Critical Evaluation
Assignment: Critical Evaluation
Critically evaluate this paper:
Rammstedt, B., Spinath, F.M., Richter, D., & Schupp, J. (2013). Partnership longevity and personality congruence in couples. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 832- 835. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.007.
Evidence of assortative mating according to personality was reported in a previous SOEP-based study (Rammstedt & Schupp, 2008). Based on population representative data of almost 7000 couples, high levels of congruence between spouses were found, which increased with marriage duration. Almost 5000 of these couples were tracked over a five-year period with personality assessed at the beginning and end of this time, which allowed us to investigate the relationship between personality congruence and marriage duration longitudinally. Using this data, we investigated (a) whether personality congruence is predictive for partnership longevity and whether congruence therefore differs between subsequently stable and
unstable couples, (b) if stable couples become more congruent, and (c) if separated couples become less congruent with regard to their personality over time. The results provide initial evidence of personality congruence as a predictor for partnership longevity: the more congruent couples are in the personality domain of Openness, the more stable their partnership. In addition, we found no indications of an increase in personality congruence over time within the stable couples; within the separated couples, however, a strong decrease in congruence was detectable.

Structure of the paper: The structure of the paper is similar to that for an essay: you will need an introduction, broad description of the paper selected, and a brief description of your evaluation and argument supporting your evaluation. You will need to consider why the work was done (rationale, how convincing is this rationale), what work has been cited to support the theory (methodology and methods, how appropriate are the methodology and methods chosen), nature of participants (whether they were appropriately selected), what results were obtained (if quantitative, how big/convincing were the effects; and what the implications of the study are (for theoretical understanding and for practical application, what are the limitations of the study and how may they be overcome). Examples of previous student submissions will be provided and discussed in the tutorial program.
Note that a critical evaluation does not mean that you write negatively of the topic, rather a critical evaluation is your scholarly response to the target paper. The critical element means that you provide evidence for your evaluation, whether it be positive or negative. Your submission will not be just a summary of the paper you choose, which has been expected of your undergraduate writing in psychology to date, but rather a summary and your critical evaluation. In providing your critical evaluation, make sure that you back up your statements, and don’t generalize.
Statistical understanding: I have deliberately selected papers which should be within your statistical understanding.
Use of quotation: Avoid quotations.
Citation: Use primary sources (i.e. journal articles, and reviews). Do not use Maltby et al. (2010). In addition, you should not cite sources such as Wikipedia, and other generic information sites. Provide somewhere between 8 and 10 references of recent 10 years.
Length of Essay: Your critical evaluation should be no more than six pages double-spaced, excluding references. You must use 12 point, Time-New Roman font, double-spaced. Please note that it is not expected that you write an abstract.
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

Critical Evaluation of Two Differing Approaches in Research
1. Theoretical versus Empirical Research (maximum of 1000 words)
2. Descriptive versus Causal Research (maximum of 1000 words).

Your answer must cover the following:
a. Definition and comparisons of the alternative approaches in each of the two questions.
b. Business examples for each of the alternative approaches in each of the two questions.
c. Analyses of the specific circumstances where each approach is likely to be relevant or suitable and how these approaches in each question may interrelate with each other.