The psychology articles found from the NY Times or internet sources, like the Science Daily and Scientific American, had sensational headlines on popular “hot topics” to attract the reader’s attention. For instance, the title from the NY Times article: “How to Cope With Seasonal Affective Disorder” and the image that accompanies it automatically suggests that a majority of people are dealing with this disorder because of the changing weather. Although the journalist tries to clarify this in the article with statistics that only six percent of Americans are dealing with it, the tone of the article is set to entertain the reader. In fact, a majority of the articles found are written in a similar tone. The majority of the articles reported by the NY Times, Scientific American, and Science Daily supports their claims with findings from a peer-reviewed study. The articles from NY Times had a direct link to the peer-reviewed article to support most of the claims presented. The peer-review articles center around highly represented research institutions to demonstrate authority and increase the validity of the claims presented. However, there is no evidence presented by the writer that the articles were read. For example, while trying to validate some of the claims, I found that most of them were probably a paraphrased version of the abstract. Despite the hypotheses and approach researchers included in the journals, the writers just included claims to get their idea across, with no regard about how and why the independent variable may have caused the dependent variable to occur. In the article on Science Daily about how the creative brain may be wired differently, the author only cites one source: Harvard University. The writer uses direct quotes around statements that are claimed to be said by the head researcher; however, the exact words were unable to be found in the article.