--Original published at Site Title

Robert T. Muller Ph. D. has written a pop-culture article that provides information that pertains to stalkers. Muller defines stalking as repeated and unwanted attention, harassment, contact, or any other behavior directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear. He shares that it has been reported that 2-13% of males have been victims of stalking, while 8-32% of women have been victimized, and that the majority of these victims have personally known their stalker. Some of the behaviors these stalkers exhibit minor, but in some cases the behaviors that stalkers have are frightening. Some of these behaviors include repetitive phone calls, sending letters and gifts, spying, and unexpected confrontations. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of known reasons as to why stalkers behave the way they do, so there is not much more that can be done to treat them aside from therapy. A common misconception is that stalkers suffer from delusions and hallucinations, but this is not accurate. They do however commonly struggle with other mental illnesses including depression, personality disorders.

Muller continues to describe some of the findings of an Australian stalking expert, Paul Mullen. Upon studying the behaviors of 145 convicted stalkers, he was able to make observations that lead to placing stalkers into five categories. These categories include rejected type, intimacy seeking, incompetent subtype, resentful type, and the predator.

The rejected stalking type is defined as a person who has experienced the unwanted end of a relationship with a romantic partner or any other relationship. The intimacy seeker was defined by Mullen as someone who identifies a random person as their true love and acts as if they are in a relationship with that stranger. The incompetent subtype is defined as someone who seeks intimacy and has hopes their stalking behaviors will lead to a relationship. However, they understand that their feelings are not being returned. The resentful stalker seeks to get revenge on their victim because they feel that an injustice had occurred. The predator stalker is one who has no desire to have a relationship with their victims, but they simply desire the feeling of having power and control over another person. Though this behavior may sound inexcusable to most, Mullen says that these stalkers should not be viewed as criminals, but as “vulnerable, distressed individuals whose behaviors reflect, at least in part, influence, of a serious underlying mental disorder.”

Reflection

As I was summarizing my pop-culture article, I fortunately did not face too many difficulties. My original article had a relatively large number of words, yet a lot of the things that the author discussed were of little importance in my opinion. Therefore, I had no trouble summarizing the important aspects of the article without going over the maximum word limitation. As I mentioned, there were a lot of things that I left out of the summary above, but it was not because of a word limitation. The author included a good bit of statistics and examples that are important, yet they are not important in the means of just simply summarizing the main points of the article. I also left of examples the author gave of some real life stalking situations. There were a few examples about celebrity stalking cases that served the purpose of entertaining the readers and trying to make connections to stalking instances that they may be familiar with, but again it was nothing important in this respect.

Before taking this course I always considered journalists to be people who just kind of shared their feelings. I know this shows my ignorance, but I will be honest when I say that I have never really paid too much attention to journalists / blogs or anything like them prior to this. Now I realize how educational and interesting journals can be.  I learned a lot by creating my own posts, as well as reading and responding to what my peers had to say about a topic we were discussing in class.

Pop-Culture Article

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/talking-about-trauma/201306/in-the-mind-stalker

Scholarly Article

file:///C:/Users/Kimberly/Downloads/For%20Kim%20S.pdf

--Original published at MelanieBlevins

Summary

The research article entitled “Major Depression with Seasonal Variation,” written by Megan K. Traffanstedt, discussed the abstract and findings from a study conducted at Auburn University. This study was conducted in order to collect data on seasonal depression. This study was able to determine if depression is directly related to latitude, season, and/ or sun exposure. The results of this study did not show what they had hoped. There was no data to support a correlation between the measures of depression when compared to the the three variables. In conclusion, results do not support the existence of seasonal defective disorder (SAD).

The following three variables mentioned above, season, sunlight exposure, and latitude, were all tested separately over the course of at least one year. At the same time, a control variable was tested data about mood variations. This allowed for a baseline of mental health disordered, which provided data for varying levels of mental depression. Season was studied as a continuous variable and data was taken from the winter solstice starting December 21, 2006. The team at Auburn University used the U.S. Naval Observatory website to gain perspective about to get a duration of daylight in hours and minutes for the year. Data on latitude was based on a survey, and those who took the survey lived mostly in the northern, middle, or southern latitudes. The study was designed to find a relationship between depression and each variable to confirm or deny the hypothesis.

