The topic is The Psychology that Religion has become! The domains:Counseling Psychology, Learning, Humanistic Psych, Neo freudian, Holistic psychotherapy I do have some references, as well!The primary goal of this literature review is to integrate concepts from four different content domains within the larger field of psychology. The four content domains should be chosen from previous coursework in this program. In this paper, students will review the findings in the individual empirical articles, organize the research in a meaningful way, evaluate the reliability, validity, and generalizability of the research findings, and present an integrated synthesis of the research that sheds new light on the topics within and across the four domains.The result of a successful integrative literature review may be a significant contribution to a particular body of knowledge and, consequently, to research and practice. Therefore, before writing this literature review, substantive new research must be conducted via the Internet and within the Ashford University Library for each of the four chosen domains. A minimum of six sources must be included for each of the four domains. Although content from literature reviews completed in prior courses within this program may be included, it may not constitute the total research for the individual domains addressed within this assignment. No more than four sources from previous literature reviews completed in this program may be utilized for this integrative review.The headings listed below must be used within the paper to delineate the sections of content. These sections include the following: a clear introduction that provides a general review and organizes the research in a meaningful way; a discussion in which the evidence is presented through analysis, critique, and synthesis; and a conclusion in which the discussion is drawn together in a meaningful way, the claims of the introduction are brought to a logical closure, and new research is proposed.IntroductionProvide a conceptual framework for the review.Describe how the review will be organized. The questions below may be used to guide this section.What are the guiding theories within the domains?How are the domains connected?Are there competing points of view across the domains?Why is the integration of these domains important?What is the history of these domains?What are the related theories or findings?Describe how the literature was identified, analyzed, and synthesized.How and why was the literature chosen?What is your claim or thesis statement?DiscussionProvide the analysis, critique, and synthesis for the review.AnalysisExamine the main ideas and relationships presented in the literature across the four domains.Integrate concepts from the four different content domains within the larger field of psychology.What claim(s) can be made in the introduction?What evidence supports the claim(s) made in the introduction?CritiqueEvaluate the reliability, validity, and generalizability of the chosen research findings.How well does the literature represent the issues across the four domains?Identify the strengths and the key contributions of the literature.What, if any, deficiencies exist within the literature?Have the authors omitted any key points and/or arguments?What, if any, inaccuracies have been identified in the literature?What evidence runs contrary to the claims proposed in the introduction, and how might these be reconciled with the claims presented?Explain how the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct might influence the reliability and/or generalizability of the chosen findings.Did the ethical issues influence the outcomes of the research?Were ethical considerations different across the domains?SynthesisIntegrate existing ideas with new ideas to create new knowledge and new perspectives.Describe the research that has previously been done across these domains, as well as any controversies or alternate opinions that currently exist.Relate the evidence presented to the major conclusions being made.Construct clear and concise arguments using evidence-based psychological concepts and theories to posit new relationships and perspectives on the topics within the domains.ConclusionProvide a conclusion and present potential future considerations.State your final conclusion(s).Synthesize the findings described in the discussion into a succinct summary.What questions remain?What are the possible implications of your argument for existing theories and for everyday life?Are there novel theories and/or testable hypothesizes for future research?What do the overarching implications of the studies show?Where should the research go from this point to further the understanding of these domains and the greater study of psychology?Attention Students: The Masters of Arts in Psychology program is utilizing the Pathbrite portfolio tool as a repository for student scholarly work in the form of signature assignments completed within the program. After receiving feedback for this Integrative Literature Review, please implement any changes recommended by the instructor, go to Pathbrite (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. and upload the revised Integrative Literature Review to the portfolio. (Use the Pathbrite Quick-Start Guide (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. to create an account if you do not already have one.) The upload of signature assignments will take place after completing each course. Be certain to upload revised signature assignments throughout the program as the portfolio and its contents will be used in other courses and may be used by individual students as a professional resource tool. See the Pathbrite (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. website for information and further instructions on using this portfolio tool.The Integrative Literature ReviewMust be 20 to 30 double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.Must include a separate title page with the following:Title of paperStudent’s nameCourse name and numberInstructor’s nameDate submittedMust begin with an introductory paragraph that has a succinct thesis statement.Must address the topic of the paper with critical thought.Must end with a conclusion that reaffirms your thesis.Must use at least 24 peer-reviewed sources, including a minimum of 20 from the Ashford University Library.Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.Must include a separate reference list that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center

