This study examined how college students make decisions when presented with positively and negatively framed scenarios involving strangers' lives. Participants were presented with a scenario where a disease was expected to kill 600 people, and had to choose between Program X, which would save/kill a certain number of people, or Program Y, which had a probability of saving/killing nobody or all 600 people. The results found that participants were not significantly influenced by framing and tended to choose certainty over risk regardless of framing. Overall, the study suggests that when decisions involve strangers' lives, college students may not be as susceptible to framing effects as with decisions involving their own or loved ones' lives.

1. Running head: FRAMING ON DECISION-MAKING
FRAMING ON DECISION-MAKING
17
The Effects of Framing on Decision-Making
Student Name
Southern New Hampshire University
PSYC 444: Senior Seminar
Professor Lotto
July 30, 2020
The Effects of Framing on Decision-Making
Decision-making is the process by which we choose
between different options. Some decisions can be important
(i.e., deciding whether to attend graduate school or not) others
can be much simpler (i.e., deciding what to eat for dinner).
Nonetheless, every decision, big or small, can have an impact
on our lives. So how is it that we make these decisions and
what factors influence our decision-making? Kahneman and

2. Tversky (1973), explored decision-making and how the
representativeness heuristic affects people’s decisions. The
representativeness heuristic is a mental shortcut that relies on
the similarities of a prototype, while ignoring true odds
(Kahneman & Tversky, 1973). Since categorization of objects
or members is based off resemblances, predictions are often
wrong and decision-making is impacted.
Predictions are intuitive guesses that are made before
decisions, and are affected by three factors: prior knowledge,
specific information, and expected accuracy (Kahneman &
Tversky, 1973). Previous knowledge is important because it
influences what predictions people will make, based off their
experiences. Specific information is also beneficial because it
allows people to make predictions that support the provided
material. However, excepted accuracy is the most vital because
it relies on confidence levels (i.e., the probability that a
prediction is correct). Notably, when confidence is high,
individuals rely on intuition and when confidence is low,
individuals rely more on given information (Johnson, 1987;
Kahneman & Tversky, 1973). Although information is often
provided, Johnson (1987) found that when information is
missing, people use prior knowledge or experience such as
heuristics and make inferences based off their personal
experiences. These inferences cause individuals to make
interpretations based on personal preference and to make
decisions based off what they want or what they think they want
(Johnson, 1987; McNeil, Pauker, & Tversky, 1988).
Tversky and Kahneman (1981) discovered that when personal
preference is involved people partake in psychological
accounting, which states that individual’s frame, and evaluate
the outcomes of an act based off the consequences of their
choice. Such accounting leads individuals to make decisions
that benefit them the most because they want to get the most
advantage (Kahneman & Tversky, 1973; Tversky & Kahneman,
1981). Tversky and Kahneman (1981) found that the expected
utility theory is also important in the decision making process

3. since individuals assess outcomes by evaluating the likelihood
of each of them occurring. Additionally, the prospect theory,
which is derived from expected utility theory, is also part of the
process since people take into account the probability of a good
outcome (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Primarily, Tversky and
Kahneman (1981) discovered that losses cost more than gains,
so decisions can be easily influenced by the framing effect.
This is the idea that people are more risk-aversive (i.e., avoid
risks) when an option is a certain gain and more risk-taking
when an option involves a loss.
The framing effect has been tested in many scenarios and
has been evaluated to be influential. Tversky and Kahneman
(1981); Chien, Lin, and Worthley (1996); and Johnson (1987)
presented participants with different money problems and
framed them in terms of loss or gain. The researchers
discovered that in the negatively framed scenarios (i.e.,
spending more money or losing money) participants were more
risk-taking, while in the positively framed scenarios (i.e.,
winning money or gaining money) participants were more risk-
aversive. Furthermore, Mikels and Reed (2009) also presented
participants with a money problem and discovered that
participants were affected by the framing effect, as they were
more risk-taking (i.e., likely to gamble) when there was money
at stake. Overall, prior research has evaluated that when
presented with money scenarios, participants tend to be
susceptible to the framing effect, since they are more likely to
take risks when faced with a loss, and to avoid risks when
encountered with a gain.
Notably, the framing effect has also been influential in
mortality scenarios. Chien et al. (1996) and, McNeil et al.
(1988) presented participants with a disease problem, and found
that they were more likely to pick the certain option if the frame
was positive (i.e., saving more people) and the risk option if the
frame was negative (i.e., losing lives). Similarly, a different
researcher evaluated a euthanasia mortality scenario and
discovered that when participants had to choose between a

