Outline a Journal Article, psychology homework help

User Generated

Xnzredhrra

Humanities

Description

Note: Prior to completing this assignment, you should review the following documents

  • Phases of Research
  • Understanding a Journal Article
  • Outlining a Journal Article

Please read the Sherman, Haidt, and Coan (2009) article

Then, go ahead and outline Study 2 (ONLY) of the Sherman, Haidt, and Cohen (2009) article. Remember that the outline should be in your own words.

You will need to do this and save it as a .doc, .docx, .rtf, or .pdf document,

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Phases  of  Research:  Steps  in  Gathering  and  Evaluating  Evidence   The  following  are  the  general  steps  for  conducting  a  research  study:   1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Step  1  –  Observing  some  phenomenon   Step  2  –  Formulating  hypotheses  and  predictions   Step  3  –  Testing  through  empirical  research   Step  4  –  Drawing  conclusions   Step  5  –  Evaluating  conclusions   Step  1:  Observing  Some  Phenomenon     All  research  begins  with  a  single  idea.    These  ideas  come  to  us  through  our  observations  of  some   phenomenon.    These  ideas  do  not  need  to  be  full-­‐fledged  research  projects,  yet.    All  that  is   needed  is  a  curiosity  of  the  topic.    These  curiosities  are  called  variables.    Variables  vary.    In  other   words,  they  change.    Scientists  develop  theories  about  these  curiosities.    Theories,  according  to   your  book,  is  a  “broad  idea  or  set  of  closely  related  ideas  that  attempts  to  explain  observations”   (King,  2010,  e-­‐text).      The  benefit  of  coming  up  with  a  theory  is  that  they  can  then  be  used  to   help  us  formulate  hypotheses  and  make  predictions.   Example  (that  we  will  use  throughout  the  steps):    Let’s  say  you  notice  that  you  are  more  easily   able  to  remember  phone  numbers  when  you  eat  a  piece  of  candy  as  you  repeat  the  phone   number  to  yourself.    So,  you  wonder  if  there  is  a  connection  between  candy  and  memory.   Step  2:  Formulating  Hypotheses  and  Predictions   A  hypothesis  is  a  prediction.    Specifically,  it’s  a  prediction  that  can  be  tested.    It  should  be   specific,  and  it  should  be  something  that  can  be  tested.    How  do  you  come  up  with  specific   hypotheses?    You  examine  the  literature  on  that  phenomenon  in  order  to  see  what  other   researchers  have  done,  how  they’ve  conceptualized  and  tested  that  phenomenon.       Example:  You  examine  the  literature  on  “memory  enhancement”  and  you  notice  that  other   researchers  have  examined  how  certain  herbs  and  eating  a  healthy  diet  can  improve  memory.     However,  you  notice  that  no  one  has  examined  if  sugar  can  improve  memory.    So,  you   hypothesize  that  “College  students  who  ingest  4  grams  of  sugar  before  studying  a  list  of  phone   numbers  will  have  better  memory  than  college  students  who  do  not  ingest  sugar.”   Step  3:  Testing  Through  Empirical  Research   This  step  involves  testing  the  hypothesis.    We  do  that  by  conducting  empirical  research,  which  is,   simply,  collecting  and  analyzing  data.    In  this  step,  you  must  define  the  important  terms  and   variables  in  your  study,  decide  on  the  best  research  method  to  test  your  hypothesis,  and   determine  which  statistical  analysis  to  use  to  analyze  the  data.   You  should  create  an  operational  definition  of  all  the  important  terms.    An   operational  definition  is  a  definition  that  specifies  how  something  will  be  measured.         Example:  What  is  “memory?”    We  must  come  up  with  some  way  to  measure   memory.    In  our  example,  we  might  define  memory  as  the  number  of  phone   numbers  college  students  are  able  to  recall/write  down.     You  also  need  to  come  up  with  the  Independent  Variable  (IV)  and  the  Dependent   Variable  (DV).    An  IV  is  usually  defined  as  the  variable  that  has  some  influence  over   the  dependent  variable.    You  have  control  over  the  independent  variable.    It’s  what   you  manipulate  in  your  study.    The  DV  is  the  variable  that  changes  in  response  to,  or   is  influenced  by,  the  IV.         Example:  In  our  example,  the  amount  of  sugar  given  to  college  students  would  be   the  IV.    We  are  giving  one  set  of  college  students  2  grams  of  sugar,  and  the  other  set   of  college  students  no  sugar.    The  DV  would  be  the  number  of  phone  numbers   remembered.    We  think  that  the  number  of  phone  numbers  remembered  (the  DV)   changes  in  response  to  whether  sugar  is  taken,  or  not  (the  IV),  before  trying  to   remember  the  numbers.     Step  4:  Drawing  Conclusions   Once  a  researcher  has  finished  collecting  data,  he/she  must  analyze  the  data.    After  analyzing   the  data,  the  researcher  draws  conclusions.    Specifically,  the  researcher  determines  if  the   hypothesis  is  supported  or  not  supported.   Step  5:  Evaluating  Conclusions   Research  is  continuously  evaluated  by  the  researcher  who  initially  did  the  study  as  well  as  other   researchers.    Theories  can  be  revised,  methods  can  be  revised,  more  research  can  be  conducted.     It  is  a  (mostly)  never-­‐ending  process.   Understanding  a  Journal  Article   Most  of  us  are  familiar  with  reading  a  recipe  for  making  a  food  dish.    Recipes  are  typically  made  up  of   two  parts:  a  list  of  ingredients  and  instructions  on  how  to  make  the  food.    Our  familiarity  with  this   structure  helps  when  it  comes  time  to  actually  preparing  the  food.    For  example,  if  we  are  heading  to   the  store,  we  can  quickly  scan  the  list  of  ingredients  to  see  what  we  need  to  purchase.    In  addition,  the   step-­‐by-­‐step  instructions  can  help  even  the  most  novice  of  cooks  make  delicious  dishes!   The  primary  goal  of  this  document  is  to  help  you  become  familiar  with  how  to  read  published  research   that  uses  APA  Style.    