Please label part one and two and both of their separate parts PART 1 Post 1: Are mind and body two separate things (dualism)? Or two parts of one thing (monism)? If the body dies, does the mind die also? Is the soul something separate from body and mind? Why do scientists study the mind […]
Please read the attached pages. – respond to questions – Summary responding question Experimentalevidenceofmassive-scaleemotionalcontagionthroughsocialnetworksAdamD.I.Kramera,1,JamieE.Guilloryb,2,andJeffreyT.Hancockb,caCoreDataScienceTeam,Facebook,Inc.,MenloPark,CA94025;andDepartmentsofbCommunicationandcInformationScience,CornellUniversity,Ithaca,NY14853EditedbySusanT.Fiske,PrincetonUniversity,Princeton,NJ,andapprovedMarch25,2014(receivedforreviewOctober23,2013)Emotionalstatescanbetransferredtoothersviaemotionalcontagion,leadingpeopletoexperiencethesameemotionswithouttheirawareness.Emotionalcontagioniswellestablishedinlaboratoryexperiments,withpeopletransferringpositiveandnegativeemotionstoothers.Datafromalargereal-worldsocialnetwork,collectedovera20-yperiodsuggeststhatlonger-lastingmoods(e.g.,depression,happiness)canbetransferredthroughnetworks[FowlerJH,ChristakisNA(2008)BMJ337:a2338],al-thoughtheresultsarecontroversial.InanexperimentwithpeoplewhouseFacebook,wetestwhetheremotionalcontagionoccursoutsideofin-personinteractionbetweenindividualsbyreducingtheamountofemotionalcontentintheNewsFeed.Whenpositiveexpressionswerereduced,peopleproducedfewerpositivepostsandmorenegativeposts;whennegativeexpressionswerere-duced,theoppositepatternoccurred.TheseresultsindicatethatemotionsexpressedbyothersonFacebookinfluenceourownemotions,constitutingexperimentalevidenceformassive-scalecontagionviasocialnetworks.Thisworkalsosuggeststhat,incontrasttoprevailingassumptions,in-personinteractionandnon-verbalcuesarenotstrictlynecessaryforemotionalcontagion,andthattheobservationofothersÕpositiveexperiencesconstitutesapositiveexperienceforpeople.computer-mediatedcommunication|socialmedia|bigdataEmotionalstatescanbetransferredtoothersviaemotionalcontagion,leadingthemtoexperiencethesameemotionsasthosearoundthem.Emotionalcontagioniswellestablishedinlaboratoryexperiments(1),inwhichpeopletransferpositiveandnegativemoodsandemotionstoothers.Similarly,datafromalarge,real-worldsocialnetworkcollectedovera20-yperiodsuggeststhatlonger-lastingmoods(e.g.,depression,happiness)canbetransferredthroughnetworksaswell(2,3).TheinterpretationofthisnetworkeffectascontagionofmoodhascomeunderscrutinyduetothestudyÕscorrelationalnature,includingconcernsovermisspecificationofcontextualvariablesorfailuretoaccountforsharedexperiences(4,5),raisingim-portantquestionsregardingcontagionprocessesinnetworks.Anexperimentalapproachcanaddressthisscrutinydirectly;how-ever,methodsusedincontrolledexperimentshavebeencriti-cizedforexaminingemotionsaftersocialinteractions.Interactingwithahappypersonispleasant(andanunhappyperson,un-pleasant).Assuch,contagionmayresultfromexperiencinganinteractionratherthanexposuretoapartnerÕsemotion.Priorstudieshavealsofailedtoaddresswhethernonverbalcuesarenecessaryforcontagiontooccur,orifverbalcuesalonesuffice.Evidencethatpositiveandnegativemoodsarecorrelatedinnetworks(2,3)suggeststhatthisispossible,butthecausalquestionofwhethercontagionprocessesoccurforemotionsinmassivesocialnetworksremainselusiveintheabsenceofex-perimentalevidence.Further,othershavesuggestedthatinonlinesocialnetworks,exposuretothehappinessofothersmayactuallybedepressingtous,producinganÒalonetogetherÓsocialcomparisoneffect(6).Threestudieshavelaidthegroundworkfortestingthesepro-cessesviaFacebook,thelargestonlinesocialnetwork.Thisresearchdemonstratedthat(i)emotionalcontagionoccursviatext-basedcomputer-mediatedcommunication(7);(ii)contagionofpsy-chologicalandphysiologicalqualitieshasbeensuggestedbasedoncorrelationaldataforsocialnetworksgenerally(7,8);and(iii)peopleÕsemotionalexpressionsonFacebookpredictfriendsÕemotionalexpressions,evendayslater(7)(althoughsomesharedexperiencesmayinfactlastseveraldays).Todate,however,thereisnoexperimentalevidencethatemotionsormoodsarecontagiousintheabsenceofdirectinteractionbetweenexperiencerandtarget.OnFacebook,peoplefrequentlyexpressemotions,whicharelaterseenbytheirfriendsviaFacebookÕsÒNewsFeedÓproduct(8).BecausepeopleÕsfriendsfrequentlyproducemuchmorecontentthanonepersoncanview,theNewsFeedfiltersposts,stories,andactivitiesundertakenbyfriends.NewsFeedistheprimarymannerbywhichpeopleseecontentthatfriendsshare.WhichcontentisshownoromittedintheNewsFeedisde-terminedviaarankingalgorithmthatFacebookcontinuallydevelopsandtestsintheinterestofshowingviewersthecontenttheywillfindmostrelevantandengaging.Onesuchtestisreportedinthisstudy:Atestofwhetherpostswithemotionalcontentaremoreengaging.Theexperimentmanipulatedtheextenttowhichpeople(N=689,003)wereexposedtoemotionalexpressionsintheirNewsFeed.Thistestedwhetherexposuretoemotionsledpeopletochangetheirownpostingbehaviors,inparticularwhetherex-posuretoemotionalcontentledpeopletopostcontentthatwasconsistentwiththeexposureÑtherebytestingwhetherexposuretoverbalaffectiveexpressionsleadstosimilarverbalexpressions,aformofemotionalcontagion.PeoplewhoviewedFacebookinEnglishwerequalifiedforselectionintotheexperiment.Twoparallelexperimentswereconductedforpositiveandnegativeemotion:OneinwhichexposuretofriendsÕpositiveemotionalcontentintheirNewsFeedwasreduced,andoneinwhichex-posuretonegativeemotionalcontentintheirNewsFeedwasreduced.Intheseconditions,whenapersonloadedtheirNewsFeed,poststhatcontainedemotionalcontentoftherelevantemotionalvalence,eachemotionalposthadbetweena10%andSignificanceWeshow,viaamassive(N=689,003)experimentonFacebook,thatemotionalstatescanbetransferredtoothersviaemotionalcontagion,leadingpeopletoexperiencethesameemotionswithouttheirawareness.Weprovideexperimentalevidencethatemotionalcontagionoccurswithoutdirectinteractionbe-tweenpeople(exposuretoafriendexpressinganemotionissufficient),andinthecompleteabsenceofnonverbalcues.Authorcontributions:A.D.I.K.,J.E.G.,andJ.T.H.designedresearch;A.D.I.K.performedresearch;A.D.I.K.analyzeddata;andA.D.I.K.,J.E.G.,andJ.T.H.wrotethepaper.Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictofinterest.ThisarticleisaPNASDirectSubmission.FreelyavailableonlinethroughthePNASopenaccessoption.1Towhomcorrespondenceshouldbeaddressed.Email:[email protected]:CenterforTobaccoControlResearchandEducation,UniversityofCalifornia,SanFrancisco,CA94143.8788Ð8790|PNAS|June17,2014|vol.111|no.24www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1320040111 