On cover sheet include centered on separate lines – title, your name, class, my name, and
date.
2. entire paper in 12 fontUse page numbers beginning on first page of text, not on the cover sheet.
date.
2. entire paper in 12 fontUse page numbers beginning on first page of text, not on the cover sheet.
4. sub headings are optional. Make your decision based on the format you think will help the reaer to followand understand your paper Subheadings are optional. Make your decision based on the format you think will help the
reader to follow and understand your paper.
5.no bold and contractions No bold and no contractions
6.double space entire paper including between paragraphs. avoid extra line between paragraghs. Double space entire paper including between paragraphs: Be sure to avoid an extra linebetween paragraphs.
7.Indent paragraghs 5 spaces Indent paragraphs 5 spaces.
8.do not capitalize the names of psychological constructs unless they are used as the first word Do not capitalize the names of psychological constructs unless they are used as the first word
in a sentence.
9.do not use apa format, i.e., running head, etc. Do not use APA format, i.e., running head, etc.
10. One inch margins
11. Avoid use of quotation marks. Use only to emphasize a point you are making.
12. Paraphrase, i.e., put written material into your own words.
13. Topic sentences at the top of each paragraph not at the bottom
14. Avoid starting sentences with dependent clauses, e.g., “Although it was . . ., ……”
15. Do not use a colon immediately after the verb “to be”. Incorrect – “These are:” Correct –
“These are as follows:” “There are three parts of personality: id, ego, and superego”.
16. Use a comma before a conjunction joining two independent clauses. “He went to bed, and he
read a book”.
17. Do not use a semicolon (;) unless you have professional training.
reader to follow and understand your paper.
5.no bold and contractions No bold and no contractions
6.double space entire paper including between paragraphs. avoid extra line between paragraghs. Double space entire paper including between paragraphs: Be sure to avoid an extra linebetween paragraphs.
7.Indent paragraghs 5 spaces Indent paragraphs 5 spaces.
8.do not capitalize the names of psychological constructs unless they are used as the first word Do not capitalize the names of psychological constructs unless they are used as the first word
in a sentence.
9.do not use apa format, i.e., running head, etc. Do not use APA format, i.e., running head, etc.
10. One inch margins
11. Avoid use of quotation marks. Use only to emphasize a point you are making.
12. Paraphrase, i.e., put written material into your own words.
13. Topic sentences at the top of each paragraph not at the bottom
14. Avoid starting sentences with dependent clauses, e.g., “Although it was . . ., ……”
15. Do not use a colon immediately after the verb “to be”. Incorrect – “These are:” Correct –
“These are as follows:” “There are three parts of personality: id, ego, and superego”.
16. Use a comma before a conjunction joining two independent clauses. “He went to bed, and he
read a book”.
17. Do not use a semicolon (;) unless you have professional training.
The article reviewed may be either experimental or theoretical.
How to think about and analyze an experiment
What is the behavior in question?
What does the background literature say about it?
What are the results of past research?
What is the experimental hypothesis?
How to think about and analyze an experiment
What is the behavior in question?
What does the background literature say about it?
What are the results of past research?
What is the experimental hypothesis?
What experiment was done to test the hypothesis?
Who were the participants in the study reviewed?
What was done to them or what types of observations were made?
What were the dependent and independent variables.
What was the design of the study: a correlation or an analysis of variance.
What are the results of the experiment?
Based on the discussion section, how do the results provide support or lack thereof for the
experimental hypothesis?
Critique of an Experiment:
Does the study seem to be a good test of the scientific question? Why or why not? Do the results of
the study answer a question or just support the already existing knowledge on the issue? Are there
problems with how the behavior under study was operationalized and measured? Were the
definitions and measures reliable and valid? What issues may be undermining the reliability and
validity of these? Who were the participants and how were they recruited? Are there characteristics
of the participants that might cause the results to be biased in a particular way? What are these?
Was the design based on a correlation or analysis of variance and what are the implications of this?
What types of problems might there be with the research? What are alternative explanations for the
results? How generalizable are the results? Go back to chapter 3 in the text and address any of the
problems described there that you see in your study.
How to think about and analyze a theory:
What behavior is addressed by the theory?
What are the major assumptions of the theory?
What are the alternative theories that are presented?
What are the advantages of the new theory over the older theories? (That is, what does it explain
that the others do not? What does it explain better than the others? What questions does it answer
that the others do not?)
What are the limitations of the new theory (What questions remain unanswered? What are
alternative explanations to those presented by the theory?)
Does the theory generate testable hypotheses according to the author(s)? What are these.
Critique of a Theory:
Who were the participants in the study reviewed?
What was done to them or what types of observations were made?
What were the dependent and independent variables.
What was the design of the study: a correlation or an analysis of variance.
What are the results of the experiment?
Based on the discussion section, how do the results provide support or lack thereof for the
experimental hypothesis?
Critique of an Experiment:
Does the study seem to be a good test of the scientific question? Why or why not? Do the results of
the study answer a question or just support the already existing knowledge on the issue? Are there
problems with how the behavior under study was operationalized and measured? Were the
definitions and measures reliable and valid? What issues may be undermining the reliability and
validity of these? Who were the participants and how were they recruited? Are there characteristics
of the participants that might cause the results to be biased in a particular way? What are these?
Was the design based on a correlation or analysis of variance and what are the implications of this?
What types of problems might there be with the research? What are alternative explanations for the
results? How generalizable are the results? Go back to chapter 3 in the text and address any of the
problems described there that you see in your study.
How to think about and analyze a theory:
What behavior is addressed by the theory?
What are the major assumptions of the theory?
What are the alternative theories that are presented?
What are the advantages of the new theory over the older theories? (That is, what does it explain
that the others do not? What does it explain better than the others? What questions does it answer
that the others do not?)
What are the limitations of the new theory (What questions remain unanswered? What are
alternative explanations to those presented by the theory?)
Does the theory generate testable hypotheses according to the author(s)? What are these.
Critique of a Theory:
In your opinion, is the theory involved logical and useful? Why or why not? Do you see any
problems or inconsistencies with it? What are these? Does it have any particular strengths or
weaknesses in your opinion? Are some important issues not addressed? Is the theory an
improvement over other theories? Can the theory be tested? What tests have been suggested or do
you suggest? Are there alternative explanations to those proposed? Is the theory well-researched?
Is there evidence to support it? Is the theory new or does it build on older ideas which have been
supported or not supported