This assignment started off by reading an article about randomized controlled trials, and why they are considered the “gold standard” for intervention research. After this, we got to browse a list of internet-based therapy studies, and choose one to read in full. After reading, I made a discussion board post, including what the internet-based intervention was, how the internet-based intervention was conducted, who the participants were, what the control condition was, the results, what I think contributed to the success of the internet-based intervention, and if I have personal experience with the area the intervention wanted to treat.

From the article about randomized controlled trials, it first discusses that it is a type of experiment that tries to reduce bias when a new treatment is being tested. Randomization lowers selection bias, and can allow for information about adverse effects to be provided. After the randomization happens, both groups are tracked in the same way. It is important to note that randomized controlled trials are different from randomized trials, randomized clinical trials, and randomized comparative trials.

Moving into the study I read, my discussion board post provides a detailed representation about what the study was about, how it was conducted, and what it found.

I chose to read Peters et al.’s (2017) study, called “Happy Despite Pain- A Randomized Controlled Trial of an 8-Week Internet-delivered Positive Psychology Intervention for Enhancing Well-being in Patients With Chronic Pain”. In this study, one internet-based intervention was positive psychology, and another condition relied on a cognitive-behavioral program. They were both designed to treat people with chronic pain. 

These forms of intervention were conducted in the same format, each having 8 online modules, one available per week, which included practical assignments and information about the topic for the week, and they also received telephone and email support. More specifically, the cognitive behavioral program wanted to teach participants how to actively manage their pain, through exercises about relaxation, stretching, and relapse prevention. The positive psychology condition focused on positive behaviors, emotions, and thoughts through activities such as a self-compassion diary and focusing on raising awareness for the good things in life. 

The participants had to be “above 18 years, having musculoskeletal pain for longer than 3 months, either generalized pain (ie, fibromyalgia) or localized in back, neck or shoulders, good command of Dutch, and having access to the internet”. After excluding some people for not meeting requirements or not returning their consent, the sample was 284 people. 

I already mentioned the comparison condition of cognitive-behavioral therapy, but there was also a control condition. In this control condition, the members were given access to the pre-treatment surveys, and after an 8 week waiting period, they were asked to complete post measurements. They were classified as a “waitlist control”. 

The study found that both the positive psychology and cognitive behavioral programs lead to increased happiness and decreased depression. There were no significant differences in physical impairments between the control group and the treatment groups. One more important result to note is that for higher educated patients, they tended to benefit more from the positive psychology treatment than the cognitive behavioral treatment. 

I think there are many reasons that could contribute to the success of both programs, for example, for the positive psychology program, I mentioned that they focused on things such as raising the awareness for the good things in life, and if someone realizes how many great things they have in their life, it makes sense that they would report higher levels of happiness. Similarly, the topics for the cognitive-behavioral program focused on things such as relaxation, which can be related to blocking out the bad things such as pain and sadness, and bringing in happy, peaceful thoughts. One more reason I think the programs were successful was that the phone calls and emails they received throughout the study included many thank you’s and optimism about continuing with the program. This may have made the participants feel like they were cared for and appreciated, which could make them happy.

In terms of personal experience with the interventions, I have learned about both positive psychology and cognitive-behavioral therapy in various courses throughout college. However, I have not done my own research surrounding them, and have not been through any of these treatments myself. Additionally, I have luckily never dealt with chronic pain, which the intervention was designed to treat. 

Reflecting on this assignment, it was nice to start off by reading an article providing information on randomized controlled trials. I had heard of them before and thought I knew what they were, but it was nice to refresh my memory and confirm my thoughts. It is always good to provide background information about certain types of research before diving into actual research articles.

Additionally, I have said it before and I will say it again, I really appreciated the choice we got in this assignment. We got to decide which of the 15 research articles we wanted to read. This allowed me to choose a topic I am interested in (Positive psychology), which in-turn made me more engaged when reading the article and completing the discussion board post. Giving a choice may not seem like a big deal, but it is much appreciated to me.

The discussion board post included a lot of different things to explain from the study, but I felt that this made me more focused on the details of the assignment. It allowed me to think critically about the study, what happened in it, and how this can relate to my own life. So, doing the extra work paid off in the long run, because it led to a greater understanding and appreciation of the research.

This assignment started off by watching Professor Gernsbacher’s lecture video, titled “Internet Addiction”. Following this, we had to imagine that referring to Psych 532, one of our friends asked us “Isn’t that course all about Internet addiction and other negative effects of the Internet?”. Finally, we had to make a discussion board post in which we answered this question, including at least 4 points from the lecture video.