Results of the study rejected the hypothesis. There was no indication that any of the three variables are related to depression. The research article claims that SAD is a  “well-entrenched folk theory” that many believe because of the stress of the wintertime. Stressful life situations may coincidentally happen in colder months and cause individuals to be convinced they have SAD. In all, this study did not completely rule out the existence SAD; however, the data collected does not support depression caused by sunlight exposure, latitude, or season. In the contrary,  there is not enough empirical evidence to completely rule out the existence of SAD for further studies in the future.

Personal Analysis

It was very difficult to write a summary about this article because of the immense amount of information given in the research study. Even in the journal article summary, a lot of information about the study was left out which made the results change meaning. After writing this, I found out that the job of a journalist is much harder than what I initially thought. Often times, journalists have to draw things out or make up information to make the story more interesting. In addition to this, I have found that some journalists twist words around which portrays a separate meaning from what the data supports. This could be for multiple reasons, one being to help the flow of the story and another being to gain reader interest. For my analysis, I tried to include all information that was given in the original research article. I found this to be time consuming and hard because I had to write and rewrite my summary over and over again until I got the final product. I tried to make sure that I got the most important points of the article in my summary, such as the purpose for the study, the data, and the results. I also made sure to not add any of my own opinions or words to my summary so that it was strictly factual. I think sometimes it might be hard for a journalist to write a summary that is unbiased because topics can have such controversial viewpoints. Overall, I think I did a great job summarizing the I really enjoyed all aspects of the media project.

Scholarly article: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2167702615615867

Origional news article: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/19/health/your-brain-on-winter/index.html

--Original published at The Core Techs

Do you know anyone who is constantly taking pictures of themselves and then uploading them to social media? If you don’t, look out because it might be you… It seems to be the new trend among teens and younger adults to flip the camera to the front and pucker those lips together to form the perfect duck face. Although this is true, it seems to be becoming such a big trend that some of us might actually be taking it a little too far. While some studies show that taking selfies can actually be beneficial, another study, in particular, is worried that a new disorder might be on the rise.

A website, called the Adobo Chronicles, stated that “selfitis” was a new disorder. The author explained that the cause of this disorder was because of a lack of relationships (friends or significant others) and self-esteem. People with selfitis supposedly uploaded pictures of themselves to gain more “followers” on social media, make more connections, and gain more popularity to feel good. The author also stated that the American Psychiatry Association (APA) labeled the disorder with three diagnoses levels: borderline, acute, and chronic. Of course, it was eventually discovered that this media coverage was false, and the APA did not, in fact, release any kind of new disorder pertaining to obsessive selfie-taking. This, however, triggered some scientists to ponder whether or not selfitis could be a real disease.

Two scientists, Balakrishnan and Griffiths, set out to determine the new guidelines for a possible selfie-taking disorder. These two decided that they would use Facebook, one of the forms of social media in today’s world that carries the most users. Within Facebook, it was noted that the culture who had the most profiles were Indians. Seven groups of these users were chosen and asked questions in relation to their selfie-taking habits. It was discovered that there were ultimately six factors which helped diagnose selfitis. These six factors were labeled as the new Selfitis Behavior Scale, or SBS for short. The six factors were environment enhancement, social competition, attention seeking, mood modification, self-confidence, and subjective conformity. Environment enhancement has to do with taking pictures in certain locations, social competition has to do with getting more likes or followers than others, and attention seeking is simply to be noticed by others through social media. The other three, mood modification, self-confidence, and subject conformity are in relation to being put in a better mood, feeling better about oneself, and fitting in socially because of taking selfies.

People who fit into the category of chronic selfitis were more strongly associated with attention seeking, environmental enhancement, and social competition. In other words, people addicted to taking selfies all the time and posting them back to back on social media each day found it pleasing to upload selfies because it gained them more popularity, they were able to show off where they were at, and they were able to “prove” themselves better or worse than other social media users. Most individuals in the study did not fit into the category of chronic selfitis, and the researchers, therefore, made the prediction that most selfie-takers would not fit into the most extreme form of “selfie addiction.”

The research study overall was well thought out and put together, but does not cover the entire population. This study only included the Indian culture, meaning that Americans, Hispanics, and other cultures were left out of the picture. If selfitis is to become a real disorder, I believe there should be more studies done that relate to various cultures. The study also involved self-reports or surveys so not all information may be truthful. No data was gathered either pertaining to the negative impacts of consistent selfie-taking. Because no negative impacts are listed, selfitis cannot be classified as a “disorder” yet. Despite this, there are still many strengths and benefits of this study, including the fact that it gives the primary layout for diagnosing selfitis.

