A NOVEL TEACHER EVALUATION MODEL 1 Branching Paths A Nove.docx

A NOVEL TEACHER EVALUATION MODEL 1
Branching Paths: A Novel Teacher Evaluation Model for
Faculty Development
Kim A. Park,1 James P. Bavis,1 and Ahn G. Nu2
1Department of English, Purdue University
2Center for Faculty Education, Department of Educational
Psychology, Quad City University
Author Note
Kim A. Park https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1825-0097
James P. Bavis is now at the MacLeod Institute for Music
Education, Green Bay, WI.
We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Ahn G. Nu, Dept. of
Educational Psychology, 253 N. Proctor St., Quad City, WA,
09291. Email: [email protected]
jforte
Text Box
Page numbers begin on the first page and follow on every
subsequent page without interruption. No other information

(e.g., authors' last names) are required.
jforte
Text Box
Note: Green text boxes contain explanations of APA 7's paper
formatting guidelines...
jforte
Text Box
...while blue text boxes contain directions for writing and citing
in APA 7.
jforte
Text Box
The paper's title should be centered, bold, and written in title
case. It should be three or four lines below the top margin of the
page. In this sample paper, we've put three blank lines above
the title.
jforte
Text Box
The running head is a shortened version of the paper's title that
appears on every page. It is written in all capitals, and it should
be flush left in the document's header. No "Running head:" label
is included in APA 7. If the paper's title is fewer than 50
characters (including spaces and punctuation), the actual title
may be used rather than a shortened form.
jforte
Text Box
Author notes contain the following parts in this order:
1. Bold, centered "Author Note" label.
2. ORCID iDs
3. Changes of author affiliation.
4. Disclosures/ acknowledgments
5. Contact information.

Each part is optional (i.e., you should omit any parts that do not
apply to your manuscript, or omit the note entirely if none
apply).
Format each item as its own indented paragraph.
jforte
Text Box
Authors' names appear two lines below the title. They should be
written as follows:
First name, middle initial(s), last name.
Omit all professional titles and/or degrees (e.g., Dr., Rev., PhD,
MA).
jforte
Text Box
Authors' affiliations follow immediately after their names. If
the authors represent multiple institutions, as is the case in this
sample, use superscripted numbers to indicate which author is
affiliated with which institution. If all authors represent the
same institution, do not use any numbers.
jforte
Text Box
ORCID is an organization that allows researchers and scholars
to register professional profiles so that they can easily connect
with one another. To include an ORCID iD in your author note,
simply provide the author's name, followed by the green iD icon
(hyperlinked to the URL that follows) and a hyperlink to the
appropriate ORCID page.
jforte
Line

jforte
Line
jforte
Line
jforte
Line
jforte
Line
Abstract
A large body of assessment literature suggests that students’
evaluations of their teachers
(SETs) can fail to measure the construct of teaching in a variety
of contexts. This can
compromise faculty development efforts that rely on
information from SETs. The disconnect
between SET results and faculty development efforts is
exacerbated in educational contexts
that demand particular teaching skills that SETs do not value in
proportion to their local
importance (or do not measure at all). This paper responds to
these challenges by proposing an

instrument for the assessment of teaching that allows
institutional stakeholders to define the
teaching construct in a way they determine to suit the local
context. The main innovation of this
instrument relative to traditional SETs is that it employs a
branching “tree” structure populated
by binary-choice items based on the Empirically derived,
Binary-choice, Boundary-definition
(EBB) scale developed by Turner and Upshur for ESL writing
assessment. The paper argues
that this structure can allow stakeholders to define the teaching
construct by changing the order
and sensitivity of the nodes in the tree of possible outcomes,
each of which corresponds to a
specific teaching skill. The paper concludes by outlining a pilot
study that will examine the
differences between the proposed EBB instrument and a
traditional SET employing series of
multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that correspond to Likert
scale values.
Keywords: college teaching, student evaluations of teaching,
scale development, ebb
scale, pedagogies, educational assessment, faculty development

jforte
Text Box
Note that both the running head and the page number continue
on the pages that follow the title.
jforte
Text Box
The word "Abstract" should be centered and bolded at the top of
the page.
jforte
Text Box
The main paragraph of the abstract should not be indented.
jforte
Text Box
By standard convention, abstracts do not contain citations of
other works. If you need to refer to another work in the
abstract, mentioning the authors in the text can often suffice.
Note also that some institutions and publications may allow for
citations in the abstract.
jforte
Text Box
An abstract quickly summarizes the main points of the paper
that follows it. The APA 7 manual does not give explicit
directions for how long abstracts should be, but it does note that
most abstracts do not exceed 250 words (p. 38). It also notes
that professional publishers (like academic journals) may have a
variety of rules for abstracts, and that writers should typically
defer to these.
jforte
Text Box
Follow the abstract with a selection of keywords that describe
the important ideas or subjects in your paper. These help online

readers search for your paper in a database.
The keyword list should have its first line indented. Begin the
list with the label "Keywords:" (note the italics and the colon).
Follow this with a list of keywords written in lowercase (except
for proper nouns) and separated by commas. Do not place a
period at the end of the list.
Branching Paths: A Novel Teacher Evaluation Model for
Faculty Development
According to Theall (2017), “Faculty evaluation and
development cannot be considered
separately ... evaluation without development is punitive, and
development without evaluation is
guesswork” (p. 91). As the practices that constitute modern
programmatic faculty development
have evolved from their humble beginnings to become a
commonplace feature of university life
(Lewis, 1996), a variety of tactics to evaluate the proficiency of
teaching faculty for development
purposes have likewise become commonplace. These include
measures as diverse as peer
observations, the development of teaching portfolios, and
student evaluations.
One such measure, the student evaluation of teacher (SET), has
been virtually

ubiquitous since at least the 1990s (Wilson, 1998). Though
records of SET-like instruments can
be traced to work at Purdue University in the 1920s (Remmers
& Brandenburg, 1927), most
modern histories of faculty development suggest that their rise
to widespread popularity went
hand-in-hand with the birth of modern faculty development
programs in the 1970s, when
universities began to adopt them in response to student protest
movements criticizing
mainstream university curricula and approaches to instruction
(Gaff & Simpson, 1994; Lewis,
1996; McKeachie, 1996). By the mid-2000s, researchers had
begun to characterize SETs in
terms like “…the predominant measure of university teacher
performance […] worldwide”
(Pounder, 2007, p. 178). Today, SETs play an important role in
teacher assessment and faculty
development at most universities (Davis, 2009). Recent SET
research practically takes the
presence of some form of this assessment on most campuses as
a given. Spooren et al.
(2017), for instance, merely note that that SETs can be found at
“almost every institution of

higher education throughout the world” (p. 130). Similarly,
Darwin (2012) refers to teacher
evaluation as an established orthodoxy, labeling it a
“venerated,” “axiomatic” institutional
practice (p. 733).
Moreover, SETs do not only help universities direct their
faculty development efforts.
They have also come to occupy a place of considerable
institutional importance for their role in
jforte
Text Box
The paper's title is bolded and centered above the first body
paragraph. There should be no "Introduction" header.
jforte
Text Box
Here, we've borrowed a quote from an external source, so we
need to provide the location of the quote in the document (in
this case, the page number) in the parenthetical.
jforte
Text Box
By contrast, here, we've merely paraphrased an idea from the
external source. Thus, no location or page number is required.
jforte
Text Box
Spell out abbreviations the first time you use them, except in
cases where the abbreviations are very well-known (e.g.,

"CIA").
jforte
Text Box
When listing multiple citations in the same parenthetical, list
them alphabetically and separate them with semicolons.
jforte
Text Box
For sources with two authors, use an ampersand (&) between
the authors' names rather than the word "and."
jforte
Line
jforte
Line
jforte
Line
jforte
Line
jforte
Line
personnel considerations, informing important decisions like
hiring, firing, tenure, and
promotion. Seldin (1993, as cited in Pounder, 2007) finds that
86% of higher educational

institutions use SETs as important factors in personnel
decisions. A 1991 survey of department
chairs found 97% used student evaluations to assess teaching
performance (US Department of
Education). Since the mid-late 1990s, a general trend towards
comprehensive methods of
teacher evaluation that include multiple forms of assessment has
been observed
(Berk, 2005). However, recent research suggests the usage of
SETs in personnel decisions is
still overwhelmingly common, though hard percentages are hard
to come by, perhaps owing to
the multifaceted nature of these decisions (Boring et al., 2017;
Galbraith et al., 2012). In certain
contexts, student evaluations can also have ramifications
beyond the level of individual
instructors. Particularly as public schools have experienced
pressure in recent decades to adopt
neoliberal, market-based approaches to self-assessment and
adopt a student-as-consumer
mindset (Darwin, 2012; Marginson, 2009), information from
evaluations can even feature in
department- or school-wide funding decisions (see, for instance,
the Obama Administration’s

Race to the Top initiative, which awarded grants to K-12
institutions that adopted value-added
models for teacher evaluation).
However, while SETs play a crucial role in faulty development
and personnel decisions
for many education institutions, current approaches to SET
administration are not as well-suited
to these purposes as they could be. This paper argues that a
formative, empirical approach to
teacher evaluation developed in response to the demands of the
local context is better-suited
for helping institutions improve their teachers. It proposes the
Heavilon Evaluation of Teacher,
or HET, a new teacher assessment instrument that can
strengthen current approaches to
faculty development by making them more responsive to
teachers’ local contexts. It also
proposes a pilot study that will clarify the differences between
this new instrument and the
Introductory Composition at Purdue (ICaP) SET, a more
traditional instrument used for similar
purposes. The results of this study will direct future efforts to
refine the proposed instrument.

jforte
Text Box
Here, we've made an indirect or secondary citation (i.e., we've
cited a source that we found cited in a different source). Use the
phrase "as cited in" in the parenthetical to indicate that the
first-listed source was referenced in the second-listed one.
Include an entry in the reference list only for the secondary
source (Pounder, in this case).
jforte
Text Box
Here, we've cited a source that does not have a named author.
The corresponding reference list entry would begin with "US
Department of Education."
jforte
Text Box
Sources with three authors or more are cited via the first-listed
author's name followed by the Latin phrase "et al." Note that the
period comes after "al," rather than "et."
jforte
Text Box
Note: For the sake of brevity, the next page of the original
paper was cut from this sample document.
jforte
Line
jforte
Line
jforte
Line

Methods section, which follows, will propose a pilot study that
compares the results of the
proposed instrument to the results of a traditional SET (and will
also provide necessary
background information on both of these evaluations). The
paper will conclude with a discussion
of how the results of the pilot study will inform future iterations
of the proposed instrument and,
more broadly, how universities should argue for local
development of assessments.
Literature Review
Effective Teaching: A Contextual Construct
The validity of the instrument this paper proposes is contingent
on the idea that it is
possible to systematically measure a teacher’s ability to teach.
Indeed, the same could be said
for virtually all teacher evaluations. Yet despite the exceeding
commonness of SETs and the
faculty development programs that depend on their input, there
is little scholarly consensus on
precisely what constitutes “good” or “effective” teaching. It
would be impossible to review the

entire history of the debate surrounding teaching effectiveness,
owing to its sheer scope—such
a summary might need to begin with, for instance, Cicero and
Quintilian. However, a cursory
overview of important recent developments (particularly those
revealed in meta-analyses of
empirical studies of teaching) can help situate the instrument
this paper proposes in relevant
academic conversations.
Meta-analysis 1. One core assumption that undergirds many of
these conversations is
the notion that good teaching has effects that can be observed in
terms of student achievement.
A meta-analysis of 167 empirical studies that investigated the
effects of various teaching factors
on student achievement (Kyriakides et al., 2013) supported the
effectiveness of a set of
teaching factors that the authors group together under the label
of the “dynamic model” of
teaching. Seven of the eight factors (Orientation, Structuring,
Modeling, Questioning,
Assessment, Time Management, and Classroom as Learning
Environment) corresponded to
moderate average effect sizes (of between 0.34–0.41 standard

deviations) in measures of
jforte
Text Box
Second-level headings are flush left, bolded, and written in title
case.
Third level headings are flush left, bolded, written in title case,
and italicized.
jforte
Text Box
Fourth-level headings are bolded and written in title case. They
are also indented and written in-line with the following
paragraph.
jforte
Text Box
When presenting decimal fractions, put a zero in front of the
decimal if the quantity is something that can exceed one (like
the number of standard deviations here). Do not put a zero if the
quantity cannot exceed one (e.g., if the number is a proportion).
jforte
Line
jforte
Line
jforte
Line
student achievement. The eighth factor, Application (defined as

