jackplotke

[jackplotke]

Research Link :)

https://jacksresearchproject.tumblr.com/

[jackplotke]

Comp in New Genre

Jack Plotke

11 November 2019

Comp in New Genre

Vaccinating your child is controversial. Twenty-five years ago, this statement would not receive the same credibility as a true statement, but today it undoubtedly garners at least a nod of approval when heard out in the public. The decision to reach out to medical professionals and make the informed decision to vaccinate your child has become a topic of contentious discussion in the Western world, particularly in America. Alternately, the decision to recuse oneself from the vaccination process altogether has grown increasingly popular. While this decision is ultimately left up to the individual parents, concerns over the possible revival of eradicated or nearly eradicated disease draws attention and concern from the general populace. And so, the decision of whether to vaccinate your children becomes a public health issue, one that some parents claim cannot be left up to individual parents in the concept of well-being for the general populace. The general populace, then, concerns itself with the job of convincing the most amount of people it can to vaccinate their children, or at the very least, have a conversation with a member of the medical field so you can truly make the most informed decision over what is best for both your child and society as a whole. But what happens when apprehensive parents don’t listen? What lingering concerns keep these parents from acknowledging the known benefits of vaccinating, and why do these concerns linger at all? The research done throughout this project aimed to answer these questions, and share these answers with parents curious about the same topic. [JP1] 

Making the results of this project public would be most effective if it were shared in the multimedia presentation style, such as a Ted Talk. In this genre, the presentation may be given in front of a large studio audience, recorded, and then made public via social media. As this research project has shown, social media has a large influence over the general public’s opinion, which makes this media a good choice for sharing information with a large amount of people. The primary purpose of my research was, of course, to search for answers to the aforementioned questions. However, it is important that this research reach a large amount of people, as the information, I’ve learned, is very important to the general populace. As stated earlier, decisions regarding vaccination processes are difficult to make for many, and any and all information that may help make the decision easier should be shared. A TED Talk makes this simple. According to their website, the mission of TED (Technology, Entertainment, & Design) includes “chang[ing] [JP2] attitudes, lives and, ultimately, the world.” Naturally, this mission overlaps greatly with the purpose of my research. 13 million people follow the TED Facebook page, with their most popular TED Talk currently claiming nearly 63 million views. This media, then, provides an opportune ability to reach a staggering amount of people. With the prevalence of the anti-vaccination movement being on the rise, and once eradicated diseases returning, reaching a large amount of people has never been more important.

TED Talks are designed to be accessible and understandable to most ordinary people. To do so, the non-profit relies on its methods of providing information in simple, relatable, and scientifically supported ways. A study published in 2013 states that people are more engaged with scientific information when the information is adorned with humor, satire, and other forms of comedy such as “the rhetorical devices used in many entertainment platforms” (Sugimoto, Thelwall, Larivière, Andrew Tsou, Mongeon, & Macaluso 2013). TED Talks, which are given live, are a personal method of providing information that enables the presenter to be humorous and satirical. Therefore, the inclusion of jokes and anecdotes in this presentation will make my message more relatable, and consequently more likely to be watched an enjoyed by the general public. Additionally important is the usage of visuals to further explain your message. When we hear information, we generally remember only 10% of said information three days later. By adding a visual, that percentage increases to 65% (Medina 2018). Pictures are important[JP3] .

In the 18 minutes you have to present all the necessary information, it helps to follow a proven formula that optimizes the time you’ve been given. Yasser El Miedany[JP4]  explains this formula, equating a TED Talk to any other effective method of storytelling. First, she states that you must get the Who, Why, and What questions down before you can even begin presenting. Effectively, you need to understand the rhetorical situation of the presentation. As with any method of information sharing, this is necessary to ensure you share the information in the way that best fits your audience. Then, you can begin crafting your presentation. The best way to begin, El Miedany says, is with a story. Because the vaccination argument is so widespread and personal, it wouldn’t be hard to find or even craft a story detailing the thoughts, mindset, and effects of the average anti-vaccination parent. This way, the viewers can become interested in my message from the beginning, and get a general sense of what exactly I will be talking about. From then, El Miedany says a proper presentation includes a more personal story, as overused and cliché stories may get boring for the audience, but a personal story is one they have not heard before, and therefore more likely to pay attention to. Creating suspense keeps the audience on their toes, paying attention to the words you are saying, and truly seeing the message inside their own heads. To do so, El Miedany says to “tell a story chronologically and build up to a climactic conclusion,” a story that includes 3-dimensional, relatable characters so that you bring the story to life for the audience. Create the “Mental Movie” for your audience by including all the possible ways in which they can live vicariously through your words, namely by including details satisfying the five senses. Not unlike a climax, a STAR moment is defined as “Something They’ll Always Remember.” Namely, El Miedany claims this is something “so dramatic that your audience will be talking about it weeks later.” The example he gives is Bill Gates’s 2009 TED Talk on malaria, in which he opened a jar of mosquitos inside the studio because “There’s no reason only poor people should have the experience.” If not for the fact that it’s already been done, this wouldn’t be a bad idea in my presentation on the anti-vaccination movement. Finally, El Miedany’s perfect presentation ends with a positive takeaway that the audience finds inspiring and optimistic. To increase the odds of this takeaway going viral, he states that it should be “packaged into a short, memorable phrase or sound bite” (El Miedany 2018). With[JP5]  the goal of this project going viral, this is very lucrative information.

In[JP6]  a nation concerned about the potential issues that can potentially be created by the anti-vaccination movement, it is important that information on the matter be given in the most understandable and time-effective manner. Due to its ability to include humor, pictures, and effective storytelling, a TED Talk is the genre most fitting for my presentation.

Bibliography

El Miedany, Y. (2018). TED Talks. Rheumatology Teaching, 327–346. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-98213-7_17

Medina, J. (2018). Vision: Brain Rules |. Retrieved from

http://www.brainrules.net/vision?scene=.

“Our Organization.” TED, TED Conferences, LLC, https://www.ted.com/about/our-organization.

Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., Larivière, V., Tsou, A., Mongeon, P., & Macaluso, B. (2013).