This research study is a good layout to determine whether or not selfitis should be classified by the APA as a new disorder. Although this is true, there are still many questions left unanswered. For example, what would happen if different cultures were used? What about different age groups? The younger population seems to be getting more and more into technology, so are they at risk as well? What age or gender is the most at risk for this disease? How does having selfitis impact someone’s life?

Original News Article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201801/obsessive-selfie-taking

Scholarly Article: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-017-9844-x

Overall, summarizing both the original news article and the scholarly article was a very interesting process. The research article itself was very lengthy in comparison to the news article, so finding the right words to say without leaving out important information proved to be a challenge. The news article was a great summary of the research study, listing the most important information with basic findings. Although this is true, it is still essential to include more details and reflective facts based on the raw data and other findings. In order to help filter out the most important information, I used my scholarly article critique. This really helped me to find the bulk of the information in the research study without making my summary too lengthy. It allowed me to pull out essential details rather than just leaving the data up for assumptions for the reader. For example, when talking about how the study was going to gather its participants and how the experiment would be performed, it was not crucial to mention every little detail. It was, however, important to give the reader a general idea of how the study was being conducted. Giving the reader an idea of how the study was performed makes the information and findings more believable. In other words, it is important to know why Indians were chosen for the study and what questions they were being asked in order to judge where they would be on the SBS. Another example of using raw data without overloading the reader with details is when the factors for creating the SBS were mentioned. It is important to know the factors and how participants were filtered, but it is not crucial to know the exact dialogue of the participants. To conclude, summarizing both the raw data and news coverage was an interesting task, but not too difficult. It is essential to pick and choose the most important facts to inform and educate the audience while still making sense and not giving a boatload of information to them.

What do you think, Core Techs? Do you believe in selfitis?

-B

Obsessed – Colored Pencil; 2017 Portfolio

--Original published at Jessie's PSY105 Blog

Media project final:

         As technology has become more prevalent in our society, people have increasingly wondered how it will affect their lives. One aspect of concern, is pictures. With cameras built in to all of our devices, we can take a picture of anything, at any time. The question is: how does this affect the moment? Does taking a picture take away from the experience?  Psychologists Alixandra Barasch, Kristin Diehl, Jackie Silverman, and Gal Zauberman tested this question. They set out to answer how taking pictures would affect the memory of your multiple senses as well as how well you would remember images you did photograph, compared with those you did not. The participants for their study were workers randomly chosen from their company with the only regulation being that they were 18 years of age or older (meaning the conclusions are only applicable to adults). The participants were randomly split into two groups based on the time slot in which they signed up for the study. In the first component of the study, one group was allowed to explore an art museum with a camera that they could use at any time. The other group did not have a camera. Both of the groups listened to an audio recording of information about the art exhibits they were viewing. Afterwards, both of the groups were given the same test on the information they heard while walking through the exhibit in order to test how their different senses were tested. Some questions were about information spoken to them (auditory memory), while other required the participant to look at two similar pieces of art, and judge which one they had actually seen in the exhibit (visual memory). Three more studies were conducted of a similar nature. One involving the same variables as the first but in a virtual art gallery, one the same as the experiment prior, however, there was a third variable where a group could take pictures but was told they would be deleted, and one which was the same as before, however, the third variable was being allowed to take a picture whenever they ‘felt’ they would in real life. Each of these studies came to the same conclusion: that taking pictures improved visual memory while negatively affecting auditory memory. These four studies were then repeated for the second question. The results supported the researchers’ idea that people would better remember what they did photograph as opposed to what they didn’t. This leaves us in another predicament. Is the improvement in visual memory worth the detriment to auditory memory?

Reflection:

         When it came to deciding what to include in my rewrite of the article, I decided to focus mainly on the scholarly article. The pop culture article included information based on how social media can be a variable, while this was never mentioned in the scholarly article. Since there was no factual evidence to support this claim, I did not include it in my summary. I did go more in depth about the multiple studies that were conducted as well as the fact that the researchers tested two hypotheses, not just one. I was also careful to answer the five critical questions for reading research. I explained the selection and assignment of the participants as well as how the variables were operationalized and the population the conclusion could be generalized too. I did not specifically state that causal claim was allowed due to this being a true experiment, but I did mention that both of the components necessary for this to be true were present. The news article did not answer most of these questions. It was never mentioned how the participants were assigned and then split into groups. I did include this in my rewrite as it also contributes to the critical question regarding causal claim. While writing/reading this article, I learned that (not always, this is a generalization for the article that I read) journalists may tend to take liberties. The point about the involvement of social media in the pop culture article seemed like a good way to hold the attention of the reader. It was, however, never mentioned in the scholarly article. I also learned that journalists must find a balance between making an article that is enjoyable and one that gives all the facts. During my rewrite, I found that I wanted to include the facts and details about the experiments. This, however, would not be the most interesting read for someone who simply looked at the article because the title sounded interesting.

