I realized the campus center was too crowded, so I started to walk near the library where there was less foot traffic. This norm was strange and awkward at first because after a while people would stop and ask me if I was ok. Also at times when I first started doing it, I naturally would walk a little slower or faster to go at a different pace. I assumed this natural responsive behavior was caused by the nature of my habits or conformities to the norm. However, after awhile I got used to it and it started becoming funny. At the beginning when people asked me if I was ok, I did have to justify my behavior saying it was for my psychology class. The reason why I did this was because I felt really awkward when confronted and did not want to come off as a creep. I think I felt awkward because walking next to people at the same pace for a while in a narrow sidewalk is not normal.
You are here
The norm I decided to violate was walking at the same pace as other people around campus. I walked around the campus center to start because it is a very crowded place and generally when people are walking, they either speed up or slow down to avoid walking right next to each other for long periods of time. When people walk next to each other they are either friends or there’s a lot of foot traffic. However, when there is not a lot of people around and you are a stranger, the circumstances change
When testing the correlation between two different variables, one could perform a z-test. When calculating the result, a z value will be calculated. From there based on the z value, you will find the significance and relevance of the correlation. If the z value if greater than a certain value than the null hypothesis set before the test is rejected and the results are non significant. I also remember a lot about probability and how to calculate certain situations. Another set of key terms I remember is the difference between a sample and a population. A population for example is all the students at Umass Amherst. While a sample is 100 of the students attending Umass Amherst. Lastly, I remember how to read a graph, differentiate between multiple graphs, and decipher them. A graph that’s mean and tail is skewed to the left means that the graph is negatively skewed. While a graph that’s mean and tail is skewed to the right means that the graph is positively skewed.
In one of the ads, the demographic being targeted is wealthy people. The approach to this demographic is using a gold bar in their advertising depicting its high quality and value. They also use words such as premium on the box, to claim its high prestige brand when being compared to other companies. For the cigarette ads that are targeting women, they depict models and beautiful women who are smoking and enjoying the sensation from it.
These ads are all targeting the emotion of being relaxed and cool. These emotions are certainly marketable because people who are feeling stressed can resort to smoking to relieve the situation. To depict the aspect of being cool, the cigarette ads show people smoking while sitting in a hot tub at a party or while riding a motorcycle. The aspect of being cool can be appealing to young teenagers, as social status plays a major role in children. These ads also target the emotion of pleasure, in which everyone in a sense seeks some sense of pleasure.
In this section, the factors that caused the differences observed are discussed. In the first paragraph, the factors that caused the formatting of the entire multipanel figure are described. The second paragraph focuses in on the specific individual figures, including figure A, B, and C of each of the two multipanel figures and describes the factors that caused the observed differences.
In this section, the differences that were observed are described and documented. In the first paragraph, the differences of the overall structure and formatting of the two multipanel figures are discussed. In the next paragraph, the specific differences seen in both of the Figure A’s, the picture of the entire plant, are discussed. Lastly, the final paragraph discusses the differences seen between Figures B and C of the two multi-panel figures.
In Spring 2018, as part of the Biology Writing Course at the University of Massachusetts Amherst an experiment was conducted. This experiment focused on developing and following a methods section of an experiment report. In this experiment, students were tasked with creating a multi-panel figure consisting of three pictures, one picture of the entire plant, a close-up of the flower, and a map of the origin of the species. After the multi-panel figure was created, students wrote a methods section that described how the multi-panel figure was created. From there another student would follow the procedure and post a replicate multi-panel figure. I observed that the two different figures that were created were not formatted in the same way and the subject of interest in the pictures was not consistent.These differences suggest that the methods section did not specify the formatting of the multi-panel figure or the specific plant to take a picture of.
This experiment focuses on an essential part of any experiment being conducted: the methods section. In this particular experiment, students were tasked with creating a multipanel figure consisting of three pictures, one picture of the entire plant, a close-up of the flower, and a map of the origin of the species. A methods section would be written to describe how the multipanel figure was created. From there another student would follow the procedure and post a replicate multipanel figure. The overall results are pretty similar in the orientation of the individual figures. However, as expected there are some differences between the two figures. When writing a procedure everything should be described as clearly as possible, including time of day the picture was taken, the type of font being used, and the figure size.The differences found in this experiment show that every detail is crucial and essential when describing how a procedure should be replicated.
In figure 1B, the scale shows the width and length of the flower, with a width of 2.5 inches. In figure 2B, the scale only shows the width of the flower, which had a width of 3.8 inches. The center of the flower in figure 1B also is pointing downwards, while in figure 2B the center of the flower is pointing upright and towards the camera. The flower in figure 2A appears smaller and has less layers of petals than the flower shown in figure 2B. In figure 1C, the map is smaller than the map shown in figure 2C. The upper half of the map and lower half of the map shows more of Antarctica and Greenland in figure 2C.