Please use the answer grid on other .doc to answer each question (eg. Each question gets a grid. Do not group all theories together, all IVs, etc.)Do the grid for each question please. Assume all consent has been given, Ss are matched for all demographic and SES variables.
1. The US State Department is interested in discovering whether or not there will be violence this week in countries with Venezuelan communities in Europe, the U.S. or other allied countries.
There is widespread anger at the Venezuelan government by Venezuelan and Columbian exiles, immigrants, and ex pats in the U.S. and Europe, who plan to for what they say is a lack of action for peace by Western governments.
Agents in intelligence research at the State Department have been attending pro-peace in Venezuela group meetings and have been tracking protest plans.On a scale from 1 (not violent) to 6 (extreme violence), the agents have been rating plans by these groups to demonstrate in the U.S. and Europe.The agents also have used a similar rating system to predict whether the plans were 1(unlikely to occur) to 6 (very likely to occur).Based on the rating scales the agents found that the level of violence occurring in either U.S. vs Europe was rated at F=4.55, p.=.23, with a mean score of 1.6.The likelihood rating was F=5.76, p.=.31, with a mean score of 5.78.The intelligence officers decided that there would be some protests in both countries, but that they would be peaceful.
2.Two middle school science partners, Suzy and Johnny, wondered about the effect of affection on animal growth.They wondered whether giving animals attention, petting them, talking with love in their voices, hugging them would make them grow faster and be more social.
They received permission to work with the Toledo zoo and run their study on zoo animals.They compared two groups of animals: Group A, the group that would receive attention, consisting of: a small Asian elephant (aged 6 months), a 6 month red kangaroo, and a 6 month tortoise.Group B was visited and observed, but they did not interact with the same animals in Group B (same types/ages of animals).They zookeepers measured and weighted the animals and rated them on the Zoological Socialization Scale (a rating system that measures species-specific sociability). The kids visited the animals every day for 1 academic year (from Sept-June, science fair was on 15 June).
Results showed that his experiment did indeed work.Group A animals grew faster and scored higher on the socialization scale than the animals in group B (F=5.44, p.=.01).The kangaroos grew faster than all the other species regardless of which group they were in (F=8.13, p.=.001), and the difference between Group A vs Group B kangaroos was F=.33, p.=.10).The tortoises grew the slowest, but the difference between Group A tortoises vs Group B was F=4.17, p.=.03) on growth with group A growing faster.The elephants grew at a rate in the middle of the other 2 animals, with Group A elephant growing difference of F=1.63, p.=.04 vs group B.The social ratings were elephants, then kangaroos, then tortoise (ranking differences from each other, (F=8.17, p.=.001) and then Group A vs Group B F=6.99, p.=.01 (socialization). Elephants in group A vs B were F=.6, p.=.06 on socialization.The researchers concluded that attention does help animals grow and develop social skills, so this is something everyone should consider when interacting with animals, especially at zoos, farms, and pets.
3. A series of studies was conducted by Harvard medical school on the effects of stress on morbidity and mortality.They wondered whether stress damaged one’s immune system, and that this lowered immune system was the cause of increased morbidity and mortality.
In the first study, the department of health psychology wondered if people who were under more stress had higher rates of morbidity and mortality.The examined 225 elderly persons who were caregivers for Alzheimer patients.Previous research had determined that the presence of Interleuken-6 in persons was highly associated with increased morbidity and mortality.The researchers compared the levels of I-6 in the blood of caregivers vs. non-caregivers.The scores between the groups was F=81.23, p.=.000001.Further, the descriptive statistics revealed that the caregivers had four times the amount of I-6 in their blood as normal persons. The researchers concluded that the immune systems of the care givers (average age 75) were like the immune systems of 90 year olds.
- In another study, the researchers decided to examine the immune systems of 200 persons who suffered from clinical depression vs. 200 persons who did not.The researchers used the “immunological assessment battery” that consisted of various indicators of immunological health, and determined the immunological age of the individual.The difference between the 2 groups was F=7.99, p=.004.The researchers concluded that depression aged the immune system by about 30 years.
- In a third study, the researchers decided to examine middle aged persons who were suffering from shingles (herpes zostar).They wanted to know if stress made the condition worse, and if a relaxation technique would reduce the symptoms.All Ss were given a stress rating scale, and their results were compared to a matched (for age, health, gender, income, etc.) sample of persons who were not infected.The difference in stress scores of the groups was F=8.88, p=.001, with the infected group having extremely high levels of stress in comparison to the control group. The researchers then decided to test whether or not a relaxation technique would improve the symptoms of shingles.The pool of Ss was 400 shingles patients.They assigned ½ the group to a class in Tai Chi and the other half was not assigned to Tai Chi.They also decided to see if males were more affected than women.The results yielded no sex differences, F=2.11, p=.71.The Tai Chi group had a major reduction in stress symptoms over 3 months.The F score=9.95, p=.01.The researchers concluded that Tai Chi (or a relaxation technique) was extremely helpful in boosting the immune system and combating a viral illness such as shingles.
The researchers concluded, at the results of all studies that stress does indeed harm the immune system.All tests were conducted again 3 years later, and the results were as robust as ever.The researchers further concluded that stress has irreparable effects on the immune system that damages, ages, and degrades it.These effects are stable 3 years later, and the immune system may never recover from stress.
6. A research team is interested in discovering the cure for heroin addiction.The study is a multi-year commitment. The researchers decide to use 600 Ss from hospitals throughout the Nation.All Ss are matched for: age, gender, current state of disease progression, height, weight, medical history, etc.A final group is composed of Ss who are similarly matched, but they receive no treatment.Each group has 100 Ss.(Groups A-F) The researchers wish to know if 5 treatments (T1-T5), will significantly slow down the progression of the disease.The treatments are given as follows:
On year 1:Group A gets T1, Group B gets T2, Group C gets T3, Group D gets T4, Group E gets T5.Each Ss’s heroin relapse is recorded, as well as a physiological test battery.
On year 2: Group A gets T2, Group B gets T3, Group C gets T4, Group D gets T5, Group E gets T1. Each Ss’s heroin relapse is recorded, as well as a physiological test battery.
On year 3: Group A gets T3, Group B gets T4,Group C gets T5, Group D gets T1, and Group E gets T2. Each Ss’s heroin relapse is recorded, as well as a physiological test battery.
On year 4:Group A gets T4, Group B gets T5, Group C gets T1, Group D gets T2, and Group E gets T3. Each Ss’s heroin relapse is recorded, as well as a physiological test battery.
On year 5: Group A gets T5, Group B gets T1, Group C gets T2, Group D gets T3, Group E gets T4. Each Ss’s heroin relapse is recorded, as well as a physiological test battery.
The results were mixed.Group C had devastating results in the first 3 weeks, but on weeks 4 & 5 they made a remarkable recovery and began an upward progression towards health.
Group B started off better than group C, made a downward spiral, but then had a small rally at the end of the experiment.
Group A had the worst decline of any group.All Ss in group A had a strong positive response, and then a strong negative response, finishing with the worst progress record of all the treatment groups.
Group D had a mixed, confusing set of findings.Despite being in similar health to all groups, group D had the slowest start of all groups.This group had negative progress in terms of health treatment, rallied somewhat in the middle of the experiment, but then went into a sharp decline at the end of the study.
Group E started out poorly and in decline during the first week of treatment, rallied the second week, but then made a chronic, sharp,and steady decline at the end of the experiment.
The researchers concluded that none of the treatments were successful, and were even of greater detriment to traditional treatments, or no treatments.All treatments and weeks produced a score of F=3.13, p.=11.3.