Just  like  a  recipe,  it  has  a  specific  structure  and  writing  style  that,  when   understood,  helps  readers  understand  the  material.   A  typical  research  article  (from  a  scholarly  journal)  has  7  main  parts:   1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Title   Abstract   Introduction   Method   Results   Discussion   References   Title   An  article’s  title  is  often  the  very  first  thing  read.    The  title  should  illustrate  the  main  topic  of  the   research  and  include  important  variables.    The  title  should  help  you  to  form  some  expectation  of   what  the  article  will  be  about.   Abstract   The  Abstract  is  a  brief  summary  of  the  entire  article,  usually  no  more  than  120  words.    The   purpose  is  to  give  the  reader  a  quick  review  of  the  content  of  the  article.    Many  times,  readers   will  use  an  article’s  title  and  abstract  to  decide  whether  it  is  relevant  or  not  to  their  topic.       The  abstract  usually  contains  a  very  concise  summary  of:   (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) the  article’s  problem  that  is  being  investigated  or  the  hypothesis,   pertinent  information  on  the  participants,   brief  overview  of  the  methods  used,   brief  summary  of  the  statistical  analyses,   results  of  the  study,  and   implications  of  the  study.   Not  all  abstracts  will  have  this  information,  and  it  is  your  responsibility  to  NEVER  USE  ONLY  THE   ABSTRACT  when  writing  a  paper.    The  Abstract  can,  however,  be  used  as  a  good  starting  point  to   help  you  with  the  rest  of  the  article.   Introduction   The  Introduction  is  the  first  part  of  the  body  of  the  paper  (note  that  it  is  usually  not  labeled  as   such  since  it  is  assumed  that  the  first  part  of  the  body  of  the  paper  is  the  Introduction).    It   usually  begins  with  a  broad  statement  of  the  phenomenon  being  investigated,  then  narrows  the   focus  to  the  specific  hypothesis  or  hypotheses  of  the  study.    The  purpose  of  this  section  is  to   introduce  readers  to  the  overall  phenomenon  that  is  being  tested  as  well  as  to  provide  some   justification  for  the  hypothesis.    In  order  to  do  this,  the  author(s)  should  review  past  research  on   the  topic  and  discuss  those  findings.    One  of  the  biggest  problems  many  students  encounter   when  reading  an  Introduction  section  is  distinguishing  between  discussions  of  “past  research”   and  information  about  the  “current  study.”    The  following  is  the  basic  structure  of  a  typical   Introduction  (keep  in  mind  that  not  all  published  articles  follow  this  structure;  however,  you  can   use  it  as  a  guide):   Introducing  the  Problem:    The  paper  typically  begins  by  broadly  specifying  the  research   problem  (or  what  is  being  studied).    This  part  is  usually  1-­‐2  paragraphs  long,  and  may   include  the  research  questions,  a  description  relating  the  hypothesis  and  experimental   design  to  the  research  problem,  and  the  theoretical  implication  of  the  research.   Background  Literature:  This  part  will  be  the  longest  part  of  the  Introduction.    It  consists   of  a  review  of  previous  research  that  is  relevant  to  the  current  study.    Since  a  researcher   must  provide  a  rationale/reason  for  why  a  hypothesis  should  be  tested,  it  is  important   to  discuss  what  has  been  done  in  the  past.       Purpose,  Rationale,  and  Hypothesis:    The  final  part  of  the  Introduction  includes  formally   stating  the  study’s  purpose,  rationale,  and  specific  hypothesis/hypotheses.    The   previous  parts  should  naturally  lead  up  to  this.    As  a  reader,  you  should  be  able  to   understand  what  is  being  tested  and  why.    Keep  in  mind  that  sometimes  hypotheses  are   spelled  out  for  the  reader;  other  times,  they  may  be  listed  as  predictions  (“the   researchers  predict…”)  or  “we  believe  such  and  such  will  happen.”   Method  Section   The  purpose  of  the  Method  section  is  to  provide  the  reader  with  a  detailed  description  of  how   the  study  was  conducted.    Think  of  this  section  as  the  “step-­‐by-­‐step  instructions”  you  would  find   in  a  recipe.    The  reason  the  Method  section  is  so  in  depth  is  because  it  should  act  as  “step-­‐by-­‐ step  instructions”  in  case  someone  wants  to  replicate  (re-­‐do)  the  study.    This  section  is  also   divided  into  subparts  (which  are  usually  labeled):   Participants/Subjects:    First  and  foremost,  the  correct  term  currently  being  used  to   describe  human  participants  in  a  study  is  “participants.”    The  term  “subjects”  is  used   when  referring  to  animals.    Please  adhere  to  this  “rule”  when  you  write  your  own   papers.    Older  articles  may  use  the  term  “subjects”  when  referring  to  humans;  however,   this  is  outdated  and  no  longer  considered  acceptable  or  correct.   This  subsection  contains  information  such  as:   • • • • number  of  participants  and  how  they  were  selected  and  assigned  to  groups   major  demographic  characteristics   description  of  agreements  and  payments  made   statements  of  ethical  principles  used  in  relation  to  the  participants.   For  nonhuman  subjects,  the  information  includes:   • • • • genus,  species   strain  number  or  location  of  supplier   number,  sex,  age,  weight,  and  physiological  condition   ethical  guidelines  on  treatment  and  handling.   The  purpose  of  this  subsection  is  to  allow  the  reader  to  make  comparisons  across   different  studies.    For  example,  if  you  read  a  study  that  only  used  human  male   participants,  then  you  may  decide  that  the  results  can  only  occur  in  men  and  are  not   more  generalizable  to  women.   Materials/Apparatus/Measures:    All  the  physical  aspects  of  the  research  design  are   described  in  this  subsection  (what  tests  were  used,  what  type  of  computer,  etc).     