Critical Analysis of Psychological Research!

[ShyAngel]

Assignment #1: Critical Analysis of Psychological Research

Part II: Individual Analysis

Reading and reviewing psychological research is another important step in developing critical thinking skills. By evaluating two articles you can compare and contrast how different researchers design studies to test the same overall question. You will also demonstrate your understanding of basic research terminology. After reading the two articles and reviewing the various terminology (tutorial) involved in psychological research (video) respond to the following questions in your own words. Be sure to number your responses and write in complete sentences. See the writing guidelines for complete formatting and style issues. Concise and clear assignments should be no longer than three pages.

(A) Rauscher et al (1993)

Fred and Bill did a literature review and one of the research reports they found was from Nature (Rauscher, F.H., et al., 1993, “Music and spatial task performance,” Nature 365: 611). Read the report and respond to the following:
CLICK ON THE LINK AND AFTER READING IT ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS BELOW:

http://www.uwosh.edu/psychology/rauscher/Nature93.pdf


Identify the operational definition(s) for the independent variable(s).
Identify the operational definition(s) for the dependent variable(s).
Was this a between or within subjects study?
What aspects of the study did the researchers control? What aspects did they fail to control?
What were their reported results (what did they find)?
What conclusions did the researchers reach based on their results (how did they interpret their results, what did it mean)?
Based on the design and results of this study, do you believe that the researchers are justified in reaching these conclusions? Why or why not?
Now look at the study that you and your group designed. Did you control for any of the problems present in the Rauscher et al. study? If so, what? If not, how was your study different?


(B) Steele et al (1999)
Fred and Bill found another report in the journal Psychological Science (Steele, K.M., et al., 1999, “The mystery of the Mozart Effect: Failure to replicate,” Psychological Science 10(4): 366–369). Read the report and respond to the questions below:
CLICK THE LINK AND AFTER READING THE ARTICLE SIMPLE ANSWER THE QUESTION BELOW AND SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS.

http://www1.appstate.edu/~kms/documents/Mozart_PS.pdf

Identify the operational definition(s) for the independent variable(s).
Identify the operational definition(s) for the dependent variable(s).
Was this a between or within subjects study?
What aspects of the study did the researchers control? What aspects did they fail to control?
What were the results of the study (what did they find)?
What conclusions do the researchers reach (how did they interpret their results, what did it mean)?
Based on the design and results of this study, do you believe that the researchers are justified in reaching these conclusions? Why or why not?
This article was published in a journal that allows for longer articles, so more information was provided for the reader. As far as research methodology is concerned, in what ways was this study an improvement upon the Rauscher et al (1993) study? Why was this an improvement?
For a podcast discussion of the controversy of the Mozart Effect with Michael Britt and author Kenneth Steele, check out episode 59 of the Psych Files.


Case study materials by Lisa A. Hager of Spring Hill College, modified with permission from the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science, University at Buffalo, State University of New York.

 

[ShyAngel]

Assignment #1: Critical Analysis of Psychological Research

Part II: Individual Analysis

Reading and reviewing psychological research is another important step in developing critical thinking skills. By evaluating two articles you can compare and contrast how different researchers design studies to test the same overall question. You will also demonstrate your understanding of basic research terminology. After reading the two articles and reviewing the various terminology (tutorial) involved in psychological research (video) respond to the following questions in your own words. Be sure to number your responses and write in complete sentences. See the writing guidelines for complete formatting and style issues. Concise and clear assignments should be no longer than three pages.

(A) Rauscher et al (1993)

Fred and Bill did a literature review and one of the research reports they found was from Nature (Rauscher, F.H., et al., 1993, “Music and spatial task performance,” Nature 365: 611). Read the report and respond to the following:
CLICK ON THE LINK AND AFTER READING IT ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS BELOW:

http://www.uwosh.edu/psychology/rauscher/Nature93.pdf


Identify the operational definition(s) for the independent variable(s).
Identify the operational definition(s) for the dependent variable(s).
Was this a between or within subjects study?
What aspects of the study did the researchers control? What aspects did they fail to control?
What were their reported results (what did they find)?
What conclusions did the researchers reach based on their results (how did they interpret their results, what did it mean)?
Based on the design and results of this study, do you believe that the researchers are justified in reaching these conclusions? Why or why not?
Now look at the study that you and your group designed. Did you control for any of the problems present in the Rauscher et al. study? If so, what? If not, how was your study different?


