PS 323 Unit 8 Applied or Policy Paper Example

Course	PS 323 Psychology of Gender
Unit	Unit 8
Paper type	Applied or policy paper
Length	About 1,030 words, 6 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Herzing University
Program	BS in Psychology
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for PS 323 Unit 8

Same Questions, Same Scale, Criteria Written First: An Applied Paper Recommending Structured Interviews for a Composite County Human Resources Office, Each Part Traced to Evidence and the Unsupported Parts Left Out

Student Name

Psychology, Herzing University

PS 323: Psychology of Gender

Instructor Name

August 25, 2026

What this page is doingThe title states the recommendation in operational terms and promises that every part is tied to evidence, with the rest omitted. A modest recommendation that knows its limits is the finished form of this unit.

Applied or Policy

This paper takes the applied option. A policy paper would recommend a change in law or public regulation, which requires evidence about effects at the scale of a state or nation. An applied paper recommends something one organization can do, which allows a narrower and better-supported proposal. The organization is a composite: the human resources office of a county government with about nine hundred employees, which hires around one hundred and twenty people a year for roles ranging from clerks to engineers. Hiring managers currently conduct unstructured interviews, choosing their own questions and forming overall impressions.

The Recommendation

The office should adopt structured interviews for all hiring, built on three practices. First, before any applicant is interviewed, the hiring panel writes down the criteria for the role and how each will be judged. Second, every applicant for a role answers an identical set of job-based questions, put in a fixed order. Third, each answer is scored on one anchored scale, with every panel member rating alone before the panel talks, and the ratings are combined by a fixed rule.

Which Findings Support Each Part

Structured interviews predict job performance better

Levashina et al. (2014) reviewed decades of research on the employment interview and concluded that structure, including standardized questions, job-related content and systematic rating, improves the reliability and validity of interviews as predictors of job performance. The first purpose of the recommendation is therefore better hiring decisions for everyone, regardless of gender.

Unstructured evaluation leaves room for gendered judgments

Correll et al. (2007) showed in a controlled experiment that evaluators rated mothers as less competent and committed than otherwise identical women without children, and recommended lower starting salaries for them, while fathers were not penalized. The evaluators in that study made overall judgments from resumes without fixed criteria. Writing criteria in advance and rating each answer against an anchored scale reduce the room for such impressions to shape the outcome, because the evaluation is tied to specified, job-related evidence.

Fixed questions remove an obvious channel

When managers choose their own questions, they may ask different applicants different things, including questions about family plans or caregiving that are irrelevant to the job. Using the same job-based questions for everyone removes that channel by design.

What this page is doingEach part of the recommendation is linked to a named finding, and the paper explains the mechanism by which the practice would address it. Tracing every element to evidence is what this unit grades.

How the Office Would Put It in Place

Implementation would begin with the roles the county fills most often, such as administrative assistants, maintenance workers and caseworkers, since a question set built once can be used many times. For each role, a human resources analyst and two experienced employees would identify the tasks and abilities the job requires and write six to eight questions tied to them, with a rating scale that describes what a weak, adequate and strong answer looks like. Hiring managers would receive a short training on using the questions and scale, rating independently and recording ratings before the panel discusses an applicant. The office would keep the questions and scales on file so that every panel for the same role uses the same version. None of this requires new software or outside consultants, although the first round of question writing takes time, perhaps a day for each role. Levashina et al. (2014) describe these elements, job analysis, standardized questions and anchored rating, as central to what makes an interview structured.

Objections the Office Should Expect

Hiring managers often prefer unstructured interviews because they feel more natural and allow follow-up on whatever seems interesting. Two responses are available. Structured interviews can include planned follow-up questions, so conversation is not eliminated. And the evidence that structure improves prediction of performance means managers are giving up a feeling of insight in exchange for better decisions. Some managers may also object that fixed criteria prevent them from hiring for fit. The office can respond that fit, if it matters, should be defined in job-related terms and written into the criteria in advance, where it can be applied consistently to every applicant.

What the Evidence Does Not Reach

Several things a reader might want are deliberately left out, because the cited findings do not support them.

The paper does not claim that structured interviews will close any gender pay gap in the county. Blau and Kahn (2017) found that by 2010 the largest measured contributors to the national gap were differences in occupation and industry, which hiring interviews within one employer do little to change.

It does not claim that structure eliminates bias. Levashina et al. (2014) describe structure as improving reliability and validity; the evidence reviewed here does not establish how much it reduces gender bias in particular, and that effect would need to be measured in the county's own data.

It does not recommend changes to pay scales, parental leave or promotion, which may matter but are outside what this evidence addresses.

It does not make legal claims about which interview questions are prohibited, which would require legal advice rather than psychological research.

How the County Would Know Whether It Helped

The office could compare, before and after adoption, the proportion of women among applicants who pass each stage of hiring for roles in which women have been underrepresented, and the agreement between panel members' independent ratings. Neither comparison would prove the change caused any difference, since applicant pools change, but together they would show whether the process is working as intended.