Remember  that  the  purpose  of  the  Method  section  is  to  act  as  a  “recipe”  for  someone   else  to  replicate  the  study.    So,  the  researcher  has  to  list  these  things.    (Consider  this  to   be  the  “ingredients”  in  your  food  recipe).   Procedure:    This  subsection  provides  a  detailed  account  of  what  happened  in  the  study.     (Consider  this  to  be  the  “step-­‐by-­‐step”  instructions  part  of  your  food  recipe).   In  general,  focus  your  attention  on  the  Participant  and  Procedure  subsections.    If  you  need   specific  information,  go  back  to  the  Materials/Apparatus/Measures  subsection.   Results   The  Results  section  is  the  part  where  the  author(s)  report  the  statistical  analyses  used  in  the   research.    Authors  typically  report  results  of  each  hypothesis  in  the  order  that  they  appear  in  the   introduction  to  assist  the  reader  in  his/her  comprehension.       It  is  often  difficult  for  undergraduate  students  to  understand  the  Results  section,  even  after   taking  Statistics  I  and  II.    In  general,  if  you’re  reading  the  article  to  write  a  literature  review  for   an  undergraduate  class,  you  will  want  to  ignore  the  numbers  and  focus  more  on  what  group   performed  better.    In  fact,  it  may  be  easier  to  rely  on  the  next  section  (the  Discussion)  for  an   explanation  of  the  findings  using  non-­‐statistical  language.   Discussion   The  Discussion  section  reviews,  interprets,  and  evaluates  the  results  of  the  study.    This  section   typically  begins  by  listing  the  hypothesis/hypotheses  then  stating  if  the  results  supported  or   contradicted  them.    Next,  the  author(s)  usually  discuss  the  similarities  and  differences  between   the  current  findings  and  the  findings  of  previous  research.    Any  weaknesses  of  the  study  are  also   reviewed,  and  suggestions  are  made  on  improving  the  research  design.    Finally,  the  discussion   section  usually  ends  with  the  writer  providing  directions  for  future  research.   References   The  last  important  section  in  any  journal  article  is  the  list  of  references.    It  lists,  in  alphabetical   order  (usually),  anything  that  was  cited  throughout  the  paper.    There  is  a  specific  format  that  is   used.    The  References  can  be  used  to  help  you  find  related  articles  for  any  topic  you  need  to   research.    If  you  are  doing  a  paper  on  a  specific  topic  and  you  need  help  finding  articles,  the   References  section  is  a  great  place  to  start!   Outlining  a  Journal  Article   Note:  You  should  download  and  read  the  Ceci  &  Bronfenbrenner  pdf  file  which  can  be  found  in  the   “Writing  Assignment  1”  folder  on  Blackboard.   In  general,  when  you  outline  a  journal  article,  you  are  analyzing  it.    The  typical  outline  of  a  journal  article   takes  the  following  (basic)  form:   I. II. III. IV. V. Research  Question(s)/Purpose  of  the  article   Hypothesis/Hypotheses   Variables   a. Independent  Variable   b. Dependent  Variable   Methodology   a. Who  participated?   b. What  did  they  do?   Major  Findings   I  have  used  this  basic  outline  to  analyze  the  Ceci  and  Bronfenbrenner  (1985)  article  as  an  example  for   each  of  you.    You  should  pay  close  attention  to  how  I  put  the  information  in  my  own  words.    Remember   not  to  copy  the  information  word-­‐for-­‐word,  but,  instead,  to  put  the  information  in  your  own  words.   I. Research  Question(s)/Purpose  of  the  article   Every  article  has  a  purpose  or  main  research  question  to  guide  it.    Sometimes,  this  is   formally  stated.    Other  times,  the  reader  must  extract  the  information.    You  can  find  this   information  in  the  article’s  Introduction  (you  may  also  find  it  in  the  Abstract,  but  I  would  not   rely  on  that).   For  the  Ceci  and  Bronfenbrenner  article,  it  begins  by  reviewing  past  research  on  prospective   memory.    In  the  4th  paragraph  that  begins  with  “In  this  study…”,  the  authors  state  the   purpose  of  the  article.    Did  you  find  it?    Filling  out  my  outline,  this  is  what  I  would  write  for   (I.):   The  main  purpose  of  this  study  is  to  examine  a  strategy  called  “strategic  time   monitoring,”  which  is  used  by  children  when  they  have  to  perform  a  prospective   memory  task.   II. Hypothesis/Hypotheses   You  can  usually  find  the  hypothesis/hypotheses  in  the  Introduction.    Sometimes  they  are   formally  stated  (as  they  are  in  the  Ceci  and  Bronfenbrenner  article);  other  times,  they  are   phrased  as  “We  believe  such  and  such  will  happen”  or  “We  think  this  will  happen.”    Look  for   those  key  phrases  in  identifying  the  hypothesis/hypotheses.   For  the  Ceci  and  Bronfenbrenner  article,  the  hypotheses  are  labeled  individually.    Filling  out   my  outline,  this  is  what  I  would  write  for  (II.)  (note  that  I  am  focusing  on  one  hypothesis   even  though  there  are  many  in  this  article):     III. Clock  checking  will  be  higher  in  the  laboratory  than  at  home.     Variables   The  answer  to  finding  both  the  independent  and  dependent  variables  is  usually  found  in  the   Introduction  and  Method  sections  (and  sometimes  the  Abstract).    You  can  also  figure  out   these  variables  from  the  hypothesis/hypotheses.   It  is  usually  best  to  first  figure  out  what  the  variables  are,  then  figure  out  which  one  is  the  IV   and  which  one  is  the  DV.    For  the  Ceci  and  Bronfenbrenner  article,  going  by  the  hypothesis   that  I  identified  above,  I  can  see  that  the  2  main  variables  are  “clock  checking”  and  “location   of  experiment.”    I  know  that  the  IV  influences  (or  changes)  the  DV.    Ask  yourself:  is  clock   checking  influencing  the  location  of  the  experiment?    Or  is  the  location  of  the  experiment   influencing  clock  checking?    