Psy Writing Assignment

timer Asked: Nov 15th, 2017
account_balance_wallet $50

Question Description

Overview: Virtually all human outcomes, abilities, and behaviors reflect a complex interaction of nature (biological factors) and nurture (social-environmental factors). For example, many psychological processes that were once assumed to be “basic” and uniform across all humans were later found to differ across cultures, suggesting that the unique environments in which people are raised can shape the emergence of basic biological processes.

Your job in this paper is to locate and evaluate an original empirical or theoretical article that describes a cross-cultural difference in some psychological process. For your convenience, we provide several articles that you may use (see below)

Unformatted Attachment Preview

PSY 2012 – Dr. Schlauch Fall 2017 Writing Assignment #2 Due Date: Your paper is due by midnight, Friday, November 17th at 11:59pm. Overview: Virtually all human outcomes, abilities, and behaviors reflect a complex interaction of nature (biological factors) and nurture (social-environmental factors). For example, many psychological processes that were once assumed to be “basic” and uniform across all humans were later found to differ across cultures, suggesting that the unique environments in which people are raised can shape the emergence of basic biological processes. Your job in this paper is to locate and evaluate an original empirical or theoretical article that describes a cross-cultural difference in some psychological process. For your convenience, we provide several articles that you may use (see below). However, you are welcome to find an article on your own if you prefer. You might find the EBSCO PsycInfo database useful if you choose to locate your own article. If you need assistance using PsycInfo, please visit your Instructor or TA during his/her office hours, or consult with a Reference Librarian at the USF Library ( ______________________________________________________________________________ SUGGESTED ARTICLES: Kitayama, S. &Park, J. (2014). Error-related activity reveals self-centric motivation: Culture Matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 62-70. (Topic: Self-interest: Personal Self vs. Social Others) Norenzayan, A., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture and causal cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 132-135. (Topic: Causal attributions.) Segall, M. H., Campbell, D. T., & Herskovits, M. J. (1966). Cultural differences in the perception of geometric illusions. Science, 139, 769-771. (Topic: The Müller-Lyer illusion.) Turnbull, C. M. (1961). Some observations regarding the experiences and behavior of the BaMbuti Pygmies. The American Journal of Psychology, 74, 304-308. (Topic: Depth perception.) Weisenberg, M., & Caspi, Z. (1989). Cultural and educational influences on pain of childbirth. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 4, 13-19. (Topic: Pain perception.) ______________________________________________________________________________ In your paper, you should do the following in your own words: Step 1. Define and summarize the specific psychological process, behavior, or phenomenon that is investigated in your article. Be sure to provide enough detail so that a naïve reader could fully understand the topic of the article. PSY 2012 – Dr. Schlauch Fall 2017 Step 2. Identify the features of the groups (cultures) that are being compared in the study. Are these people from different countries? If so, what countries? Are they groups within the same country who are raised within separate subcultures or communities? Describe the groups in enough detail so that it is clear where they were recruited and how they differ from each other. Step 3. Describe the findings of the article – that is, how do people from the different groups or cultures respond or behave differently? Step 4. Explain the findings. Explain why people from these different groups or cultures are theorized to differ in their behavior, perceptual processes, or other psychological phenomenon. Describe the unique life experiences, backgrounds, or prior learning that presumably accounts for the observed findings. Your paper should be about 3-4 pages in length (double-spaced, with 1-inch margins and 12point font). Writing Tips Make sure your writing is clear. Make sure your main arguments are clearly identified. Make sure each paragraph has a clear point. Make sure the ordering of points from paragraph to paragraph makes sense. Give concrete examples from the articles to back up your argument. Make it logical. Provide evidence for your claims. Don’t plagiarize (now or ever!). Every word you write must be your own. Do not include any quotes in your paper from the article, your textbook, or any other source! Inclusion of quotes will result in the immediate deduction of points from your paper. Re-describe things in your own words, and make sure to cite where you got evidence if you are using particular sources of evidence. Plagiarism is considered Academic Misconduct and will result in a failing grade. If you having trouble writing in general, consider visiting the Writing Center located in LIB 206, Tutoring and Learning Services (stop in or call 813-974-2713 for an appointment). They are generally very helpful with these sorts of tasks. When setting up an appointment, mention that you need assistance with a paper for a psychology course, so that they can schedule you with someone who has expertise in this subject matter and writing style. Submit your assignment in the Assignments folder (Writing Assignment 2) on Canvas. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE YOUR PAPER UPLOADED PROPERLY! Rubric for Writing Assignment #2 Criteria Description of psychological processes Assessment Full Marks No Marks / 10 pts Description of groups and findings Full Marks No Marks / 5 pts Explanation of findings Full Marks No Marks / 5 pts General formatting, grammar, typos Full Marks No Marks / 5 pts * Total: 25 pts See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: Error-Related Brain Activity Reveals SelfCentric Motivation: Culture Matters Article in Journal of Experimental Psychology General · February 2013 DOI: 10.1037/a0031696 · Source: PubMed CITATIONS READS 29 51 2 authors: Shinobu Kitayama Jiyoung Park University of Michigan University of Massachusetts Amherst 161 PUBLICATIONS 22,127 CITATIONS 27 PUBLICATIONS 572 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Neural Mechanisms Underlying Decision-Making View project Gene x Childhood Environment Interaction in Psychological Risk and Resilience View project All content following this page was uploaded by Jiyoung Park on 23 August 2016. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2014, Vol. 143, No. 1, 62–70 © 2013 American Psychological Association 0096-3445/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0031696 BRIEF REPORT Error-Related Brain Activity Reveals Self-Centric Motivation: Culture Matters Shinobu Kitayama and Jiyoung Park This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. University of Michigan To secure the interest of the personal self (vs. social others) is considered a fundamental human motive, but the nature of the motivation to secure the self-interest is not well understood. To address this issue, we assessed electrocortical responses of European Americans and Asians as they performed a flanker task while instructed to earn as many reward points as possible either for the self or for their same-sex friend. For European Americans, error-related negativity (ERN)—an event-related-potential component contingent on error responses—was significantly greater in the self condition than in the friend condition. Moreover, post-error slowing—an index of cognitive control to reduce errors—was observed in the self condition but not in the friend condition. Neither of these self-centric effects was observed among Asians, consistent with prior cross-cultural behavioral evidence. Interdependent self-construal mediated the effect of culture on the ERN self-centric effect. Our findings provide the first evidence for a neural correlate of self-centric motivation, which becomes more salient outside of interdependent social relations. Keywords: self-centric motivation, self-serving bias, independent and interdependent self-construals, cultural neuroscience, error-related negativity (ERN) Supplemental materials: Self-interest is considered a fundamental human motive. Indeed, many currents of modern Western thought, including theories in both neoclassic economics (Hobbes, 1651; Smith, 1759) and social and behavioral sciences (Campbell, 1975; Greenwald, 1980), are built on this premise. In this tradition of thought, the self is deemed to be autonomous and self-contained (Morris, 1972; Sampson, 1988), and, in part because of this, the self is assumed to justifiably pursue the interest of the self in lieu of the interest of others (Miller, 1999). So far, however, much of this debate is limited to cultural and historical analyses, with little known about its grounding in neurobiological mechanisms. Our goal in the current work was twofold. First, we tested whether the assumed primacy of self-interest is reflected in neurobiological mechanisms of error processing, which are grounded in the ventral striatal, subcortical regions (Frank & Claus, 2006; Holroyd & Coles, 2002). Second, we examined whether such neurobiological mechanisms might be culturally bound. This effort will enable us to go beyond existing behavioral evidence to show the potential role of culture in shaping neurobiological processes. Self-Centric Motivation The hypothesis that self-interest is an important motive guiding social cognition and social behavior is strongly suggested by self-serving bias (Langer, 1975; Miller & Ross, 1975). For example, individuals take credit for their success while blaming external influences for their failure (Miller & Ross, 1975). Likewise, they tend to have unrealistically inflated and optimistic views of themselves (Taylor & Brown, 1988). Although these phenomena suggest the presence of a powerful psychological motive to pursue self-interest (herein called self-centric motivation), they fall short of identifying the nature of this motive itself. It could be argued, on the one hand, that self-centric motivation is derived from a conscious, explicit goal of presenting the self in a favorable light (Schlenker, 1980). If this were the case, selfserving effects could be a product of deliberate self-presentation. On the other hand, it would seem also possible that self-centric motivation has a deeper neurophysiological root. For example, once the self becomes relevant and thus activated in a given situation, potential rewards available in the situation will become more salient (because the self is a direct beneficiary of the rewards), thereby recruiting neural mechanisms of “wanting”—the mesocorticolimbic system involving the ventral striatal regions that modulates incentive salience (Berridge, 2012). The reward value of achieving a desired outcome will be enhanced as a result. We predicted that if self-centric motivation has a deep neurobiological basis such as this, there should be an electrocortical marker of this motivation. This article was published Online First February 11, 2013. Shinobu Kitayama and Jiyoung Park, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan. This work was supported by National Science Foundation Grant BCS 0717982. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shinobu Kitayama or Jiyoung Park, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 1012 East Hall, 530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1043. E-mail: or 62 ERROR-RELATED BRAIN ACTIVITY This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Neural Marker of Self-Centric Motivation Our first aim in the current work was to explore electrocortical markers of self-centric motivation by examining neural responses involved in error processing (error-related negativity, or ERN; Falkenstein, Hohnsbein, Hoormann, & Blanke, 1991; Gehring, Goss, Coles, Meyer, & Donchin, 1993). The ERN is an eventrelated brain potential, which is observed within 100 ms after an erroneous response in speeded reaction time tasks. Because of an emphasis given to response speed in such tasks, an individual sometimes responds on the basis of partially available information on the stimulus before the impinging stimulus is fully processed, thereby increasing the likelihood of errors. However, even after the actual response is executed, the stimulus processing will continue and eventually produce a more veridical representation of the stimulus, which implies a correct response. When the two representations (the actual response and the correct response) are unmatched, this gives rise to an error signal, the ERN (Coles, Scheffers, & Holroyd, 2001). When the motivation to perform well in the task at hand is enhanced, the responder will allocate more processing resources to both the computation of the correct response and the comparison between the actual response and the correct response, resulting in a stronger mismatch signal. Consistent with this analysis, the ERN is