Week 1 Analysis Workshop: Turning a Mental Process into a Measurement

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Psychology studies mental processes through behavior, and Wundt's laboratory did it by timing reactions. In this workshop you turn a mental process you cannot see, how quickly a person notices a signal and decides how to respond, into a measurement you can check. You summarize two blocks of illustrative trials, write the exact procedure that produced them, form a hypothesis a laboratory could test, and then catch a chatbot claiming more than the data allow.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: How can a mental process you cannot see be turned into a measurement, and what do 14 trials from one illustrative participant allow you to claim?

Workshop data: Simple and choice reaction-time trials (illustrative)

Source: Fourteen illustrative reaction-time trials from one participant, constructed for this workshop and printed in full in Part 4; they are not real data and describe no real person.

• Rows: 14 trials: 7 in a simple block and 7 in a choice block, shown as 7 paired rows in the data table
• Columns: trial number, simple-block time in milliseconds, choice-block time in milliseconds
• Order: the simple block was always run first

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• Google Sheets (free) or Excel
• A document or notebook for your written answers

Ways of working

• operationalize-a-construct
• design-a-correlational-or-experimental-check
• compute-and-interpret-r

Procedure

1. Open a blank sheet. Type Trial, Simple (ms), and Choice (ms) in cells A1, B1, and C1, then copy the seven rows of the data table in Part 4 into rows 2 through 8. Tool: Google Sheets (free) or Excel. Check: Rows 2 through 8 hold seven trial numbers and fourteen times, matching the data table cell for cell.
2. In cell B10 type =COUNT(B2:B8), in B11 =SUM(B2:B8), in B12 =AVERAGE(B2:B8), in B13 =MEDIAN(B2:B8), and in B14 =MAX(B2:B8)-MIN(B2:B8). Copy B10 through B14 across to column C. Tool: Google Sheets (free) or Excel. Check: Both columns show a count of 7, and in each column the total divided by 7 equals the mean the sheet shows.
3. Copy the five results for each block into the summary table in Part 4, and fill in the last column of the data table by marking which block was slower on each trial. Check: The summary table has ten filled cells and the data table has seven marks.
4. Complete the measurement table in Part 4: name the mental process, the behavior you can observe, the exact procedure that turns it into a number, and one thing that could make the number misleading. Tool: A document or notebook for your written answers. Check: Each of the two rows names a behavior someone else could watch and a unit of measurement.
5. Answer the five analysis questions in your document, then paste your completed tables into an approved chatbot with the prompt in Part 6 and check its answer against the scripted checks. Tool: A document or notebook for your written answers. Check: You have five written answers and a list of the chatbot's errors with corrections, or the marked-up flawed analysis from the equivalent route.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if no spreadsheet is available or the formulas will not run.

Compute the five summaries for each block by hand from the data table: count the trials, add them, divide the total by the count, sort the seven times and take the 4th, and subtract the smallest from the largest. Show each step in your document, then complete every scaffold table, analysis question, and the critique step, and submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

The data come first: the fourteen illustrative trials, paired by trial number, with a column for you to mark the slower block on each trial.

Student scaffold table 1

Trial	Simple block (ms)	Choice block (ms)	Slower block on this trial
1	250	352
2	262	371
3	255	340
4	290	365
5	268	420
6	259	358
7	271	349

Summarize each block with the same five numbers so the two blocks can be compared fairly.

Student scaffold table 2

Summary	Simple block	Choice block
Count, n
Total (ms)
Mean, x̄ (ms)
Median (ms)
Range (ms)

A mental process becomes measurable only when you can say exactly what is observed and timed, so write the procedure for each block.

Student scaffold table 3

Block	Mental process inferred	Behavior anyone could observe	Exact procedure: what is timed, from what to what, in what unit	One thing that could make the number misleading
Simple
Choice

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Using your summary table, how many milliseconds slower is the choice block's mean than the simple block's mean? Show the subtraction.
2. On how many of the seven trial pairs was the choice trial slower? Which single choice trial stands farthest from the rest, and how does it move the choice block's mean compared with its median?
3. Each trial records a behavior. Name the behavior and the mental process a researcher infers from it, then explain in hedged language what the extra time in the choice block suggests about the mental process.
4. Write one falsifiable hypothesis about simple and choice reaction time that a laboratory could test with new participants, and name a result that would show it to be wrong. Then explain why your statement is a hypothesis and not a theory.
5. Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences. (a) The simple block always came first: name one reason other than the extra decision that could make the choice block slower, and say how a laboratory could check it. (b) Explain the slowest choice trial from two of the six perspectives, in hedged language, and say what you would observe to decide between them.

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've pasted my completed Week 1 Analysis Workshop tables above. They hold 14 illustrative reaction-time trials from one participant, constructed for a class activity, not real data. Simple block (one light, one key): 250, 262, 255, 290, 268, 259, 271 ms. Choice block (a light on the left or the right, press the key on the same side): 352, 371, 340, 365, 420, 358, 349 ms. The simple block was always run first. Please do five things. First, give the mean and the median of each block. Second, say what these data show about how people in general respond when they must make a choice. Third, state one theory and one hypothesis about choice reaction time, and say which is which. Fourth, say whether having to choose causes slower reactions. Fifth, as a stretch question for later in the course, name the independent and dependent variables, say whether this participant was randomly sampled or randomly assigned, and say whether reaction time is a reliable and valid measure of mental speed.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often swap the two, calling a broad idea such as 'deciding takes mental work' a hypothesis, or offering a prediction no result could contradict, such as 'choices affect the mind'.
• Chatbots often turn these trials into a cause for everyone, writing that having to choose makes people slower or that this proves how the mind works.
• Asked the stretch question, chatbots sometimes swap the two, calling reaction time the independent variable because it is the 'important' result.
• Chatbots often say the participant was randomly assigned or randomly sampled, or treat the two as the same thing.
• Chatbots often say that because the times are fairly consistent, reaction time is a valid measure of intelligence or of mental speed in general.

Write 3–5 sentences naming one thing the chatbot got right and at least two places it went wrong or overreached, quoting its words and correcting each with evidence from your own tables or this week's chapter.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "The simple block's mean is 262 ms and the choice block's mean is 358 ms. These trials prove that having to choose causes every person to react about 100 ms slower. The idea that people are affected by choices is my hypothesis. Reaction time is the independent variable, because it is the result we care about. The participant was randomly assigned, so the results apply to everyone. Because the times are consistent, reaction time is a valid measure of intelligence." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (a median reported as a mean, a cause or a claim about everyone drawn from one illustrative participant, a theory and a hypothesis confused, the independent and dependent variables swapped, sampling and assignment confused, or reliability mistaken for validity), cite the evidence from your tables or this week's chapter, and write a corrected sentence beneath it; for the sentences about variables, assignment, and validity, say what the course will check next week. This route assesses the same objective (Objective 1 — explain what makes psychology a science and compare its major theoretical perspectives (biological, psychodynamic, behavioral, cognitive, humanistic, sociocultural)) as the chatbot critique, takes comparable effort (about 30 minutes and 200–300 words), is scored by the same scoring criteria for the same credit, and its own submission artifact is the marked-up flawed analysis, posted in place of the chatbot share link and report.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• All three completed scaffold tables
• Written answers to all five analysis questions
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Analysis Workshop report on fourteen illustrative reaction-time trials: three completed tables (the paired trials with the slower block marked, the five summaries for each block, and the exact measurement procedure for each block), written answers to five analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's analysis of the same trials, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text. Choose a written, recorded, or visual form for your answers; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Summarizing both blocks	Both blocks have a correct count, total, mean, median, and range from formulas or hand work, and the slower block is marked on all seven trials.	Both blocks are summarized, but one or two summaries are wrong or missing, or the trial marks are incomplete.	No summaries are recorded, or the numbers are invented rather than computed.
Turning a mental process into a measurement	For each block the measurement table names the inferred mental process, an observable behavior, an exact procedure with a start point, a stop point, and a unit, and one specific way the number could mislead.	The table is attempted, but the behavior and the mental process are blurred, the procedure lacks a start, stop, or unit, or the misleading factor is vague.	The measurement table is missing or names no observable behavior.
Interpreting the trials as a scientist	Analysis questions 1 to 4 are answered accurately: the subtraction of the means, the trial-pair count and the trial that pulls the choice mean up, a hedged account of behavior versus mental process, and a falsifiable hypothesis with a disconfirming result that is told apart from a theory.	The questions are attempted, but one or two answers state a cause as certain, blur behavior and mental process, or offer a hypothesis no result could contradict.	The analysis questions are missing or do not address the trials.
Critique of the chatbot or of the printed flawed analysis	On either route, at least two errors are quoted and corrected with evidence from the student's own tables or the chapter, out-of-scope claims are marked to check next week, and one correct point is acknowledged; both routes earn this band equally.	On either route, errors are named but corrected without evidence, or only one error is caught.	No critique appears, or pasted output is submitted without any checking.
Reflection on what the trials can show	The chosen reflection option is answered in 3–4 sentences that tie the trials' design or a hedged two-perspective explanation to a specific check a laboratory could run.	The reflection is answered but stays general or names no specific check.	No reflection is submitted.

Quality Gate

• Every summary in the tables comes from your own formulas, your hand computation, or the data table, never from memory or a chatbot.
• The count for each block is 7, and each mean equals that block's total divided by 7.
• The measurement table names an observable behavior, a start and stop point, and a unit for each block.
• No statistic, study, or source is invented anywhere in the submission.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least two errors with evidence from your tables or the chapter.