Well,  one  clearly  makes  more  sense  than  the  other  (keep  in   mind,  it  won’t  always  be  this  easy,  so  you  really  need  to  pay  close  attention  to  the   hypothesis/hypotheses  and  Method  sections).    So,  filling  out  my  outline  for  (III.):   IV. a. Independent  Variable   Location  of  experiment   b. Dependent  Variable   Clock  checking     Method   For  this  part  of  the  outline,  you  want  to  read  through  the  Method  section  to  see  who   participated  in  the  study  and  what  they  had  to  do.    Under  the  “who  participated”  section,   you’ll  want  to  briefly  state  who  participated  in  the  study.    Under  the  other  section,  you  want   to  describe  what  the  participants  were  instructed  to  do.   This  seems  to  be  the  section  that  most  students  have  trouble  with.    Students  seem  to   include  too  much  information,  in  general.    You  want  to  include  enough  information  so  that   the  reader  has  an  idea  of  who  was  in  the  study  and  what  occurred  in  the  study,  but  you  do   not  need  a  very  minute  amount  of  detail.   For  the  Ceci  and  Bronfenbrenner  article,  you  will  find  the  participants  listed  in  the  first   subsection  under  the  Method  heading  (notice  that  this  article  is  an  older  article,  and  the   author(s)  use  the  term  “Subjects”  here.    Despite  their  term,  you  should  use  “Participants”).     You  can  find  the  Procedure  in  the  subsection.    Filling  out  my  outline  for  (IV.):   a. Who  Participated?   96  children,  half  of  whom  were  10  years  old,  and  half  who  were  14  years  old.     b. What  did  they  do?   They  were  asked  to  bake  cupcakes,  and  put  them  in  the  oven  by  a  certain  time  and   to  remove  them  30  minutes  later.    While  waiting  for  the  cupcakes,  the  children  were   told  they  could  play  PacMan  in  an  adjoining  room.    The  experimenters  also  pointed   out  a  wall  clock.   V.     Major  Findings   Did  the  results  of  the  experiment  support  the  hypothesis/hypotheses?    What  were  the   major  findings?    What  happened?    Think  about  the  research  article  as  a  story:  it  starts  by   making  a  prediction  and  ends  with  telling  us  if  they  were  right.    Usually,  if  the  article  is  well-­‐ written,  the  answer  is  at  the  beginning  of  the  Discussion  section.    However,  you  may  have  to   look  around  the  Discussion  for  it.   For  the  Ceci  and  Bronfenbrenner  article,  did  children  have  more  instances  of  clock  checking   in  the  laboratory  as  compared  to  the  home?    The  answer  can  be  found  in  the  very  first   paragraph  of  the  Discussion.    Thus,  filling  out  the  outline  for  (V.):   The  hypothesis  was  supported.    Children  tended  to  do  more  clock-­‐checking  while  baking   cupcakes  in  the  laboratory  as  compared  to  in  their  home,  which  could  meant  that   children  were  more  comfortable  in  their  home  than  in  the  laboratory.       So,  what  would  my  outline  look  like  without  all  the  extra  explanation:   Outline  of  Ceci  and  Bronfenbrenner  (1985)  Prospective  Memory  in  Children   I. II. III. IV. Research  Question(s)/Purpose  of  the  article   The  main  purpose  of  this  study  is  to  examine  a  strategy  called  “strategic  time  monitoring,”   which  is  used  by  children  when  they  have  to  perform  a  prospective  memory  task.     Hypothesis/Hypotheses   Clock  checking  will  be  higher  in  the  laboratory  than  at  home.     Variables   a. Independent  Variable   Location  of  experiment     b. Dependent  Variable   Clock  checking     Methodology   a. Who  participated?   V. 96  children,  half  of  whom  were  10  years  old,  and  half  who  were  14  years  old.     b.     What  did  they  do?   They  were  asked  to  bake  cupcakes,  and  put  them  in  the  oven  by  a  certain  time  and  to   remove  them  30  minutes  later.    While  waiting  for  the  cupcakes,  the  children  were  told   they  could  play  PacMan  in  an  adjoining  room.    The  experimenters  also  pointed  out  a   wall  clock.     Major  Findings   The  hypothesis  was  supported.    Children  tended  to  do  more  clock-­‐checking  while  baking   cupcakes  in  the  laboratory  as  compared  to  in  their  home,  which  could  meant  that  children   were  more  comfortable  in  their  home  than  in  the  laboratory.         Emotion 2009, Vol. 9, No. 2, 282–286 © 2009 American Psychological Association 1528-3542/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0014904 Viewing Cute Images Increases Behavioral Carefulness Gary D. Sherman, Jonathan Haidt, and James A. Coan University of Virginia Infantile physical morphology—marked by its “cuteness”—is thought to be a potent elicitor of caregiving, yet little is known about how cuteness may shape immediate behavior. To examine the function of cuteness and its role in caregiving, the authors tested whether perceiving cuteness can enhance behavioral carefulness, which would facilitate caring for a small, delicate child. In 2 experiments, viewing very cute images (puppies and kittens)—as opposed to slightly cute images (dogs and cats)—led to superior performance on a subsequent fine-motor dexterity task (the children’s game “Operation”). This suggests that the human sensitivity to those possessing cute features may be an adaptation that facilitates caring for delicate human young. Keywords: cuteness, nurturance, care, fine-motor skill Standard laboratory dexterity tasks score performance as the number of objects successfully moved per second. Because cuteness may not make people faster (only more careful), we used a similar task that was not time dependent: the classic children’s game “Operation” (Hasbro, Pawtucket, RI), in which participants use tweezers to remove small objects (body parts) from confined spaces. This task is similar to standard fine-motor dexterity tasks (e.g., the O’Connor tweezer dexterity task, Lafayette Instrument, Lafayette, IN), but performance can be quantified without reference to speed. Because positive actions directed toward a child likely require physical gentleness, we also used a grip-strength gauge as a measure of physical weakness/gentleness. In