Cyber Security Gone too farCarlos Diego LimaExce.docx

Cyber Security Gone too far
Carlos Diego Lima
Excelsior College
BNS301 National Security Ethics and Diversity
How far is it too far when protecting the peoples' rights in
cyberspace and its national security? In an ever-evolving cyber
world, many states tend to infringe on citizens' cyber
information privacy for their own accord. Sometimes
governments overstep boundaries and bend the rules to protect
the land and overstep the peoples' privacy to enforce rules and
regulations. My final paper will analyze rules and regulations
within the Cybersecurity realm within the United States. The
National Security Strategy is a good guideline on the laws and
what the U.S is looking to implement soon. This paper intends
not to make conspiracy theories to show facts and existing laws

and regulations on how the citizens' privacy has no longer been
protected and some examples of historical events. (Snowden)
had an ethical dilemma when he made his decisions. My paper
will include my opinions and the bullet points below to
construct a good argument on how the U.S can protect its
citizens' privacy.
· National Security Strategy
· Cyber laws within the United States
· Privacy Laws
· Phone settings
· Phone Companies and laws sharing information to the
government
· Internal agencies search and espionage laws
Edgar, T. H. (2017). Beyond Snowden privacy, mass
surveillance, and the struggle to reform the NSA. Washington,
D.C: Brookings Institution Press.
J., T. P., & Upton, D. (2016). Cyber security culture:
Counteracting cyber threats through organizational learning and
training. Routledge.

Miloshoska, D., & Smilkovski, I. (2016).
Http://uklo.edu.mk/filemanager/HORIZONTI 2017/Horizonti
serija A volume 19/14. Security and trade facilitation - the
evidence from Macedonia- Milososka, Smilkovski.pdf.
HORIZONS.A, 19, 153-163.
doi:10.20544/horizons.a.19.1.16.p14
Omand, D. (2018). Principled Spying: The Ethics of Secret
Intelligence. Georgetown University Pre Omand, D. (2018).
Principled Spying: The Ethics of Secret Intelligence.
Georgetown University Press.
Zimmerman, R. (2015). The Department of Homeland Security:
Assessment, recommendations, and appropriations. New York:
Nova.
Running Head: METHODS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1

METHODS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Kaytlin De Los Santos
Florida International University
METHODS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 2
Methods, Results and Discussion
Methods
Participants
One hundred and thirty-nine participants were randomly
selected and requested to fill a
questionnaire during the study. Every one of the 48 researchers
looked for about 3 participants
each who were strangers to them or students at FIU. The
participants needed to have not taken a
psychology research methods class in the fall of 2019.
Male participants for the study were 53 which accounted 38.1%
while female participants

were 86 which accounted for 61.9% of the total number of
participants (N=139). Caucasian
participants were 36 (25.9%), Hispanic participants were 55
(39.6%), and Native Indian
participants were 3 (2.2%), African Americans were 24 (17.3%)
Asian Americans were 9 (6.5%)
and other ethnicities had 12 (8.6%) participants. The minimum
age for the participants was 17
years while the maximum age was 59 years. The median age
was 22 years, the mode was 21
years, and the mean age M was 24.09 years and the standard
deviation S.D was 7.522.
Materials and Procedure
The participants were requested of an oral consent to participate
in the study. The
researchers explained to prospective participants that the
research they were carrying out was for
their psychology research methods and requested for the
participants’ consent to participate.
Participants who consented were presented with one of three
research study questionnaires. The
participants were asked to read through the instructions on top
of the questionnaire and read
through a scenario on a Facebook page. The participants were

asked to read through a Facebook
post by a user named Abigail Foster who had cheated in a
statistical test. Apparently, she had
been finding her statistical class daunting and while she was
working very hard revising, she was
sure she would not perform very well in the test. When the
instructor was handing the tests to
students, she was accidently handed her with an answer key
which she used and get high scores
which made the instructor not to curve scores as he would had
everybody failed. Abigail
therefore asked her friends for help since she was feeling bad
about it. Facebook page contained
a picture of Abigail, its owner, as well as background picture of
her university. In the about
section, generic information about Abigail was included. There
was a list of her friends with
profile pictures of their selfies. There were also fake adverts to
make the page appear real. Below
the Facebook posts were eight comments from her friends.

The Facebook post comments consisted of the first part of the
survey. The comments
sections were tailored in three different conditions in each of
the three surveys that were used for
the study. The first survey exclusively contained comments of
Abigail’s friends who
unanimously supported her for cheating citing that it was her
luck and she had not intended to
cheat at the first place. The second survey exclusively contained
comments from Abigail’s
friends who unanimously opposed her decision to cheat citing
such sentiments as it was wrong,
unethical and immoral. The third survey contained comments
that were mixed. That is, some
comments were opposing and others supporting Abigail’s
behavior. Each participant was
presented with a survey that contained only one of three
conditions. That is, where comments
were either unanimously supportive, unanimously opposing or
mixed. As such, a third of the
participants received comments that were unanimously
supportive, a third received comments
that were unanimously opposing while the other third received
surveys with comments that were

mixed.
In part II of the survey, the participants were asked to rate their
impressions of Abigail’s
performance on a scale from 1(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly
agree). The rates of were
expected to be different for each of the above-named
conditions. Those who received surveys
with support consensus were expected to give ratings closer to
6(strongly agree). Those who
received surveys with oppose consensus were expected to give
rates closer to one while those
with mixed consensus condition would give rates around the
center of the ratings (Brida, &
Alvarez, 2017).
In part III, participants were asked to rate a number of
statements on how they would
advise Abigail. This was the manipulation check question. The
statements “I would advise
Abigail to keep silent”, “I would try to comfort Abigail”, and “I
would give Abigail the same

advice that her friends gave her” were given the first three
positions. The fourth and fifth
statements were aimed at establishing how the participants
would respond in a similar situation
testing for social desirability bias. The other statements from
sixth to twelfth consisted of
competency/ warmth scales as developed by Fiske (Fiske &
Neuberg, 1990).
In part IV of the survey, the participants were asked to provide
other dependent variables.
The dependent variables were in the form of demographic
variables. The participants were asked
to provide demographic data. Any questions that they found
uncomfortable answering they were
asked to pass. The data that was asked for included participants’
age, gender and ethnicity.
In part V, the participants were asked to rate the feedback that
Abigail received from her
friends as either opposing, supportive or mixed from what they
remembered (Sijtsma et al.,
2017). The rating was nominal rather than numerical. This
rating would be analyzed using chi-
square method unlike the interval scales above that were to be
analyzed using ANOVA and t-