known to increase as a function of motivational significance associated with the task at hand (e.g., Gehring et al., 1993; Hajcak, Moser, Yeung, & Simons, 2005). We therefore anticipated that the ERN would be greater when an erroneous response was made in a task the person performed to earn reward points for the self than when such an error was made in a task he or she performed to earn reward points for someone else (e.g., a close friend), as long as the person was self-centrically motivated. Cultural Modulation of Self-Centric Motivation Another important aim in the current work was to examine possible cultural variation in the neural marker of self-centric motivation. Over the last two decades, numerous cross-cultural studies have shown that self-serving effects are much weaker among Asians than among European Americans (see Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999). For example, self-serving attributions of success and failure appear quite weak in Asia (Kitayama, Takagi, & Matsumoto, 1995), and, likewise, Asians tend to hold more realistic assessments of the self vis-à-vis others (Heine & Lehman, 1995). Moreover, whereas European Americans spontaneously elaborate on positive self-relevant information, Asians do so with respect to negative self-relevant information (Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997). The attenuation of self-serving bias among Asians is consistent with the hypothesis that Asian selves are more interdependent (vs. independent), and, thus, their construal of the self is extended to include close others (Endo, Heine, & Lehman, 2000). Accordingly, the motivation to enhance the self, relative to relevant social others, may be quite weak among Asians. One important shortcoming of the current literature on cultural variation in self-serving bias is that it draws nearly exclusively on explicit self-reports. Thus, it is hard to preclude the possibility that the attenuation or absence of self-serving bias among Asians reflects a culture-specific tactic of self-presentation fostered by the culture’s modesty norms. However, if Asians should show an 63 attenuated self-centric effect even in the ERN—a neural activity that is arguably automatic (Amodio et al., 2004) and regulated closely by subcortical reward-processing systems (Holroyd & Coles, 2002; Münte et al., 2008)—this cultural difference would be hard to understand with self-presentation alone. We thus tested whether the increased ERN in a task individuals perform to earn rewards for the self (vs. a close other) would be either attenuated or vanished for Asians. Present Work To test the hypothesis that self-centric motivation manifests itself at an electrocortical level, we monitored the brain activities of European American and Asian participants via electroencephalogram (EEG) while a computer task was performed to earn reward points for themselves and for a close, same-sex friend. We anticipated that the ERN would be greater when individuals performed a task to earn rewards for themselves (vs. their friend), as long as they have strong self-centric motivation. We further anticipated that the self-centric effect would be weaker for Asians, who are likely to be more interdependent, than for European Americans. Method Participants Thirty-nine University of Michigan undergraduates participated in the study (24 female, Mage ⫽ 19.59 years, SDage ⫽ 1.37). Nineteen were European Americans (14 female, Mage ⫽ 19.47 years, SDage ⫽ 1.31), and the remaining 20 were Asians (10 female, Mage ⫽ 19.70 years, SDage ⫽ 1.45). Nine Asian participants were born in East Asian countries such as China, Korea, and Taiwan, spending no more than 7 years in the United States, and the remaining 11 participants were Asian Americans, who were born in the United States. Participants received $20 or course credit in exchange for their participation. All participants were right-handed and had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. No gender effect was found. Procedure Upon their arrival in the lab, participants were told that their brain activities would be monitored while they performed a simple computer task. After the attachment of EEG electrodes, participants were asked to perform a letter version of the flanker task (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974) in a darkened room. The stimuli were presented on a Dell E551c 15-in. CRT monitor wth E-Prime software version 1.1. Participants were instructed to identify a center letter among a set of five letters that were flashed at the center of the screen (HHHHH, SSSSS, HHSHH, or SSHSS). One third of the trials were congruent trials (HHHHH or SSSSS), and the remaining two thirds were incongruent trials (HHSHH or SSHSS). Each letter sequence occupied 0.4° of visual angle vertically and 2.2° of it horizontally. Each trial started with a fixation cross that appeared at the center of the screen for 100 ms. After a blank screen (300 ms), participants saw one of the four letter sequences, which lasted on the screen for 100 ms. They then reported the identity of the center letter by pressing one of two This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 64 KITAYAMA AND PARK response keys on the typing board. The key assignments were counterbalanced across participants. The next trial started 900 ms after each response. In order to keep the minimum 10% of error rate, whenever the error rate in a given block did not reach 10%, we instructed participants to respond faster in the next block. Participants were encouraged to respond as quickly as possible without sacrificing accuracy. They were told that their response would be monitored and correct responses that were faster than their median response time would be converted into points. Presented with colored photos of 15 gift items (e.g., mug, hoodie), they were further told that they would have an opportunity to use the points they would earn to choose one gift item for themselves and another gift item for their friend, respectively. At this point, they were asked to nominate a close, same-sex friend who lived on the campus and write down the name of the friend. Thus, their goal was to earn as many reward points as possible to receive gifts for both the self and the friend. Participants were told that the gift items of their choice would be mailed to both them and their friend at a later date. The computer task consisted of a total of 16 blocks, with 60 trials in each block (960 trials in total). During half of the blocks, participants earned points for themself (self blocks), whereas during the ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

