Marking Criteria /100 HD (80-100%) D (70-79%) C (60-69%) P (50-59%) N (0-49%)

Marking Criteria /100 HD (80-100%) D (70-79%) C (60-69%) P (50-59%) N (0-49%)

SECTION 1 50 1. Purpose 10 Main purpose is accurately and concisely described Main purpose is accurately described. Key elements of main purpose are mentioned Some key elements of main purpose are mentioned No elements of main purpose have been mentioned

2. Key concepts 10 Key elements of AC are accurately and concisely described Key elements of AC are accurately described The core premise of AC is adequately described Some aspects of AC are appropriately described Response indicates no evidence that AC is understood.

3. Methods 10 General method, variables accurately and concisely described. General participant cohort details described; General method, variables are described. General participant cohort details described Method description may be correct/incorrectly identified, but general variables and participant details correctly identified. Incorrect method identified, but some general details about variables and participants are mentioned Method has been incorrectly identified. Variables and participant details are incorrectly described

4. Discussion 20 Concise statement summarizing study finding. Several Implications of study findings are correctly and concisely described. Several Implications of study (as stated in discussion) findings are correctly and concisely described. An implication of study findings (as stated in discussion) is mentioned. Response includes conjectured implications Relevant but conjectured implications (not described in Discussion) have been made

Irrelevant conjectured implications have been described, or none at all.

SECTION 2 50 Self-reflection 10 In-depth, concise reflection on attribution style by responding to some of the reflection prompts Some reflection on attributional style by responding to several prompts Some reflection on attributional style by responding to a prompt Some reflection, but no engagement with prompts (and thus dimensions of attributional style) Response fails to include an attempted reflection on attributional style.

Examples 10 Two or more concise examples used that accurately illustrate attributional style. Two or more examples used that illustrate attributional style. Presence of one example that illustrates attributional style. Additional examples may be irrelevant Example is used that is generally relevant, but fails to illustrate attributional style. No examples are provided, or examples are largely irrelevant.

Engagement 10 Meaningfully and concisely engages with finding of paper to reflect on attributional style. Engagement with finding of paper and relates these to own attributional style An attempt is made to relate paper to attributional style Paper is mentioned, but not related to own attributional style No engagement with paper.

Understanding 10 Demonstrates clear understanding of attribution and its significance in social behaviourDemonstrates clear understanding of attribution and some understanding of its relevance to social behaviourDemonstrates some understanding of attribution and relevance to social behaviourDemonstrates some understanding of attribution Response suggests a misunderstanding of attribution.

Clarity 10 Writing is concise & clear. No grammatical issues. Coherence and flow to Overall response has logical structure and flow. Within word limit. Writing is clear with one or two very minor grammatical issues. Within word limit. Writing is mostly clear and easy to follow. Some minor issues with grammar. Within word limit. Writing conveys general meaning but major grammatical issues hinder clarity. Within word limit. Writing is very difficult to follow with major grammatical issues.

Exceeds word limit

Section 1:/50

Section 2:/50

Total: /100

Comments:

ANALYTICAL EXERCISE TEMPLATE - ATTRIBUTION REVIEW AND REFLECTION

Instructions for this Assessment

This assessment has two sections. The first section requires you to review a short academic paper on Attributional Complexity and its relationship to punitive and racist attitudes. The second section requires you to reflect on your own attributional style, in light of the academic paper. In both sections, questions and prompts are provided to help you respond. Please ensure that you:

Complete all sections of the template

Do not write more than 600 words (both sections combined, and excluding the reference in section 1). Approximate word counts for each section can guide you with this.

Do not change the template in any way

Do not add your name or personal details to this document

Name your file: [surname] Assessment 1 before you submit

SECTION 1 (50 marks)

In this section, you are required to undertake a review of the Tam et al. (2008) article. Please read the article carefully and undertake the review by responding to the questions in below.

Purpose (approx 20 words, 10 marks total)

What is the main purpose of the study reported in the article?

[Put your answer here]

Key concepts (approx 50 words, 10 marks total)

The main concept of the article is Attributional Complexity (AC). Explain, in your own words, what this concept means.

[Put your answer here]

Methods (approx 50 words, 10 marks)

What general method did the authors use? To answer this question, state:

If it was an experiment, a survey, a focus group study, an interview study

Identify the general psychological characteristics that were measured in the study

How many participants were involved, and from where were they recruited?

[Put your answer here]

Discussion (approx 100 words, 20 marks)

What are the main inferences/conclusions of the article?

[Put your answer here]

SECTION 2: REFLECTION (50 marks)

For this section, provide a written reflection on your own attribution style. Provide examples of attributions to illustrate. Within your reflection, you should briefly discuss whether you feel you should adjust your attributional style, given the findings of the article (Tam et al., 2008) reviewed in section 1.

Reflection (approx. 380 words, 50 marks)

Use the following prompts to help you reflect on your attribution style. Note: these are prompts, dont feel you have to answer them all!)

Generally, do you feel motivated to explain peoples behaviour?

Do you enjoy analysing the causes for peoples behaviour?

Do you prefer complex explanations or simple explanations for peoples behaviour?

Do you think a lot about the influence that society has on peoples behaviours?

Do you assume that a persons behaviour can be explained by their personality? Or due to the influence of other people? Or both?

Do you think about how family background influences peoples behaviours?

Will the findings of the article change how you explain peoples behaviour? If so, how? If not, why not?

[Put your answer here]