Scientists popularizing science: characteristics and impact of TED Talk presenters. PLoS ONE, 8(4). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062403

[jackplotke]

Research Journal #9

In a class without an explicit grading system, it’s hard for me to say just how well I think I’m doing. In high school, this question was much more easily answered: if I had an “A,” then I was doing well. Anything less gave me an obvious opportunity for improvement. Ignoring the problematic and suffocating  “perfectionist” mentality this mindset gave me, this system, at the very least, provided the chance to get an accurate gauge of how well I was doing. When we were first told that this class would reject the traditional grading scale, I was worried. But mostly, I was relieved. For years, I’d relied too much upon my grade point average to the point that it was the main indicator of my self-worth. I didn’t do well in high school because I wanted to learn, I did well because I felt like I had to, and that sucked, like, a lot. With the constant threat of receiving an unsatisfactory grade looming over me, how could I expect to learn and truly enjoy the experience of doing so? With so much on the line, you don’t take risks, and you don’t stray too far out of your comfort zone. You stick to what you expect the teacher would like to hear, and you don’t actually learn anything new.

The absence of a traditional grading scale gave me the opportunity to try new things and actually become passionate about my writing, an opportunity that I never really had before. I’d like to think that I made good use of this opportunity, but self-assessment has never been my strongest ability. So, I’ll just have to give it my best shot.

I know I’ve learned a lot in this class, both about writing specifically and just general things about college, particularly how to succeed in both settings. Seeing as this is my first year in college, this information was extremely valuable to me. I’ve definitely taken what I’ve learned to heart, and I hope this has been reflected in my writing, both in my portfolio and in my numerous reflections throughout the quarter. Without the constraint of feeling as if I had to write only what the professor wanted to hear, I expanded beyond what I traditionally think of as good writing, and found that I actually enjoy writing to the point that I’m considering minoring in it. In terms of participation, I have not missed any classes, and while I was hesitant to speak up in the earlier weeks of the quarter, I think I participate a fair amount in class discussions. With the exception of a couple tweets, I’ve turned in all my work complete and on time.

In the context of my research project, I’d be lying if I said I did it perfectly. Research is hard, and to be completely honest, I could have done a better job of minimizing procrastination to leave enough room for more thorough editing. But, I’m proud of what I’ve completed, and am very happy to learn that primary research is not as daunting and difficult as I’ve always believed.

Ratings:

Level of Effort: 4/5

Engagement: 5/5

Overall: 4.5/5

Notes: Overall, I think I did well in this class. I know that I’ve learn and grown more in the past 9 weeks than in most classes, and I hope that this growth has been reflected in all that I’ve written and accomplished throughout this course. I really liked this class, and would absolutely take it again :)

[jackplotke]

Research Journal #8

1.  All writing has a purpose. Every time someone puts pen to paper, literally or figuratively, there is something that they want to share with the world that can’t be shared any other way. 

2. All writing is unique. Writers need to think first of how they can translate their thoughts into writing, and then also how they change alter them to appeal to a wider audience than just themselves. The rhetorical situation is important!

3. Writing is a process much different than what I’ve been used to. It requires several mental checkpoints to make sure you’re on the right track and have a firm sense of what you’re really trying to say. I really can’t just crank out on first draft in an hour and turn it in as a final draft, which leads to:

4. The importance of drafting. First drafts give you an opportunity to take the thoughts out of your head and get them on paper, but subsequent drafts are necessary to filter through your thoughts to determine what’s really important.

5. Research is hard, just not as hard as I expected it to be.

6. When recording a telephone interview, remember to turn off the recorder when you’re done. Whoops.

7. Research what you’re passionate about - it’s so much easier that way.

8. Failure is going to happen at some point in our lives. What’s important is how we respond to it.

9. Non-traditional class structures like this one are important to get a real sense of life after college. Life isn’t full of quizzes and grade point averages, why should college be?

10. Be comfortable with the uncomfortable. Your whole life is going to be a series of uncomfortable situations, you might as well get used to it. 

[jackplotke]

Intro: Purpose

Since Edwin Jenner created the first smallpox vaccine in [whatever], the decision to vaccinate your child(ren) has become an increasingly controversial topic. A number of growing “anti-vaccination” movements have been shown be on the rise in many Western nations, and I sought to understand why these movements have gained such momentum, and what they all might have in common. So, I went into this research with several questions that I hoped to answer. What prevents parents from accepting the recommend dosage of vaccines for their children? What are some possible sources of these apprehensions? While previous research has shown that there are some similar sources of these apprehensions, I wanted to dive deeper into more personal instances of anti-vaccination mentality and other possible sources not previously mentioned or properly researched. I hoped to clarify and expand upon the work that has already been done as well as see for myself how relevant many of the more outdated research still is. 

Part of Lit Review:

·       Wakefield Study linking MMR vaccine and autism

·       Wakefield’s Effects

·       Prior Research into Facebook groups, introducing my observations

·       Any other concerns that I need to look for that previous research has found

Methods: 

Here’s what I did for interview, survey, observation (1-2 paragraphs)

I conducted a survey, interviewed a pediatrician, and observed an online social media group to find common arguments amongst a wide range of people.

[jackplotke]

Maps: Take 3

A good writer is fueled by their passion for writing. They are engaged in the work they create and put out into the world and look forward to the opportunity to share what they’ve written. They are unhindered by topics they might deem uninteresting or unimportant, and rely on their love of writing for the strength to persevere through these difficult topics. Their passion for writing is evident through the well-thought out and creative style found in their work.

[jackplotke]

Research Journal #7

This is a class unlike any other that I’ve ever taken. In this class, we test the limits of what we think education should be, we push the boundaries of our comfort zone, we explore the unknown, we pet cute dogs. The thing I like most in this class is its relevance to life further along in our education and outside of college. Later in our lives we will test limits, we will push our boundaries, we will explore the unknown, and absolutely will pet cute dogs. My point is that everything we do clearly means something - everything we do has a greater purpose. It’s clear how each of these readings, discussions, and activities relate to our current research project (with the exception of the dog petting I suppose, I mean I guess depending on your topic that’s debatable). Writing a research paper isn’t easy, but thankfully we’ve spent the past seven weeks preparing for it. 

Every reading on failure and motivation, good writing versus bad writing, the workings of knowledge, have been preparing us not only for our research, but for our other classes, as well. The knowledge of how to write effectively and passionately about any given topic clearly translates to just about any other class you can take. David Higgins describes reflection as “the action of turning (back) or fixing the thoughts on some subject, in order to learn.” In the sense of academia, when is this not relevant? Actually, when is this not relevant in life as a whole?