4. positively framed scenario (i.e., not prolonging a patient’s life)
and a negatively framed scenario (i.e., ending a patient’s life)
the participants were more likely to choose the positively
framed scenario (Gamliel, 2012). Overall, although mortality
scenarios have been quite influential, morality scenarios have
produced different results. McNeil et al. (1988) investigated
genetic counseling and asked participants whether or not they
would have a child even if there were a chance that the child
would be born with a heart defect. The researchers found that
whether the scenario was positively framed (i.e., normal heart)
or negatively framed (i.e., abnormal heart), the framing effect
was ineffective because morals are very powerful and not
susceptible to framing. All in all, the framing effect has been
influential in mortality problems, since participants have often
taken risks when presented with a negatively framed scenario.
However, the framing effect has not been effective in morality
scenarios because morals are too strong.
Nevertheless, the framing effect has worked among
different variables, such as age, education level, gender, and
ethnicity. For instance, Chien et al. (1996) discovered that
when presented with a mortality scenario or a money problem,
adolescents were just as susceptible to the framing effect as
adults. Similarly, Rönnlund, Karlsson, Laggnäs, Larsson, and
Lindström (2005) evaluated age and presented younger adults
and older adults with a disease problem and found that despite
their age, participants were equally impacted by the framing
effect. Conversely, a different study with a gambling scenario,
led researchers to discover that in a negatively framed scenario
older adults were much less susceptible to the framing effect as
opposed to younger adults because they made much less risky
decisions and often picked certainty (i.e., keeping money)
instead (Mikels & Reed, 2009). Overall, although results tend
to vary, in most cases researchers have discovered that younger
individuals and older individuals are influenced equally by the
framing effect.
When considering other variables, such as education, Chien et

5. al. (1996) found that both math honor students and math non-
honors students were equally influenced by the framing effect.
Moreover, the researchers also found that gender was an
additional unimportant factor because the framing effect
influenced males and females equally. However, a previous
study on gender differences with regard to the framing effect
has led different researchers to find contrary results. The
researchers discovered that across different scenarios (i.e.,
disease, cancer, school dropouts, job layoffs, and civil defense)
females were more susceptible to the framing effect than males,
since males answered contrary to the framing effect and were
actually more risk-taking in the positively framed scenarios and
risk-aversive in the negatively framed scenarios (Fagley &
Miller, 1990). Aside from gender, another influential variable
is ethnicity. Velez Ortiz, Martinez, and Espino (2015),
evaluated end-of-life preferences and found different results
among Caucasian and Latino participants. Latinos overall were
more influenced by the framing effect because when they were
provided with a positively framed scenario (i.e., chance of
survival) they were more likely to accept resuscitation, while
Caucasians were not. All in all, varying education levels tend
to be equally susceptible to the framing effect. However, males
and females and different ethnicities are not influenced as
similarly, since prior research has demonstrated that females are
more influenced by the framing effect than males, and
Caucasians are less susceptible to the framing effect when
compared to Latinos.
Varying levels of involvement (i.e., whose life is on the line)
have also impacted how people make decisions. McNeil et al.
(1988) discovered that participants were influenced by the
framing effect, since they were more risk-taking when presented
with scenarios that had to do with their own lives. On the other
hand, the researchers also discovered that when participants
were presented with a scenario that involved someone else’s life
(i.e., a friend or a loved ones), participants were less influenced
by the framing effect since they were more likely to choose a

6. certain option because they wanted to be sure that they made the
right decision. However, when making a decision on a
stranger’s life, other researchers found that participants were
susceptible to the framing effect because they were more risk-
aversive in positively framed scenarios (i.e., saving lives), and
risk-taking in negatively framed scenarios (i.e., losing lives)
(Chien et al., 1996; & Tversky and Kahneman, 1981). Although
individuals’ own lives, stranger’s lives, and loved ones’ lives,
are susceptible to the framing effect, so are animal’s lives.
Evidently, individuals display empathy towards animals, thus
Bloomfield (2006) assessed the influence of the framing effect
on human and animals’ lives and discovered that when
participants were not presented with any additional information
(i.e., pictures or names) they were more likely to take a risk in
the human scenario, while in the animal scenario they were
more risk-aversive. Overall, prior research has demonstrated
that the framing effect varies across different levels of
involvement and participants are typically more risk-taking with
their own lives or strangers lives and more risk-aversive with
loved ones’ lives and animal’s lives.
All in all, the framing effect has been evaluated to be
influential under many circumstances, but there is still
information lacking in the field. Specifically, more research
should be conducted on stranger’s lives, in order to discover
how individuals make decisions that don’t directly impact them.
Therefore, the purpose of the current study is to examine
stranger’s lives and how college students are influenced by the
framing effect when presented with an adaptation of Tversky
and Kahneman’s (1981) mortality scenario. The hypotheses
propose that in the positively framed scenario, participants will
be more likely to choose certainty over risk, and in the
negatively framed scenario, participants will be more likely to
choose the risk option over the certain option. Overall, it is
predicted that when strangers’ lives are at risk, college students
will be susceptible to the framing effect.
Method

