Paper On Healthy Sexuality Topic, See Description

/in /by

The purpose of this assignment is to research one of the topics you have covered in this course. You will collect 10 scholarly research articles written within the last  10 years on a particular topic related to sex and sexuality (i.e. pornography, extramarital affair, teen pregnancy, homosexuality, etc.).

Articles should come from scholarly research sources. You will then write and submit a 10-page paper with the following 3 main sections relevant to these articles:

1. Article Summaries: Summarize the main points of the selected articles.

2. Compare and contrast the information presented in the articles with the content presented in class.

3. Explain how a therapist may use this information on your topic to help a client define healthy sexuality and how having that understanding can help the client make wise decisions in their relationships.

Papers will be written in current APA format and should include a title page, abstract, and reference page which are not part of the 10 body pages of the paper.

The paper should be a minimum of 10 pages of content (this does not include title page, abstract, or reference page).

Course Textbook to be used as a reference.

Balswick, J., & Balswick, J. (2008). Authentic human sexuality: An integrated Christian approach (2nd ed.). Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. ISBN: 978-0-8308-2883-8.

8

Premarital Cohabitation Cautions and Concerns

Few developments have been as dramatic as the rise of premarital cohab- itation—couples not married to each other but living together as sexual partners who share a household. According to recent surveys, the num- ber of unmarried cohabiting couples has increased more than twelvefold between 1960 and 2006 (Poponoe and Whitehead 2007:19). In 2000, Simmons and O’Connell reported that four out ten unmarried-couple households included one or more children under age 18 (Poponoe and Whitehead 2002). It appears that today a majority of young adults cohabit before marriage, and nearly half of all out-of-wedlock births are born to cohabiting mothers (Heuveline and Timberlake 2004:1215; Bumpass and Lu 2000).

In addition to the fact that nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, a majority of couples who cohabit split up before marriage. As might be expected, people who cohabited before their first marriage have a greater propensity to cohabit with another person after they divorce (Wu 1995). Those who lived together before marriage had a 50 percent higher hazard rate of divorcing after marriage than couples who had not cohabited.

Our goal in this chapter is to develop a Christian perspective on the topic. We draw on existing research, mainly self-reported responses to

Balswick, Judith K., and Jack O. Balswick. Authentic Human Sexuality : An Integrated Christian Approach, InterVarsity Press, 2001. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=3316493. Created from liberty on 2017-11-14 06:52:04.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

 

 

1 6 4 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

survey research questionnaires or interviews, to address the question “Why do people choose to cohabit?” We then examine the effect of this trend and give a response to cohabitation that is informed by both biblical and social-scientific literature.

Why cOhaBitatiOn? The best way to address this question is to ask, Is cohabiting an alterna- tive to being single or an alternative to being married? Premarital cohabita- tion is actually not a new idea. As early as 1966 anthropologist Margaret Mead tried to address the situation by propos ing a two-step plan for single adults. The first step would be a “trial mar riage,” in which the couple would determine whether they were compatible. The second step would be taken by couples who wanted to legalize the union when they had children. Taking it a step further, Scriven (1968) proposed a three-stage plan whereby a relationship progressed from sexual satisfaction, to social security, to sensible spawning. Cadwallader (1966) believed that cohabit- ing would free couples from feeling “trapped for life.” He liked the idea that couples could establish contracts for stated periods of time and peri- odically renew them as they saw fit.

These views stretched trial marriage about as far as it could go, even- tually leading to the concept of premarital cohabitation. It has only been within the past forty years that cohabitation has become popu lar among the middle classes, having originated among lower-class and disadvan- taged youth.

By examining cohabitation in sixteen industrial societies, Heuveline and Timberlake (2004) identify several conceptually distinct statuses given to cohabitation with respect to family formation. In some societies, cohabitation is marginal since it is culturally rejected or even penalized. In more accepting cultures it can be viewed as a prelude to marriage status, where legal marriage is expected before childbearing. A similar status is referred to as a stage in the marriage process. McRae (1997) suggests that cohabitation serves as a type of marriage preparation, as the stage that occurs between courtship (mate selection) and marriage. In this case, co- habiting gives the couple a chance to test the degree of compatibility in the relationship. If the partners conclude that their personalities “fit,” they proceed to marriage.

