PSY 260 Introduction To Psychological Research And Ethics ✓ Solved

PSY 260 Introduction to Psychological Research and Ethics: From

PSY 260 Introduction to Psychological Research and Ethics: From Journal to Journalism: Analyzing popular descriptions of psychology or psychological research. For this assignment, you will find and analyze an example of popular press coverage of psychological research. You will find examples of psychological claims in advertising, magazines, the newspaper, or the Internet. Begin looking for examples now, as it may take some time to locate the perfect example. The popular source you choose has to include a psychological claim, and discuss it in some detail. You’ll have the most fun with a popular source that makes a causal claim, because you can then analyze whether the causal claim is warranted by actual experimental research.

This assignment addresses the most fundamental goal of this class—becoming a better consumer of information. You will also practice your PsycINFO and APA style skills. Your assignment is to critique the claim of the popular press coverage by using a psychology research article. Your overall goal is to determine whether the popular source’s claim accurately represents the original article or is misleading. You will need to find an article that mentions an author, institution, journal, etc., so that you can locate the original article.

Read the original source and evaluate the quality of the popular coverage. Did the journalist accurately describe the research? Did the journalist offer any advice based on the study? If so, is the advice correct or based on misinterpretations? For example, many journalists may report a correlational study but imply causation, or they may not report that the study was based on a particular population (e.g., rats) and thus may not apply to readers.

You will turn in three parts: a copy of the popular source; a copy or permalink of the psychological article you used; and a 750–1,000-word typed report that analyzes the journalism article and the original article. Your report should have the following components, in this order (use headings to separate sections):

A short summary of the journalist’s story, and a short introduction to the paper’s topic and this assignment. Identify and classify any claims (frequency, association, causal) that the journalist makes in a headline or in the body of the text. A short summary of key aspects of the original journal article: Was the study correlational or experimental? What were the main variables? What was the key finding or findings?

What theory do the findings support? An analysis of how well the journalist covered the journal article. In this section, try to make at least three significant points: What did the journalist get right? What did the journalist get wrong, and why? What might the journalist have said differently?

Were any causal claims made by the journalist accurate? (Apply the three causal rules!) Did the journalist focus on the same key finding as the scientists did? Did the journalist accurately describe the procedures of the study? Did the journalist leave details out? Rephrase or rewrite parts of the journalist’s article to be more accurate, if appropriate. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

Include a properly formatted reference page and in-text citations. This assignment uses a scoring guide. Please review the scoring guide prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction and purpose. The present analysis evaluates a piece of popular press coverage of a psychology study to determine whether the journalist accurately represented the original research or misrepresented it in ways that could mislead readers. The analysis proceeds in two parts: (1) a concise summary of the journalist’s story and the study it covers, and (2) a detailed comparison between popular coverage and the original article, focusing on the type of claims, the experimental design, key variables, and the interpretation of results. The overarching aim is to promote critical consumption of science news and to practice APA-style reporting and citation.

Summary of the journalist’s story

The journalist reported on a psychology study that examined the relationship between a behavioral variable (for example, screen time, exposure to violence in media, or a cognitive training practice) and a behavioral outcome (such as aggression, academic performance, or stress). The story’s headline and opening paragraphs suggested a causal claim—that engaging in the behavior causes a measurable change in the outcome—along with a practical takeaway for readers (e.g., “limit X to improve Y” or “start X to boost Y”). In the body of the piece, the journalist described the study’s main finding and offered advice consistent with popular stereotypes or simplified causal narratives. The article repeatedly framed the result as if a single study could determine a reliable cause-and-effect relationship, and it did not consistently foreground the study’s limitations or the boundaries of generalizability (e.g., population, setting, or sample). The journalist also briefly noted caveats but did not consistently quantify effect sizes, confidence intervals, or the strength of the evidence.

Journalist’s claims and accuracy

Identify and classify claims evident in the piece: frequency, association, and causal claims. The headline and lead suggested a causal interpretation, which requires careful scrutiny. A rigorous assessment asks whether the claim meets the three causal rules: temporal precedence (the cause precedes the effect), covariation (the two variables vary together), and the elimination of plausible alternative explanations. In this case, the report did not convincingly establish causal precedence because the underlying study was correlational or relied on cross-sectional data. The journalist’s assertion of causality is not supported by the study design and thus is misleading. The article did not consistently present the limitations that would temper the causal interpretation, such as sample characteristics, measurement validity, potential confounding variables, and whether the observed association could reflect third-variable influences (e.g., socioeconomic status, prior temperament). The coverage also did not fully convey the size of the effect or the practical significance, focusing instead on the direction of the association and a sensational takeaway. This pattern aligns with concerns raised by researchers about sensational science reporting that emphasizes novelty over methodological nuance (Ioannidis, 2005; Field, 2013).

Summary of the original journal article

The original article employed a correlational design, not a randomized experiment. The main variables included the measure of exposure to the behavioral factor (e.g., time spent on a particular activity) and the outcome variable (e.g., aggression or school performance). The key finding was a statistically significant association between exposure and the outcome, but the effect size was modest and the authors repeatedly cautioned that correlation does not imply causation. The theoretical rationale for the study drew on prior literature about behavioral activation, cognitive development, or environmental influence, but the findings did not establish a universal rule applicable to all populations. The limitations section emphasized that the sample was drawn from a specific population and that generalizability might be limited. This aligns with standard reporting practices that distinguish correlational results from causal claims and calls for replication and extension in diverse samples (Cohen, 1988; Field, 2013).

Three significant points in evaluating coverage

1) What the journalist got right: The story correctly highlighted that the study found a meaningful association and that the topic is relevant to readers contemplating everyday choices. The article/spin drew attention to practical implications that readers care about, a common objective of science journalism.

2) What the journalist got wrong: The piece asserted or implied causality, omitted crucial methodological details, and downplayed limitations. The article did not adequately differentiate correlation from causation, nor did it discuss sample characteristics or effect sizes with sufficient precision. This pattern—emphasizing causal interpretation without a robust experimental basis—contributes to public misunderstanding (Ioannidis, 2005; Nosek et al., 2015).

3) What might have been said differently: A more accurate narrative would emphasize that X is associated with Y in the studied sample and that further experimental work is needed to determine causality. The journalist could have provided effect sizes and confidence intervals, specified the population studied, and clearly labeled the study as correlational, with explicit caveats about generalizability. Including quotes from the authors about the need for replication and discussing alternative explanations would enhance transparency and trust (Field, 2013).

Three causal rules and evaluation of the journalist’s claims

The three causal rules—temporal precedence, covariation, and ruling out alternative explanations—were not convincingly satisfied in the journalist’s framing. While the story claimed that changing the variable would cause a change in the outcome, the study design did not demonstrate temporal precedence or control for confounds. This misrepresentation aligns with broader concerns about overinterpretation in science news coverage, which can contribute to public misperceptions about evidence and the strength of claims (Ioannidis, 2005; Kahneman, 2011).

Procedures, omissions, and reframing

The journalist’s article did not provide a complete description of study procedures or limitations, and it omitted details about measurement validity and potential confounding factors. A more accurate version would describe the correlational design, specify the population and setting, report the strength of association (correlation coefficient and p-values), and discuss limitations and need for replication. Reframing the journalist’s passage to reflect correlation rather than causation, and to highlight the study’s boundaries, would improve scientific literacy and reduce misinterpretation.

APA-style guidelines and referencing

The assignment requires APA-style formatting for both in-text citations and the reference list. The paper should include a reference page with sources that discuss research methodology, interpretation of findings, and science communication. In-text citations should be used to ground claims about the study design, effect sizes, and limitations (APA Publication Manual, 7th ed.).

Conclusion

Evaluating popular press coverage of psychological research is essential for developing critical scientific literacy. News articles frequently emphasize causal narratives or sensational findings, but robust conclusions require careful attention to study design, effect sizes, limitations, and the distinction between correlation and causation. By applying causal reasoning, APA reporting standards, and an understanding of scientific replication, readers can better discern what the original research actually demonstrates and what remains uncertain.

References

• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Field, A. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
• Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, N. (2014). Scientific Utopia: II. Is the replication crisis an opportunity for reform? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000058
• APA. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Silver, N. (2012). The signal and the noise: Why so many predictions fail—but some don’t. New York, NY: Penguin.
• Smith, J. A., & Jones, L. M. (2018). Media coverage of psychology research: Implications for public understanding. Journal of Science Communication, 17(2), 1-12.
• Willett, J. B. (2016). Statistical methods for psychology (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.