Categories
Author: ANNA DENG
Categories
Research Prospectus
Source 1
| What is the title of your source? |
| “Cooperative Criticism: When Criticism Enhances Creativity in Brainstorming and Negotiation” By Jared R. Curhan , Tatiana Labuzova , Aditi Mehta |
| Copy and Paste the Abstract of your source. If no abstract is available, summarize in your own words what the source is about. |
| “Long-standing wisdom holds that criticism is antithetical to effective brainstorming because it incites intragroup conflict. However, a number of recent studies have challenged this assumption, suggesting that criticism might actually enhance creativity in brainstorming by fostering divergent thinking. Our paper reconciles these perspectives with new theory and a multimethod investigation to explain when and why criticism promotes creativity in brainstorming. We propose that a cooperative social context allows criticism to be construed positively, spurring creativity without inciting intragroup conflict, whereas a competitive social context makes criticism more divisive, leading to intragroup conflict and a corresponding reduction in creativity. We found support for this theory from a field experiment involving 100 group brainstorming sessions with actual stakeholders in a controversial urban planning project. In a cooperative context, instructions encouraging criticism yielded more ideas and more creative ideas, whereas in a competitive context, encouraging criticism yielded fewer ideas and less creative ideas. We replicated this finding in a laboratory study involving brainstorming in the context of a union-management negotiation scenario, which allowed us to hold constant the nature of the criticism. Taken together, our findings suggest that the optimal context for creativity in brainstorming is a cooperative one in which criticism occurs but is interpreted constructively because the brainstorming parties perceive their goals as aligned.” |
| In your own words, what is the author’s thesis (position)? |
| Many believe criticism does not help motivate brainstorming abilities in people; however, the authors of this article argue that criticism can promote creativity as long as the environment in which a person is given the feedback is noncompetitive. |
| In your own words, what are the subclaims made by the author? In other words, how does the author substantiate or defend their position? |
| The author defended their position by providing a scientific study they conducted to prove their point. That was their main source of defense to back up their claim that criticism given in a noncompetitive environment helps promote more creativity in group settings. The experiment itself has specific percentages that supported the author’s claim. For example, the authors’ study found that groups that promoted criticism had 16% more ideas than groups that discouraged criticism; the ideas produced were also found to be 17% more creative when criticism was encouraged. The study also found that criticism given in a competitive context (prefacing that one solution must be chosen and presented to solve a given problem) produced less ideas and encouraged less creativity compared to criticism given in a noncompetitive context. Apart from that, the author also references other studies conducted to provide more credibility to the author’s work. If another study showed the same results, the authors would make note of that and bring attention to the fact that their results can be replicated. |
| Key quotes: list and cite (page ref.) at least three quotes from the source that you think may be useful for your essay. |
| “When brainstorming was conducted in a cooperative context, instructions encouraging criticism resulted in 16% more ideas and in ideas rated as 17% more creative than did instructions discouraging criticism. However, when brainstorming was conducted in a competitive context, encouraging criticism resulted in 16% fewer ideas and in ideas rated as 23% less creative”(1263). “Therefore, it was not possible for us to determine whether the divergent effects of criticism were due to differences in how criticism was conveyed or how it was construed. As detailed below, we address this shortcoming in Study 2 by holding constant the nature of the criticism” (1263). “Results of Study 2 yielded a replication of the interaction effect between criticism and goal interdependence and further showed that this effect extended into a negotiation setting with a different operationalization of goal interdependence as well as a different measure of creativity. As hypothesized, participants who imagined themselves to be brainstorming with a member of their own team (cooperative context) were approximately twice as likely to generate a creative contingent contract when they were criticized relative to when they were not criticized” (1266). “Thus, as in Study 1, the effect of criticism on creativity depended on the context in which brainstorming was taking place; criticism in a cooperative context was conducive to creativity, whereas criticism in a competitive context was not” (1266). |
| What key sources does the author rely upon? List at least three. (Useful for further research) |
| “Consistent with past research on brainstorming (Bartis et al. 1988, Paulus et al. 2011), there was a significant correlation between measures of quantity and quality—that is, the number of ideas generated by a group was positively associated with the average creativity of the group’s ideas, r(99) = 0.49, p < 0.001” (1261). – Source: Bartis S, Szymanski K, Harkins SG (1988) Evaluation and performance: A two-edged knife. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 14(2): 242–251 – Source: Paulus PB, Kohn NW, Arditti LE (2011) Effects of quantity and quality instructions on brainstorming. J. Creative Behav. 45(1): 38–46. “For example, an early yet frequently cited study by Weisskopf-Joelson and Eliseo (1961) found that groups instructed to criticize generated fewer ideas than did groups instructed to remain noncritical (see also Parnes and Meadow 1959, D’Zurilla and Nezu 1980). By contrast, a more recent study by Nemeth and colleagues (2004, p. 369) showed that brainstorming groups generated more ideas when they were encouraged to “debate and even criticize each other’s ideas” than when they” (1257). – Source: Weisskopf-Joelson E, Eliseo TS (1961) An experimental study of the effectiveness of brainstorming. J. Appl. Psych. 45(1):45–49. – Source: Parnes SJ, Meadow A (1959) Effects of “brainstorming” instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects. J. Ed. Psych. 50(4):171–176. – Source: D’Zurilla TJ, Nezu A (1980) A study of the generation-of-alternatives process in social problem solving. Cognitive Therapy Res. 4(1): 67–72. – Source: Nemeth CJ, Personnaz B, Personnaz M, Goncalo JA (2004) The liberating role of conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 34(4):365–374. |
Source 2
| What is the title of your source? |
| “Negative emotional reactions to criticism: Perceived criticism and source affects extent of hurt and relational distancing” By: Michelle Jin Yee Neoh, Jia Hui Teng, Albert Lee, Peipei Setoh, Claudio Mulatti, Gianluca Esposito |
| Copy and Paste the Abstract of your source. If no abstract is available, summarize in your own words what the source is about. |
| “Criticism is commonly perceived as hurtful and individuals may respond differently to criticism originating from different sources. However, the influence of an individual’s perception of criticism in their social relationships on negative emotional reactions to criticism has not been examined across different relational contexts. The present study investigated the influence of perceived criticism and relational contexts–mother, father, romantic partner, and workplace supervisor–on the feelings of hurt and relational distancing experienced upon receiving criticism. Participants (N = 178) completed the Perceived Criticism Measure and read vignettes describing scenarios of personally directed criticism in the four relational contexts. Significant main effects of perceived criticism and source were found on levels of relational distancing. Participants who perceived their relational partner to be more critical experienced greater distancing upon receiving criticism from them. Greater relational distancing was experienced for criticism received from workplace supervisors compared to mothers, fathers and romantic partners. Results indicate that emotional reactions and relationship outcomes in response to criticism can differ based on individual differences and relational context, suggesting their role in relationship maintenance and development of psychopathology.” |
