Examining a psychology principle in everyday life
The assignment is framed around a research question, and the brief supplies two examples of what one looks like. Choosing a topic instead of a question is what makes these papers meander.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
A research question first, then two source types
The brief tells you the assignment should be framed around a research question and then shows you two: what facets of memory are impaired in people with schizophrenia, and can a machine ever truly be conscious. Both are answerable and both constrain what belongs in the paper, which is exactly what a topic does not do. Write your question down before anything else and then test it by asking whether it could be answered wrongly — if no evidence could count against your answer, it is a theme rather than a question, and the paper will drift accordingly. Then confine yourself to chapters 6, 7 or 9 for the principle, since the assignment is testing whether you can apply the material you have actually been taught rather than the breadth of your reading, and a principle from outside them will be marked as off-brief however well handled.
The source requirement is unusual and worth reading carefully, because it deliberately asks for two different kinds of evidence: at least one research or popular media article, and at least one item of popular media content such as music, poetry, a play, a television show or a film. The second is not decoration — it is the everyday life half of the title, and the assignment wants you to treat a cultural artefact as data about how a psychological principle appears outside the laboratory. The most interesting papers use the artefact to test the principle rather than to illustrate it: a film's depiction of memory that contradicts what the chapter says about reconsolidation gives you something to argue about, whereas a film that agrees gives you a paragraph. Say explicitly where the artefact supports the research and where it departs, because that comparison is the analysis.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Convert a topic into an answerable research question.
- 02Apply a principle from the assigned chapters to material outside the laboratory.
- 03Use a cultural artefact as evidence to test rather than illustrate a principle.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A stated research question framing the paper.
- 02A principle drawn from chapters 6, 7 or 9.
- 03At least one article and at least one item of popular media content.
- 04In-text citations and an APA reference page.
From question to text to external source
State the research question
Pose a question that constrains the paper and could be answered incorrectly.
Establish the principle from the text
Set out the concept from the permitted chapters with enough precision to test it.
Bring in the external source
Add evidence from a research or popular media article that extends the textbook account.
Test the principle against the artefact
Use the media content to examine where the principle holds and where it does not.
Answer your own question
Return to the research question and give the answer the evidence supports.
Which sources this assignment actually permits
Recommended databases
- Your course text, chapters 6, 7 and 9
- PsycINFO
- PubMed Central
- Popular science coverage in reputable outlets
- Film and media archives
Search sequence
- 1.Read the permitted chapters first and pick the principle before choosing an artefact.
- 2.Draft the research question and test it by asking what evidence would refute your answer.
- 3.Search for a research article that complicates the textbook account rather than confirming it.
- 4.Choose an artefact you can describe precisely, since vague recollection of a film will not support analysis.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Information Technology and Moral Values
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · 2018
A model of applying a theoretical framework to everyday technology and culture rather than to laboratory material.
- 02
Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
American Psychological Association · 2017
The discipline's own standards on representing psychological claims accurately, relevant when writing about mental illness in media.
- 03
Hypothesis Testing, P Values, Confidence Intervals, and Significance
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Reference for judging how strongly a study supports a claim before building an argument on it.
- 04
Empathy, sympathy and compassion in healthcare: Is there a problem? Is there a difference? Does it matter?
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, via PubMed Central · 2016
A worked conceptual analysis distinguishing terms that everyday usage blurs, which is a useful model for this paper.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Choosing a topic rather than an answerable question.
- Taking the principle from outside the permitted chapters.
- Using the media artefact as decoration rather than as evidence.
- Meeting only one of the two required source types.
Submission checklist
- Could your research question be answered wrongly?
- Is the principle from chapter 6, 7 or 9?
- Do you have both a written source and a media content item?
- Does the paper say where the artefact departs from the research?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.