Positive psychological experiences

One of the first steps in the scientific method is to review the existing research literature related to your question of interest. Positive psychologists need to be careful and critical consumers of the research so that they can formulate clear and useful hypotheses and studies.

For this Exploration, you will read a research article and respond to questions. The purpose is to develop your ability to critically examine the methods and findings of positive psychology research.

First, read: Cohen-Meitar, R., Carmeli, A. & Waldman, D. A. (2009). Linking meaningfulness in the workplace to employee creativity: The intervening role of organizational identification and positive psychological experiences. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 361-375. DOI: 10.1080/10400410902969910

Then, write a two page maximum, single-spaced review (4 pages if you double space) that answers the questions below. Keep in mind that the idea here is to show your understanding. Don’t quote from the article. Think of it more as telling the story of the article in your own words.

The questions:

1. Research always exists in the context of previous theory and research. Briefly discuss the prior research and theory that Cohen-Meitar, Carmeli, and Waldman (2009) used as the basis for their study. Focus on the main conclusions and limitations of previous research, rather than re-stating everything from their literature review. The idea here is to explain why/how the Cohen-Meitar, et al., study is a logical next step from previous work.
2. What is the specific purpose of the study by Cohen-Meitar et al.? Don’t re-type their many hypotheses, give an overview that explains what they hoped to learn from this study.
3. Briefly describe their research methods. Decide whether it’s a correlational or experimental study. Briefly explain the sample and procedure. You do NOT need to list each of their measures, but you should talk about what they were measuring.
4. Now, look at the result and discussion sections. Were their hypotheses supported? Explain. Do NOT quote statistics. Explain the results in relation to their hypotheses.
5. Your Turn: Briefly explain what you would do if you were going to conduct a next study that follows from the work of Cohen-Meitar, et al. Focus on your hypothesis or a change in method that you would make to extend the this work (e.g., address unanswered questions or limitations). You don’t need to design an entire study. Think of it more as “Cohen-Meitar and colleagues, found….. which led me to wonder if…… And, so I would want to examine….”.