First Respond
Reading both the peer review article and the popular media article, both want to convey around the same message. But the peer review article was more structured and well organized. The article had charts that were labeled, cited their work. They had detailed summary of the information that they were giving. As to the popular media article did not have detailed information, just given numbers and citations on where these number came from. One major point I wound ensure was communicated accurately to the general audience is the basis information that is not given. The information that people would have to search for. I would made sure it is a small excerpt stating that provided if the reader wanted to research it more. Basis is why it is important to refer to empirical studied when there are claims in poplar media. The reader is able to see, search and find an opposing angel to the story. The concept of psychological studies in the media apply to Ethics. It is also the writers ethical responsibility to publish facts that are truthful and are scientifically proven but the does not always happen. So it is the readers ethical responsibility to research the information that the are given and not take it a face value.
Remember to respond to two peers while being respectful of and sensitive to their viewpoints. Consider advancing the discussion in the following ways:
Post an article, video, or additional research to reinforce a peers idea or challenge them to see their point from a different perspective.
Engage in conversation with your peers around the concept of psychological studies in the media.
Second Respond
The first peer-reviewed journal article described in the abstract what the study was pursuing and how it does not conclude the hypothesis. The journal article is specifically researching acute tryptophan depletions stopped the punishmentinducing inhibition and had no impact on the overall motor response. The Journalists summary claimed to increase serotonin by eating cheese, with data that assumes or links this by correlation.
In a peer-reviewed journal article, avoiding oversights like in a media clickbait article is important. To do this, the researchers will need to state the clear hypothesis both the independent and dependent variables, the study should also include the method and conclusion determining the confounding variables.
The media consistently is creating clickbait titles and entertaining posts for the average person to assume conclusions. If a media post is not supported by research or observational experiments, using methods and results then it is not a valid study or claim.
This concept of psychological studies in media would apply to the ethics course theme. There should be formal ethics or laws in place with the media portraying correlations as true. Although, the media could argue the freedom of the press. I do think the claims are harmful to individuals that dont look for further research and take the media claims as valid. This could result In harmful information rather than helpful.
