Psychology

Article review
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Introduction
In accordance with the requisite requirements of this paper, a significant, comprehensive and well articulate review that delves into various accounts of the study articles is generated below. It consists of sectional accounts that pose questions and within the same accounts give their relevant answers.
How does the abstract in Norman and Malla’s article differ or is consistent with the
Guidelines illustrated in Burton (2010)?
Burton’s abstract is consciously based on a survey that seeks to understand the relationship between same sex friends and same sex strangers. The main study parameter is a survey between friends and students in a university that forms the case study. The study is to analyze the difference in attitudes and activities choice based on relation as in same sex friends as opposed to same sex strangers.
Consequently, from the two abstracts with respect to similarities, the format and pose form is what comes out clearly. The major difference that is vivid is the subject of study or content of the articles as portrayed by the two articles. Shedding further light is that both articles however much far apart the are in terms of case study, all have a psychological background to it.
Do you think the Introduction provides a clear and critical literature review that covers relevant research?
The introduction that forms the preamble of the research is well and clear with regards to the content description that is being examined.

Primarily very well used description has been used to introduce the matter at hand and likewise a well articulate synopsis has been also introduced in the beginning just to help the reader and preferably the audience.
An example of such quotation is how the article describes the previous history of other similar research work done and of which have close relation and similarity to the current case study. Furthermore, when analyzing the critical literature review, the manner in which it has been portrayed and articulated is very clear and elaborate.
Additionally, the entire introduction is significantly well balanced and consciously within a good page amount. It lies within 3 pages and gives the synopsis of the entire paper with the entire summary i.e. pg. 2-4.
Do they develop any hypotheses, and if so, what are they?
The introduction in Burton’s article gives two hypotheses and it goes ahead to give relevance to the significance of the hypothesis. A good example is the hypothesis of the same sex friend’s study whereby it explains that same sex friends tend to have similar attitudes towards the environment and other correlational factors. Similarly, there is a complete opposite with regards to the same sex strangers who tend to display a broad array of disparities with conscious relations to the correlated factors.
Purposefully, the introduction also hypothesizes that same sex friends and same sex strangers tend to have similar attributes in terms of factors correlated to passive, active, social and creative attributes they found preferable to them (Burton, 2010).
Does the Method section provide enough information for the study to be replicated by someone who reads the work?
The method section provided in the Burton’s article consists of sub sections that are used to compact the foundation of the methods used in the approach of the survey. The chronological account of the sections gives a good sense of protocol to follow and an avenue of information that may serve to help anyone who might see to venture in the same work.
First of all it elaborates on the participants who are prescribed for the survey work as it enumerates on the required format that would give the best results if followed. For instance, a grouped class of the same sex friends, the friend dyads consisted of 1 09 males and 287 females, with ages ranging from 17 to 52 years, and a mean age of 26.98 years (SD = 5.49). Such description denotes the formalities that are the requisitely needed to perform the work.
Do you think any unnecessary information is included in this section?
In terms of added information and the entire preamble of the methods, I find the section touching on the standard deviation and mean ages of the participants a bit too unnecessary and very technical.
Aspects, such as mean age of 26.98 years (SD = 5.49) and the subsequent elaboration of the religious backgrounds i.e. Eighty-three percent of the participants were Anglo-Australians and 69% were Christians are highly non- founded and don’t play any part significantly in the work survey
Identify whether the authors followed APA guidelines for report writing in respect of the Results section?
In terms of the writing format that the Burton’s report uses is not APA format and this can be seen in the referencing section at the end of various paragraphs as well as citations made. i.e. (p > .05).
From the analysis of this citation, it gives out more of an MLA format type as compared to the requisite APA that uses author name and year of publication. The expected citation in regards to the APA format would be (Burton, 2012).
Do you think this section conveys the findings clearly?
Basing from the technical denotations used in the explanation of the results nature, the manner and means of conveying the intended message becomes very scanty as one has to fully be aware of the interpretation of the used denotations. An example is t (1 79) = 2.85, p < .0 1 that has been used to refer to results of attitudes for various individuals as permutated by attitudes (McCarthy, n.d.).
My specific suggestions with regards to the formatting would be to cite the authors name and he year of publication so as to follow the APA style, for example, (Burton, 2010). In relevance also to the formatting, the paragraphing should be done in a double spacing manner with the citations relevantly placed at the probable and required points.
Do you think the Discussion of the article provides an accurate interpretation of the results?
The discussion section is not well articulated and has a very scanty explanation that relates to the results. This is evident by the generalization of already hypothesized studies i.e. 69% of an unknown point of inference is used to generalize Christians.
Are the findings explained thoroughly and discussed in relation to the appropriate literature presented in the Introduction?
Delving to the findings discussed, there is a broad array of articulation from hypothesis to factual evidence that form the results. This is in situations such as where earlier woks are used to offer checks to the ongoing work i.e. (McCarthy & Duck, 1 976).
Furthermore, as evident in pg. 7-9, there is a significant explanation of the findings whereby the same sex friend’s class is highlighted as well as the same sex stranger’s class.
References
Burton, L. (2010). An interactive approach to writing essays and research reports in psychology (3rd Ed.). Milton Queensland: John Wiley.
Norman, M. G., & Malla, A. K. (1983). Adolescents’ attitudes towards mental illness: Relationship between components and sex differences. Social Psychiatry, 18, 45 50.
Dewey, J. (1930). Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. New York: Modern library.
McCarthy, B. (n.d.). British Journal of Psychology. 3, 12(2), 386.-386