Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Standard Deviations Ethnic Identity - 5,340 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

... ences is not expected to differ as a result of group membership. To test this hypothesis, mean response selection times for correctly identifying OLD and correctly rejecting Idea Set and NEW sentences will be required. Group differences will be considered as significant if an alpha level of. 05 is obtained. Participants were tested individually and were paid for their participation. After providing written, informed consent, each volunteer was given the screening packet to determine eligibility for continued participation in the study.

Before beginning the test protocol, each participant was given the Shipley Vocabulary Test (Shipley, 1940) to determine overall verbal ability, and the Beck Depression (Beck, Steer, & Garbin, 1988), and Spielberger State Anxiety (Spielberger, 1983) Inventories as these tests are useful in determining the participant's affective state at the time of testing. Prior to the administration of the test protocol, participants were given instructions for a typical serial recall test. Participants were told that they would be shown four different sets of cards, each made up of a series of six cards. On each card would be a short sentence and the cards would be presented one at a time for ten seconds each. Participants were told to read each sentence out loud and to try and remember both the order in which the sentences were presented and the information contained in each sentence as they were to be tested later. They are instructed not to touch the cards at this time, but only to look at the card which is currently being presented.

After all six sentences had been presented, the sentence cards were collected, shuffled, and placed face down on the table in front of the participant who is then asked to turn them over and arrange them in the order in which they were presented. The participants were also informed that later they would be asked to recall the sentences. The same protocol was followed for each of set of cards. Participants were then presented with one of the four card sets. Cards were presented individually at the rate of ten seconds per card. The experimenter placed each card on the table before the participant so that it was clearly visible and only the information from the card that was currently being presented was visible.

Participants were asked not to handle the cards during the presentation period. After all six cards were presented, they were collected by the experimenter and shuffled. The cards were then placed on the table in front of the participant, face down. Participants were instructed to arrange the cards so that they were in the same order as they were when originally presented.

The process was then repeated with the remaining card sets. Both sequencing accuracy and sort time measures were collected. These measures were employed to determine if observed between group differences in narrative construction were the result of poorer acquisition and encoding rather than narrative formation abilities. It is suggested that if groups were not statistically different on either the number of cards correctly sorted, or the time required to reorganize them, then the information presented within those sentences was at least equally available for integration into Idea Sets.

Following the final serial arrangement, participants were asked to recall as many items as possible, in any order, from the sentences presented. Participants were given a maximum of five minutes in which to respond. Recall data was collected with an audio cassette recorder. The recall task was terminated when 45 seconds passed after the participant's last response. This task was primarily employed so as to establish a uniform time interval between the narrative acquisition and recall tasks and to ensure that participants spent that time thinking about the narrative sentences. Given the inherent difficulties in interpreting the often bizarre responses provided by schizophrenic patients in a free recall test, statistical analysis of those responses would be likely to produce questionable, if not invalid results.

Therefore, these data were not subjected to statistical analysis. When the five minute interval allowed for the free recall task had elapsed, participants were given the narrative recall task. This task consisted of a set of 28 sentence cards, some presented earlier OLD and some NEW. Participants were told that they would be shown a series of sentences, some that had been seen previously and some very similar, but not identical to, sentences seen previously.

Their task, therefore, was to identify which sentences were OLD and which were NEW. Sentences were presented one at a time for a period of ten seconds each. Participants were asked to read each sentence out loud. After the ten second presentation time had passed, participants were asked to indicate whether or not that exact sentence had been presented earlier in the card sort task. Response accuracy and response selection time measures were recorded for all sentences. The purpose of this project was to assess the ability of schizophrenic patients to form Idea Sets from narrative story elements presented in non-consecutive sentences.

In order to test this ability, Schizophrenics were compared with community controls. Differences in Idea Set formation were to be established on the basis of their performance on the Narrative Recognition Task. To ensure that observed group differences were, in fact, the result of real differences in the ability of these groups to form narratives, it must be clearly shown that groups were not different on a number of other variables which might be related to, or account for, differences on the Narrative Recognition task. Variables likely to affect Idea Set formation are of several types. These include measures relating to: 1) basic demographic factors, 2) affective state, and 3) overall verbal processing abilities. Only when schizophrenics and community controls have been shown to be equivalent with respect to these variables, or when significant differences are found, these differences corrected for using appropriate analyses of covariance, will it be legitimate to look at the question of narrative construction.