tests (Wike, 2018).
After completing the survey, the participants were debriefed
about the study. During the
debrief, they were thanked for participating in the study. It was
explained to them that different
participants were asked to provide feedback regarding Abigail’s
post. Different comments which
were either unanimously supportive, unanimously opposing as
well as mixed was used to test
predictions regarding conformity/consensus. The first prediction
being tested was that those
participants who were presented with comments that were
unanimously supportive would rate
Abigail’s behavior as acceptable (Scholz et al., 2014). On the
other hand, those who encountered
comments that were unanimously opposing would rate her
behavior as unacceptable while those
who encountered mixed comments would give back ratings
between the two extremes. The
second prediction that was being tested is that it is easier for a
person to make a true opinion in

the case where the comments were mixed more than in the
extreme cases of unanimous support
and unanimous opposing. These predictions, which were the
study’s hypotheses would be tested
during the researchers’ method course in the semester.
Results
i. Chi-Square
The Facebook consensus condition was used as the independent
variable (support,
oppose, mixed) and the participants recall of Abigail’s friends’
feedback to her, a significant χ
(4) =135.50, p<0.001. A big portion of participants in the
“support” condition recalled feedback
that was supporting Abigail’s behavior (98%); most of the
participants in the “opposing”
condition recalled opposing feedback (94%); and those who
participated in the “mixed”
condition recalled mixed feedback (93%). This was an indicator
that the participants saw the
researchers’ manipulation as intended.
ii. ANOVA
A consensus condition (support vs. oppose vs. mixed) as the

independent variable and the
ratings of “I would give Abigail the same advice that her friends
gave her”, we found a
significant condition effect, F (2, 139) = 9.221, p<.05. This
necessitated Tukey post hoc tests that
revealed that participants would have given the same advice to
Abigail in the support condition
(M =4.5, S.D = 0.86) than participants in oppose condition (M =
3.4, S.D =1.00) as well as mixed
condition (M = 3.8, S.D = 0.73). It was also seen that
participants in the mixed and oppose
conditions did not differ from each other. This supports the
prediction of the researchers that
participants who had earlier been exposed to unanimously
supportive comments would give
supportive advice to Abigail while those who were exposed to
opposing comments, unanimous
and mixed, would give her opposing advice.
iii. T-test
A t-Test was carried out using the consensus condition (support

vs. oppose) and as our
independent variable ratings of “I would give Abigail the same
advice that her friends gave her”,
a significant condition effect was found, t(139) = 1.12, p > .05.
As such, participants exposed to
the support condition (M =4.5, S.D = 0.86) would give the same
advice to Abigail as her friends
gave to her as would those subjected to the opposing condition
would (M = 3.4, S.D =1.00)).
This is an indicator that the participants are sensitive to
consensus and are happy to conform to
the opinions of the consensus.
Another t-Test was carried out using the consensus condition
(support vs. oppose) and as
our independent variable ratings of “I would advise Abigail to
be silent”, a significant condition
effect was found, t(139) = 1.22, p > .05. As such, participants
exposed to the support condition
(M =4.5, S.D = 0.86) would give the same advice to Abigail as
her friends gave to her as would
those subjected to the opposing condition would (M = 3.4, S.D
=1.00)As well, this is an indicator
that the participants are sensitive to consensus and are happy to
conform to the opinions of the

consensus.
Discussion
The first hypothesis in this study was that those participants
who were presented with
comments that were unanimously supportive would rate
Abigail’s behavior as acceptable. On the
other hand, those who encountered comments that were
unanimously opposing would rate her
behavior as unacceptable while those who encountered mixed
comments would give back ratings
between the two extremes. The second hypothesis that was
being tested is that it is easier for a
person to make a true opinion in the case where the comments
were mixed more than in the
extreme cases of unanimous support and unanimous opposing.
The results supported the
hypothesis showing that participants are sensitive to consensus
and are happy to conform to the
opinions of the consensus.

Running head: STUDY TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 1

Instructions for Paper III: Study Two Literature Review (Worth
35 Points)
Ryan J. Winter
PAPER III: LITERATURE REVIEW 2
Purpose of Paper III: Study Two Literature Review
1). Psychological Purpose
Paper III is intended to help you take your original Facebook
Consensus study one step
further by letting you predict how a second independent
variable of your lab’s choosing
impacts participants. In this replication with extension study,
you have a greater role in a).
choosing which articles to include in your follow-up literature
review as well as b).
identifying how this new variable influences your hypotheses.
The bulk of your points in

Paper III will come from a new paper “literature review”, but—
similar to journal articles
you might have read—this second literature review comes
between the discussion from
study one and before the methods for study two. That is, your
Paper III will include your
original literature review from study one (revised based on
feedback from Paper I), your
study one methods, results, and discussion (revised based on
feedback from Paper II), and
a new literature review that both focuses on the results of study
one but adds in new
information and references for study two.
In other words, Paper III includes:
1). Your original title page (though feel free to change the title)
2). Your revised study one literature review (ending in the study
one hypotheses).
3). Your revised study one methods section.
4). Your revised study one results section.
5). Your revised study one discussion section.
6). Your new study two literature review (ending in the study
two hypotheses).

7). References for all citations in the paper (minimum 10
references required)
8). Your appendices from study one
The largest number of Paper III points are provided for your
new study two literature
review. Unlike your study one literature review, your study two
literature review will
essentially pick up after study one. Think of it as a “sequel” of
sorts. It builds on and
extends study one’s Facebook Consensus focus, using two
levels of your original
independent variable (either Support vs. Mixed, or Oppose vs.
Mixed) and similar
dependent variables (e.g. Cheating impressions etc.) but altering
or extending them into a
new study design. The good news here is that you can refer to
study one as you write your
study two literature review. In fact, that is something I
encourage. You can also refer back
to your study one literature review sources.
The bulk of this study two literature review concerns a second
independent variable that

you and your lab will manipulate during the second part of the
semester. You will need to
find up to five references for this second independent variable,
hopefully finding sources
that build a bridge between studies one and two. In other words,
in Paper III you will
answer the following question: “Given our findings in study
one, how will the presence of
a second independent variable impact participant decisions?”
Similar to Paper I, you should end your literature review in
Paper III by noting your
specific hypotheses for study two. Here, you will address both
main effects (outcomes
associated with each independent variable alone) and
interactions (the combined impact of
your independent variables).
2). APA Formatting Purpose
The second purpose of Paper III: Literature Review is to once
again teach you proper
American Psychological Association (APA) formatting. In the