Barasch, A., Diehl, K., Silverman, J., Zauberman, G. (2017, June 26). Photographic Memory: The Effects            of Volitional Photo Taking on Memory for Visual and Auditory Aspects of an Experience.                        Retrieved May 2, 2017 from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Photographic+Memory%3A+The+Effects+of+Volitional+Photo+Taking+on+Memory+for+Visual+and+Auditory+Aspects+of+an++Experienc

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/science/living-in-the-moment-taking-photos.html

--Original published at JD's Blog

Summary: (315 out of 320 words).

When a song, or part of a song becomes engrained in a person’s head and continuously plays, it is considered to be involuntary musical imagery (INMI) also known as an earworm. An original study was conducted surveying over 5,000 people who were randomly selected to participate. The survey given asked each participant to name a song that had been stuck in their head most recently and another song that had made several appearances in their mind over the course of their lifetime. To test the legitimacy of the participants’ claims they were also asked to write out the lyrics of the part that replayed. This study, “Dissecting an Earworm,” utilized information from 3,000 surveys from the original participants. Selected randomly, it was almost an even split between men and women ranging from the age of twelve to eighty two. They based each song’s effectiveness on how many times its name was chosen by the participants and how much in common it had with the other selections. The most reoccurring song was “Bad Romance” by lady Gaga. After the researchers scrounged through all of the selected songs it was determined that there were two main traits that almost all of the songs mentioned shared. The first most prevalent trait was the melody. Almost every song that was selected shared a melodic outline that could be found in music all around the world. A melody that was a result of many cultures musical ideals blending together and has been used across the world. The second trait is a fast paced tempo. It was discovered that most of the songs were taken at a tempo of around 124 beats per minute. These key traits helped the scientist behind the experiment to determine what makes a song catchy and will allow them to predict if songs that are produced in the future will become common earworms (Jakubowski et al, 2017).

Reflection:

In my summary of this study I wanted to cover all of the basic background information as well as include and discuss as many of the five critical research questions that I could. I went through the methods and discussion of the study and used it to determine how the variables were operationalized and how the participants were selected. I could not find anything about any of the participants being separated into groups but based on the experiment there did not seem to be a need for them. I briefly discussed how it could be considered a causal claim for songs that will come out in the future. I failed to talk about how the conclusions could be generalize in depth and therefore did not specifically touch on the fifth critical question.

My summary definitely went more in depth discussing the five critical questions of research concerning the study conducted. The article in the New York Times barely touched on two of them. It did not mention the experiment that preceded tis study and was used by it to obtain the data necessary for its conclusions. The article in The Times mentioned only the. Number of people who participated in the study failing to mention how they were chosen and if they were put into groups. It did touch briefly on causal claims in a similar way to my own summary. We both mentioned the two traits that help to determine if a song will likely become an ear worm.

The other article focused a lot more on the history of earworms and how learning more about them could highlight the ways we developed and learned as people matured through time. It also talks about the practical use of this information in helping people retain information better in different fields of study. However, these topics were not discussed in depth in the study so I did not add them into my summary.

After completing all three of these assignments I learned a lot about journalists writing about psychology research. Analyzing the article in my Pop Culture article critique showed me that it is possible to get the information discussed in an experiment across to the public without discussing the actual research in depth. After discussing the actual study I learned that it is very hard to write about one if they do not directly discuss the information needed to answer the five critical questions of research. As a journalist this must make writing about research very hard.  Trying to write a description of the study myself that was short and detailed was very hard. There is so much information and it is hard to figure out how detailed to be and what type of audience to write for.