7. Participants
Participants included a total of 234 psychology students from a
California State University (m = 59; f = 175; age range = 19 -
59; average age = 24.59). Participants varied in education level
(senior = 62.7%; junior = 34.7%; sophomore = 2.5%) and
English proficiency (native English speaker = 69.1%; not
native/very fluent = 26.3%; not native/fluent = 4.7%). No
incentives were given and all participants were treated in
accordance to the American Psychological Association Ethical
Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American
Psychological Association, 2002).
Materials
Handouts included an informed consent, a response sheet, and a
debriefing statement. The top portion of the response sheet
contained demographics (i.e., age, gender, level of education,
and English proficiency) and the second portion included the
response options for question 1 and question 2, indicating to
pick either option X or option Y. A computer was used to
present a PowerPoint on a projection screen. The PowerPoint
presentation included five slides (i.e., consent, instructions,
question 1, question 2, and debriefing statement). The
scenarios were adapted and modified from Tversky and
Kahneman (1981). Both question slides were presented with the
following scenario:
Imagine that the United States is preparing for the outbreak of
an unusual disease that is expected to kill 600 people. Two
alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed.
Assume that the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of
the program are as follows:
The positively framed scenario read:
If program X is adopted, 200 people will be saved.
If program Y is adopted, there is a one-third probability that
600 people will be saved, and a two-thirds probability that no
people will be saved.
Which of the two programs (X or Y) would you favor?
The negatively framed scenario read:

8. If program X is adopted, 400 people will die.
If program Y is adopted, there is a one-third probability that
nobody will die, and a two-thirds probability that 600 people
will die.
Which of the two programs (X or Y) would you favor?
Procedure
All participants were tested individually in a quiet group
setting. Participants were given an informed consent, which
they X’d and dated.Participants were then given a response
sheet and filled out the demographics section, which was
located on the top portion of the page. Next, a PowerPoint was
presented which provided instructions informing participants
that they were going to see the questions one at a time for 40
seconds each. The PowerPoint then proceeded to question 1 and
question 2. To control for order effects, the presentation of the
question slides was counterbalanced with half of the
participants receiving the positively framed scenario first,
followed by the negatively framed, and the other half receiving
the negatively framed scenario first, followed by the positively
framed. Participants indicated on the second section of their
response sheet with a check mark for each question, whether
they selected option X (i.e., certain) or option Y (i.e., risk).
After the participants finished responding, they were debriefed
and thanked for their time.
Design
The current study had a within subjects design. The
independent variable was the framing effect with two levels,
positive and negative. The dependent variable was the response
options with two levels, a certain option (i.e., option X) and a
risk option (i.e., option Y). A Pearson’s chi-square was used,
with a significance desired of p < .05.
Results
A chi-square analysis was conducted to determine if the
positively framed scenario would influence participant’s
response options. Results from the positively framed scenario

9. were not significant (2 (1, N = 234) = 3.35, p = .067) (see Table
1). In the positively framed scenario more participants selected
the certain option (n = 131) over the risk option (n = 103),
although the hypothesis was not supported.
Another chi-square analysis was used to determine if the
negatively framed scenario would influence participant’s
response options. Results from the negatively framed scenario
were also not significant (2 (1, N = 235) = 2.66, p = .103). In
the negatively framed scenario participants were more likely to
select the risk option (n = 130) than the certain option (n =
105), although the hypothesis was not supported yet again.
A final chi-square analysis was conducted to determine the
overall susceptibility to the framing effect. Significant results
indicated that participants were not susceptible to the framing
effect (2 (2, N = 233) = 75.00, p < .001). More participants
were not susceptible (Option XX or YY; n = 138) than those
susceptible (Option XY; n = 61) or those who responded
opposite of prediction (Option YX; n = 34). As predicted, some
participants were susceptible to the framing effect, however
more participants were not.
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to determine if
participants were influenced by the framing effect when
provided with positively and negatively framed mortality
scenarios surrounding stranger’s lives. It was proposed that in
the positively framed scenario, participants would be more
likely to choose certainty over risk, and in the negatively
framed scenario, participants would be more likely to choose
risk over certainty. The results revealed that this was the case,
since some participants did answer accordingly, but not enough
to establish significance. Additionally, the overall
susceptibility results demonstrated that the participants were
not susceptible to the framing effect.
The hypothesis for the positively framed scenario was most
likely not supported because the chosen problem involved
strangers’ lives. Most commonly, participants are not as

