PSY 520 Short Paper 2 Guidelines and RubricConsider the following examples of research findings:1. H

PSY 520 Short Paper 2 Guidelines and RubricConsider the following examples of research findings:1. High satisfaction with one’s direct supervisor leads to lower levels of employee turnover. In other words, employees who are highly satisfied with theirdirect supervisor are less likely to leave an organization than employees who are dissatisfied with their direct supervisor (DeConinck, 2009).2. High levels of parental reading are associated with faster cognitive development in young children. In other words, children who are read to more bytheir parents show faster cognitive development than children who are read to less often (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2007).3. The experience of being socially excluded leads to increases in aggressive behavior. Research has found that when people are excluded by others, theyare more likely to behave aggressively, even to people who did not initially exclude them (Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001).4. Defendants who wear glasses are less likely to be convicted by juries as being guilty of committing violent crimes (Brown, Henriquez, & Groscup, 2008).In a brief paper (2–3 pages), describe a potential mediator and moderator that could apply to each research finding. Be sure to clearly explain what a mediatorand moderator are, and be sure to clearly describe how they relate to each research situation.Guidelines for Submission: Submit a 2–3-page document with double spacing, 12-point font, and one-inch margins, with any sources referenced cited in APAformat.Instructor Feedback: This activity uses an integrated rubric in Blackboard. Students can view instructor feedback in the Grade Center. For more information,review these instructions.Critical ElementsExplanation ofMediatorsExplanation ofModeratorsApplication ofMediators toResearch Situations Exemplary (100%)Meets “Proficient” criteria, andexplanation is succinct andneeds no clarificationMeets “Proficient” criteria, andexplanation is succinct andneeds no clarificationAccurately identifies allpotential mediators andcorrectly explains why they areapplicable Proficient (90%)Clearly and accurately describesmediatorsClearly and accurately describesmoderatorsAccurately identifies three offour potential mediators andcorrectly explains why they areapplicable Needs Improvement (70%)Understanding is evident,though some confusion or lackof clarity is also evidentUnderstanding is evident,though some confusion or lackof clarity is also evidentAccurately identifies two offour potential mediators andcorrectly explains why they areapplicable, and/or two of fourexplanations are insufficientand/or incorrect Not Evident (0%)No explanation, or it is evidentthat the writer does notunderstand mediatorsNo explanation, or it is evidentthat writer does notunderstand moderatorsFewer than two mediators areidentified correctly.Explanations are incorrectand/or insufficient Value20 20 20 Application ofModerators toResearch Situations Accurately identifies allpotential moderators andcorrectly explains why they areapplicable Accurately identifies three offour potential moderators andcorrectly explains why they areapplicable Articulation ofResponse Submission is free of errorsrelated to citations, grammar,spelling, syntax, andorganization and is presentedin a professional and easy-toread format Submission has no major errorsrelated to citations, grammar,spelling, syntax, or organization Accurately identifies two offour potential moderators andcorrectly explains why they areapplicable, and/or two of fourexplanations are insufficientand/or incorrectSubmission has major errorsrelated to citations, grammar,spelling, syntax, or organizationthat negatively impactreadability and articulation ofmain ideas Fewer than two moderators areidentified correctly.Explanations are incorrectand/or insufficient 20 Submission has critical errorsrelated to citations, grammar,spelling, syntax, or organizationthat prevent understanding ofideas 20 Earned Total 100%