age § reduced inhibition test obriefly summarize W r i t i n g

QALMRI INSTRUCTIONS

The QALMRI method provides a means for critically evaluating experiments,
as well as for organizing your own experiment proposals. It helps you to find
connections between theory and data by making explicit the question being
asked, the approach used to answer it, and the implications of the answer

Q stands for Question All research begins with a question, and the point of the research is
to answer it. For example, we can ask whether a placebo is better than no action in
alleviating depression. For most journal articles, the General Introduction should tell the
reader what question the article is addressing, and why it is important enough that anyone
should care about the answer. Questions fall into two categories: broad and specific. In your
QALMRI, state both the broad and the specific questions being asked. Broad questions are
typically too general to answer in a single experiment, although one should view the
experiment as one step on a journey to answer the broad question. An example of a broad
question might be “Does language influence perception?” This sort of question provides the
general topic of the paper, and can only be answered through compiling many experimental
results. In contrast, the specific question can typically be addressed in a single experiment
or set of experiments. A specific question might be “If one language has a specific term for
one color, and another language does not have any term for that color, will speakers of the
two languages perceive the color differently?” Again, be sure to identify the broad and
specific question relevant to your data collection.

A stands for Alternatives Good experiments consider at least 2 possible alternative answers
to a specific question, and explains why both answers are plausible. For example, the
possibility that speakers of different languages will perceive colors differently is plausible
based on evidence that topdown processes can affect perception. The alternative
hypothesis, that language does not influence perception of color, is also plausible because
color perception in particular might be impervious to top-down influences. That is, it might
be based solely on properties of the visual system which are unaffected by language. When
describing an existing article or when proposing an experiment, you should identify the
alternatives the authors considered. There are always at least 2 alternatives: that factor X
will show an effect, or that it won’t (that a null result will be obtained). If possible, identify
other alternative patterns as well.

L stands for Logic The logic of the study identifies how the experiment’s design will allow
the experimenter to distinguish among the alternatives. The logic is typically explained
towards the end of the study’s introduction, and has the following structure: If alternative 1
(and not alternative 2) is correct, then when a particular variable is manipulated, the
participants’ behavior should change in a certain way. For example, the logic of the color
experiment would be: If a person’s native language influences their perception of color, then
speakers who have a term for a given color should respond differently to that color than

speakers whose language contains to term for that color. Alternatively, if language does not
influence color perception, then speakers who have a color term should respond no
differently than speakers who lack the term. Note that the logic of the experiment is
integrally connected to the alternatives you stated in the last section. Indeed, this section
should be comprised of a series of “If…then…” statements in which you restate the
alternatives you offered (“If X…”), and then state what pattern of data would support that
alternative (“…then Y”). You should therefore have equal numbers of alternatives and
If…then statements.

M stands for Method This section identifies the procedures that will be used to implement
the logical design. It should state the independent variable (the factor being experimentally
manipulated) and the dependent variable (the behavior being measured) of the experiment.
It should also describe the subjects, including whether subjects were divided into groups
receiving different experimental manipulations. What materials were used to conduct the
experiment, and what were the experimental stimuli like?

R stands for Results What was the outcome of the experiment? Describe the results of the
primary measures of interest. For example, did different subject groups yield different group
means? What were these means? Or did the entire subject population produce a distinctive
pattern of responses? Describe that pattern. Did the results seem reliable, or do you feel
they might have been an artifact of the way the experiment was conducted? For this
section, it is often a good idea to use graphs or tables to illustrate the pattern of data you
obtained.

I stands for Inferences. What can the results of the experiment tell us about the
alternatives? If the study was well designed, the results should allow you to eliminate at
least one of the possible alternatives. For example, if a language lacks a color word but the
speakers of that language respond to the color no differently than speakers of a language
lacking a term for the color, then the experiment supports the view that language does not
influence color perception. At this point, take a step back and think about any potential
problems with the experiment that could have led to the pattern of results you obtained.
Were there confounds that could have caused the results? For example, if you did find a
difference between the subject groups, are there other ways in which the groups differ that
are not language-related? Might this have caused the result? Were there problems during
the data collection? In addition, this is the section in which to consider the hypothetical next
step in answering the broad question. If you were to conduct a follow-up experiment, what
would it be (hint: think of questions that remain unanswered by the present results, and
sketch a study that could bear on one or more of those questions)? What questions do your
results raise?

oFocus on the chimp trials and results
§You can briefly talk about the comparison between children and chimps,
but you don’t have to explain those methods or results.

oIgnore:
§Other variables section about rearing history and age
§Reduced inhibition test

oBriefly summarize:
§The point of the reverse contingency test. No need to get into the details
of the experimental conditions.

The point of the big-to-bigger control trialsoFocus on the chimp trials and results