seatwork and small-group tasks
oriented toward practice of course concepts), corresponded to
only a small yet still significant
effect size of 0.18. The lack of any single decisive factor in the
meta-analysis supports the idea
that effective teaching is likely a multivariate construct.
However, the authors also note the
context-dependent nature of effective teaching. Application, the
least-important teaching factor
overall, proved more important in studies examining young
students (p. 148). Modeling, by
contrast, was especially important for older students.
Meta-analysis 2. A different meta-analysis that argues for the
importance of factors like
clarity and setting challenging goals (Hattie, 2009) nevertheless
also finds that the effect sizes
of various teaching factors can be highly context-dependent. For
example, effect sizes for
homework range from 0.15 (a small effect) to 0.64 (a
moderately large effect) based on the level
of education examined. Similar ranges are observed for
differences in academic subject (e.g.,
math vs. English) and student ability level. As Snook et al.
(2009) note in their critical response

to Hattie, while it is possible to produce a figure for the average
effect size of a particular
teaching factor, such averages obscure the importance of
context.
Meta-analysis 3. A final meta-analysis (Seidel & Shavelson,
2007) found generally
small average effect sizes for most teaching factors—
organization and academic domain-
specific learning activities showed the biggest cognitive effects
(0.33 and 0.25, respectively).
Here, again, however, effectiveness varied considerably due to
contextual factors like domain of
study and level of education in ways that average effect sizes do
not indicate.
These pieces of evidence suggest that there are multiple
teaching factors that produce
measurable gains in student achievement and that the relative
importance of individual factors
can be highly dependent on contextual factors like student
identity. This is in line with a well-
documented phenomenon in educational research that
complicates attempts to measure
teaching effectiveness purely in terms of student achievement.
This is that “the largest source of

variation in student learning is attributable to differences in
what students bring to school - their
abilities and attitudes, and family and community” (McKenzie
et al., 2005, p. 2). Student
achievement varies greatly due to non-teacher factors like
socio-economic status and home life
(Snook et al., 2009). This means that, even to the extent that it
is possible to observe the
effectiveness of certain teaching behaviors in terms of student
achievement, it is difficult to set
generalizable benchmarks or standards for student achievement.
Thus is it also difficult to make
true apples-to-apples comparisons about teaching effectiveness
between different educational
contexts: due to vast differences between different kinds of
students, a notion of what
constitutes highly effective teaching in one context may not in
another. This difficulty has
featured in criticism of certain meta-analyses that have
purported to make generalizable claims
about what teaching factors produce the biggest effects (Hattie,

2009). A variety of other
commentators have also made similar claims about the
importance of contextual factors in
teaching effectiveness for decades (see, e.g., Bloom et al., 1956;
Cashin, 1990; Theall, 2017).
The studies described above mainly measure teaching
effectiveness in terms of
academic achievement. It should certainly be noted that these
quantifiable measures are not
generally regarded as the only outcomes of effective teaching
worth pursuing. Qualitative
outcomes like increased affinity for learning and greater sense
of self-efficacy are also important
learning goals. Here, also, local context plays a large role.
SETs: Imperfect Measures of Teaching
As noted in this paper’s introduction, SETs are commonly used
to assess teaching
performance and inform faculty development efforts. Typically,
these take the form of an end-of-
term summative evaluation comprised of multiple-choice
questions (MCQs) that allow students
to rate statements about their teachers on Likert scales. These
are often accompanied with

short-answer responses which may or may not be optional.
SETs serve important institutional purposes. While
commentators have noted that there
are crucial aspects of instruction that students are not equipped
to judge (Benton & Young,
2018), SETs nevertheless give students a rare institutional
voice. They represent an opportunity
jforte
Text Box
To list a few sources as examples of a larger body of work, you
can use the word "see" in the parenthetical, as we've done here.
jforte
Line
to offer anonymous feedback on their teaching experience and
potentially address what they
deem to be their teacher’s successes or failures. Students are
also uniquely positioned to offer
meaningful feedback on an instructors’ teaching because they
typically have much more
extensive firsthand experience of it than any other educational
stakeholder. Even peer
observers only witness a small fraction of the instructional

sessions during a given semester.
Students with perfect attendance, by contrast, witness all of
them. Thus, in a certain sense, a
student can theoretically assess a teacher’s ability more
authoritatively than even peer mentors
can.
While historical attempts to validate SETs have produced mixed
results, some studies
have demonstrated their promise. Howard (1985), for instance,
finds that SET are significantly
more predictive of teaching effectiveness than self-report, peer,
and trained-observer
assessments. A review of several decades of literature on
teaching evaluations (Watchel, 1998)
found that a majority of researchers believe SETs to be
generally valid and reliable, despite
occasional misgivings. This review notes that even scholars who
support SETs frequently argue
that they alone cannot direct efforts to improve teaching and
that multiple avenues of feedback
are necessary (L’hommedieu et al., 1990; Seldin, 1993).
Finally, SETs also serve purposes secondary to the ostensible
goal of improving

instruction that nonetheless matter. They can be used to bolster
faculty CVs and assign
departmental awards, for instance. SETs can also provide
valuable information unrelated to
teaching. It would be hard to argue that it not is useful for a
teacher to learn, for example, that a
student finds the class unbearably boring, or that a student finds
the teacher’s personality so
unpleasant as to hinder her learning. In short, there is real value
in understanding students’
affective experience of a particular class, even in cases when
that value does not necessarily
lend itself to firm conclusions about the teacher’s professional
abilities.
However, a wealth of scholarly research has demonstrated that
SETs are prone to fail in
certain contexts. A common criticism is that SETs can
frequently be confounded by factors
external to the teaching construct. The best introduction to the
research that serves as the basis
for this claim is probably Neath (1996), who performs
something of a meta-analysis by

presenting these external confounds in the form of twenty
sarcastic suggestions to teaching
faculty. Among these are the instructions to “grade leniently,”
“administer ratings before tests”
(p. 1365), and “not teach required courses” (#11) (p. 1367).
Most of Neath’s advice reflects an
overriding observation that teaching evaluations tend to
document students’ affective feelings
toward a class, rather than their teachers’ abilities, even when
the evaluations explicitly ask
students to judge the latter.
Beyond Neath, much of the available research paints a similar
picture. For example, a
study of over 30,000 economics students concluded that “the
poorer the student considered his
teacher to be [on an SET], the more economics he understood”
(Attiyeh & Lumsden, 1972). A
1998 meta-analysis argued that “there is no evidence that the
use of teacher ratings improves
learning in the long run” (Armstrong, 1998, p. 1223). A 2010
National Bureau of Economic
Research study found that high SET scores for a course’s
instructor correlated with “high

contemporaneous course achievement,” but “low follow-on
achievement” (in other words, the
students would tend to do well in the course, but poor in future
courses in the same field of
study. Others observing this effect have suggested SETs reward
a pandering, “soft-ball”
teaching style in the initial course (Carrell & West, 2010). More
recent research suggests that
course topic can have a significant effect on SET scores as well:
teachers of “quantitative
courses” (i.e., math-focused classes) tend to receive lower
evaluations from students than their
humanities peers (Uttl & Smibert, 2017).
Several modern SET studies have also demonstrated bias on the
basis of gender
(Anderson & Miller, 1997; Basow, 1995), physical
appearance/sexiness (Ambady & Rosenthal,
1993), and other identity markers that do not affect teaching
quality. Gender, in particular, has
attracted significant attention. One recent study examined two
online classes: one in which
instructors identified themselves to students as male, and
another in which they identified as

jforte
Text Box
This citation presents quotations from different locations in the
original source. Each quotation is followed by the
corresponding page number.
jforte
Line
female (regardless of the instructor’s actual gender) (Macnell et
al., 2015). The classes were
identical in structure and content, and the instructors’ true
identities were concealed from
students. The study found that students rated the male identity
higher on average. However, a
few studies have demonstrated the reverse of the gender bias
mentioned above (that is, women
received higher scores) (Bachen et al., 1999) while others have
registered no gender bias one
way or another (Centra & Gaubatz, 2000).
The goal of presenting these criticisms is not necessarily to
diminish the institutional
importance of SETs. Of course, insofar as institutions value the
instruction of their students, it is
important that those students have some say in the content and

character of that instruction.
Rather, the goal here is simply to demonstrate that using SETs
for faculty development
purposes—much less for personnel decisions—can present
problems. It is also to make the
case that, despite the abundance of literature on SETs, there is
still plenty of room for scholarly
attempts to make these instruments more useful.
Empirical Scales and Locally-Relevant Evaluation
One way to ensure that teaching assessments are more
responsive to the demands of
teachers’ local contexts is to develop those assessments locally,
ideally via a process that
involves the input of a variety of local stakeholders. Here,
writing assessment literature offers a
promising path forward: empirical scale development, the
process of structuring and calibrating
instruments in response to local input and data (e.g., in the
context of writing assessment,
student writing samples and performance information). This
practice contrasts, for instance, with
deductive approaches to scale development that attempt to
represent predetermined theoretical

constructs so that results can be generalized.
Supporters of the empirical process argue that empirical scales
have several
advantages. They are frequently posited as potential solutions to
well-documented reliability and
validity issues that can occur with theoretical or intuitive scale
development (Brindley, 1998;
Turner & Upshur, 1995, 2002). Empirical scales can also help
researchers avoid issues caused
by subjective or vaguely-worded standards in other kinds of
scales (Brindley, 1998) because
they require buy-in from local stakeholders who must agree on
these standards based on
their understanding of the local context. Fulcher et al. (2011)
note the following, for instance:
Measurement-driven scales suffer from descriptional
inadequacy. They are not sensitive
to the communicative context or the interactional complexities
of language use. The level
of abstraction is too great, creating a gulf between the score and
its meaning. Only with

a richer description of contextually based performance, can we
strengthen the meaning
of the score, and hence the validity of score-based inferences.
(pp. 8–9)
There is also some evidence that the branching structure of the
EBB scale specifically
can allow for more reliable and valid assessments, even if it is
typically easier to calibrate and
use conventional scales (Hirai & Koizumi, 2013). Finally,
scholars have also argued that
theory-based approaches to scale development do not always
result in instruments that
realistically capture ordinary classroom situations (Knoch,
2007, 2009).
The most prevalent criticism of empirical scale development in
the literature is that the
local, contingent nature of empirical scales basically discards
any notion of their results’
generalizability. Fulcher …
1 | P a g e

19CSCI06I
Individual Final Assignment
2019 - 2020
Module Title Computer Graphics
Module Leader Prof. Dr. Samir El-Seoud Semester: Two
Assessment Weight
60% of the total course mark
Due Date
Tuesday, 9.6.20 at 10:00 pm
Instructions to Students:
• This exam is 3 pages long and contains 5 questions
• Answer all questions.
• This assignment is only 12 hrs long.
• The total mark of the exam is 100 marks. The approximate
allocation of
marks is shown in brackets by the questions.
• The word “Drive” indicates you MUST prove.
• The word "Describe” indicates you should only write down

without prove.
• You must show explicitly your calculations and not only final
results,
especially in matrix multiplications.
• Submission:
o Use the answer booklet provided on the e-learning, then
append
your answers starting the following page.
o Use Ariel 12 font, justified text and 1.5 spacing.
o Save the file as a pdf, the file name is:
GraphicsFinal_YournameYouID.pdf
(e.g GraphicsFinal_Omar123456.pdf)
o Upload the assignment to E-Learning by the deadline.
Answer,
MUST be submitted online on the e-Leaning website. No e-
mails.

2 | P a g e
• Academic Honesty:
o Copying of text from any source, or getting help from any
person
is a plagiarism. If any plagiarism case is detected, a misconduct
report will be filled and BUE regulations will be applied.
o Copy and paste will be considered as plagiarism, even from
our
textbook or posted slides. Use your own words and your own
text.
o Plagiarism will NOT be tolerated, and zero grade will be
assigned.
1 | P a g e
Q1 Define Briefly each of the following items:
[2 marks each]
Use your own words to define briefly each of the following
items. Copy and
paste from a source will be considered plagiarism and zero mark

will be
assigned.
1. Display Controller
2. Animation
3. Graphics Processing Unit (GPU)
4. Rendering
5. Transformation
6. Vanishing Point
7. Image processing
8. Clipping
9. Composite Transformation
10. Perspective foreshortening
[Q1:
Total 20 Marks]
Q2
Show all matrix multiplications. Use your own work.
1. Describe the transformation that rotates an object point, Q(x,
about a fixed center of rotation P(h, k).

