Qualtrics Survey

The information gathered helps provide updates and changing patterns, needs of health, it helps to identify the changing communication trends and practices in the health community (HINTS). The respondents are 18 and over. HINTS in 2007-2008 had 7,700 respondents; the respondents were chosen from a cross-sectional, stratified random sampling (HINTS 2007). HINTS accomplished this by two methods of random sampling, one sample was obtained using Address Based Sampling (ABS) through the mail, and the other method that was used was from Random Digital Dialing (RDD) and telephone interviews (HINTS2007). I will compare three variables from the HINTS dataset; gender, age of respondents, and marital status. Gender is being used as an independent nominal variable. Gender is being evaluated with the GENERN variable, the respondents were asked, “Are you male or female?” the values being used were 1.00 for males and 2.00 for females. Age is also being looked at, the AGEGRPA is the variable that took the respondents age groups and recoded them into four levels. Marriage status is being used as a dependent nominal variable, marriage status is what I am most interested, the other variables are being used to explain why the respondents their marital status. The marital variable in the HINTS data set is HD06MARTITALSTATU, the respondents were asked, “What is your marital status? Would you say...married, living as married, divorced, widowed, separated, or single, never been

The student data file was used as the data source. The sample size included one hundred men and one hundred women. Thirty-five out of one hundred men had not declared for a degree. Fifteen out of one hundred women had not declared for a degree. The level of

Introductory Psychology students (N = 305) from a mid-western university participated in the study online for course credit. Sixty-eight percent of the participants identified as female, 32% of the participants identified as male, and one participant did not indicate their gender. The majority of the participants were Caucasian (73%), and the average age of the participants was 19.04 (SD = 1.10).

The strengths of the study is that is cost effective and does not require a lot of funding. Another strength is that George Mason University has a very diverse population, thus there is a high chance of obtaining a racially and culturally diverse group when randomly selecting the participants. Furthermore, the study also included staff and not only student in order to diversify the participant’s backgrounds as well. In addition, having both female and male participant’s makes it more diverse opposed to how many other studies that have solely focused on one gender. Although the study has many strengths, there are also some limitation to take note of. One of the major limitations is that the study is working with a very small sample size. In

The males who were supposed to be in the program received long term suspension for misbehaving. The new hypothesis that I created was actually not correct. The girls who completed the whole program, and were the most successful came out to an even number. Two girls were African American and the other two were Hispanic/ Latina. Before the program started, there were four African Americans students and four Hispanic/ Latina students, Making the study even. The one student who did not complete the program was African American, making the Success rate favor the Hispanic/ Latina race.

The participants of this study are 100 randomly selected female freshmen at Stanford. They will be randomly selected by going down the class list and emailing every seventh female until 100 students agree to participate in the

Students were randomly assigned to groups that had a topic of all whites, with race, or majority of race. A couple of things that changes from study one was the topic, two black confederates. The reason for this is to better understand how having people of multiple races can impact the thought process. Another thing that was changed is the topics in order to reduce the possibility of lack of diversity when it comes to groups that involve someone of that race. Another change that was added to the procedures was that right after learning about the topic, the participants were asked to write a personal statement about what you believe when it comes to said topic. The results once again indicated that white college students benefited when being in a group that involved someone of a different race. Overall both studies had similar traits to the one that I created. As a whole I was not surprised that the results indicated races improved thinking because that’s what I thought would happen in the first

The experiment included a total of 151 participants (42 male; 109 female), all of which are enrolled in a Griffith University second year Psychology course.

The target population was high school students. To withdraw relatively equal sample of students from every grade level, eighteen freshmen and twenty-three sophomores from two English classes were chosen. The upper-class participants included twenty-six juniors and twenty-four seniors from two AP Psychology classes. In total, the sample size were 91 participants, with 42 female participants and 49 male participants.

The participants who were involved in this experiment were Drake University students’ enrolled in Introduction to Psychology Lab. The students’ age ranged from 18-23 years old. In total there were 10 participants, 5 of which were male and 5 were female.

19 undergraduate students from the College of Staten Island participated in this experiment, serving as part of their course requirement. The experiment consisted of both males and females.

The experiment took place in students’ respective discussion sections and all students are assigned to both blocked and interleaved study. Once in the discussion sections, students were instructed to go to the experiment website (http://www.cogfog.com/EG/KBOriginalW17/) and follow the instructions on the website. Students were prompted to enter their identification number (PID) to ensure the students get credit for completing the experiment, and then they were directed to demographic questionnaire where students were asked to identify their gender (65.38% females, 33.33% males, 1.282% abstained), age (M=19.95), educational level (28.21% high school graduates, 57.69% currently in some college but without degree, 8.974% associates degree, and 5.128% bachelors degree), and fluency in English (92.31% fluent, 7.692% not fluent).

There were 112 participants in the study, 48 were male and 64 were female. They were all college undergraduates receiving course credit for participating in the study. The raters were 4 advanced psychology undergraduates, 2

Asking questions about the participant’s age, gender, and ethical background, in addition to that, questions about the student’s current academic performance were asked, such as “What is your current overall GPA? “Have you been, or are you currently on the Dean’s list?” “ Have you ever been on academic probation while at Citrus?” “How many courses are you currently taking?” and “How many years have you been at Citrus College?” These questions were formulated to gauge the student’s current academic performance, which would later be used to see if there was a correlation between their academic performance and satisfaction levels. In the closing of section one, of the survey, participants were asked about their current relationship status, options included: single, committed relationship, married, or divorced. Depending on the answer to this question, participants were prompted to take either Part A, which was for subjects in a committed relationship and married or Part B for those who are currently single and divorced. In Part A1 (For Relationships/Married) of the survey, participants were given 10 questions, such as “ I still feel a strong connection with my partner” and “I have a warm and comfortable relationship with my partner”, from The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI). They were asked to respond to these questions using 5-point Liker scale (1 = not true at all to 5 = completely true). In order to determine the level of satisfaction in the relationship, the

The study by Reynolds and Weigand was conducted in 2010, which means that all sources used by researchers should be evaluated from that perspective, counting 5 years from the publication year as more recent and older sources that have no fundamental value as irrelevant. Reynolds and Weigand (2010) have utilized 40 sources in their research, with only 8 of them being recent (6 of 2005 year, 1 – 2006, and 1- 2007), and the rest being irrelevant, dating back to 1985. Therefore, the investigators did not report on the recent and relevant literature, using outdated sources for backing up their findings and justifying their research. Although the investigators’ language seems neutral and objective, the sections reporting about limitations of the study brings all biases and drawbacks to discussion, revealing sample size, lack of generalizability, and use of first-semester GPA for evaluating students’ academic achievement are cited as the major limitations.