In order to ensure that observed performance differences were not the result of demographic factors, several preliminary analyses were performed using the SAS for PC Statistical Package. Initially, as gender and ethnic identity have been shown to affect cognitive performance in general, and verbal processing in specific (Mello, 1989), chi-square analysis were conducted on these variables. Groups were found to be statistically similar in both gender [C 2 (2, N = 30) = 0. 44, p = . 71 ] and ethnic identity [C 2 (2, N = 30) = 0... 19, p = . 67 ]. Given the very small number of non-whites in this sample, this analysis collapsed African Americans and American Indians into a single group. The gender and ethnic identity distributions for schizophrenics and community controls are presented in Table 1 above. Other demographic variables likely to relate to measures of cognitive and language processing are age, and educational achievement.

Groups were found to be statistically similar with respect to both age [F (1, 29) = 0. 0, p = . 97 ] and years of completed education [F (1, 29) = 0. 16, p = . 07 ]. Group means, ranges and standard deviations are presented in Table 2 below. Age (in years) and Years of Completed Education (in years) Controls Mean Standard Deviation Min Max As a negative affective state would be likely to influence an individual's motivation and concentration (Mello, 1989), measures of depression and anxiety were collected. Groups were found to differ significantly with respect to both measures. When given the Beck Depression Inventory, schizophrenics indicated higher levels of depression [F (1, 29) = 9. 18, p = . 005 ] than did community controls. Although groups were significantly different with respect to reported levels of depression, the levels reported in all cases were clinically insignificant according to standard scoring guidelines (Beck, Steer, & Garbin, 1988).

Group means, ranges and standard deviations are presented in Table 3 below. Similarly, community controls reported significantly lower levels of anxiety [F (1, 29) = 16. 87, p = . 0003 ], as measured with the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory, than schizophrenics, at the time of testing. Again, the scores obtained by all participants represented subclinical levels of current anxiety, based on the guidelines reported by Spielberger (1983). Group means, ranges and standard deviations are also presented in Table 3 below. Beck Depression Inventory and Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory Distributions By Group. Controls Mean Standard Deviation Min Max Correlations Correlational analyses (Pearson's r) between the affective measures and the total number of correct responses indicated no significant relationships between either depression [r (30) = . 1, p = . 59 ] or anxiety [r (30) = -. 11, p = . 55 ] and response accuracy.

Correlational analysis (Pearson's r) when conducted on the entire sample (N = 30) indicated no significant correlation between depression and mean sort completion time [r (30) = . 32, p = . 09 ]. The Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory score was significantly correlated with mean sort completion time [r (30) = . 4, p = . 03 ]. When considered by group, however, a significant correlation was no longer present for either controls [r (15) = . 07, p = . 8 ] or schizophrenics [r (15) = . 06, p = . 82 ]. Similarly, when correlational analysis (Pearson's r) when conducted on the entire sample (N = 30) revealed a significant correlation between anxiety and the number of recognized Idea Set sentences [r (30) = -. 39, p = . 035 ], the response selection time for recognizing Idea Set sentences [r (30) = . 55, p = . 004 ], the number of consistent Idea Set sentences recognized [r (30) = -. 38, p = . 037 ] and the response selection time for recognizing consistent Idea Set sentences [r (30) = . 56, p = . 005 ]. Depression was also correlated with the number of consistent Idea Set sentences recognized [r (30) = -. 37, p = . 043 ]. When considered by group (N = 15), however, all correlations were insignificant for both control and schizophrenic groups (p's . 1).

As the levels of depression and anxiety reported by all individuals were not clinically significant, and the relationship between depression and anxiety was not uniformly correlated across either the response accuracy or response selection time measures, analyses of covariance were not performed. The Shipley Vocabulary Test. The Shipley was used as an initial measure of verbal processing. As this test was administered as a part of the initial group screening packet, correlative analyses between the Shipley and the affective measures recorded at the time of testing would not be appropriate and were not conducted. Verbal scores obtained by both groups were statistically similar [F (1, 29) = 3. 68, p = . 07 ], and in the middle to high range. Though not a test designed to measure reading ability, and certainly not a measure of language processing, the lack of significance suggests that groups are similar in their ability to read and understand individual words.

