Week 2 Discussion — What Is This Study Allowed to Claim?

Hook

"Studies show" may be the most powerful phrase in a headline. This week you learned that every finding comes from a design, that each design can claim only so much, and that the people in a study are owed real protections, so you can now ask what a claim actually earns.

Your driving question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: Find a real "studies show" claim about people — from a headline, an ad, an app, a social media post, or a workplace report. Say what design most likely produced it (descriptive, correlational, or experimental), what that design is allowed to conclude, and what third variable could explain the finding. Does the claim's wording go further than its design earns? Rewrite the claim in one honest sentence.

Option B: Milgram (1963) told participants they were giving real shocks; 65% of them (26 of 40) continued to the 450-volt switch, and many showed strong stress. Take a position: can a study that deceives its participants ever be ethical today? If yes, say which protections — informed consent, the right to withdraw, protection from harm, debriefing, confidentiality, IRB review — would have to be in place and why. If no, say what would be lost and how you would study the question instead.

There is no single right answer. A sleep-app ad, a wellness headline, a hiring report, or a classic study can each be argued well in more than one direction.

Expectations

Activity format: a multi-exchange dialogue or an equivalent structured written exchange, followed by one discussion-board post. Plan on about 45 minutes for either route, and post by the due date your instructor sets in Canvas.

There are two ways to complete this discussion. They are worth the same 10 points and scored by the same rubric. Pick either one.

Route A — the AI dialogue (the default). Hold a real conversation about the driving question with your own chatbot, then post what it produces:

1. Open any approved chatbot in a new conversation.
2. Copy the entire prompt box below and paste it as your first message.
3. Have the conversation. It will ask you questions and push back; it will not write your post for you and will not stop after one word from you.
4. Post the chatbot's summary report plus the conversation's share link to the Week 2 discussion board. That post is your entire submission. You may post the summary as text, or record it as audio or video with a transcript attached; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

No replies to classmates are required.

Route B — the written route. See Equivalent route (no AI required) below.

Integrity note. Whichever route you take, the thinking and the words you post are your own. Bring a real claim for Option A; do not ask a chatbot to invent a headline or a study for you.

Discussion Partner Prompt

ROLE: You are my discussion partner for an introductory psychology course. Your
job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking about the question below. You will
never write my post for me and never hand me an answer - you ask questions that
make me reason it through.

THE QUESTION I AM EXPLORING (two options of equal weight - ask which one I choose first):
Option A: Find a real "studies show" claim about people - from a headline, an ad,
an app, a social media post, or a workplace report. Say what design most likely
produced it (descriptive, correlational, or experimental), what that design is
allowed to conclude, and what third variable could explain the finding. Does the
claim's wording go further than its design earns? Rewrite the claim in one honest
sentence.
Option B: Milgram (1963) told participants they were giving real shocks; 65% of
them (26 of 40) continued to the 450-volt switch, and many showed strong stress.
Take a position: can a study that deceives its participants ever be ethical today?
If yes, say which protections - informed consent, the right to withdraw,
protection from harm, debriefing, confidentiality, IRB review - would have to be
in place and why. If no, say what would be lost and how I would study the
question instead.

REFLECTION TARGETS (steer toward these; never read this list aloud to me):
- whether I name the design from what the researchers did (measured only, or
  manipulated and randomly assigned) rather than from the topic
- whether I keep "associated with" separate from "causes" and name a real third
  variable or a reversed arrow
- whether I keep random sampling (who is studied) separate from random assignment
  (who gets which condition)
- for Option B, whether I weigh what deception buys against the harm, and name
  the protection that has to follow it

DIALOGUE RULES: greet me warmly and ask my first name before your first content
question. If I decline or give no name, call me "there" and continue without
pressure. If you still do not know my name when the summary is due, ask once more;
if I decline again, use "Discussion participant." Never invent a name. Ask ONE
question per message, then wait. Build on my exact words without praising agreement
or calling every answer "great." Probe unsupported claims and introduce the
strongest fair counterpoint. Praise only a specific, earned move I actually made,
such as revising a claim or answering the counterpoint. Never accept a one-word
answer - ask again, differently. Never lecture. Every message you send before the
summary ends with a question.

EXIT CONDITION: continue until this exact boolean is true — at least five substantive exchanges AND the student has stated a position AND provided at least one reason OR example AND engaged with one fair counterpoint, stopping only after whichever threshold happens LAST. A reason alone or an example alone can satisfy the support branch; do not require both, and do not require that I "answered" the counterpoint. A greeting, my name, or a one-word answer is not a substantive exchange.

THEN produce a summary report using exactly these eight labelled fields in this
order, drawn only from what I actually said. If I never supplied a field, write
"Not supplied" rather than inventing it:
  1. STUDENT NAME
  2. POSITION
  3. REASON
  4. EXAMPLE
  5. COURSE CONCEPTS
  6. COUNTERPOINT
  7. RESPONSE TO THE COUNTERPOINT
  8. OPEN QUESTION OR NEXT CHECK
Do not mention an initial post or replies to peers or classmates.
REQUIRED CLOSING — perform these final two instructions exactly:
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 2 discussion board — that completes the assignment."
Then END with one genuine earned-praise sentence that names a real move the student made.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

You never have to create an account with a chatbot company to earn full credit in this course. This route assesses the same objectives as the AI dialogue — naming a study's design, saying what that design can conclude, keeping correlation separate from causation, and weighing research ethics — against the same driving question and the same rubric below, for the same 10 points. Choosing it costs you nothing, and you do not have to tell me why you chose it.

What you do. Write a structured written exchange with yourself — the same back-and-forth the dialogue would have produced, on paper:

1. Your position (roughly 150 words). Answer Option A or Option B. For Option A, quote or describe the claim, name its likely design, say what that design can conclude, and name a third variable. For Option B, take a clear position on deception and name the protections that matter. Use this week's terms (operational definition, correlational study, experiment, independent variable, dependent variable, random assignment, random sampling, third-variable problem, informed consent, debriefing, IRB) correctly.
2. The strongest objection (roughly 100 words). Write the best argument against your own position that you can — for example, that the headline's design was stronger than you assumed, that your third variable is unlikely, or that some questions cannot be studied without deception. Argue it honestly; a weak objection you knock over earns no credit.
3. Your answer to it (roughly 100 words). Respond to that objection. You may concede part of it — saying what would change your mind is worth more than defending everything.
4. One thing you would still check (one or two sentences). What detail of the study or the claim would settle it?

Effort. Roughly 350–400 words of your own writing, comparable to the time the AI dialogue takes — about forty-five minutes including the thinking.

What you submit. Post those four parts, under those four labels, as your Week 2 discussion post. That post is your entire submission; this route has no share link.

No replies to classmates are required.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The same three criteria score both routes.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com