10. concerned with stranger’s lives as they are with their own lives
or their loved ones’ lives. Veldwijk et al. (2016) presented
participants with a mortality scenario in which they were told to
imagine that they were prone to colon cancer, and could
undertake preventative methods to combat the disease. The
researchers discovered that participants were much more likely
to be risk-aversive with their lives and thus pick the positively
framed scenario (i.e., survival) over the negatively framed
scenario (i.e., mortality). It appears that there is no time for
risk-taking when it comes to an individual’s own life, but the
results can be much different when considering strangers or
loved ones’ lives. To validate this claim, Bloomfield, Sager,
Bartels, and Medin (2006) evaluated how social relations
influence the framing effect, and presented participants with
different mortality scenarios (i.e., their own families, someone
else’s family, friends, or strangers lives). The researchers
discovered that a reverse framing effect occurred in the friends
scenario since participants were more risk-taking when
presented with a positively framed scenario, but with regard to
the stranger scenario the participants were not influenced by the
framing effect. Notably, the results from prior research
demonstrate that individuals respond differently to the framing
effect, according to whose life is on the line.
On a different note, the hypothesis for the negatively framed
scenario was possibly not supported because the participants
faced a time constraint (i.e., 40 seconds) and didn’t have
enough time to read the questions thoroughly or think about
their answers. In a study on time pressure, researchers provided
participants with different mortality scenarios (i.e., cancer,
heart operation, disease, and AIDS) and determined that the
participant’s response options varied according to the amount of
time they had to answer the questions (i.e., 40 seconds or no
time) (Svenson & Benson, 1993). The researchers discovered
that participants with no time pressure were susceptible to the
framing effect; therefore, the results indicated that time
restrictions reduced the impact of the framing effect. Certainly,

11. individuals who are under a time constraint must make
decisions quickly and might not have time to evaluate the
scenario, thus guessing. Kocher, Pahlke, and Trautmann (2013)
discovered that time pressure influenced participants response
options in money scenarios. They determined that in the
negatively framed scenarios and mixed frame scenarios (i.e.,
positively and negatively framed) participants were more risk-
aversive (i.e., opposite of the framing effect). Overall, these
findings demonstrate that when individuals are under time
restrictions they are less influenced by the framing effect or
tend to answer contrary to it.
Specifically, overall susceptibility was most likely not
supported because the current study was conducted on
undergraduate psychology students who have probably
encountered the framing effect before. In this case, it is
possible that the participants had previously taken a cognitive
psychology course and were educated on the subject; thus
influencing the results. In other cases, simple evaluation of
decisions is enough to undermine the framing effect. For
example, Almashat, Edelstien, Ayotte, and Margrett (2008),
presented two experimental groups with a decision evaluation
form, and the control group with a generic questionnaire. The
researchers discovered that mere manipulation was significant
enough for the experimental groups to not be susceptible to the
framing effect. These findings demonstrate that knowledge is
powerful and if rationalization can challenge the framing effect,
then experience is far more likely to decrease its influence.
For instance, a researcher discovered that undergraduate
psychology students were not affected by the framing effect,
since only seven out of thirteen scenario trials were found to be
influential, while the rest ran contrary or demonstrated no effect
(Wang, 1996). The researcher concluded that the findings arose
partially from social context, since this factor can influence an
individual’s perception. Notably, since college students are
commonly in an educational setting and are surrounded by other
knowledgeable peers, their social environment can be very