[3 Marks]
2. Drive the general form of the matrix for rotation about a
point P(x, y).
[4 Marks]
3. Use a homogeneous matrix transformation to perform a 300
rotation of
triangle A(0,0), B(1,3), C(5,2) about P(-1,-1).
[5 Marks]
4. Determine the new coordinates of the rotated triangle.
[4 Marks]
5. Draw the original and the rotated triangle.
[4 Marks]
[Q2: Total 20 Marks]
2 | P a g e
Q3
1. Describe the transformation ML which reflects an object

about a line L.
[3 Marks]
2. Drive the explicit form of the matrix ML for reflection about
a line L with
slope m and y intercept (0, b).
[7 Marks]
3.
a. Reflect the L-shape whose vertices are A(-6,3), B(-4,3),
C(-4,1),
D(-2,1), E(-2,0), and F(6,0) about the line y=x
[8 Marks]
b. What are the new coordinates of the reflected object?
[2 Marks]
[Q3 Total: 20 Marks]
Q4
Show that the order in which transformations are performed is
important by the
transformation of the triangle A(1,0), B(0,1), C(1,1), by:
a. rotating 450 about the origin and then translating in the x-
axis direction
one unit, and
[8 Marks]

b. translating and then rotating.
[8 Marks]
In each case, find the new coordinates of the transformed
triangle ABC
[4 Marks]
3 | P a g e
Q5
Let an axis of rotation L be specified by a direction vector V=
2J and a location
point P(0,1,0).
Used 2 different methods (short and long method) to find the
transformation matrix for a rotation of 450 about L.
Refer to the figure below for a general vector V=aI+bJ+cK, a
point P(x,y,z), and

object rotation of angle θ0 about L.
a. Short method
[8 Marks]
b. Long method
[12 Marks]
Z
V L
•P
K Q θ Q′
Y
X
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 7,129-144 (1994)
Psychological Determinants of Decision

Attitude
JANE BEATTIE
University of Sussex, UK
JONATHAN BARON
University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA
JOHN C. HERSHEY
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA
MARK D. SPRANCA
University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
ABSTRACT
Decision attitude — an analog of risk attitude — is the
propensity to make (or
avoid making) a decision: in decision aversion, a person finds it
more desirable
to receive through fiat the better of two options than to have a
choice between
them; in decision seeking, the choice is more desirable, even
though it can lead
to nothing better than the best option. Both decision aversion
and decision seeking
were found in hypothetical scenarios. Experimental
manipulations and subjects'
justifications point to anticipated regret, fear of blame for poor
outcomes, and
desire for equitable distributions as sources of decision
aversion. One source
of decision seeking (for selO and decision aversion (when
deciding for others)
appears to be the desire for the self-determination of the
affected parties. We

consider the implications of our results for personal choice and
public policy
decisions.
KEY WORDS Decision aversion Decision seeking Personal
choice Public
policy decisions
PSYCHOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS OF DECISION
ATTITUDE
'If one liver is available for transplantation and two patients
need it, who should get it first
— a young mother with liver cancer, whose likelihood of
surviving with a transplant is only
20%, or a 65-year-old alcoholic, whose chance is 80% assuming
he stops drinking? . . . The choices
are so painful that everyone is trying to avoid being the one to
make them.' (News article in
Science magazine, 23 February 1990)
In this paper we introduce the concept of 'decision attitude',
which refers to the desire to make
CCC 0894-3257/94/020129-16 Received 9 September 1993
© 1994 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 1 February 1994
130 Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Vol. 7, Iss. No. 2
or avoid decisions, independent of any consequence' that they
achieve. When people are decision
averse, they prefer to avoid making decisions. When they are
decision seeking, they prefer to make
decisions, even if the decision will lead to the same outcome

that would have been offered anyway.
Decision attitude is analogous to 'risk attitude'. People are said
to be risk seeking when they prefer
to obtain a given outcome through a risky choice than a riskless
choice. The reverse is true of
risk aversion. Like risk attitude, a person's decision attitude is
defined operationally for each choice
that he or she makes (rather than necessarily implying any
stable personality trait or disposition).
We demonstrate decision aversion and decision seeking in a
variety of hypothetical situations.
Our first method presents subjects with questionnaires in which
situations A and B describe two
different outcomes. Situation C describes a choice to be made
between the two outcomes A and
B. For example, situation A might be to receive a sweater;
situation B to receive $50; and situation
C a choice between the (same) sweater and the cash. We asked
subjects to rate the desirability
or undesirability of being in each of the three situations.
Decision seeking is shown by a higher
rating for C than for the highest of A and B (e.g. 50 for C, 45
for B, 30 for A). In this case the
subject finds making a choice more satisfactory than the best
outcome that the choice could produce.
Decision aversion is indicated by a lower rating for C than for
the maximum of A and B. Decision
neutrality occurs when C is rated equal to the best of A and B.
This method avoids asking subjects
directly whether they prefer a choice to an outcome. In a second
method, we investigate preferences
directly by asking whether the subject prefers making a choice
between two equally desirable or
undesirable outcomes. In addition to demonstrating the
occurrence of decision seeking and decision

aversion, we also investigate the sources of each, through
experimental manipulations and subjects'
justifications.
Non-decision-neutral behavior has been argued by some to lead
to a failure to maximize utility
(see Machina, 1989, for a discussion). For example, imagine
Mary has twin daughters. Sue and
Sarah. Mary must decide whom to will her engagement ring to
(each daughter would love to have
it, and it is her only nice possession). Mary could will the ring
to Sue or to Sarah, or she could
have the ring sold. Mary and both daughters would prefer that
one daughter have the ring, but
Mary may have the ring sold instead to avoid deciding between
the two. This decision aversioti
seems to lead Mary to choose an option that has less utility than
the unchosen options, at least
under a straightforward analysis. A less straightforward analysis
might take into account decision
costs (see Shugan, 1980, and Payne et al., 1988, for elaborations
of this idea). Still, in this case,
it does not seem plausible that Mary chose to dispose of the ring
merely because she could not
be bothered to think about which daughter should have it.
A rational reason for decision seeking is to obtain additional
information. For example, the act
of choosing may force us to consider the alternatives and help
us to understand why we prefer
one over another. This information may be useful for later
decision making. Also, we may prefer
to make a choice than to be allocated an item because the choice
between the items (e.g. cash and
sweater) may not have to be resolved immediately, perhaps
allowing the decision maker to gather

more information about the options (e.g. the sweater). These
informational factors cannot account
for decision aversion, and we will demonstrate that decision
seeking may be found even when subjects
know that no other information will be available, and when
decision makers apparently have little
or no opportunity to learn anything of use concerning future
preferences.
Janis and Mann's (1977) confiict model of decision making
outlines two coping strategies that
people use to avoid making difiicult decisions (in which all
options involve serious risks and no
hope of a better option): if there is no time urgency,
procrastinate; if there is time urgency, attempt
' By 'consequence' we mean those states of affairs that we can
evaluate, in terms of our goals, no matter how they come
about: in particular, whether they result from our own decision
or not (Baron, 1993).
J. Beattie Qt a. Decision Attitude 131
to pass the buck or shift responsibility for the decision onto
someone else. (If the buck cannot
be passed, the decision maker will bolster the least
objectionable option.) These strategies minimize
the psychological stress inherent in high confiict decision
situations. Frisch et al. (1992), in a study
of real-life problem solving, found evidence that people avoid
decisions, particularly when the decision
resulted in great stress. While it may sometimes be rational to
reduce stress by avoiding a decision,
the short-term benefit of stress avoidance may, at other times,

not be worth the long-term cost.
Jones and Frisch (1993) showed that decisions made by rational
deliberation are more often associated
with good outcomes than those made by more chaotic methods.
Cognitive dissonance theory (e.g. Festinger, 1957; Festinger
and Carlsmith, 1959) likewise suggests
that decision aversion could result from confiict itself. For
example, if a father could save the life
of only one of his children, this terrible decision might produce
the dissonant cognitions that (1)
'I would do anything to save the life of my child' and (2) 'I must
let one of my children die'. He
would surely either suffer terrible grief whichever option he
chose, or try to avoid the decision al-
together (denying the decision, to reduce dissonance).
Dissonance theory also suggests a reason for
rational decision-seeking: the desirability of an option may
increase as a result of its having been
chosen voluntarily (Aronson and Mills, 1959).
Although decision seeking and aversion as we have defined
them could serve the goals of the
decision maker (or of others), we are primarily interested in
cases in which they do not. More generally,
we seek psychological mechanisms of decision seeking and
aversion that fail to distinguish cases
in which these attitudes are beneficial from those in which they
are harmful.
An intuitive example of decision aversion
To give the reader an intuitive experience of decision aversion,
we begin the experimental section
of our paper with an example that seems to us to be a
prototypical case (based on the experience
of the protagonist in Styron, 1979). We then consider what

features of a situation might produce
decision seeking or decision aversion, and we report the effects
of these features on decision attitude
as measured both by situation ratings and choices.
In the example that follows, each subject was asked to rate each
part on a scale from - 1 0 0
(as undesirable as possible), through 0 (neutral), to +100 (as
desirable as possible), but subjects
were told that they could go beyond the end points of the scale
if necessary. This instruction attempted
to avoid fioor effects (use of - 1 0 0 only) given the extreme
nature of the scenario.
BONE MARROW PROBLEM
You have twins, a boy and a girl. Both have an unusual disease
and will die immediately without
a bone marrow transplant.
A. Both children match you, so you could donate to either one.
You have only enough bone
marrow for one child, and there is no donor for the other child.
You choose which child will
get a transplant. The other will die.
B. Only one child matches you, but you do not know which one.
You have enough bone marrow
for both children. One child will die and the other will live.
C. Only one child matches you, the boy (girl). You have only
enough bone marrow for this child,
and there is no donor for the other child. She (he) will die.
Situation A involves an informed choice of which child will die
and which will live. The other
situations either give the subject no choice of what to do or the
choice is made in ignorance of
which child will benefit and which will lose. Note that all cases
have the same objective consequence:

one child alive and one child dead.
Fifty-one of 62 subjects showed decision aversion {A rated
worse than the best of the remaining
cases). Nine were decision neutral {A rated as equal to the best
of the rest) and two were decision
seeking (sign test, p < 0.0005). Throughout the paper we report
only non-parametric statistics (sign
tests) on the frequencies of subjects preferring some option over
some other option. The hypotheses
tested relate only to within-subject directions of the differences
between options, rather than to the
mean values assigned to each option. However, it is interesting
to note informally how different
the mean ratings were for the choice and no-choice items. The
rating scale was defined from - 1 0 0
to +100, yet the mean rated desirability of case A was - 3 3 2
(compared with - 1 1 6 for case C).
Subjects' justifications raise the issues of choice and knowledge
of identity as important features
of the desirability of the situation: 'It is a blind decision,
therefore less painful [B].' 'I'd have to
toss a coin to see which one of my kids would die.' 'How would
I choose?' 'No matter who is
saved I will feel guilty. How would I choose which child should
live and which shouldn't?' 'I didn't
want to be able to choose. Having to decide which child lives
and which dies is the worst choice
imaginable [A].' The argument that subjects are decision averse
purely because they do not wish

to incur the decision costs necessary to make a choice seems
implausible in this case, and no subject
mentioned this in his or her justifications.
Factors affecting decision seeking and aversion
Many factors might contribute to decision aversion and decision
seeking. Here we focus on factors
that pilot research suggested were important, and that have
received little attention elsewhere. Exam-
ples of factors that we do not study are the desire to remove
decisions from oneself for purposes
of self control (as discussed by Ainslie, 1975; Elster, 1979;
Thaler and Shefrin, 1981), the difiiculty
of trading off particular attributes (Beattie and Barlas, 1993),
and the desire to avoid decision costs
(e.g. Shugan, 1980).
(1) Preserving equity. Certain situations set up strong, socially
defined 'focal points' concerning
equitable distribution of some good among interested parties
(e.g. inheritance of all property
by the eldest son (in titled British families); equal division of
property between legitimate children
(in USA in the late twentieth century)). When all options violate
equity norms (as in the case
of Mary above), people may be decision averse.
(2) Anticipated regret and rejoicing. In making a decision under
uncertainty, people may take into
account the regret they might feel when they compare the
outcome they get to what they would
have received if another option were chosen (Bell, 1982;
Loomes and Sugden, 1982). Anticipated
regret could lead to decision aversion. For example, imagine
that a patient has one of two
equally likely diseases, only one chance to choose a treatment,

and each treatment is specific
to one disease. She may feel worse if the chosen treatment fails
than if there were no other
choice, for she will now know that the unchosen treatment
would have succeeded. Likewise,
decision seeking may result if people focus on the possibility of
rejoicing over a relatively good
outcome. Regret and rejoicing will be especially salient when,
as in this example, the decision
maker will find out what would have happened if the alternative
option had been chosen.
(Note that the roles of regret and rejoicing in this analysis are
different from their roles in
regret theory itself, where they both affect choices in the same
way. Anticipated regret and
rejoicing can have the same effect on the choices made but
opposite effects on the desirability
oi making a choice.)
(3) Role, standing, and autonomy. Belief in the value of self-
determination could lead to decision
aversion if one is deciding on behalf of another person, and
decision seeking when deciding
for oneself. Depending on the person, the situation, and the
culture, the opposite rules might
sometimes predominate: some people might enjoy making
decisions for others, or might wish
for some paternalistic decision maker to choose for them. Our
subjects were from a culture
J. Beattie et al. Decision Attitude 133
that emphasizes personal autonomy, so we expect the former
pattern to predominate.

