Based on the feedback you received on your submission from last week, submit a revised draft of your paper with this additional information:Five additional references that could be used for your resea | Coursehero Solutions

Based on the feedback you received on your submission from last week, submit a revised draft of your paper with this additional information:

1. Five additional references that could be used for your research paper and include a 1-2 sentence description for each of the five additional references, explaining how they fit with the research topic and the research question proposed. Make sure that these references come from scholarly sources using Argosy’s library resources.
2. A  very detailed outline of what you would like to cover in the intro/lit review of your paper. Write it as an outline and think about what you want each paragraph or section to cover. Paste your references into each section where the information from that article applies to the topic. Below is an example of the outline although the references have not been pasted in yet:
   1. Introduction or Statement of the Problem (e.g. Predictors of Depression in Men)
      1. Research question (E.g. What factors predict depression in men? For example, age, marital status, family history, stressors).
      2. Why is it important/implications  (E.g. xx% of men are depressed; less likely to seek treatment; if we can identify who is at risk, may be able to direct them to treatment sooner)
      3. Revised hypothesis based on feedback from the instructor
   2. Review of the Literature (the following is an example for above topic):
      1. Brief description of depression, symptoms, and any unique symptoms for men (Cite articles from which you will obtain this information).
      2. How widespread is it? Stats on depression in general but also stats on depression in men (Cite articles from which you will obtain this information).
      3. List factors that put men at risk for depression (Cite articles).
         1. Difficulty communicating distress or sadness (Cite articles).
         2. Job/work pressures (Cite articles).
      4. Demographic characteristics (Cite articles).
         1. Relationship between age and depression (Cite articles).
         2. Relationship between marital status and depression (Cite articles).
3. A 1-2 page description of the sample you would like to use for your study, that provides the answer to the following questions:
   1. What sampling technique would you use?
   2. Does the sample generalize to the population? Explain why or why not.
   3. What inclusion criteria would be used? What exclusion criteria would be used, if any?
   4. What ethical issues might be encountered when collecting your information from this sample?
4. Be sure to also submit all your ten references (the five from last week and the five new ones you added) in an APA-style reference page. Be sure to also include an APA-style title page with your submission. Your paper should be at least 2-3 pages long. Make sure you write in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrate ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources; display accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Submit your assignment to the Submissions Area by the due date assigned. All written assignments and responses should follow APA rules for attributing sources.

Bekerian, D. A., & Bowers, J. M. (1983). Eyewitness testimony: Were we misled?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(1), 139.

“After individuals are given new and misleading data about a formerly observed episode, they are regularly unfit to recall the first occurrence precisely. It was guessed that the recovery environment needs adequate signals to guarantee the entrance of unique memories when test materials are randomized as for the first arrangement. 46 students saw test slides of an auto– walker mischance in an arbitrary request; another 46 Ss saw the slides in a request that coordinated the request seen amid input. Overlooking unique memories happened just under the irregular test-arrange condition. In this manner, there was no proof of loss of unique memories. Or maybe, it gives the idea that overlooking created under these strategies is because of the nonappearance of basic signals at the season of recovery that were available amid unique encoding.”

Loftus, E. F., & Hoffman, H. G. (1989). Misinformation and memory: The creation of new memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(1), 100.

“Misleading data displayed after an occasion can lead individuals to incorrect reports of that falsehood. Diverse process histories can be in charge of the same mistaken report in various individuals. We contend that the relative extent of times that the distinctive procedure histories are in charge of incorrect announcing will rely upon the states of procurement, maintenance, and recovery of data. Given the conditions average of most falsehood experiments, it creates the impression that deception acknowledgment assumes a noteworthy part, memory impedance assumes some part, and unadulterated speculating plays an almost no part. Also, we contend that deception acknowledgment has not gotten the thankfulness that it merits as a wonder deserving of our supported examination. It may not reveal to us anything about hindrance of recollections, but rather it tells us something about the production of new recollections.”

Lipton, J. P. (1977). On the psychology of eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(1), 90.

“Researched different parts of eyewitness testimony in a reproduced courtroom setting. 80 students were demonstrated a shot murder and after that affirmed about their perceptions in one of a few experimental conditions. Testimony was appraised for exactness and amount. Critical principle impacts were found for sex of witness, instantaneousness of testimony (quickly or after a 1-wk delay), testimony structure (unstructured free review or reaction to questions), question write (open-finished, driving, and different decision), and question inclination (positive, negative, and impartial). Results additionally bolster an anticipated psychological set speculation, relating exactness and amount of testimony to the specificity of the scrutinizing circumstance. The solid discoveries bear witness to the viability of observationally examining parts of courtroom techniques as a practical research paradigm.”

Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1546.

“Proposes a refinement between 2 kinds of connected eyewitness-testimony research: System-variable (SV) research examines varibles that are manipulable in genuine criminal cases (e.g., the structure of a lineup) and, in this manner, has the potential for decreasing the errors of eyewitnesses; estimator-variable (EV) research, nonetheless, explores variables that can’t be controlled in real criminal cases (e.g., qualities of the witness) and, along these lines, must be utilized as a part of the courtroom to increase or rebate the validity of eyewitnesses. SVs and EVs are appeared differently in relation to regard to their relative potential for positive commitment to criminal equity, and it is presumed that SV research may demonstrate more productive than EV research. It is additionally contended that few methodological inclinations might fuel the rate of misidentifications in arranged crime ideal models.”

Wright, D. B., Self, G., & Justice, C. (2000). Memory conformity: Exploring misinformation effects when presented by another person. British journal of psychology, 91(2), 189-202.

“Two experiments exhibit that post‐event data, when conveyed by someone else, can influence individuals’ memory reports. In the principal experiment members were demonstrated a few cars, and later, in sets, given an ‘old’/’new’ acknowledgment test on these cars in addition to a few baits. There was a little yet solid impact of memory congruity. At the point when the individual was given falsehood this brought down exactness, while introducing precise data expanded precision. In the second experiment members, in sets, saw an indistinguishable crime aside from that half observed an assistant with the hoodlum and half did not. Introductory recollections were exceptionally exact, however subsequent to talking about the crime with the other individual in the match (who saw a marginally unique arrangement), most combines acclimated. Certainty evaluations unequivocally anticipated which individual in the combine induced the other. Parallels with eyewitness testimony in the Oklahoma bombing case and suggestions for police talking with all the more by and large are examined.”

By reading all the factors I could be able to understand that the research methodology used for every fact is good enough to prove it as an evident.

Hypothesis:

“The optimality hypothesis expresses that the probability of acquiring measurably solid positive relationships of witness certainty and precision fluctuates specifically with the level of optimality of data preparing conditions display for the observer at jolt encoding, amid memory stockpiling (maintenance interim), and at memory test. The all the more almost perfect the preparing conditions are for witnesses, the more they ought to have the capacity to track precisely the ampleness of their memory execution in clearly communicated certainty evaluations. At last, a hypothetical investigation has been directed in which the optimality hypothesis has been inferred inside the system gave by flag recognition hypothesis. This examination has brought about the forecast of the normal size of the precision certainty relationship at six unique levels of exactness running from zero to abnormal states.”

References:

Bekerian, D. A., & Bowers, J. M. (1983). Eyewitness testimony: Were we misled?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(1), 139.

Loftus, E. F., & Hoffman, H. G. (1989). Misinformation and memory: The creation of new memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(1), 100.

Lipton, J. P. (1977). On the psychology of eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(1), 90.

Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1546.

Wright, D. B., Self, G., & Justice, C. (2000). Memory conformity: Exploring misinformation effects when presented by another person. British journal of psychology, 91(2), 189-202.