Group means, ranges and standard deviations are presented in Table 4 below. Shipley Vocabulary Test Distribution By Group. Mean Standard Deviation Min Max Controls 17. 3 1. 62 13. 1 19. 0 Schizophrenics 16. 1 1. 98 13. 1 19. 0 The Narrative Acquisition Task. As this task required participants to read and remember the information presented on each card within the four card sets, it serves as a gross measure of reading ability and verbal encoding, the number of correctly sorted cards and the time required to complete the sort were recorded for each of the four trials. Therefore, group comparisons were conducted. Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures revealed no significant group differences on trials one [F (1, 29) = . 46, p = . 5 ], two [F (1, 29) = 1. 36, p = . 25 ], three [F (1, 29) = . 42, p = . 52 ], or four [F (1, 29) = 1. 44, p = . 24 ], or on the total number of correctly sorted cards [F (1, 29) = . 24, p = . 63 ].

Group means, ranges and standard deviations are presented in Table 5 below. Response Accuracy Measures on the Narrative Acquisition Task Controls Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Total Corr 16. 5 2. 83 10 21 Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures revealed significant group differences on trials one [F (1, 29) = 11. 12, p = . 002 ], two [F (1, 29) = 12. 97, p = . 001 ], three [F (1, 29) = 4. 56, p = . 041 ], and four [F (1, 29) = 7. 76, p = ... 01 ], and on the mean sort time across all four trials [F (1, 29) = 15. 11, p = . 001 ]. Group means, ranges and standard deviations are presented in Table 6 below. Given that schizophrenics required longer to complete each of the four sorts on the Narrative Acquisition Task and the overall mean sort completion time, correlational analyses were conducted between sort time measures and all of the variables presented below to assess narrative construction. Pearson's r correlational analyses revealed no significant relationships (p's . 2).

Therefore, no analyses of covariance were required. Response Selection Time Measures on the Narrative Acquisition Task By Group. (Time in seconds) Controls Mean Standard Deviation Min Max Trial 1 21. 05 7. 34 9. 36 33. 97 Trial 2 23. 61 5. 23 11. 39 30. 43 Trial 3 25. 03 10. 36 13. 89 39. 80 Trial 4 24. 78 9. 71 6. 96 40. 71 Total Corr 94. 50 24. 25 59. 24 137. 3 Trial 1 33. 23 12. 10 16. 47 56. 00 Trial 2 35. 61 11. 81 11. 13 59. 00 Trial 3 35. 31 15. 51 20. 00 72. 00 Trial 4 34. 15 8. 69 17. 50 49. 00 Total Corr 138. 3 36. 35 88. 22 225. 0 As indicated earlier, this study was designed to assess the ability of schizophrenic patients to form Idea Sets from narrative story elements presented in non-consecutive sentences. The specific empirical questions asked were: 1) Would schizophrenics be less likely than controls to identify Idea Set and three-element narrative sentences, and would groups differ with respect to their recognition of the less complete one-element sentences? 2) Would schizophrenics respond more slowly than controls when identifying Idea Set and three-element sentences than when identifying the simpler sentences? and 3) Would community controls be less likely to form Idea Sets based on incongruent sentence elements and take longer to do so than schizophrenics? Sentence Complexity. In the Narrative Recognition Task, sentences were presented containing either one, two or three elements from one of the four narrative stories.

If, in fact, narrative construction occurs, it is expected that individuals will be more likely to identify sentences containing more narrative elements than those containing fewer elements. To provide for maximum resolution, analysis was conducted only on the most limited (single-element) and most complete (three-element) sentences. The total number of recognized OLD and NEW sentences was determined for each level of sentence complexity. These scores were then corrected for guessing, following the methodology suggested by Nunnley (1959), and analyses were performed on the guessing-corrected scores. A repeated measures analysis of variance indicated an overall preference for three-element over one-element sentences [F (1, 28) = 6. 11, p = . 02 ], but no group main effect [F (1, 28) = 2. 19.

p = . 15 ]. The group by sentence complexity interaction was also insignificant [F (1, 28) = 2. 39, p = . 13 ]. Analyses of simple effects revealed that schizophrenics did not differ from controls when responding to three-element sentences [F (1, 29) = . 01, p = . 92 ], but were less likely to report having previously seen the one-element sentences[F (1, 29) = 4. 37, p = . 046 ]. Group means, ranges and standard deviations of uncorrected raw scores are presented in Table 7 below. Also presented in the Narrative Recognition Task were the four-element Idea Set sentences. These sentences were not presented in the Narrative Recognition Task.