Moving forward, I’ll definitely be remembering all that I’ve learned in this class and doing as much as I can to apply the knowledge and skills I’ve acquired to the rest of my research, my other classes, and life beyond Writing and Research 1133.

[jackplotke]

HW Post #8

While reading the essay, it was interesting to see how much the student’s complaints about conventional high school writing classes overlapped with what I heard from my own writing classes. Basically all of my friends would agree that writing class is supposed to be personal and expressive, and that when teachers give pointed, seemingly insignificant critiques of our work, it appears counterintuitive to what a writing class ought to be. They really did feel like an “intrusion” into our personal thoughts. Also common throughout the halls of my high school was the belief that what we were learning doesn’t apply to anything else beyond our writing class, and often it was difficult to make those ever-important connections between writing a reflective essay and, say, college-level calculus. Our teachers did the best they could, presumably, yet we often found ourselves questioning the long-term significance of a rhetorical analysis essay.  

So it’s safe to say I learned a lot from this reading. It was a relief to read several reasons that the skills we learned are actually transferrable, and we didn’t actually waste several years of English class for nothing. The explanation I liked the most was that writing helped us build our problem-solving skills that could be utilized in a broad number of scenarios. This was something I could easily agree with. No matter how random a prompt was, (or honestly, the more random the better), we had to learn how to take the difficult and random prompt and figure out a way to answer it. This is a skill that must be mastered to succeed in every single college class, or career, that we might face in the future. However, most teachers never made this connection from our writing class. Sure, we’d heard the obligatory speech about how trigonometry was like a “workout for our brains,” but this didn’t seem applicable in an English class. We just assumed it wasn’t the same thing. So, I believe the meaning was effectively lost on myself and my classmates while we wasted away complaining about the inapplicable lesson plan. This problem, it seems, also derives from the fact that, as it says in the reading, students want to learn to write like their future profession does, not in the context of students in an English class. No matter how many “problem-solving skills” we were learning, the relatability to other subjects was still lost on students. So, more explicit, specific lessons are necessary so students can learn to make the connection between learning how to write and learning how to do other, more applicable things.

[jackplotke]

Research Journal #6!

Interview:

I plan on interviewing my family’s pediatrician, or if they are unavailable, a pediatrician at Skyridge Medical Center. My research is very scientific and medically based, and I thought a doctor’s insight into concerns around vaccinations would be important information to receive first hand.

My questions will (tentatively) be:

How frequently do parents turn down any vaccinations for their children?

How frequently do parents miss subsequent dosages?

What are the primary reasons parents give you for turning down vaccinations?

What would you tell a parent if he or she expressed concerns about vaccinating and needed to be more fully convinced?

What are serious, scientifically supported side-effects of common vaccinations, such as the flu shot or the MMR vaccine?

Have you noticed any correlation between the age of parents and their willingness to vaccinate?

How more willing are parents to make the decision to vaccinate if they already have vaccinated children?

What is the correlation between a parent’s willingness to vaccinate and their own vaccination status?

Survey:

My survey is be targeted more towards people between the ages of 25-40, particularly parents, as they are the ones making the decision to vaccinate their children in recent years.

In addition to preliminary questions asking about age group, race, and gender, these are my (also tentative) survey questions:

How many children do you have?

Are any of your children fully vaccinated, or on track to be fully vaccinated? (Or if you don’t currently have children, but are planning to)

How long did the decision to vaccinate your children take?

Who did you (or a significant other) talk with to become more informed about this decision? Select all that apply:

Family members

Close friends

Co-workers

Medical professionals

Other parents (in person)

Other parents (via social media or online blogs)

No one

Other (Please elaborate:)

How many people do you know make the decision to not vaccinate their children?

What reasons have you heard for people not vaccinating their children?

Do you follow or are a member of any social media group that comments on either a) the benefits of vaccination or b) the dangers of vaccination?

If so, how did you find this group?

How likely are you to recommend vaccinating to other parents?

If so, what would you say to encourage them? If not, what would you say to advise against? [free response]

Observation:

I plan on observing the posts and arguments made in the Facebook group “A Voice for a Choice.” I chose this one specifically because it was referenced and cited as a popular source of anti-vax information in one of my sources. This page has received over 14 thousand likes on Facebook, and as such, has a sizeable influence over a large group of people.

[jackplotke]

Homework Post #7

Of all the passages that we have read in this class so far, few have resonated with me as much as this one has. Failure has always been one of my biggest concerns in life, and oftentimes I find that it prevents me from being brave enough to take any substantial risks. In both an academic and personal sense, my fear of failure has been the underlying cause of many of my anxiety-induced hesitations, usually resulting in me simply giving up or avoiding taking risks if there was any possibility of failure. This passage was not the first time I’ve been told that failure is a necessity, but for whatever reason this is a mantra I have refused to accept for years. Usually, though, this message has been told in a condescending, you-suck-but-it’s-okay kind of way, in which being called a failure still hurt - the word always carried the sense that failing was something avoidable, sometime that talented people could circumvent on their way to creating a masterpiece. 

But this passage was different. Failure wasn’t something to be ashamed of, it wasn’t even something to be avoided. No matter how we try to avoid it, failing really is a necessary part of life, and without it, we would be stuck in the same place as always. Too afraid to take those all-important risks, we’d never improve. In writing, and essentially in all areas of academia, the road to improvement is paved with failures, and the sooner you accept that fact, the sooner you can improve yourself.

[jackplotke]

Maps: Take 2

For this rendition of my map, I wanted to take what I know and think about writing and try to generalize it so it can be applied to a greater audience. My last map tried to scientifically depict what good writing ought to look like, with a large emphasis on the necessity of rhetorical and literary devices. In this attempt, I hoped to envision good writing as less of a science, and more as what it truly is: an art form.

At the center of good writing lies both creativity and passion. As we’ve learned, the process of writing is made much simpler when your topic caters to your interests. A passionate and creative writer are much more likely to succeed when they also take into account the values surrounding them, and successfully implement them into their own writing. Writers need to be willing to take risks to expand their abilities. They need to be able to establish their creativity to their audience, so people know to take them seriously. Control over both rhetoric and style are key to explaining their ideas in an effective way. Good writing needs to be engaging and relatable to the audience, as well. Finally, an ability to reflect allows the writer to interact with their own writing and recognize any possible ways to improve. My current theory of writing is as follows: writing is an art form that is as dependent on passion as it is creativity, and good writing relies on the writer’s ability to blend each of the values into one coherent, masterful piece of writing.