The lecture video for this assignment was fairly short and most of the main points were included in my discussion board post, so I will include this below so you can see what the video taught me.

If a friend asked me, “Isn’t that course all about Internet addiction and other negative effects of the Internet?”, I would respond with a resounding “No”. 

Professor Gernsbacher described in her lecture video that we have studied how the internet impacts “learning, memory, attention, perception, education, development, aging, social interaction, personality, emotions, motivation, decision making, judgment, and more”. This point from the video shoots down the claim that this course would just be about internet addiction, or a couple topics related to that, and displays that the course has explored an incredible amount of topics related to the effects of the internet.

The second point from the video builds off the first point, and it is that the course focuses both on positive and negative effects of the internet. Professor Gernsbacher reinforces that it is important to mention that there are some negative effects, such as cyberbullying, cheating, and negative emotional contagion that have been covered. However, we have covered numerous positive effects, and those have definitely outweighed the negative effects we have gone over.

Thirdly, she mentions that there is “considerable debate about whether internet addiction is even real, meaning whether it’s really an addiction”. So, this assignment is talking about possibility of internet addiction, but it would be hard to structure a course around internet addiction when it may not truly be an addiction! She discussed that many previous technologies have been feared, which lead to worries about addiction to each technology, and those fears and worries have faded over time, which could happen with the internet too. 

A fourth point is that even if some additions are related to the internet, the internet may just be the medium, rather than the actual addiction. Professor Gernsbacher described that people may be addicted to internet-based gaming, gambling, pornography, or shopping, but that these individuals were likely addicted to the non-internet forms of these activities beforehand. 

So, to the friend who is asking, these are just four points to emphasize that this course is not all about Internet addiction and other negative effects of the Internet. Although those play a role in the course, it is merely part of it, not the whole!

Reflecting on this assignment, the first thing that stuck out to me was that it was pretty quick and had a very short list of actions to complete. I appreciated this because it is the first assignment of the unit, and it is one of the last units. However, just because it was short does not mean I did not learn anything or that it was not valuable. I definitely learned from the video and the points it made.

I thought the video made some excellent points. For one thing, it included some review by listing some of the topics we have went through previously in the course. For example, it listed that we discussed learning memory, attention, etc. Another review aspect was the part that discussed how humans have always feared new technologies. Seeing similar themes from the beginning to the end of the course is pretty cool, allowing me to solidify them and my brain and validate that they are strong points!

I also liked how the video chose to question if internet addiction is even real, and then categorize it between different forms of internet addiction such as the ones mentioned earlier in this post. I had not really thought about this before, so I was glad that it alluded to these points. I agree that if someone is addicted to something like online gambling, it is likely that they were addicted to offline gambling first.

One last little thing is that I think it is cool when our discussion board posts aren’t just labeled as a post, but as a response to a question from someone we know. This makes it more personal, and allows me to think about what I would say if one of my friends actually asked me a question like this offline!

Since I have caught up to our current assignment in our current unit, and there are 6 assignments in a 7 day week, there will not always be an assignment for me to blog about every single day. However, the term project instructions state that this is a daily blog, so I still have to post, and am going to do a quick reflection on the unit as a whole, including what I learned and what I feel about the assignments for the week in general.

Starting with the first assignment, we had the chance to take the Five Factor Personality Test and the Big Five Personality test. We learned about these 5 personality traits of extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. We learned that these traits vary from person to person, and that they are all on a spectrum, rather than purely being extroverted or introverted, for example. We also learned about the difference between affect and effect, and my main takeaway was that “effect” is generally used as a noun, and “affect” as a verb.

The main takeaways from second assignment were the meaning of “proportion of variance explained”, and how the big five personality factors explain certain internet use and choices. Essentially, I have described proportion of variance explained before, but essentially it relates to how much of a dependent variable outcome, such as internet use, can be attributed to a certain independent variable, such as level of neuroticism. The results show that for the most part, the big five personality factors do not explain a significant proportion of variance, however, sometimes extraversion does explain a significant proportion of the variance for some internet variables.

The third assignment included responding to 2 students’ posts from assignment one of this unit. This was not aimed at learning new course material, but allowed the students to get to know one another’s personalities, and who they are most similar to and different from.

The fourth assignment was where we watched a lecture video about selfies and then got to choose a question we wanted to answer, and completed the set of activities with that question. From the lecture video, we learned that selfies are super popular now, but have actually been around dating back to the 1830’s. Additionally, we learned that contrary to some reports, selfie taking is not related to narcissism and psychopathy. Fro my question, I chose to read about a court case regarding monkey selfies, and learned that a monkey took selfies on an abandoned camera in the forest. PETA sued the person who owned the camera for using the selfies the monkey took, and eventually an agreement was made where a proportion of the photo earnings would go to preserving macaque habitats.

