Cunningham, W. A., Johnson, M. K., Raye, C. L., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., & Banaji, M. R. (2004). Separable neural components in the processing of Black and White Faces. Psychological Science, 15, 806–813. (USE THIS PAPER TO WRITE ABOUT)
Pretend that you are a journalist for a popular media outlet (say…the OSU Lantern). You are reporting on the research conducted in the paper that you have chosen. Assume your readership is not informed about cognitive neuroscience or any technical jargon.
Explain what is happening in the research to a general audience IN YOUR OWN
WORDS. If you feel you must use technical jargon, DEFINE IT CLEARLY for your reader. You should cite all sources that you use to explain concepts in neuroscience. Upload your document to the designated Carmen.
Here are some considerations to address within your summary (and where to find them in the paper.)
Introduction: What is the basic question or theory under examination? What is the specific hypothesis being tested?
Methods: What is the experimental design (e.g. what are the Dependent and Independent Variables)? What are the control groups or conditions? What experimental techniques are used? Explain the technique to your readers.
Results: What are the results? Describe them in terms that are understandable. (E.g. was there a significant difference between the experimental and control group, or a significant correlation between the critical variables?)
Discussion: How does the new information fit with previous findings on this topic? Are there alternative explanations for the results?
Evaluation: What is a potential follow-up study?
Your introduction (3 points):
Describe the basic theory and issues being examined
What is the hypothesis being tested?
Are there any alternative hypothesis or predictions? What are they?
Methods Description (3 points):
What is the experimental design and control/test groups or comparisons (if any)?
What are the specific techniques used? Were they used in any special way?
Your description of the Results (3 points):
Summarize results (in your own words – what did they find?)
Is there a significant difference between the experimental and control group, or a significant correlation between the critical variables? Describe this.
Your discussion of the result (3 points):
How was the original hypotheses supported?
How does the new information fit with previous findings on this topic?
YOUR Evaluation (5 points):
What confounds were avoided? How?
What is the relevance of these findings to the larger world of scientific knowledge?
Are there alternative explanations for the results?
What would be a potential follow-up study? ßThis is the most important part!
(Propose a follow-up study that would expand on or test in a different way the ideas in the paper. Briefly describe your study and what you would expect to find!!)
