This research topic interests be because this question has a plethora of answers and since I am a member of the "trophy generation", I most likely would like to know the answers. This question affects me personally because I am a part of the group the question is analyzing. My personal values include the idea that everything should be earned. Humility is very important to growing minds in my opinion and the answers to this raised question support that. My personal experience on this almost entirely consists of playing sports as a kid and being given participation trophies for my membership. I have reached an age where the supposed effects of participation trophy syndrome are said to be in full bloom. I am a member of the subject group and so is everyone I interact with on a daily basis.  I have been surrounded by these people my entire life so I know them and their behaviors very well. I am literally the evidence supporting my argument. I am the primary researcher as well as the results of that research. I believe this topic is extremely important to the members of my generation and the next generation as it could shed light on many of the issues we face as young adults, as well as possibly provide solutions. 

One piece I found was an article in the New York Times. It states that the rapid increase in the amount of trophies given out to young developing children has devalued trophies for an entire generation as well as cause lasting psychological damage. The article says that nonstop recognition and praise does not motivate children to succeed but instead it actually causes them to underachieve for years to come. The author of the article believes, as the title suggests, that losing is good for you. The article suggests that children running across failure and obstacles encourage the development of problem-solving skills and reasoning proficiency. The article values the strong, tested, and self-determined individual. The articles stake in the matter is the overall weakening of the character of a generation of people. The author is very biased and takes a view most adults who grew up in the first three quarters of the nineteenth century have, that everything should be earned and that kids need to be raised more hardcore. The author has published two books on the topics he discusses and has performed extensive hands on research in the fields of child psychology. 

Another article, "Do we all deserve gold?" claims that the best way to raise children is not to give them constant awards and praise but instead supply them with the grit and tools to take on the world themselves and make their own way. Their evidence showed that kids who were given nonstop praise throughout their childhoods were not as productive as ones who were not. This article has large stakes in the matter because the author is a Ph.D. in the topic and they have ethical and moral obligations. The author values strong, self-motivated young adults and they do not believe those types of young adults are being developed due to the topics problems. The article is very credible due to the authors credentials of a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, which relates directly to the question being asked in this research question. The author has completed research in the field of mental development in children and where she has not done so, she cites evidence from other sources or referenced commonly known facts. 

The last source pertaining to this research question is a book titled "The Trophy Kids Grow Up." This book claims that the overall over-rewarding of children has caused notable differences in their behavior, attitudes, skills, and expectations once they reach adulthood when compared to the last generation. The book names the cause of the "trophy kids", helicopter parents, and explains that the thing hurting kids the most is the very thing that is trying to protect them. The book is biased in the sense that is is arguing against a certain thing but is takes a very fact based, scientific approach to the matter. Is is not so much an opinion piece like the other two articles, but a research findings paper. The author has been a senior writer and editor at five top magazines and newspapers including the Wall Street Journal and Workforce Management magazine which gives him a vast insight to the problem he is discussing in his book. The credibility is his experience which is vast in this matter. 

This research question is arguable because it is highly controversial and has scientific answers and two very opinionated sides. The two sides agree that children under the ages of 8-10 should be left out of the research because they are very young and at that age the trophies are more to get kids interested in sports than reward anything. They disagree on everything else from why the trophies should or shouldn't be given out, to what the lasting effects on the children's' minds are. The different perspectives have made me more opinionated to the anti-trophy side when I was close to neutral before. I may not need to revise my research question because it fits the direction I am taking the project thus far. 