Discussion: Countrywide and the Self Serving BiasNo unread replies.No replies.Countrywide’s Subprime ScandalCountrywide Financial was one of the largest mortgage lenders in the United States, but CEO Angelo Mozilo did not heed his own warnings in the lead-up to the 2007 financial crisis.Case studyCountrywide Financial was founded in 1968 by Angelo Mozilo and David Loeb. In 1992, it was the largest originator of single-family mortgages in the United States. By 2006, the company was ranked 122 on the Fortune 500 list and had become one of the nation’s largest mortgage lenders. That same year, Countrywide financed nearly $500 billion in loans. The company would lend to both prime borrowers—those with high credit scores—and subprime borrowers—those with lower credit scores who may have difficulty with repayment schedules. In general, subprime loans have higher interest rates in order to compensate for potentially higher credit risk.Mozilo was very outspoken and acted as the face of Countrywide. He described the importance of including minority and immigrant customers as both a company mission and for its business. He believed that promoting homeownership could lead to a more equal society. In 1994, Countrywide greatly increased the number of loans for African-American and Hispanic customers and became the first mortgage lending company to sign a fair-lending agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. By 2004, the company became the leading lender to what it referred to as “multicultural market communities.”As Countrywide grew, Mozilo held tighter control and insisted that the company be held to high standards. He enjoyed giving speeches, motivating his employees, and talking to the press. He was very public about his ambitions for his company and his opinions on other companies. In 2002, he publicly set an ambitious target of achieving 30 to 40 percent of market share. At that time, no company owned more than 13 percent of market share. This required an aggressive approach to sales, and the firm implemented a commission-based sales system that it had long resisted. Many sales representatives made millions of dollars a year pushing mortgages that were of lower and lower quality.In 2005, he warned of the direction of the lending industry, stating, “I’m deeply concerned about credit quality in the overall industry,” continuing, “I think that the amount of capacity that’s been developed for subprime is much greater than the quality of subprime loans available.” In 2006, he stated, “I believe there’s a lot of fraud.”And yet, Mozilo publicly insisted these were not issues for Countrywide. However, in internal emails, he later described the company’s 80/20 subprime loan (involving a first lien for 80% of the purchase price and a second lien for 20%) as “the most dangerous product in existence and there can be nothing more toxic.” In another email, he wrote that he “personally observed a serious lack of compliance within our origination system as it relates to documentation and generally a deterioration in the quality of loans.” This included a “piggyback” loan that enabled borrowers to purchase a house without putting down any money of their own. One Countrywide executive asked: “What will we do next—pay borrowers to take loans?”Countrywide also overcharged more than 200,000 African-American and Hispanic homebuyers. Black customers were more than twice as likely as white customers to be offered subprime loans.The company’s computer systems, pay structures, and employee sales training all incentivized maximum profits for Countrywide and often steered customers away from lower-cost loans, even if they qualified for them. But, as the housing market dropped in 2007, so did Countrywide’s profits. In 2008, Countrywide was forced to sell itself to Bank of America for $4 billion, just a fraction of its value just a short time before.The Department of Justice (DOJ) brought civil fraud charges against Countrywide stemming from its relationships with federal mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A federal jury found Countrywide liable. The DOJ also charged Countrywide with $335 million in a residential fair-lending settlement for discrimination against African-American and Hispanic borrowers. Bank of America assumed these liabilities and many others.Mozilo left Countrywide in 2008. In 2010, he was charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission with securities fraud and insider trading. The charges were based primarily on the discrepancy between the optimistic public statements that Mozilo made about the subprime mortgage market and his company’s practices and his private e-mails that were often pessimistic as well as his decision to sell $160 million of Countrywide stock while publicly lauding the firm. In 2010, Mozilo paid $67.5 million to settle with the SEC on insider trading charges. In 2016, the DOJ dropped prior charges of mortgage fraud against Mozilo.Related VideoSelf-Serving Bias (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.Ethical InsightCountrywide was the largest issuer of private mortgage securities in the run-up to the 2007-2008 subprime scandal and financial crisis, which caused an economic meltdown in the U.S. in 2008. Through a perhaps unconscious self-serving bias, Countrywide’s co-founder and CEO Angelo Mozilo seemingly was able to convince himself that there was nothing seriously wrong with the mortgage instruments his company was issuing despite his public warnings of ominous economic signs at other companies and his private worries expressed in intra-company e-mails.Discussion Questions: In what ways did Angelo Mozilo demonstrate self-serving bias? Explain.Can you think of other business leaders who may have been susceptible to self-serving bias during their careers? What did they do and how did they demonstrate self-serving bias? Explain with examples.*This mini case was provided through Ethics Unwrapped a program of McCombs School of Business, University of Texas and can be found located through this link (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. __________Here is my requirements for the tutor - Please use your own words. ( No citation or references )- Do not write a long post. ( 250 words )