(4) Accountability. Accountability, the need to justify decisions
to others (as studied by Tetlock,
1992), might cause decision aversion when either option is seen
as violating a social norm that
one's audience might support, or when either option could lead
to a bad outcome for which
one could be blamed in hindsight (Baron and Hershey, 1988).
In the studies below we manipulate these factors and examine
their effect on decision attitude.
We also collect justifications for subjects' responses, in order to
check that the subjects allude to
factors that we hypothesize will affect their preferences (rather
than to some artifact of the experiment).
We use the justifications merely to back up the results of the
experimental manipulations. No formal
quantitative analysis is attempted as many subjects wrote little
beyond restating their choices, or
wrote nothing at all. The preponderance of comprehensible
responses point, however, to the operation
of the hypothesized factors in each case.
METHOD
Subjects were students at the University of Chicago or the
University of Pennsylvania, solicited
through signs placed on the campuses and paid for their
participation. Each item briefiy described
a scenario with some situational variants. Some situations
involved decisions and some involved
outcomes without decisions. Subjects were asked to rate the
desirability of each situation and to
justify their response briefiy. (Subjects were omitted from some
analyses because they provided data
that were illegible, incomplete, or showed misunderstanding of

the instructions. The number of subjects
discarded in each item is given when the results for that item
are discussed, if relevant.)
The rating scale used for situations ran from - 1 0 0 ('as
undesirable as it can be'), through 0
('neither desirable nor undesirable'), to -I-100 ('as desirable as it
can be'). Subjects were also told
that they could, if they wished, go beyond the ends of the
scales, to try to avoid fioor and ceiling
effects for highly negative and positive items.
Equity, standing, and accountability
We begin our investigation with the effect of the equity factor
on decision attitude. We ask whether
people are decision averse when they must make a choice that
leads to a distribution perceived
as inequitable, as when an indivisible good must be given to one
of several people, each with an
equal right to it. This effect may be greater when the distributor
has little standing/right to make
the decision (e.g. he or she does not own the goods), when the
distributor uses personal choice
to distribute the goods unevenly, and when the recipients know
that the distributor made the choice
(because when these conditions hold the decision maker will be
held accountable and blamed). We
tested these predictions with the following item:
PIANO PROBLEM
You are the trustee of your sister Mary's estate. Mary had two
children. All the money has been
divided equally, and Mary's possessions must now be divided.
Mary's only major possession was
a priceless antique grand piano, which both children played as
children and which both children

would now like to have. The children are not allowed to see the
instructions concerning the piano.
Rate the situations from your point of view.
A. Mary instructed you to give the piano to the older child. The
children will know that this
was Mary's decision.
B. Mary instructed you to give the piano to the younger child.
The children will know that this
was Mary's decision.
C. Mary instructed you to decide which child got the piano. But
the children were told that
Mary herself decided who would get the piano, and you are not
allowed to tell them that you
decided.
D. Mary instructed you to give the piano to the older child. The
children were told that this
was your decision, and you are not allowed to tell them that
Mary decided.
E. Mary instructed you to give the piano to the younger child.
The children were told that this
was your decision, and you are not allowed to tell them that
Mary decided.
F. Mary instructed you to decide which child got the piano. The
children will know that you
decided.
A general pattern of strong decision aversion was found: 46 of
58 subjects rated C lower than
the maximum of A and B, six subjects were neutral and two
were seekers. (Four subjects were
discarded.) Subjects were significantly more decision averse

than decision seeking (sign test,
p < 0.0001). A similar pattern was found when A and B are
compared to F (in which the children
now know that you decided): there were 47 avoiders and four
seekers (sign test, p < 0.0001) (three
neutral and four discarded).
Subjects apparently preferred that the children believe that the
decision was Mary's, so that they
could avoid accountability. This is shown by comparisons
between A and D (older child) and between
B and E (younger child). In each case, 51 of 58 subjects prefer
that the children believe Mary decided.
(In the A versus D comparison, two preferred the opposite, one
was neutral, and four were discarded
(sign test, p < 0.0005); in the B versus E comparison three
preferred the opposite, one was neutral
and four were discarded: sign test, p < 0.0005.) This conclusion
is also supported by a comparison
between C and F. Thirty-seven of 58 subjects preferred that the
children believe that the decision
was Mary's (sign test,p < 0.0003). Those who preferred that the
children knew (13 subjects) apparently
did so because they thought that the truth should be known
(although they did not want the responsibi-
lity of actually choosing).
In sum, subjects would rather have choice removed from
themselves than be put into a situation
in which they are forced to make inequitable distributions to
parties with equal right to the good.
Several subjects suggested that they would resort to chance
mechanisms like a coin flip to remove
choice (and thus blame and accountability) from themselves.
This point is followed up in the second
part of the paper, in which subjects are explicitly offered the

use of chance devices. Perceived account-
ability also appears to affect decision attitude: subjects
preferred that their involvement in the decision
not be public knowledge.
Regret
Anticipated regret would affect decision aversion most strongly
when the decision maker had an
alternative option that would have led to a better outcome,
especially when the outcome of the
alternative is known. (Resolution of both chosen and unchosen
options is central to Bell's, 1982,
regret theory, although no research shows that this is necessary
for regret effects.) To examine the
effect of anticipated regret, we presented the following
problem, in which regret is possible only
in C:
MEDICAL INSURANCE PROBLEM
One medical insurance plan pays nothing for medical expenses
up to $1000 per year, but it pays
for all expenses beyond that, including nursing homes, mental
hospitals and experimental surgery.
Another medical plan covers 80% of these items, but it pays all
other medical bills. Both plans
cover families. John has a wife and two children who both
depend on his medical insurance.
John would like to have annual physical exams covered, but he
is worried about the prospect
of catastrophic illness. You are John.
Exhibit 1. Numbers of subjects showing post-outcome regret or

rejoicing dependent on success of choice, for
MEDICAL INSURANCE problem for (a) John and (b) benefits
officer, with sign test results
(a)
Situation
Need surgery, chose 1 (success)
Need surgery, chose 2 (failure)
Routine, chose 1 (failure)
Routine, chose 2 (success)
(b)
Situation
Need surgery, chose 1 (success)
Need surgery, chose 2 (failure)
Routine, chose 1 (failure)
Routine, chose 2 (success)
Regret
9
20
14
6
Regret
6
18
22
12

Neutral
27
28
17
21
Neutral
24
15
13
13
Rejoicing
7
2
5
9
Rejoicing
9
5
2
11
Discarded
15
18
22
22

No answer
19
20
21
24
n.s.
p < 0.002
p < 0 . 0 4
n.s.
n.s.
p < 0.005
p < 0.001
n.s.
A. John's employer offers only the first plan.
B. John's employer offers only the second plan.
C. John's employer offers both plans and he can choose which
plan he will get.
Out of 58 subjects, 35 were decision seeking, 11 were decision
averse {p < 0.0005, sign test), eight
were neutral (rating C the same as the maximum of ^ and B),
and four were discarded. As predicted,
we found that most subjects were decision seeking when
deciding for themselves.
To further investigate the role of regret we asked the same
subjects how they would feel if the
decision (1) turned out badly and (2) turned out well. Our
prediction was that subjects would be
most upset when the decision both turned out poorly and they

had made the decision. We also
predicted that subjects would show rejoicing (the opposite of
regret) when their own decision happened
to turn out well.
MEDICAL INSURANCE PROBLEM — POST-OUTCOME
ITEMS
Now please rate the following situations for how you would feel
if John's child was in a car
accident and needed expensive experimental surgery.
A. (as above)
B. (as above)
Cl. Situation C, and you chose the first plan.
C2. Situation C, and you chose the second plan.
Now please rate the following situations for how you would feel
if John's family needed only
routine treatment.
A. (as above)
B. (as above)
Cl. Situation C, and you chose the first plan.
C2. Situation C, and you chose the second plan.
(For both of these items, if subjects felt that either Cl or C2 was
a choice that they would never
have made, they were allowed to leave the item blank.)
Exhibit l(a) shows the results of the post-outcome ratings.
Regret is defined as rating the choice
(Cl or C2) worse than the same situation achieved through no
choice {A or B, respectively). Rejoicing
is the reverse, and neutral behavior is to set Cl = ^ or C2 = 5 .

In both cases in which their choice was a failure, subjects
showed a significant regret effect. However,
a significant rejoicing effect was not found for either of the
successful choices. If anticipated rejoicing
effects are generally not as great as the anticipated (negative)
regret effects, subjects would be generallj)
decision averse.
A second version of the medical insurance problem was run in
which the subject was not John,
but was a benefits officer who worked in John's company and
who must decide which health insurance
John would get because John was away on vacation. This
manipulated the effect of making the
decision for oneself versus another. In contrast to the situation
in which they were 'John', subjects
showed substantial decision aversion (44 of 58 subjects) and
little neutral (five) or decision-seeking
(four) behavior (sign test, p < 0.0001; five subjects were
discarded).
If subjects felt that they could predict John's preferences, then
they should have been decision
neutral on his behalf, as making the decision for him would help
to get him the option he would
have chosen. If they felt that they knew nothing about John's
preferences then they should also
have been decision neutral as they would have no reason to
prefer one plan to the other. There
is no normative reason why they should be decision averse,
unless they fear blame from John if
they chose against his actual preference. The results from the
post-decision outcome items support
the view that subjects fear blame (see Exhibit l(b)). As in the
case of John above, we see significant
regret when the 'wrong' plan has been chosen, but no significant

rejoicing after the 'right' choice.
To test the robustness of these results, we devised an additional
item, the FLU problem, in which
the choice cannot affect the expected outcome, because the
chance of success is always 50%. In such
a situation the preferences of the affected party are irrelevant,
as the option chosen will not affect
the chance of success. Decision seeking and decision aversion
are therefore unmotivated in all cases.
FLU PROBLEM
Fred has a serious illness resembling flu. It will get better
eventually, but it would get better
much faster if it is treated correctly. There are only two
possible diseases that Fred could have,
X and Y. Both diseases are equally likely. You are Fred. There
is no other information you
can get.
A. There is only one treatment. It will cure disease X. No
treatment can cure disease Y. Fred
will get this treatment.
B. There are two possible treatments. Both treatments will cure
disease X. Neither will cure disease
Y. You must decide which treatment he will have.
C. There are two possible treatments. The first treatment will
cure disease X but not disease Y.
The second treatment will cure disease Y but not disease X. You
must decide which treatment
he will have. Fred can only get one treatment ever.
Now imagine that you are Fred's doctor. Rate the three
situations from your point of view. There
is no other information you can get.
In this item, we can tease apart whether subjects might prefer
the deterministic choice {A) because

they are either (1) averse to making a decision {B) (even though
this will have no effect on the
outcome); or (2) averse to uncertainty ( Q per se. Thus we
define two new measures to reflect these
possibilities. A preference for A over B indicates 'pure decision
aversion', since outcome is held
constant. Exhibit 2(a) shows the results of this comparison
(with nine subjects discarded). A preference
for B over C indicates what we shall call 'uncertainty aversion'
(uncertainty about which option
is best) which we attribute to the desire to avoid regret. Exhibit
2(b) shows this comparison. Pure
decision seeking or uncertainty seeking could result from a
desire for autonomy in the 'Fred' case.
Subjects showed a mixture of pure decision seeking and
aversion, and of uncertainty seeking and
aversion. Only in the 'Doctor' case was there a preponderance of
decision aversion. The two roles
('Doctor' and 'Fred') did not differ significantly for either
comparison. Justifications indicate that
Exhibit 2. Numbers of subjects showing different pre-decision
attitudes as Fred and as Doctor in FLU problem,
with sign test results
(a) Pure decision attitude
Role Decision aversion
Fred 23
Doctor 30

