It's spring break!!!! Woohoo!! Oh wait...we don't have one. But we are off all the time so we win.
Anyways, this week is a really exciting one for me. For my brother's spring break, my family is taking a trip to Denmark and Sweden (Look out for pictures on next week's post), so I am posting my blog a little early to make sure I don't miss it with my shaky internet situation as I will be traveling. Even though I will be spring breaking, my research will not be. Our discussion section is still due at the end of next week and I will be perfecting it in my extra time on my vacation. There is still so much to do and all this research has me like...
In order to better understand how to perfect my discussion, I have looked at the discussions of a few of my sources and tried to take out the useful parts. I found that looking at the same sources I looked at the results sections for was the most useful for me, since I was able to better understand how they linked the two sections since I analyzed both. Thbus, I will be looking at the same sources as last week again.
1. The Near-Miss Effect in Blackjack: Group Play and Lone Play by Gunnarsson, Whiting, and Dixon
After they found that people's hand ratings changed after the research induced the near-miss effect with the participants. The discussion explained how this new idea fit into the previous knowledge of the near-miss effect. It then discussed the significance of the findings not only in terms of gambling but in terms of behavioral psychology as a whole. It ended with some limitations and new questions that arose from the research. It did a great job of integrating the new findings with prior research to create a nuanced discussion.
2. The Effect of Time Pressure on Consumer Choice Deferral by Dhar and Nowlis
The study had participants choose between risky and safe choice or defer choice to a later time while under time pressure or no time pressure conditions. After it was found that choice deferral was prevalent among time pressured participants, the researchers tried to explain this using prior research. They discussed the significance of the new findings in consumer choice theory as well as behavioral economics. They asked further questions about the type of good or risk that will induce choice deferral most often. They overall did a great job of integrating the new research with long-standing theories of the field.
3. Priming Motivation Through Unattended Speech by Radel, Sarrazin, Jehu, and Pelletier
The study was investigating auditory priming's effect on people's motivation and actions. They found that people would perform actions and choose images based off of unconscious auditory stimuli. They explained this in terms of psychological priming and the theory behind it. They also related it to past research and asked more questions about the relation of auditory and visual priming.
What I have gained from these discussions is that I need to make sure to explain my findings in terms of the prior research and relate my results and lit review. I also need to assess my research and its limitations and pitfalls. By doing this, I will be able to draw the real significance from my project. I will finally have to ask further questions based on my limitations as well as those that arise from the research and that it doesn't cover. For example, one question I have is, how will group behavior affect blackjack behavior while the effects are induced?
I'm super excited for my research to come together and my trip this week. It's going to be a great spring break. (627)
Max,
ReplyDeleteWe played so much better than the teachers. It's just that the ref. was more scared of the teachers' wrath than ours, so he was hesitant to give fouls in our favor.
Remember that your discussion is as complex as the literature review, so you should look at the picture beyond just how to organize your discussion section (even though that is extremely important). You should also be looking at sources that help you explain and support your conclusions.
I'm interested to see what you get, because that way when I go to Vegas, I'll be able to see how they are trying to trick me.
Hey 'Well!
ReplyDeleteIn my head, I could imagine you ironically saying "Woohooo spring breaaak," so thank you for the vivid imagery. It's good that you are making a plan for while you are on vacation, since I could imagine it being easy to get off track. But I know you'll stay on track.
I think that one thing you should make sure to emphasize is that your study allows for a direct comparison of many factors (time pressure, near-miss, priming) rather than the other studies you seemed to cite, which seemed to measure just one. The ability to directly compare effects systematically, in my opinion, is the power of your study, so make sure you emphasize that in your discussion.
Additionally, like you said, make sure to expand your findings to psychology as a whole rather than just blackjack, since that is where the true insight lies.
My question to you is what limitations specifically do you think you will acknowledge in your discussion?
Keep up the good work, and keep sending me pictures from Northern Europe, Ice King ;)
Yash
(177)
I think Yash brings up some good points in terms of finding the significance of your research (which is something we've been struggling with all along).
DeleteHey Max!
ReplyDeleteYour research is multi-faceted with numerous factors affecting your outcome, so make sure you are connecting everything to your greater conclusion as you go. Also, in terms of your significance, connecting back to the bigger sphere of psychology and human behavior will make sure your research remains relevant. I think using your limitations as a jumping off point for further questions and research is a great idea. Future research would have more resources than yours did and different samples. Overall, I think the structure of your discussion is looking good! Make sure you draw sources from your literature review to bring it all together! Good luck!