Could Van Gogh have gotten way with painting one less sunflower in this piece of art? Probably, but it would undoubtedly not be the same piece without it. Likewise, a writer could probably get away with slacking on one of these values, but their work wouldn’t be the same without it, too. Each of these values contribute just a little bit more beauty into the art of writing.

[jackplotke]

Lit Review: Draft #2

Jack Plotke

Lit Review Draft

What influences parents’ decision to not vaccinate?

           In recent years, the decision to vaccinate their children has become an increasingly difficult decision for new parents. The sources collected all deal with the reasoning behind these parents’ apprehension to locate a common reason or reasons. There were several pieces of evidence that the sources agreed upon, including a fear of possible side effects including autism, a general dislike of being pressured into doing something they might not otherwise do, and encouragement from social media. The sources also look to answer why education on the benefits of vaccinations are not improving vaccination statistics, and whether there is a more effective way to persuade people to vaccinate. This literature review will explain these sources’ findings and connect them to explain what goes through parents’ heads when considering the benefits and detriments of vaccinating themselves or their children.

           The increase of the public’s distrust of vaccination can be traced back to a 1998 study headed by Andrew J. Wakefield published in the medical journal The Lancet. In this study, titled “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children,” Wakefield and his team seek to investigate a possible connection between an intestinal disease and developmental disorders in children. While his findings conclude with the fact that there no definitive link can be found between the MMR vaccine and the occurrence of autism in the 12 patients studied, Wakefield heavily implies that this link exists, citing his evidence that “In eight [of the 12] children, the onset of behavioural problems had been linked, either by the parents or by the child’s physician, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine” (Wakefield 1998). Wakefield’s study quotes other medical professionals in to bring credibility to his findings, including one Fudenberg HH who, in a 1996 study, “noted that for 15 of 20 autistic children, the first symptoms developed within a week of vaccination.” Wakefield also claims that “a rising incidence [of this syndrome] might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1998” (Wakefield 1998). Without outright stating it, Wakefield condemns the MMR vaccine as a causation of autism-related behavioral issues and claims this as scientific fact.

           Vaccination distrust flourished after Wakefield published his article, and many parents today cite this as a reason for their fears. In a newspaper article published in the Chronicle-Herald in Halifax in 2014, mother Gail Lethbridge discusses the impact this study had on both her decision on vaccination, and the United Kingdom’s as a whole. From her recollection, she states “It's hard to describe the hysteria this study prompted in the British media. Day after day, week after week, newspapers screamed headlines of MMR health risks.” According to Lethbridge, fear gripped the hearts of parents all over the country, a fear that “gets into your bones and eats away at your sleep and confidence.” This fear, she says, was “fanned by celebrity talk show host and actor Jenny McCarthy, who asserted that certain vaccinations are linked to diseases such as autism” in 2008. Eventually, Lethbridge concludes that she had made the correct choice to vaccinate her son, especially because Wakefield had his paper fully retracted and his medical license revoked. Since then, Lethbridge says, no study has found any correlation between autism and the MMR vaccine. However, “vaccination rates have declined in the U.K. and outbreaks of measles have been numerous. There have been deaths and serious side-effects.” Lethbridge says she has understood both sides of the debate but is confident she has chosen the correct side. Still, fears of vaccine-caused autism are present over twenty years after Wakefield’s study was discredited. In a post on the parenting blog The Bump, Elena Mauer writes in her online blog arguments against the most popular concerns about vaccinations, including autism. In addition, she includes information from interviews conducted with medical professionals. In her paragraph talking about fears of autism, Mauer provides quotes from pediatrician Cheryl Wu, who assures that  “Twelve is not enough of a sample to definitively establish causation or association” and that “some 200 studies were conducted that have said that there is definitively no causation between MMR and autism” (Mauer 2014). Why, then, are parents still concerned about vaccine safety? Evidence from other sources provide insight.

           Distrust of vaccinations are prevalent for reasons outside of autism. A study published in 2018 by Hornsey, Harris, and Fielding hoped to identify these outside reasons. Their study included a sample population of 5,323 participants in 24 countries on six continents.  The reasons Hornsey hoped to prove or disprove were: “their belief in conspiracy theories, reactance (the tendency for people to have a low tolerance for impingements on their freedoms), disgust sensitivity toward blood and needles, and individualistic/hierarchical worldviews (i.e., people’s beliefs about how much control society should have over individuals, and whether hierarchies are desirable)” (Hornsey, Harris, & Fielding, 2018). In addition, they surveyed people’s attitudes towards vaccinations. For conspiracy theories, they asked the sample to rate on a scale of 1-5 how likely they were to believe common conspiracy theories. In this study, their examples of common conspiracy theories included conspiracies surrounding the death of President John F. Kennedy, the death of Princess Diana, the existence of a New World Order, and American government knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Participants were asked how strongly they agreed with statements, such as “Children get more vaccinations than are good for them” and “It is better for children to get fewer vaccinations all at the one time.” They were also asked how concerned they were about issues regarding vaccinations, such as “that any one of the childhood vaccines might not be safe” and “that a vaccine might not prevent the disease.” Anti-vaccination attitudes were highest in those who had a strong affinity to believe conspiracy theories. These attitudes were second highest for those who had a strong feeling of reactance. In a similar five-point scale, “participants rated their level of agreement with five statements such as: ‘I find contradicting others stimulating’ and ‘I consider advice from others an intrusion.’” Thirdly was those who reported they would feel disgust by being presented with 6 objects or events, including “a vial of your blood” and “receiving an anesthetic injection in the mouth.” Fourth and final was those who reported as having strong individualistic or hierarchical world views.

           On the topic of other vaccination concerns, Emily Mullins writes in an online article for Forbes.com that there are four primary kinds of people with four primary apprehensions about vaccinations. Citing a study conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Mullins lists the four types of non-vaccinators as: “people who possess incorrect knowledge that distorts their perceived risk of vaccination and weakens their trust in vaccinations, people who don't care about immunization, people who weigh potential pros and cons of vaccination, and may not vaccinate when information is contradictory, and people who lack the willpower to vaccinate or face the inconvenience of cost and travel” (2015). Mullins analyzes these types of people to identify characteristics associated with each group. The people who possess the incorrect knowledge, she says, are unlikely to believe in scientific proof of vaccine safety but are more willing to listen to trusted peers or friends. People who don’t care are identified by complacency. Those who weigh the potential pros and cons conduct their own research into the benefits of vaccinations, and still conclude that they are not worth the risk. People who lack the willpower or ability to vaccinate may want to vaccinate but are otherwise unable to because of poverty or some other barrier preventing them from vaccinating.

