Читать книгу How to Write Brilliant Psychology Essays - Paul Dickerson - Страница 114

1 This essay discusses Kelley’s covariation model of causal attribution and evaluates it.This is barely a statement of intent at all. It is little more than stating ‘This essay will answer the question that was set’. What is needed is a sense of some further detail about how the essay will answer the question.

2 This essay will examine Kelley’s model. It will also discuss the evidence for it. It will then critique Kelley’s model, it will cover attribution bias, it will refer to work which considers how attributions are communicated and it will end by reflecting on Kelley’s contribution.This provides some further detail about how the essay will address the essay question, so it is a clear improvement on (a) above, but it reads like a list. There is no sense of understanding the different approaches that are covered, limited sense of how they relate to each other and little rationale for why the essay will be addressed in this way.

3 This essay will evaluate Kelley’s model first, by outlining its key elements and the empirical evidence relating to it. It will then consider critique from work which has identified various biases as well as research which challenges Kelley’s neglect of how attributions are communicated. In doing so, the essay will consider whether the framework which Kelley provided is best thought of as limiting or enabling subsequent approaches to understanding attribution.This statement of intent could be further improved – it could characterise Kelley’s approach, perhaps referring to its emphasis on rational thinking. However, it is nonetheless a strong statement of intent. First, it is reasonably specific, though perhaps further specific names and theories could be identified. Second, it conveys some clear thinking about the approaches referred to, for example, the reference to Kelley’s neglect of how attributions are communicated. Third, there is a sense of debate between Kelley’s approach and that of other perspectives that will be drawn on. Outlining the debates to be covered provides a rationale for what is included and demonstrates relevant evaluative thinking. Finally, this statement of intent hints at a conceptualisation of the implications of Kelley’s work (whether Kelley’s framework ‘is best thought of as limiting or enabling subsequent approaches’).

Learn

Table 3.3