90%chance(basedontheirUserID)ofbeingomittedfromtheirNewsFeedforthatspecificviewing.ItisimportanttonotethatthiscontentwasalwaysavailablebyviewingafriendÕscon-tentdirectlybygoingtothatfriendÕsÒwallÓorÒtimeline,ÓratherthanviatheNewsFeed.Further,theomittedcontentmayhaveappearedonpriororsubsequentviewsoftheNewsFeed.Fi-nally,theexperimentdidnotaffectanydirectmessagessentfromoneusertoanother.Postsweredeterminedtobepositiveornegativeiftheycon-tainedatleastonepositiveornegativeword,asdefinedbyLinguisticInquiryandWordCountsoftware(LIWC2007)(9)wordcountingsystem,whichcorrelateswithself-reportedandphysiologicalmeasuresofwell-being,andhasbeenusedinpriorresearchonemotionalexpression(7,8,10).LIWCwasadaptedtorunontheHadoopMap/Reducesystem(11)andintheNewsFeedfilteringsystem,suchthatnotextwasseenbytheresearchers.Assuch,itwasconsistentwithFacebookÕsDataUsePolicy,towhichallusersagreepriortocreatinganaccountonFacebook,constitutinginformedconsentforthisresearch.Bothexperimentshadacontrolcondition,inwhichasimilarpro-portionofpostsintheirNewsFeedwereomittedentirelyatrandom(i.e.,withoutrespecttoemotionalcontent).Separatecontrolconditionswerenecessaryas22.4%ofpostscontainednegativewords,whereas46.8%ofpostscontainedpositivewords.Soforapersonforwhom10%ofpostscontainingposi-tivecontentwereomitted,anappropriatecontrolwouldwith-hold10%of46.8%(i.e.,4.68%)ofpostsatrandom,comparedwithomittingonly2.24%oftheNewsFeedinthenegativity-reducedcontrol.Theexperimentstookplacefor1wk(January11Ð18,2012).ParticipantswererandomlyselectedbasedontheirUserID,resultinginatotalof??155,000participantsperconditionwhopostedatleastonestatusupdateduringtheexperimentalperiod.Foreachexperiment,twodependentvariableswereexaminedpertainingtoemotionalityexpressedinpeopleÕsownstatusupdates:thepercentageofallwordsproducedbyagivenpersonthatwaseitherpositiveornegativeduringtheexperimentalperiod(asinref.7).Intotal,over3millionpostswereanalyzed,containingover122millionwords,4millionofwhichwerepositive(3.6%)and1.8millionnegative(1.6%).IfaffectivestatesarecontagiousviaverbalexpressionsonFacebook(ouroperationalizationofemotionalcontagion),peo-pleinthepositivity-reducedconditionshouldbelesspositivecomparedwiththeircontrol,andpeopleinthenegativity-reducedconditionshouldbelessnegative.Asasecondarymea-sure,wetestedforcross-emotionalcontagioninwhichtheoppositeemotionshouldbeinverselyaffected:Peopleinthepositivity-reducedconditionshouldexpressincreasednegativity,whereaspeopleinthenegativity-reducedconditionshouldex-pressincreasedpositivity.Emotionalexpressionwasmodeled,onaper-personbasis,asthepercentageofwordsproducedbythatpersonduringtheexperimentalperiodthatwereeitherpositiveornegative.Positivityandnegativitywereevaluatedseparatelygivenevidencethattheyarenotsimplyoppositeendsofthesamespectrum(8,10).Indeed,negativeandpositivewordusescarcelycorrelated[r=??0.04,t(620,587)=??38.01,P<0.001].Weexaminedthesedatabycomparingeachemotionconditiontoitscontrol.Afterestablishingthatourexperimentalgroupsdidnotdifferinemotionalexpressionduringtheweekbeforetheexperiment(allt0.13),weexaminedoverallpostingrateviaaPoissonregression,usingthepercentofpostsomittedasaregressionweight.Omittingemotionalcontentreducedtheamountofwordsthepersonsubsequentlyproduced,bothwhenpositivitywasreduced(z=??4.78,P<0.001)andwhennegativitywasreduced(z=??7.219,P<0.001).Thiseffectoccurredbothwhennegativewordswereomitted(99.7%asmanywordswereproduced)andwhenpositivewordswereomitted(96.7%).Aninteractionwasalsoobserved,showingthattheeffectwasstrongerwhenpositivewordswereomitted(z=??77.9,P<0.001).Assuch,directexaminationofthefrequencyofpositiveandnegativewordswouldbeinappropriate:Itwouldbeconfoundedwiththechangeinoverallwordsproduced.Totestourhypothesisregardingemotionalcontagion,weconductedweightedlinearregressions,predictingthepercentageofwordsthatwerepositiveornegativefromadummycodeforcondition(experimentalver-suscontrol),weightedbythelikelihoodofthatpersonhavinganemotionalpostomittedfromtheirNewsFeedonagivenviewing,suchthatpeoplewhohadmorecontentomittedweregivenhigherweightintheregression.WhenpositivepostswerereducedintheNewsFeed,thepercentageofpositivewordsinpeopleÕsstatusupdatesdecreasedbyB=??0.1%comparedwithcontrol[t(310,044)=??5.63,P<0.001,CohenÕsd=0.02],whereasthepercentageofwordsthatwerenegativeincreasedbyB=0.04%(t=2.71,P=0.007,d=0.001).Conversely,whennegativepostswerereduced,thepercentofwordsthatwerenegativedecreasedbyB=??0.07%[t(310,541)=??5.51,P<0.001,d=0.02]andthepercentageofwordsthatwerepositive,conversely,increasedbyB=0.06%(t=2.19,P<0.003,d=0.008).Theresultsshowemotionalcontagion.AsFig.1illustrates,forpeoplewhohadpositivecontentreducedintheirNewsFeed,alargerpercentageofwordsinpeopleÕsstatusupdateswerenegativeandasmallerpercentagewerepositive.Whennegativitywasreduced,theoppositepatternoccurred.Theseresultssug-gestthattheemotionsexpressedbyfriends,viaonlinesocialnetworks,influenceourownmoods,constituting,toourknowl-edge,thefirstexperimentalevidenceformassive-scaleemotionalcontagionviasocialnetworks(3,7,8),andprovidingsupportforpreviouslycontestedclaimsthatemotionsspreadviacontagionthroughanetwork.Theseresultshighlightseveralfeaturesofemotionalconta-gion.First,becauseNewsFeedcontentisnotÒdirectedÓtowardanyone,contagioncouldnotbejusttheresultofsomespecificinteractionwithahappyorsadpartner.Althoughpriorresearchexaminedwhetheranemotioncanbecontractedviaadirectinteraction(1,7),weshowthatsimplyfailingtoÒoverhearÓafriendÕsemotionalexpressionviaFacebookisenoughtobuffer??1.505.05.15.25.35.4??1.80??1.70??1.60Positive Words (per cent)Negative Words (per cent)Negativity ReducedPositivity ReducedControlExperimentalFig.1.Meannumberofpositive(Upper)andnegative(Lower)emotionwords(percent)generatedpeople,bycondition.Barsrepresentstandarderrors.Krameretal.PNAS|June17,2014|vol.111|no.24|8789PSYCHOLOGICALANDCOGNITIVESCIENCES onefromitseffects.Second,althoughnonverbalbehavioriswellestablishedasonemediumforcontagion,thesedatasuggestthatcontagiondoesnotrequirenonverbalbehavior(7,8):Textualcontentaloneappearstobeasufficientchannel.Thisisnotasimplecaseofmimicry,either;thecross-emotionalencourage-menteffect(e.g.,reducingnegativepostsledtoanincreaseinpositiveposts)cannotbeexplainedbymimicryalone,althoughmimicrymaywellhavebeenpartoftheemotion-consistenteffect.Further,wenotethesimilarityofeffectsizeswhenpositivityandnegativitywerereduced.Thisabsenceofnegativitybiassuggeststhatourresultscannotbeattributedsolelytothecontentofthepost:Ifapersonissharinggoodnewsorbadnews(thusexplaininghis/heremotionalstate),friendsÕresponsetothenews(in-dependentofthesharerÕsemotionalstate)shouldbestrongerwhenbadnewsisshownratherthangood(orascommonlynoted,Òifitbleeds,itleads;Óref.12)iftheresultswerebeingdrivenbyreactionstonews.Incontrast,aresponsetoafriendÕsemotionexpression(ratherthannews)shouldbeproportionaltoexposure.Aposthoctestcomparingeffectsizes(comparingcorrelationcoefficientsusingFisherÕsmethod)showednodifferencede-spiteourlargesamplesize(z=??0.36,P=0.72).Wealsoobservedawithdrawaleffect:Peoplewhowereex-posedtofeweremotionalposts(ofeithervalence)intheirNewsFeedwerelessexpressiveoverallonthefollowingdays,ad-dressingthequestionabouthowemotionalexpressionaffectssocialengagementonline.Thisobservation,andthefactthatpeopleweremoreemotionallypositiveinresponsetopositiveemotionupdatesfromtheirfriends,standsincontrasttotheoriesthatsuggestviewingpositivepostsbyfriendsonFacebookmaysomehowaffectusnegatively,forexample,viasocialcomparison(6,13).Infact,thisistheresultwhenpeopleareexposedtolesspositivecontent,ratherthanmore.Thiseffectalsoshowednonegativitybiasinposthoctests(z=??0.09,P=0.93).Althoughthesedataprovide,toourknowledge,someofthefirstexperimentalevidencetosupportthecontroversialclaimsthatemotionscanspreadthroughoutanetwork,theeffectsizesfromthemanipulationsaresmall(assmallasd=0.001).Theseeffectsnonethelessmattergiventhatthemanipulationoftheindependentvariable(presenceofemotionintheNewsFeed)wasminimalwhereasthedependentvariable(peopleÕsemo-tionalexpressions)isdifficulttoinfluencegiventherangeofdailyexperiencesthatinfluencemood(10).Moreimportantly,giventhemassivescaleofsocialnetworkssuchasFacebook,evensmalleffectscanhavelargeaggregatedconsequences(14,15):Forexample,thewell-documentedconnectionbetweenemotionsandphysicalwell-beingsuggeststheimportanceofthesefindingsforpublichealth.Onlinemessagesinfluenceourexperienceofemotions,whichmayaffectavarietyofofflinebehaviors.Andafterall,aneffectsizeofd=0.001atFacebookÕsscaleisnotnegligible:Inearly2013,thiswouldhavecorre-spondedtohundredsofthousandsofemotionexpressionsinstatusupdatesperday.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.WethanktheFacebookNewsFeedteam,especiallyDanielSchafer,forencouragementandsupport;theFacebookCoreDataScienceteam,especiallyCameronMarlow,MoiraBurke,andEytanBakshy;plusMichaelMacyandMathewAldridgefortheirfeedback.Dataprocessingsystems,per-useraggregates,andanonymizedresultsavailableuponrequest.1.HatfieldE,CacioppoJT,RapsonRL(1993)Emotionalcontagion.CurrDirPsycholSci2(3):96Ð100.2.FowlerJH,ChristakisNA(2008)Dynamicspreadofhappinessinalargesocialnetwork:Longitudinalanalysisover20yearsintheFraminghamHeartStudy.BMJ337:a2338.3.RosenquistJN,FowlerJH,ChristakisNA(2011)Socialnetworkdeterminantsofde-pression.MolPsychiatry16(3):273Ð281.4.Cohen-ColeE,FletcherJM(2008)Isobesitycontagious?Socialnetworksvs.environ-mentalfactorsintheobesityepidemic.JHealthEcon27(5):1382Ð1387.5.AralS,MuchnikL,SundararajanA(2009)Distinguishinginfluence-basedcontagionfromhomophily-drivendiffusionindynamicnetworks.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA106(51):21544Ð21549.6.TurkleS(2011)AloneTogether:WhyWeExpectMorefromTechnologyandLessfromEachOther(BasicBooks,NewYork).7.GuilloryJ,etal.(2011)Upsetnow?Emotioncontagionindistributedgroups.ProcACMCHIConfonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems(AssociationforComputingMachinery,NewYork),pp745Ð748.8.KramerADI(2012)ThespreadofemotionviaFacebook.ProcCHI(AssociationforComputingMachinery,NewYork),pp767Ð770.9.PennebakerJW,ChungCK,IrelandM,GonzalesA,BoothRJ(2007)ThedevelopmentandpsychologicalpropertiesofLIWC2007.Availableathttp://liwc.net/howliwcworks.php.AccessedMay10,2014.10.GolderSA,MacyMW(2011)Diurnalandseasonalmoodvarywithwork,sleep,anddaylengthacrossdiversecultures.Science333(6051):1878Ð1881.11.ThusooA;FacebookDataInfrastructureTeam(2009)HiveÐAwarehousingsolutionoveramap-reduceframework.ProcVLDB2(2):1626Ð1629.12.BaumeisterRF,BratslavskyE,FinkenauerC,VohsKD(2001)Badisstrongerthangood.RevGenPsychol5(4):323Ð370.13.FestingerL(1954)Atheoryofsocialcomparisonprocesses.HumRelat7(2):117Ð140.14.PrenticeDA,MillerDT(1992)Whensmalleffectsareimpressive.PsycholBull112(1):160Ð164.15.BondRM,etal.