Week 15 Analysis Workshop: Stigma and Willingness to Seek Help

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned that stigma, the negative stereotypes about people with a mental health condition and the prejudice and discrimination that follow, is one of the main barriers that keep people from seeking care. You also saw that the evidence for a therapy comes from experiments with random assignment, not from happy stories. In this workshop you put both ideas to work. You compute r for a small, made-up set of eight students who answered a stigma survey and rated how willing they would be to talk with a counselor. You read the number for direction and strength, write the sentence that says "associated with," and name what else could explain it. Then you judge the stigma survey as an operational definition, checking its reliability and validity, and design the experiment that could test whether a short talk by students who have used counseling lowers stigma. Last, you check a chatbot's answers to the same questions and correct what it gets wrong. Nobody in this workshop is real, and nobody is diagnosed.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: In these eight students, how strongly are stigma scores associated with willingness to talk with a counselor, what is that association allowed to claim, and what study could test whether hearing from students who have used counseling lowers stigma?

Workshop data: stigma scores and willingness to seek counseling (illustrative)

Source: An illustrative dataset constructed for this workshop, not from a real study: eight hypothetical students each answered a five-item survey about beliefs that seeking counseling is a sign of weakness, scored 0 to 4 per item for a stigma score from 0 to 20, and rated how willing they would be to talk with a counselor if they were struggling, from 1 (not at all) to 10 (completely willing).

• Rows: 8 students, one row each (the data table in Part 4 also has 8 rows)
• Columns: stigma score from 0 to 20; willingness to talk with a counselor from 1 to 10
• Design: correlational: both variables were measured, and nobody was assigned a stigma score

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. In A1 type Stigma and in B1 type Willingness. Copy the eight pairs from the data table in Part 4 into A2:B9, one student per row. Tool: Google Sheets (free) or Excel. Check: Rows 2 to 9 hold eight pairs, and the stigma scores in column A run from 2 to 16.
2. In D1 type =AVERAGE(A2:A9) and in D2 type =AVERAGE(B2:B9). Copy both means into the results table, then mark each student's row in the data table as above or below the mean stigma score. Tool: Google Sheets (free) or Excel. Check: Each mean falls between the smallest and the largest value in its own column.
3. In D3 type =CORREL(A2:A9,B2:B9) and set the cell to show four decimals. Copy r into the results table, then write its direction (positive or negative) and its strength in words. Tool: Google Sheets (free) or Excel. Check: The cell shows a number between −1 and +1 with four decimals.
4. Select A1:B9 and insert a scatter chart. Put the stigma score on the horizontal axis and willingness on the vertical axis, and give both axes a title. Describe the pattern in one sentence in words, not by color or position alone. Tool: Google Sheets (free) or Excel. Check: Eight dots appear, one per student, with both axes titled.
5. In your document, explain how the five-item survey turns the fuzzy word stigma into an operational definition, then say whether the survey would be reliable and whether it would be valid, with one reason each. Tool: A document or notebook for your written answers. Check: Your answer names the exact, observable procedure (five items, each scored 0 to 4, added to a total from 0 to 20).
6. Complete the design table in Part 4 for an experiment that could test whether a short talk by students who have used counseling lowers stigma scores: name the IV, the DV, the control group, how participants are chosen, how they are placed in conditions, and one ethical protection the study must give them. Check: Every row of the design table holds a specific plan, not a single word.

Fallback route

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

Work the same steps by hand on paper. Add each column and divide by 8 to get each mean. For each student, subtract the mean from the stigma score and from the willingness rating, multiply the two differences, and square each difference. Add each of the three new columns, then divide the sum of the products by the square root of the product of the two sums of squares to get r, rounding to four decimals. Draw the scatterplot on paper with labelled axes. Complete every scaffold table, answer every analysis question, do 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

These are the workshop's illustrative data; mark each student against the mean stigma score so you can see the pattern before you compute r.

Student scaffold table 1

Student	Stigma score (0 to 20)	Willingness to talk with a counselor (1 to 10)	Above or below the mean stigma score?
1	2	9
2	4	8
3	6	8
4	8	6
5	10	6
6	12	4
7	14	5
8	16	2

Record your results here so your interpretation rests on numbers you produced yourself.

Student scaffold table 2

Quantity	Your value or words	How you found it
Mean stigma score
Mean willingness rating
r for stigma and willingness
Direction of the association
Strength of the association

Plan the experiment that could test whether a short talk by students who have used counseling lowers stigma, one design choice per row.

Student scaffold table 3

Design element	Your plan
Independent variable (IV)
Dependent variable (DV), with its operational definition
Control group
How participants are chosen
How participants are placed in conditions
One ethical protection and why

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Report r for stigma scores and willingness to four decimals. Say what its sign tells you about direction and what its size tells you about strength.
2. Write the interpretation sentence for these data using the words "associated with." Then name one third variable that could drive both measures, and describe one way the causal arrow could run the other way.
3. Using your design table and this week's lesson on how we know a therapy works, explain which feature of your experiment would let it support the claim that the talk lowers stigma, and why a before-and-after survey of the same students, with no comparison group, could not.
4. Give two limits of these data and this measure: one about the sample (eight hypothetical students) and one about whether a five-item survey is a valid measure of stigma.
5. Choose one reflection and answer it in 3–4 sentences: (a) a classmate reads your scatterplot and says, "So stigma makes people refuse counseling, and the counseling center should stop advertising." What would you tell them, and what evidence would change your answer? (b) Think of a campaign you have seen that tries to make asking for help feel ordinary. How would you operationalize its goal and design a fair check of whether it works?