An analysis of variance revealed that schizophrenics were significantly less likely than controls to report that these sentences had been seen previously [F (1, 29) = 15. 63, p = . 0005 ], when corrected for guessing. Group means, ranges and standard deviations of uncorrected raw scores are presented in Table 7 below. Recognition Rates for One-Element, Three-Element Controls Mean Standard Deviation Min Max Response Selection Time. A second measure expected to differentiate schizophrenics from controls in the Narrative Recognition Task was response selection time. The times required for subjects to recognize single-element, three-element and Idea Set sentences were recorded. Mean response selection times were calculated for each of these sentence types.

A repeated measures analysis of variance looking only at single-element and three-element sentences revealed no significant difference in the time required for individuals to recognize three [F (1, 29) = 1. 51, p = . 23 ], or one element sentences [F (1, 29) = 2. 88, p = . 10 ], nor a group main effect on response selection time[F (1, 28) = . 38, p = . 54 ]. The group by response time interaction, however, was significant [F (1, 28) = 7. 70, p = . 01 ]. Group means, ranges and standard deviations are presented in Table 8 below. As the response selection time for Idea Set sentences is based entirely on sentences that had not been seen previously, whereas the means reported for three-element and one-element recognitions includes both OLD and NEW sentences, this variable was considered separately. A one way analysis of variance revealed no significant group differences in response selection time for Idea Set sentences [F (1, 29) = 3. 98, p = . 06 ]. Group means, ranges and standard deviations are presented in Table 8 below.

Response Selection Time Measures on the Narrative Recognition Task By Group. (Time in seconds) Controls Mean Standard Deviation Min Max One-Element 1. 40. 80. 56 3. 97 Three-Element 1. 14. 37. 63 1. 73 Three-element 1. 33. 43. 81 2. 33 Formation of Ambiguous Idea Sets. Of the narrative story sentences presented in the Narrative Acquisition Task, half contained information that, when combined into Idea Sets, told an ambiguous story. In the Narrative Recognition Task, the four-element Idea Set sentences, comprised of either consistent or ambiguous narrative story elements were presented. The number of consistent and ambiguous Idea Set sentences recognized, and the mean response selection time required for each sentence type was recorded. A repeated measures analysis of variance indicated that, when corrected for guessing, consistent Idea Set sentences were more likely to be recognized by both schizophrenics and controls [F (1, 28) = 6. 05, p = . 02 ].

A significant group effect was also found [F (1, 28) = 15. 63, p = . 0005 ]. The group by sentence coherence interaction, however, was not significant [F (1, 28) = . 45, p = . 51 ]. Analysis of simple main effects revealed that schizophrenics were less likely to recognize Idea Set sentences regardless of whether those sentences were internally consistent [F (1, 29) = 16. 14, p = . 0004 ] or ambiguous [F (1, 29) = 6. 78, p = . 015 ]. Group means, ranges and standard deviations of uncorrected raw scores are presented in Table 9 below.

Recognition Rates for Consistent, and Ambiguous Controls Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum An analysis of variance on the response selection time variables revealed no overall effect of sentence type [F (1, 15) = . 77, p = . 39 ], but a significant group difference [F (1, 15) = 7. 29, p = . 017 ]. The group by sentence type interaction was not significant [F (1, 15) = . 22, p = . 64 ]. Analyses of simple effects indicated that schizophrenics took significantly longer than controls to recognize consistent [F (1, 16) = 5. 92, p = . 03 ], but not ambiguous [F (1, 16) = 4. 26, p = . 06 ] Idea Set sentences. Group means, ranges and standard deviations are presented in Table 10 below. Response Selection Time for Consistent, and Ambiguous Idea Set Sentences By Group. (Time in seconds) Controls Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Consistent 1. 00. 38. 59 1. 84 Consistent 2. 47 2. 55. 75 9. 03 Ambiguous 1. 78 1. 15. 65 3. 85 This study was conducted to determine whether schizophrenics were less able than community controls to form Idea Sets based on narrative story elements presented in non-consecutive sentences.

It was suggested that schizophrenics would differ from controls in at least three ways: 1. Schizophrenics would be inferior to controls with respect to holistic processing. Specifically, schizophrenics would be less likely to indicate that the four-element Idea Set sentence or the three-element sentences had been seen previously. Groups were not expected to differ on the number of identified one and two element sentences. 2.

Because of poorer top-down processing skills, it was expected that should schizophrenics report seeing the Idea Set sentence and sentences incorporating three story elements, the response selection time required to make these identifications would be longer than those of community controls. Groups were not expected to differ, however, on the time to respond to one and two element sentences, which do not derive from the integration of information. 3. It was expected that community controls would be less likely to form Idea Sets based on incongruent sentence elements than schizophrenics. Schizophrenics were not expected to differ in the number of congruent and incongruent constructs formed, nor on the time required for them to do so. Specifically, schizophrenics would be just as likely to indicate seeing incongruent Idea Set sentences as congruent ones.