The fifth assignment revolved around the concept of humble bragging, where a person tries to use sympathy while also impressing another person. We learned that it is associated with the opposite effects from what it is intended for, as it decreases perceived liking and competence, among other things.

The sixth assignment was the traditional review sheet and then term project update document. It allows us to review old and new material and also showcase how far we have come on our project so far.

Reflecting on this unit, I think it was actually one of my favorite units. The first reason for this was that we got to take personality tests and also compare answers with others. I have always found tests like this to be very interesting, and being able to see what others scored was cool as well, to see who was registered as similar to me, or different from me. These thing brought fun to the unit, rather than feeling like an obligation.

Additionally, this unit brought some learning of terms I was not very familiar with. For example, going into the unit, I did not really know what “proportion of variance explained” or “humblebragging” were. Even though I had seen and heard about those concepts in my daily life, I did not have a great enough understanding of them to have specific terms in my head to name them. So, assignments 2 and 5 did a great job of giving me knowledge about somewhat unfamiliar concepts.

Also, assignment 4 also brought some very interesting points that I really enjoyed learning about. I did not know that selfies went back so far in history, or of any reported monkey selfies. This assignment combined learning and fun, which showcases the ultimate experience!

So, overall, I am very happy with what this unit was composed of. I learned a lot, I enjoyed a lot, and the assignments were pretty valuable for the most part. I hope the final 2 units can be as good as this one was!

This assignment began by completing the unit 12 review sheet. Following this, I continued to work on my term project, and had to write up a document that explained the work I have done so far in total, including a screenshot that documents my progress. Finally, I had to turn in my review sheet and term project update document in to canvas through an assignment link.

Per usual, the review sheet was cumulative, so I first filled out the pages for units one through eleven, and then began to tackle unit twelve. For unit 12, it first asked me to identify the five factors in the Big Five Factor Personality theory, to which I listed extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness/openness to experience.

Next, it asked me to explain what “proportion of variance accounted for” means and describe how little of the variance in Internet activities is accounted for by personality factors. I explained that regular variance is essentially how much people differ on a dependent variable, such as how much someone uses Facebook. Then, you can try to predict a dependent variable value based on an independent variable value. So, building off of my other example, this could be like using a person’s extraversion score to try to predict how often they use Facebook. So, moving into what “proportion of variance explained” means, you can compare your predicted dependent variable value to the actual dependent variable value, and see how close they are to one another. The closer these two numbers are to one another, the greater the proportion of variance explained. For example, if the extraversion scores led to a perfect prediction of Facebook use scores, all of the variance would be explained by that variable.

According to the tables from assignment 2, most Big Five Personality factors do not explain much of the variance in variables related to internet use. Out of the five factors, extraversion was the only one that somewhat regularly explained a substantial amount of the variance in internet use. It can be noted that physical, verbal, vicarious, and overall sadism can explain a solid chunk of enjoyment in trolling, and that factors such as age and gender can sometimes explain a slim to moderate proportion of internet use. However, these are not Big Five Personality factors, which only explain a very minor amount of the variance in internet activities.

Finally, it asked me list four famous selfies made prior to the Internet. My first example was that in 1839, a young Philadelphian, Robert Cornelius, took what is considered one of the very first portraits. This was the same year that photography was invented. Second, in 1914, teenage Grand Duchess Anastasia, daughter of Tsar Nicholas the Second, took a selfie using a mirror. Third, in 1966, British musician and Beatles member George Harrison took a selfie in front of the Taj Mahal, with a fish-eye lens. Fourth, in 1966, U.S. astronaut Buzz Aldran, the second person to ever walk on the moon, took a selfie during one of his famed space walks.

Moving on to the term project update, I reiterated that my term project is to create daily journals in which I itemize the course content and provide my detailed reflections, which I do through the medium of a blog, through the Word Press Website. 

Explaining the work I have done so far on the project, to date I have made 70 blog posts. There is a blog post for every single assignment of this course that we have completed. For many weeks when I started the term project, I had to make multiple blog posts a day to try to catch up to the more current units. However, now I make one post daily, because I am caught up to our current unit. In each post, I explain what steps we had to complete, what I learned from the readings, videos and activities, and then how I felt about the assignment as a whole. 

At the bottom of the document, I made sure to include a screenshot of a list of the recent blog posts I have made, and mentioned that I continue to spend more than 2 hours per unit working on my blog posts, surpassing the recommended amount. 