(b) Pre-decision uncertainty attitude
Role
Fred
Doctor
Uncertainty aversion
30
40
Neutral
49
46
Neutral
35
20
Decision seeking
17
14
Uncertainty seeking
34
30
n.s.
p < 0.02

n.s.
n.s.
Exhibit 3. Numbers of subjects showing post-outcome (a)
decision aversion and seeking and (b) uncertainty
aversion and seeking, as Fred and the Doctor in the FLU …
!"# $#%&'()*# +#,-.-'* $/0-*1
2(#.3-'**/-)#4 5* 6*.3)(7#*3 8')
$#/.()-*1 9/33#)*. 8') :';-*1
<-3" +#,-.-'*/% :'*=-,3
!"#$ %&$$
!"#$%&'#() *+ ,%-.*/&"%0 1/'(&2-#2
'&(! )(*$"++
3/%%"'-2"4 !"#$%&'#() *+ 5%67"*-*8)0 1/'(&2-#2
%&*, *&-.#*-
9"(%&"2(#*"2- :/&$%) ;%'%2&67 <*&=*&2(#*"0 :#"82=*&%
/+"0" .#*-
!"#$%&'#() *+ ,%-.*/&"%0 1/'(&2-#2
!"#$%!&$
! '()*+ ,-' ./0*).(1* (/ 12-3401 (51 6-.(/74-8 9-84*4(+ /6 (51
:840*17' ;1.4'4/0
<-=40> ?)1'(4/00-471 @<-00A BCDEFA - GBH4(13
'186H71I/7( 40910(/7+ *1'4>01* (/
31-')71 (10*10.41' (/ )'1 (5711 3-J/7 ./I40> I-((170' 4*10(4K1*
40 (51 ./0L4.(

(51/7+ /6 *1.4'4/0 3-=40> @M-04' -0* <-00A BCNNFO 94>48-
0.1A 5+I1794>48-0.1A
-0* *1610'491 -9/4*-0.1 @I7/.7-'(40-(4/0A P).=HI-''40>A -0* 7-
(4/0-84Q-(4/0FR
! '-3I81 /6 ESTB )04917'4(+ '()*10('A ./3I74'40> '-3I81' 67/3
!)'(7-84-
@! ! EUEFA V1, W1-8-0* @! ! EUSFA (51 X#! @! ! YNTFA
M-I-0 @! ! GTCFA Z/0>
[/0> @! ! EDBF -0* $-4,-0 @! ! YBYF ,-' -*3404'(171* (51
;<?R :-.(/74-8
9-84*4(+ /6 (51 40'(7)310( ,-' (1'(1* P+ ./0K73-(/7+ 6-.(/7 -0-
8+'4' ,4(5
]#%^R :491 *4_1710( ')P'(-0(491 3/*18'A 71I71'10(40>
*4_1710( '(7).()7-8
718-(4/0'54I' P1(,110 (51 *1.4'4/0H./I40> I-((170' 5-* )0'-(4'6-
.(/7+ K( (/ (51
*-(- -0* ./)8* 0/( P1 9-84*-(1*R ! '5/7(101* 40'(7)310(A ./0(-
4040> EE 4(13'A
+418*1* - 7194'1* 3/*18 ./3I74'40> 6/)7 4*10(4K-P81 6-.(/7' `
94>48-0.1A 5+I17H
94>48-0.1A P).=HI-''40>A -0* I7/.7-'(40-(4/0R $51 7194'1*
3/*18 5-* -*1a)-(1 K(
,4(5 *-(- 6/7 1-.5 ./)0(7+ '-3I81 -0* 6/7 (51 (/(-8 '-3I81A -0* ,-'
./0K731*R ]( 4'
71./3310*1* (5-( (51 EEH4(13 40'(7)310(A 0-31* (51
<18P/)701 ;<?A 71I8-.1
(51 :840*17' ;<? 6/7 31-')71310( /6 *1.4'4/0H./I40> I-((170'R !.
BCCN P+ M/50
b481+ c #/0'A (*R
[^d be%;# *1.4'4/0H3-=40> 40'(7)310(f ./0L4.(f ./I40>
]V$%e;X&$]eVO M!V]# !V; <!VVg# &eV:]&$ $Z^e%d e:
;^&]#]eV <![]Vh
]0 (54' -7(4.81 ,1 *1'.74P1 -0* 19-8)-(1 -0 40'(7)310( 6/7 31-

')740> *1.4'4/0H./I40> I-((170' 4*10(4K1*
40 M-04' -0* <-00g' @BCNNF ./0L4.( (51/7+ /6 *1.4'4/0 3-
=40>R M-04' -0* <-00 P1>40 ,4(5 (51
&&& SDCYiGETNjCNjSBSSSBiBC "#$#%&#' () *+!,+-. /001
! BCCN P+ M/50 b481+ c #/0'A (*R 2$$#34#' 56 23-%7 /008
*9,-!+7 9: ;#<+&%9-+7 =#$%>%9! [email protected]%!AB
C97D /6B /E/0 F/00)G
-'')3I(4/0 (5-( '(71'' 10>10*171* P+ *1.4'4/0-8 ./0L4.( 4' - 3-J/7
*1(17340-0( /6 6-48)71 (/ -.54191
54>5Ha)-84(+ *1.4'4/0 3-=40>R $51 I'+.5/8/>4.-8 '(71'' -74'40>
67/3 *1.4'4/0-8 ./0L4.( '(13' 67/3 -(
81-'( (,/ '/)7.1'O - ./0.170 -P/)( (51 '19171 I17'/0-8A 3-(174-8A -
0* '/.4-8 8/''1' (5-( 34>5( P1
40.)771* ,5-(1917 (51 .5/'10 -8(170-(491f -0* - ./0.170 /917 8/''
/6 71I)(-(4/0 -0* '186H1'(113 46 (51
*1.4'4/0 >/1' ,7/0>R !../7*40> (/ (51 ./0L4.( 3/*18A (5171 -71
K91 P-'4. I-((170' /6 ./I40> ,4(5 (51
'(71'' >1017-(1* P+ - *4k.)8(A I/(10(4-88+ (571-(1040>
*1.4'4/0O
! H!$9!I%$4#' +'<#-#!$#R $51 *1.4'4/0 3-=17 4>0/71' 406/73-
(4/0 -P/)( (51 74'= /6 8/''1' -0* *1.4*1'A
./3I8-.10(8+A (/ ./0(40)1 (51 I71'10( ./)7'1 /6 -.(4/0R
! H!$9!I%$4#' $<+!A#R $51 *1.4'4/0 3-=17 )0.74(4.-88+ -*/I('
,54.51917 01, ./)7'1 /6 -.(4/0 4' 3/'(
'-8410( /7 3/'( '(7/0>8+ 71./3310*1*R
! =#:#!>%&# +&9%'+!$#R $51 *1.4'4/0 3-=17 1'.-I1' ./0L4.( P+
I7/.7-'(40-(40>A '546(40> 71'I/0'4P484(+
(/ '/31/01 18'1A /7 ./0'(7).(40> ,4'56)8 7-(4/0-84Q-(4/0' (/

P/8'(17 (51 81-'( /PJ1.(4/0-P81 -8(170-H
(491R ^-.5 /6 (51'1 12I71''4/0' /6 *1610'491 -9/4*-0.1 4' -''/.4-
(1* ,4(5 40./3I81(1 -0* /6(10 P4-'1*
19-8)-(4/0 /6 406/73-(4/0A 81-*40> 40 ()70 (/ 6-)8(+ *1.4'4/0'R
;1610'491 -9/4*-0.1 4' -''/.4-(1* ,4(5
54>5 '(71''R
! J.3#-&%A%7+!$#R $51 *1.4'4/0 3-=17 '1-7.51' 67-0(4.-88+
6/7 - ,-+ /)( /6 *48133-'R ;)1 (/ (431
I71'')71A (51 *1.4'4/0 3-=17 43I)8'4918+ '14Q1' )I/0 5-'(48+
./0(7491* '/8)(4/0' (5-( '113 (/
I7/34'1 4331*4-(1 718416R $51 6)88 7-0>1 /6 ./0'1a)10.1' /6
.5/4.1' -71 /9178//=1* P1.-)'1
/6 13/(4/0-8 12.4(1310(A I17'1917-(4/0A -0* 8434(1* -
((10(4/0R ]0 4(' 3/71 12(7131 6/73A 5+I17H
94>48-0.1 4' - lI-04.gH84=1 '(-(1 40 ,54.5 (51 *1.4'4/0 3-=17 9-
.488-(1' P1(,110 )0I81-'-0( -8(170-H
(491'R Z+I1794>48-0.1 4' -''/.4-(1* ,4(5 '19171 13/(4/0-8 '(71''R
! C%A%7+!$#R $51 *1.4'4/0 3-=17 .8-74K1' /PJ1.(491' (/ P1 -
.54191* P+ (51 *1.4'4/0A .-09-''1' -0 -77-+
/6 -8(170-(491'A '1-7.51' I-40'(-=40>8+ 6/7 71819-0( 406/73-
(4/0A -''4348-(1' 406/73-(4/0 40 -0
)0P4-'1* 3-0017A -0* 19-8)-(1' -8(170-(491' .-716)88+ P16/71
3-=40> - .5/4.1R m4>48-0.1 4' -''/.4H
-(1* ,4(5 - 3/*17-(1 81918 /6 I'+.5/8/>4.-8 '(71''R !../7*40> (/
(51 ./0L4.( 3/*18A 94>48-0.1 4' (51
/08+ ./I40> I-((170 (5-( -88/,' '/)0* -0* 7-(4/0-8 *1.4'4/0 3-
=40>R
M-04' -0* <-00g' @BCNNF ./0L4.( 3/*18 4' 1''10(4-88+ - '/.4-8
I'+.5/8/>4.-8 (51/7+ /6 *1.4'4/0
3-=40> 40 ,54.5 (51 I71'10.1 /7 -P'10.1 /6 (5711 -0(1.1*10(
./0*4(4/0' -71 518* (/ *1(173401 7184-0.1
/0 - I-7(4.)8-7 ./I40> I-((170R $51 (5711 ./0*4(4/0' -71O @BF -
,-7101'' /6 '17/)' 74'=' -P/)( I7161771*