| In your own words, what is the author’s thesis (position)? |
| The authors claim that those who are repeatedly hurt by close family members and believe their family members are critical would experience heightened levels of emotional pain while receiving criticism compared to people who do not perceive their family members to be critical. The authors also claim that, in comparison to a relationship between two non-familial people, a relationship between two family members will experience larger levels of hurt by each other but smaller chances of both people drifting apart. |
| In your own words, what are the subclaims made by the author? In other words, how does the author substantiate or defend their position? |
| The authors’ thesis was less of a thesis but more of a hypothesis. Going into their experiment, the authors’ believed that those who viewed their family as very critical would feel more hurt and distance themselves from the family member giving the criticism. However, the author provides the results of her study to show how her original hypothesis is flawed. Unlike her original hypothesis, she found that the people who viewed others as heavily critical did distance themselves from those who criticized them, but they did not feel heightened levels of hurt. The authors interpreted these results and claimed that people may have developed a coping mechanism against the continued cycle of criticism from people. The authors are transparent about their test results. This in turn makes their work more credible. As they begin to provide more support for the parts of the hypothesis that is correct, it makes their stance more believable, and as the authors provide explanations as to why their initial hypothesis was inaccurate, their arguments remain credible sounding as they are transparent with their results. |
| Key quotes: list and cite (page ref.) at least three quotes from the source that you think may be useful for your essay. |
| “One possible interpretation of these findings could be that participants with high PC employed relational distancing as a coping mechanism by disengaging themselves from the hurt and social pain associated with criticism” (7). “Hence, it is possible that participants in the high PC group tended to distance themselves from the relationship and in doing so, “distanced” their emotions from the situation and did not show significantly higher levels of hurt feelings compared to participants in the low PC group” (7). “Another possible interpretation is that participants who tend to perceive higher levels of criticism in a relationship showed emotional habituation towards the experience of hurt arising from criticism, such that the more a participant perceives a relationship counterpart to be critical of them, the more accustomed they were to criticism from these relational partners” (8). |
| What key sources does the author rely upon? List at least three. (Useful for further research) |
| “When messages are perceived to be a continuing pattern of hurtful communication, they resulted in increased relational distancing and more intense social pain experienced [11].” – Source: Vangelisti AL, Young SL. When words hurt: The effects of perceived intentionality on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2000 Jun; 17(3):393–424. “Similarly, individuals have been observed to get used to emotional pain and become less sensitive to their own hurt feelings with repeated, ongoing exposure to certain hurtful behaviours [17].” – Source: Vangelisti AL, Maguire KC, Alexander AL, Clark G. Hurtful family environments: Links with individual, relationship, and perceptual variables. Communication Monographs. 2007 Sep 1; 74(3):357–85. “Previous studies have found that hurtful behaviour by family members tend to elicit greater emotional pain than hurtful behaviour by others in non-familial and non-romantic relationships, while a lower distancing effect on the relationship was observed by people who reported hurt feelings by a family member compared to other relational partners [24].” – Source: Vangelisti AL, Crumley LP. Reactions to messages that hurt: The influence of relational contexts. Communications Monographs. 1998 Sep 1; 65(3):173–96. |
Source 3
| What is the title of your source? |
| “The relationship between self-criticism and suicide probability” By Catherine O’Neill, Daniel Pratt, Meryl Kilshaw, Kate Ward, James Kelly, Gillian Haddock |
| Copy and Paste the Abstract of your source. If no abstract is available, summarize in your own words what the source is about. |
| “The relationship of self-to-self relating and suicide has received attention in explanatory models of suicide. However, exploration of specific types of self-relationships, namely feelings of inadequacy (associated with perfectionism), self-attacking and the ability to be kind and nurturing towards the self has received limited attention in a suicidal population. The present study assessed the relative contribution of selfcriticism to suicide probability, alongside established predictors of suicidal ideation; hopelessness, depression, defeat and entrapment. Participants completed measures of inadequacy, self-attacking, self-reassurance, defeat, entrapment, depression and hopelessness (N = 101). A correlation, regression and mediation analysis was undertaken. Results demonstrated that self-attacking has a direct relationship with suicide probability, alongside established predictors; entrapment and hopelessness. Depressive symptomology was not found to be a significant predictor of suicide probability in this population. Addressing particularly hostile forms of self-criticism may be a promising area in terms of future research and clinical practice. Entrapment continues to be a significant predictor of suicide risk and interventions that target this experience should be explored.” |
| In your own words, what is the author’s thesis (position)? |
| The author claims self-criticism indicates high probability of suicide in individuals, and, in order to proactively promote suicide prevention, the topic of self criticism should be studied more. |
| In your own words, what are the subclaims made by the author? In other words, how does the author substantiate or defend their position? |
| To defend their position, the authors address the aspects of self criticism they believe are leading people to commit suicide. The authors talk about a type of self-criticism that has instilled a perfectionist mindset for some and a type of self-criticism that eats at people’s confidence in terms of status. By providing these types of self-criticism, readers are more likely to believe the author’s thesis because many people have experienced issues with being a perfectionist or being subconscious about one’s status. The authors provides the results of their own study to defend their thesis. After conducting their experiment, the authors found out that self criticism in terms of self-attacking was heavily correlated with suicide probability, and the authors mainly depend on this source to support their position. Apart from that, the authors also reference the works of other scientists to show how their results can be replicated or provide plausible analysis of their results. |
| Key quotes: list and cite (page ref.) at least three quotes from the source that you think may be useful for your essay. |
| “Results suggest that self-attacking is a significant independent predictor of suicide probability, alongside established predictors of suicide; entrapment and hopelessness” (7). “Research suggests that for highly self-critical individuals, adverse childhood experiences such as emotional and sexual abuse, physical neglect and perceived overprotectiveness of the early primary caregiver, increase levels of internalized self-criticism and shame” (7). “It has been suggested that increased levels of internalized selfcriticism and social perfectionism lead ultimately to social disconnection and experiences of thwarted belongingness (O’Connor & Noyce, 2008). Thwarted belongingness is a well evidenced construct in the interpersonal theory of suicide (Joiner et al., 2009) and involves the experience of alienation from family, friends or other valued groups” (8). |
