Category: Psychology

Instructions can be found in the attached files.

You can type about 2-4 pages

Talk about how social media impacts emotions

Read the Pickersgill article evaluating the DSM-V and write an article review of it based on the specifications below. While an article review is a condensed summary of the article read, I would also like you to add a section where you evaluate the argument of the author in regard to the efficacy of the DSM-V as a diagnostic tool for psychopathology.

REQUIREMENTS:

• APA Format, including title page and bibliography
• 3-5 pages, exclusive of title page and bibliography
• 12 pt. font, Times New Roman or Calibri, 1-inch margins
• Uploaded to this assignment in PDF format

QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS:

• What is the general topic that this paper is addressing? What has previous research on this (or related) topics demonstrated?
• Is this an opinion piece, or were experimental research methods used?
• What are the results, the thesis, or the findings of the journal article?
• What major conclusions are drawn by the author based on their or others’ research?
• Are there any real-world implications for understanding human behavior in this research?
• Are there any limitations to the author’s argument? What are they not addressing?
• Do YOU believe that this research or opinion piece is valid and informative?

NOTE: The questions above should be addressed cohesively as you summarize and evaluate the article, not listed and answered line by line. In fact, some of the questions may not fit into your review at all… simply look at them as a guide to writing your paper. You are encouraged to cite outside research on the efficacy of the DSM in your paper. Please email me if you have any questions.

Statement of Problem, Purpose of Study, Research Questions/Hypothesis, Definition of Terms, Theoretical Framework. Based on your literature review, clearly state what is the purpose of your study, what research questions you will attempt to answer, define any specific terms that may be unfamiliar to the reader, and state on what theory you are basing your work. (2 pages). Requirements: Minimum of 2 pages; APA format

Title: Gender Differences in Emotional and Attributional Responses to Ambiguous Social Provocations. Hypothesis 1 Higher levels of Hostile Attribution Bias (HAB) will be positively associated with higher levels of negative emotional reactions (e.g., anger, frustration, embarrassment) in social situations with ambiguous provocative stimuli. Explanation: According to the Social Information Processing model (Dodge, 2006), individuals who perceive hostile intentions in ambiguous social situations activate stronger emotional reactions, such as anger and frustration. Research, e.g. (Coccaro et al., 2009) showed that the tendency to attribute hostile intentions is associated with stronger negative emotions, suggesting that cognitive perception directly influences the emotional level. Hypothesis 2 Men will report higher levels of negative emotional reactions to ambiguous social challenges compared to women. Explanation: Research by Coccaro et al. (2009) suggests that men may exhibit greater emotional arousal, particularly anger and frustration, when they perceive social challenge. Furthermore, gender socialization theories suggest that men tend to express more externalized forms of negative emotions, while women often regulate or express them differently. Hypothesis 3 Men will exhibit higher levels of Attribution of Hostile Intention compared to women when interpreting ambiguous social situations. Explanation: Based on the findings of Coccaro et al. (2009), men tend to attribute hostile intent more often to ambiguous social situations, especially when there is a perceived insult or threat. This tendency has been associated with more direct and confrontational forms of social interpretation and response. Hypothesis 4 Women will be more likely than men to attribute ambiguous social challenges to non-hostile or situational causes. Explanation: Coccaro et al. (2009) observed that women tend to take the context of the situation more into account and give more innocent interpretations of the behavior of others. This way of attribution may function protectively, reducing the likelihood of hostile interpretations and the intensity of negative emotions. Hypothesis 5 Attribution of Hostile Intention will significantly predict the intensity of negative emotional reactions across all participants, regardless of gender. Explanation: According to the findings of Coccaro et al. (2009), the tendency to attribute hostile intent is a strong predictor of emotional intensity in both men and women. Social-cognitive theory argues that cognitive interpretations precede emotions, therefore higher levels of HAB lead to increased emotional activation regardless of gender.

for the quistionnaire will be use the Social Processing-Attributional Bias Questionnaire (SIP-ABQ)

The dataset where about 100-120 adults both genter and anlysis will be by spss

Mandatory references

1.Dodge, K. A. (2006). Translational science in action: Hostile attributional style and the development of aggressive behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 18(3), 791- 814. 2. Coccaro, E. F., Noblett, K. L., & McCloskey, M. S. (2009). Attributional and emotional responses to socially ambiguous cues: Validation of a new assessment of social/emotional information processing in healthy adults and impulsive aggressive patients. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43(10), 915-925.

.

Attached

Students from UC University

1650 word count doesn’t include references, additional on top of 1650 but no more than 2000

Peer Review – The student’s paper is attached.

The peer review activity is meant to be an opportunity to deepen the learning for all and expand the discussion. Critically review a colleague’s paper and address the following:

I. What is(are) the primary points being made? How does the paper contribute to your learning? What are your take-a-ways?

2. How might you expand the conversation with your colleague? This may include posing questions, sharing other resources, and/or different perspectives, etc. In other words, provide substantive feedback.

3. What are your take-a-ways from this discussion for you? How might you bring this to your work and/or research?