(2012)A61-million-personexperimentinsocialinfluenceandpoliticalmobilization.Nature489(7415):295Ð298.8790|www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1320040111Krameretal. EditorialExpressionofConcernandCorrectionPSYCHOLOGICALANDCOGNITIVESCIENCESPNASispublishinganEditorialExpressionofConcernre-gardingthefollowingarticle:ÒExperimentalevidenceofmassive-scaleemotionalcontagionthroughsocialnetworks,ÓbyAdamD.I.Kramer,JamieE.Guillory,andJeffreyT.Hancock,whichappearedinissue24,June17,2014,ofProcNatlAcadSciUSA(111:8788Ð8790;firstpublishedJune2,2014;10.1073/pnas.1320040111).Thispaperrepresentsanimportantandemerg-ingareaofsocialscienceresearchthatneedstobeapproachedwithsensitivityandwithvigilanceregardingpersonalprivacyissues.Questionshavebeenraisedabouttheprinciplesofinformedconsentandopportunitytooptoutinconnectionwiththere-searchinthispaper.Theauthorsnotedintheirpaper,Ò[Thework]wasconsistentwithFacebookÕsDataUsePolicy,towhichallusersagreepriortocreatinganaccountonFacebook,con-stitutinginformedconsentforthisresearch.ÓWhentheauthorspreparedtheirpaperforpublicationinPNAS,theystatedthat:ÒBecausethisexperimentwasconductedbyFacebook,Inc.forinternalpurposes,theCornellUniversityIRB[InstitutionalRe-viewBoard]determinedthattheprojectdidnotfallunderCor-nellÕsHumanResearchProtectionProgram.ÓThisstatementhassincebeenconfirmedbyCornellUniversity.ObtaininginformedconsentandallowingparticipantstooptoutarebestpracticesinmostinstancesundertheUSDepartmentofHealthandHumanServicesPolicyfortheProtectionofHumanResearchSubjects(theÒCommonRuleÓ).AdherencetotheCom-monRuleisPNASpolicy,butasaprivatecompanyFacebookwasundernoobligationtoconformtotheprovisionsoftheCommonRulewhenitcollectedthedatausedbytheauthors,andtheCommonRuledoesnotprecludetheiruseofthedata.Basedontheinformationprovidedbytheauthors,PNASeditorsdeemeditappropriatetopublishthepaper.ItisneverthelessamatterofconcernthatthecollectionofthedatabyFacebookmayhaveinvolvedpracticesthatwerenotfullyconsistentwiththeprin-ciplesofobtaininginformedconsentandallowingparticipantstooptout.InderM.VermaEditor-in-Chiefwww.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1412469111PSYCHOLOGICALANDCOGNITIVESCIENCESCorrectionforÒExperimentalevidenceofmassive-scaleemotionalcontagionthroughsocialnetworks,ÓbyAdamD.I.Kramer,JamieE.Guillory,andJeffreyT.Hancock,whichappearedinissue24,June17,2014,ofProcNatlAcadSciUSA(111:8788Ð8790;firstpublishedJune2,2014;10.1073/pnas.1320040111).Theauthorsnotethat,ÒAtthetimeofthestudy,themiddleauthor,JamieE.Guillory,wasagraduatestudentatCornellUniversityunderthetutelageofseniorauthorJeffreyT.Hancock,alsoofCornellUniversity(GuilloryisnowapostdoctoralfellowatCenterforTobaccoControlResearchandEducation,UniversityofCalifornia,SanFrancisco,CA94143).