Reflecting on this assignment, as usual, the review sheet was helpful in reminding me of information from previous units. As I go about my busy life and focus on the current week, I often do not get to think back to previous material, but this sheet allows me to do just that. The more I interact with it, the more I remember the information from the course, which is a plus. Filling out the page from the current unit is also helpful because it is fresh in my memory, and allows me to apply what I have learned in the past few days.

Additionally, the term project document was very standard. Since it always just asks for the “work I have done so far”, I essentially always describe the same things, about what the project is, how it works, and things along those lines. However, it always does remind me of the massive amount of overall work I have put into it overall, which is nice. 70 blog posts is a lot, especially when you take a solid chunk of time on each one!

That is really all I can say about this assignment, since it really does not change much from unit to unit. Not that it is a bad thing, there is just nothing much else to “reflect” on.

This assignment started off by reading a few definitions of the word “humblebrag”. After this, we had to read the abstract, introduction, and discussion of Sezer, Gina, and Norton’s (2017) paper about humblebragging. Next, based on my last name, I had to read studies 1a, 1b, and 1c from the paper I just mentioned. Next we had to conduct our 1 hour chat with our chat groups, discussing the definition of humblebragging, whether each of us have experienced humblebragging, when and where did we experienced it, how we feel hearing someone else’s humblebrag, explaining the purpose of the paper we read and the general results from the abstract and discussion, explaining how each of the studies in the paper were conducted, what the results were, what the results suggest, and what we would tell a close friend the next time they humblebragged about the likely effects of their humblebrag. The assignment finished with completing our required group tasks, so I posted a transcript of the chat on canvas.

From the first document, they defined humblebragging as making a seemingly modest statement that is used to draw attention to one’s positive or impressive traits or accomplishments.

Moving on to the paper, rather than explaining each individual study, I will summarize most of the main points. The first takeaway was the humblebragging is very common in today’s society, with most people having reported hearing someone else do it. Additionally, complaint-based humble brags are more frequently used than humility-based humble brags, however, they are less effective. A main point of the study was that both of these forms of humble bragging have negative consequences, including reduced liking, perceived competence, and compliance with requests, and that straightforward bragging is more effective. So, even though humblebragging is utilized because people want to target sympathy and impress people, this does not end up working on either of these levels.

Moving on to the chat group, we started off by describing the definition of humblebragging, which I listed earlier in the post. Me and both my other chat group members have all experienced humblebragging and gave examples, and one of the members, Seraph, detailed how Asian people may take part in this because they are generally modest and so they do not like to outright brag. We all agreed that we do not like hearing humblebragging, and it makes us all frustrated when others do it.

After this, we moved on to describing the specific studies from the paper, I explained 1a, 1b, and 1c, Erin described studies 2 and 4, and Seraph explained studies 3a and 3b. These explanations were long-winded and I do not think it would make much sense to include all of our explanations in the post. However, from these studies, we learned about all the main takeaways of the paper, which I discussed in the 3rd paragraph of this post.

Reflecting on this assignment, I appreciated the first document that gave a definition of humblebragging and gave some examples, because I had never actually heard the term before. I definitely had experienced the concept before, but never had thought to put a label to it. So, starting out by learning the definition was a good idea.

Next, I think the paper was very well written, and easy to understand. At first I misread the instructions and actually read the whole paper, so it took me a super long time. However, I felt that I really learned some things from it, and that I could apply the results to my daily life. Now, when I recognize people who are humblebragging, I will know the negative consequences associated with it, and I can let them know.

Additionally, I enjoyed the structure of the chat group. It was a good mix of summarization and applying the material to our own experiences. For example, summarizing the definition of the word as well as explaining how all the studies were conducted were both valuable parts of the assignment, to make sure we understood the study and the concepts related to it. Building off this, we had to talk about our own experiences with the humblebragging, as well as what we would tell a friend in the future if we heard them taking part in it, which allowed me to put my own personal spin on things.

This topic was very interesting in general too. This is not something I really hear people discussing, and I certainly had not seen any previous research related to humblebragging. It is a great example of Professor Gernsbacher finding a great variety of topics for her students to explore. It allows me to maintain interest in engaging with the material!

This assignment started off by watching a lecture video on selfies. After this, I explored the question of “Who owns the copyright to a monkey’s selfie?” by reading 3 articles related to the topic. Following this, I had to make a discussion board post, explaining two aspects of selfies from Professor Gernsbacher’s lecture video that surprised me the most and why, answer the question I was exploring, and say why I chose to answer that question.

