This is about research methods (statistics) in psychology. Please read the article, and respond to all of the 4 questions.
This is about research methods (statistics) in psychology. Please read the article, and respond to all of the 4 questions.
PSYC105 – 21SU2 Written Assignment This assignment is based on the following original research paper (available on Learn) : Ward‐Griffin, E., Klaiber, P., Collins, H. K., Owens, R. L., Coren, S., & Chen, F. S. (2018). Petting away pre‐exam stress: The effect of therapy dog sessions on student well‐ being. Stress and Health , 34 (3), 468 -473. M ake sure you read the paper (available on Learn) , watch the Research Methods lectures ( Week 2 ), and complete the Week 2 lab , before attempting the assignment. There are two submission points for this assignment. • You are expected to submit a draft version by 5pm Wednesday 1 December. This draft submission is worth 5% of your total grade. Your draft can be presented in bullet point or note format; you will not be graded on presentation or grammar. The purpose of the draft submission is to encourage you to make an early start on your assignment, and to create an opportunity for you to receive early feedback. • Your final submission is due by 5pm on Sunday 19 December and is worth 35% of your final grade. • Please refer to the marking rubrics on Learn to see the relevant grading criteria for your draft and final submissions. In both your draft and your final submissions, p lease complete your answers on a single Word document that is named with your FULL NAME and STUDENT ID ( e.g. , John Smith_12345678). Please clearly identify your answer for each question. Note: you are not required to use APA formatting or provide references for this assignment. Question 1. In your own word s, a) describe the aim of the study, and b) explain why the authors consider the research to be important. To answer this question, you should focus on the introduction section of the paper. Your answer should be no more than 200 words. Question 2 . In your own words a) describe the research design and method , and b) explain why this design would help the researchers test their hypotheses . To answer Part A , you should focus on the methods section of the paper. You answer should include mention of the par ticipants, the timeframe s, and the main variables of interest. To answer Part B, you should refer to content from the Research Methods lectures and assigned readings (Week 2). Your answer should be no more than 400 words. Question 3. Briefly state the researchers’ main findings. Note: you do not need to refer to the statistical tests used or their results; you should simply need to state in your own words what the researchers found. You should focus on the first two paragraphs of the discussion section of the paper to answer this question. Your answer should be no more than 100 words. Question 4. You see the following social media post from a nationwide pet -store: Pets help students boost their grades A recent study has shown that when university students have dogs in their lives, they have lower stress, more energy, and better overall happiness. And we all know what that’s likely to lead to: better grades. If you’re a student, or have a student in your household, perhaps it’s time to introduce a furry friend to the family! The post includes a link to an online version of the Ward -Griffin et al. article Your task is to respond to these claims made by the pet store, based on your in-depth reading of the article as well as your knowledge of scientific research methods. Hint: you should consider whether the research article provide s sufficient evidence for the claim s being made . You should take the introduction, method, and discussion section s of the paper into consideration when answering this question. You may want to give extra focus to the limitations outlined in the discussion section. You could also refer to the Research Methods lectures and assigned readings (Week 2) to help inform your response . Your response should be no more than 400 words.
This is about research methods (statistics) in psychology. Please read the article, and respond to all of the 4 questions.