Jakubowski, K., Finkel, S., Stewart, L., & Müllensiefen, D. (2017). Dissecting an earworm:

Melodic features and song popularity predict involuntary musical imagery. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,11(2), 122-135. doi:10.1037/aca0000090

Klein, J. (2016, November 03). What Lady Gaga’s ‘Bad Romance’ and Other Earworm Songs

Have in Common. Retrieved April 09, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/science/earworms-lady-gaga-bad-romance.html

--Original published at JanellesCollegeBlog

Repeated head hits can cause CTE (323 words out of 984)

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease. Previous studies have linked this disease with concussions as the most common population to develop the disease are those who have been bombarded with repeated head blows like professional football players and combat veterans. Those who develop this disease often show Alzheimer-like symptoms, but the only way to accurately diagnosis the disease is with an autopsy after death.

A new more comprehensive study on the link between CTE and repeated head blows has found a relationship between the two. The study conducted two different experiments to try to show the correlation. In one section of the study, the brains of recently deceased young adult athletes were taken and observed for pathways related to the development of CTE. Four of these athletes had suffered from recent head injuries and four had not. The four brains of those who received recent head injuries showed signs of pathways correlated with CTE like axonal damage and phosphorylated tau protein build-up. One brain was actually diagnosed with the early stages of CTE. The other four brains did not show these related pathways.

This study also conducted an experiment on mice. 203 mice were exposed to two repeated head blows and scored on their ability to complete physical tasks. The brains of the mice were then observed to see if there were any changes in the structures of the brain due to these repetitive hits. The researchers found similar disrupted pathways like those found in the human brains including phosphorylated tauopathy. These findings could be correlated back to humans due to the similarity between human and mice brains.

The results of this study found that even without concussions, humans and mice exposed to repeated head blows could develop CTE, although it is not guaranteed. The development and progression of the disease can start early in adolescents and continue throughout the rest of individuals’ lives.

Link to news article: https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/18/health/cte-concussion-repeated-hits-study/index.html

Link to scholarly article: https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/141/2/422/4815697

Reflection:

The process of summarizing the scholarly article into a news article was really difficult. I had to take a lot of information from the scholarly article and discard it to hit the main points. Also, I had to pay attention to the fact that most individuals in the audience reading my article would not have the in depth knowledge needed to understand the terminology of the scholarly article. I did not understand a lot of it when I originally read it. This proved to be really difficult when creating my news article because I had to discard a lot of information about the brain tests that were completed and focus on the broader points of the topic. I also discarded a lot of the statistics that were found because they would not have any meaning to the audience and would confuse more than help. Another challenging aspect of the revision process was that I believed one of the strongest points in the original news article was their direct quotes from experts. They were allowed to conduct interviews and have first-hand perspectives, but in my article, I was limited in this ability.

This project completely changed the way I think about journalists. I have gained a greater understanding of the process and how difficult it truly is. First the journalist has to have a deep understanding of the scholarly article. My scholarly article was extremely in depth and challenging to understand, but the journalist had to fully understand it to then be able to explain it in a way that their audience would understand, the most challenging part. Then, journalists need to write the article in a way that makes sense and flows and add in additional quotes and interviews. I really enjoyed this project, but it made me have a greater appreciation for journalists because I think their job is extremely difficult.

--Original published at Max'sPHY105blog

College students and high school students deal with stress all the time. Different students have different views of how to best cope with stress. David Yeager, a professor of psychology the University of Texas has an interesting view of how to cope with stress. He theorized that it is a specific way perceiving social challenges and failures that causes people to perceive stress a certain way. The most common way of thinking is called the entity theory. Students of this theory perceive social challenges and failures to be of lasting social reality. Another common way of perceiving social challenges and failures is known as the incremental theory. Students of this theory do not develop fixed trait attributions and are not as likely to perceive social challenges and failures to be of lasting social reality. David believes that high school students can deal with stress better if they are taught the incremental theory. He ran two studies to test this.

In his first study, Yeager recruited a maximum number of 60 student volunteers from high school students in the Rochester, New York area to be participants. Every student was randomly assigned Yeager’s intervention or a placebo so that half the students received Yeager’s intervention and the other half received the placebo. Both groups did a 25 minute reading and writing exercise. The experimental group’s exercise was about social treats and how to overcome them. The control group’s exercise was about adjusting to the physical environment of high school. After the groups completed their exercises, the individuals were asked to make a five minute video explaining what makes teenagers popular and count backward from 996 by sevens. As the students did this, their responses and performance to the tasks were observed. The students also filled out a questionnaire about how stressed they felt and provided a saliva sample so their cortisol level could be measured. When compared with the control group, it was found that the students in the experimental group reported lower threat appraisals, had lower cortisol reactivity in their saliva, and performed better on the stressful task.