-8(170-(491'A @EF 5/I1 /6 K0*40> - P1((17 -8(170-(491A -0*
@GF P18416 (5-( (5171 4' -*1a)-(1 (431 (/ '1-7.5
-0* *184P17-(1 P16/71 - *1.4'4/0 4' 71a)471*R m4>48-0.1A 6/7
12-3I81A 4' *1I10*10( )I/0 (51 6)8K8310( /6
(51 -P/91 (5711 ./0*4(4/0'A ,5171-' *1610'491 -9/4*-0.1 4'
(74>>171* P+ (51 I1''434'(4. P18416 (5-( (5171
4' 84((81 I7/'I1.( /6 K0*40> - >//* '/8)(4/0 (/ (51 *48133-R
]( 4' -'')31* (5-( (51 '-31 I-((170' -71 40 (51 71I17(/471 /6
1917+ *1.4'4/0 3-=17A -8(5/)>5 (5171
,488 P1 40*494*)-8 *4_1710.1' 40 (51 (10*10.+ (/ 718+ >1017-
88+ /0 (51 7-0>1 /6 0/0H94>48-0( ./I40>
I-((170' @*1610'491 -9/4*-0.1 -0* 5+I1794>48-0.1F (/ -9/4* /7
1'.-I1 ./0L4.(6)8 *1.4'4/0'R ]( 4'
71./>04Q1* (5-( I17'/0-84(+ 9-74-P81' -0* /(517 .5-7-.(174'(4.'
/6 (51 *1.4'4/0 3-=17A ').5 -' (7-4(
-0241(+A 5-P4()-8 ./I40> '(+81A -0* 406/73-(4/0HI7/.1''40> .-I-
P484(+A 5-91 - 3-J/7 40L)10.1 /0
I71*4'I/'4(4/0 (/ )'1 /01 /7 /(517 /6 (51 I-((170' -0* 671a)10.+ /6
)'->1 @M-04' -0* <-00A BCNNA
IR NBO M-04'A BCDEA IIR GGEiGFR b1 ,/)8* -8'/ 12I1.( (5-(
40*494*)-8 *4_1710.1' 40 (/817-0.1 6/7
I'+.5/8/>4.-8 '(71''A I71*4'I/'4(4/0 (/ /I(434'3jI1''434'3 @.6R
#.51417 -0* &-7917A BCDTF -0*
'10'4(494(+ (/ (431 I71'')71 ,488 81-* *1.4'4/0 3-=17' (/ *1I10*
3/71 /6(10 /0 I-7(4.)8-7 /91781-701*
./I40> I-((170' ,510 6-.40> *4k.)8( *1.4'4/0'R $54' /P'179-(4/0
./0'(4()(1' (51 7-(4/0-81 6/7
31-')740> -0* 12-34040> 40*494*)-8 *4_1710.1' 40 71I/7(1* )'-
>1 /6 (51 3-J/7 *1.4'4/0H./I40>
I-((170'R
E *9,-!+7 9: ;#<+&%9-+7 =#$%>%9! [email protected]%!A
C97D /6B K>>D L9D /

$Z^ :]V;^%# ;^&]#]eV <![]Vh ?X^#$]eVV!]%^
$51 :840*17' ;1.4'4/0 <-=40> ?)1'(4/00-471 @<-00A BCDEF
I)7I/7(' (/ 31-')71 (51 I17'/0g'
I7161771* ./I40> I-((170' /7 '(7-(1>41' 6/7 *1-840> ,4(5
*1.4'4/0-8 ./0L4.(R "-'1* /0 M-04' -0* <-00g'
@BCNNF ./0L4.( 3/*18 /6 *1.4'4/0 3-=40>A (51 ;<? 31-')71'
(5711 /6 (51 K91 *1.4'4/0H./I40> I-((170'
4*10(4K1* 40 (51 (51/7+ @94>48-0.1A 5+I1794>48-0.1A -0*
*1610'491 -9/4*-0.1FR
<-00 @BCDEF *1918/I1* (51 ;<? /0 (51 P-'4' /6 *1K04(4/0'A
*1'.74I(4/0'A -0* 12-3I81' /6 (51
3-J/7 ./I40> I-((170' ./0(-401* 40 M-04' -0* <-00g' @BCNNF
P//= =#$%>%9! [email protected]%!AR $51 ;<?
./0'4'(' /6 - 94>48-0.1 '.-81A 1R>R lb510 3-=40> *1.4'4/0' ]
84=1 (/ ./881.( 8/(' /6 406/73-(4/0gA -
5+I1794>48-0.1 '.-81A 1R>R l] 6118 -' 46 ]g3 )0*17 (71310*/)'
I71'')71 ,510 3-=40> *1.4'4/0'gA -0* -
*1610'491 -9/4*-0.1 '.-81 1R>RA l] -9/4* 3-=40> *1.4'4/0'gR ]0
-**4(4/0A (5171 -71 (5711 '.-81' (/ 31-')71
*4_1710( -'I1.(' /7 12I71''4/0' /6 *1610'491 -9/4*-0.1A 0-318+
I7/.7-'(40-(4/0 @l] I)( /_ 3-=40>
*1.4'4/0'gFA P).=HI-''40> @l] I71617 (/ 81-91 *1.4'4/0' (/
/(517'gF -0* 7-(4/0-84Q-(4/0 @l!6(17 - *1.4'4/0
4' 3-*1 ] 'I10* - 8/( /6 (431 ./0940.40> 3+'186 4( ,-' ./771.(gFR
#1917-8 '()*41' 5-91 13I8/+1* (51 ;<? '.-81' (/ 12-3401 (51 718-
(4/0'54I P1(,110 I17'/0-84(+
9-74-P81' -0* *1.4'4/0 3-=40> '(+81R :/7 12-3I81A %-*6/7*A
<-00A -0* [-8).+ @BCDUF 6/)0* -
'4>04K.-0( I/'4(491 718-(4/0'54I P1(,110 './71' /0 (51
5+I1794>48-0.1 -0* *1610'491 -9/4*-0.1 '.-81'
-0* '19174(+ /6 I'+.54-(74. *4'()7P-0.1 40 - '-3I81 /6 5/'I4(-
84Q1* I'+.54-(74. I-(410('R "1',4.= -0*

<-00 @BCCYF 71I/7(1* - '4>04K.-0( 718-(4/0'54I P1(,110 './71'
/0 (51 I7/.7-'(40-(4/0 '.-81 -0* -
31-')71 /6 '(-(1H/7410(-(4/0 @[)58A BCDTFA (51 (10*10.+ (/
6/.)' /0 I-'(A I71'10(A /7 6)()71 '(-(1'
7-(517 (5-0 /0 I8-0' 6/7 -.(4/0R $51 ;<? '.-81' 5-91 -8'/ P110 )'1*
(/ 31-')71 .5-0>1' 40 '186H
71I/7(1* (10*10.41' (/ 13I8/+ *4_1710( *1.4'4/0H./I40> I-
((170'R :/7 12-3I81A <-00 #4 +7R @BCDCF
6/)0* (5-( I-7(4.4I-0(' 40 - ,/7='5/I (/ 43I7/91 *1.4'4/0H3-=40>
'=488' '5/,1* - '4>04K.-0( 71*).H
(4/0 40 './71' /0 (51 0/0H94>48-0.1 '.-81' 40 (51 G 3/0(5'
6/88/,40> (51 ,/7='5/IR
#1917-8 '()*41' 5-91 12-3401* (51 9-84*4(+ /6 (51 ;<? '.-81' -'
31-')71' /6 (51 (10*10.+ (/ )'1
94>48-0( /7 0/0H94>48-0( *1.4'4/0H./I40> '(+81'R "1',4.=A
%/(5P8)3A -0* <-00 @BCDDF 6/)0* '4>04K.-0(
I/'4(491 718-(4/0'54I' P1(,110 )04917'4(+ '()*10('g './71' /0 (51
I7/.7-'(40-(4/0 '.-81 -0* (431 (-=10
(/ ')P34( - (173 I-I17 -0* '186H71I/7(1* 671a)10.+ /6 I7/.7-'(40-
(4/0R :177-74 @BCCBF 6/)0* - '4>04KH
.-0( I/'4(491 718-(4/0'54I P1(,110 './71' /0 -+g' @BCDUF
>1017-8 I7/.7-'(40-(4/0 '.-81 @,54.5
31-')71' '186H71I/7(1* (10*10.41' (/ I7/.7-'(40-(1 /0 1917+*-+
(-'='F -0* './71' /0 (51 ;<? I7/H
.7-'(40-(4/0 '.-81 40 - '-3I81 /6 -*)8('R ")701((A <-00A -0*
"1',4.= @BCDCF 13I8/+1* (5711 ;<?
'.-81' ` 94>48-0.1A 5+I1794>48-0.1A -0* *1610'491 -9/4*-0.1 `
40 - '()*+ /6 ./3I1(10.1 /6 '()*10('g
./)7'1 I8-0040> -0* '-(4'6-.(4/0 ,4(5 ./)7'1R $51+ 6/)0* -
'4>04K.-0( I/'4(491 718-(4/0'54I P1(,110
*1.4'4/0 94>48-0.1 -0* ./)7'1 I8-0040> -0* '-(4'6-.(4/0 40 (,/ '-
3I81' /6 )04917'4(+ '()*10('R :81(.517
-0* b1-740> @BCCEFA 40 - '()*+ /6 (51 *1.4'4/0 /6 3-()71 ->1
-*)8(' (/ 71()70 (/ )04917'4(+ '()*+A 6/)0*
(5-( *1.4'4/0 94>48-0.1 ,-' -''/.4-(1* ,4(5 *1(-481* I8-0040>A

,5481 (51 /(517 '(+81' ,171 -''/.4-(1*
,4(5 ')I17K.4-8 I8-0040> -0* I/'(H*1.4'4/0 71>71(R Z/,1917A
b54(1A b1-740>A -0* Z488 @BCCYFA 40 -
'()*+ /6 ,/310g' *1.4'4/0' (/ 5-91 - I-I '31-7 (1'(A - '.711040> (1'(
6/7 .1794.-8 .-0.17A 6/)0* 84((81
-''/.4-(4/0 P1(,110 './71' /0 (51 ;<? '.-81' -0* '.711040> '(-()'R
]0 ')3A ,5481 I7194/)' 71'1-7.5 40*4.-(1' (5-( (51 ;<? '.-81' 5-91
'/31 9-84*4(+A (51 194*10.1 4'
014(517 12(10'491 0/7 )046/738+ I/'4(491R ]0 -**4(4/0A ,5481
4( 4' -'')31* (5-( (51 3-40 ;<? '.-81' `
94>48-0.1A 5+I1794>48-0.1A -0* *1610'491 -9/4*-0.1 ` 31-')71
'1I-7-(1 6-.1(' /6 *1.4'4/0H3-=40>
'(+81A (5171 5-' P110 0/ -((13I( (/ (1'( /7 9-84*-(1 (51 6-.(/74-8
'(7).()71 /6 (51 ;<? -' -0 40'(7)310(R
]( 4' -II-710( (5-( (5171 -71 54>5 40(17./7718-(4/0' P1(,110
5+I1794>48-0.1A *1610'491 -9/4*-0.1A -0* (51
(5711 '.-81' I17(-4040> (/ -'I1.(' /6 *1610'491 -9/4*-0.1 @%-
*6/7*A BCDEFR ]0*11*A 40 '1917-8 '()*41'
13I8/+40> (51 ;<?A 6/7 12-3I81 <-00 #4 +7R @BCDCFA
71'I/0'1' (/ (51 0/0H94>48-0.1 4(13' ,171
')331* (/ .71-(1 - '40>81 ETH4(13 '.-81A 8-P1881* l3-8-*-I(491
./I40>g I-((170A (5)' (71-(40> 5+I17H
94>48-0.1A *1610'491 -9/4*-0.1A I7/.7-'(40-(4/0A P).=HI-
''40>A -0* 7-(4/0-84Q-(4/0 -' - '40>81 ./0'(7).(R
MD ?+!! 1( -8D N<# ?#7O9,-!# =#$%>%9!
[email protected]%!A P,#>4%9!!+%-# G
#X"#$!V$]m^ <e;^#
:491 ')P'(-0(491 3/*18' .-0 P1 I/'()8-(1* 67/3 M-04' -0* <-00g'
./0L4.( 3/*18 /6 *1.4'4/0 3-=40>R
$51 (5711 3-40 ./I40> I-((170' ` 94>48-0.1A 5+I1794>48-0.1A