  Copyright Warning Notice  This material is protected by copyright and has been copied by and solely for  the educational purposes of the University under license.  You may not sell,  alter or further reproduce or distribute any part of this material to any other  person.  Where provided to you in electronic format,  you may only print  from it for your own private study and research.  Failure to comply with the  terms of this warning may expose you to legal action for copyright  infringement and/or disciplinary action by the University. SHORT COMMUNICATION Petting away pre‐exam stress: The effect of therapy dog sessions on student well‐being Emma Ward‐Griffin 1 |Patrick Klaiber 1,2 |Hanne K. Collins 1 |Rhea L. Owens 3 | Stanley Coren 1 |Frances S. Chen 1 1Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada 2Department of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany 3Counseling Psychology and Community Services, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA Correspondence Frances Chen, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, 3521‐2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. Email: [email protected] Funding information Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Grant/Award Number: 430-2015-00412 Abstract Recently, many universities have implemented programmes in which therapy dogs and their han- dlers visit college campuses. Despite the immense popularity of therapy dog sessions, few ran- domized studies have empirically tested the efficacy of such programmes. The present study evaluates the efficacy of such a therapy dog programme in improving the well‐being of university students. This research incorporates two components: (a) a pre/post within‐subjects design, in which 246 participants completed a brief questionnaire immediately before and after a therapy dog session and (b) an experimental design with a delayed‐treatment control group, in which all participants completed baseline measures and follow‐up measures approximately 10 hr later. Only participants in the experimental condition experienced the therapy dog session in between the baseline and follow‐up measures. Analyses of pre/post data revealed that the therapy dog sessions had strong immediate benefits, significantly reducing stress and increasing happiness and energy levels. In addition, participants in the experimental group reported a greater improve- ment in negative affect, perceived social support, and perceived stress compared with those in the delayed‐treatment control group. Our results suggest that single, drop‐in, therapy dog ses- sions have large and immediate effects on students’ well‐being, but also that the effects after sev- eral hours are small. KEYWORDS animal‐assisted stress reduction, social support, university students, well‐being 1 | INTRODUCTION The new social and academic challenges that students face as they enter and progress through university often lead to heightened stress. Indeed, university students have been found to have higher rates of psychological distress than the general population (Eskin et al., 2016; Stallman, 2010). Students’ levels of stress rise upon entry to university and do not return to their preuniversity levels through- out their time in university (Bewick, Koutsopoulou, Miles, Slaa, & Barkham, 2010). Furthermore, stress is the most commonly reported barrier to students’ academic success (American College Health Asso- ciation, 2016a, 2016b). University students also commonly face emotional and social diffi- culties. A survey of American college students revealed that in the past year, 59% felt very lonely, 65% felt very sad, and 37% felt so depressed that they found it difficult to function (American College Health Asso- ciation, 2016a, 2016b). Furthermore, students with lower quality socialsupport tend to have more depressive symptoms (Hefner & Eisenberg, 2009). Considering the many challenges university students face, and the negative consequences of these challenges, interventions to reduce student stress and improve health and well‐being are of utmost importance. Animal‐assisted stress reduction programmes have become increasingly popular on university campuses as a means of promoting student well‐being. These programmes involve bringing animals and their handlers to college campuses to interact with students. A recent investigation found that 62% of surveyed universities in the United States reported having such programmes, the majority of which exclu- sively involved dogs (Haggerty & Mueller, 2017). Previous research has revealed that interacting with dogs reduces physiological indicators of stress, loneliness, and depression (see Katcher & Beck, 2010; Wells, 2009, for reviews), reduces anxiety and increases positive affect (Crossman, Kazdin, & Knudson, 2015), and encourages the initiation of contact between people (Bernstein, Friedmann, & Malaspina, 2000). Received: 29 July 2017 Revised: 30 January 2018 Accepted: 3 February 2018 DOI: 10.1002/smi.2804 468Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Stress and Health. 2018;34:468–473. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/smi A common format for university therapy dog programmes involves a large group of students interacting with dogs and their handlers dur- ing a single drop‐in session (e.g., Logan, 2016; Rollit, 2016). This format has the advantage of being able to reach a much larger number of stu- dents over a shorter period of time than other more time‐and resource‐intensive programmes that have been found to have positive effects on students’ well‐being (e.g., an 8‐week intervention with ther- apy dogs, Binfet & Passmore, 2016). On the other hand, the brief group format might dilute the immediate and longer lasting benefits of such interventions. Empirical evidence regarding the effects of the single drop‐in therapy dog session format has only recently begun to emerge. Initial studies have provided evidence that a single drop‐in group therapy dog session temporarily relieves stress and homesickness, increases students’ feelings of connection to their campus (Binfet, 2017), improves mood and well‐being, and decreases anxiety (Grajfoner, Harte, Lauren, & McGuigan, 2017). These effects were documented immediately following the therapy dog session but seem to be rela- tively short‐lived: No detectable effects were found 2 weeks after the sessions (Binfet, 2017), although qualitative evidence suggests that, 3 months later, students believe that therapy dog sessions pro- vided lasting benefits (Dell et al., 2015). Adamle, Riley, and Carlson (2009) found that students perceive their pets as sources of social support and suggest that therapy animals may act as temporary sources of social support while students establish new relationships. Therapy dog sessions have also been shown to benefit female stu- dents more than male students (Dell et al., 2015), suggesting the need for research into gender differences and demographic moderators. 1.1 | The present study In light of the prevalence of therapy dog sessions on university cam- puses and the large body of evidence showing many benefits of inter- actions with dogs, we conducted a systematic investigation into the potential benefits of a single on‐campus drop‐in therapy dog session on students’ well‐being. In this study, we operationalize“high levels of well‐being”as including low perceived stress and negative affect, and high levels of positive affect, happiness, and perceived social sup- port. We used an ecologically valid design in which our participants’ experiences were similar to that of a student attending one drop‐in session. These therapy dog sessions took place during midterm exam season, a time when students are particularly stressed (Abouserie, 1994; Ansari et al., 2011). Using a pre/post design, we investigated immediate effects of these sessions on students’ happiness, stress, and energy levels. To address open questions regarding the longevity of effects, we also experimentally investigated the effects of the ther- apy dog sessions on students’ well‐being approximately 10 hr after the experimental group had attended a therapy dog session. On an explor- atory basis, we examined possible gender differences. The following primary hypotheses were tested: H1:Students will report decreased stress, and increased energy and happiness immediately after attending a ther- apy dog session compared with immediately before the session.H2:Students randomly assigned to attend the therapy dog session will experience greater decreases in stress and negative affect, and larger increases in positive affect, happiness, life satisfaction, and perceived social support relative to delayed‐treatment control participants up to 1 day after the experimental group’s therapy dog session. 2 | METHODS 2.1 | Participants Participants (78% female, 45.5% first year students,M age =19.4,SD=3.7) were recruited from several introductory psychology classes at a large Canadian public university. Participants received course credit for par- ticipation. Students were deemed ineligible to participate if they reported being allergic to dogs, afraid of dogs, unwilling to interact with trained therapy dogs, and/or unavailable during the scheduled therapy dog session times. A total of 357 students were deemed eligible to par- ticipate; of these, 246 (124 control) participated at all time points and were included in the analyses. Dropout rates did not differ between groups,χ 2(1) = 0.69,p= .405, and participants in the experimental condition did not differ from those in the control condition on key demographic variables (ps > .05; see the Supporting Information for more information). The study was approved by the local institutional ethics board. The data can be found on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/erjh9/). 2.2 | Procedure 2.2.1 | Overview Participants were randomly assigned to the experimental or delayed‐ treatment control group using a random number generator. All partic- ipants first completed the baseline questionnaire. Participants in both conditions were then emailed identical messages inviting them to a therapy dog session. The only difference between the emails received was the date that the participants were asked to attend. During their session, participants (in both conditions) completed a brief survey prior to entering the therapy dog session space, interacted with the dogs, and then completed one more brief survey after exiting the ses- sion; these served as our within‐subject pre/post measures. Following the experimental group’s therapy dog session (but prior to the delayed‐treatment control group’s session), participants in both con- ditions completed follow‐up questionnaires on the same timeline. This procedure allowed us to assess differences across the two conditions: one with, and one without, exposure to the therapy dog session. Figure 1 provides an overview of the study procedures and timeline. 