Cohabitation is usully viewed as an alternative for persons who want a

Balswick, Judith K., and Jack O. Balswick. Authentic Human Sexuality : An Integrated Christian Approach, InterVarsity Press, 2001. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=3316493. Created from liberty on 2017-11-14 06:52:04.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

 

 

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 6 5

sexual and compansionship living arrangement, but are not ready to form a family. In more accepting cultures, cohabitation is distinquished from marriage as an alternative to marriage. Last, in cultures with high ac- ceptance, cohabitation is indistinguishable from marriage. For instance, in places like Northern European countries and New Zealand, cohabitation is viewed as if the couple is married (Heuveline and Timberlake 2004).

The above types of cohabitiation can be depicted as ranging on a con- tinuum from the least to the most acceptable status in a modern societies. Given the state of cohabitation in North America, cohabitation is viewed by some as an alternative to single life and for others an alternative to be- ing married.

Based on a study of 1,293 Canadian adolescents, Manning, Longmore and Giordano (2007) report that for most, cohabitation has become part of the pathway toward marriage. As such, most youth “are not replacing marriage with cohabitation, but instead cohabit and then marry” (p. 559). Based on their study of cohabitation in the United States, King and Scott (2005:271) suggest that “older cohabitors are more likely to view their re- lationship as an alternative to marriage, whereas younger cohabitors tend to view their relationship as a prelude to it.” In general, the more accepting a society’s attitude toward cohabitation, the more cohabitation is defined as an alternative to marriage.

Many couples admittedly decide to cohabit for the conven ience and companionship of being in an exclusive sexual relationship with a chosen partner, whether there is or is not an intention to marry. By its very na- ture, a cohabiting relationship is one in which commitment is ambiguous. Smock (2000) finds that cohabiting men and women differ in the way they conceptualize commitment. She finds that women perceive cohabita- tion as a step prior to marriage, whereas men are inclined to view cohabi- tation as a step prior to making a commitment.

Marriage researcher and Christian therapist Scott Stanley (2005) de- scribes cohabiting as “relationship inertia,” in which cohabitors are “slid- ing” rather than “deciding” on a marital partner. He found that men who live with women they eventually marry are not as committed to the union as those who did not live with their mates before marriage.

The partner’s and/or couple’s view and understanding of their unique cohabitation agreement is certainly an important factor in the eventual outcome of marriage or no marriage. Given the present state of knowl-

Balswick, Judith K., and Jack O. Balswick. Authentic Human Sexuality : An Integrated Christian Approach, InterVarsity Press, 2001. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=3316493. Created from liberty on 2017-11-14 06:52:04.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Cognitive Neuroscience

/in /by

Discussion post – 2 to 3 paragraphs

In Module One, you were introduced to the mind-brain problem, where psychologists consider how the brain and the non-physical mind may impact or control behavior. Another important concept in psychology is understanding how the brain develops and changes, and what aids in these changes. Because the field of cognitive neuroscience examines the brain through imaging methods, it is an area of psychology that is poised to answer some of these questions. After completing this week’s readings, answer the following questions: How can current research in cognitive neuroscience be applied to understanding different problems in psychology, including the mind-brain problem and questions concerning brain development and change? How do you think modern imaging methods have helped us understand the brain and solve problems in psychology? Be sure to support your answers with information from the readings.

PS64-FrontMatter ARI 21 November 2012 19:14

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 3.

64 :1

-2 0.

D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 75

.8 8.

14 2.

24 2

on 1

2/ 02

/1 7.

F or

p er

so na

l us

e on

ly .

 

 

PS64CH01-Gazzaniga ARI 15 November 2012 12:44

Shifting Gears: Seeking New Approaches for Mind/Brain Mechanisms Michael S. Gazzaniga The Sage Center, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106-9660; email: m.gazzaniga@psych.ucsb.edu

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2013. 64:1–20

First published online as a Review in Advance on September 17, 2012

The Annual Review of Psychology is online at psych.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143817

Copyright c© 2013 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

Keywords

split brain, corpus callosum, modular, self-cueing, eye-hand coordination, emotion, dynamical systems

Abstract

Using an autobiographical approach, I review several animal and hu- man split-brain studies that have led me to change my long-term view on how best to understand mind/brain interactions. Overall, the view is consistent with the idea that complex neural systems, like other com- plex information processing systems, are highly modular. At the same time, how the modules come to interact and produce unitary goals is unknown. Here, I review the importance of self-cueing in that process of producing unitary goals from disparate functions. The role of self- cueing is demonstrably evident in the human neurologic patient and especially in patients with hemispheric disconnection. When viewed in the context of modularity, it may provide insights into how a highly parallel and distributed brain locally coordinates its activities to pro- duce an apparent unitary output. Capturing and understanding how this is achieved will require shifting gears away from standard linear models and adopting a more dynamical systems view of brain function.

1

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 3.

64 :1

-2 0.

D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 75

.8 8.

14 2.

24 2

on 1

2/ 02

/1 7.

F or

p er

so na

l us

e on

ly .

 

 

PS64CH01-Gazzaniga ARI 15 November 2012 12:44

Contents

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 THE EARLY YEARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 THE CALTECH YEARS WITH

ROGER SPERRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 UNCOVERING BRAIN

MECHANISMS: THE ROLE OF SELF-CUEING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

COGNITIVE AND EMOTIONAL CUEING . . . . . . . . . 9

THE INTERMEDIATE YEARS . . . . . 11 THE INTERPRETER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 THE GIFFORD LECTURES

AND MOVING FORWARD . . . . . . 14 INTERACTING MODULES:

THE VAST UNCONSCIOUS . . . . 17 A FINAL WORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

INTRODUCTION

With all we know about memory and its fail- ings, any kind of retrospective should be sus- pect. How many times have we called up past experiences that seem key to our lives, rolled them around, and then let current times tag them before putting them back to sleep? Over time, how can our memories possibly resemble the way things truly were?

There is something about the personalities we have known, however, that sticks and seems as true to us in the present as it was the day we formed our opinion about the stuff of certain people. Class reunions are a telling moment. Harry, 50 years later, is still an ass, while Bob is still cool. Even though we have not laid eyes on them since graduation night, the 50 intervening years have done nothing to change our views. On the other hand, and somewhat paradoxi- cally, our ideas on how to understand mech- anisms of nature do seem to change. These stubborn realities are fair warning about what follows. In short, my views on the flow of events and ideas that have captured my interests are undoubtedly influenced by all these intangibles.

When I began my intellectual journey of the past 50 years or so, the world and its challenges were to be understood in straightforward ways, with simple models of structure/function rela- tionships being the dominant reality. In animal research, make a lesion, see what happens. Make another lesion, see what happens. In hu- man research, study all patients who happen to have lesions in different places or study surgical patients who have particular kinds of disconnec- tions. Or, in both animal and human physiol- ogy, eavesdrop on neurons and see if the neural code that directs behavior can be figured out.

The straightforward thrusts of youth in a scientific field that was itself young are telling and important. Yet what is more important to realize is that scientific progress, as it unfolds in spurts of insight arriving in a field of hard, mun- dane work, is commonly disorderly and mostly nonlinear. Stuff happens along the way. One influences others and at the same time is mas- sively influenced by others. One of the beautiful things about science is that how one looks at a body of work after it is completed might well pose questions that are different from those that one originally imagined. While this shifting perspective is going on, the experiments con- ducted sit there, unmistakable and sure-footed. Their ultimate richness, or possible banality, fluctuates as surrounding knowledge and the- ory accrue to our human culture.

In my case, one overarching truth, which emerges from split-brain research as well as the study of neurological disorders and functional imaging studies, is that the human brain is not an all-purpose centralized computing device. Instead, it is organized in modular fashion, consisting of distributed, specialized circuits that have been sculpted by evolution and development to perform specific subfunctions while somehow preserving substantial plasticity (Gazzaniga 2011).

In the past, when experimental results were consistent with this perspective, it was enough to stop there. Clearly, however, such a formula- tion begs the question: How does a distributed mechanical process give rise to unitary, func- tional output? Over the years, many experiences

2 Gazzaniga

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 3.

64 :1

-2 0.

D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 75

.8 8.

14 2.

24 2

on 1

2/ 02

/1 7.

F or

p er

so na

l us

e on

ly .

 

 

PS64CH01-Gazzaniga ARI 15 November 2012 12:44

and new hunches have made me realize that if any deeper understanding of mind-brain rela- tionships is to come about, it would necessitate shifting to a more dynamical systems approach. My animal work, my work on patients, and my endless discussions with students, friends, and colleagues led me to this conclusion. My goal in this essay is to capture this journey of discovery and to illuminate how this view came to be.

THE EARLY YEARS

For me, it all started with a feeling—a feeling about the need to know “What’s it all about?” I can trace it back to my teenage years and often thought it was promoted by being the fourth out of five children of Dante and Alice Gazzaniga. For many years, I was the youngest and was less differentiated than my older brothers and sis- ter. It fell to me to keep the peace in a vigorous family. When my younger sister came along, my role changed as my older siblings shipped out to college and I was left behind to help raise Becky with my parents. Everybody loved Becky, so it was more like the three of us were competing to take care of her.

This is all to say that there are always plenty of social forces around us shaping and modify- ing our natural dispositions. My disposition was “contrarian.” If somebody said this is the way things are, I was always thinking about the al- ternatives. In part, this also relates to my many inadequacies at advanced quantification, so I always tried to frame whatever issue was being discussed in more accessible terms. Sometimes it worked wonderfully; sometimes it was a total bust. So, quantitative skills do not come nat- urally to me. To the extent that I possess any, they were hard to acquire and were never “felt.” When I was a graduate student at Caltech, and for some reason or another I had to learn how to derive the laws of thermodynamics, I did it totally by rote and got through it. After I was done, I can remember complaining to Seymour Benzer that I simply didn’t get it, didn’t feel the laws. Benzer said, “That’s all right, most physicists don’t either.” Benzer was a very gentle man.

This is all presented in the spirit of full disclosure. I am not quantitative, period. And yet for 50 years I have enjoyed a rich intellec- tual life with scientists who are exceptionally gifted in mathematics. What’s up with that? I once heard Duncan Luce say that statistics should not be taught to psychologists. He felt the newly trained students would come to think that statistics was the important part, not the question being examined. Often we hear spe- cialists talk endlessly about the quantitative de- tails of their research, whereas they are seem- ingly blasé about the net idea that comes out of all the work. This is the danger Luce was talk- ing about, and I think we all see this happening far too frequently.

More fundamentally, the feeling of being in- terested in the question of what life is all about is a wonderful center for the mind. Whatever crazy, mindless activity one might be engaged in during the day, whether it be learning his- torical facts, a foreign language, or how to play football, coming home mentally each night to that question has been a wonderful tonic. One’s mind really is an exclusive island that one can retreat to frequently, if not daily, where no one can bug you, and where one’s own interpreta- tions of the world are continually revised and updated.

Somehow all of this was working on me early in life and found me trotting off to Dartmouth College, where my older brilliant brother Alan was already a star football player and a man about town, soon to enter medical school. His tales of life in Hanover captivated me, and I dearly hoped I would get in. It all worked out, and from the moment I hit the Hanover plain I was in love with it all. The freshman beanie was placed on my head, and for a week I schlepped furniture up and down dorm steps for the upperclassmen. Somehow, it was exciting and refreshing.

Then I discovered Baker Library with its fa- mous Tower Room. One could grab a book, sit in a carrel, and read away the afternoon. I discovered Crime and Punishment there and be- came mesmerized by my new life. To this day, I think of that experience with a fondness that

www.annualreviews.org • Mind/Brain Mechanisms 3

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 3.

64 :1

-2 0.

D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 75

.8 8.

14 2.

24 2

on 1

2/ 02

/1 7.

F or

p er

so na

l us

e on

ly .

Use the empirical checklist (located in course materials) to assure your article is an empirical article.

/in /by

Refer to “Research Proposals” and follow the instructions for completing this assignment.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a scoring guide. Please review the scoring guide prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.

PSY530-RS-ResearchProposal.docx PSY530-R-ResearchProposalSG.docx

 

PSY-530 – Social Psychology

Research Paper Proposals

Throughout the program, you should be thinking of a research topic you would like to explore. In the capstone course (PSY-693), you will create a research proposal. To assist you in the creation of that proposal, you will decide on a research topic and begin collecting empirical studies to support the need for research. Your topic must relate to a basic social psychological principle; however it can fall into one of the applied subfields (forensic psychology, psychology of religion, industrial organization, health psychology, etc.).

For this assignment you will create your research question and at least five scholarly, peer reviewed, empirical studies, all from the past 5 to 7 years. Your articles must support the need for your research.

The following information will assist in the formation of your research question and the beginning collection of literature:

1. Use the empirical checklist (located in course materials) to assure your article is an empirical article.

2. Explore the Center for Innovation in Research and Teaching (cirt.gcu.edu) for information on research topics and literature reviews. From the main page, under Research Development – click on Research Ready. Each section has several bits of information to help formulate your research. Additionally on the right hand side under Development Resources, explore Research Tutorials. This section will assist you in creating your research questions and further information on literature reviews.

Prepare a document that includes your research question(s), including how your research will add to the current research in your chosen field. Your document will include five scholarly, peer reviewed, empirical studies from the past 5 to 7 years. This section should include APA formatted citations for each article, including permalink; additionally a short annotation for each article stating how the literature shows your research is needed.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a scoring guide. Please review the scoring guide prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.

 

PSY-530 – Social Psychology 

Topic 3 – Attitudes and Conformity

Research Proposal Scoring Guide

 

Grading category

Points

Comments

 

Created a   research question supported by peer-reviewed, empirical studies from the past   5 to 7 years, including how the research will add to the current research of   the chosen field.

___/10

 

Identified at   least five scholarly, peer reviewed, empirical studies, all from the past 5 to   7 years.

___/10

 

Articles are   in proper APA formatted citations for each article, including the permalink.

___/10

 

Short   annotation for each article, stating how the literature supports your need   for research.

___/10

 

While APA style   is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is   expected.

___/10

 

Total

/50

PSY-530 – Social Psychology

Empirical Research Checklist

Section Defining Characteristic Contained in Article Not Contained in Article
Abstract An abstract of the contents is provided.    
Introduction The purpose of the study is stated.    
  The scope of the study is stated.    
  A rationale for the study is provided.    
  The hypothesis or research question is stated.    
  Key concepts and terms are noted.    
  A review of the literature is provided.    
Methods

 A description of the population sample is provided.    
  The data collection procedure is presented.    
  Other procedures to be used are described.    
Results A narrative statement of the findings is given.    
  A description of the data collected is given.    
  Findings are supported by graphs and charts.    
  The analysis of the data is explained.    
Conclusion A summary of the study is provided.    
  Conclusions related to the hypothesis are stated.    
  Questions for future research are presented.    
References References used in the study are presented.  

Resources For The Integrative Literature Review

/in /by

Prior to beginning work on this written assignment, be sure to carefully review the instructions for the Final Assignment, which is due at the end of Week Six. In preparation for that assignment, you will list the four required content domains you have chosen for the Integrative Literature Review and provide a minimum list of six resources you intend to use for each domain. For assistance with researching your resources, please view the Psychology Subject Guide (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. in the Ashford University Library. For the group of resources in each domain, evaluate the reliability, validity, and generalizability of the research findings and provide a rationale for including the group within the domain. These rationales should include descriptions of how the research findings will function together in the Integrative Literature Review. Please use the format below for each of the four domains. Name of the Domain: (e.g., Psychopharmacology) List the complete references for each of the six resources. Format your reference list in alphabetical order according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Rationale: One to two paragraphs including the required information noted above. The Resources for the Integrative Literature Review •Must include a separate title page with the following: ◦Title of paper ◦Student’s name ◦Course name and number ◦Instructor’s name ◦Date submitted •Must use at least 24 scholarly sources, including a minimum of 20 from the Ashford University Library. •Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. •Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

This is the week 6 assignment

Integrative Literature Review

Pathbuilder is being used for this assignment. Please be certain to complete the “Survey Acknowledgement Quiz” this week in order to submit the Integrative Literature Review. You will not be allowed to submit your Final Paper until you have completed the quiz this week. The primary goal of this literature review is to integrate concepts from four different content domains within the larger field of psychology. The four content domains should be chosen from previous coursework in this program. In this paper, students will review the findings in the individual empirical articles, organize the research in a meaningful way, evaluate the reliability, validity, and generalizability of the research findings, and present an integrated synthesis of the research that sheds new light on the topics within and across the four domains. The result of a successful integrative literature review may be a significant contribution to a particular body of knowledge and, consequently, to research and practice. Therefore, before writing this literature review, substantive new research must be conducted via the Internet and within the Ashford University Library for each of the four chosen domains. A minimum of six sources must be included for each of the four domains. Although content from literature reviews completed in prior courses within this program may be included, it may not constitute the total research for the individual domains addressed within this assignment. No more than four sources from previous literature reviews completed in this program may be utilized for this integrative review. The headings listed below must be used within the paper to delineate the sections of content. These sections include the following: a clear introduction that provides a general review and organizes the research in a meaningful way; a discussion in which the evidence is presented through analysis, critique, and synthesis; and a conclusion in which the discussion is drawn together in a meaningful way, the claims of the introduction are brought to a logical closure, and new research is proposed. Introduction •Provide a conceptual framework for the review. •Describe how the review will be organized. The questions below may be used to guide this section. ◦What are the guiding theories within the domains? ◦How are the domains connected? ◦Are there competing points of view across the domains? ◦Why is the integration of these domains important? ◦What is the history of these domains? ◦What are the related theories or findings? •Describe how the literature was identified, analyzed, and synthesized. •How and why was the literature chosen? •What is your claim or thesis statement? Discussion •Provide the analysis, critique, and synthesis for the review. Analysis •Examine the main ideas and relationships presented in the literature across the four domains. •Integrate concepts from the four different content domains within the larger field of psychology. •What claim(s) can be made in the introduction? •What evidence supports the claim(s) made in the introduction? Critique •Evaluate the reliability, validity, and generalizability of the chosen research findings. •How well does the literature represent the issues across the four domains? •Identify the strengths and the key contributions of the literature. •What, if any, deficiencies exist within the literature? •Have the authors omitted any key points and/or arguments? •What, if any, inaccuracies have been identified in the literature? •What evidence runs contrary to the claims proposed in the introduction, and how might these be reconciled with the claims presented? •Explain how the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct might influence the reliability and/or generalizability of the chosen findings. •Did the ethical issues influence the outcomes of the research? •Were ethical considerations different across the domains? Synthesis •Integrate existing ideas with new ideas to create new knowledge and new perspectives. •Describe the research that has previously been done across these domains, as well as any controversies or alternate opinions that currently exist. •Relate the evidence presented to the major conclusions being made. •Construct clear and concise arguments using evidence-based psychological concepts and theories to posit new relationships and perspectives on the topics within the domains. Conclusion •Provide a conclusion and present potential future considerations. •State your final conclusion(s). •Synthesize the findings described in the discussion into a succinct summary. •What questions remain? •What are the possible implications of your argument for existing theories and for everyday life? •Are there novel theories and/or testable hypothesizes for future research? •What do the overarching implications of the studies show? •Where should the research go from this point to further the understanding of these domains and the greater study of psychology?