From professor Gernsbacher’s lecture video, she started off by explaining the current popularity of the selfie, including how it got named word of the year in 2013 and how many celebrities have been documented taking selfies. The next portion of her video discusses that humans have actually been fond of taking selfies for many centuries, much before the invention of the Internet, going back all the way to the 1830’s. I will discuss some examples of these later. Finally, she discusses some reports on how selfies were related to narcissism and psychopathy, and dismisses the claims, explaining that they misreported the findings.

My discussion board post starts off by diving into my reactions to the points from the video. The first aspect of selfies ]that surprised me the most was that humans have been fond of taking selfies for centuries, much before the internet. Examples were given of selfies all the way back until 1839, when Robert Cornelius took one, less than two months after the invention of photography. This surprises me so much because I think of selfies as a modern phenomenon, and would have expected that they did not really occur before the last couple of decades. It is crazy to know how far back the history of selfies really goes!

The second aspect that surprises me is that people thought that selfies were related to psychopathy and narcissism, based on reports from studies. This surprises me because I view selfies as something that regular people do, by themselves, with friends, or with family. And, in fact, according to the lecture, the actual research shows that what is actually happening is that people who post a lot of selfies just post a lot of other photos. This explains 34% of the variance, compared to only 3 or 4 percent for psychopathy and narcissism.

As I mentioned previously, the question I chose to explore was “Who owns the rights to a monkey’s selfie?”. The situation is explained well in a 2015 article by David Kravets, who states “The monkey, the named plaintiff in the case, is suing a publisher and David Slater, the British nature photographer whose camera was swiped by an ape while the photographer was on a jungle shoot. Slater has published a book with the pictures the monkey took of himself, and the monkey is seeking damages for copyright infringement”.

Moving forward, according to a 2016 article also by David Kravets, a federal judge said that the monkey “cannot own the intellectual property rights to those handful of pictures”. Additionally, on the other end, “The US Copyright Office says Slater cannot own the rights” to the photos. More recently, according to an article by Thanawala (2018), the lawyers for both parties reached a settlement in which “the photographer whose camera was used to take the photos agreed to donate 25 percent of any future revenue from the images to charities dedicated to protecting crested macaques in Indonesia”.

So, wrapping up the question, since the lawyers asked the judges not to rule, and they reached this settlement, it seems as if there is no direct answer to who owns the rights to the selfies. However, Slater can continue to use the selfies, so he benefits, but also some revenue goes to helping protect the monkeys in Indonesia, so that party benefits too. So, in the end, it worked out fairly well overall. 

I chose to answer this question merely because it sounded comical and interesting. I did not really know of any monkeys taking selfies previously, so it intrigued me. I guess I just viewed it as such a human practice that I did not think other animals would join in on the fun!

Reflecting on this assignment, I thought the topic of the lecture video was very relatable to my generation, which made it interesting. I am not someone who takes a ton of selfies, but they are so incredibly common overall, so I was excited to learn a bit more about them. Learning about their deep history was surprising but cool. I also liked how professor Gernsbacher took the time to contradict the claims of the reports about selfies, because it showcased how the media does not always accurately portray research results.

Additionally, I really enjoyed that we got the chance to choose which set of activities we wanted to complete. As I have mentioned in a few previous blog posts, getting the choice allows me to be more interested and engaged in the assignment, because it relates to something I care about exploring. For example, I enjoyed reading the articles about the monkey case, because the topic was very interesting and something I did not know about.

This assignment didn’t have a ton of steps, so I do not have much more to reflect on. However, the topics presented were interesting and allowed for critical thinking and some modification of previous perspectives. So, overall, with some learning and some fun, this assignment was certainly worthwhile!

This assignment started off by reading all of the other students’ posts from unit 12 assignment 1, which was about personality traits. after reading these, we had to remind ourselves of the best way to respond to discussion board posts by reviewing the course syllabus. Finally, we had to respond to the posts of 2 students, one being to a student whose Big Five Personality profile is the most similar to ours, and the other being to a student whose Big Five Personality profile is the least similar to ours.

I first responded to a girl named Holly, who’s Big Five Personality profile is the most similar to mine. Her results for Extraversion were 36 and 77%, and mine were 35 and 73%. For Conscientiousness, she scored 40 and 73%, and mine were 44 and 81%. For Agreeableness, she scored 32 and 77%, and I scored 31 and 75%. For Openness, she scored 30 and 77%, and I scored 25 and 67%. Finally, for Neuroticism she scored 18 and 48%, while I scored 10 and 12.5%.

So, her and I were both lowest on neuroticism and relatively high on the other 4 personality traits.