addition, during the viewing of the slide show we monitored heart rate and electrodermal responding. This allowed us to (a) detect changes in autonomic physiology that might facilitate finemotor coordination, and (b) to assess whether any shifts in behavior can be attributed to general physiological arousal. Finally, given that responsiveness to cuteness may be rooted in maternal caregiving, and given that women are generally more responsive to cuteness than are men (e.g., they smile more at cute children; Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald, 1978), we tested only women in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, we tested both men and women. Several factors entered into our choice of images to use as stimuli in these experiments. Some studies of cuteness have used simple schematic drawings as stimuli (e.g., Alley, 1983b). This approach allows for the manipulation of the size and proportion of specific craniofacial features (e.g., eye size), but the stimuli tend to be relatively weak as emotion elicitors. When assessing self-report outcomes (e.g., hypothetical willingness to defend the child), this may not be problematic. Given our interest in manipulating carefulness, however, we believed that more powerful stimuli were necessary. We used photographs of real animals, young and mature. Humans are highly attuned to the physical features that characterize their young, such as a large rounded forehead, large low-set eyes, and a small chin (Alley, 1981, 1983a; Huckstedt, 1965). Those who possess these features are deemed “cute” and are the object of a variety of nurturing and affectionate impulses, such as high-pitched vocalizations (i.e., “baby talk”; Spindler, 1961; Zebrowitz, Brownlow, & Olson, 1992), preferential looking (Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald, 1981), leniency (McCabe, 1988), and protectiveness (Alley, 1983b). This research suggests that the tendency to respond emotionally to infantile physical features may promote the provision of care, especially to infants, who are otherwise helpless due to their physical and neural immaturity. However, the exact ways in which cuteness may enhance care are not yet fully understood. Cuteness might simply and only strengthen adults’ emotional attachments to infants, thereby increasing their willingness to care for them. Alternatively, the affective “cute response” may include a behavioral component that facilitates caregiving itself. Because caring for a small, delicate child requires one to act with great care, we reasoned that cuteness cues might stimulate increased attention to, and control of, motor behavior. We therefore predicted that seeing cuteness will increase behavioral carefulness. In two experiments, we tested this prediction by having participants view a slide show that contained images of animals. We varied the age—and thus cuteness— of the animals experimentally (varying the age of animals depicted in photographs influences perceived cuteness across a range of species, including dogs and cats; Sanefuji, Ohgami, & Hashiya, 2007). Because high levels of carefulness seem more critical for fine-motor movements (e.g., brain surgery) than for gross-motor movements (e.g., running), we used performance on a fine-motor dexterity task as an index of behavioral carefulness. Gary D. Sherman, Jonathan Haidt, and James A. Coan, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia. The research presented in this paper was supported in part by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship to Gary D. Sherman. We thank Jesse Graham, Selin Kesebir, and Patrick Seder for their help. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gary D. Sherman, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, P.O. Box 400400, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4400. E-mail: gds6d@virginia.edu Experiment 1 Method Participants. Forty University of Virginia undergraduate women participated for partial course credit (mean age ⫽ 18.46). 282 BRIEF REPORTS Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (low cuteness or high cuteness). Stimuli. The slide show consisted of three sections, each with nine images. The first (baseline) and third (post) sections featured neutral images of house interiors and were identical in content across conditions. The middle (main) section featured images of animals— either puppies and kittens (high cuteness) or dogs and cats (low cuteness), depending on condition. Each image was presented for 10 s, with a 3-s black screen providing a transition between images. We validated the main stimuli by having an independent sample (N ⫽ 17) rate the images on cuteness and interestingness using 6-point scales ranging from 0 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Compared to the low-cuteness images, the high-cuteness images were considered cuter (M ⫽ 3.98 vs. M ⫽ 1.37), t(16) ⫽ 15.21, p ⬍ .001, and more interesting (M ⫽ 2.44 vs. M ⫽ 1.77), t(16) ⫽ 3.35, p ⬍ .01. Measures. A Biopac MP100 System (Biopac Systems, Goleta, CA), sampling at 1,000 Hz, was used for physiological data acquisition. An electrocardiogram (ECG) measured heart activity via three general purpose electrodes attached to each participant (Lead 1 configuration). Acqknowledge 3.7.2 software (Biopac Systems, Goleta, CA) extracted interbeat intervals (IBIs), which were then visually inspected and manually corrected for artifacts. An absolute measurement of skin conductance level (SCL) was obtained by placing two electrodes on the volar surface of the medial phalanges of the first and third fingers of the nondominant hand. We used Redux Electrolyte Paste (Parker Laboratories, Fairfield, NJ) as a conductant. To compute the change in heart rate (HR) and SCL from baseline to the main section, we computed mean HR and SCL levels for these sections using CMet Software (for HR; Allen, 2002; available from http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu) and Acqknowledge 3.7.2 software (for SCL). A slide show after the questionnaire assessed emotional impact (“How much did this slide show affect you emotionally?”), physical impact (“How much did this slide show affect you physically?”), and peak intensity of specific emotions (happiness, entertainment, amusement, calmness, tenderness, sadness, fear, and