(B) Steele et al (1999)
Fred and Bill found another report in the journal Psychological Science (Steele, K.M., et al., 1999, “The mystery of the Mozart Effect: Failure to replicate,” Psychological Science 10(4): 366–369). Read the report and respond to the questions below:
CLICK THE LINK AND AFTER READING THE ARTICLE SIMPLE ANSWER THE QUESTION BELOW AND SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS.

http://www1.appstate.edu/~kms/documents/Mozart_PS.pdf

Identify the operational definition(s) for the independent variable(s).
Identify the operational definition(s) for the dependent variable(s).
Was this a between or within subjects study?
What aspects of the study did the researchers control? What aspects did they fail to control?
What were the results of the study (what did they find)?
What conclusions do the researchers reach (how did they interpret their results, what did it mean)?
Based on the design and results of this study, do you believe that the researchers are justified in reaching these conclusions? Why or why not?
This article was published in a journal that allows for longer articles, so more information was provided for the reader. As far as research methodology is concerned, in what ways was this study an improvement upon the Rauscher et al (1993) study? Why was this an improvement?
For a podcast discussion of the controversy of the Mozart Effect with Michael Britt and author Kenneth Steele, check out episode 59 of the Psych Files.


Case study materials by Lisa A. Hager of Spring Hill College, modified with permission from the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science, University at Buffalo, State University of New York.

Ok my answer please let me know if anything needs to be correct before I turn it in.



Identify the operative definition of independent variable.

1. Research of music and spatial task performance had discovered that the performance of test for standard age scores by utilizing 3 different kind of methods. And the procedure was done by testing a group of 36 college students statistic score for their IQ level depending on the three kind of method that they have utilized. And that will be for 10 minutes by listening to Mozart Piece,listening to Relaxation tap, and also by being silence. After this step, the students were allow to take an analysis test of a multiple choice matrices test, multiple choice paper folding and cutting test so that the researcher's can have the same and more accurate result.

Identify the operative dependent variable.

2. The SAS result of the student who listen to the music of Mozart Piece have scored so much higher then the result of relaxation tap, and being silence for 10 min. The SAS variable of students who listen to Mozart is 57.56 of 8-9 points of IQ level, whereas the ones who listen to relaxation tap is 54.61 and lastly the silent method was scored 54.00.

Was this a between or within subject?

3. This is more between subject.

What aspects of the study did the researchers control? What aspects did they fail to control?

4. The researchers have controlled the different ways to calculate and explain the way they have calculated their test results into IQ level and also by using Stanford Binet intelligent scale of SAS to show the result of their test. But they have fail to control the way how their (students) have reciprocate to their experiment. Instead of just explaining the test score it would had been more satisfied if the researchers have put some more effort to explain how those students had respond to their own experiment and psychologically how they had react to the music that influenced them in many different ways.

What were the their reported results (what did they find)?

5. The enhancing effect of the music condition is temporal and does not extend beyond the 10-15 minute period during which the subject we engage in special task.

What conclusion did the researchers reach based on their results (how did they interpret their results, what did it mean)?

6. They have used only one music sample of one composer and therefore, the result of their research is not as accurate as it should be because sometimes by experimenting a different style of music and the artist would also be interesting to experiment as well.

Base on the design and results of this study, do you believe that the researchers are justified in researching these conclusions? Why or why not?

7. I don't think they have justified in researching these conclusions because nothing should be statistically label people's IQ level by the result of the test which is base on short term.

Now look at the study that you and your group designed. Did you control for any of the problems present in the Rauscher et al. study? If so, what? If not, how was your study different?