2.2.2 | Baseline (T1) At T1, all participants completed the consent form and eligibility sur- vey. Then, they completed the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), Subjective Happiness Scale (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999), Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, WARD‐GRIFFIN ET AL .469 Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983), Medical Outcomes Study Social Sup- port Survey (Sherbourne & Stewart, 1991), and demographic survey online. More information on the measures can be found in the Supporting Information. 2.2.3 | Therapy dog session All therapy dog sessions took place in a large room at a student union building on campus. At each 90‐min session, between 7 and 12 ther- apy dogs and their handlers, from the Vancouver ecoVillage Therapy Dog Programme, were present. All therapy dogs had passed standard- ized training and assessment criteria, including rigorous veterinary checks, no history of aggression or biting, good obedience, and friendly interaction with strangers. The flow of participants entering the space was monitored to ensure that all participants had the opportunity for contact with the dogs. Participants were not given specific instructions regarding what to do during the session and were instead free to talk to other students or handlers, as well as interact with the therapy dogs. Casual observa- tion revealed that most students spent a significant portion of the time touching, petting, looking at, and talking to the therapy dogs. On aver- age, participants spent 30.92 (SD= 15.83) min in the space, including completing the brief surveys, waiting in line to enter, and interacting with the therapy dogs. As participants left the session, they completed the post‐session survey. 2.2.4 | Therapy dog session surveys Before entering the room and again as they left the session, all partic- ipants completed a 3‐item questionnaire assessing how stressed, happy, and energized they currently felt on a visual analogue scale (see Supporting Information for more information). 2.2.5 | Follow‐up survey (T2) Following the experimental participants’ therapy dog session, both delayed‐treatment control and experimental participants were emailed follow‐up questionnaires that included the same measures as the base- line questionnaire. Participants could complete these questionnaires at any point over the next 24 hr. On average, participants completed the survey 9.8 hr (SD= 9.92) after the session. 3 | RESULTS 3.1 | Analysis strategy To test the efficacy of the therapy dog session, repeated measures anal- yses of variance (ANOVAs) were used. For the immediate (short‐term)effects, Step 1 was a model with one within‐subject factor (time). For the effects at follow‐up, Step 1 was a model with one within‐subject factor (time) and one fixed factor (condition). For both sets of analyses, Step 2 consisted of the addition of another fixed factor (gender) to the models to examine possible interaction effects with gender. 3.2 | Immediate (short‐term) effects To test changes in participants’ happiness, stress, and energy levels, repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted comparing all participants’ (both delayed‐treatment control and experimental) responses immediately before and after their therapy dog session (see Figure 2). Participants’ stress levels were significantly lower after the therapy dog session,F(1, 218) = 344.97,p< .001,η 2= .613, and participants' happiness,F(1, 223) = 84.26,p< .001,η2= .274, and energy levels,F(1, 222) = 113.10,p< .001,η 2= .338, were significantly higher after the therapy dog session, all with large effect sizes. 3.2.1 | Gender differences and immediate effects There was no moderating effect of gender on immediate results (stress, happiness, and energy; allps > .05, see Supporting Information for full statistics). 3.3 | Effects at follow‐up (T2) In Step 1, we tested for differences between the experimental and delayed‐treatment control groups, using repeated measures ANOVAs including participant condition as a fixed factor and the follow‐up scales as repeated measures factors. FIGURE 1 Data collection timeline and procedure FIGURE 2 Means for stress, happiness, and energy immediately before and after attending the therapy dog session 470WARD‐GRIFFIN ET AL . The ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of time on negative affect and positive affect, but not on the other dependent variables. Specifically, participants in both conditions showed a decline in both negative and positive affect across time. The ANOVA did not reveal a significant main effect of condition on any of the dependent variables (see Table 8.1 in Supporting Information). Most critically to our hypotheses, there was a significant interac- tion between time and condition on negative affect, perceived stress, and social support. That is, the effect of time on participants’ levels of negative affect, perceived stress, and social support depended on the participants’ condition. Participants in the experimental group reported significantly greater reductions in negative affect (ΔM= 0.50 on a 7‐point scale) than those in the delayed‐treatment control group (ΔM= 0.27). Experimental participants’ perceived stress decreased (ΔM= 0.11 on a 7‐point scale), whereas stress of the control partici- pants increased slightly (ΔM= 0.06). Additionally, participants in the experimental condition increased in social support across time (ΔM= 0.10 on a 7‐point scale), whereas control participants decreased slightly in perceived social support (ΔM= 0.03). Analyses revealed that the effect of the therapy dog sessions on perceived social support was primarily driven by the affectionate support subscale (see Table 1). In contrast to our hypotheses, no significant interactions between time and condition were observed for happiness, positive affect, or satisfac- tion with life (allps > .29), suggesting that the effects of therapy dog sessions are somewhat selective in nature. 