Case Study

Based on the process of evaluating authority, identify three separate concerns with Dr. Jenkins's claim, linking each concern to one of the specific assessment dimensions of authority evaluation.

Case context: A student reads an article written by Dr. Sarah Jenkins, an expert in astrophysics, who claims that a specific memory-enhancing drug is highly effective. In the article, she asserts that her claim is based on personal observation of her colleagues, and she does not disclose that she is a paid consultant for the pharmaceutical company manufacturing the drug.

Question: Based on the process of evaluating authority, identify three separate concerns with Dr. Jenkins's claim, linking each concern to one of the specific assessment dimensions of authority evaluation.

Sample answer:

  1. Credentials and Expertise: Dr. Jenkins's expertise is in astrophysics, not neuroscience or psychology, meaning she lacks relevant credentials. 2. Specific Methods: She relied on 'personal observation of colleagues' rather than rigorous scientific methodology, making her methods unscientific. 3. Hidden Biases/Reasons to Mislead: She has a financial conflict of interest as a paid consultant for the drug company, which she failed to disclose, introducing a motive to mislead.

Key points:

  • Dr. Jenkins lacks the relevant credentials/expertise in the domain of the claim.
  • The methods used (personal observation) are not rigorous or systematic.
  • There is a hidden bias/reason to mislead due to undisclosed financial conflict of interest.

Rubric: Full credit: Student identifies the mismatch in expertise (astrophysics vs. neuroscience/psychology), the inadequate methods (personal observation instead of systematic scientific methods), and the hidden bias (undisclosed paid consultancy). Partial credit: Student identifies only one or two of these evaluation dimensions.

0

1

Updated 2026-05-26

Contributors are:

Who are from:

Tags

KPU

Research Methods in Psychology - 4th American Edition @ KPU

Related