Step 1 and 2 has been completed and the partial paper is in the attachments. Please see the attachment and instructions for the everything paper and complete Step 3 and please do not worry about step

The Everything Paper

In the study Norton et al. (2007) that explores the impact of familiarity while providing an analysis of the impact of social support in helping cope with stress. Different demographic groups are affected by stress differently, which is essential to assess and understand why stress is an issue in society. The study by Reis et al. (2011) provides a comprehensive analysis of the role of interpersonal relationships in promoting emotional intelligence and personal health. The two studies include the role of psychological health and social dynamics in evaluating differences in emotional experiences.

The analysis of Norton et al. (2007) controls the commonality of free factors to determine the effects of the reliant variable on effect. One of their experiments involved manipulating the level of familiarity as the independent variable (IV) to observe its effects on the dependent variable (DV) of fondness. The dependent variable is reliance, while the independent variable is the free factor. Seventy-six people at MIT were involved in the study, and the average age was 24 years. Fondness was measured through self-report using a 10-point scale to rate liking for the individual based on their traits, with lower scores indicating less liking and higher scores indicating greater liking (Norton et al., 2007). Consistent with their hypothesis, the researchers identified a significant negative correlation between the quantity of traits and the level of liking for the individual perceived to possess those traits (Norton et al., 2007). To summarize, the results suggest that increased exposure to information about someone tends to diminish liking, while conversely, reduced exposure often leads to heightened levels of liking (Norton et al., 2007). The self-report involves affection, which includes a ten-guide scale to rate the partiality of the individual. Their hypothesis should evaluate the negative relation between prevents of the individual they trusted has required qualities. The study found that when a person has more information about someone else, they tend to form an inverse relationship. People like those about whom they have limited information. The study by Reis et al. (2011) is different from Norton et al. (2007) since it insists that infection increases when friendship increases, leading to social formation. The study insists that interpersonal dynamics are formed when intimate relationships are created. People tend to look for more friends, which increases the interpersonal dynamics.

The two studies have strong internal validity based on their research designs. Norton et al. (2007) used a control over the subject and random sampling methods, which ensures that confounding variables are controlled. Reis et al. (2011) employed experimental design and statistical quantitative analysis to improve internal validity. This ensures that the results reflect the independent variables. We can evaluate the statistical validity of the two studies by checking on the crafting of the research methodology, statistical analysis, and systematic data collection. They show that the data collection, sampling process, and analysis were done in a robust manner. To ensure that the results are reliable, the studies should clarify potential limitations, biases, and confounding variables and how they may affect the results. For Reis et al. (2011), a lab setting was used where members sat in a face-to-face approach while taking turns and answering questions based on random cards. The process occurred till there was no additional cards left; the participants were separated and asked to complete surveys, which shows the appropriate data collection procedure.

Reis et al. (2011) shows robust external validity using larger samples since it reflects on a general population. However, the internal validity may be weak since the researchers never manipulated the independent validity but were over-reliant on the self-reported information. The limitation of Norton et al.'s (2007) study was that the study's results used short-term research. Future studies should be carried out over a long period of time. Reis et al. (2011) demonstrate strong external validity by employing larger sample sizes, thereby enhancing the applicability of their findings to a broader population. However, their study's internal validity may be compromised due to the reliance on self-reported data without manipulation of the independent variable. This approach raises concerns about potential confounding variables and reduces the certainty regarding causal relationships within the study. Likewise, Norton et al.'s (2007) study may encounter limitations in external validity due to its short-term research design. Extending the study's duration could improve external validity by allowing for the observation of long-term effects and enhancing the generalizability of the findings to real-world scenarios. Consequently, while both studies exhibit strengths in external validity, they also face potential weaknesses in internal validity stemming from their respective methodological choices.

When examining the internal validity of Reis et al. (2011), concerns arise due to the absence of manipulation of the independent variable, coupled with a heavy reliance on self-reported information. The lack of experimental control over the independent variable raises doubts about the study's ability to establish causal relationships between variables. Moreover, relying solely on self-reported data introduces the potential for response bias and inaccuracies, further undermining the internal validity of the study. Therefore, while the study demonstrates robust external validity using larger samples that reflect a general population, its internal validity is weakened by methodological limitations.

Regarding Norton et al.'s (2007) study, the internal validity remains unspecified in the provided text. However, the mention of short-term research as a limitation suggests potential concerns regarding internal validity. Short-term studies may struggle to capture the full range of effects and nuances present in longer-term investigations, raising questions about the reliability and stability of the observed results. Therefore, while internal validity concerns are implied, further details regarding the specific methodological approach and control measures would be necessary to thoroughly assess the internal validity of Norton et al.'s study.

Reference

Norton et al., (2007).

Reis et al., (2011).