*1610'491 -9/4*-0.1 ` -0* (51 (5711
6/73' /6 *1610'491 -9/4*-0.1 @I7/.7-'(40-(4/0A P).=HI-''40>A -
0* 7-(4/0-84Q-(4/0F .-0 P1 >7/)I1*
(51/71(4.-88+ 40(/ (51 6/88/,40> 3/*18'O
! ?9'#7 / 4' - (,/H6-.(/7 3/*18A ./3I74'40> 94>48-0.1 -' /01 6-.(/7
-0* (51 713-4040> ./I40> I-((170'
-' (51 /(517R $51 8/>4. /6 (54' 3/*18 *17491' 67/3 M-04' -0* <-
00g' *1'.74I(4/0 /6 94>48-0( 406/73H
-(4/0 I7/.1''40> -' (51 /08+ -*-I(491 ,-+ (/ 3-=1 *1.4'4/0'A ,5481
(51 713-4040> I-((170' -71
P7-.=1(1* (/>1(517 -' *161.(491 -0* 3-8-*-I(491 ./I40> I-((170'
@.6R <-00 #4 +7RA BCDCFR
! ?9'#7 ( 4' - (5711H6-.(/7 3/*18 ./3I74'40> 94>48-0.1A
5+I1794>48-0.1A -0* (51 713-4040> *1610'491
-9/4*-0.1 I-((170' (/>1(517 @.6R ")701(( #4 +7RA BCDCFR
$51 8/>4. )0*178+40> (54' 3/*18 4' (5-(
94>48-0.1 -0* 5+I1794>48-0.1 -71 (,/ *4'(40.(8+ *4_1710( ,-+'
/6 (-=40> *1.4'4/0'A ,5171-' (51
*1610'491 -9/4*-0.1 (10*10.+ 40 4(' 9-74/)' 6/73' @I7/.7-'(40-
(4/0A P).=HI-''40>A -0* 7-(4/0-84Q-H
(4/0F ./0'(4()(1' - '40>81 ./0'(7).(R
! ?9'#7 5 4' - '42H6-.(/7 3/*18 40 ,54.5 1-.5 /6 (51 '42 '.-81' 3-
=1' - '1I-7-(1 -0* )04a)1 ./0(74H
P)(4/0 (/ (51 ./0'(7).( /6 *1.4'4/0 ./I40>R $51 43I84.-(4/0 /6 (54'
3/*18 4' (5-( (51 *4'(40.(4/0
P1(,110 I7/.7-'(40-(4/0A P).=HI-''40>A -0* 7-(4/0-84Q-(4/0 4'
J)'(4K1* -' (51+A 84=1 94>48-0.1 -0*
5+I1794>48-0.1A ./0'(4()(1 'I1.4K. 6-.(/7'R
! ?9'#7 Q 4' -0 12(10'4/0 /6 </*18 BR ]0 (54' 3/*18A 94>48-0.1
'(-0*' -8/01 -' /01 6-.(/7A ,5481
3-8-*-I(491 *1.4'4/0 '(+81 4' - '1./0*H /7 54>517H/7*17 6-.(/7
40(/ ,54.5 5+I1794>48-0.1 -0* (51

9-74/)' 6/73' /6 *1610'491 -9/4*-0.1 -88 611*R
! ?9'#7 1 4' -0 12(10'4/0 /6 </*18 ER ]0 (54' 3/*18A ,54.5
./771'I/0*' ,4(5 M-04' -0* <-00g'
*1'4>0-(4/0 /6 (5711 I743-7+ 3/*1' /6 ./I40> ,4(5 ./0L4.(
@94>48-0.1A 5+I1794>48-0.1A -0* *1610'491
-9/4*-0.1FA 94>48-0.1 -0* 5+I1794>48-0.1 '(-0* -8/01 -' '1I-7-
(1 6-.(/7'A ,5481 *1610'491 -9/4*-0.1
4' - 54>517H/7*17 6-.(/7 ,4(5 I7/.7-'(40-(4/0A P).=HI-''40>A -
0* 7-(4/0-84Q-(4/0 -' K7'(H/7*17
6-.(/7'R
!88 K91 3/*18'A ,5481 7-0>40> 67/3 '43I81 '(7).()71' @</*18
BF (/ ./3I812 /01' @1R>R </*18 TFA -71
./0'4'(10( ,4(5 *1.4'4/0H./0L4.( (51/7+ P1.-)'1 (51 '1( /6 ./I40>
I-((170' .-0 P1 ./0.1I()-84Q1* -'O
@BF !*-I(491 917')' 3-8-*-I(491 '(7-(1>41' @510.1 </*18' BA
YF
@EF ;1.4'4/0H(-=40> 917')' *1.4'4/0H-9/4*40> '(7-(1>41'
@510.1 </*18' EA TF
@GF #I1.4K. *4'(40.(491 -0* -8(170-(491 '(7-(1>41' 6/7 *1-
840> ,4(5 ./0L4.( @510.1 </*18 GFR
$51 3-40 -43 /6 (51 I71'10( '()*+ 4' (/ 12-3401 (51 6-.(/74-8 9-
84*4(+ /6 (51 ;<? P+ (1'(40> (51
-P/91 K91 ')P'(-0(491 3/*18' -0* *1(1734040> ,54.5 /01
I7/94*1' - P1'( K( 6/7 (51 13I474.-8 *-(-R !
'1./0* -43 4' (/ 19-8)-(1 (51 ')4(-P484(+ /6 (51 40'(7)310( 6/7
71'1-7.5 /0 *1.4'4/0H3-=40> I7/.1''1' 40
'-3I81' *7-,0 67/3 *4_1710( ./)0(741'R #/ 6-7A I)P84'51* 71'1-
7.5 )(484Q40> (51 ;<? 5-' P110 8434(1*
(/ !)'(7-84- @1R>R ")701(( #4 +7RA BCDCFA (51 X#!
@")701((A BCCBF -0* #I-40 @"-7P17/ #4 +7RA BCCGFR $51
9-84*4(+ /6 (51 40'(7)310( 4' -8'/ - 6)0.(4/0 /6 (51 12(10( (/
,54.5 4( 4' *13/0'(7-P8+ ')4(-P81 6/7 )'->1

-.7/'' - ,4*1 7-0>1 /6 ./)0(741'R ]0 ')3A (51 I71'10( '()*+ '1(' /)(
(/ 12-3401 (51 6-.(/74-8 9-84*4(+ /6
(51 :840*17' ;<? -' -0 40'(7)310( 6/7 31-')740> '186H71I/7(1*
*1.4'4/0H./I40> I-((170'R $54' ,488 P1
*/01 P+ 19-8)-(40> ,54.5 /6 (51 K91 31-')71310( 3/*18' P1'( K(
(51 *-(- ./881.(1* 67/3 8-7>1 '-3I81'
/6 71'I/0*10(' 67/3 '42 ./)0(741' ,5/ ./3I81(1* (51 ;<?R
Y *9,-!+7 9: ;#<+&%9-+7 =#$%>%9! [email protected]%!A
C97D /6B K>>D L9D /
e$Z^% <e;^#A e$Z^% ]V#$%X<^V$#
$5171 -71A /6 ./)7'1A - 9-741(+ /6 3/*18' -0* 40'(7)310(' 6/7
*1'.74P40> -0* 31-')740> *1.4'4/0H
3-=40> P15-94/)7R b1 */ 0/( I7/I/'1 (/ 12-3401 (51 ./0L4.( 3/*18
-0* ;<? 40 718-(4/0 (/ /(517
3/*18' -0* 40'(7)310('R Z/,1917A 4( 4' 43I/7(-0( (/ I/40( (/ I-7-
8818 -0* /9178-II40> -II7/-.51' (/
(51 31-')71310( /6 40*494*)-8 *4_1710.1' 40 *1.4'4/0 3-=40>
40 /7*17 (/ I8-.1 (51 ;<? 40 ./0(12(R
b1 */ (54' P16/71 *1'.74P40> (51 31(5/*/8/>+ /6 /)7 '()*+R
</'( ./0'(7).(' -0* 31-')71' /6 40*494*)-8 *4_1710.1' 40 *1.4'4/0
3-=40> 6-88 40(/ /01 /6 (5711
.-(1>/741'O 3/(49-(4/0-8 I7/.1''1'f ./>04(491 '(+81'f I17'/0-84(+
*4310'4/0' -0* (7-4('R ]( ,488 P1
71./>04Q1* (5-( '/31 3/*18'A 40.8)*40> (51 ./0L4.( 3/*18
4('186A 'I-0 '1917-8 .-(1>/741'R
!"#$%&#$"'&( )*"+,--,-
$51 *1.4'4/0 3-=17 *1I4.(1* 40 M-04' -0* <-00g' ./0L4.( (51/7+
5-' P110 .5-7-.(174Q1* -' -
I'+.5/8/>4.-88+ '(71''1* 40*494*)-8 >7-II840> ,4(5 I/,176)8

3/(49-(4/0-8 -0* 13/(4/0-8 6/7.1'R
!P18'/0 -0* 194 @BCDTFA )'40> 84(17-7+ 84.10.1A 71617 (/
M-04' -0* <-00g' *1.4'4/0 3-=17 -' l- '8-91 (/
3/(49-(4/0-8 6/7.1'gR $51 ./0L4.( 3/*18g' -0-8+'4' /6
*1.4'4/0H./I40> '(7-(1>41' 5-' .8/'1 I-7-8818' 40
,/7= /0 (51 I7/P813H'/8940> -0* ./I40> '(7-(1>41' )'1* P+ I1/I81
(/ *1-8 ,4(5 '(71''R M-04' @BCDEF
71617' (/ h/8*'(140g' @BCTCF *4'(40.(4/0 P1(,110 ./I17' -0* -
9/4*17' 40 71-.(4/0 (/ (571-(1040>
./33)04.-(4/0'R $51 ./0L4.( 3/*18 -8'/ *7-,' /0 -Q-7)'g'
@BCUUF I4/011740> ,/7= 40 *1'.74P40>
./I40> I7/.1''1' (5-( 518I I1/I81 (/ *1-8 ,4(5 (51 *181(174/)'
1_1.(' /6 '(71''R -Q-7)' -0* :/8=3-0
@BCDYF *4'(40>)4'5 P1(,110 I7/P813H6/.)'1* '(7-(1>41' @-
431* -( 3/*46+40> (51 '/)7.1 /6 '(71''F -0*
13/(4/0H6/.)'1* '(7-(1>41' @1_/7(' (/ 71>)8-(1 13/(4/0'A 6/7 12-
3I81 P+ -88194-(40> (51 61-7 -0*
-0241(+ -7/)'1* P+ (51 '(71''/7FR n7/P813H'/8940> '(7-(1>41'A
40 ,54.5 (51 I17'/0 3-=1' - I8-0 /6
-.(4/0 -0* 6/88/,' 4(A -71 ./3I-7-P81 (/ M-04' -0* <-00g' ./0'(7).(
/6 94>48-0.1A ,54.5 I/'4(' -
*1.4'4/0 3-=17 ,5/ .8-74K1' /PJ1.(491'A ./0'4*17' -8(170-(491'A
19-8)-(1' ./0'1a)10.1'A -0* (540='
(57/)>5 5/, (/ 43I81310( .5/'10 /I(4/0'R ^3/(4/0H6/.)'1* '(7-
(1>41'A ').5 -' *104-8 -0* *4'(-0.40>
(/ 71*).1 (51 ,/77+A 5-91 I-7-8818' 40 (51 ./0'(7).( /6 *1610'491
-9/4*-0.1R
-774.= @BCCGF -7>)1' (5-( 43I/7(-0( 3/(49-(4/0-8 6-.(/7' -71
(+I4.-88+ 4>0/71* /7 )0*17H
13I5-'4Q1* 40 (51 '(-0*-7* ./>04(491 -0* 1./0/34. 3/*18' /6
*1.4'4/0 3-=40> )0*17 74'=R -774.=
I/40(' (/ '1917-8 3/(49-(4/0-8 -0* 13/(4/0-8 ./0'1a)10.1' /6 3-
=40> - *1.4'4/0A 40.8)*40> 611840>'
(5-( '(13 67/3 81-7040> (5-( - *1.4'4/0 5-' ()701* /)( I//78+A ').5
-' 6-48)71A 71>71(A -0* *4'-II/40(H