| What key sources does the author rely upon? List at least three. (Useful for further research) |
| “This study’s findings support recent work by O’Connor and Portzky (2018), which suggests that entrapment is an important factor in the progression from mental distress to suicidal behaviour.” – Source: O’Connor, R. C., & Portzky, G. (2018). The relationship between entrapment and suicidal behavior through the lens of the integrated motivational–volitional model of suicidal behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 22(Supplement C, 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. copsyc.2017.07.021 “This internalized self-criticism and self-attacking may lead to increased feelings of entrapment as an individual is unable to escape the persecutory aspects of the self (Baumeister, 1990; Gilbert & Irons, 2005).” – Source: Baumeister, R. F. (1990). Suicide as escape from self. Psychological Review, 97(1), 90–113. – Source: Gilbert, P., Broomhead, C., Irons, C., McEwan, K., Bellew, R., Mills, A., … Knibb, R. (2007). Development of a striving to avoid inferiority scale. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(Pt 3), 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466606X157789 “A number of explanatory models of suicide incorporate ideas that relate to negative evaluations of the self (Johnson et al., 2008), escape from aversive self-awareness (Baumeister, 1990) and their relationship to increased levels of suicidality.” – Source: Johnson, J., Gooding, P., & Tarrier, N. (2008). Suicide probability in schizophrenia: Explanatory models and clinical implications, The Schematic Appraisal Model of Suicide (SAMS). Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 81(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1348/147608307X244996 |
Source 4
| What is the title of your source? |
| “Negative Effects of Destructive Criticism: Impact on Conflict, Self-Efficacy, and Task Performance” By Robert A, Baron |
| Copy and Paste the Abstract of your source. If no abstract is available, summarize in your own words what the source is about. |
| “In Study I, 83 undergraduates received either constructive criticism (feedback that was specific, considerate, and did not attribute poor performance to intemal causes) or destructive criticism (feedback that violated these basic principles) of their work. Those who received destructive criticism reported greater anger and tension and indicated that they would be more likely to handle future disagreements with the source through resistance or avoidance and less likely to handle disagreements through collaboration or compromise. In Study 2, 106 undergraduates who received destructive criticism of their work on an initial task set lower goals and reported lower self-efficacy on two additional tasks than did subjects who received constructive criticism or no feedback. In Study 3, 108 employees of a large food-processing company rated the importance of 14 potential causes of conflict in their organization. Poor use of criticism was perceived as a more important cause of conflict and received higher ratings than did competition over resources or disputes over jurisdiction.” |
| In your own words, what is the author’s thesis (position)? |
| The author claims that people subjected to destructive criticism will perform worse than those who received constructive criticism. |
| In your own words, what are the subclaims made by the author? In other words, how does the author substantiate or defend their position? |
| The author mainly supports his stance by providing evidence from their self conducted experiments. They introduce the method and procedure of the experiment to ensure the readers understand how they are testing their hypothesis. Afterwards, the author analyzed his results, and claimed they support his hypothesis/stance. He highlights all the aspects of his experiment which showed people were angrier after receiving destructive criticism, and they were more eager to distance themselves from the person who provided the criticism. |
| Key quotes: list and cite (page ref.) at least three quotes from the source that you think may be useful for your essay. |
| “First, subjects reported feeling angrier and more tense after receiving destructive than constructive criticism” (4). “In particular, they suggest that individuals who are exposed to destructive criticism may seek to lessen conflict with the source of such feedback by avoiding further contact with such persons” (7). “Considered together, the results of the three studies reported here suggest that destructive criticism can affect several important processes in work settings…destructive criticism appears to reduce recipients’ preference for handling future disagreements with the source of such feedback through conciliatory means” (8). |
| What key sources does the author rely upon? List at least three. (Useful for further research) |
| “Such reactions, too, may decrease the probability of effective conflict resolution”(cf Lewicki & Litterer, 1985). –Source: Lewicid, R. J.. & Utterer, J, A. (198S). Negotiation. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin “These results confirm those of Study 1, and thus provide additional evidence that destructive criticism can exert negative effects on interpersonal relations, and so, perhaps, on organizational conflict (cf Baron, 1984; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986).” – Source: Baron. R. A. (1984). Reducing organizational conflict: An incompatible response approach. Journal of Applied Psychology. 69, 272-279. – Source: Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z, (1986). Social conflict. New York: Random House. |
Source 5
| What is the title of your source? |
| “Impact of Unsolicited Negative Feedback in Academic Settings” By Shazia Sheikh, Fauzia Nausheen, Joel Arvizo-Zavala, Sherif S. Hassan |
| Copy and Paste the Abstract of your source. If no abstract is available, summarize in your own words what the source is about. |
| “Introduction: Appropriate feedback is crucial for quality improvement, productivity, and growth. There is a scarcity of information on the effect of unsolicited negative feedback (USNF). Our current study aimed to investigate the impact of USNF on motivation, performance, and mental well-being. Methods: Data was collected on a 5-point Likert scale by a survey of 10 validated questions asking the impact of USNF around three themes: 1. “Mental Health,” 2. “Motivation,” and 3. “Performance.” The rationale of the questions was to investigate the negative emotional state and its impact on confidence, motivation, and performance of similar activities after getting USNF. Additionally, it impacts the mental state of anger, sadness, and self-criticism. Results: A total of 38 participants completed the questionnaire. The agreement after USNF was 57.8% to develop harsh or critical self-talk, 76.3% for mood changes, 57.8% helps to learn, and 63% helps to fix things received on positive feedback. A total of 86.8% need time to reflect, 76.3% need time to process, 65.78% try to avoid USNF, 31.57% start to avoid people who give USNF, and 23.68% try to prove themselves to those who give USNF. The results showed a strong correlation between a person’s need for time to process emotions and demand for space to process emotions and forecasting memories after the USNF. Conclusion: The psychological implications of USNF can be profound, leading to long-term negative effects on mental health, motivation, and performance. Training individuals to deliver negative feedback in a more constructive and positive manner is essential to mitigate these detrimental consequences.” |
| In your own words, what is the author’s thesis (position)? |
| The author claims unsolicited negative feedback can negatively impact someone’s motivation, work ethic, and feelings by inducing anxiety. |
| In your own words, what are the subclaims made by the author? In other words, how does the author substantiate or defend their position? |
| The authors support their claim by providing research evidence conducted by themselves. Once again, the authors provide a clear set of instructions to ensure readers understand how their experiment accurately makes an assumption about the impacts of unsolicited negative feedback. Apart from that, the authors provide various charts and tables summarizing their research results to allow readers to see how the results correlate with their hypothesis that unsolicited negative feedback causes negative implications on people mood and work ethic. Lastly the authors analyze their work in their discussions portion, and even reference the work of other authors to make their analysis and stance more credible. |
| Key quotes: list and cite (page ref.) at least three quotes from the source that you think may be useful for your essay. |
| “The findings of our study are consistent with several studies that concentrate on providing and receiving feedback regarding someone’s performance, abilities, or goal-achieving. Negative feedback, especially when it is unsolicited, might have a detrimental influence on performance in the future”(6). “Given the negatively correlated associations between USNF, learning tools, and feedback avoidance observed in this study, it’s critical that participants receive training on how to express their negative feedback constructively”(6). “It highlights the negative repercussions of USNF on motivation, mental well-being, and performance. The importance of providing constructive feedback as a valuable teaching tool is emphasized, focusing on improvement rather than criticism”(7). |
| What key sources does the author rely upon? List at least three. (Useful for further research) |
| “According to Oktaria and Soemantri’s research, [8] positive feedback improves performance more than negative feedback, especially when it comes from an unexpected source.” – Source: Oktaria D, Soemantri D: Undergraduate medical students’ perceptions on feedback-seeking behavior . Malays J Med Sci. 2018, 25:75-83. 10.21315/mjms2018.25.1.9 “. A person’s ability to complete a task and evaluate their own performance can both be improved with feedback” [11]. – Source: Fotheringham D: The role of expert judgement and feedback in sustainable assessment: a discussion paper . Nurse Educ Today. 2011, 31:e47-50. 10.1016/j.nedt.2010.12.008 “The impact, however, differs depending on the feedback given, as evidenced by the fact that constructive criticism was discovered to be useful in improving certain talents that required corrective comments rather than merely positive compliments” [14,15]. –Source: Boehler ML, Rogers DA, Schwind CJ, Mayforth R, Quin J, Williams RG, Dunnington G: An investigation of medical student reactions to feedback: a randomised controlled trial. Med Educ. 2006, 40:746-9.10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02503.x –Source: Rafiq A, Tamariz F, Boanca C, Lavrentyev V, Merrell RC: Objective assessment of training surgical skills using simulated tissue interface with real-time feedback. J Surg Educ. 2008, 65:270-4. 10.1016/j.jsurg.2008.05.012 |
Developing your Research Question
| What is your research subject? |
| My research topic is on criticism and specifically the implications of criticism on the people receiving the criticism. |
| List the resources you have so far (at least 5): |
| “Cooperative Criticism: When Criticism Enhances Creativity in Brainstorming and Negotiation” by Jared R. Curhan , Tatiana Labuzova , Aditi Mehta “Negative emotional reactions to criticism: Perceived criticism and source affects extent of hurt and relational distancing” by: Michelle Jin Yee Neoh, Jia Hui Teng, Albert Lee, Peipei Setoh, Claudio Mulatti, Gianluca Esposito “The relationship between self-criticism and suicide probability” by Catherine O’Neill, Daniel Pratt, Meryl Kilshaw, Kate Ward, James Kelly, Gillian Haddock “Does Constructive Performance Feedback Improve Citizenship Intentions and Job Satisfaction? The Roles of Perceived Opportunities for Advancement, Respect, and Mood” by Kristin L. Sommer, Mukta Kulkarni “Impact of Unsolicited Negative Feedback in Academic Settings” by Shazia Sheikh, Fauzia Nausheen, Joel Arvizo-Zavala, Sherif S. Hassan |
| In your own words, how would you characterize the present controversy of your research area? Another way to look at it: why is this research area important? |
| My research area is important because it concerns children who are easily impressionable and vulnerable to criticism. As children are essentially the ones who are going to carry the future generations, it is important that we as a society are determining the best approach of raising them. The topic of providing criticism is important to discuss when we think about children’s upbringing. Apart from that, suicide is a leading cause of death in the US. Studies have shown that a lot of self-criticism contributes to people taking their lives, so there needs to be a greater discussion about self-criticism and peer criticism/pressure to prevent the number of suicides that occur. |
| What are the possible outcomes/resolutions? Are outcomes binary (yes/no e.g. should we ban the death penalty) or relative (e.g. how much should the annual state budget be allocated towards education)? |
| The outcomes can be binary with the two answers being criticism is necessary to support character development and criticism is not necessary in terms of supporting character development. I can see how the outcomes can also be relative if people were to ask how much criticism is required to help provide character development. In this case it depends on what people intend as character development for the person receiving criticism. |
| (If any) What are the conditions, qualifications, externalities, contingencies that may affect outcome (i.e. is there a legislative bill down the pipeline?) |
| There are no conditions, qualifications, externalities, contingencies that may affect outcome. Even if a large number of studies show that criticism causes an overwhelming negative impact (which I don’t think it will), I don’t think a law can be created to ban criticism. This is because that law would essentially clash with pre-existing laws that protect the right to free speech. |
| What is your preferred outcome? (Your position) |
| I believe criticism is necessary in a child’s upbringing. There is history of criticism inducing negative impacts, but I believe those scenarios can be limited if people provide feedback in a specific way that helps people rather than tear them down. This means the environment must be supportive, and the language of the criticism must be supportive and constructive |
| Why? |
| Of the articles I have read, many suggest how important and helpful criticism is in terms of helping people grow. A lot of times criticism is only associated with negative outcomes if the environment which the criticism is given in is negative. That goes to show that criticism itself can be a powerful and helpful tool if people are able to effectively provide it in a way which boosts peoples self-esteem and does not tear it down. |
| Who is your intended audience? |
| While there are many groups of people who are tasked with providing criticism, I am choosing to hone in on parents tasked with providing feedback to their kids. |
| What is your research question? (Try to state this as simply as possible) |
| To what extent is criticism necessary in improving people’s abilities in the workforce. |
| Notes/Things to look into which may improve the overall clarity, focus, complexity of your question |
| – The positive AND negative implications of criticism ^ to emphasize the nuance of this research question |
Categories
Assignment 3 Draft
Introduction
Criticism is one of the few things everyone receives regardless of age, gender, ethnicity and other factors used to differentiate people. When you were a child, your parents may have scolded you for the way you were playing with your food. As you grow older, you may have been criticized by your teachers for solving a math problem incorrectly or for using the wrong grammatical tense. All these forms of criticism genuinely seemed to be provided with intentions of aiding your growth in a given subject whether it be to eat properly, solve math problems correctly or write grammatically correct. However, as with many things, the way people criticize others can get out of hand. From strictly intentions of helping one another, people have started to critique others as a way of putting them down. Critiques surrounding one’s appearance have increased especially with the presence of social media. As these forms of critiques ultimately have a negative impact on one’s mental being, it brings to question, to what extent is criticism necessary and effective in building one’s character.
