Get an Expert Solution to these questions. Click on the WhatsApp button below.

READING
a. To appreciate why critical thinking is crucial to understanding psychological science,

1. Watch Crash Course’s (2014) YouTube, “Psychological Research.” Because the
   narrator of the video speaks quite rapidly, you might need to watch the video at
   least twice (or use the speed-controller on YouTube).
2. Read Halonen’s (1996) article, “On Critical Thinking [in Psychology].” In this
   assignment, we will be working on what Halonen refers to as “Methodological”
   critical thinking skills.
3. Read the first page of Dewey’s (2007) chapter, “Critical Thinking [in
   Psychology].”
4. Read Stafford’s (2014) article, “What It Means To Be Critical [about
   Psychological Research],” which is more about how to be critical of
   psychological science than why it’s important to be critical, but Stafford’s article
   will prepare you for the rest of this assignment.
   WRITING ASSIGNMENT
   b. Write an essay of 400 to 500 words arguing either in favor of or against the statement,
   “Critical thinking is crucial to understanding psychological science.” Your essay should be
   based on information from the readings you just finished.
   c. Save your essay as PDF and name the file YourLastname_CriticalThinkingEssay.pdf.
   d. Go to the discussion board forum Assignment #4, Part 1: Critical Thinking Essay and
   attach your essay, saved as a PDF. Remember to “Attach” your essay’s PDF (don’t
   embed your file or use the “File” tool; instead, use the “Attach” tool).
   READING
   a. To learn the critical questions that should be asked about psychological science (or any
   type of science) reported in the news:
5. Read about the first (“Sensationalized Headlines”), second (“Misinterpreted
   Results”), third (“Conflicts of Interest”), and twelfth (“Non-Peer Reviewed
   Material”) indicator of bad science (or bad science journalism) in Compound
   Interest’s (2015) infographic “A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science.”
   Part 1: Why critical thinking is crucial to psych science
   Part 2: Evaluating science (or science reporting)
6. To see examples of the first (“Sensationalized Headlines”) and twelfth (“NonPeer Reviewed Material”) indicators of bad science/bad science journalism,
   watch Above the Noise’s (2017) YouTube, “Top 4 Tips To Spot Bad Science
   Reporting.”
7. Read Ossola’s (2017) article, “Can You Tell If a Health Story Is Total BS?”
   Ossola’s indicators of “Check the Label” and “Control the Spin” are like
   Compound Interest’s “Sensationalized Headlines” indicator; however, Ossola
   presents a novel indicator “Beware the Animal Study.”
8. To see examples of animal (rodent) studies with misleading headlines, go to the
   twitter account @justsayinmice. Browse around a bit. This account would be a
   good source for examples for your assignment for this part.
9. To see examples of these indicators of bad science, watch Last Week Tonight
   with John Oliver’s (2016) YouTube, “Scientific Studies.” Warning: John Oliver is a
   late-night comedian/TV host. Therefore, this video contains adult content, adult
   language, and extreme irreverence toward a wide swath of people. The video
   presents numerous examples of bad science indicators.
   b. Choose one of the following empirical claims:
10. “Playing violent video games makes teenagers more aggressive.”
11. “Marijuana is as dangerous for people’s mental and physical health as alcohol.”
12. “Excessive use of social media is associated with increased depression in young
    people.”
    Search around on the internet and find three news stories (not published studies)
    related to the empirical claim that you chose. Evaluate each of those stories based on
    the criteria supplied in the readings above.
    For example, does the story contain a sensationalized headline? Is it suggesting a causal
    relationship between two variables with only correlational data? Does a conflict of
    interest for the researchers who conducted the research described in the article? Is the
    claim even based on a rigorously conducted, peer reviewed and published study?
    Having found and read some news stories on the claim you chose, what conclusion did
    you come to? That is, is the claim supported? Why or why not?
    c. WRITING ASSIGNMENT
    d. Go to the discussion board forum Assignment #4, Part 2: Evaluating Science and make a
    new thread of at least 200 words. In your post:
13. Identify the empirical claim you chose to evaluate and the three news articles
    you found relevant to that claim. Provide links to the three articles.
14. For each article that you found, evaluate it according to the twelve criteria in
    Compound Interest’s “A rough guide to spotting bad science” and the criteria in
    the Ossola article. Do the three news articles you found fail to meet any of these
    criteria? Hint: look for the article to refer to a specific peer-reviewed study and
    see if you can find it. You might also want to take a look at this study (or studies).
15. Based on the news articles you found, make a judgement as to whether you
    think the claim, as originally stated in b above, is correct or not. Explain why or
    why not you think your analysis is justified.
