PSYC1002 Psychology Assignment Help Australia

PSYC1002 Psychology Assignment Help Australia

PSYC1002 Psychology Assignment Help Australia

Introduction

This research project is aiming to identify the correlation between different dishes served by different restaurant in Sydney and consumer’s perception regarding the type of food borne disease they can bring with them. This PSYC1002 psychology assignment help Australia was conducted anonymously and 1650 first year psychology students enrolled in university of Sydney were participants of this project. In this experiment there were total two training phases and first phase contained the participants learned about 4 meals served in one restaurant (Restaurant A) and about 4 different meals in a different restaurant (C). There were total two groups of participants in the research project and it was ensured that information given to first group is highly consistent and there were no repetition of means from phase 1 of experiment to phase 2 and relationship between meals and diseases which followed were normal. For second group of participants information was kept very ambiguous by the researcher (Babbie, 2004).

PSYC1002 Psychology Assignment Help Australia

Such research project is conducted on a community level by the organizing committee and they are aiming to develop a better understanding and knowledge base about various public health related issues and problems. In this project author decided to conduct both memory test as well as casual test.

Aims and objective of this research project is

  1. To assess the sensitivity of participants in the “causal” task in the consistent condition?
  2. To assess the sensitivity of participants in the “causal” task in the ambiguous condition?
  3. To identify that when both are tests of memory. Which test is tapping an explicit memory of context and which is tapping an implicit memory of context?
  4. To assess in the memory test why do the context cues have an effect in the ambiguous condition only?

Results

In this research project it was observed that difference between tests of mean rating in consistent group is far higher than the mean rating different in ambiguous group. Results would be discussed on group basis only.

Consistent Group

A similar meal dish M01 was considered as being followed by a disease on a scale of 0 to 8 with 0 being not at all and 8 being 100 percent followed by a disease. In such situation it was observed that in consistent group the difference between the test was P:-  0.34. In restaurant A meal m01 was likely to cause a disease by a scale of 6.8 while in case of restaurant B it was likely to cause disease with a scale rating of 6.1.

Similarly for meal dish M02 this rating on scale was 6.8 for restaurant A while for restaurant B this rating was 5.7. difference between test of this difference is P:- 0.43

Ambiguous Group

If we consider similar test settings for a ambiguous group then it can be said that for meal dish M01 the rating for restaurant A on scale was 5.9 while in restaurant B it was 4.1. test of this difference was p.02.

Similarly for dish m02 in restaurant A the rating on sale is 5.2 while in restaurant B the rating was 3.0 only. Here the test of difference showed the difference as p= .03.

Memory Test Mean Ratings

In this test participant’s memory was tested by asking them to correlate the disease with the dishes or meals at any stage of experiment and then observed how close they are to the actual ratings. In this test participants who correctly identified the disease and their prefixed meal dishes are represented in percentage.

CONSISTENT GROUP

MEAL 01

MEAL 02

Restaurant A

48 %

55 %

Restaurant B

48 %

48 %

Test of difference P

.67

.70

 

AMBIGIOUS GROUP

MEAL 01

MEAL 02

Restaurant A

62 %

60 %

Restaurant B

30 %

26 %

Test of difference P

.01

.02

 

 

 

There is a fundamental difference between the casual test which is being described above this section and memory test. In casual test it is being observed that it is more related to the prediction by a participant regarding which type of disease can be caused by a meal. This information remains consistent with participants and it describes how people can use their perception and information to identify a disease with a food (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007).

Get more information Psychology Assignment Sample

On the other hand memory test is just to identify if people are consistent in their memory or not. This test also explains if people can repeat the information they provided earlier or with time their memory will erode and they would be unable to identify the disease with same dishes. There is no difference of context in a memory test.

Discussion

From all the information gathered above in tests and its results there are some points of discussion which raised and this discussion will be able to provide some new insights.

Training phase of the test is actually irrelevant for the final results and discussion because it was basically aimed to train participants on how to participate and make them familiar with the aims and objectives of the research project.

Consistent group was very much consistent in casual test rating and in both restaurant A and B participants were close enough in relating diseases and dishes that it can be said there is consistence and commonality of perception. Difference level between test was also indicating the same development and it also remained consistent with both restaurants with slight differentiation only. Here it can be said that consistent group actually understood the cues and contexts and provided information on the basis of a strong belief or logic (Forsyth, 2006).

On the other hand ambiguous group did not had any strong reason or logic behind their selection, thus their result varied a lot and it can be seen that in both dishes participants were not consistent in their predictions. Test of difference between both M01 and M02 are .02 and .03 which is again reinforcing the claim that ambiguous group had a very little idea about the causality and reason behind association of a disease and a meal. Similar meal which was served in restaurant A had more likely probability of causing a disease while in restaurant B when same dishes were served; same population provided a significantly different level of correlation between disease and meals. This indicates that reputation of restaurants and external environmental stimuli which changes with change in restaurants also play a significant role in decisions taken by a population. In case of a ambiguous and quickly judging population these cues and stimuli are a very important factor and they should be considered by a restaurant. Thus sensitivity level of consistent group is much higher than the sensitivity level of ambiguous population according the results provided (Corbin & Morse, 2003).

In another test where mean rating of memory tests were analysed between the consistent group of participants and ambiguous group, it was measured that percentage of population which is present in consistent group are very much likely to choose same disease with same meals in same fractions. For meal M01 with context cues similar percentage of population correlated it with similar disease in both restaurant A and restaurant B.  There difference in test is also .67. in case of meal 02 this difference between restaurant A and B was 7 percent which is more than M01 but still very less than the difference between ambiguous population.

In case of ambiguous group the difference between memory in participants about context cue of restaurant A and B was more than 30 percent in m01 and in case of m02 this difference was 34 percent. This indicates that memory of participants in consistent group is based on some cues and logics which are strong and based on persistent attributes while for ambiguous groups it is not that strong and there memory is based on logics and cues beyond comprehension (Bouton, 2002).

References

  • Babbie, E. (2004). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
  • Bouton, M. (2002) Context, ambiguity, and unlearning: sources of relapse after behavioural extinction. Biological Psychiatry, 52(10), pp.976-986.
  • Corbin, J. & Morse, J.M. (2003) ‘The unstructured interactive interview: Issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics.’ Qualitative Inquiry 9, 335-354.
  • Forsyth, D.R. (2006), Group Dynamics, Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. 4th ed P.85-97
  • Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007) Research Methods for Business Students (4th edition) England: Pearson education limited