School: Rice University

hello, kindly find the attached completed work. Thank You.

Insert surname 1

Students name
Professor’s name
Course title
Overview of the Psychological processes
Psychological processes are the processes underlying the human mind. These methods are
categorized into five which includes sensation, perception, learning, attention, and memory. The
processes have different functions but have a common goal of producing a compound behavior in
humans. Despite the effect of them on human behavior, they also affect the human mind. All
human abilities, outcomes, and response are based on these types of processes. The psychological
processes reflect a problematic cooperation between nature which entails biological factor and the
social-cultural activities (Aknin, Lara, et al ,2013). Mental processes are not uniform and
homogeneous though people have been suggesting so. However, the methods vary with culture
and environmental factors that have an impact on the on shaping the emergence of the fundamental
Cognition process
Cognition is a primary psychological process described as a mental process of obtaining
understanding and knowledge through the act of thinking, body senses and also experience. It can
also be defined as the process of knowing something (Campbell, Byron and Xenia Coulter, 2016
P.129). It involves several processes such as attention, knowledge, reasoning, decision making,
comprehension, evaluation, judgment, memory. Cognition in human beings can be concrete or

Insert surname 2

abstract. It can also be intuitive and conceptual; the process can also be categorized into conscious
and unconscious. It is through the cognition process that knowledge is acquired and acc...

flag Report DMCA

Thank you! Reasonably priced given the quality not just of the tutors but the moderators too. They were helpful and accommodating given my needs.

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors