Impulsiveness & BART Performance: A Research Hypothesis Lab report

All requirements are in the document, please write in strict accordance with the document

PSY 395 Lab Report 3 – Personality and risky decision making study

Due: Must be uploaded to D2L by the start of Lab during the week of March 13th

As Terracciano and Costa (2004) point out, as well as many others, personality traits have been and continue to be a major explanatory variable in psychology. One popular model of personality is known as the five-factor model of personality (Goldberg, 1990; John, 1990). This model posits that there are five stable general personality traits:

I. Openness: Curious about intellectual and artistic matters, values artistic experiences, has an active imagination.

                   II. Conscientiousness: Reliable, hardworking, dependable.

                   III. Extraversion: Talkative, energetic, outgoing.

                   IV. Agreeableness: Helpful, trusting, cooperative.

                   V. Neuroticism: Anxious, tense, moody.

In this assignment, we are going to gain practise in writing an introduction for a research report. For this report, you are going to be asked to consider which personality traits you think might correlate with performance on the BART. In order to do this, you should think of a research question and provide a review of 5 research studies that look at BART performance and personality traits. Two of these research studies must be Terracciano and Costa (2004) and Lejuez et al. (2002). Finally, you will propose a research hypothesis which is based on your review of your 5 research studies.

Remember, the BART task is as follows:

As a measure of risky decision making, we will use Lejuez et al.’s (2002) Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). This task is interesting because it allows us to get a measure of risky decision making via a controlled laboratory task rather than, for example, asking someone how many risks they take in life. It is widely used in the clinical and cognitive sciences. During the BART, participants are presented with a computerized balloon and two response buttons. One button inflates the balloon by a small amount and awards the user a number of points, while the other button ends the trial and saves any points earned to the overall point total. Like an actual balloon, this one will eventually explode if pumped too many times.^[1] When an explosion occurs, it terminates the trial and all points earned for that round are reset.

I would like you to write an Introduction section in APA format. Remember your introduction should state what you plan to do and why. This will take 3 to 4 pages. This assignment will be graded out of 50 points.

You will be graded according to the following criteria:

Overall formatting (10 points)

-Double spaced

-Times New Roman

-12 point font

-Proper formatting of headers, title, and page numbers

-Overall adherence to APA style

-Spelling and grammar: spell check and proof-read before submission!

(Opening/Hook) A statement of the problem and why it is important. (5 points)

(3 points) Is the research question stated in such a way that it has specific implications for observable events in the natural world?

          (2 points) Is the question clear and concise?

(Literature Review) A review of related research literature. (15 points)

(8 points)You should cite (a) the given articles (Terracciano and Costa (2004) and Lejuez et al. (2002)) and three peer reviewed articles

    *The citations should make logical sense. For example, Tarracciano and Costa (2004) should not be cited in reference to the BART.

    *The citations should be in correct APA style.

(7 points) The review of the related research should demonstrate a correct and logical progression to the predictions or hypotheses. Thus, your hypotheses should be related to the articles you use.

(Transition) Connect the lit review info to your current predictions (10 points)

          (3 points) Use of appropriate transitional terms.

(7 points) Your prediction or hypothesis should have a logical connection from your question and your brief review of the literature. For example does it: Extend past research? Fill gaps? Use new methodology? Address limitations? Does your hypotheses make sense when compared to the studies that you’ve reviewed?

(Final Paragraph) A clear and succinct statement of the prediction(s) and hypothesis(es) (10 points)

                            (5 points). The prediction should predict a specific set of events you can observe

                            in the study.

                            (5 points). The prediction or hypothesis should be clear and succinct.