I expressed that I like how she decided to showcase her results both through words and through the pictures of your results. In the assignment instructions, they told us to save our results, but I think she was the only person who actually included them in their post. It was definitely a great idea, and showed that she was paying attention to detail.

I agreed with her thoughts about introversion. Her and I are both extroverts, however, she made the point that society needs to support the environment that stimulates each individual the best, which I concur with.

I also really likes how she pointed out that one of the tests only gave options for male and female, and that this may leave out people who identify as non-binary. I wonder when they will change the range of options and add more options, because they really need to! I am surprised that they have not changed it already.

The second student I responded to was a girl named Seraph, who is in my current chat group for this course. Her Big Five Personality profile is the least similar to mine. For Extraversion she scored relatively low/below the average, while I scored above the average. For Conscientiousness she scored relatively low/below the average, while it was above the average for me, and my highest personality trait. For Agreeableness she scored high and 81%, I scored high and 75% as well, but was lower than some of my other traits. For Openness, she scored average and 81%, I scored average and 67%. For Neuroticism, she scored relatively high and 58%, I scored low and 12.5%.

So, the biggest differences were in neuroticism, conscientiousness, and extraversion. For the other 2 traits, her and I weren’t super far off, but overall, we seemed to be pretty different.

I liked how she shared a personal connection with the points from the TED talk. She discussed being an introvert and trying to act extroverted, and how that was not always the best idea for her. I definitely understood how pushing herself out of her comfort zone could be tiring and stressful. 

I agreed with her statement that there may be a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of introverts facing negative stigmas, and then having to face social pressure, so the pressure may lead them to fulfill the stigmas. Social pressure can definitely lead to negative outcomes, and people may use that to justify things. There should be less emphasis on being extroverted and more emphasis on being who we really are.

I also really liked her point about how there can be benefits to low sides of certain personality traits because things are context-dependent. She gave an example of low conscientiousness for a musician, and how that may be advantageous, which is spot on, and I did not think about it that way previously!

I wonder why society is so set on trying to mold one type of person. I hope that as years continue to pass, people will be recognized in a positive way for their differences!

Reflecting on this assignment, I thought it was super interesting to read through the personality test results of everyone. There was so much diversity in the results, and it was fascinating. Usually, people hang out in crowds with people that are at least somewhat similar to one another, so we don’t get to interact with people who are different from us as much. So, some students had very different results than myself, and it was kind of cool to see, because I am not used to interacting with people who are very different in personality for the most part.

Additionally, it was really cool to read through what everyone said about the positive aspects of other personality traits. When I had completed the assignment, I had mostly thought that it was best to score high on a lot of these measures, however, some people made some really great points, which altered how I feel about it now. It is really powerful that just hearing thoughts from other people can shift my own thinking!

Also, as in all of the response assignments, it is cool to respond to both people who are similar to us and who are different from us. I think it is very valuable to spend time interacting with all types of people, and as I mentioned previously, this does not always get to occur, for a variety of reasons. So, this assignment gives us the opportunity to do that, which I appreciate!

This was a simple assignment but I actually learned a decent amount, which I was surprised by. It was also probably the most enjoyable time of reading through other posts that I have had so far this semester, because personality traits interest me a lot!

This assignment started off by reading an article that explains what “proportion of variance explained” means. After reading this, we had to examine a document full of tables that showcases the proportion of variance in internet use explained by personality traits. Next, we had to read 2 articles about Cambridge Analytica, about their rise and fall, and why they likely did not impact the 2016 election. Finally, we had to create a discussion board post, in which we explained what we learned about “proportion of variance explained”, what we learned from examining the tables, and if we think Cambridge Analytica could have done what they claimed to have done.

Honestly, for this assignment, everything I learned is very well summarized in my discussion board post, so I am including everything I wrote for that below.

From the first article of the assignment, by Miles, I learned that variance is essentially how much people differ on a dependent variable, such as how much someone uses Facebook. Then, you can try to predict a dependent variable value based on an independent variable value. So, building off of my other example, this could be like using a person’s extraversion score to try to predict how often they use Facebook.

So, moving into what “proportion of variance explained” means, you can compare your predicted dependent variable value to the actual dependent variable value, and see how close they are to one another. The closer these two numbers are to one another, the greater the proportion of variance explained. For example, if the extraversion scores led to a perfect prediction of Facebook use scores, all of the variance would be explained by that variable.

From the tables in the second document, the main thing I learned was that most personality and demographic variables do not explain much of the variance in variables related to internet use. For example, the big 5 personality traits (besides extraversion) often did not explain a substantial amount of the variance in internet use. Additionally, many other variables such as income, education, self-esteem, and many others often had negligible percentages when it came to amount of variance explained. 

