Scientific Minds Encouraging True Photographs An

Subject: Psychology

Topic: True Photographs and false memories

Paper details:

This paper was submitted before and the paper did not make any sense or even went in detailed about what the paper was talking about. I need it to be rewritten with correct information on the article ” True Photographs and False Memories” I also need you to find 3 empirical sources from PSYINFO. The article must be academic journals, not a book and please make sure it is a pdf source. Also the additional sources but connect and discuss what “True Photograph and False Memories”. Please make sure it is in APA format and correctly cited. Attached I will send the paper that was submitted and how it was revised. Please read all the comments on the draft paper and be sure to revise and make it better and actually read the sources. Also, make sure to critique the paper and sum up the studies. Assignment Details: You will do much better on the assignment if you take the outline below seriously, and follow that outline in your written assignment. Your synopsis and critique should be written using the following sections and all questions within each section should be answered: i) Research Question: What is the exact question asked in the paper? Why is this interesting? ii) Introduction & Methodology Sections: What is the purpose of the experiment and how did the authors study it? That is, what is compared to what, and exactly how and why does any difference between these conditions (or lack thereof) answer the question posed in (i). Don’t focus on the trivial experimental details. Rather, emphasize the main idea behind the paper (e.g. the task the subjects performed is likely to be important, the exact nature of the stimuli likely is not.) iii) Results: What were the main findings? How did they answer the question posed? In a multiple study paper, you may focus on one study and discuss the additional studies in less detail either together or sequentially. iv) Implications: What can you conclude from the results—what are the broader implications of what the authors find? v) Commentary/Critique: What do you think about this paper? Does the design make sense or do you see flaws and if so what are they? If you don’t see any flaws, could you have answered the question with a different design? What further experiments would you want to try next, based on the results reported in this paper? How might the findings be applicable to your own life? Important Point: Please note that the definition of “critique” is: a detailed analysis and assessment of something. Note that the definition doesn’t imply that the critique has to be negative. What I mean is, the word “critique” doesn’t just mean “tear to shreds”. What I am interested in doing is developing your scientific minds … encouraging you to think about what should come next in the research program.