surprise) on a 6-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). At the end of the experiment, participants used the same 6-point scale to rate the cuteness and interestingness of the animal slide show. In addition, mood was assessed at the beginning of the experiment and after the slide show using a 100-point scale ranging from 1 (the worst I have ever felt), to 100 (the best I have ever felt). In the operation task, the participant used a pair of tweezers to remove various small plastic body parts from the “patient” without touching the tweezers to the sides of each compartment. Participants had one chance to remove each of 12 body parts, and performance was scored as the number of body parts successfully removed. Finally, grip strength was measured using a hand dynamometer. Procedure. The experimenter told participants (who were run individually) that their physiology would be monitored while they performed several tasks. After a partial hookup was complete (ECG was not attached yet to keep participants’ dominant hand free for the behavioral tasks), participants were given the hand dynamometer and asked to squeeze it as hard as possible. Participants then played the Operation game while the experimenter 283 observed unobtrusively and recorded their scores. Next, the ECG was attached and participants moved to the viewing chamber (a separate area of the experiment room, enclosed by a curtain), were seated, and watched the slide show on a projection screen. Afterward, the ECG was removed. Participants then squeezed the hand dynamometer again, completed the questionnaire, and then played the Operation game once again. Participants then answered the final two self-report items. Results and Discussion The means for all self-report variables are presented in Table 1, along with the results of t tests of the difference in the mean for each item as a function of condition. The most intensely experienced emotions— happiness, calmness, tenderness, amusement, and entertainment—were experienced more intensely in the highcuteness condition than in the low-cuteness condition ( ps ⬍ .05 for all except calmness, for which p ⬍ .10) and the high-cuteness slide show was rated as more interesting and cuter than the low-cuteness slide show ( ps ⬍ .05). The mean change for each behavioral and physiological variable as a function of condition is presented in Table 2. As predicted, cuteness increased performance on a subsequent task requiring extreme carefulness: participants showed significantly greater improvement in performance (from before to after the slide show) on the operation task in the high-cuteness condition than in the low-cuteness condition, t(38) ⫽ 1.99, p ⫽ .05, d ⫽ 0.63. Contrary to predictions, the manipulation of cuteness did not influence change in grip strength (t ⬍ 1). HR did increase more in the high-cuteness condition (M ⫽ 1.64) than in the low-cuteness condition (M ⫽ .02), t(37) ⫽ 1.89, p ⫽ .07, d ⫽ 0.61, but no effect of cuteness on change in SCL was observed (t ⬍ 1). Because the stimuli used in the two conditions differed on a variety of dimensions beyond cuteness (e.g., interestingness, positivity), we examined the correlations between change in operation performance and the self-report variables. Change in performance was positively correlated with ratings of cuteness (r ⫽ .29, p ⫽ .07) and self-reported intensity of tenderness (r ⫽ .34, p ⬍ .05) but not with ratings of interest (r ⫽ .09, p ⫽ .60) or intensity of happiness, amusement, entertainment, calmness, sadness, or surprise (rs between ⫺.07 and .16, ps ⬎ .33). This pattern suggests that the effect of cuteness on participants’ carefulness in executing fine-motor movements was likely due to the images’ cuteness and tenderness-inducing qualities rather than their general positivity or interestingness. Experiment 2 In Experiment 1, viewing images of puppies and kittens enhanced fine-motor performance, supporting the hypothesis that cuteness increases behavioral carefulness. Although the pattern of correlations suggests that cuteness was the critical dimension responsible for this effect, the images differed on several dimensions, precluding us from ruling out other extraneous influences (e.g., positive affect). In Experiment 2, we aimed to replicate the main finding of Experiment 1 (that cuteness increased carefulness) with two entirely new sets of stimuli that were pretested to match across conditions in the levels of positive affect and interest they evoked. This matching allows us to isolate the effect of cuteness BRIEF REPORTS 284 Table 1 Means (SE) for Self-Report Items by Experiment and Condition Experiment 1 Variable General Emotional impact Physical impact Change in mood Emotion Happiness Calmness Tenderness Amusement Entertainment Surprise Sadness Fear Ratings Interesting Cute Experiment 2 Low cute High cute p Low cute High cute p 1.35 (.21) .40 (.15) ⫺.79 (2.21) 2.40 (.23) .65 (.21) 6.29 (1.88) .002 .34 .02 2.14 (.27) .93 (.24) 4.12 (1.49) 1.54 (.23) 1.00 (.19) 2.54 (1.63) .09 .81 .48 1.75 (.34) 2.45 (.36) 1.30 (.31) .85 (.21) .60 (.21) .60 (.22) .50 (.19) .20 (.12) 3.60 (.27) 3.40 (.37) 2.55 (.39) 2.30 (.31) 1.90 (.36) .60 (.27) .55 (.27) .10 (.10) ⬍.001 .07 .02 ⬍.001 .003 1.00 .88 .52 2.82 (.28) 3.00 (.33) 2.04 (.29) 2.14 (.29) 1.39 (.24) .75 (.19) .50 (.19) .46 (.16) 2.71 (.30) 3.57 (.24) 2.54 (.30) 2.29 (.31) 1.29 (.27) .43 (.17) .43 (.14) .21 (.12) .79 .17 .23 .74 .77 .22 .76 .21 1.75 (.25) 3.15 (.27) 2.60 (.31) 4.75 (.10) .04 ⬍.001 2.57 (.27) 3.07 (.31) 2.50 (.27) 4.29 (.20) .85 .002 Note. Ratings were given on 6-point scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). p ⫽ result of t test of difference in means between conditions. from these factors that may alter fine-motor performance independently. We also included male participants to test whether the effect of cuteness on carefulness was specific to women. Method Participants. Fifty-six University of Virginia undergraduates participated for partial course credit (23 women, 33 men; mean age ⫽ 18.80). We tested for, and report, any main or interactive effects of gender. Stimuli. Because the two sets of stimuli used in Experiment 1 differed on more dimensions than cuteness, we created a new low-cuteness image set that included more interesting dog images as well as several images