This article comes from a book called "Forty Studies that Changed Psychology" and is found in chapter 1, reading 4. The article reviews a study done by E. J. Gibson (et al.) on depth perception and avoidance in very young children. It begins with an introduction that provides some background information. This essay isn't critiquing the research, instead, it is providing a summary of the purpose, methods, results, a conclusion, and some real-world applications. I believe that it has done a decent job of doing so. However, it would have been helpful to include some visuals from the research paper itself. This isn't a review article because it doesn't evaluate the "primary source" and doesn't include other sources to support their opinion. Instead, it's purpose is to convey a single piece of information that is most important for the reader and their context. For instance, if someone is trying to learn more about how humans understand depth perception, they would read a summary article such as this instead of the entire research paper. The reader should not cite this article if they were to write a review article, instead they should find the primary source and use that instead. This is because, the author of this article has summarized what they think is most important. I think this goes along with the reason why you would cite a research poster if you were to write a review article because it just provides an orverview of what the author thinks you should know the most.
Recent comments