Psychology is a contemporary science. Listed below are several recent papers. For the first part of this assignment, choose two papers to briefly summarize in a paragraph each, focusing on the contribution each makes to psychological knowledge in general.

The second part of the paper should be a discussion of the contributions and limitations of the field of psychology in our general knowledge. In addition, please discuss the follow;

• What can we expect to learn in the future?
• What are the possible problems we may face with psychology in the future?

This paper should be 2-3 pages in length and use APA formatting (cover page, paper body formatting, citations, and references: see Rasmussen's APA guide in the Resources tab, or by clicking here. Prior to submitting your paper, be sure you proofread your work to check your spelling and grammar. If you use any outside sources, please site those sources in APA citation format.

 

Ponder, J. D., & Haridakis, P. (2015).  Mass Communication & Society, 18(3), 281-302. doi:10.1080/15205436.2014.940977

 

Edlund, J. E. (2016). Invited editorial:  Psi Chi Journal Of Psychological Research, 21(1), 59-61.

 

Wolters, C. A., & Hussain, M. (2015). Metacognition And Learning, 10(3), 293-311. doi:10.1007/s11409-014-9128-9.

Paper discusses psychological issues from both papers intelligently and methodically

Mass Communication and Society, 18:281–302, 2015
Copyright # Mass Communication & Society Division
of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
ISSN: 1520-5436 print=1532-7825 online
DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2014.940977 Selectively Social Politics: The Differing
Roles of Media Use on Political
Discussion
J. D. Ponder and Paul Haridakis
Department of Studies Studies
Kent State University In the modern media environment, people are afforded a variety of options for
political information. In addition, people now use multiple media sources (e.g.,
television, radio, blogs) to obtain information about all aspects of politics
(Eveland, 2004; Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 2009).
The purpose of this study was to examine how use of particular media sources
influenced the frequency of political discussion with people from the same
political party (political in-group members) and people from a different political party (political out-group members). Guided by a uses and gratifications
perspective, which emphasizes the role of the user in media effects, we examined how specific user background characteristics (e.g., age, sex, political opinion leadership, political social identity, political content affinity), motives for
using traditional and social media for political information, and use of
different media sources work together to influence discussion with political
in-group and out-group members. Our results allowed us to identify several
distinct differences between people who talk to political in-group and outgroup members. J.D. Ponder (Ph.D., Kent State University, 2012) is an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Studies Studies at Kent State University. His research interests include media
uses and effects, identity, learning, and political communication.
Paul Haridakis (Ph.D., Kent State University, 2000) is a Professor in the Department of
Studies Studies at Kent State University. His research interests include media uses and effects,
new communication technologies, freedom of expression and media history.
Correspondence should be addressed to J. D. Ponder, Department of Studies Studies, Kent
State University, 135 Taylor Hall, 300 Midway Drive, P.O. Box 5190, Kent, OH 44240. E-mail:
jponder@kent.edu 281 282 PONDER AND HARIDAKIS INTRODUCTION
In the contemporary media environment, people have a variety of different
media sources from which to acquire political information. People interested
in learning about politics or gaining political information can watch television; listen to the radio; read newspapers, magazines, or books; in addition
to using online sources (e.g., blogs, social networking sites, video sharing
sites). In most cases, people now use multiple media sources (e.g., television,
radio, blogs) to obtain information about politics, political actors, and political issues (Eveland, 2004; Pew Research Center for the People and the
Press, 2009).
Perhaps even more important, people also talk with others about politics.
They seek out people who can help them make sense of mediated political
information (Eveland & Shah, 2003; Mutz, 2002). Although the attitudinal
and behavioral effects of political discussion have been well documented,
especially how it can positively affect political knowledge or voting (e.g.,
Delli-Carpini & Keeter, 1996; Kwak, Williams, Wang, & Lee, 2005), the
latter in particular, is related to social capital. There have been claims that
some media use (e.g., television) detracts from civic debate and participation
(Putnam, 2000). On the other hand, newer social media have played an
instrumental role in the creation of political movements (i.e., Occupy Wall
Street, Tea Party movement), and even revolutionary movements (i.e., Arab
Spring). Although such outcomes of media use and discussion have received
much attention, predictors of discussion are relatively unstudied. In
addition, a few scholars have found that people use media differently based
upon the political affiliation of their discussion partners (e.g., Eveland &
Shah, 2003; Mutz, 2002). However, without considering how media users’
individual differences work in conjunction with their media selection to
influence postviewing discussion, we can only speculate about how people
use media content from different media sources to talk about politics with
their political allies versus those who hold opposing political views, or
how viewers of certain types of programs may be more likely to debate politics with political friends and=or foes than are viewers of other programs.
The purpose of this study is to examine how media use influences the
frequency of political discussion with people from the same political party
and people from a different party. This research is guided by a uses and
gratifications perspective. Uses and gratifications researchers posit media
effects, such as post-media-use discussion, as a product of user personal
characteristics, motives for using media, and media use. More important,
this is a process that builds on itself in that personal characteristics influence
motives for using media, which influence media use, which in turn influence
the effects of that use. IN-GROUP AND OUT-GROUP 283 THE ROLE OF DISCUSSION IN POLITICS
Denton and Woodward (1998) explained that political communication
research focuses on the production, dissemination, processing, and effects
of information, both through the media and interpersonally. In this light,
political discussion is a key component in both disseminating information
and helping people make sense of the information presented to them via
mass media (Delli-Carpini & Keeter, 1996; Eveland & Hively, 2009). People
not only turn to others to help them make sense of the information but also

Attachments:

• 1506756836-Selectively Social Politics.pdf
• 1506756871-Investigating Grit.pdf
• 1506756890-Lets do it again.pdf