3.3.1 | Gender effects at follow‐up In Step 2, gender as a fixed factor was added to the models. We did not find a significant interaction between time, condition, and gender (all ps > .05, see Supporting Information for full statistics), indicating no gender effects for the efficacy of the therapy dog session. 4 | DISCUSSION Consistent with past research, the results of this study provide evi- dence that therapy dog sessions on university campuses have positiveeffects on students’ well‐being. We found considerable reductions in stress and increases in happiness and energy levels immediately after the therapy dog sessions. We also found evidence of several benefits of the therapy dog sessions approximately 10 hr later. As predicted, participants in the experimental group experienced a greater reduction in negative affect and perceived stress, as well as an increase in perceived social support following the experimental group’s session compared with the delayed‐treatment control group. Overall, differences in social support, perceived stress, and negative affect were small. The ther- apy dog sessions did not have a lasting effect on happiness, positive affect, or life satisfaction, suggesting that the effects are somewhat selective. Our results are in line with previous research showing short‐term psychological benefits of therapy dog sessions (Binfet, 2017; Crossman et al., 2015; Crump & Derting, 2015; Grajfoner et al., 2017; Katcher & Beck, 2010; McDonald, McDonald, & Roberts, 2017). However, unlike much previous research on this topic (e.g., Binfet & Passmore, 2016), our study was designed to mirror the con- ditions of a typical single drop‐in group therapy dog session (e.g., Logan, 2016; Rollit, 2016). Our study also fills a research gap regard- ing the longevity of therapy dog session benefits, as it examines effects at a time point between the immediate effects of a single drop‐in therapy dog session (Grajfoner et al., 2017), the lack of effects 2 weeks later (J. Binfet, 2017), and the qualitative perceived effects 3 months later (Dell et al., 2015). Although past research has found evidence of women benefitting more from therapy dog sessions than men (Dell et al., 2015), our results did not replicate this finding. The present study does have several limitations. First, the use of a pre/post design does not allow us to make causal claims about the short‐term effect of a therapy dog session. Second, the design of our study does not enable us to separate which factor (therapy dogs, dog handlers, and/or peers) contributed to the observed benefits. How- ever, given that past research has found benefits of therapy dog ses- sions, and not handlers alone (Grajfoner et al., 2017), it seems probable that the dogs were the primary contributor to these effects. TABLE 1 Results of repeated measures analyses of variance with T1 (baseline) and T2 (follow‐up) as repeated measures factor and condition as fixed factor Dependent variableM(SD) control T1 (n= 124)M(SD) experimental T1 (n= 122)M(SD) control T2 (n= 124)M(SD) experimental T2 (n= 122) Effect of time * condition PANAS—negative affect 2.33 (0.70) 2.50 (0.76) 2.06 (0.66) 2.00 (0.81)F(1, 244) = 7.45,p= .007,η 2= .030 PANAS—positive affect 3.40 (0.73) 3.41 (0.63) 2.96 (0.83) 2.89 (0.76)F(1, 244) = 0.95,p= .330,η2= .004 Perceived Stress Scale 1.98 (0.54) 2.06 (0.61) 2.04 (0.69) 1.95 (0.71)F(1, 244) = 4.68,p= .031,η2= .019 Subjective Happiness Scale 4.57 (1.20) 4.58 (1.11) 4.54 (1.13) 4.57 (1.06)F(1, 244) = 0.01,p= .940,η2= .000 Satisfaction with Life Scale 4.76 (1.23) 4.84 (1.23) 4.79 (1.15) 4.76 (1.22)F(1, 244) = 1.10,p= .294,η2= .005 Social support—total 3.78 (0.81) 3.83 (0.76) 3.75 (0.81) 3.93 (0.74)F(1, 244) = 4.64,p= .032,η2= .019 Social support—emotional support 3.72 (0.95) 3.76 (0.82) 3.68 (0.95) 3.83 (0.79)F(1, 244) = 1.64,p= .201,η2= .007 Social support—tangible support 3.76 (1.06) 3.77 (1.01) 3.76 (1.06) 3.91 (1.03)F(1, 244) = 2.18,p= .141,η2= .009 Social support—affectionate support3.80 (1.02) 3.82 (1.08) 3.72 (0.97) 3.95 (1.07)F(1, 244) = 6.81,p= .010,η2= .027 Social support—personal interaction 3.94 (0.88) 4.06 (0.84) 3.90 (0.87) 4.11 (0.84)F(1, 244) = 1.33,p= .249,η 2= .005 Note. Allη 2’s are partialη 2’s. Inferential statistics on the main effects of time and condition are provided in Table 8.1 of the Supporting Information.M= mean; SD= standard deviation; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. WARD‐GRIFFIN ET AL .471 Third, although the use of a delayed‐treatment control allowed us to analyse the benefits of a therapy dog session as compared with the regular activities of university students, we are unable to compare these benefits with other stress management interventions (see Klainin‐Yobas, Oo, Ying, Yew, & Lau, 2015, for a review). Future research should consider implementing an active control group in which control participants participate in other stress management interventions to avoid potential demand effects. Overall, the results of this study suggest that single, drop‐in, group therapy dog sessions on campus likely benefit students’ well‐being and reduce stress in the immediate period following the session. The results also provide support of some weaker effects lasting for several hours afterwards. These results are consistent with past research that indicates that campus therapy dog programmes