In the second study, Yeager recruited ninth grade Algebra 1 students at another high school to be participant. 303 students volunteered to have their school records analyzed. Each of these students were randomly assigned to complete experimental materials having to do with learning the incremental theory of personality, or control materials. In set time periods, saliva samples were collected from each of the students to measure cortisol levels. Also, between saliva samples, the students answered a writing prompt asking about stressful events that happened, how negative these events were, and how confident the student felt in dealing with them. The student grades in their core classes were observed as well. When compared with the control group, the students in the experimental group had higher GPA’s and lower cortisol levels, but reported the same amount of threat appraisals.

These two studies were very well done. The independent and dependent variable were clear and the studies have shown how the independent variable affects the dependent variable. The method used allow for causal claims since it was a true experiment. It included an independent variable that has shown to have an effect on the multiple dependent variables that were measured. The only major difference in the independent and dependent variable relationship between the two studies was the threat appraisals reported by the students. In the first study, the stressful situation was created by the researchers and the reported threat appraisals were lower for the experimental group. In the second study, the stressful situation was a real high school Algebra class and the reported threat appraisals were the same for both groups. This would make sense since all the students in the Algebra 1 class would feel more stressed than the students of Yeager’s intervention in the first study knowing that they are in a real stressful class in which their academic performance will mean more to them later in life. Other than this, the experimental groups’ cortisol levels were lower than the control groups and their performance was better than the control groups’, so it is logical to assume that Yeager’s intervention helped the students cope with stress.

Although this experiment was well done, there are a couple of limitations on this experiment. First of all, the conclusions of these studies cannot be generalized to the whole population of high school students. For the first study, the conclusions can only be generalized to the high school students of the school from which the participants came from. For the second study the conclusions can only be generalized to Algebra 1 students in their first semester of high school. Another limitation on this study, mentioned by Yeager, was that his method only taught student about the incremental theory of personality. It does not initiate the way of thinking. Later priorities will have to go beyond simply telling students about the incremental theory of personality and find comprehensive ways to initiate it.

Yeager’s method of reducing high school student’s social stress sounds like a good one based on the two studies he performed, but again, the studies cannot be generalized to the whole population of high school students and his method is simply telling students about something, this is not initiating. These studies might provide enough evidence to encourage high schools to teach new students about the incremental theory of personality, but they also must find some comprehensive ways to initiate it, since it is not good to rely on something that is not initiating. There is still no grantee that Yeager’s method is as effective as it may sound, but it is probably worth a try.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/health/teenagers-stress-coping-skills.html

file:///C:/Users/Max%20Billante/Downloads/For%20Max%20B.pdf

Reflection:

The process of summarizing a news article after reading the original published journal article was a bit troublesome, but interesting at the same time. As I summarized the study, I tried to improve off of the news article I had originally read in several ways, but since my summary could be no longer than the first news article I read, I was limited with how much information I could include. When I summarized the research, I made a priority to answer all five critical question for evaluating research, as this was one mistake I found in the original news article. Answering these five critical questions is important for evaluating research, so it is important for them to be answered in any record of a study. Another thing I wanted to improve on was mentioning limitations of the study. The original news article did not mentions any limitations of this study because it wanted its readers to only see the bright side of the experiment. To provide a more accurate picture of the study, I made it a second priority to mention the limitations on this study. That way readers would not rely on bright conclusions to much and be disappointed if they do not work. I also tried to be specific in terms of what exactly the students received as treatments for the experiment. The original news article did not go into this very much, so I made an effort to be as specific as the original journal article did, about the treatments for each of the students. One thing that I was not able to mention was my own opinions about other confounding variables that could have been present in the experiment. After I read the original journal article, I still was wondering about confounding variables that could have affected the outcome of the experiment, since neither the journal article or the news article mentioned anything about this. I would have included my thought about this in the summary if I had more space. I decided that this was not as important as the other facts though. I felt that the given facts were more important than my own opinions. My perspective of journalists has not changed very much over the course of this project. I understand that I was not able to include everything I wanted to in my summary, but I was able to include all the facts that make the research sound accurate. The original news article I read still appears to aim toward making the study sound better than it really is. My perspective of journalists still includes  them not always having the same goal as the experimenters and often try to sway people into believing what they hope for them to believe.