Can the Recommendation Be Modest?

It should be. A recommendation that promised to end gender inequality in hiring would outrun the evidence. One that improves the quality of hiring decisions, reduces a documented route for gendered judgments and can be measured is supported by the research and achievable by a single office. Recommending something an organization can begin next month, and measure within a year, is often more useful than recommending a transformation it cannot carry out. A modest recommendation also invites the next step: if the county's data show that structured interviews narrowed gaps at certain hiring stages, that evidence would support extending the same discipline to promotion decisions.

References

Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2017). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(3), 789-865. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20160995

Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297-1339. https://doi.org/10.1086/511799

Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the research literature. Personnel Psychology, 67(1), 241-293. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12052

The Herzing PS 323 Unit 8 instructions

The final PS 323 unit asks students to choose between an applied paper and a policy paper and to make a specific recommendation. Expect to state the proposal clearly, show which cited findings support each part of it, and leave out every part the evidence does not reach. An applied paper recommends something one organization can do; a policy paper recommends a change at a larger scale and needs evidence about effects at that scale. A modest recommendation is acceptable and often stronger. Proposing something for your own workplace is possible if the organization is not identified, though a composite keeps the paper focused on evidence rather than on local politics. A section on how the organization would know whether the change helped is usually expected.

How this PS 323 Unit 8 example is built

The sample explains its choice of the applied option and describes the composite county office. The recommendation is stated as three practices. Three run-in sections link each practice to evidence: structure's effect on prediction, the room unstructured judgment leaves for gendered impressions, and fixed questions removing an obvious channel. An implementation section describes job analysis, question writing, training and record keeping. A section anticipates managers' objections. The section on what the evidence does not reach lists four omissions, and the close explains how the county would measure effects and why a modest recommendation is appropriate. Each practice is matched with the finding that supports it and the mechanism by which it would work.

Where the points sit in the PS 323 Unit 8 rubric

Rubrics for the applied or policy paper typically reward a clear choice between options, a specific recommendation, each part traced to evidence, honest omission of unsupported parts and a plan for knowing whether it worked. The choice earns credit when justified by the scale of available evidence. Specificity scores when the recommendation could be carried out as written. Tracing to evidence is often the most heavily weighted criterion. Omission is credited when the paper names what readers might want and explains why it is left out. Measurement earns points when the paper proposes observable checks while admitting they cannot prove cause. Anticipating objections from the people who would carry out the recommendation is often credited as practical judgment.

PS 323 Unit 8 help: mistakes that cost points

Final papers lose points when recommendations are broad aspirations, such as eliminating bias, with no specific practice attached. Another frequent weakness is citing evidence that supports a general principle but not the specific recommendation. Students often promise outcomes, such as closing a pay gap, that the evidence cannot support. Some propose legal or policy changes from psychological findings alone. Others leave out implementation, so the recommendation cannot be carried out. Ignoring likely objections from the people who would have to adopt the change is a quieter gap. Treating a recommendation's plausibility as evidence for it is another trap; each part needs its own support. Leaving out how anyone would know whether the change worked removes the paper's means of being tested.

Get a PS 323 Unit 8 example written to your instructions

Give us the Unit 8 instructions, the PS 323 rubric and the setting or audience the assignment specifies. We write a custom example that evidences the problem first, numbers the proposal into separately cited elements, costs the implementation and names what it declines to propose. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.

More PS 323 papers and psychology samples

PS 323 Unit 8 questions, answered

Applied or policy, which one should I choose?

Take whichever your evidence can carry. A policy paper needs research about populations and some sense of who holds the authority to act; an applied paper needs research about a setting you can describe concretely. Sections often specify, and where yours does not, decide before drafting and say in the opening which you wrote, because a piece drifting between the two satisfies neither.

Can the recommendation be modest?

Modest is usually the better paper. A small measure with every element traced to a cited finding demonstrates the skill being graded; a sweeping proposal supported by one review demonstrates ambition. Markers in a final unit are generally looking for whether the writer can size a claim to the evidence, which is easier to show on something narrow.

Can I propose something for my own workplace?

Describe the setting generically and keep the organization out. Internal policies, staffing arrangements, incident records and anything identifying colleagues do not travel, because coursework leaves your employer's control the moment it is submitted. A setting described by its type rather than its name carries the proposal perfectly well, and it also stops the paper from reading as a complaint about people who never saw it.

Where can I find a free PS 323 Unit 8 sample paper?

The finished PS 323 Unit 8 applied paper on structured interviews can be read in full on this page for free, with the evidence for each practice, the omissions and margin notes. Writing the policy version instead? Share the assignment and a policy paper is prepared for you free.

Can the PS 323 Unit 8 recommendation be modest?

It should be, if that is what the evidence supports. The sample recommends structured interviews for one office and explicitly declines to claim they will close any pay gap.

PS 323 Unit 8 applied or policy paper example