pages below, I will tell you
how to format your paper using APA style. There are a lot of
very specific requirements in
APA papers, so pay attention to the instructions below as well
as Chapter 14 in your book!
3). Writing Purpose
Finally, this paper is intended to help you refine your writing.
My hope is that you will use
feedback from Paper I and Paper II to improve your grammar,
spelling, and content in
Paper III. At the end of the semester, you will actually use
Paper III as the opening section
for your final course paper, so doing a good writing job Paper
III will be very beneficial as
you revise your papers for Paper V. Many students use Paper V
as their writing sample for
graduate programs, so make sure you write clearly and precisely
for an educated reader!
Note that the plagiarism limit for Paper III is 50%. This is a bit
higher given the overlap in
the Paper II material, but your Paper I and new literature review
in Paper III should be
very unique to you. As usual, references, citations, and the

predictions are not included in
the plagiarism limit.
Instructions for Paper III: Study Two Literature Review (Worth
35 Points)
This paper will cover both study one (including the literature
review, methods section, results
section, and brief discussion from that study) and the
introduction literature review to study two.
This paper essentially tells the literature oriented story of your
semester long project thus far.
Your main job is to justify your study two predictions, and you
do that by both showing how
study one influenced your choice of variables in study two as
well as citing prior research that
supports your second independent variable in study two. At the
end of the study two literature
review section, you will provide your own study two
predictions.
The good news is that we are continuing with our topic of the
Facebook Consensus study. You

wrote a lot on that already, so here you simply add to it, noting
in a second “literature review”
section how a second independent variable might interact with
the study one Facebook Consensus
manipulation. Here are the components to keep in mind. By
now, a lot of this should be familiar
to you, so you’ll see a lot of overlap with the instructions and
checklists from Papers I and II.
1. Title Page: I expect the following format (1 point):
a. This title page is a lot like the title page on your Papers I and
II. See my “Title”
page above as an example or reuse your title page from prior
papers (though you
may need to modify your title given your new IVs in this study).
b. You must have a header and page numbers on each page.
i. If you don’t know how to insert headers, ask your instructor
or watch this
very helpful video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pbUoNa5tyY.
ii. The header goes at the top of the paper and it is left justified.
1. Use “Insert Headers” or click on the top of the page to open
the
header. Make sure to select the “Different first page” option so

that
your title page header will differ from subsequent pages
2. The R in Running head is capitalized but the h is lower case,
followed by a colon and a short title (in ALL CAPS). This short
running head title can be the same one as the rest of your paper
or it
can differ – the choice is yours, but it should be no more than
50
characters including spaces and punctuation
3. Insert a page number as well. While the header is flush left,
the
page number is flush right.
iii. Want an example header? Look at the title page of these
instructions! You
can use other titles depending on your own preferences (e.g.
SOCIAL
MEDIA AND CONSENSUS; CONFORMITY; JUDGING
OTHERS;
etc.).
c. Your Title should be midway up the page. Feel free to alter
the title at this point so
that it includes a better description of both study one and study

two
d. Include your name (First Last) and the name of your
institution (FIU) beneath the
paper title. For this class, only your own name will go on this
paper. Double space
everything!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pbUoNa5tyY
i. You can also refer to Chapter 14 in your textbook
2. Abstract? Again, this is not needed … yet! You’ll include it
later in Paper V.
3. Literature Review Study One (3 points)
a. Make sure to revise the study one literature review from
Paper I based on feedback
to that paper. The Paper I instructions still apply for that second
in Paper II, so
reread those instructions if you need a reminder on the
requirements for your study
one literature review.
b. For Paper III, you will need ten references total. You already
have five for the

study one literature review, so feel free to keep those same
references. You can
also add a few or take away a few from the study one literature
review and make-
up the difference in the study two literature review section (#7
below). That is, you
can have seven references for study one and three for study two,
or six for study
one and four for study two, etc. My advice – keep your five
references from study
one and include five additional references for the study two
literature review.
c. Just remember to revise, revise, revise your study one lit
review. If we made
recommendations for improvement and you don’t change a
word, you’ll lose all
three points in this section!
4. Methods Study One (3 points)
a. Revise your methods from study one for this section based on
feedback we gave
you in Paper II. The Paper II instructions for methods still apply
for this section.
b. Again, revise, revise, revise or risk losing all points in this

section
5. Results Study One (3 points)
a. Revise your results from study one for this section based on
feedback we gave you
in Paper II. The Paper II instructions for the results still apply
for this section.
b. Do I need to mention revise?
6. Discussion Study One (1 point)
a. Revise your discussion from study one for this section based
on feedback we gave
you in Paper II. The Paper II instructions for the discussion still
apply for this
section.
b. One word – revise!
7. Literature Review Study Two (10 points)
a. APA formatting for the first page of your literature review
i. Your study two literature review starts right after the
discussion for study
one. There is no page break, so have it come right after the
discussion on
the very next line.

b. APA formatted citations for the literature review
i. Between the literature review for study one and the literature
review for
study two, you have to have at least ten references combined. If
you have
five references in the study one lit review, you need five more
here. If you
have seven for study one, you need three here. In total, at least
eight of
these ten references must be based on empirical research reports
(that is,
each of these eight cited articles should have a literature
review, a methods
section, a results section, a conclusion/discussion, and
references). The
remaining two sources can also be primary sources, but you may
also use
secondary sources (books, law reviews, newspaper articles,
etc.). Of course
I would recommend sticking with all primary sources, but the
choice is

yours for the other two citations. Note: Internet blogs and
Wikipedia are
not acceptable as secondary sources. Here is a bit more to note:
1. As in Paper I, I am not setting a maximum on the number of
citations you can use, but between studies one and two you need
at
minimum ten of them! These may overlap among students, so it
is
okay to read the same articles as some of your classmates. You
can
use all of the articles posted on Canvas for Paper I if you want,
but
note that you will need to find some new references as well
(especially ones that focus on your second independent
variable).
a. Referring to your first study does not count as a reference.
2. Proper citations must be made in the paper – give credit
where it is
due, and don’t make claims that cannot be validated! If it
sounds
like a fact, then you must provide a citation to support that fact
3. DO NOT plagiarize. You will turn this in on Canvas, and we

can
check for plagiarism via turn-it-in. Paraphrasing is okay, but
you
must still cite the original author even if you do not use his or
her
words verbatim. If you rewrite what they say, it is still them
that
had the original idea, and they deserve credit for it
4. If you directly quote a source, make sure to provide a page
number
for where you found that quote. However, I prefer paraphrasing
to
direct quotes. I allow three quotes total for the whole paper
(including the two that I allowed in Paper I). If you quote more
than three times you will lose one point for each additional
quote.
c. Content-based requirements for your study two literature
review
i. Your study two literature review should use your study one
results and
prior research studies as a jumping off point, once again
starting with a