    READING/VIEWING
    a. This assignment will focus on the fourth indicator of bad science in Compound Interest’s
    (2015) infographic, which is confusing “Correlation with Causation.”
16. Watch TEDxDelft’s (2012) YouTube, “The Danger of Mixing Up Causality and
    Correlation.”
17. Watch PsychU’s (2015) YouTube, “Correlation vs. Causation – PSY 101.”
18. Because PsychU momentarily confuses the term “hypothesis” with the term
    “theory,” watch PBS’s (2015) YouTube “Fact vs. Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law …
    Explained!“
19. Make sure you know the meanings of, and differences among, the four terms:
    Fact, Theory, Hypothesis, and Law. Not only will you will need to know these
    terms and their differences throughout the rest of this course, but everyone
    should know these terms and their differences.
    b. Back to understanding the problem of confusing “Correlation with Causation”:
20. Watch AsapScience’s (2017) YouTube, “This ≠ That.”
21. Watch Khan Academy’s (2011) YouTube, “Correlation and Causality.”
    WRITING ASSIGNMENT
    c. Make sure you understand what correlation means, what causation means, and why
    correlation cannot be used to prove causation.
22. Jot down at least six examples of correlation not proving causation from the
    videos you watched. One example is the correlation between the amount of ice
    cream purchased (during each month of the year) and the number of drowning
    deaths (during each month of the year) not proving that ice cream causes
    drowning.
23. Make sure you understand that two variables (e.g., ice cream purchases per
    month and drowning deaths per month) might both be caused by another
    Part 3: Confusing correlation with causation
    variable (e.g., season of the year). That other variable is often called a
    confounding variable.
24. Make sure you understand that the correlation between two variables (e.g., pool
    drownings per year and Nicholas Cage films per year) might simply be due to
    coincidence.
25. Make sure you understand that rather than one variable (e.g., skipping
    breakfast) causing another variable (e.g., obesity), the causation might be
    reversed.
    d. Teach two separate people (family, friends, etc) why they should not confuse
    correlation with causation. You can teach each person via email, phone, text, Facebook,
    Skype, in person, or any other communication medium. But you must teach two
    separate people at two separate times why they should not confuse correlation with
    causation.
26. When you are teaching each person, provide examples of correlations that do
    not prove causation, using the examples you saw in the videos.
27. To make sure that each of the two people learned why correlation should not be
    interpreted as causation, ask each person to tell you another example (an
    example that you did not tell them) of correlation not proving causation.
    e. Go to the discussion board forum Assignment #4, Part 3: Correlation is not Causation
    and make a new post of at least 250 words in which you
28. List the six examples you jotted down from the videos
29. describe how you taught the two persons that correlation cannot be interpreted
    as causation;
30. state each of the two persons’ initials (e.g., MG) and their approximate age; and
31. report the examples each person told you of correlations that should not be
    confused with causation.
    READING
    a. To understand what is often referred to as the “Hierarchy of Scientific Evidence,”
32. download (to your own computer) and save The Logic of Science’s (no
    date) Hierarchy of Scientific Evidence graphic, and
33. read Brunning’s (2015) article, “A Rough Guide to Types of Scientific Evidence.”
    b. Identify where on the Hierarchy of Scientific Evidence case reports (which are also
    called case studies) lie.
34. Then, read about some of the most famous psychology case reports in Jarrett’s
    (2015) article, “Psychology’s Greatest Case Studies – Digested.”
    Part 4: The Hierarchy of Scientific Evidence
35. Think about why it was important for the various scientists who reported these
    case studies to report these case studies.
    c. Identify where on the Hierarchy of Scientific Evidence randomized controlled
    studies lie.
36. Then, read about an example of a randomized controlled study in Fradera’s
    (2017) article, “How Much Are Readers Misled by Headlines that Imply
    Correlational Findings Are Causal?”
37. Think about why it was important for these scientists to conduct a randomized
    controlled study on this topic.
    d. Identify where on the Hierarchy of Scientific Evidence meta-analyses and systematic
    reviews lie.
38. Then, to see an example of a journal article reporting a meta-analysis, read the
    abstract of Hyde and Lynn’s (1988) article, “Gender Differences in Verbal Ability:
    A Meta-Analysis.”
39. Think about why it was important for these scientists to conduct a meta-analysis
    on this topic.
    WRITING ASSIGNMENT
    e. Write an essay of 400 to 500 words arguing either in favor of or against the statement,
    “All scientific evidence is equally strong.” Note that this statement is referring to the
    different types of scientific evidence described in the readings above (e.g., case studies,
    randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, etc..)
40. Save your essay as a PDF and name the file YourLastname_EvidenceEssay.pdf.
    f. Go to the discussion board forum Assignment #4, Part 4: The Hierarchy of Scientific
    Evidence and attach your essay.