Reference no: EM133350306
Introduction
Summarize the previous findings that are reported in the introduction. Comment on what conclusion (hypothesis) can be drawn from these studies. Outline (in your own words) the definitions of some of the key terms discussed in this paper (e.g., Conditioned taste aversion, Conditioned context aversion, CS-UCS delay).
Remember: Using other articles and referencing them properly is a key step to this section. Don't just rely on information on this topic from this one article.
Hypothesis
What are the authors' hypotheses? What predictions were they making and why did they make them? Why was this article written and what questions did it try to answer? Why should we care?
Method
Outline the general methods the experimenters used to gather their data. Summarize the different experiments' methodologies in your own words so that a first year Psychology student could understand what took place. What were the independent variables (HINT: different groups) and dependent variables? They used a few different control groups. Make sure you explain the purpose of each control group.
Results
What did they find? Summarize the results. Explain the graphs in great detail (y-axis, x-axis) and give a description as to what they are telling you. Demonstrate that you know the point of each graph and explain how they support the authors' hypothesis. Do not be vague! Clearly state what EACH graph is showing.
Discussion
How did the authors interpret their results? Were their questions answered? What questions remained unanswered? Do you think enough evidence was provided to support their hypothesis and to refute the alternative hypotheses? How does this research expand our understanding of learning theory? Why is it important? Feel free to discuss how it is unimportant if you feel you can support that point.
Comments
What were the strengths of their methodology and what were the weaknesses? How might YOU design an experiment to answer the same questions? What experiment might you run (if you had unlimited resources) to further test their hypothesis? Do you agree with the authors' conclusions? Why or why not?