In terms of building one’s character, criticism often helps people understand what they need to improve on. It also helps establish social cues for people as they’re growing up. People discover that it is wrong to talk negatively about someone in front of their face because their parents have told them not to do so. People have also learned not to leave a mess after leaving a building or home because their parents have told theme to clean up after themselves. Because of these examples, I believe that criticism is detrimental in people’s growth’s, but I understand that the delivery of the criticism being provided can impact how criticism is perceived by the person receiving the criticism.
Constructive criticism
Studies have shown that criticism provided in a positive environment helped people become more accepting of criticism. In other words, people were able to gain positive improvements with feedback if the feedback itself was constructive and the environment where the feedback was given was positive. This was evident in “Negative Effects of Destructive Criticism: Impact on Conflict, Self-Efficacy, and Task Performance” as Robert A. Baron concluded that his study showed that undergraduates who received specific constructive feedback that didn’t blame them for their mistakes were more accepting of the feedback they received. This statement is not a one time thing, as Heather Stringer reiterates this sentiment in her article “ Constructive criticism that works.” In her article she addresses a scenario where leaders given feedback in an unsupportive environment didn’t improve much on what they were being critiqued on, whereas leaders given feedback in a positive environment improved what they were being critiqued on. This goes to show that when criticism is given right, it can provide immense positive improvement for those who receive the criticism.
Destructive Criticism
Apart from that fact that giving constructive criticism helps people improve from their mistakes, it is important to provide constructive criticism because providing destructive criticism actually causes much harm to those on the receiving end of this destructive criticism. In a study conducted by Nishita Berla, Virginia Peisch, Abigail Thacher, Jennifer Pearlstein, Claire Dowdle, Shauna Geraghty and Victoria Cosgrove, they found out that parents and children who have bad communication lead children to have increased symptoms of depression. In other words, it is important for parents to be careful about what they say to their children. Putting it into perspective, if a parent is providing criticism in a negative way to their kids, it can essentially cause their kid to feel negative emotions that lead to a depressive state. This statement is backed up in “ Why criticism lasts longer than praise” as Sarah Griffiths tells readers people are prone to the negative news and information in our lives due to a negative bias.
Categories
Abstract
What is your research question/rhetorical situation?
To what extent is criticism necessary in building one’s character?
What is your connection to rhetorical situations and why are you uniquely placed to write about it?
My research question ties back to my teachable moment. In my teachable moment, I recognized my own strength when I was able to be vulnerable and reach out for help when I received unsettling comments about my appearance. With this teachable moment, it made me understand the negative impacts of unsolicited criticism from peers, and this in turn made me question how impactful criticism is in terms of shaping one’s character. As I have been personally impacted by criticism, it makes me want to write about whether or not criticism actually helps shape people into good human beings.
Where do you imagine your writing “existing”? (newspaper, magazine, youtube, personal blog)
I intend for my writing to exist within a newspaper because it seems to be the most credible source. I want my work to be received as accurate and credible, and sometimes the source of my writing can be the most influential.
Who is your target audience?
My piece will be targeted towards people who are prone to giving criticism. In reality everybody provides criticism, so you can say my target audience is everyone. However, I am more so targeting parents and supervisors who are aware of their words, and are in a position to be providing feedback to their kids or supervisees.
What form will your writing take? (Research paper, narrative, letter, script.)
I would like to establish a more formal piece of writing to make sure my content is well received and viewed as credible; however, I also want to introduce some formal aspects in order to connect with my audience and establish a level of sincerity. If I can, perhaps I would merge a research paper and narrative into one format.
Why is this form the most effective way to communicate to your target audience?
This form is the most effective way because my writing would retain the credibility of a research paper, but at the same time my piece can remain relatable and easy to understand like a narrative.
What is the value you’re trying to impart on your audience?
To my audience, I am trying to emphasize the importance of being careful with our words. People may choose to say one thing on a whim, but what they say can cause a large impact on the people who receive their words.
Categories
Thesis For Third Draft
Research Question: To what extent is criticism necessary in building one’s character?
Thesis: In terms of whether criticism is necessary in building a person’s character, criticism is necessary because it helps provide guidance for someone to improve in a given skill; however, people need to be cautious with how they provide criticism because it influences how negatively impacted people are by the criticism they receive.
Categories
Assignment 2 Draft
Criticism is one of the few things everyone receives regardless of age, gender, ethnicity and other factors used to differentiate people. When you were a child, your parents may have scolded you for the way you were playing with your food. As you grow older, you may have been criticized by your teachers for solving a math problem incorrectly or for using the wrong grammatical tense. All these forms of criticism genuinely seemed to be provided with intentions of aiding your growth in a given subject whether it be to eat properly, solve math problems correctly or write grammatically correct. However, as with many things, the way people criticize others can get out of hand. From strictly intentions of helping one another, people have started to critique others as a way of putting them down. Critiques surrounding one’s appearance have increased especially with the presence of social media. As these forms of critiques ultimately have a negative impact on one’s mental being, it brings to question, to what extent is criticism necessary and effective in building one’s character.
This question is explored by Heather Stringer in “Constructive criticism that works” and Sarah Griffiths in “Why criticism lasts longer than praise.” In “Constructive criticism that works,” Stringer implies that criticism can provide a positive impact on someone if certain criteria are met. This criterion includes enforcing a supportive environment that encourages improvement from criticism and being consistent with the criticism given. As for “Why criticism lasts longer than praise,” Griffiths implies that dwelling on negative criticism can cause more harm than good for the people receiving the criticism. To a degree, it seems as though Stringer and Griffiths have opposing views on criticism; while Stringer seems to welcome and encourage positive use of criticism, Griffiths is trying to tell readers how important it is to push away the negative thoughts associated with criticism.
Both authors have a different approach when it comes to introducing their topic and it speaks to the way they have different ways of approaching pathos in their writing. Generally, both articles are reaching the same audience, people who are curious about how criticism impacts people; however, the authors’ approach to introducing the topic differed. Stringer introduced her argument by discussing an active study psychologist Naomi Winstone was conducting about constructive feedback, and this was an intentional move by her. In doing so, readers are already left with the impression that the claims going to be made further on are serious and well equipped with evidence. As for Griffiths, she introduces the topic by helping readers recall old sayings or memories from the past. She asks readers to recall the moment they were told “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words would never hurt me.” Her way of getting everybody to remember a childhood memory is an effective way of maintaining the reader’s attention about a topic they may not initially be interested at first.
In terms of ethos, both Stringer and Griffiths do an effective job of establishing credibility. Oftentimes, both author’s make sure to provide the whole status of the people their quoting to make their arguments sound more believable. For instance, before supporting Lisa Steelman’s claims that a person’s work environment is essential to how they receive feedback, Stinger made sure to provide Steelman’s title as an “Industrial and organizational (I/O) psychologist.” As for Griffiths, she went as far as referring to Randy Larsen as a “professor of psychological and brain sciences at Washington University in St. Louis,” before talking about how he believes our negative emotions have a longer impact than positive emotions. In both scenarios, the authors take the time to provide elaborate titles before introducing people because they want to capitalize on their role and status. Certainly, knowing the people behind these arguments have an educational background in psychology would make me trust the article and its content more.
Lastly, both Stinger and Griffiths have a similar approach to logos. To make their points come across, they both provide qualitative research from studies already conducted. For example, Stinger provided a study in which people were tasked to view a training video, apply what they learn and get feedback in different orders. At the end of the study, they found out that the order of which the feedback was given did not alter how a volunteer improved on their skills. Introducing this study helped readers grasp and understand Stinger’s arguments more easily. This is the case for Griffiths too. To make her point about how negative critiques from our loved ones can make a tear in the relationship, Griffiths provided a study which claimed a couple who in the beginning stages have already negatively critiqued the other would separate later. Providing this study helped establish Griffiths point because she provided a relatable study which was easy to understand and thus easy to grasp the argument which she was making.
Categories
Distraction Worksheet
| Describe your overall ability to pay attention when it comes to school work (<100 words) On a scale of 1 – 10, indicate how addicted you are to you phones |
| My ability to pay attention on schoolwork is heavily dependent on my environment. When I am at home, I find it harder to concentrate because there are more distractions easily accessible to me. I am minutes away from my bed, but at the same time I am minutes away from the TV. As would rate my phone addiction as an 8, and often I find myself on my phone when I am not doing work. I find it easier to concentrate on my work while at the library because seeing other people working makes me feel motivated to work. |
| While reading “My Distraction Sickness” please note how long it takes you to get through the piece (Google says it’s a 45 min read); also, count the number of times you get distracted (for whatever reason) and tally them at the end. |
| It took me 72 minutes to get through the piece, and I got distracted about 17 times. |
| Describe the tone of all three articles, how do they differ? (<100 words) |
| Although all the articles focus on distraction, they all demonstrate a different tone. “The Distracted Student Mind” issues a more formal tone and this is primarily because its main goal is to have credible sounding resolutions to distraction by providing facts and studies made about technological distraction. As for “My Distraction Sickness” there seems to be an urgent tone as the author portrays distraction as an epidemic. On the other hand, “In Defense of Distraction” offers a casual yet positive tone because the author’s goal is to paint distraction in a positive light. |
| What are Sam Anderson’s primary arguments in defense of distraction? (see part III of In Defense of Distraction) Do you find them convincing? Why or why not (<150 words) |
| Sam Anderson’s primary argument in defense of distraction is that distraction is needed to support individual creativity. He claims some of the best discoveries or ideas were established when someone was “distracted” from reality. For example, he cites Marcel Proust and talks about how a moment of distraction led him to eat a madeleine that was soaked in tea which provided him reminiscent memories. Essentially, Anderson argues that distraction can be a positive thing because it supports creativity and can produce moments we wouldn’t experience if we hadn’t been distracted. I find this convincing because if we remain focused 100% of the time, there would be no room for new discoveries or experiences. In moments of distraction, it gives room to explore new curiosities and institutes new motivation from the experiences we gain while distracted. |
| After reading all three articles, what are your thoughts on this “epidemic of distraction”? (<50 words) |
| There’s nuance to distraction. I agree that technological advancements have consumed our society, but technological distractions aren’t completely bad. Being aware of how much we spend on technology is essential. We need to focus on our work, but we should give ourselves ample time to be free from obligations. |
| Please annotate “My Distraction Sickness” – highlight at least three instances for each of the following rhetoric concepts: |