broad theme and then narrowing it down – think about the
hourglass
example your instructors have given you. Now imagine that you
have a
second hourglass right below the original one. You can start
broadly again
with information about the new study independent variable, and
then once
again narrow down as you near your hypotheses for study two.
ii. Think about your study two literature review this way: You
are writing a
sequel to study one, so your new story picks up where that story
left off.
1. I want you to pay close attention to your own brief discussion
from
study one (Paper II discussion). You drew some conclusions
there,
but now is your chance to build on those conclusions. At the
beginning of your new study two story, your audience knows
some

of the story from study one, so there is no need to rewrite what
you
already presented. Rather, you need to set the stage for the new
sequel storyline. Introduce your new “character”, or your new
independent variable. Talk about this somewhat in isolation
(what
does research say about this variable on its own). Once you
define
and clarify what this new variable is and how it has been used
in
prior research, start to show how it connects to your own study
one.
a. For example, let’s say your new independent variable is “the
effect of warnings on behavior”, with warning versus no
warning as the two levels of the new IV. You would talk
about research on warnings and how it impacts people.
THEN you talk about how warning about Consensus might
impact people. So, step one is to introduce the new concept
while step two is to show how the new concept fits in with
your new study.
2. At the end of the story, start to lead the reader to the big

cliffhanger
(your study two hypothesis). By now you have introduced the
characters as well as the plot, but then you want to build some
anticipation in your reader – you want them to wonder what
comes
next! The last part of the literature review brings the reader to
your
study two hypotheses, or that potential twist ending to your
story.
That is, “Given what we saw in the literature, what happens if
we
do XYZ?” Thus you build your study to your hypotheses and
end
on another cliffhanger. The next chapter (Paper IV Methods,
Results, and Discussion) focuses on the study that you actually
did!
In other words, at the end of your study two literature review
you
should …
a. give a general overview of your research question
b. state your specific predictions / hypotheses given the studies
you talked about in the literature review. This should look at

both main effects and interactions, so you’ll need to address
each IV on its own (main effect for belief perseverance and
main effect for your second IV) and the interaction of the
two IVs as they work together.
d. The literature review for study two must have a minimum of
two (2) full pages of
text and a maximum of five (5) pages. This time, I’ll let you
include the
hypotheses within that minimum 2 pages (though it would be
very tight to get all
of that info in there in such a short lit review section).
8. Citations: I expect the following format (4 points)
a. All in-text citations must be correct (correct APA formatting,
correct dates, if
directly quoted must have page numbers, and uses et al. and &
and correctly)
9. References: I expect the following format (5 points):
a. The References section starts on its own page, with the word
References centered.
Use proper APA format in this section or you will lose points.

b. All ten references that you cited in the literature review must
be in this section
(there should be more than ten references here if you cited more
than ten articles).
However, at least eight must come from empirical articles
c. For references, make sure you:
i. use alphabetical ordering (start with the last name of the first
author)
ii. use the authors’ last names but only the initials of their
first/middle name
iii. give the date in parentheses – e.g. (2007).
iv. italicize the name of the journal article
v. give the volume number, also in italics
vi. give the page numbers (not italicized) for articles
vii. provide the doi (digital object identifier) if present (not
italicized)
10. Appendices: I expect the following format (1 point)
a. Copy and paste from Paper II. This should be an easy point!
Just make sure the
appendices go AFTER the references page (That is, an appendix
“appends” the
paper – it goes at the end!)
i. Appendix A: Include your tables for age, gender, and
ethnicity.
ii. Appendix B: Include your tables for your chi square and the
crosstabs
iii. Appendix C: Include your tables for your first scaled DV

iv. Appendix D: Include your tables for you second scaled DV
11. Overall writing quality (4 points)
a. Make sure you check your paper for proper spelling and
grammar. The FIU
writing center is available if you want someone to look over
your paper (an extra
eye is always good!) and give you advice. I highly recommend
them, as writing
quality will become even more important on future papers.
Other Guidelines for Paper III: Literature Review
▪ 1). Pay attention to the page length requirements – 1 page for
the title page, 2-5 pages
for the study one lit review, no minimum page lengths for the
study one methods,
results, and discussion sections, 2-5 pages for the study two
literature review, and at
least 1 page for the references page. If you are under the
minimum, we will deduct
points. If you go over the maximum, we are a little more
flexible (up to a half page or so),
but we want you to try to keep it to the maximum page.
▪ 2). Page size is 8 1/2 X 11” with all 4 margins set at 1”. You
must use a 12-point font with

Times New Roman font. EVERYTHING in the paper (including
references) is double
spaced
▪ 3). When summarizing articles for your lit review and doing
so in your own words, make
sure you still cite the original source. Always use proper
referencing procedures, which
means that:
o If you are inserting a direct quote from any source, it must be
enclosed in
quotations and followed by a parenthetical reference to the
source. “Let’s say I am
directly quoting this current sentence and the next. I would then
cite it with the
author name, date of publication, and the page number for the
direct quote”
(Winter, 2013, p . 5).
1. Note: We will deduct points if you quote more than three
times in the
paper, so keep quotes to a minimum. Paraphrase instead, but
make sure
you still give the original author credit for the material by

citing it or using
the author’s name (“In this article, Smith noted that …” or “In
this article,
the authors noted that…”)
▪ 4). PLEASE use a spell checker to avoid unnecessary errors.
Proofread everything you
write. I actually recommend reading some sentences aloud to
see if they flow well, or
getting family or friends to read your work. Using Pearson
Writer is also required
The above information is required for your paper, but I wanted
to provide a few tips about writing
your study two literature review as well. Hopefully this will
give you some good directions:
• First, remember that you need ten references total, eight of
which MUST be peer-reviewed
• Second, I don't expect a lengthy discussion for each and every
article that you cite for
either study one or study two. You might spend a page on one
study and a sentence or two
on another. The amount of time you spend describing an article
you read should be

proportional to how important it is in helping you defend your
hypotheses. If you do a
near replication of a prior study, then I would expect you to
spend more time discussing
that prior research since it has a big impact on your own study.
If an article you read
simply supports a global idea that ties into your study but has
very different methods (like
"frustrated people get mad!"), you can easily mention it in a
sentence or two without
delving into a lot of detail. Tell a good story in your literature
review, but only go into
detail about plot elements that have a direct bearing on your
study!
• Third, like Paper I, Paper III is all about supporting your
study two hypotheses. Know
what your hypotheses are before you write the paper, as it will
help you determine how
much time to spend on each article you are citing.
• Fourth, make sure to proofread, proofread, proofread! Use the
Pearson Writer for help, but
note that their suggestions are just that – suggestions. It is up to
you to make sure the flow
of the paper is easy to understand. Good luck!