12. influential. Even if the students themselves do not have direct
experience with the framing effect, they can still gain
knowledge on the subject through word-of-mouth.
Consequently, the participants in the current study were
possibly not influenced by the framing effect since they have
most likely taken a cognitive or social psychology course before
and have been directly educated on the framing effect or they
have heard about the framing effect from their peers.
In particular, the current study had many limitations such as,
gender. Specifically, the current sample of males in the
experiment was relatively small compared to the population of
females. Therefore, future researchers should include an equal
sample in their studies in order to determine if male and female
college students are influenced differently by the framing
effect, and if any generalizations can be made. Notably, in a
meta-analysis researchers evaluated the influence of gender on
the framing effect and discovered that overall males are much
more risk-taking than females, in many different scenarios and
despite how the problem is framed (Byrnes, Miller, & Schafer,
1999). Another critical limitation is that the current study
utilized college students, specifically psychology majors. As
previously mentioned it is possible that social environments,
and knowledge on the subject can influence participant’s
decision-making. Past research by Cao et al. (2017) tested the
framing effect on different college majors (i.e., physics, history,
and English) by presenting students with two mortality
scenarios (i.e., bridge problem and trolley problem) and
discovered that the participants were impacted by the framing
effect. Thus, if a study is going to be conducted on psychology
students, researchers should develop a new scenario in order to
reduce the probability that students have previously encountered
the classic framing model. Overall, future research should
examine how prior knowledge on the framing effect can
influence susceptibility, and should particularly beware of
participant sophistication, the pre-exposure effect, time
constraints, and chosen level of involvement.

13. By and large, research on the framing effect is required to
understand what factors influence individual’s decision making.
This type of information can be valuable for any morality or
mortality based scenarios, in which doctors must frame
questions accordingly in order to not influence the individual
into making a decision based off wording. Research on the
framing effect is also beneficial for decision makers in order for
them to recognize that framing affects their response options.
Since framing is used in many sources, from advertisements to
news articles it’s important for individuals to gain knowledge
on the framing effect, in order to increase their competence and
make their own honest decisions without focusing on how a
question or scenario is framed. The current research partially
demonstrated how important prior knowledge is in influencing
individuals to make decisions that they find best. Overall,
although the framing effect itself is not harmful, in the hands of
the wrong people it can be, and with more knowledge,
individuals are able to take back control of their decision-
making.
References
Almashat, S., Ayotte, B., Edelstein, B., & Margrett, J. (2008).
Framing effect debiasing in medical decision making. Patient

14. Education and Counseling, 71(1), 102–107. doi:
10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.004
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles
of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist,
57(12), 1060–1073. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.57.12.1060
Bloomfield, A. N., Sager, J. A., Bartels, D. M., & Medin, D. L.
(2006). Caring about framing effects. Mind & Society, 5(2),
123–138. doi: 10.1007/s11299-006-0013-3
Bloomfield, A. N. (2006). Group size and the framing effect:
Threats to human beings and animals. Memory and Cognition,
34(4), 929–937. doi: 10.3758/bf03193438
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender
differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367
Chien, Y., Lin, C., & Worthley, J. (1996). Effects of framing
on adolescents’ decision making. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
83(3), 811–819. doi: 10.2466/pms.1996.83.3.811
Coa, F., Zhang, J., Song, L., Wang, S., Miao, D., & Peng, J.
(2017). Framing effect in the trolley problem and footbridge
dilemma: Number of saved lives matters. Psychological
Reports, 120(1), 88–101. doi: 10.1177/0033294116685866
Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1990). The effect of framing on
choice: Interactions with risk-taking style, cognitive style, and
sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(3), 496–
510. doi: 10.1177/0146167290163008
Gamliel, E. (2012). To end life or not to prolong life: The
effect of message framing on attitudes toward euthanasia.
Journal of Health Psychology, 18(5), 693–703. doi:
10.1177/1359105312455078
Johnson, R. D. (1987). Making judgments when information is
missing: Inferences, biases, and framing effects. Acta
Psychologica, 66(1),69–82. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(87)90018-
7
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of
prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 237–251. doi:
10.1037/h0034747