of lions and tigers. Although this expands the range of animals to include more exotic felines (that are rarely kept as pets), this was necessary to achieve a level of interest, emotional power, and positivity similar to that of the puppy and kitten images. In addition, to enhance the generalizability of any findings, we used a new set of puppy and kitten images. An independent sample (N ⫽ 12) assessed the following dimensions: cute, interesting, enjoyable, and exciting using 6-point scales ranging from 0 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Compared to the lowcuteness images, the high-cuteness images were rated as being cuter (M ⫽ 4.43 vs. M ⫽ 2.86), t(16) ⫽ 9.23, p ⬍ .001. The two sets of images, however, were equally interesting (M ⫽ 3.37 vs. M ⫽ 3.50), equally enjoyable (M ⫽ 3.67 vs. M ⫽ 3.40), and equally exciting (M ⫽ 1.55 vs. M ⫽ 1.89) (all ts ⬍ 1.63, ps ⬎ .12). Measures and Procedure. The measures and procedure of Experiment 2 were identical to those of Experiment 1, except for one minor change: after the slide show, completion of the questionnaire followed playing the Operation game. This change was made to rule out the possibility that the effect of cuteness on carefulness in Experiment 1 was due to the secondary act of reflecting on, and writing about, one’s emotional experience (of tenderness and other emotions) rather than the primary act of viewing the images. Table 2 Mean Difference Scores (SE) for Physiological and Behavioral Variables by Experiment and Condition Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Variable Low cute High cute p Low cute High cute p Change in: Operation Grip strength HR SCL .60 (.44) ⫺3.35 (1.56) .02 (.46) ⫺.79ⴱ (.15) 1.80ⴱ (.41) ⫺4.35 (2.33) 1.64ⴱ (.72) ⫺.67ⴱ (.21) .05 .72 .07 .64 .46 (.29) 1.93 (1.31) .73ⴱ (.35) ⫺.76ⴱ (.18) 1.32ⴱ (.33) 2.43 (1.16) 1.17† (.63) ⫺.59ⴱ (.15) .05 .78 .54 .48 Note. Operation measured in body parts (maximum ⫽ 12). Grip strength was measured in pounds per square inch. Heart rate (HR) was measured in beats per minute. Skin conductance level (SCL) was measured in micromhos. p ⫽ significance level for test of whether difference scores varied by condition (independentsamples t test). Difference scores marked with a symbol differed significantly from zero (one-sample t test). ⴱ p ⬍ .05. † p ⬍ .10. BRIEF REPORTS Having participants wait to report on their emotional experience until after the fine-motor dexterity task allowed our carefulness measure to immediately follow the viewing of the images. Results and Discussion The means for all self-report variables are presented in Table 1, along with the results of t tests of the difference in the mean for each item as a function of condition. The two sets of stimuli used were nearly identical except for the critical dimension of cuteness. Notably, the two conditions did not differ on change in mood or on any specific emotion. This was true even of tenderness—an emotion putatively related to cuteness—although the difference between the means was in the predicted direction.1 This means that the two slide shows were matched on the degree to which they elicited positive affect. Therefore, our cuteness manipulation was effective in isolating the specific effect of cuteness from the more general potential influences of positive emotion or mood. In addition, it is noteworthy that our inclusion of several lion and tiger images as low-cuteness stimuli did not amplify any negative emotions. For example, the self-reported intensity of fear did not differ by condition and was extremely low in both conditions. The mean change of each behavioral and physiological variable as a function of condition is presented in Table 2. Replicating the main finding of Experiment 1, participants showed significantly greater improvement on the operation task in the high-cuteness condition than in the low-cuteness condition, t(54) ⫽ 1.97, p ⫽ .05, d ⫽ 0.48. Although there was a trend for women (d ⫽ 1.03) to show a larger effect of condition than men (d ⫽ 0.24), this was not statistically significant: Gender ⫻ Condition interaction, F(1, 52) ⫽ 1.36, p ⫽ .25. As in Experiment 1, cuteness did not affect change in grip strength (t ⬍ 1). Unlike in Experiment 1, in which cuteness was associated with increased HR, neither change in HR nor change in SCL differed by condition (ts ⬍ 1). Together, this pattern makes it unlikely that the observed effect of cuteness on operation performance was due to general physiological arousal. Although change in HR did not differ by condition, it increased slightly in both conditions, perhaps because viewing pictures of animals (whether high or low in cuteness) triggers excitement and an approach orientation. Unlike in Experiment 1, change in operation performance was not significantly related to any self-report items (rs between ⫺.13 and .19, ps ⬎ .15). The failure to replicate the relationship between self-reported tenderness and behavioral carefulness found in Experiment 1 may have been due to the longer delay in Experiment 2 between the slide show and completion of the questionnaire. The further self-report emotional assessments get from the event in question, the more people’s responses tend to reflect their beliefs about emotion rather than emotion itself (Robinson & Clore, 2002a, 2002b). Thus, self-reports of tenderness in Experiment 2 may have been less indicative of the intensity of experienced tenderness than those obtained in Experiment 1. 