Reference no: EM132232097
Question: Please read the article "A Brief Social-Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health Outcomes of Minority Students" (Walton & Cohen, 2011), and answer the questions provided.
You will need to cite and summarize external sources for your paper (particularly for the introduction).
1. The article attempts to better understand the origins of inequality by looking at one specific issue faced by minorities in work and school. What is that issue, and why does it make sense to study it?
2. The authors suggest that subjective construal of hardships is more important than the objective number or attributes of the hardship. What does this mean, and why does this matter for this study?
3. The authors argue that there may be not only short-term effects to their intervention, but also long-term ones. Why do they think this?
4. This study included two participant variables (each with two conditions) for a total of four possible conditions. What were two variables, and what were the two conditions for each variable?
5. What were the short-term measures? What were the long-term measures?
6. What was the purpose of the fictional report that the participants read? How was the message of this report internalized?
7. Describe the trend in GPA throughout the remaining three years of college for participants in all four conditions. Who benefitted most from this intervention?
8. The researchers were not allowed to report any "raw" information on GPA, but their ability to communicate the effectiveness of the study relied on reporting GPA somehow. How did they get around this?
9. The authors argue that, even though the intervention focused on belongingness, it worked by changing how individuals view adversity and hardship. Explain their logic here.
10. Did the intervention have any effect on health? If so, what was it, and among whom was this effect found?
11. How well did participants generally remember the intervention? Why is this important to the effectiveness of the intervention?
12. The researchers describe several limitations to their intervention. What are two conditions they mention under which they do not expect to get the same effects as they did in this study?