I do not feel like the results were determined from the answered that I gave. • What was your impression of the IAT test and your results? My impression of the test results was that I was very disappointed in the results that the implicit association test gave. I feel that the results that the test gave me were not the results it should have been. The test results stated more or less that I am bias towards straight people.
For example, participants began to search for the “f” fricative before the words had appeared on the screen, suggesting that they may have began to understand what the research aim of the study was and therefore showing demand characteristics. Although this shows a methodological weakness in using eye tracking technology, the experimenters compensated for this weakness by creating more ambiguous words in order to make it more difficult for the participants to automatically choose the “f” fricative and force them to think about what word it was that they heard. This led to the study being heightened in validity as participants took longer to judge the word meaning that there were no longer anticipation effects. There are further limitations in the study as the experimenters seemed to assume that
Here are my scores: C O R E ROW TOTALS MOST 10 8 5 1 =24 LEAST 4 2 5 13 =24 COMBINED SCORE 6 6 0 -12 =0 After completing the ethics awareness inventory assessment I was surprised with the result and did not expect to come out the way it did. I understand that there was no right or wrong answers, but some of the questions made me stop and just reflect on the way I was dealing with certain situations and think hard about my ethical beliefs. According to the Ethic awareness inventory test my score summary evaluates my ethical profile as closely aligned with character. The Ethical inventory also showed that my ethical profile least closely aligned with equity. It is very important for an individual to understand their own personal ethical prospective, as for me personally after the assessment I knew exactly where I stand ethically.
However, some results may be invalidated by the participants knowing either the true aim of the study or the fact that they are being studied at all. If the participant was to know the true nature of the study, they may adapt their behaviour in order to fit in (socially desirable) or they may act in a way that they think the researcher is expecting (demand characteristics). For example, in Milgram's electric shock experiment, it is highly likely that more participants would have delivered the higher shocks to the 'learner' if they had known the reality of the entire study. This makes the participants actions and behaviour unnatural and could invalidate the data completely. When considering this issue, sociologists should also consider that participants should also be offered the right to refuse.
When I was taking the IAT, I did not feel that it was effortless and habitual, I found myself frequently forgetting which side each category was on and having to glance at them to remember. I felt like I was frequently expressing my explicit attitudes toward these words, but implicit attitudes are so hard to measure that maybe it really was my implicit attitude. Why did it provide opposite results then? This test is supposed to be able to measure my implicit attitude based significantly on my response time to categorizing various words into correct groups. I can understand the concept that we will respond quicker when two categories that we implicitly associate are grouped together.
Baumrind said that the subjectÐ²Ð‚â„¢s safety and self-esteem werenÐ²Ð‚â„¢t protected. She also concluded that the subjects didnÐ²Ð‚â„¢t get the respect that they deserved because the experimenter was not concerned about the subjectÐ²Ð‚â„¢s welfare (Baumrind 330). Baumrind also feels that the experiment was unethical because Milgram did not tell the subjects everything about the experiment. Hiding information from the subjects caused her to believe that the subject and the experimenter relationship was violated. Most of the subjects discovered they were more likey to obey authority figures than they might have expected and most went through a type of self-discovery.
My judgments are my own and it’s unique. I can’t predict when it happens and when to shut it down, just like my heart beats. I thought this way because whenever I am are faced with someone or something new, I don’t necessarily think over my thoughts to see if it’s reasonable or if I should not think these thoughts. I was questioning how Gladwell will be able to educate and teach someone to control their judgments and first impressions because everyone is different and their thoughts are of course not the same. However, I do understand how learning to control my snap judgments and first impressions is important because it gives people a second chance to prove who they are but everyone is entitled to their own judgment and not everyone has to agree with
Or maybe the change in knowledge can affect the change in personality. Reading Dweck's argument, I felt like it was responding to my wonders right way as I kept reading on the points argued. For example, I was not convinced of the twins experiment provided in the paper and that there must have been more areas to be explored to give a legit argument
My manager has recently told me that my strengths also fall in the logical range. I tend to lean towards policies, I am great at using logic to solve problems, and I make to do lists and following them logically. I believe that sometimes my logical thinking keeps me from doing impulsive things that would be fun, but I see those situations as out of control. I do desire to be more creative and artistic, but know that I will need to spend time learning those talents because they do