           In a world that is increasingly affected by social media influence, it would be unwise to neglect the power social media has in the anti-vaccination debate. Several studies have analyzed social media influences in an attempt to understand how people come to the conclusions regarding anti-vaccination. A study conducted by Ayelet Evrony and Arthur Caplan looked into the messages projected by a specific Facebook group, “A Voice for a Choice,” to determine the factuality of the information provided by the group’s moderators. As of January 2017, Evrony and Caplan state that 3,809 people have “liked” this page on Facebook, apparently giving it a large realm of influence over a large amount of people. According to Evrony and Caplan, posts from A Voice for a Choice contain many falsehoods and “long debunked theories regarding vaccination that are unsupported in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature.” To elaborate, Evrony and Caplan reference several instances where claims made by the group are contradictory to evidence collected by scientists. These would include claims such as “that it is ‘rare that any kid completely escapes from some effect caused by the toxic materials in vaccines’” and “that vaccines contain aluminum, a “neurotoxin,” in an amount that exceeds levels deemed safe by the EPA.” Evrony and Caplan quickly debunk these claims, and several others made by A Voice for a Choice. Evrony and Caplan also condemn an aspect of website that allows parents to post their “vaccine injury stories,” which, as Evrony and Caplan state, are not upheld by any scientific evidence, and do not require evidence that vaccines were even administered to these children. Throughout the remainder of the commentary, Evrony and Caplan further criticize A Voice for a Choice for their scientific inaccuracies and fearmongering. They end their commentary with the reflective statement: “Disagreement with proven facts is a choice that anyone can choose to make. Disseminating falsehoods, misinformation and distortions of the facts about vaccines is not a choice that ought to go unremarked and unchallenged” (Evrony and Caplan, 2017).

           Gail Lethbridge substantiates these claims in her newspaper article entitled “The Final Victory of Reason Over my Vaccination Fears.” As mentioned earlier, Lethbridge in her article discusses her internal debate on whether to vaccinate her son with the MMR vaccine following the release of Andrew Wakefield’s controversial scientific study. While she was coming to her decision, Lethbridge mentions how she came across one of these Facebook groups, and her reaction to discovering it. She claims that “the arguments [on the group] were shrill and often verging on outrage.” She states that the group was like “a boiling cauldron of suspicion, conspiracy theory and anxiety.” While she may have been able to remain impartial and unaffected by the Facebook influences she deemed as “hysteria” (Lethbridge, 2014), there are many people who do end up overwhelmed and overpowered by the messages these groups turn out. Kate Faasse, Casey J. Chatman, and Leslie R. Martin analyze such messages in their 2016 scientific study. In the introduction to their study, Faasse, Chatman, and Martin provide proven statistics from a variety of other studies and sources, intended to give context into the purpose of their own study. One such statistic states that “viewing a website containing anti-vaccination information for 10 min or less increased perceived risk of vaccination, and decreased the perceived risk of vaccine refusal” (Betsch, Renekewitz, Betsch, & Ulshöfer, 2010). The impact of this data is “striking.” The authors end their introduction with an admittance of their assumptions. They hypothesized that “comments expressing opposition to vaccinations would have less evidence of analytic thought…, more risk-related, anxiety, and health words…, [and] would contain more family-, biological-, money-, and work-related…words.” Their study, however, would find evidence of a different conclusion. Through the monitoring of a Facebook post with 1,489 comments, the authors noted that comments written by vaccination skeptics “were typified by greater analytical thinking, lower authenticity, more body and health references, and a higher percentage of work-related word use…plus more money references” than pro-vaccination and control comments. “In contrast,” the study concludes, “pro-vaccination comments demonstrated greater comparative anxiety, with a particular focus on family and social processes.” These results are given to show the correlation between a person’s stance on vaccination safety and their core values they rely on to make these decisions. Anti-vaccination commenters rely on these analytical and body-and-health-related comments to “provide scientific explanations for an unscientifically-backed perspective.” The study concludes with insight on the effectiveness of trying to persuade anti-vaccination groups to change their negative views on vaccinations. The authors state that “the arguments that those supporting vaccination think are compelling may not be particularly well matched with the concerns of those opposed to vaccination.” They instead offer their belief that “Education targeted toward enhancing understanding of science and the scientific method, and accurate messaging around health and biological mechanisms of vaccination, may be more effective in shifting views of the vaccine-hesitant compared to messages with a focus on the importance of immunization for protecting vulnerable members of society” (Faasse, Chatman, & Martin, 2016).

           The authors of the previous article may be correct in their assumption that the current method of convincing anti-vaccination groups of the errs in their ways may be flawed. In their study encompassing data from participants in 24 countries, Hornsey, Harris, and Fielding advise that such methods may be in vain. Quoting a study conducted by Horney, Powell, Hummel, and Holyoak, they learned that the provision of 315 Americans of corrective information did not adequately impact their attitudes towards vaccinations. Instead, Hornsey, Harris, and Fielding claim that the best way to change these attitudes is “to identify underlying motives for rejecting the science on immunization, and then to tailor interventions that are congenial to those underlying motivations.” They argue that the only way to get through someone’s preconceived apprehensions about science is to determine what is causing these apprehensions in the first place. Citing their previous findings of the three underlying roots of antivaccination attitudes (conspiratorial beliefs, reactance, and aversion towards blood and needles), Hornsey, Harris, and Fielding seek to determine what can be done to overcome these apprehensions individually, and if current methods are effective. The authors state that it is fruitless to attempt to prevent people from partaking in conspiratorial thinking, so instead one should “work with people’s underlying worldviews” through acknowledging the possibility of conspiracies, and implying that the real conspiracy is those arguing against the benefits of vaccination. The same technique can be used by those with a high tendency of reactance. If someone is worried about the high-pressure, high-conformist mentality of the pro-vaccination movement, pro-vaccination movements should instead state that the true high-pressure, high-conformist organizations are the anti-vaccination movements, in which “individual freedoms are discouraged.” To overcome and aversion to blood and needles, Hornsey, Harris, and Fielding argue that “avoidance of vaccination is a short-term anxiety reduction strategy,” and that pro-vaccination groups should remind people that the consequences of refusing vaccinations, i.e. hospitalization, illness, and surgery, will only result in more experience with blood and needles, only this time later in life (Hornsey, Harris, & Fielding, 2018).

           Another study examining the hesitance of the anti-vaccination movement showed an alternative way to convince people of the benefits of vaccinating, and explains an alternate theory of people’s apprehension. A study conducted by Robert Bohm, Nicolas W. Meier, Marina Groß, Lars Korn, and Cornelia Betsch attempted to find the correlation between willingness to vaccinate and how responsible people felt to vaccinate. In the study, the authors research the extent to which herd immunity persuades non-vaccinators to vaccinate, and under what circumstances are people more willing to vaccinate themselves or their children for the common good. Two tests were given to a group of people to determine if a willingness to vaccinate increased when the group was told of how their decisions affected others through herd immunity. In the first study, the intention to vaccinate increased “when non-vaccinators were described as willing but unable to get vaccinated.” The “willing but unable” referred to groups of people who were medically unable to vaccinate but would if they had the ability. Adversely, the intention to vaccinate did not increase as much when the moderators described non-vaccinators as people who were able but unwilling to vaccinate due to vaccine hesitancy. This study shows how the intention to vaccinate increases when people feel as if they have a duty to protect those who themselves have a low-responsibility to vaccinate (the willing but unable) than those who have a high-responsibility to vaccinate themselves (the able but unwilling). As a result, the authors speculate that an increase in vaccination rates is possible if non-vaccinators can be convinced of the social benefits of protecting other non-vaccinators through herd immunity.

           Others claim, though, that any current attempt to influence anti-vaccination mentality is unwise, and frankly, patronizing. Deirdre Healey shares this frame of mind in her newspaper article posted in The Guelph Mercury. Throughout the article, Healey condemns the “intense backlash toward people who express any hesitancy about vaccinations” and that this backlash is “pushing these parents farther away.” Healey discusses the effects rampant anti-vaccination sentiment has on parents who are members of the anti-vaccination groups that have been labelled “ignorant, selfish, and unreasonable.” Quoting several instances where anti-vaccination rhetoric may be grounded in scientific truth, Healey explains how many of these parents are misunderstood and whose concerns need to listened to, not ridiculed. Healey concedes that the odds of catching measles may be much higher than suffering from any dangerous side-effects of a vaccine, she explains that the decision on whether to vaccinate “has nothing to do with playing the odds.” Instead, she argues that it “has to do with the fact that if their child happens to be one of the very few who has a serious reaction to a vaccine, it will be because they drove their child to the doctor’s office and chose to give their child the shot.” A child contracting the disease, apparently, places less guilt on the parent than if they had become ill from a vaccination. As such, Healey attempts to argue as to how we can convince non-vaccinating parents of the safety of vaccines. “Definitely not by backing them into a corner and vilifying them,” she says. Instead, she offers that we should stop continuously telling parents that vaccines are safe, but rather we should address parents’ concerns directly, similarly to what Hornsey, Harris, and Fielding argue. Healey, though, claims that we need creating more easily accessible research examining the causes of possible side-effects of vaccinations and having this information readily available in doctors’ and family physicians’ offices.

Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren & Sølvi Helseth conducted a study on whether medical professionals, particularly nurses, should be providing parents with the information on vaccinations they are currently providing them with. In their study, Austvoll-Dahlgren and Helseth seek to learn to what extent parents’ decision-making processes are influenced by these health care professionals, and if parents feel as if they actually have any say in the matter at all. The study learned that “Public health nurses were the parents’ most important source of information” concerning whether or not to vaccinate, “but tended to inform to facilitate vaccinations.” As a result, parents were less confident that the decision to vaccinate was their own, citing the apparent pressure from nurses. The study concludes with the belief that nurses should not give their direct opinion on the matter, but should instead provide an unbiased opinion thoroughly explaining the benefits and harm to the parents. Then, they could be allowed to give a qualified recommendation.

According to the sources that were reviewed, a lot goes through the mind of a new parent deciding whether to vaccinate their child(ren). For over two decades, a general fear of vaccine-caused autism has persisted, aided in part by various studies, social media, and the lay opinion by concerned parents. From this has spurred a multitude of other concerns, including various illnesses, conspiracies, and intense individualism. People want to feel as if they are making their own informed decision and are often wary of when others try to tell them exactly what to do. As a result, concerned parents often turn to social media for what they believe to be knowledgeable opinions, oftentimes witnessing, or even falling victim to rapid radicalization by the anti-vaccination movement. Current attempts to calm parents’ concerns are apparently failing, but some experts and non-experts offer their two-cents on the best way to get through to those conflicted with anti-vaccination concerns: a general understanding of parental concerns and an ability to listen to any possible apprehensions appear to be the leading opinions in the matter.

Bibliography

Austvoll-Dahlgren, A., & Helseth, S. (2010). What informs parents’ decision-making about childhood vaccinations? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(11), 2421–2430. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05403.x

Ayelet Evrony & Arthur Caplan (2017) The overlooked dangers of anti-vaccination groups' social media presence, Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 13:6, 1475-1476, DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2017.1283467

Betsch C, Renkewitz F, Betsch T, Ulshöfer C. The influence of vaccine-critical websites on perceiving vaccination risks. J Health Psychol 2010;15:446–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105309353647.

Böhm, R., Meier, N.W., Groß, M. et al. J Behav Med (2019) 42: 381.

https://doi-org.du.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10865-018-9985-9

Faasse, K., Chatman, C. J., & Martin, L. R. (2016). A comparison of language use in pro- and anti-vaccination comments in response to a high profile Facebook post. Vaccine, 34(47), 5808–5814. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.09.029

Healey, Deirdre. (2015). We need to build trust with parents hesitant to vaccinate, not vilify them. The Guelph Mercury.

Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., & Fielding, K. S. (2018). The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: A 24-nation investigation. Health Psychology, 37(4), 307–315. doi: 10.1037/hea0000586

Lethbridge, G. (2014, April 26). The Final Victory of Reason Over my Vaccination Fears. The Halifax Chronicle Herald.