• Fifth, please note that a different grader might grade your
Paper III than Paper I or II. As
forewarning, the new grader might mark off for Paper I and II
elements that the prior
grader thought was okay. That is, the two graders may not agree
with each other on
everything. Unfortunately, this happens, even when I try to
publish a paper in a journal.
Two reviewers may have no problem with my paper while two
others nitpick a lot. The
same happens here. Just be aware that graders all use the same
paper checklist and grade
rubric. They might emphasize some elements more than others
in those checklists
depending on their personal grading style, but if YOU pay
attention to all checklist
elements then grading will not differ much regardless of who
graded! So, USE THE
CHECKLISTS! I mark off a point if the appendix comes before
the references. I mark off
if reference article titles use incorrect capital letters. I mark off
if the letters p, F, M, and
SD are not in italics. Everything I might mark off for is

included in the checklist, so if
your paper passes the checklist, I won’t have as much to mark
off for! Use it (and look at
the example paper and grade rubric as well!)
Running head: PAPER III: STUDY TWO LITERATURE
REVIEW 1
Checklist – Paper III: Study Two Literature Review
Use the check sheet below to make sure your paper is the best it
can be! Make sure you answer
“Yes” to all questions before submitting your paper! Some
sections duplicate checklists from
prior papers while those in purple focus on new Study Two
Literature Review elements.
General Paper Format (This section is identical to the Papers I
and II Checklists)
Yes No
1. Is everything in your paper (including headers, the main
body of your mini-
literature review, and your references) in 12 point Times New
Roman font?
2. Is everything in your paper double spaced, including
references (here I mean

the spacing above and below each line, not the spaces following
a period)?
3. Do you have one inch margins on all sides of the paper (one
inch from the top
of the page, one inch from the bottom, and one inch from each
side)
4. Are the first lines of all paragraphs indented roughly ½
inch?
5. Are your paragraphs aligned left? (That is, text should be
flush left, with lines
lining up on the left of the page, but text should NOT line up on
the right side
of the page – it should look ragged)
6. Do you need help figuring out how to configure a word
document in APA
format (inserting headers, page numbers, proper indents, etc.)?
If YES, I
highly recommend watching this video which walks you through
setting up an
APA formatted paper!
Title page (This section is identical to the Papers I and II
Checklists)
Yes No Header
1. Do you have the phrase “Running head” in your header

(with a lower case h)?
2. Is the rest of your Running head title in ALL CAPS?
3. Is your Running head in 12 point Times New Roman font?
4. Do you have a page number (1) that is flush right (also in
12 point Times New
Roman font)?
5. Is your header 50 characters or less (including spaces and
punctuation)?
Title / Name / Institution
1. Is your title 12 words or less (as recommended by the
APA)?
2. Does your title describe your general paper theme (while
avoiding something
blank like “Paper Three: Literature Review”)? Note that your
header and title
can differ!
3. Do all title words with four letters or more start with a
capital letter?
4. Are your name and institution correct?
5. Are your title, name, and institution elements centered and
in 12 point Times
New Roman font?
Literature Review Study One (This section is nearly identical to

Paper I)
Yes No Title for the literature review
1. Do you have the identical title you used on the title page
rewritten at the top
of your literature review?
2. Is this title centered?
3. Does your literature review start on page 2?
Main body of the literature review
1. Does your literature review start broadly, giving a brief
overview of the study
one to come?
2. Does your literature review start to narrow down toward
your hypotheses?
3. Do your paragraphs transition from one to the next? (That
is, avoid simply
listing studies you read. Tie them together. How does Study A
in paragraph A
relate to Study B in paragraph B?)
4. Does your paper end in your very specific hypotheses? (You
will lose a lot of

points if your paper doesn’t provide the specific predictions!)
5. Did you make sure your predictions are written in the past
tense?
6. Is your paper at least two pages long (not including the
hypotheses)?
Citations for the literature review
1. Did you cite a minimum of 5 references (all peer-reviewed
resources)? Note
that you can give a lot of detail for some references but only a
sentence or two
for others. How much detail you go into depends on how
important the article
is in helping your support your hypotheses.
1.a If NO, do your citations between the study one and study
two literature
reviews add up to ten or more references?
2. Are your citations in APA format (That is, ONLY the last
name of the
author(s) and date of publication)?
a. Note that you do NOT include first names, initials, or the
title of the article
the authors wrote when citing. That information belongs in the
references
pages only.

b. Also note that you only use an ampersand – the & symbol –
when it occurs
within parentheses. In other instances, use the word “and”
3. If you quoted, did you provide a page number for the direct
quote?
4. If you paraphrased in any way, did you cite the source of
that information?
5. Did you cite everything that sounded like it was factual
information?
6. Did you make sure the period follows the citation rather
than coming before it?
Methods Section Study One (This section is identical to Paper II
– Methods Study One)
Yes No Title for the methods section
1. Is the word “Methods” centered and in bold? (Note: No page
break needed)
Yes No Participants
1. Do you have the word “Participants” flush left and in bold,
right below the
word “Methods”?
2. Did you list out your demographic characteristics, including
gender, age, and
ethnicity / race?
3. Did you provide the descriptive statistics for (means and

standard deviations)
for age and italicize the letters M and SD?
4. Did you provide frequencies for gender and ethnicity/race
and italicize the N?
5. Did you refer readers to Appendix for the full listing of
demographic tables?
Materials and Procedure
1. Did you mention informed consent?
2. Did you discuss any instructions the participant may have
read?
3. Did you thoroughly describe any stimulus material that
might have occurred
before your actual independent variables (and photos,
descriptions, profiles,
questions, puzzles, etc.) that are a part of your study?
4. Did you thoroughly describe your independent variable in
enough depth and
detail that another researcher could duplicate your materials?
5. Did you give your IVs names that matches up with the name
you refer to in the

results section?
6. Did you describe all of your most relevant dependent
variables, noting the
scales you used (e.g. “Yes / No”, “A scale ranging from 1 (not
at all likely) to 9
(very likely))” for EACH of your DVs?
7. Did you fully describe what participants went through in the
study, noting the
order in which they received study materials (e.g. first informed
consent, then
IVs, DVs, and debriefing)?
8. Did you fully describe your attention check (manipulation
check) with enough
detail that a reader unfamiliar with your study could recreate it,
and did you
include the scale for that attention check question?
9. Did you use the past tense when describing your methods
(seeing how you
already collected the data, and therefore do not discuss what
participants will
do)?