However, it is important to note that physical, verbal, vicarious, and overall sadism can explain a solid chunk of enjoyment in trolling, Additionally, factors such as age, gender, and extraversion can sometimes explain a slim to moderate proportion of internet use. 

Based on the last two articles we read, I do not think Cambridge Analytica could have done what they claimed to have done. According to the Kris-Stella Trump (2018) article, many low opinions of the company were expressed, they recruited new clients through tricks, and their claims “quickly fall apart” when inspected. 

Additionally, based on the Andy Kroll (2018) article, Cambridge Analytica used “unethical methods to obtain a massive trove of Facebook data to fuel its psychographic tactics”. Their methods included injecting propaganda, bribing politicians, and trying to entrap candidates. 

So, reflecting on these two articles, I am confident in saying that the company likely could not have done what they claimed to have done. They did not win Donald Trump the 2016 election, and if they had any influence, it was minor, and unethical as well.

Reflecting on this assignment, I think the first article was helpful, because I was not quite sure what proportion of variance explained meant beforehand. I knew what variance was, but had not really applied that and taken it to the next step. So, after reading the article on that, I feel a lot more confident about what it is and will be able to utilize the concept in the future if need be.

Additionally, I think the graphs were a great thing to include after the article. After learning about the concept, seeing the graphs gave me a visual representation of the concept, as well as related it back to topics we have been discussing, such as personality traits and internet use. It was a great transition, allowed me to ensure that I understood what proportion of variance explained was, and could get ready to explain the findings afterwards.

It was interesting to learn about Cambridge Analytica, because I actually had never heard of them before. I was completely unaware that any company was thought to have influenced the 2016 election. It was interesting to learn about their ideas, but when I learned about their flaws, I was glad to see they had failed.

Finally, the discussion board post was good because it essentially touched on every single part of the assignment, making sure I really understood the materials I had learned from. We are not always required to write about all the sources we read from, but this required it, and even though it takes longer, I am more confident in my understanding of the material now!

This assignment started out by taking the five factor personality test, and then the big five personality test. Next we had to read two articles that were associated with these tests, and watch a TED talk about the power of introverts. After this, we read to articles on the difference between “affect” and “effect”, and had to take a quiz on it. Finally, we had to make a discussion board post, listing the Big Five Personality dimensions, why these tests are more reliable than other online personality tests, what my results were on both of the tests, if they were similar to one another, if they match my own conception of my personality, what I thought about Susan Cain’s suggestion that society should better appreciate persons who are introverted, and if I think there are benefits to the ‘low’ side of any of the other four factors/dimensions of the Big Five Personality Dimensions/Factors.

The first article just explained what the 5 personality dimensions are, which I will mention later. The second article described what these tests are like and why they are the best type of personality test, which I will also touch on later.

The TED talk discussed the power of introverts. The speaker described how she was an introvert, and when she went to summer camp once, when she read her book alone, people thought something was wrong with her and that she has to have more spirit. She emphasized that modern society is so obsessed with extroverts, and is trying to force everyone to be one through school group assignments and seating arrangements. She emphasized that introverts can be just as successful and bring a ton of great ideas and accomplishments of their own to society, and that people should be applauded for being who they are, rather than being forced into one prototype of a person.

Moving onto the articles about “affect” vs “effect”, the main points revolved around affect being used as a verb, while effect should be used as a noun. They also give examples of how to remember this distinction, such as through the “RAVEN trick”.

Moving into what I discussed in my discussion board post, according to Cherry’s and Koerth-Baker’s articles, the “Big Five Personality Dimensions” are Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness/Openness to Experience. 

According to Koerth-Baker, Big Five Personality Tests more reliable than other online personality tests because everyone has a little bit of each trait, and it tells you where you fall on the spectrum for each cluster. This is better than grouping people by type, because that assumes we are all far apart from one another, when in reality we are typically pretty close. 

On the Five Factor Personality Test, my results were that I was relatively high (35) on Extraversion, relatively high (31) on Agreeableness, Relatively high on conscientiousness (44), relatively low (10) on Neuroticism, and about average (25) on Openness. To be more specific, relatively low means my score was in the bottom 30%, relatively high means in the top 30%, and about average is somewhere in the middle. 

On the Big Five Personality Test, my results were that I scored 67% on Openness to Experience, 81% on Conscientiousness, 73% on Extraversion, 75% on Agreeableness, and 12.5% on Neuroticism. To get the average scores for the population, I would have had to make an account, so I do not know those. 