Also, while controls would tend to respond more quickly when identifying congruent Idea Set sentences, schizophrenics were not expected to perform differentially with respect to response selection time. The Narrative Recognition Task was specifically designed to collect data that would provide information relevant to each of these hypotheses. Though not broad enough in scope to provide a final resolution of these issues, it was hoped that the data collected here would extend the current knowledge base. Pursuant to this objective, analyses were conducted on variables relating to three specific issues relating to Idea Set Formation. These issues are sentence complexity, response selection time and internal consistency. Before these issues could be addressed, however, it was critical to establish that the two groups were comparable with respect to overall verbal functioning, as this would be expected to affect narrative functioning.

As community controls and schizophrenics were equivalent in the number of years of completed education and performed with similar levels of success on the Shipley Vocabulary Test, there is no compelling reason to assume that the groups differ significantly with respect to either overall intellectual capacity or verbal functioning. This assumption is given additional weight by the fact that groups performed similarly on the Narrative Acquisition Task. All participants were able to read all the sentences well within the allotted ten second presentation period. Also, groups achieved equivalent levels of sort accuracy, 65 percent for controls and 69 percent for schizophrenics. Though this level of accuracy would, at first, appear low, it is surprising given the similarity of the sentences being sorted across the four sentence presentation trials.

Clearly, the Narrative Acquisition Task is not designed to be an accurate measure of verbal performance, but the lack of significant group differences on this task offers an indication of verbal parity. As schizophrenics have been shown to exhibit significant deficits on verbal processing tasks elsewhere (Gold, et. al. , 1992), the current finding suggests that this sample of schizophrenics might perform better (i. e. more like controls) than one might expect on other measures of linguistic processing as well.

Therefore, a comparison of controls and schizophrenics with respect to Idea Set formation would seem justified. Hypothesis one predicted that schizophrenics would: 1) not differ from controls in the recognition of one-element sentences, 2) be less likely than controls to recognize three-element sentences, and 3) be less likely than controls to indicate having seen the Idea Set sentence previously. Data collected in the Narrative Recognition Task indicate, however, that schizophrenics reported recognizing fewer one-element sentences than did controls. As the probability of this finding arising as a result of chance is very close to the. 05 alpha level, this difference, though statistically significant, is not strong. It is likely that future studies would fail to replicate this finding. Also, groups did not differ on the reported frequency of recognized three-element sentences.

These findings are inconsistent with the predictions of hypothesis one. A stronger argument for Idea Set formation is the tendency of individuals to believe that the four-element Idea Set sentences had been presented in the Narrative Acquisition Task. Schizophrenics recognized significantly fewer Idea Set sentences than did controls. On average, community controls reported seeing 75 percent of the Idea Set sentences while schizophrenics recognized only 33 percent of these four-element sentences. This difference does offer support the predictions of hypothesis one. Hypothesis two predicted that schizophrenics would: 1) not differ from community controls on the time required to recognize one-element sentences, 2) take longer than controls to recognize three-element sentences, and 3) take longer than controls to recognize the four-element Idea set sentences.

Analysis of the response selection time data collected in the Narrative Recognition Task revealed a group by sentence complexity interaction. That is, response selection time tended to decrease with sentence complexity for controls while schizophrenics responded more quickly to less complex sentences. Though response selection times for Idea Set sentences were not included in this analysis, this pattern of directionality can be seen in them as well (see table 8 for means and standard deviations). Figure 1 below illustrates this interaction, including the response selection times for idea set sentences. This pattern is consistent with the notion that schizophrenics, when processing sentences incorporating more of the Idea Set information, would be able to integrate that information using bottom-up processing strategies, but that they would require more time to do so. Hypothesis three predicted that schizophrenics would: 1) be more likely to recognize Idea Set sentences which incorporate ambiguous information than community controls, 2) not demonstrate a differential recognition rate for congruent and ambiguous Idea Set sentences, and 3) would not respond any more quickly to congruent Idea set sentences than to ambiguous ones.