 

[Rage]

Shy, on your research analysis:


Identify the operational definition(s) for the independent variable(s).

Quite simply, the operational definition for the independent variable is 'music cognition' codicillary to three different 'music conditions' of 10 minute intervals: a "Mozart piece", a "Relaxation Tape" and "Silence".


Identify the operative dependent variable.

The Operative Dependent Variable is Standard-Age-Score (SAS) for students subjected to three different musical environments, as a quantifiable caliper for 'higher brain functions': which include those pertaining to cognition (and performance) of 'abstract operations such as mathematical and spatial reasoning'.

{Conciseness is key, for that is what is expected}


Was this a between or within subjects study?

This was a 'within subjects' study, for the experiment was used to compare mean S-A-S scores for all students, each of which was individually subjected to all three listening environments and evaluated individually via three sets of spatial reasoning tasks post hoc, and to gauge the impact thereof on spatial IQ scores.

{This is a confusing question, for although the experiment is evaluated ultimately on the basis of mean scores of three different groups, the study itself was conducted by subjecting each participant to (all and each of the) three different music environments and assessing their abstract/spatial reasoning performances individually}


What aspects of the study did the researchers control? What aspects did they fail to control?

Controlled facets: Musical (electromagnetic) stimulii (nature and duration of), (abstract and spatial reasoning) tasks,and in the same vein, evaluative scale (Stanford-Binet intelligence scale), (correlated) level of significance (o.o1), arousal (excluded by taking two-factor listening condition and time of pulse measure repeated measure analysis of variance for all subjects), order effects for task presentation, experimenter effects, delay period between listening conditions and 'translation' mode for SAS-spatial IQ equivalents.


Uncontrolled facets: Subject general intelligence and their bearing (verbal, reasoning, quantitative and short-term memory) upon performance (since the sample was assumptively random), exogenous stimulii such as lighting, presence and number of other individuals, etc. and their impact upon performance, and subject preferences.


More later...


Edit: Additional answers.


What were their reported results (what did they find)?

The researchers found mean Standard-Age-Scores for three listening conditions as follows:

Music: 57.56
Relaxation condition: 54.61
Silence: 54.00

Therefore, measured on the Stanford-Binet intelligence scale, subjects 'performed better on the abstract/spatial reasoning tests after listening to Mozart than after listening to either the relaxation tape or to nothing', the music condition 'differ[ing] significantly from both the relaxation and silence conditions'.


What conclusions did the researchers reach based on their results (how did they interpret their results, what did it mean)?

To assess the impact on subject IQ levels, the researchers 'translated' mean SAS scores to IQ equivalents using the 'area score conversion table'. Music, relaxation and silence conditions yielded IQ scores of '119, 111 and 110 respectively'. Based on these results, the researchers concluded that participants subjected to the music condition demonstrated IQ scores on average "8-9 points above" the demonstrated IQ scores of participants in the alternative: relaxation and silence conditions.


Based on the design and results of this study, do you believe that the researchers are justified in reaching these conclusions? Why or why not?
Now look at the study that you and your group designed. Did you control for any of the problems present in the Rauscher et al. study? If so, what? If not, how was your study different?

I'll answer the first part of this question. The second part is, 'course, your prerogative.

My opinion: the researchers are not justified in reaching these conclusions.
For one: only 'one musical sample of one composer' was used, precluding any validation of the 'correlational, historical or anecdotal relationship' between higher cognitive functions and either music or classical music as a whole, based on solely this experiment.

For two: the spatial/abstract reasoning tasks are of a definitive nature, and comprise only a fraction of the entire diapason of 'higher cognitive functions', which include (among others) complex interpersonal relationships, willed action, verbal performance, etc.

For three: the subjects enduring the silent condition may have encountered somatic nervousness, a factor which may be mitigated to varying extents in the music and 'relaxation' conditions by the presence of an external audible variable, on account of strange/unfamiliar environment, that may have impacted performance. The presence of somatic nervousness therefore, rather than music cognition (or lack thereof) may have been the deciding factor adversely affecting performance.