My results were similar on both tests. On both, I scored very low on Neuroticism and high on Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness. I guess a difference is being average for openness on one of the tests, and seemingly higher than average on the other. However, they were pretty consistent overall.

I think the results certainly match my own conception of my personality. I think of myself as outgoing, easy to get along with, and very organized, resembling some of the traits I scored high in. On the contrary, I am not very moody or negative often, so I expected to be low in neuroticism. 

I totally agree with Susan Cain’s (2012) suggestion that society should better appreciate persons who are introverted. I am an extrovert, however, as she mentioned, a third to a half of people are introverts. Building off of this, people do their best work and succeed most when the environment is something they are comfortable with. So, I think society should appreciate introverts because they can thrive and bring their own great things to society when they are in an environment they are comfortable with, just like extroverts can in their proper environment.

I certainly think their are benefits to scoring low on neuroticism. This is associated with emotional instability, so having a low score is nice because it means a person is consistent and generally more positive. Outside of this, there are not any of the factors that stick out to me that would be better to be on the “low” side. 

Reflecting on this assignment, I enjoyed taking the 2 personality tests. I always love to participate in things like this, because I get interested in seeing what the results will be, and if they will match my actual personality. I learned about these tests in AP psychology in high school, but it is nice to have an assignment about them again, to remind myself of the different components.

Additionally, it was worthwhile to read the articles and take the quiz about “affect” vs “effect”. Honestly, I never really knew when to use each of these forms, so these articles shed some light on that and now I understand the difference. It is funny how I can be so far into my education and not know such a simple distinction!

Also, I enjoyed the TED talk about introversion, because I am so used to just hearing about extraversion. Like the lady mentioned, introversion seems to be casted as a negative thing in society, when this shouldn’t be the case. She brought up some excellent points, and I really hope that people begin to value introverts more, because they are just as important as extroverts!

This assignment started out by completing the unit 11 review sheet. After this, we had to continue working on our term project, and write a document explaining the work we have done so far on it. We had to include a screenshot of the journals for this unit. Finally, we had to upload both the review sheet and the term project document to canvas through an assignment link.

Per usual, the review sheet was cumulative, so I had to fill out the pages for units one through ten before tackling unit 11. However, once I got to unit 11, it first asked me to “Identify two positive effects of Internet use on cognitive, health, or psychological aspects of aging”.

My first effect I listed was that internet use showed a quantitative association with cancer-preventive behaviors, including CRC screenings, weekly physical activity, less smoking, and eating more fruits and vegetables. These type of behaviors can help maintain positive health and allow people to live longer lives! The second answer I included was that older individuals who use the Internet more have higher perceptions of self-efficacy than those who use the Internet rarely or not at all. So, they believe in themselves and in their abilities, which is a very important psychological strength to have!

The next thing the review sheet asked me was to identify two positive effects of Internet use on child development. My first answer was that according to the UNICEF abstract, digital technology can be beneficial for children’s social relationships. Moderate use can also have a positive effect on mental well-being. Having better relationships and feeling better about oneself are definitely bridges to more positive developmental outcomes! My second was that according to the Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2017b) article, they suggest that moderate amounts of screen time are related to increased emotional attachment to parents, as well as positive affect. Both of these are favorable outcomes and can lead to other positive things throughout their development.

Moving on to the term project document, I explained as usual that my term project is a daily journal in which I itemize the course content along with providing detailed reflections. It is an example of the whole course option, and I do this through the medium of a blog, on the Word Press website. 

As far as the work I have done so far, I have created 64 separate blog posts. I make at least one post every day, and each post is specifically tied to an assignment we have. I usually go over what we were required to do, what I learned from the different materials, and how I felt about various aspects of the assignment. 

Currently, I am fully caught up to where we are in the course. It is nice to know that all of my hard work has allowed me to finally catch up to the current unit and assignment! At the bottom of the document, I included a screenshot of the blogs I had done in this unit thus far.

Reflecting on this assignment, it was the same old assignment 6 I am used to. The review sheet is always a nice way to reflect on some of the key points from the current unit. It is also nice to brush up on some of the major information from previous units. I feel more and more confident each week that I will retain a lot of the information that is included in the review!

As for the term project document, this also holds the same structure as usual. It is a nice way to document all the progress I have made at least, because I really have put in so much work for it throughout each week and the semester in general!

I know that each week, my blog for assignment 6 seems to get shorter, but this is only natural. It is quite hard to come up with new reflections when the assignments are so identical. I do not mind the assignment each week, but it does not really leave me with anything new that I can share with anyone who is reading this.