have beneficial effects on students but that these effects diminish over time (Binfet, 2017). Thus, it may be especially useful for such sessions to take place during particularly stressful periods of the school year, such as exam periods, or even for ther- apy dogs to be present during stressors, such as while students com- plete assignments. Future studies should also investigate the specific aspects of therapy dog sessions on university campuses that may lead to strong long‐lasting effects, such as the optimal length of time for students to be engaged in the session, or the optimal ratio of students to therapy dogs. Given the high levels of stress and emotional difficulties in univer- sity students, it is important to design accessible interventions to reduce stress and improve well‐being. The results of our study indicate that therapy dog sessions considerably reduce stress and improve aspects of student well‐being. Although these effects are strong imme- diately after the session, the effects after a short period of time are small. We hope that this study will help to inform future best practices in designing therapy dog interventions, which will in turn facilitate well‐being in university students. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was supported by a grant (430‐2015‐00412) from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We thank Quille Kaddon and Vancouver ecoVillage for organizing and coordinat- ing the therapy dog sessions and making this study possible. A special thank you to all the Vancouver ecoVillage therapy dog handlers and their canine companions for volunteering their time. We gratefully acknowledge the University of British Columbia Alma Mater Society for providing space for the sessions and for helping us to advertise the study, and the instructors who allowed us to recruit students from their classes. Finally, we thank Nandini Maharaj, Kiana Maeda, Sara Ahmadian, Sarah Woolgar, Parky Lau, and the entire research team for assistance with data collection, contacting participants, and ensur- ing the therapy dog sessions ran smoothly. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors have declared that they have no conflict of interest. ORCID Emma Ward‐Griffin http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0717-0673Patrick Klaiber http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1957-1140 Frances S. Chen http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2322-1095 REFERENCES Abouserie, R. (1994). Sources and levels of stress in relation to locus of con- trol and self esteem in university students.Educational Psychology,14, 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341940140306 Adamle, K. N., Riley, T. A., & Carlson, T. (2009). Evaluating College Student Interest in Pet Therapy.Journal of American College Health,57(5), 545–548. https://doi.org/10.3200/jach.57.5.545‐548 American College Health Association (2016a). American College Health Association‐National College Health Assessment II: Reference Group Executive Summary Spring 2016. American College Health Association (2016b). American College Health Association National College Health Assessment 2015–2016 annual report. Ansari, W. E., Stock, C., UK Student Health Group: Sherrill Snelgrove, Hu, X., Parke, S., Davies, S.,…Mabhala, A. (2011). Feeling healthy? A survey of physical and psychological wellbeing of students from seven univer- sities in the UK.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,8, 1308–1323. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8051308 Bernstein, P. L., Friedmann, E., & Malaspina, A. (2000). Animal‐assisted ther- apy enhances resident social interaction and initiation in long‐term care facilities.Anthrozoös,13, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.2752/ 089279300786999743 Bewick, B., Koutsopoulou, G., Miles, J., Slaa, E., & Barkham, M. (2010). Changes in undergraduate students’ psychological well‐being as they progress through university.Studies in Higher Education,35, 633–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903216643 Binfet, J. T. (2017). The effects of group‐administered canine therapy on uni- versity students’ wellbeing: A randomized controlled trial.Anthrozoös, 30, 397–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2017.1335097 Binfet, J. T., & Passmore, H. A. (2016). Hounds and homesickness: The effects of an animal‐assisted therapeutic intervention for first‐year uni- versity students.Anthrozoös,29, 441–454. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of per- ceived stress.Journal of Health and Social Behavior,24, 385–396. Crossman, M. K., Kazdin, A. E., & Knudson, K. (2015). Brief unstructured interaction with a dog reduces distress.Anthrozoös,28, 649–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2015.1070008 Crump, C., & Derting, T. L. (2015). Effects of pet therapy on the psycholog- ical and physiological stress levels of first‐year female undergraduates. North American Journal of Psychology,17, 575–590. Dell, C. A., Chalmers, D., Gillett, J., Rohr, B., Campbell, L., Hanoski, R.,… Brydges, M. (2015). PAWSing student stress: A pilot evaluation study of the St. John Ambulance Therapy Dog Program on three university campuses in Canada.Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 49, 332–359. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale.Journal of Personality Assessment,49,71–75. Eskin, M., Sun, J., Abuidhail, J., Yoshimasu, K., Kujan, O., Janghorbani, M.,… Voracek, M. (2016). Suicidal behavior and psychological distress in uni- versity students: A 12‐nation study.Archives of Suicide Research,20, 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2015.1054055 Grajfoner, D., Harte, E., Lauren, P. M., & McGuigan, N. (2017). The effect of dog‐assisted intervention on student well‐being, mood, and anxiety. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,14, 483. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14050483 Haggerty, J. M., & Mueller, M. K. (2017). Animal‐assisted stress reduction programs in higher education.Innovative Higher Education. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10755‐017‐9392‐0 Hefner, J., & Eisenberg, D. (2009). Social support and mental health among college students.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,79, 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016918 472WARD‐GRIFFIN ET AL . Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)Katcher, A. H., & Beck, A. M. (2010). Newer and older perspectives on the therapeutic effects of animals and nature. In A. H. Fine (Ed.),Handbook on animal‐assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice(3rd ed.) (pp. 49–58). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Klainin‐Yobas, P., Oo, W. N., Ying, P., Yew, S., & Lau, Y. (2015). Effects of relaxation interventions on depression and anxiety among older adults: A systematic review.Aging & Mental Health,19, 1043–1055. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2014.997191 Logan, A. (2016). Cuddle time: Adorable puppies help fight the wintertime blues away. Retrieved June 12, 2017, from http://www.metronews. ca/features/vancouver/vancouvering/2016/10/28/adorable‐puppies‐ help‐fight‐the‐wintertime‐blues‐away.html Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation.Social Indicators Research,46, 137–155. McDonald, S., McDonald, E., & Roberts, A. (2017). Effects of novel dog exposure on college students’ stress prior to examination.North Amer- ican Journal of Psychology,19, 477–484. Rollit, L. (2016). UBC studies effects of dog therapy on homesick, lonely students. Retrieved June 13, 2017, from http://charlatan.ca/2016/ 09/ubc‐studies‐effects‐of‐dog‐therapy‐on‐homesick‐lonely‐students/ Sherbourne, C. D., & Stewart, A. L. (1991). The MOS social support survey. Social Science & Medicine,32, 705–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277‐ 9536(91)90150‐bStallman, H. M. (2010). Psychological distress in university students: A com- parison with general population data.Australian Psychologist,45(4), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050067.2010.482109 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54 , 1063. Wells, D. L. (2009). The effects of animals on human health and well‐being. Journal of Social Issues,65, 523–544. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional Supporting Information may be found online in the supporting information tab for this article. How to cite this article:Ward‐Griffin E, Klaiber P, Collins HK, Owens RL, Coren S, Chen FS. Petting away pre‐exam stress: The effect of therapy dog sessions on student well‐being. Stress and Health. 2018;34:468–473. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/smi.2804 WARD‐GRIFFIN ET AL .473
This is about research methods (statistics) in psychology. Please read the article, and respond to all of the 4 questions.
Rubric PSYC105 -21SU2 Written Assignment – final submission Component Poor Good Excellent Weighting Question 1: Aims and importance Answer has not addressed both elements of question. Answer s indicate lack of understanding of aims/rationale for study. Heavy r elian ce on quotes/paraphrasing. Sound e ffort made to address both aspects of question; answers demonstrate reasonable level of understanding of aims/rationale for study. Own words used; fair level of clarity Both aspects of question fully addressed, answers demonstrate high level of understanding of aims/rationale for study. Clearly and concisely articulated. /5 Question 2: Design Unclear description of study design, some components may be missing. Answer demonstrates lack of understanding of link between study design and ability to test hypotheses Sound effort made to describe study design; most key components mentioned. Answer demonstrates moderate level of understanding of link between study design and ability to test hypotheses Design and method very clearly described, all key components mentioned. Answer demonstrates high level of understanding of link between study design and ability to test hypotheses. /10 Question 3: Findings Key findings not clearly identified, heavy reliance on quotes/paraphrasing Most key findings identified and stated using own words All k ey findings identified and very clearly stated in own words /5 Question 4: Response to claims Arguments demonstrates inability to interpret study /limit to understanding of inferences that may be drawn from study. Arguments demonstrate reasonable interpretation of study/ understanding of inferences that may be drawn from study. Confident respo nse. Clearly articulated arguments demonstrating sophisticated interpretation of study / understanding of inferences that may be drawn from study. /10 Overall presentation Frequent errors in spelling and grammar throughout. Paragraphs disorganised or missing. Reasonable standard of presentation. Occasional errors in spelling and grammar throughout . Paragraphs clearly organised . Clearly formatted; accurate spelling and grammar throughout; paragra phs skilfully organised. Very high standard of presentation. /5 Final grade /35 Comments:




Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.