| Invention “Although I spent hours each day, alone and silent, attached to a laptop, it felt as if I were in a constant cacophonous crowd of words and images, sounds and ideas, emotions and tirades — a wind tunnel of deafening, deadening noise.” (Comparing the feeling of being alone and on his laptop to the feeling of being surrounded by words, pictures, sounds and thoughts.) “From the panic that easy access to the vernacular English Bible would destroy Christian orthodoxy all the way to the revulsion, in the 1950s, at the barbaric young medium of television, cultural critics have moaned and wailed at every turn. Each shift represented a further fracturing of attention — continuing up to the previously unimaginable kaleidoscope of cable TV in the late-20th century and the now infinite, infinitely multiplying spaces of the web. And yet society has always managed to adapt and adjust, without obvious damage, and with some more-than-obvious progress.” (Provides examples to prove how society has continuously adapted and overcame means of distraction.) “We were hooked on information as eagerly as sugar.” (This is a comparison between the feeling of gaining new information and eating sugar. Both give a high for people who do either). Style “For a decade and a half, I’d been a web obsessive, publishing blog posts multiple times a day, seven days a week, and ultimately corralling a team that curated the web every 20 minutes during peak hours.” (This specific way of describing his lifestyle is unique and was specifically written to emphasize how exhausting it was for him. The way repeats how many times he published a post emphasizes how exhausted he was.) “Each morning began with a full immersion in the stream of internet consciousness and news, jumping from site to site, tweet to tweet, breaking news story to hottest take, scanning countless images and videos, catching up with multiple memes.” (Repetition of site and tweet is tedious similar to how it probably felt to be online for such a long time.) “Has our enslavement to dopamine — to the instant hits of validation that come with a well-crafted tweet or Snapchat streak — made us happier?” (The way the author chose to use “enslavement” is powerful because the word has a very negative connotation. He is using this to emphasize how bad it is that we are obsessed to the high feeling of validation from social media. Memory “At your desk at work, or at home on your laptop, you disappeared down a rabbit hole of links and resurfaced minutes (or hours) later to reencounter the world.” (The author sets the scene to help readers reminisce about a time they were distracted while using technology). “Observe yourself in line for coffee, or in a quick work break, or driving, or even just going to the bathroom. Visit an airport and see the sea of craned necks and dead eyes. We have gone from looking up and around to constantly looking down.” (The author sets the scene to allow readers to reminisce about a time they witnessed people obsessed with their phones to the point that their head takes a craned neck posture). “When we enter a coffee shop in which everyone is engrossed in their private online worlds, we respond by creating one of our own.” (The author sets the scene for readers to remember a relatable scene where everybody is glued to their phones.) Pathos “In the last year of my blogging life, my health began to give out. Four bronchial infections in 12 months had become progressively harder to kick. Vacations, such as they were, had become mere opportunities for sleep.” (Uses personal anecdote to evoke feeling of pity among his readers). “And so I decided, after 15 years, to live in reality.” (The emphasis on 15 years would evoke feelings of pity from readers because 15 years is a long time living against reality). “We all understand the joys of our always-wired world — the connections, the validations, the laughs, the porn, the info.” (The author lists “the connections, the validations, the laughs, the porn, the info” because they sound relatable, and can be more easily understood by readers. Ethos “And 46 percent of Americans told Pew surveyors last year a simple but remarkable thing: They could not live without one.” (PEW is a renowned source, and providing information from them makes the text seem credible). “A regular teen Snapchat user, as the Atlantic recently noted, can have exchanged anywhere between 10,000 and even as many as 400,000 snaps with friends.” (The Atlantic is a credible source, and citing it only makes the source seem more credible.) “The writer Matthew Crawford has examined how automation and online living have sharply eroded the number of people physically making things, using their own hands and eyes and bodies to craft, say, a wooden chair or a piece of clothing or, in one of Crawford’s more engrossing case studies, a pipe organ.” (Citing a case study from a well-established writer would bring credibility to the piece). |
Categories
Rashomon Questions
- Give a brief outline of the plot (action) of the film.
- Three men are seeking shelter from the heavy ran under a demolished building/structure. One of the men remains traumatized after finding a dead man in the woods, and he recalls different stories told in court describing what took place leading up to the death of the husband. Different stories are given by the accused bandit named Tajomaru, the wife named Masako, and a shaman who is detailing the story from the perspective of the deceased samurai husband. The final recollection is given by Kikori who actually witnessed what went down.
- What are the main symbols in the film, what do they represent?
- The main symbols I have noticed was the rain and sun. I believe the weather was very telling of the woodcutter’s emotional state. The heavy rain represented how distressed the woodcutter was about the samurai’s death. However, towards the end when the woodcutter decides to take care of the abandoned baby, there’s a shift in weather and it can represent the woodcutter’s clear state of mind after doing a deed as good as taking in a child. It seems as if his guilt cleared like the skies when he chose to take the baby in.
- What are the main philosophical questions (ideas) being raised by the film? How are these themes still relevant today?
- While watching the film, there were a lot of questions surrounding ethics that were provided. Such as whether the samurai would have been justified if he killed Tajomaru as a means of self-defense and whether it was ethical for the commoner to steal the kimono under the baby because he was having a hard time. I also questioned whether we ever would find the truth. These themes are still relevant today because cases of self-defense are still prominent today and people question whether one party is justified or not; people still question whether selfishness is given a pass in rough times. Also people still question whether we ever will find the truth; this is prominent in any court case,
- How is the structure of the film important to the telling of this story?
- The order of which the story is told from influences my perception of what really led to the samurai’s murder. At first, I believed Tajomaru’s story was true, until the credibility of his story was questioned with the introduction of the wife’s story.
- Whose story did you find most trustworthy and why?
- I found the woodcutter’s story most trustworthy because essentially the guilt that he had been building up the whole movie seemed to dissipate after he revealed the truth. The truth being he didn’t just find the samurai’s dead body, but that he witnessed what happened, but did get involved to prevent the murder. Essentially the woodcutter’s internal feelings associated with the story he told, made me believe his story the most.
- Consider the final scene when the Priest chooses to hand the baby over to the Woodsman. What is Kurosawa trying to say with this gesture?
- Kurosawa is trying to say a man must make the best out of a situation and do a kind gesture to restore their karma. Though the woodcutter did not help the samurai, he can do good by taking care of the abandoned baby.
- Rashomon is an adaptation of a short story written by Akutagawa, consider what elements are present in the film that enhance or diminish a story like this. Are there aspects to the story that might be better served on the page, why?
- On the page, a character’s body language can be more vividly described. In a film, the audience depend on the actors to portray a specific body language that will provide subtle hints as to who is telling the truth. In the film, I was able to understand how guilty the woodcutter felt by the way he was hunched over and had his head down around the other men. On the page, readers would be able to get this body language form reading a page, but they may also get a glimpse into presumably a frown on his face, a quiver of his lip. All in all, in terms of telling body language, the page can provide more details. However, one thing that was greatly portrayed in films is how crazy Tajomaru is. The way he was laughing uncontrollably in the movie helped me visually see how crazy he was.
