Taking the quiz was fairly easy because I have been citing things in papers for quite some time, but there were still some things that surprised me. For example, the question that asked about Wikipedia and if it needed to be cited; I went back and forth debating whether is was important or not because anyone can change it, but yes you must cite it. Another thing that shocked me was the question about students collaborating. I knew you had to give some sort of credit for other student’s work, but I didn’t know a proper citation is in order, otherwise it is considered plagiarism.
Jill Abramson’s use of plagiarizing in her new book, Merchants of Truth: The Business of News and the Fight for Facts. The people at Vice caught her and Michael C. Moynihan and he said it was “clotted with mistakes” (Stieb, 2019) and said that six paragraphs were stolen from prior reports. It was said that these paragraphs were word for word from this previous published work like, Time Out and the New Yorker. Jill responded to the backlash she was getting by saying “Please do not quote for publication without checking the finished book” (Stieb, 2019). She was trying to defend herself, but there’s a flaw in that thinking. Why would massive errors like these factual ones be corrected later? Her work and provable plagiarism wasn’t adding up with her words she was speaking.
The study I chose to look at was hangry fights. The study is about how glucose levels can affect mood and tension in one’s body. Glucose levels were looked at and tested every morning before breakfast and every evening before bed for twenty-one days. Most of the research were based on the levels at night, because it is known from other studies that levels go down throughout the day. This means that it’s much easier to control temper and things like it in the day when you have higher glucose levels, and higher energy due to how much glucose is in your body. They will take the tests on glucose as well has have the participants poke up to fifty-one pins into the voodoo doll they receive at the end of each day while alone, to see how they feel about their spouse. (Bushman, DeWall, Pond, Hanus, Baumeister, 2014).
The hypothesis for this study is “Evening glucose levels will predict aggression impulses and also aggressive behavior in married couples” (Bushman et al., 2014). The primary source, the one cited before is where the hypothesis for this study was presented. The secondary source did not provide a specific hypothesis. In the primary source there was detailed information about specifically what and why they conducted this study. They wanted to know if glucose had correlation to aggression in married couples, especially in the later hours of the day. While the secondary source gave a vague outline of what the survey would be covering, there was never any details and they skipped over some things that the first source went into depth with. They never said specifically what time of day, like before breakfast in the morning or before bed in the evening like the primary source explained. The primary source also provides small intricate details that the secondary source was lacking like the example I gave about as well as how the primary source gave us detail information and statistics on how aggressive they were poking the voodoo dolls across the twenty-one days (Bushman et al., 2014).
The primary source as well as the secondary provided information on how many participants there were in the study. Although they both gave the number of participants, the primary source gave more in-depth information. The primary source gave information on how all couples were heterosexual and have an average age among 107 participants of 35.6 add or subtract 10.9 years (Bushman et al., 2014). It was also said that 78 percent of this study was among white race who’ve been married about twelve years. In the primary source it was told that the participants were brought in by advertisements and were paid $100 per couple (Bushman et al., 2014). The secondary source did not specify any of this information other than the number of participants in the study (Alexander, 2014).
This study is broken down into a ton of different sections in the primary source. It’s all very well organized and easy to understand. They tell us an overview of the study and a little bit about what they are going to do procedure wise through the twenty-one days. Including many details about the participants age, gender, and race before even starting telling us the study. It talks about self-control and how it correlates to this study as well as the methods they are using to test and the result that occurred (Bushman et al., 2014). The secondary source gave little information about age, race, and gender but did give a number of participants. This source is not broken into pieces like the primary source was, as well as the detail seems to be lacking. This source also seemed like a very long overview of what happened. It gives the reader an idea of what happened, but leaves out some of the important details; like times and exactly what happened throughout this among the men and women participants. Also, the secondary source does not give number or averages when talking about the results in the study (Alexander, 2014). I think that’s a major issue. Numbers help whoever’s reading the study gain a better understanding of the outcome and how it differs from person to person, and among different genders. A weakness in the study that was talked about in the primary source was that some of the participants got suspicious when it came to the aggression task. Some participants thought it wasn’t their spouse but the data didn’t differ so they continued to use it (Bushman et al., 2014).
Overall both sources gave the same information. The primary source gave much more in regards to detail. I felt like the primary source was also much easier to fallow with the organized sections and numbers given thought the study explaining what they were finding. I also think the result and discussion section were very beneficial in the first source. The results gave us numbers and specific data and the discussion section used that information to explain self-control and aggression tendencies (Bushman et al., 2014). The secondary source seemed much like the overview in the primary source, just a bit longer. It didn’t seem detailed and it was hard to focus on the information there with unrelated ads and popups everywhere (Alexander, 2014). The primary source is the superior one in my eyes and the one people should use. It goes into more detail and definitely paints the study in your mind as you read. They had more specific information and data that helped the reader understand exactly what they were getting from the study.
References
- Brad B., Nathan D., Richard P., Michael H., Roy B. (2014) Low glucose relates to greater aggression in married couples. Columbus, Ohio. The Ohio State University.
- Brian A. (2014) Low blood sugar tied to ‘hangry’ fights with spouse. NBC. Revieved from. https://www.today.com/health/low-blood-sugar-tied-hangry-fights-spouse-2D79526249
- Matt S. (2019) Former New York Times editor Jill Abramson accused of plagiarism. New York media LLC. Received from. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/former-times-editor-jill-abramson-accused-of-plagiarism.html