310(A 611840>' (5-( -74'1 67/3 I)P84.8+ 3-*1 *1.4'4/0'A ').5 -'
13P-77-''310( -0* I74*1A -0* 611840>'
(5-( -74'1 67/3 5/, /)(./31' -71 *4'(74P)(1* -3/0> I1/I81A ').5 -'
109+ -0* >8/-(40>R -774.=
3-40(-40' (5-( I1/I81 6/.)' /0 (,/ >/-8' ,510 (51+ 3-=1 *1.4'4/0'R
e01 >/-8 4' (/ 3-2434Q1 (5147
12I1.(1* /)(./31'f (51 /(517 4' (/ 3-40(-40 - I/'4(491 '186H43-
>1R </(49-(4/0-8 6/7.1' (/ I7/(1.( '186H
43->1A 4R1RA /01g' ./3I1(10.1 -0* '186H1'(113 -' - *1.4'4/0 3-
=17A 81-* (/ 3/71 *1610'491 P15-94/)7 -'
(51 (571-( 67/3 - '4()-(4/0 40.71-'1'A /7 -' (51 I17'/0g' -P484(+
(/ 3-40(-40 - '10'1 /6 ./3I1(10.+
*1.71-'1' @IR YYDFR #)7I74'40>8+A -774.= /9178//=' M-04' -
0* <-00g' @BCNNF ./0L4.( 3/*18 -0*
%/>17'g' @BCDGF I7/(1.(4/0H3/(49-(4/0 (51/7+ 40 54' -0-8+'4'
/6 3/(49-(4/0-8 6-.(/7' 40 *1.4'4/0
3-=40>R
%/>17'g' @BCDGF I7/(1.(4/0H3/(49-(4/0 (51/7+ *4'(40>)4'51'
P1(,110 -*-I(491 ./I40> '(7-(1>41'A ').5
-' 7-(4/0-8 I7/P813 '/8940> @'11=40> /)( 3/71 406/73-(4/0A -0-
8+'40> (51 I7/P813A -0* 3-=40> -0
1_1.(491 I8-0F -0* - 5/'( /6 3-8-*-I(491 '(7-(1>41' ').5 -' -9/4*-
0.1 @-((13I(' (/ 19-*1 /7 *10+ (51
(571-(FA ,4'56)8 (540=40> @71'/7( (/ )071-84'(4. '/8)(4/0'FA 6-
(-84'3 @./3I8-.10.+ -0* 71'4>0-(4/0 40 (51
6-.1 /6 *-0>17FA -0* 5/I181''01'' @611840>' /6 )'181''01''FR
<48817 @BCDNF *1'.74P1' -0* 31-')71'
71'I/0'1' 6/7 ./I40> ,4(5 (571-( /0 (,/ *4310'4/0' ` 3/04(/740> -0*
P8)0(40>R </04(/740> 4' -P/)(
406/73-(4/0H'11=40>f I1/I81 -71 .8-''4K1* -' 54>5 /7 8/,
3/04(/7' @406/73-(4/0 '11=17'FR "8)0(40> 4'
MD ?+!! 1( -8D N<# ?#7O9,-!# =#$%>%9!
[email protected]%!A P,#>4%9!!+%-# T

-P/)( ()7040> -,-+ 67/3 (571-(1040> .)1'f ->-40A I1/I81 .-0 P1
.8-''4K1* -' 54>5 /7 8/, P8)0(17'R
<48817 5-' 6/)0* (5-( 406/73-(4/0 -9/4*-0.1 -0* P8)0(40> .-0 P1
-*-I(491 40 I7/(1.(40> (51 I17'/0
67/3 1917+*-+ '(71''R
%1'1-7.5 /0 ./I40> 5-' 6/.)'1*A (7-*4(4/0-88+A /0 '(7-(1>41' 6/7
*1-840> ,4(5 51-8(5H718-(1* -0*
I17'/0-88+ (571-(1040> '(71''/7'R b/7= /0 ./I40> 5-' P110
12(10*1* 71.10(8+ (/ (51 -0-8+'4' -0*
31-')71310( /6 >1017-8 ./I40> -P484(+ 40 71'I/0'1 (/ 1917+*-+
67)'(7-(4/0' -0* 5-''81'R ^I'(140 -0*
<1417g' @BCDCF ./0.1I( /6 ./0'(7).(491 (540=40> 4' -0 12-3I81
/6 -0 40*494*)-8 *4_1710.1 9-74-P81 6/7
*1'.74P40> I-((170' /6 5-P4()-8 1917+*-+ (5/)>5('A ').5 -' 0-491
/I(434'3A 6/7 *1-840> ,4(5 01>-(491
1910(' -0* /)(./31'R
$5)'A M-04' -0* <-00g' ./0(7-'( P1(,110 -*-I(491 ./I40> I-((170'
@94>48-0.1F -0* 3-8-*-I(491
./I40> I-((170' @(51 713-40*17F 40 *1.4'4/0 3-=40> 718-(1'
*471.(8+ (/ -0 12(10'491 71'1-7.5 84(17-()71
/0 ./I40> -.7/'' 3-0+ */3-40'R $5-( 84(17-()71A -8(5/)>5
>7/)0*1* 40 (51 I'+.5/8/>+ /6 13/(4/0 -0*
3/(49-(4/0A 5-' - .81-7 ./001.(4/0 ,4(5 ./>04(491 I'+.5/8/>+ -0*
(51 I'+.5/8/>+ /6 I17'/0-84(+R ]( ,488
P1 71./>04Q1* (5-( 94>48-0( *1.4'4/0 3-=40> 4' - 54>58+
./>04(491 -.(494(+R
."/'$#$%, -#0(,-
$51 P)7>1/040> K18* /6 ./>04(491 I'+.5/8/>+ 5-' 'I)771* -
'(7/0> 40(171'( 40 *4_1710( ./>04(491 '(+81'
-''/.4-(1* ,4(5 -((10(4/0 (/ 406/73-(4/0A I7/.1''40> /6 406/73-
(4/0A -0* 19-8)-(4/0 /6 406/73-(4/0R

b5481 (51 ./I40> I-((170' 718-(1 (/ '(7-(1>41' 6/7 *1-840> ,4(5
(571-( -0* '(71''A ./>04(491 '(+81 I17(-40'
(/ 3/*1' /6 10./*40> -0* I7/.1''40> 406/73-(4/0R <-0+ /6 (51
./0'(7).(' *1918/I1* )0*17 (51 7)P74.
/6 ./>04(491 '(+81 P18/0> (/ - *4310'4/0 (5-( ./0(7-'(' /I1001''
917')' .8/'1*01'' (/ 01, 406/73-(4/0
-0* -8(170-(491 I/''4P484(41'R ^2-3I81' /6 (51'1 ./0'(7).('
40.8)*1 40(/817-0.1 /6 -3P4>)4(+A ./>04(491
./3I8124(+A 011* 6/7 ./>04(4/0A -0* 011* 6/7 ./>04(491
.8/')71R
$51 ./0.1I( /6 40(/817-0.1 /6 -3P4>)4(+ ,-' K7'( *4'.)''1* P+
:710=18H"7)0',4.= @BCYCF -0* (51
./0'(7).( ,-' 31-')71* P+ ^+'10.= @BCTYFR "4174 @BCUUF
*1'.74P1* -0* 31-')71* ./>04(491 ./3I8124(+A
(51 .-I-.4(+ (/ 40(17I71( I7/P813' 40 - 3)8(4*4310'4/0-8 ,-+ -0*
)'1 - >71-(17 0)3P17 /6 *4310'4/0'
40 3-=40> J)*>1310('R &-.4/II/ -0* n1((+ @BCDEF I/'()8-(1 -
011* 6/7 ./>04(4/0A (51 12(10( (/ ,54.5
(51 I17'/0 10>->1' 40 -0* 10J/+' (540=40>R n1/I81 ,4(5 54>5
011* 6/7 ./>04(4/0 (10* (/ I7/.1''
406/73-(4/0 40 - 3/71 18-P/7-(1 3-0017 -0* (10* (/ 12I10* >71-
(17 1_/7( 40 ,/7=40> /0 *1.4'4/0 (-'='
@m17I8-0=10A BCCGFR b1P'(17 -0* [7)>8-0'=4 @BCCYF
*1'.74P1 011* 6/7 ./>04(491 .8/')71A - I7161710.1
6/7 /7*17 -0* '(7).()71R n1/I81 ,4(5 54>5 011* 6/7 ./>04(491
.8/')71 8//= 6/7 -0 -0',17 @/6(10 -0+
-0',17F (/ I)( -0 10* (/ -3P4>)4(+ -0* ./06)'4/0R
M/50'/0A &/7'.-71884A -0* M/50'/0 @BCDEF *1918/I1* -
;1.4'4/0 <-=40> ]0910(/7+ ,54.5 31-')71'
(,/ (+I1' /6 406/73-(4/0H>-(51740> '(+81 ` 'I/0(-01/)'
@40()4(491 (74-8 -0* 177/7F -0* '+'(13-(4.
@.-716)8 ,14>540> -0* 19-8)-(4/0 /6 /I(4/0'F ` -' ,188 -' (,/ (+I1'
/6 406/73-(4/0H-0-8+'40> '(+81 `
40(170-8 @)'40> /01g' /,0 4*1-' -' - 7161710(F -0* 12(170-8

@./0'4*1740> (51 /I404/0' /6 /(517' -' -
7161710(FR ]( ,488 P1 …
PSYC 1311: Introduction to Psychology
Assignment 5
Research Report
(20%)
Purpose of Assignment
· Each student must submit a written report that reviews the
literature pertaining to the following research issue:
Students enter the classroom with different orientations.
Learning-orientedstudents view college classes as opportunities
to acquire new information and skills that are personally and
professionally useful. Grade-orientedstudents view college
classes as a necessary step in the process of attaining
professional certification or employment. Is academic
performance related to students’ learning-orientation or grade-
orientation? If so, how can academic performance be improved?
· This assignment aims at giving students the opportunity to
become familiar with the process of writing a formal research
report in psychology.
· A secondary purpose is to introduce students to the process
through which scientists formally research topics for their
research endeavors. Thus, students will search for and read
articles relevant to the selected research issue.
Objectives
· To help students examine a particular research topic in
psychology.
· To help students become familiar with the techniques of

completing a formal research paper.
· To help students critically analyze the research process and
become aware of inherent problems, including confounding
variables, reliability, internal validity, and external validity.
· To help students further their knowledge of correct APA
referencing protocols.
· To help students become familiar with the use of basic
descriptive statistics.
· To help students become familiar with recognized psychology
journals and reputable web sites in the field of psychology.
Requirements of Written Report
1.
The report must use the students’ own language and should
specify the reference(s) from which the information is taken.
2.
Students are encouraged to examine reports in psychology
journals to become familiar with the correct structure of
scientific reports.
3.
The report must:
· have a title page
· use Times New Romans or Arial, and font size 12
· have a space of 2 between lines
· be at least 4 full pages in length (not including the title page,
abstract, and reference list)

· use topic sentences at the start of each paragraph
· use full sentences
The report must use the following sections:
Title Page (p. 1)
Page with the title of the report, student’s name, and
institutional affiliation. Running head and page numbers should
also be included.
Abstract (p. 2)
It is a summary of all sections of the report. Length:
approximately 100-150 words.
Introduction
It includes the research issue and definitions of unfamiliar
terms.
Literature Review
It is an overview of the research done in the area, including its
findings, and criticism of its limitations (e.g., methodological
issues) and inconsistencies.
Discussion
It includes a brief summary of the answer to the selected
research issue, and the student’s personal conclusions regarding
the available evidence. Ways to improve the current status of
the available evidence and its use are welcome. Discussion must
be both factual and related to existing theories.
References
The reference section includes at least 2 references. The
references can be from books, book chapters, or peer-reviewed
journals. APA referencing style should be followed.
Appendix or separate file
Attach answers to LOGO II questionnaire.

Assessment Criteria
See attached file.
XXXXXXXX 4
Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
Manar Alqahtani
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Prince
Mohammad Bin Fahd University
Author Note
Data collection and preliminary analysis were conducted for a
class project. I have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
, Department of Science and Human Studies, Prince Mohammad
Bin Fahd University, P.O. Box 1664, Al Khobar 31952,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Keywords: decision-making habits, academic success
Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx.
Literature review
xxxxxxxxx.
Discussion
xxxxxxxxx.
References
1

Select one of the articles on Blackboard and then summarize it.
Expected Content of Summary of Research Article Points
Title Page (page 1) 2%
The title page contains all elements. APA style is used to
construct it (see
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/).
Abstract (page 2) 3%
The abstract is a brief summary of the body of the paper (see
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/).
Introduction (from page 3) 4%
1. Define key terms.
2. State the problem/issue that you wish to address (i.e.,
research question). Briefly
explain its significance.
3. State hypotheses (i.e., predictions) based on your literature
review presented in the
next section.
Literature Review 4%

Describe the findings of at least two studies. For each, explain
how the researcher collected
the data to test his/her hypotheses (i.e., including participants
and data collection
procedure).
Discussion 4%
Discuss the importance/relevance of the findings reported
above.
Illustrate the limitations of existing studies (i.e., questions that
may remain unanswered).
Discuss your own findings.
Format
The format of the entire document is consistent with APA style
guidelines. 2%
References are cited in APA style in the body of the paper and
in the reference section.
Completed LOGO II questionnaire was submitted 1%
TOTAL 20%

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

A NOVEL TEACHER EVALUATION MODEL 1 Branching Paths A Nove.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A NOVEL TEACHER EVALUATION MODEL 1 Branching Paths A Nove.docx

Similar to A NOVEL TEACHER EVALUATION MODEL 1 Branching Paths A Nove.docx (20)

More from josephinepaterson7611

More from josephinepaterson7611 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A NOVEL TEACHER EVALUATION MODEL 1 Branching Paths A Nove.docx