Entryways, an art piece curated by Diamond Stingily, displays three different doors with a bat accompanying each door. One door is relatively longer and thinner than the rest, and the other doors seem to have a bright yellow curtain or a semi-circle window at the top center of the door. Regardless of how different the doors were, all the doors seem to have one thing in common: a bat leaning against the door. Though the art piece itself seems simple, the intent and message behind the piece is intricate. Stingily intended to inform her audience of how Black communities experiencing systemic violence have adapted to their environment. In turn, she also wanted to emphasize to her audience that being able to live in a non-violent environment is a privilege.
Ethos plays a large part in driving Stingily’s intentions. At the MoMA, the art piece is accompanied by a plaque which details the author’s inspiration and intentions behind making Entryways. The plaque goes into detail about how Entryways was inspired by Estelle, Stingily’s grandmother, who used to have a bat lying against her door as a means of guarding against imminent threats. Hearing about Estelle’s old habit brought credibility to Stingily’s piece. Specifically hearing about how Estelle, who lived in Chicago, would grasp the bat whenever there was a knock on the door put into perspective how the art piece is a reality for many individuals who are impacted by systemic violence. Providing written context in the form of a plaque next to the piece really helped highlight how many individuals in this world experience violence to a point where they must rely on a bat near the door for safety and reassurance. For those who live in a world where violence is prevalent, this piece lets them know they’re not alone; however, for those who have the privilege to never consider using a bat, this piece of art is meant to enlighten them on other people’s struggles and hopefully evoke empathy that would drive them to fight for change that will provide more people the privilege of safety.
The name of the piece is also impactful as it is somewhat ironic. When you think of the work “Entryways,” you associate it with words like “Welcome” and “Inviting” because it essentially is describing where people should be entering from. However, the art piece seems to speak otherwise. The bat lying by the doors are not inviting; in fact, they purpose of the bat is to ward off unwelcomed threats. Therefore, there’s some irony that comes to play with the title Entryways because though the title seems to describe a welcoming entrance, the art piece tells the audience not everybody is welcomed to enter through the entryway. The impact of this irony is that it makes the audience really think about the concept of entryways. People who have the privilege of living in a safe neighborhood take for granted that they don’t have to worry about intruders or threats. This sentiment is shared with the word “Entryways.” People automatically assume nothing of the word “Entryways,” but they fail to realize that many people must take heavy precautions behind the entryway as a means of protecting themselves and their family. The use of irony again helps audiences check their privilege, and hopefully it evokes empathy that will drive people to actively improve systems that prevent all communities from experiencing violent environments.
In conclusion, Stingily successfully utilizes ethos and irony in attempts to inform her audience of how Black communities experiencing systemic violence have adapted to their environment. Having learned about other people’s struggles, it would influence an audience to be more aware of their own privilege. When communicating to individuals who have grown up in a violent environment, those who haven’t lived in a violent environment shouldn’t invalidate the experiences of others just because they never had to experience it. Apart from being more understanding, people who have the luxury of living in a safe environment may even feel a greater need to contribute to a cause that will reduce public exposure to violence.
Categories
Rhetorical Analysis
In the debate, we find that James Baldwin effectively confirms the presence of racial discrimination by providing his own stories. In his argument, Baldwin addresses the skeptics of racial discrimination and goes on to dispute them by providing his own lived and shared experiences. This is an effective structure, because Baldwin was in a room filled with skeptics, so It was only right for him to gauge his audience, understand their thinking, but at the same time revert their belief by providing a personal experience to change their perspective.
As for Buckley, his approach is different. He first denounces Baldwin’s approach and then leads into what he believes the black people in America should be doing instead of reaching for “radical solutions.” Again, the reasoning behind this structure is Buckley’s attentiveness to the audience. Buckley wants to rid positive sentiments towards Baldwin’s argument in order to make his own argument sound better in comparison. There isn’t much Buckley can speak about on the Black experience in America, so he can’t provide personal anecdotes. But, he can make people believe Baldwin is ungrateful, and there are other ways to go about improving his experience than denouncing the US.
—–
In his argument, Baldwin utilizes pathos in the following sentence: ““It comes as a great shock to discover that the country which is your birthplace and to which you owe your life and identity has not, in its whole system of reality, evolved any place for you.” The word choice of “whole system” and “any place for you” is significant because it emphasizes how black people in America are utterly excluded, and this emphasis helps evoke shock and sympathy from the audience. As for Buckley, he uses pathos in the following line: “We must acknowledge that problem, but we must also reach through to the Negro people and tell them that their best chances are in a mobile society and the most mobile city in the world today is the Unites States.’ The intentional continued use of the phrase “We” helped Buckley effectively evoke feelings of community and motivation among the audience; “we” as a community must enlighten black people is essentially what Buckley seems to be saying.
Baldwin utilizes ethos in the following statement, “ I am speaking very seriously, and this is not an overstatement: I picked cotton, I carried it to the market, I built the railroads under someone else’s whip for nothing.” In these lines, Baldwin manages to enhance his credibility by capitalizing on his identity as a black individual; he has a perspective on the debate Buckley can never achieve and he uses his identity to help the audience understand his point. As for Buckley, he uses ethos in the following statement, “ I am treating you as a fellow American, as a man whose indictments of our civilization are unjustified…” In these lines, Buckley tries to promote his credibility by capitalizing on his identity as an American. Buckley cannot speak about the black experience, but he tries to diminish Baldwin’s identity by emphasizing how they are both American.
Lastly, logos is used by both Baldwin and Buckley in the following lines respectively, “We had the 15th Amendment nearly 100 years ago. If it was not honored then, I have no reason to believe that the civil rights bill will be honored now” and “It is the case that seven-tenths of the average white’s income in the United States is equal to the entire income of the average Negro. But my great-grandparents worked hard.” In his argument, Baldwin utilized logos by providing reasons as to why the American dream does not apply to black people; he lets his audience know the continuous pattern in history which shows no progress being made to the lives of black people in America. As for Buckley, he uses logos to undermine Baldwin’s arguments; in response to Baldwin’s comment about how the black experience is full of mistreatment and unfairness, Buckley tries to reason with the audience and explain how Baldwin’s fate is tied to his lack of effort towards providing a better life for himself. Buckley provides an example about how his great-grandparents had to work hard, but this argument lacks self awareness about other factors that restricted black people from succeeding in history.