285 tion), an effect that cannot be attributed to general positivity (e.g., mood or specific positive emotion) or arousal (measured via selfreport and autonomic physiology). This behavioral shift toward increased carefulness makes sense as an adaptation for caring for small children, and is consistent with the view that cuteness is a releaser of the human caregiving system (Lorenz, 1950/1971). Moreover, this finding suggests that cuteness does not just influence one’s willingness to engage in caregiving behaviors but also influences the ability of one to do so. That is, cuteness not only compels us to care for cute things but also prepares us to do so via its effects on behavioral carefulness. This finding fits nicely with the embodied cognition perspective that emphasizes the way affective states are constrained by, and expressed in, the body (Barrett & Lindquist, 2008). Our finding suggests that the tenderness elicited by something “cute” is more than just a positive affective feeling state—it can literally make people more physically tender in their motor behavior. Research has demonstrated an ideomotor effect whereby the processing of positive stimuli facilitates pulling a lever, the basic motor behavior involved in pulling desired objects closer (presumably reflecting a behavioral predisposition for approach; Chen & Bargh, 1999; Rotteveel & Phaf, 2004). The current finding may be a novel manifestation of the extension of this effect beyond simple valence-approach/avoid relationships. Having a specific kind of positive affective orientation toward an object (finding it cute and experiencing tender feelings) can influence the specific kind of motor actions one is prepared to make (careful, tender movements). Contrary to predictions, cuteness did not make people any weaker, at least as we measured it. It is possible that had we not instructed participants to squeeze as hard as possible (which may have amplified variance associated with trait strength and limited variance associated with state strength), that cuteness would have had a noticeable effect. That is, cuteness may not make people physically weaker but may make them less willing to exert their full strength. Another concern is that grip strength is often used as a measure of motivation. If cuteness triggered an approachoriented motivational state this may have counteracted any shift toward gentleness. This is the first investigation to document that immediate shifts in carefulness—indexed here by fine-motor performance— can be elicited by cuteness cues. This suggests that two factors—the importance of physical contact in early mammalian development and the extremely delicate nature of human young—may have exerted evolutionary pressures favoring those who could respond to the presence of cues colloquially described as “cute” with increased carefulness. 1 Women reported more tenderness and sadness and rated the images as cuter and more interesting, regardless of condition, than did men. References General Discussion In two experiments, we found that exposure to images of young, cute animals (kittens and puppies) increased performance on a task that demanded extreme carefulness in order to successfully execute finely tuned motor movements (the children’s game Opera- Allen, J. J. B. (2002). Calculating metrics of cardiac chronotropy: A pragmatic overview. Psychophysiology, 39, S18. Alley, T. R. (1981). Head shape and the perception of cuteness. Developmental Psychology, 17, 650 – 654. Alley, T. R. (1983a). Age-related changes in body proportions, body size, and perceived cuteness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 56, 615– 622. 286 BRIEF REPORTS Alley, T. R. (1983b). Infantile head shape as an elicitor of adult protection. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 411– 427. Barrett, L. F., & Lindquist, K. A. (2008). The embodiment of emotion. In G. R. Semin & E. R. Smith (Eds.), Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 237–262). New York: Cambridge University Press. Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 215–224. Hildebrandt, K. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1978). Adults’ responses to infants varying in perceived cuteness. Behavioural Processes, 3, 159 –172. Hildebrandt, K. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1981). Mothers’ responses to infant physical appearance. Infant Mental Health Journal, 2, 56 – 64. Huckstedt, B. (1965). Experimentelle untersuchungen zum “kindchenschema.” [Experimental studies on the “baby schema”]. Zeitschrift fur Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 12, 421– 450. Lorenz, K. (1971). Studies in animal and human behaviour, Vol. 2. (R. Martin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1950). McCabe, V. (1988). Facial proportions, perceived age, and caregiving. In T. R. Alley (Ed.), Social and applied aspects of perceiving faces (pp. 89 –95). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002a). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 934 –960. Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002b). Episodic and semantic knowledge in emotional self-report: Evidence for two judgment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 198 –215. Rotteveel, M., & Phaf, R. H. (2004). Automatic affective evaluation does not automatically predispose for arm flexion and extension. Emotion, 4, 156 –172. Sanefuji, W., Ohgami, H., & Hashiya, K. (2007). Development of preference for baby faces across species in humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Ethology, 25, 249 –254. Spindler, P. (1961). Studien zur vererbung von verhaltensweisen. 3. Verhalten gegenuber jungen katzen. [Studies on the transmission of behavioral patterns. 3. Behavior toward young cats]. Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 25, 60 – 80. Zebrowitz, L. A., Brownlow, S., & Olson, K. (1992). Baby talk to the babyfaced. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 143–158. Received July 17, 2008 Revision received October 31, 2008 Accepted November 10, 2008 䡲 E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online! Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

there is the work, in case of anything you can incquire from me plz

OUTLINING A JOURNAL ARTICLE
Viewing Cute Images Increases Behavioural Carefulness
The main purpose of this study is to replicate the main finding of experiment 1(study 1) that
cuteness increased carefulness with two new sets of stimuli that were pretested to match across
conditions in the levels of positive effects of interest they evoked.
The hypothesis
The key hypothesis of this study is that: viewing very cute images as opposed to slightly cute
images leads to superior performance on a subsequent fine motor dexterity task.
Another hypothesis: cuteness on carefulness was specific to women.
The variables
The study consisted of both independent and dependent variables which are outline in the study.
There were two independent variables are a set of puppy and kitten images which are the high
cuteness images and a set of dog plus ...


Anonymous
Just what I needed…Fantastic!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags