article, therefore, I was able to include all of the information from the scholarly article. I found it challenging to determine what information I ultimately wanted to include in the article. My perspective of journalism has ultimately changed in two different ways. On one hand, I respect journalists for making not so interesting topics more interesting. On the other hand, I find this irritating because there is information that is vital to getting all the answers that is often left out of articles.
If journalists were not interesting in their writing, then no one would read information. Because of their ability to write and entertain through words, information that is boring can be interpreted and understood while being enjoyed. On the other hand, because journalists now write to please and entertain, they often leave vital information out of their writing. This lack of details then gives readers false information/not the whole truth. When the readers do not have all the information, they are unable to make wise decisions that are based off of supported scientific information.

--Original published at Rachel Bickelman's PSY 105 Blog

ARTICLE SUMMARY

Talking to a stranger is generally uncomfortable, and full of awkwardness on both ends. While the general belief and consensus is talking with a stranger is awkward and not the best quality interaction, this belief may not be true. In a recent 2018 study, it was found that people are much harsher on themselves regarding their conversation performance with a stranger. 

The 2018 study, conducted by Erica Boothby, Gus Cooney, Gillian Sandstrom, and Margaret Clark, found when strangers conversed for the first time, conversationalists were not as judgmental as they were believed to be. Individuals were paired together to become conversation partners for a different lengths of time and after their conversation rated two aspects of the conversation. First, how much they liked their conversation partner and second, how much they thought the stranger liked them. 

In a majority of cases, individuals rated their partner with high regard but rated themselves with low likability. Participants believed they were less likable when in reality, they were more likable than they believed. This phenomena was dubbed “the liking gap” by Boothby et al. and was operationalized through the score given by participants on how likable they were and how likable their conversation partner was. One’s likability score was produced using a seven question scale that had a range of strongly disagree to strongly agree. The seven questions were: 1) “I generally liked the other participant,” 2) “I would be interested in  getting to know the other participant better,” 3) “If given the chance, I would like to interact with the other participant again,” 4) “I could see myself becoming friends with the other participant,” 5) “The other participant generally liked me,” 6) “The other participant would be interested in getting to know me better,” and finally 7) “The other could see himself/herself becoming friends with me.”

The initial results of a five minute conversation showed that the “liking gap” does appear in conversations and both participants rated their conversation partner as more likable than they thought. Both participants were experiencing the same phenomena, the “liking gap.” Boothby et al. showed that participants possessed lower perceived levels of likability. In reality, the participants’ actual likability showed the participants were more liked than they believed they were. 

In follow up studies, the “liking gap” persisted in five and forty-five minute conversations and was even seen to appear with college roommates over the course of nine months. Only after a significant amount of time, nearly a year, did the “liking gap” diminish according to Boothby et al. 

Boothby et al. also conducted workshops named “How to Talk to Strangers” where they tested their experiments in public. The results were the same in their research participants, college students, and general public. Individuals still thought their conversation performance was worst and believed themselves to be less likable than they were actually rated by their partners.

So why does the liking gap occur? Boothby et al. theorized that in general, people are very harsh and believe themselves to be bad regarding their ability to communicate. Boothby et al. offer three explanations. First, that people scrutinize their conversational mistakes and while they intend on getting better, they are critical of the way they spoke. Their conversation partners obviously do not have access to these criticizing self-thoughts and thus do not think their conversation partner made mistakes. Second, Boothby et al. observe that people held higher standards for themselves than others because they know how they can best perform. When people do not perform their best, for example tell a story perfectly, they indirectly believe this affects their likability. Individuals know the best version of their story and believe this is the most likable version of themselves, thus when their best self or story is not shown, the perceived rating of likability decreases. Lastly, Boothby et al. theorized the “liking gap” occurs because people overestimate how bad their behavior and mannerism were. Boothby et al. explain that individuals believe their unlikable qualities show through when in reality, their conversation partner does not know their self-conscious thoughts. 

Overall, the “liking gap” was observed to be a very real phenomena.

REFLECTION

Writing this last section, the media production project, allowed me to put myself in a writer’s position. While the process of writing a summary of the article was fairly easy, it was not a piece of cake. A true understanding was necessary to write about the article; this complete understanding necessitated careful reading and comprehension of the research study and its results. It was easier with the scholarly article I had as the math behind the results was fairly simple to comprehend. I could understand, however, how difficult this task could be if the statistical analysis was extremely mathematical and involved or required more information to understand the results. 

Similarly to the pop culture article I chose, I provided the reasoning of why Boothby et al. believed the “liking gap” exists. The language I used to write the summary was chosen so that younger and older readers could all read and comprehend the information.

Unlike the pop culture article, I named the researchers to give proper credit and included more detail about what the “liking gap” was giving an operationalized definition. I think it was important to include how the “liking gap” was measured because it provides a better understand of what it is and how it can be observed in public situations. 

I learned that when writing a pop culture article it is important to balance both the empirical information and entertainment factor. Writers obviously want to maintain the interest of their readers and thus including all the scientific and monotonous details can cause the audience to lose interest. I also learned the importance of writing with both accuracy and precision in order to capture the meaning of the article. 

--Original published at Bailey PSY 105 Blog

Bailey Carsten

27 November 2018

Psych 105

Max Word Count: 985

Over an intended period of two weeks, twenty-two college aged men were confined to the basement of Stanford University’s psychology department. The purpose of this was to measure the fundamental attribution error, or a person’s tendency to regard human behavior as being caused by the influence of situational conditions. The experiment, led by Dr. Phillip Zimbardo in the early 1970s, is bathed in controversy centered around the validity of and cruelty displayed within the experiment.

The dispositional hypothesis set for the experiment surrounded the issue of prison violence, and if the amount of violence seen between prisoners and guards in real-life prisons occurred because of personal issues and differences, or if it was a result of the predetermined roles each party was expected to fulfill. The only rules of the experiment was the lack of tolerance for the guards to display tendencies of involuntary homosexuality, racism, or to deliver physical beatings.

The experiment began with an ad in the newspaper seeking participants for the fourteen-day experiment in exchange for a daily compensation of fifteen dollars. The original 75 applicants were put through several background tests and interviews to determine whether or not they were ideal candidates. Zimbardo and his associates ruled out anyone who presented with behavioral, emotional, or physical issues. The process then moved on to a coin toss, which randomly assigned each participant to play the role of either a prisoner or a guard.

The prisoners were given identical boxy dress-like garments and were removed of all of their personal effects, including their underwear. The guards were also not allowed to refer the prisoners by their name, and they were known only by a three- or four-digit number for the extent of the experiment. The purpose of this was to emasculate the prisoners and strip them of their personal identity. The guards were given uniforms consistent with those in real prisons during the time, along with a nightstick and sunglasses. They were required to wear the sunglasses twenty-four/seven in order to mask their humanity and keep them from connecting to the prisoners. The prisoners were required to remain in the simulated prison

In order to fully immerse themselves into the experiment, neither party was allowed to reference the simulation as an experiment after it began. They were refused the right to believe that what was happening was anything other than reality. To make everything even more realistic, the prisoners were ‘arrested’ at their homes by real police officers and were brought to the facility in the back of marked police cars. As they entered the basement of the building, the participants were greeted with the sight of sparsely furnished prison cells and a small coat closet henceforth known as solitary confinement. The group of nine men assigned to be prisoners were to be watched over by three guards at a time and were not allowed to leave the building under any circumstance. The guards, however, switched off on three-man shifts and were allowed to go home at the end of their rotation.

The prisoners were only allowed three small and unappetizing meals per day and allowed limited time to be out of their cells and in the ‘yard.’ Both the prisoners and the guards were unaware they were of the extent to which they were being observed during the experiment, something that Zimbardo believes is an indisputable argument to validate his results.

Almost immediately after the experiment began, the guards especially began falling into a routine of aggression and superiority towards the prisoners. The guards performed nightly headcounts, which became increasing drawn out and humiliating, along with interfering severely with the prisoner’s sleep schedule. The guards would awaken the prisoners at all hours of the night to perform these counts, as well as various humiliating and impossible physical tasks such as hundreds of jumping jacks and dozens of push-ups with prison guards seated on their backs.

The prisoners quickly began experiencing physical and mental breakdowns, displaying undeniable signs of extreme emotional depression, crying, rage, and acute anxiety. In reaction to their trying emotional state, the prisoners ultimately resorting to barricading themselves inside their cells, going on hunger strikes, and making various escape attempts. Despite the obvious distress displayed by the prisoners, neither the guards nor Zimbardo and his team were willing to stop the experiment or provide the prisoners any relief.

The most influential conclusion Zimbardo gleaned from this research was simply proof of how damaging our prison systems are to the guards and prisoners contained within them. Even without the racism, forced homosexuality and sexual assault, physical beatings, and threats to the life of the prisoners commonly seen in prison systems, the mental state of the simulation prisoners still devolved and deteriorated severely enough to bring the experiment to a close after only six days.

After less than a week of the experiment, fellow psychologist and Zimbardo’s then girlfriend, Christian Maslach, visited the site of the experiment with the intention of participating as a research assistant. Maslach became understandably concerned with what she saw and accused Zimbardo of cruelty towards the study subjects. This intervention seemed to open Zimbardo’s eyes to what his experiment had become and prompted him to instantly shut down the experiment and release his participants.

Though perceived as cruel and unnecessary, Zimbardo continues to stand by his project and express his insistence that his experiment was exactly that, an experiment; and not a mere simulation as it is claimed to be by so many critics. The main issue found within the experiment is that there is no dependent variable, or something that is changed to test a specific outcome or adjustment in behavior. Without one, the experiment loses credit and only served to give Zimbardo, his associates, and the participants a first-hand view into prison life.

Reflection

I did not find it overly difficult to summarize the whole research article into my word count (985 words max). When just reducing the journal down to its bare bones and only taking into account what exactly happened within Stanford’s psychology department basement that summer, it is fairly easy to render it into a certain word count. I did however have to leave out some information for the purpose of keeping my writing more concise and interesting. One of the things I left out is how one of the guards, without knowing he was under surveillance, was continuously patrolling the hallway in which the prison cells. He did this not to play into the experiment, not because he knew he was being watched and wanted to do his job and get paid, but simply because he believed it was his job to keep his prisoners contained and in line. Though this is only one small part of information I had to cut out, I would have liked to include it to point out how extreme of lengths the guards went to in order to conform to their designated roles. The main issue I had when writing my version of the article was to try not to simply regurgitate the information I had written for the summary sections of the Pop Culture and Scholarly Article Critiques, as well as the extra credit assignment, as they were on the same topic for me. I definitely have new respect for journalists after completing this project. I have realized how difficult it is for them to write an unbiased account of someone else’s research without plagiarizing from the original article, while still making it interesting and making people want to read their article over anyone else’s.

Leithead, A. (2011, August 17). Stanford prison experiment continues to shock.                                 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-14564182

--Original published at Garrettscollegeblog

Over the history of weight-loss drugs, significant weight loss has always been followed by cardiovascular problems. Lorcaserin, a major component to the drug Belviq, significantly contributes to weight loss. The cardiovascular outcomes remained unknown until further research on the drug tested the effects on overweight people with cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors.

The TIMI Study Group planned to conduct the experiment by creating two groups out of the selected participants. One group set to receive the drug Belviq, while the other group took a placebo. With a plan to apply the results to a multinational audience, the researchers randomly selected 12,000 participants from 437 sites in eight different countries. In order for eligibility for selection to exist, the participant must bear a BMI of 27 at the lowest while also at risk for many cardiovascular problems.

From the eight countries, TIMI selected 12,000 eligible participants, which then underwent assignment. At a 1:1 ratio, participants were randomly assigned to either the group that would receive Belviq, or to the group that would receive a placebo. Both groups then received a weight-loss and diet plan from the study group and encouragement to participate in the plan.

After 1 year of taking the drug, 38.7% of those taking Belviq lost more than 5% of their body weight in comparison to the 17.4% in the placebo group. When the weight loss increases to 10%, people in the Belviq group to complete this task tripled the amount in the placebo group (15% compared to 5%).

It is seen that Belviq significantly aids in weight loss, but the drug’s performance at the cardiovascular stage shined as well. Participants consuming the placebo actually suffered from a very small percentage more major cardiovascular events (6.2%) than those consuming the Belviq (6.1%). Although performing in both the cardiovascular and weight-loss aspects, the drug did cause some side effects. Some participants did experience dizziness, nausea, headaches, fatigue, and diarrhea, and in few cases to the extent of causing discontinuation from taking the drug.

Reflection:

While writing the summary the five critical questions stayed in my mind throughout. The one that stuck out the most was, “How did they operationalize their variables?” as this acted as a major criticism from the original pop culture article. The original article failed to mention how participants became eligible for this experiment. Although it mentioned that the participants must be at risk for cardiovascular disease, it failed to bring up what deemed participants obese or overweight. I made sure to mention these details, as it is important to know the characteristics of people participating. The other critical questions that stood out to me were participant selection and group assignment as these pertain to whether this was a true experiment and if these results could be generalized to more than those participating in the experiment.

A major similarity between the article and my summary existed in the results section. Both the article and my summary chose to elicit the information easily understood by the average reader, while still presenting enough information to get across the point. Another similarity existed in the slight bias towards Belviq throughout the article. I remember briefly critiquing the bias in the original article, but when reading my summary, realized that I showed the same bias. The differences between the two summaries subsisted in the writing style. The journalist much more effectively exposed the information while intriguing the audience to learn more. The journalist also possessed other interviews and sources to contribute to their article.

I definitely learned from this project as a whole the difficulty journalists face. The ability to take such advanced material in the scholarly articles and present it, in an entertaining way, to the public is an extremely strenuous act.

Bohula, Erin A, et al. “Cardiovascular Safety of Lorcaserin in Overweight or Obese Patients.” The New England Journal of Medicine, 26 Aug. 2018, pp. 1–11., doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1808721.

Preidt, Robert. “Diet Drug Belviq Is First Shown Not to Hurt Heart.” WebMD, WebMD, 27 Aug. 2018, https://www.webmd.com/diet/obesity/news/20180827/diet_drug-belviq-is-first-shown-not-to-hurt-heart#2