Results Section Study One (This section is identical to Paper II
– Results Study One)
Yes No Results
1. Do you have the word “Results” centered and in bold,
immediately following
the methods section?
2. Did you analyze at least three different dependent variables,
including one chi
square and at least one ANOVA?
3. Did you mention all of the IVs and the DV by name when
talking about your
analysis?
4. Did you include means and standard deviations within
parentheses for each
level of your independent variable?
5. If your ANOVA was significant, did you include post hoc
tests?
6. Did you italicize the letters F, t, p, M, SD, and X2 (where
appropriate)?
7. Did you round ALL numbers to two decimal places (with
the exception of the
p value, which can go as low as p < .001 or p = .001).
Discussion Section Study One (This section is identical to Paper
II – Discussion Study One)
Yes No

1. Do you have the word “Discussion” centered and in bold,
immediately
following the results section?
2. Did you remind your reader of your hypothesis?
3. Did you mention whether you supported or did not support
your hypothesis?
Literature Review Study Two (This section is completely new)
Yes No Title for the literature review
1. Do you have some title that denotes the start of study two
(e.g. something as
simple as “Study Two” is okay, though you can also have
something that is
descriptive of your new independent variable)?
2. Is this title centered?
3. Does your literature review start immediately after the study
one discussion
(there should be no page break unless it occurs naturally)
Main body of the literature review
1. Does your new literature review start broadly with your

second IV, giving a
brief overview of what it entails?
2. Does your literature review start to narrow down toward
your study two
hypotheses?
3. Do your paragraphs transition from one to the next? (That
is, avoid simply
listing studies you read. Tie them together. How does Study A
in paragraph A
relate to Study B in paragraph B?)
4. Do you tie in your new IV with your original study one IV,
showing how they
might interact?
5. Does your paper end in your study two hypotheses? (More
specifically, you
should have a hypothesis for your main dependent variables).
Citations for the literature review
1. Did you cite an additional 5 references (three of which
MUST be peer-
reviewed resources)? Note that you can give a lot of detail for
some
references but only a sentence or two for others. How much
detail you go into
depends on how important the article is in helping your support
your
hypotheses.

1.a If NO, do your citations between the study one and study
two literature
reviews add up to ten or more references? If yes, you are good
here!
2. Are your citations in APA format (That is, ONLY the last
name of the
author(s) and date of publication)?
a. Note that you do NOT include first names, initials, or the
title of the
article the authors wrote when citing. That information belongs
in the
references pages only.
b. Also note that you only use an ampersand – the & symbol –
when it
occurs within parentheses. In other instances, use the word
“and”
3. If you quoted, did you provide a page number for the direct
quote?
4. If you paraphrased in any way, did you cite the source of
that information?
5. Did you cite everything that sounded like it was factual
information?
6. Did you make sure the period follows the citation rather
than coming before it?

References Page (This section is similar to Paper I, but with 10
references)
Yes No Title for the references page
1. Do references start on their own page?
2. Is the word “References” centered?
References – Make sure these are in APA format!
1. Are references listed in alphabetical order (starting with the
last name of the
first author listed) for all 10 articles you referenced?
2. Are all citations from the literature review referenced?
3. Is the first line of the reference flush left while subsequent
lines are indented
(Note: Use the ruler function for this. DO NOT simply tab)?
4. Did you use the “&” symbol when listing more than one
author name?
5. Did you include the date of publication
6. For article references, is the article title (which is not
italicized) with only the
first word and proper names starting with a capital letter?
7. For article references, is the name of the journal present

with all major words
starting with a capital letter (and this journal title is italicized)?
8. For article references, is the volume number italicized
9. For article references, are the page numbers present (not
italicized)
10. For article references, is the DOI present
Appendix Section – Study One (Similar to Paper II)
Yes No
1. Do you have the word “Appendix” centered on each
Appendix page,
followed by a description of the appendix content, immediately
following
the results section?
2. In Appendix A (Demographics), do you have SPSS tables
for gender,
ethnicity, and age? (Note: Age might be in a general “statistics”
table, but
you should have specific frequency tables for both gender and
ethnicity)
3. In Appendix B (Chi Square), do you have the crosstabs table
(with
percentages) plus the chi square test (with Pearson)?
4. In Appendix C (ANOVA), do you have the descriptives
table, the

ANOVA table, and the post hoc table for your first dependent
variable?
5. In Appendix D (ANOVA or t-Test), do you have the
descriptives table,
ANOVA (or t-Test) table, and post hoc table (for the ANOVA)
for your
second dependent variable?
6. Do the analyses in Appendix C and D focus on DIFFERENT
dependent
variables? (Make sure you answer YES on this one!)
7. Do the appendices come AFTER the references?
Writing Quality
Yes No 1. Did you proofread your paper, go to the writing
center, go to the research
methods help center, or use the Pearson writer to make sure
your paper flows
well?
2. Did you use the past tense (which is recommended, since
your papers in this
class will reflect work you already did rather than work you will
do)?
3. Did you use a scientific / objective terms like “people”,
“participants”. “users”,

“readers”, etc. (as opposed to subjective words like “you”,
“we”, “me”, “I”, or
“us”, etc.)?
GRADING RUBRIC FOR PAPER III (35 points total)
*Points given are points achieved, not deducted*
Writing & Content:
15 pts
3 points 2.5 points 1 point 0 points
1. Introduction
exceptional introduction
that grabs interest of
reader and clearly
states topic.
exceptionally clear, and
well-developed.
proficient introduction
that is interesting and
states topic.
clear & mostly
developed.

basic introduction
that states topic but
lacks interest.
somewhat clear and
arguable.
weak or no
introduction of topic.
confusing.
paper’s purpose is
unclear.
2. Article Summaries
articles are expertly
summarized and give
reader enough
information to be able to
understand the studies.
connects new IV with
original IV, showing how
they might interact.
articles are mostly
well-summarized,
giving most of the
information necessary
for the reader to
understand. mostly

connect new IV with
your original IV,
showing how they
might interact.
articles are
summarized but do
not provide enough
information for the
reader to understand.
does not sufficiently
connect new IV with
your original IV,
showing how they
might interact.
articles are not
summarized
correctly. it is clear
the student did not
follow the format in
the Example Paper.
does not connect
new IV with original
IV, showing how they
might interact.
3. Content
application - Support
of Hypothesis and
Analysis
exceptionally critical,
relevant and consistent

connections made
between articles and
hypotheses.
excellent analysis.
articles, as summarized,
are relevant to the topic
and support the
hypothesis.
consistent
connections made
hypothesis.
good analysis.
articles, as
summarized, are
relevant to the topic
and support the
hypotheses.
some connections
made between
articles and
hypothesis.
some analysis.
articles, as
summarized, are not
and/or do not support
the hypotheses.
limited or no
connections made
hypotheses.