ÓTheauthorandaf-filiationlineshavebeenupdatedtoreflecttheabovechangesandapresentaddressfootnotehasbeenadded.Theonlineversionhasbeencorrected.Thecorrectedauthorandaffiliationlinesappearbelow.AdamD.I.Kramera,1,JamieE.Guilloryb,2,andJeffreyT.Hancockb,caCoreDataScienceTeam,Facebook,Inc.,MenloPark,CA94025;andDepartmentsofbCommunicationandcInformationScience,CornellUniversity,Ithaca,NY148531Towhomcorrespondenceshouldbeaddressed.Email:[email protected]:CenterforTobaccoControlResearchandEducation,UniversityofCalifornia,SanFrancisco,CA94143.www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1412583111www.pnas.orgPNAS|July22,2014|vol.111|no.29|10779CORRECTION Cognitive Capstone Spring 2023Ethics Reading AssignmentName: _______________________________Facebook StudyKramer, A. D., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scaleemotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National […]
Do Jungian Archetypes Exist? Please download and read the argument analysis instructions Download argument analysis instructionsvery carefully. This document includes instructions for the argument analysis paperand the argument analysis discussion posts. An example of a argument analysis Download example of a argument analysispaper can be found here. The articles you will read this week: Becker […]
Compare and contrast a minimum of three theoretical models of decision-making mentioned in the textbook (Holzer & Schwester, 2019) or module resources (e.g., Rational Model, Administrative Model, etc.). Describe the main elements of each theoretical model as well as what you perceive to be its strengths and weaknesses. Conclude the discussion with an explanation about […]
The purpose of the assignment is for students to review a recent (within the past five years) qualitative study focused on a population or presenting problem of relevance to counseling psychology and of interest to the student. The chosen study must use individual, in-depth, qualitative interviewing as the method of data collection. The first part […]
The incubation rates for the mysterious "O" virus has been recorded in days. The number of days ranges from 5 – 37. 05062223341717263725171030062233062210271037132619272131221514281713282234171310 Arrange your data into an array. Select your intervals. Explain your rationale for the intervals you selected. Construct a frequency table. Remember, your frequency table should include class interval, frequency, relative frequency […]
Chapter 3 discusses emotional development and regulation in infancy. Erikson proposes that individuals navigate the psychosocial crisis of Autonomy versus shame and doubt between the age range of eighteen months to three years of age. 1.) Define "autonomy" and "shame and doubt" using your own words as it relates to this psychosocial crisis. Why are […]
Below is a 5 minute meditation video. Do the exercise then discuss how you felt during the meditation. Did it help? Why or why not? What were some challenges for you if any? Would you do it again? link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssss7V1_eyA&feature=youtu.be 400 words APA format
Order Instructions As covered earlier in class, several types of groups exist in various environments and for various reasons. Select three types of groups from the class resources. Write a 1,500- to 2,000-word compare and contrast paper about the three different groups. Include the following in your paper: A description of each of the […]
Order Instructions Describe how psychiatric assessment could differentiate between social anxiety disorder (social phobia) and agoraphobia. Be sure to describe your approach to assessment.