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 Analysis Workshop tables above. In an illustrative dataset, eight hypothetical students each answered a five-item survey about beliefs that seeking counseling is a sign of weakness (a stigma score from 0 to 20, higher meaning more stigmatizing beliefs) and rated how willing they would be to talk with a counselor if they were struggling, on a 1-to-10 scale. The pairs (stigma score, willingness) are: 2 and 9, 4 and 8, 6 and 8, 8 and 6, 10 and 6, 12 and 4, 14 and 5, 16 and 2. Please do six things. First, compute the correlation coefficient r and interpret it. Second, say whether these data show that stigma causes people to avoid counseling. Third, name the independent variable and the dependent variable in these data. Fourth, explain how to choose and place participants in a study that could show whether a short talk by students who have used counseling lowers stigma scores. Fifth, say whether the five-item stigma survey is a reliable and a valid measure of stigma. Sixth, say whether the statement "hearing from people who have used counseling lowers stigma" is a theory or a hypothesis. Do not diagnose anyone.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often write that stigma causes students to avoid counseling, or that lowering stigma will raise willingness, turning a correlation into a cause.
• Chatbots often label the stigma score as the independent variable and willingness as the dependent variable in these data.
• Chatbots often say that picking students at random from the whole campus is what lets the study show that the talk lowers stigma.
• Chatbots often say the stigma survey must be valid because students give about the same total when they take it twice.
• Chatbots often call "hearing from people who have used counseling lowers stigma" a theory.

In 3–5 sentences, say what the chatbot got right, quote at least two sentences it got wrong, and correct each one with evidence from your own tables, your scatterplot, or this week's definitions. Also note whether it stayed away from diagnosing anyone.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. This route assesses the same objectives, Objective 8 (apply psychological science to social behavior, stress and health, and the classification and evidence-based treatment of psychological disorders, using accurate and non-stigmatizing language) and Objective 2 (evaluate psychological research methods and ethics, distinguishing correlation from causation, random sampling from random assignment, and identifying sources of bias), takes comparable effort of about the same 90 minutes, uses the same rubric, and earns the same credit. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "The eight students prove that stigma causes people to avoid counseling, because the correlation is strong. The stigma score is the independent variable and willingness is the dependent variable. Because the students were picked at random from the whole campus, a study like this shows that a talk would lower stigma. Students get the same total when they take the survey twice, so it must be a valid measure of stigma. The idea that hearing from people who have used counseling lowers stigma is a well-established theory." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (a correlation read as a cause, variables mislabeled, sampling confused with assignment, reliability confused with validity, or a hypothesis called a theory), cite evidence from your tables or this week's definitions, and write a corrected sentence beneath it. Submit the marked-up analysis in place of the chatbot critique report and share link; it is scored by the same rubric row for the same credit.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• All three completed scaffold tables
• Your scatterplot, or a labelled sketch of it, with a one-sentence description in words
• Your judgment of the stigma survey as an operational definition, with its reliability and validity judgments
• 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 stigma and willingness to seek counseling: three completed tables (the eight illustrative pairs marked against the mean, your computed means and r with their direction and strength, and your experiment design), a scatterplot or labelled sketch with a one-sentence description, a judgment of the stigma survey as an operational definition with reliability and validity reasons, written answers to five analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's answers to the same questions, 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
Computing and reading r	The means and r are computed from the eight pairs by formula or by hand, r is reported to four decimals, and its direction and strength are stated correctly in words.	r is computed, but a mean is missing or wrong, r is not rounded to four decimals, or the direction or the strength is misread.	No r is reported, or the value is invented rather than computed.
The interpretation sentence and the third variable	The sentence says "associated with" and never claims a cause, names a plausible third variable, and describes a reversed causal arrow.	The sentence avoids a causal claim but omits the third variable or the reversed arrow, or names one only vaguely.	The interpretation claims that stigma causes students to avoid counseling, or no interpretation is given.
Operational definition with reliability and validity	The survey's exact procedure (items, scoring, total) is stated as the operational definition of stigma, and reliability and validity are each judged with a specific reason.	The procedure is described vaguely, or reliability and validity are judged without reasons or are confused with each other.	No operational definition is described, or reliability and validity are not addressed.
Designing the experimental check	The design table labels the IV and the DV correctly, includes a control group, separates random sampling from random assignment, and names an ethical protection with a reason.	The design is present, but one element is missing, the IV and DV are swapped, or sampling and assignment are blurred.	No design is given, or it cannot support a causal claim and does not say why.
Critique and correction	The chatbot critique report or the marked-up flawed analysis quotes at least two errors and corrects each with evidence; both routes earn this band equally.	The chatbot critique report or the marked-up flawed analysis names an error but corrects it without evidence, or corrects only one; both routes earn this band equally.	No chatbot critique report or marked-up flawed analysis is submitted, or the output is pasted without any check; both routes are scored the same way.

Quality Gate

• Every mean and r in your tables comes from your own formulas or your own hand calculation from the eight pairs, never from memory or a chatbot.
• Your interpretation sentence says "associated with," gives direction and strength, and names a third variable; it never says stigma causes students to avoid counseling.
• Your scatterplot or sketch shows eight dots with both axes titled, and its description is in words.
• Your design table labels the IV and the DV correctly and places participants in conditions by random assignment.
• No statistic, study, or source is invented anywhere in the submission, no real person is described, and nobody is diagnosed.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least two errors with evidence from your tables or this week's definitions.