lack of analysis.
articles, as
summarized, are not
and do not support
the hypotheses.
4. Conclusion
excellent summary of
argument that leads into
Paper II. introduces no
new information.
includes 3 hypotheses.
good summary of
topic with clear
concluding ideas
leading into Paper II.
introduces no new
information. includes
2 hypotheses.
basic summary of
topic with some final
concluding ideas.
Does not lead into

Paper II. introduces
no new information.
includes 1 hypothesis.
lack of summary of
topic or non-existent.
Does not lead into
Paper II. hypotheses
not included.
5. Writing
writing is clear, with no
grammatical,
syntactical, and/or
spelling errors –
polished and
professional.
writing is mostly clear,
with only minor
grammatical,
syntactical, and/or
spelling errors.
many fundamental
grammatical,
syntactical, and
spellings errors
throughout the paper.

the paper is very
challenging to read
due to poor writing
flow, grammatical,
syntactical, and
spelling errors. paper
is off-topic. Turn-It-in
plagiarism
percentage is too
high.
Feedback: 5 pts 5 points 4 points 2 points 0 points
6. Feedback
Adopted all feedback
from Paper I.
Adopted most
feedback from Paper
I.
Adopted little to none
of the feedback from
Paper I.
Ignored feedback
from paper I.

Mechanics: 15 pts 3 points 2.5 points 1 point 0 points
7. General Paper
Format
paper (including
headers, the main body,
and references) is in 12-
point Times New Roman
font, double spaced,
with 1” margins,
paragraphs ½”, and
aligned left.
formatting is very
good, but has some
minor mistakes in the
font type or size,
spacing, margin size,
or alignment.
formatting has many
errors in font type
and/or size, spacing,
margin size, and/or
alignment.
formatting is
consistently
incorrect in many
respects including
errors in font type
and/or size,
spacing, margin

size, and/or
alignment.
8. Title Page APA
running head is in
header, with lower case
‘h’, in all caps, & page
number flush right. title
is 12 words or fewer,
centered, and words
with four or more letters
start with a capital
letter.
the title page has
some minor mistakes
in the header or title,
as noted in the first
column, but is
generally correct.
the title page has many
fundamental errors in
formatting of the
header and/or title, as
noted in the first
column.
title page

consistently does
not follow the
formatting
instructions
provided.
9. First Page APA
header title present,
identical to header on
title page, all caps,
omits phrase ‘RUNNING
HEAD’. page number is
in header, flush right.
title is identical to title
page and centered.
some minor errors are
made in header title,
or page number, or
paper title, as
outlined in the first
column.
many errors are made
in header title, and/or
page number, and/or
paper title, as outlined
in the first column.
the APA formatting
as outlined in the
first column is

consistently lacking
in several areas.
10. Citations
paper includes at least
10 citations, at least 8
of which are empirical.
in-text citations are
correctly formatted.
quotes and paraphrased
text are correctly cited.
paper includes at
least 8-9 citations, all
of which are
empirical. There are
some minor errors in
the in-text citations,
quotes or
paraphrased text.
paper includes 7-8
citations, &/or many of
which are not
empirical. There are
some major errors in
the in-text citations,
quotes and/or
paraphrased text.
formatting of

citations is
generally incorrect
and does not follow
guidelines provided.
There are fewer
than 7 citations
&/or none are
empirical.
11. References Page
start on their own page.
title is centered. all
citations are referenced.
APA formatting of
references is perfect.
start on their own
page. title is centered.
all citations are
referenced. APA
formatting of
references is mostly
correct, though there
are some minor errors
such as sources not
listed in alphabetical
order.

do not start on their
own page and/or title
is not centered and/or
all citations are not
referenced. APA
formatting of
references has many
fundamental mistakes,
including sources not
listed in alphabetical
order.
generally disregards
the instructions
provided in
formatting the
references page,
either in formatting
or inclusion of all
cited material.
Running head: SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 1

Social Media and Consensus
Kaytlin De Los Santos
2
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS
Social Media and Consensus
Introduction
The consumption of social media indisputably forms a
significant part of modern life and
correspondingly on many organizations. To this effect, it has
been in contention, that social
media has the power to promote individualized thinking as
opposed to sanitized group thinking
(Rom & Conway, 2018). This paper in a bid to understand the
Facebook consensus will delve
into an analysis of five articles which seek to explain the
proposed hypothesis. It is prudent to

note that the articles shall focus on providing key summaries
with regard to the hypotheses, the
findings of the empirical studies as well as justification for
these articles in support of the
proposed hypotheses.
Moral Conformity in Online Interactions
According to Asch (1956), there is a higher chance of
conformity to blatant and
sometimes erroneous opinions held by the majority regardless of
whether the task is simple
perceptual or hard. Research has proven that the development of
online spaces has brought about
alterations with regard to body language as well as
communication norms and ways in which
persuasive influence is exerted (Bargh & McKenna, 2004).
Kelly et al. (2017) conducted two
studies which were aimed at addressing the issue of moral
conformity within online interactions.
The first study sought to identify the participants’ sensitivity
towards moral edicts made by
anonymous people and directed towards ethical dilemmas.
The study recruited participants via the virtual labor market,
Amazon Mechanical Turk.

They were then directed to Qualtrics where they concluded a
virtual survey. Each of the
participants was required to rate one of two scenarios presented
to them. Scenario A presented a
case of a family eating their dead pet dog. Scenario B, on the
other hand, presented passengers
3
who were on the verge of sinking on a lifeboat and they
sacrificed a passenger who was not only
injured but also overweight (Kelly et al. 2017). It is prudent to
note that this specific study
sought to understand the degree of conformity and how it varies
when a scenario involves harm
violations in contrast to purity violations. The results of these
study revealed that what was
needed to induce conformity in moral judgements was the
provision of statistical evidence
showing the response of other participants.
The second study, having established conformity relationship to
manipulations that only
contain statistical information, wanted to understand how

differing arguments and particularly
emotional and rational arguments, were effective in influencing
moral judgments. This study also
recruited participants from the same site used in the first study
and were allowed to rate the two
scenarios used in the first study (Kelly et al. 2017). The results
provided that when participants
were provided with both rational or emotions justifications, they
tended to conform to rational
justifications rather than emotional justifications. It is prudent
to note that this was different from
the hypotheses of the study that posited that social media
consensus is influenced by emotions.
Computers in Human Behavior
The hypotheses of the Facebook Consensus theorize that there is
greater influence to
conformity within social media platforms. In a study conducted
by Jagatic et al. (2007), seventy-
two participants who took part in the study revealed that they
trusted links that were sent to them
by friends regardless of the fact that they may contain phishing
attempts. This study begs the
question of the factors that influence social conformity with
regard to social norms.