Mauer, E. D. (2014, August 19). Vaccine Fears. Retrieved October 6, 2019, from

https://www.thebump.com/a/vaccine-fears.

Mullin, E. (2015, November 29). The Four Main Reasons People Don’t Vaccinate. Retrieved October 6, 2019, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilymullin/2015/10/06/the-4-main-reasons-people-dont-vaccinate/#439de8b25fc1.

Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., & al, e. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351(9103), 637-41. doi:http://dx.doi.org.du.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0

[jackplotke]

Practice Run: Service Animals!

Interview Questions and Answers:

In the last 5 years we have generally have around 10 – 15 animals living on campus at any given time.  This includes both service animals and ESA’s.

The University doesn’t require students to “register” their animals.  Service animals are considered an access issue similar to a wheelchair and are therefore not required to request access to public spaces on campus unless the animals presence would fundamentally alter a course, service or activity.  For example, a service dog at a zoo would alter the way the exhibit animals behaved because a dog is either a predator or prey animal.  In addition a service animal can be banned from entering places where there are significant health risks due to the animals presence such as a burn unit in the hospital or a pharmaceutical preparation lab where they make medicines.  

ESA’s on the other hand are not considered the same as a service animal.  ESA’s are to provide personal comfort to someone within their home or where they live.  We do require that students and employees living on campus request to have an ESA as an accommodation.  The University have a no pet policy in the residence halls because animals can be very disruptive in the communal living environments that we have on campus.  The request and approval process allows students with documented disabilities the opportunity to have an approved animal as a disability accommodation to mitigate the impact of one of more symptoms of their disability.  In addition, ESA’s go through the approval process so that the University is able to ensure that someone doesn’t bring an animal that would pose a safety risk to the community or damage to University property or the property of others living in the residence halls (so no emotional support camels!).

Service animals are individually trained to perform a task or services associated with someone’s disability.  These tasks vary widely depending on the needs of the individual with the disability.  For example, some service animals are trained to be guide dogs for persons with vision loss.  Some service animals are trained to fetch dropped items or retrieve food or drinks from the refrigerator for people with mobility loss or provide pull assistance for someone who uses a wheelchair but doesn’t have the strength to propel themselves up ramps or hills.  In some circumstances the ADA (American’s with Disabilities Act) allows for a miniature horse to serve as a service animal but there are specific requirements associated with horses.  An ESA is not trained, it’s mere presence provides relief of 1 or more symptoms of a persons disability.

Services animals can only be dogs and in some situations a miniature horse.  ESA’s can be a wide range of animals including dogs, cats, Guinee pigs, etc.  Mostly the ESA’s on campus are cats and dogs though.

Survey Questions and Answers:

·      Question 1: How many students do you know who have service pets on campus?

o   1-3 people

·      Question 2: If applicable, please list what kinds of service pets you know (dog, cat, etc.)

o   Most respondents know dogs, but 5 respondents know cats

·      Question 3: Are there students in your class or dorm who have service pets?

o   35% of respondents know someone in their class or dorm with service pets

·      Question 4: Do you think service animals are helpful?

o   100% of respondents think service pets are helpful

·      Question 5: Do you think service animals are a distraction?

o   15% of respondents think they are a distraction

·      Question 6: If possible, please briefly explain your answer to questions 2 and/or 3.

o   2 Most Useful Responses:

§  “I feel that genuine service animals who have been trained are both useful and not a distraction. The distraction comes when students don’t respect the service animals and cause distractions themselves or when people bring fake ‘service animals’ to places simply because they felt like it. Those animals have no training and tend to be something of a nuisance.”

§ “I understand the need for service pets 100% but I personally am not a big fan of dogs so I don’t love seeing them in my classes or on the elevator in buildings. I also find a lot more people have dogs because they can bring them around with them all day versus cats or bunnies or something that have to stay at home.”

[jackplotke]

Research Journal #5

This research project has helped me learn so much about my topic. I’ve collected the ten necessary sources, but I feel like to get a solid, well-rounded understanding of the topic, I will need to keep searching for more. “Concerns about vaccinations” is a pretty broad subject and I have a lot of ground to cover, so there’s still a lot I need to do. But, I feel pretty confident that I will be able to find all the sources I need.

I’m still not sure about what kind of observations and primary research I will be conducting, though. From the research papers I’ve read with about the same goal in mind, a lot of the data they collect comes from studies with trials and experimentation. I don’t really have to same resources, so I will need to be creative when it comes to conducting my primary research. I do know that my sample population will probably be parents, and living on a college campus, this is a more difficult population to find. So once again, I’ll just have to get creative. There was a study that I read that focused on data collected from a Facebook anti-vaccination group, so that could be a genuine possibility for finding observations. From the sources that I have read, there is a more or less general consensus that internet groups play an important role in the spreading of vaccination concerns, and I know many people get their information (health related or not) from Facebook. So, it’s something to look into.

[jackplotke]

Lit Review: Self-Analysis

Working on the lit review has helped me immensely with figuring out my future steps in the research paper. It especially helped me sort out the sources I’ve collected and analyze how they’re all related. On top of this, it has really just helped me reflect on all that I’ve read so far. Going into this project, I didn’t realize all the underlying causes of vaccine apprehensions, and going through the sources has shown me that it’s not as clear cut as it appears. There’s so much that goes through the heads of parents when they have to make these important decisions, and the lit review has given me the ability to see how all of these concerns are interconnected and to what extent they all feed on one another. 

Moving forward, I’m excited to learn what the other sources have to offer on the subject. So far, I’ve only incorporated about half of the sources I’ve collected, so I know that the more I had to my lit review, the more I’ll learn about these interconnections. I hope, too, that whoever reads my review learns something as well. There’s a lot of misconceptions surrounding vaccinations, on both sides of the debate, and I hope that the sources I collect help bring this to light. Furthermore, I hope that my audience can tell that this is something that I’m genuinely passionate about. I've been working on accomplishing tasks for a greater goal than just receiving a good grade, and I hope that the things I write are reflections of this. 

[jackplotke]

Lit Review Peer Review: Ellie!

What is the writer’s main claim about the current research? Summarize it in two-three sentences:

The way we dress is related to both a desire to express our personalities as well as a necessity to “fit in.” The balance between these leads to individual fashion choices that showcase our personality and desire to stand out amongst the crowd.

·       How does the writer break the research into themes? Be specific.

The research is clearly broken into the claims of “From Macro to Micro: The Fashion Industry and Consumer Emotion,” “Individual Style and Identity,” and “Conformity.”

·       How does the writer synthesize his/her sources? Do you understand the connections between sources? If so, how? If not, explain this to the writer.

Inside the themes, the sources are synthesized well, and it is easy to understand how they are connected. Each source is related to the specific claim it is being used to develop.

·       Is the writer’s language and tone appropriate for an academic audience? Is there too much casual language? Is the tone too instructional or informational, rather than analytical? Is there too much summary of sources? If so, point this out for the writer.

The language and tone are appropriate for the academic audience. Any casual language is only used when necessary, such as in providing context for quotations (specifically the quotes involving Tan France). There is a good amount of analysis, and the language is appropriate for the analysis.

·       Does the writer use evidence to support his/her claims? Are there in-text citations (parenthetical citations)?

There is an abundance of evidence to support the claims, and they all contain the appropriate in-text citations.

·       Does the writer use supportive sources (i.e. using direct quotations)? What are some of them—point them out. Do you understand how and why they were used? Are they incorporated smoothly into the paper? Tell the writer if not, and tell him/her why it doesn’t work.

There are lots of instances where direct quotations are used. They are, for the most part, incorporated smoothly, and I can understand why they are being used. The ones best incorporated are when they merge well into the sentence, such as the ones from the Hunt and Miller report.

·       Where do you feel the writer could develop his/her claim more fully? Where do you feel the writer limits his/her synthesis?

From what I’ve read, the claims are developed pretty well, and analysis is done pretty well, too. I guess if you had to add anything, maybe add something to the theme from “Macro to micro” that explains the four stages/levels from Cholachatpinyo; it was kind of difficult to understand.

·       Does the writer use the appropriate style (MLA or APA) through the paper? This includes in-text citations, work cited/reference page as well as correct use of a heading, punctuation and spacing.

Just because of the formatting on Tumblr, it was hard to tell if the paper was in the appropriate style, since Tumblr doesn’t really allow for that. But, the citations were present and they looked to be done correctly. The in-text citations I believe were also correct.

·       Does the writer have any misspelled or misplaced words? Any awkward phrasing? If so, where, point them out. 

Not any misspelled words that I could find, and most of the sentences sounded good. Some were kinda long, though.

·       What did you learn as a reader of this paper?

I learned about the struggle between wanting to fit in while also wanting to show your original personality. The part with Tan France showed that it was possible to do both, and feel empowered at the same time. The part from Cholachatpinyo shows just how much effort is put into fashion, in very scientific ways proving that there is indeed a very scientific methodology to fashion.

    What are the two most important revision suggestions for this writer to address before the next draft? 

Maybe work on explaining some things more, or proving how they relate to the broader theme. Like I said earlier, I could tell how they related to the current theme, but not so much to the broader claim. It was super interesting though and it was definitely well thought-out!

[jackplotke]

Peer Review: Lit Review: Gretchen!

What is the writer’s main claim about the current research? Summarize it in two-three sentences:

Anxiety affects a large population of Americans very differently, so it is important to study the varying levels of anxiety and an anxiety disorder so we can better understand possible causes and how it effects people’s livelihoods.

·       How does the writer break the research into themes? Be specific.

The themes appear to be evidence based on statistical facts and symptoms to get a baseline of what an anxiety disorder entails, and then a more personal route of how anxiety disorders are misunderstood and its effects.

·       How does the writer synthesize his/her sources? Do you understand the connections between sources? If so, how? If not, explain this to the writer.

The sources all clearly provide key information to the research at hand, and it’s easy to understand how they are all necessary and relevant. While being presented separately and without much explicit relation stated, it is easy to infer how they will be connected in the actual research paper.

·       Is the writer’s language and tone appropriate for an academic audience? Is there too much casual language? Is the tone too instructional or informational, rather than analytical? Is there too much summary of sources? If so, point this out for the writer.

The language and tone are absolutely appropriate for an academic audience, and is consistent throughout the review. There’s a good amount of summary of the sources, but it’s kind of hard to tell where the summary ends and the analysis begins, so I think it could use a little more explicit analysis.

·       Does the writer use evidence to support his/her claims? Are there in-text citations (parenthetical citations)?

There is plenty of evidence to support the claim, and like I said earlier, it all seems to be well relevant. There’s plenty of in-text citations, but no parenthetical citation.

·       Does the writer use supportive sources (i.e. using direct quotations)? What are some of them—point them out. Do you understand how and why they were used? Are they incorporated smoothly into the paper? Tell the writer if not, and tell him/her why it doesn’t work.

All of the sources include direct quotations. The most well-incorporated ones are the “all in your head” and the ones in the first and second source paragraphs. The rest are incorporated well, but almost all rely on the initial phrase “such as,” which to me just sounds kind of repetitive.

·       Where do you feel the writer could develop his/her claim more fully? Where do you feel the writer limits his/her synthesis?

There are a good amount of sources detailing the prevalence of anxiety disorders in Americans, but it could use more information on what exactly causes these disorders.

·       Does the writer use the appropriate style (MLA or APA) through the paper? This includes in-text citations, work cited/reference page as well as correct use of a heading, punctuation and spacing.

I’m pretty sure the citations are done correctly, but to be honest, I’m not that familiar with APA citations. But they do look to be done well, though.

·       Does the writer have any misspelled or misplaced words? Any awkward phrasing? If so, where, point them out. 

Besides a little awkwardness of the incorporation of sources, there does not seem to be any noticeable awkward phrases or misspelled words.

·       What did you learn as a reader of this paper?

I learned the primary statistics regarding the prevalence of anxiety disorders, especially the breakdown between genders. I’m curious, though, about what causes the variance between diagnoses between men and women, especially when the difference is so great. Do you think there’s a lack of diagnoses in men, due to social beliefs about how men are supposed to act, or is there something about women that makes them more susceptible to anxiety disorders? I also learned some insight into people’s beliefs about the disorder, which I found very interesting. I especially liked the paragraph about the Time to Change website written by Gabriella, where she compares the disregard for anxiety disorders to a disregard of a common cold. It really made it so much more understandable.

    What are the two most important revision suggestions for this writer to address before the next draft? 

Some paragraphs could use more analysis, and I’m also interested to see what other sources you bring into the next draft with more information about each claim. Overall, more explanation about the sources could be good, but other than that, I really liked it!