15. Kocher, M. G., Pahlke, J., & Trautmann, S. T. (2013). Tempus
fugit: Time pressure in risky decisions. Management Science,
59(10),2380–2391. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2013.1711
McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., & Tversky, A. (1988). On the
framing of medical decisions. In D.E. Bell, H. Raiffa, A.
Tversky (Eds.). Decision making: Descriptive, normative, and
prescriptive interactions (pp. 562–568). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press. doi:
10.1017/CB09780511598951.928
Mikels, J. A., & Reed, A. E. (2009). Monetary losses do not
loom large in later life: Age differences in the framing effect.
Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 64B(4), 457–
460. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbp043
Rönnlund, M., Karlsson, E., Laggnäs, E., Larsson, L., &
Lindström, T. (2005). Risky decision making across three
arenas of choice: Are younger and older adults differently
susceptible to framing effects? The Journal of General
Psychology, 132(1), 81–92. doi: 10.3200/genp.132.1.81-93
Svenson, O., & Benson, L., (1993). Framing and time pressure
in decision making. In O. Svenson, J.A Maule (Eds.). Time
Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making
(pp. 133-144). New York, NY: Plenum Press. doi:
10.1007/978-1-4757-6846-6_9
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions
and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.
doi: 10.1126/science.7455683
Veldwijk, J., Essers, B. A. B., Lambooij, M. S., Dirksen, C. D.,
Smit, H. A., & Ardine de Wit, G. (2016). Survival or mortality:
Does risk attribute framing influence decision-making behavior
is discrete choice experiment? Value in Health, 19(2). 202–
209. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.11.004
Velez Ortiz, D., Martinez, R. O., & Espino, D. V. (2015).
Framing effects on end-of-life preferences among Latino elders.
Social Work in Health Care, 54(8), 708–724. doi:
10.1080/00981389.2015.1059398
Wang, X. T. (1996). Framing effects: Dynamics and task

16. domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 68(2), 145–157. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0095
Table 1
Number and Percentage of Participants Selecting Each Response
Option (X or Y) in
Different Problem Frames (Positive vs. Negative)
Types of Decision Problems

17. Positively Framed Problems
Negatively Framed Problems
Option X
Option Y
Total
Option X
Option Y
Total
ƒ
131
103
234
105
130
235
%
56.0
44.0
100
44.7
55.3
100
Note. N = 234, ƒ = frequency, % = percentage.
Assessment and Treatment of Cognitive Functioning Deficits in

18. Veterans With PTSD (CCTPTSD). (n.d.).
Doran, J. M., & DeViva, J. (2018). A naturalistic evaluation of
evidence-based treatment for veterans with PTSD.
Traumatology, 24(3), 157–167. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1037/trm0000140
Held, P., Klassen, B. J., Boley, R. A., Wiltsey Stirman, S.,
Smith, D. L., Brennan, M. B., Van Horn, R., Pollack, M. H.,
Karnik, N. S., & Zalta, A. K. (2020). Feasibility of a 3-week
intensive treatment program for service members and veterans
with PTSD. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice,
and Policy, 12(4), 422–430. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1037/tra0000485
Holmes, R., & Snape, I. (2019). Effectiveness of Treatment of
Veterans with PTSD: a Critical Review. Journal of Experiential
Psychotherapy / Revista de PSIHOterapie Experientiala, 22(2),
3–14.
Petersen, T. J., Sager, J. C., Makhija-Graham, N. J., Wright, E.
C., Clark, E. L., Laifer, L. M., Richards, L. K., Chow, L. K.,
Sylvia, L. G., Lento, R. M., Harward, L. K., Clowes, J.,
Brathwaite, V., Lakin, L. K., Silverberg, N. D., Iverson, G. L.,
Bui, E., Simon, N. M., & Harvey, M. M. (2019). An Intensive
Outpatient Program for Veterans With Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. Cognitive & Behavioral
Practice, 26(2), 323.
PSY 444 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric
Overview
The final project for this course is the creation of a formal
research report. Because of the course’s structure and provided
resources, only quantitative research

19. methods are permitted.
As the final step in your journey toward your degree in
psychology, you will complete a capstone that integrates the
knowledge and skills you have developed in
previous coursework by creating a research paper appropriate
for an undergraduate research conference. Through this
capstone, you will demonstrate your
grasp of important concepts in psychology and how to
appropriately conduct research. The skills used in reviewing and
conducting research will be invaluable in
your future pursuits.
This capstone will be assessed somewhat differently than other
courses you have taken online at SNHU. You will be evaluated
on your overall project in
determining whether you have demonstrated proficiency in each
outcome.
The project is divided into three milestones, which will be
submitted at various points throughout the course to scaffold
learning and ensure quality final
submissions. These milestones will be submitted in Modules
Two, Four, and Six. The final project will be submitted in
Module Eight.
In this assignment, you will demonstrate your mastery of the
following course outcomes:
psychology by developing detailed literature reviews and
presentations
field of psychology as evidenced in an e-compendium