Undisputedly, social customs are in online environs, but the
perceptions of consumers to the
norms are subject to variation depending on the platforms, the
anonymity as well as presence of
4
social ties between the contacts. The study, therefore, seeks to
create a separation between social
influence that is norm-oriented and those that are information-
oriented.
This study structure in analyzing the effect of anonymity on
conformity, the participants
performed the experiment in full or partial anonymity in order
to manipulate the anonymity
levels (Perfumi et al. 2019). The subjects of the study
performed the experiments alone or with
other participants but notably, the subjects who performed the
experiment in group were not
allowed interactions with other subjects. To manipulate
ambiguity, the study developed new
tasks, cultural and apperceptive. The subjects were placed under
pressure directly and the

majority pressure was set to move towards answers considered
to be entropic.
This study revealed that the consequence of normative impact in
situations where social
distinctiveness is not fortified is almost non-existent. There was
also the fact that anonymity
impacted negatively saliency if groups. Given that the subjects
of the study could not
communicate with each other and similarly could not share any
kind of information, concerning
the group members also built on anonymity (Perfumi et al.
2019). Concerning obtaining of
information, two contextual characteristics, full anonymity, and
corporeal segregation can have a
positive effect on conformism. Conversely, if these
characteristics are combined, then their effect
on conformity is negative.
They Came, They Liked, They Commented: Social Influence on
Facebook News Channels
Social Networking sites have taken over the news industry and
there has been a drastic
decrease in the circulation of newspapers. The news
organizations have consequently been

forced to reach their audience via online platforms, and
importantly, Facebook, has emerged as
an instrumental channel for passing information. Studies have
revealed that social networking is
not the only reason why people use Facebook, sourcing
information on politics as well as
5
contemporary affairs is among the top reasons why people use
Facebook (Winter et al. 2015). It
is prudent to note that Facebook places much emphasis on the
reaction of readers, in spite of the
fact that there are provisions for comments and likes. This
specific study sought to understand
the effect of the reactions of different users in the news
channels operating on Facebook as well
as the psychological mechanisms that underlie processing of
information.
The study was conducted by showing participants a screenshot
of a reputable news
magazine which presented a short summary of a story. The
participants were later allowed to

read the complete version of the story. The topic under study
was touching on the legalization of
Marijuana, this was because the study sought to ensure that the
topic was moderately relevant to
the readers and also it could not bring about strong as well as
polarized attitudes previously held
by the participants (Winter et al. 2015). The study revealed that
statements that were in
congruence with the article and which were published by news
sources that were renowned did
not influence persuasive effects with regard to the article. On
the issue of the quality relating to
comments of readers, there was the consistency of
argumentative comments. Notably, these
comments did not have any influence on the perception as held
by the public.
Morality and Conformity: The Asch Paradigm Applied to Moral
Decisions
Kantian theory on moral judgment hypothesized that moral
judgment is simply the
outcomes of conscious deliberations that are based on innate
moral rules. This was the position
as held before a recent study. The recent studies reveal that the
judgment passed by people on

actions are skewed towards thinking the actions as morally
wrong if disgust is the primary
feeling the person feels before making a moral judgment
(Kundu & Cummins, 2013). This study
sought to investigate the impact that social consensus has on
moral decision making. The study
asked the participants to offer moral judgment on a series of
dilemmatic issues. There were
6
thirty-three participants where seventeen of them were in
control conditions while the rest were
in experimental conditions. Twelve dilemmatic issues were
selected from materials that were
used by Greene et al. (2008).
The outcomes extant, in this case, showed that there was a
sturdy conformism effect and
this implied that ethical decision making was predisposed
greatly by social consensus. This
should be understood from the fact that the materials used along
with three magnitudes namely,
use of personal force, permissible judgments, as well as whether

the mischief exacted were
deliberate or a side consequence of taken action (Kundu &
Cummins, 2013). Conformity in the
case of these studies was considered to be irrational in the case
that one believed that social
consensus should be given inconsiderable weight when it comes
to decision making when
compared to the information and beliefs as held by different
persons.
The Strategic Moral Self: Self-Presentation shapes Moral
dilemma Judgments
In this study by Rom & Conway (2018), seven studies were
conducted and they revealed
that meta-perceptions are accurately held by people regarding
dilemma decisions. The study
concluded that the participants of the study did hold a view of
an accurate meta-insight with
regard to how meta-insight into how earnest and proficient their
verdicts of the dilemmatic issues
would portray them to others. It is prudent to note that amidst
the dilemmatic wars people tend
to select decisions that will portray them to appear competent at
the inescapable cost of warmth.
Conclusion

These studies present interesting concepts with regard to social
consensus. Some of the
consensuses arrived at, are motivated by contextual factors such
as anonymity and ambiguity.
While the urge to conform to general consensus, is incessantly
on the rise, some of the
7
contributing factors are issues that have been portrayed by Asch
in the theory that seeks to
explain moral judgment.
References
Kelly, M., Ngo, L., Chituc, V., Huettel, S., & Sinnott-
Armstrong, W. (2017). Moral conformity
in online interactions: rational justifications increase influence
of peer opinions on moral
judgments. Social Influence, 12(2-3), 57–68. doi:
10.1080/15534510.2017.1323007
Perfumi, S. C., Bagnoli, F., Caudek, C., & Guazzini, A. (2019).
Deindividuation effects on

normative and informational social influence within computer-
mediated-
communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 230–237.
doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.017
Rom, S. C., & Conway, P. (2018). The strategic moral self:
Self-presentation shapes moral
dilemma judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
74, 24–37. doi:
10.1016/j.jesp.2017.08.003
Winter, S., Brückner, C., & Krämer, N. C. (2015). They Came,
They Liked, They Commented:
Social Influence on Facebook News Channels.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 18(8), 431–436. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0005
Kundu, P., & Cummins, D. D. (2013). Morality and conformity:
The Asch paradigm applied to
moral decisions. Social Influence, 8(4), 268–279. doi:
10.1080/15534510.2012.727767

Cyber Security Gone too farCarlos Diego LimaExce.docx

Cyber Security Gone too farCarlos Diego LimaExce.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Cyber Security Gone too farCarlos Diego LimaExce.docx

Similar to Cyber Security Gone too farCarlos Diego LimaExce.docx (20)

More from dorishigh

More from dorishigh (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Cyber Security Gone too farCarlos Diego LimaExce.docx