The analysis of response rates for congruent and ambiguous Idea Sets revealed that all participants were more likely to recognize consistent sentences than ambiguous ones, and that schizophrenics recognized fewer of both consistent and ambiguous Idea Set sentences than did controls. These findings support hypothesis three in that controls were found to recognize fewer ambiguous Idea Set sentences than schizophrenics, but fails to support the prediction that schizophrenics would not respond differentially to consistent and ambiguous sentences. Analysis of response selection time for consistent and ambiguous Idea Set sentences demonstrated that schizophrenics took longer to recognize consistent sentences than did controls, but that groups did not differ in the response selection time required for ambiguous sentences. This finding, in addition to supporting hypothesis three, adds support to hypothesis one, in that when ambiguous Idea Set sentences are excluded, Schizophrenics take significantly longer than controls to recognize the Idea Set sentences. The overall worth of this project of resolving the issue of Idea Set formation in schizophrenics is limited at best. While demonstrating that schizophrenics are less likely to recognize Idea Set sentences than community controls, it is not clear that sentence complexity is related to recognition.

Groups were not different in the number of recognized three-element sentences. The most powerful support for inferior Idea Set formation in schizophrenics was the reaction time measures. This measure, however, is perhaps the most complicated to interpret. Virtually all of the existing neuropsychological literature would predict a generally slower response rate for schizophrenics (Predict, Mattis, Stastny, & Terms, 1992). Indeed, the sort times for schizophrenics on the Narrative Acquisition task were longer than those for controls. Though these response rates were not correlated in any consistent way with the response selection rates in the Narrative recognition Task, the group difference is troubling.

The issue is further complicated by the inclusion of ambiguous Idea Set sentences. Since two of the four Idea Set sentences were ambiguous, and controls were less likely to recognize inconsistent sentences, the inclusion of these sentences in this experiment may well have reduced its overall worth. This is supported by the fact that when response selection times for ambiguous Idea Set sentences were excluded, the overall pattern of response selection time and sentence complexity was changed. The integration of ambiguous information into more complex sentences may well have affected the response patterns for three-element sentences as well. As a beginning, however, this project is of value. It, at the very least, can recommend several possible avenues for future research.

Initially, the concerns relating to the inclusion of ambiguous sentences could easily be resolved by conducting two studies, one using all consistent and the other all ambiguous Idea Sets. Such a design would greatly clarify the relationship between these types of Idea Sets. Secondly, the significant group difference on the recognition of one-element sentences must be clarified. A greater number of subjects would be required to establish whether or not this finding was obtained in error. Finally, the ultimate worth of any research project is its replicability and generalizability. A true assessment of this project must be made by those who attempt to replicate it.

If others achieve similar results, then perhaps the inherent problems within this study can be overlooked. If, however, those who apply the research methodology used here fail to reproduce these findings, then perhaps the author's reservations will have been supported. Bibliography: References American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4 th ed. ). Washington, DC: Author.

Alexander, R. (1989). The evolution of the human psyche. In: Mellars, P. & Stringer, C. (Eds. ) The Human Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Beck, A.

T. , Steer, R. A. , & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: twenty-five years of evaluation.

Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77 - 100. Bickerton, D. (1992). Language and Species. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Bower, G.

H. & Morrow, D. G. (1990). Mental models in narrative comprehension. Science, 247 (January 5 th), 44 - 48. Bransford, J. D. & Franks, J.

J. (1971). The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 331 - 350. Chaika, E. & Large, R. (1985). The locus of dysfunction in schizophrenic speech. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 11, 8 - 15.

Corrigan, P. W. , Wallace, C. W. , & Green, M. F. (1992). Deficits in social schemata in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 8, 129 - 135.

Day, M. & Shapiro, B. (1982). Speech prosody in Broca's aphasia. Brain and Language, 16, 171 - 190. Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness Explained.

Boston, MA: Little Brown & Co. Dennett, D. C. & Kinnsbourne, M. (1992). Time and the observer: the where and when of consciousness in the brain. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 15, 183 - 247. Ellis, A.

W. , Miller, D. , & Sin, G. (1983). Wernicke's aphasia and normal language processing: a case study in cognitive neuropsychology. Cognition, 15, 111 - 114. Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action.

Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Fisher, I. & Bloom, P. A. (1985). Effects of constraint and validity of sentence context on lexical decisions. Memory and Cognition, 13, 128 - 139. Fisher, I. & Goodman, R. (1978).

Semantic and episodic constraints on the use of surface-order cues in the comprehension of locative sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 7 (2), 121 - 134.


Free research essays on topics related to: sentences, schizophrenics, standard deviations, controls, ethnic identity

Research essay sample on Standard Deviations Ethnic Identity

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com