20. -level deliverable depicting theoretical
or empirical research and how it fits a larger body of knowledge
in the research literature of
psychology
problem examined in a theoretical or empirical research project
research designs and statistical analyses used in an original
research project
the core
content areas of psychology as evidenced through the creation
of informed consent forms
and the use of ethical reasoning
The final project is meant for you to propose a hypothetical
study. You are not and should not be conducting human-subject
research for this project. It is not
necessary for the purposes of this assignment. All human-
subject research requires written approval from the SNHU
COCE Institutional Review Board in order
to protect the welfare and ensure ethical treatment of the
subjects.
Prompt
The final project for this course is a formal research project

21. based on one of the psychological topics listed below, or a topic
of your choice (to be approved by
your instructor) and it will include the following components:
abstract, introduction, methods and results, discussion, and
references. As the base of your
research project, you will locate data sets and .you will use
Microsoft Excel for your data analysis. Your report should be
developed as if it were being presented
at an undergraduate research conference.
For your research project, select one of the following topics:
orensic psychology
concentration
health concentration
If you would like to research a topic not listed here, you will
need instructor approval. In the Module One discussion forum
you will identify which of the topics
above you will research, or you will need to propose a topic of
your choice for instructor approval.
The purpose of this assignment is for you to explore one topic
area in depth and demonstrate how you have developed the
professional skills and dispositions
critical to the field of psychology over your academic career.
Your research report must follow proper APA formatting.

22. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
I. Abstract: For the first section of your research report, you
will create an abstract that is a concise summary of your
research study. Include information
on your research question, subjects (if applicable), methods,
results, and discussion.
II. Introduction: In this section, you will create an introduction
that includes a literature review of research pertinent to the
topic area you have chosen. This
section should contain the following elements, which will
demonstrate your ability to interpret psychological research and
develop research questions
regarding unexplored topic areas:
A. Prepare a literature review
B. Determine testable research questions with hypotheses
III. Methods and Results: For the next section of your research
report, you will develop methods and results sections that
inform potential readers of how
you conducted your study and what the statistical results of the
study were. These sections should contain the following
elements, which will
demonstrate your ability to detail the process of conducting
research and to appropriately convey your results:
A. Explain the methods of how you conducted your study
B. Conduct statistical analyses as appropriate

23. IV. Discussion: For the last section of your research report, you
will write your discussion section, which describes your
interpretation of your results and
speaks to how future researchers can expound on your work.
This piece should contain the following elements, which will
demonstrate your ability to
detail the process of conducting research and to appropriately
convey your results:
A. Interpret your results
B. Discuss any limitations or ethical issues
Your research report should be appropriately formatted
following the latest guidelines for APA formatting, using in-text
citations when necessary. You will be
expected to use at least 10 research articles in the topic area to
support your review of the literature.
Milestones
Milestone One: Draft of Introduction
In Module Two, you will submit a draft of your introduction
(including the literature review of your first five sources). This
milestone is graded with the
Milestone One Rubric.
Milestone Two: Draft of Methods and Results Sections
In Module Four, you will submit a draft of your methods and
results sections. This milestone is graded with the Milestone

24. Two Rubric.
Milestone Three: Draft of Discussion
In Module Six, you will submit a draft of your discussion
section. This milestone is graded with the Milestone Three
Rubric.
Final Submission: Research Report
In Module Eight, you will submit your final project. It should
be a complete, polished artifact containing all of the critical
elements of the final product and should
include at least 10 scholarly sources. It should reflect the
incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course. This
submission will be graded with the Final
Project Rubric.
Deliverables
Milestone Deliverable Module Due Grading
One Draft of Introduction Two Graded separately; Milestone
One Rubric
Two Draft of Methods and Results Section Four Graded
separately; Milestone Two Rubric
Three Draft of Discussion Six Graded separately; Milestone
Three Rubric
Final Submission: Research Report Eight Graded
comprehensively; Final Project Rubric

25. Final Project Rubric
Guidelines for Submission: Your research report should be at
least 15 pages in length (plus a cover page and references) and
written in APA format. Use double
spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, and one-inch
margins. The paper will utilize at least 10 scholarly sources.
Any references should be cited in APA format.
Instructor Feedback: This activity uses an integrated rubric in
Blackboard. Students can view instructor feedback in the Grade
Center. For more information,
review these instructions.
The “Possible Indicators of Success” are examples for you and
the instructor of the types of concepts to look for to
demonstrate proficiency. They are neither
exhaustive nor proscriptive and should be used as guides for
illustrating how your capstone embodies the outcome.
PSY-444-01: Assimilate classic and current research within the
field of psychology by
developing detailed literature reviews and presentations
Proficient
100%
Not Proficient
0%
Possible Indicators of Success
Does student demonstrate his or her ability to utilize benchmark
studies with current peer-reviewed studies? Does he or she
demonstrate

26. the ability to support the literature review with appropriate
seminal work in the field?
Does student demonstrate his or her ability to concisely
synthesize supporting literature in a focused direction?
Does student demonstrate his or her ability to evaluate how
current and future research is informed by classic research?
Does he or she
demonstrate the ability to holistically analyze the literature in
the field?
Does student demonstrate his or her ability to professionally
articulate how classic and current research support his or her
research and
claims made?
PSY-444-02: Gather, organize, and analyze acquired knowledge
within the field of psychology
as evidenced in an e-compendium
Proficient
100%
Not Proficient
0%
Possible Indicators of Success
Does student demonstrate his or her ability to select relevant
empirically driven research that encompasses a variety of
research designs
for literature support? Does he or she demonstrate the ability to
select supporting research that incorporates the perspectives of
different
subject areas in psychology?

27. Does student demonstrate his or her ability to present the
findings of other peer-reviewed research publications in a
logical and unique
manner?
Does the student demonstrate his or her ability to incorporate
his or her personal perspective in his or her interpretation of the
findings of
other empirically driven publications? Does he or she
demonstrate the ability to articulate his or her unique but
research-supported
perspective on the topic area?
PSY-444-03: Develop a conference-level deliverable depicting
theoretical or empirical research
and how it fits a larger body of knowledge in the research
literature of psychology
Proficient
100%
Not Proficient
0%
Possible Indicators of Success
http://snhu-
media.snhu.edu/files/production_documentation/formatting/caps
tone_rubric_feedback_instructions_student.pdf
Does student demonstrate his or her ability to narrow a relevant
topic of interest to a feasible research project? Does he or she
demonstrate the ability to anticipate and account for potential

28. issues of practicality associated with the research?
Does student demonstrate his or her ability to concisely
synthesize relevant theory with established research? Does he or
she demonstrate
the ability to develop research-informed research questions?
Does student demonstrate his or her ability to articulate a
convincing need for investigation regarding the selected
research question(s)?
Does he or she demonstrate the ability to communicate the value
of the research to the field of psychology as well as society?
PSY-444-04: Evaluate the appropriate research method(s) to use
for the problem examined in
a theoretical or empirical research project
Proficient
100%
Not Proficient
0%
Possible Indicators of Success
Does student demonstrate his or her ability to select flexible
research methodology that can account for potential limitations?
Does he or
she demonstrate the ability to discuss ways to address potential
limitations associated with the research? Does he or she
demonstrate the
ability to design or select professional research designs that are
relevant to the research?
Does the student demonstrate his or her ability to design
research that efficiently gathers data from participants (if

29. applicable)? Does it
demonstrate the student’s ability to develop or utilize
comprehensive data gathering materials and strategies?
PSY-444-05: Describe informed conclusions that align with
selected research designs and
statistical analyses used in an original research project
Proficient
100%
Not Proficient
0%
Possible Indicators of Success
Does student demonstrate his or her ability to incorporate their
personal perspective in their interpretation of their gathered
data? Does
he or she demonstrate the ability to make unique, informed
conclusions about the results?
Does student demonstrate his or her ability to predict future
research into the topic area of their research?
Does student demonstrate his or her ability to convey how his or
her research expands on the collective understanding of the
topic area?
Does he or she demonstrate the ability to articulate the value or
importance of his or her research to the field of psychology and
society?
PSY-444-06: Analyze multifaceted ethical issues associated
with the core content areas of
psychology as evidenced through the creation of informed
consent forms and the use of

30. ethical reasoning
Proficient
100%
Not Proficient
0%
Possible Indicators of Success
Does student demonstrate his or her ability to identify ethical
issues in psychological research? Does he or she demonstrate an
awareness
of how research can be impacted or influenced by limitations?
Does he or she demonstrate the ability to make
recommendations to
account for ethical issues when conducting research?
Does student demonstrate his or her ability to adhere to ethical
standards regarding research materials?
Does student demonstrate his or her ability to collect, interpret,
discuss, and store qualitative and quantitative data in an ethical
manner?
Does he or she demonstrate the ability to account for potential
issues of ethics when gathering data from participants (if
applicable)? Does
he or she demonstrate the ability to consider the needs of the
participants?