Research Paper Continuation: Follow Paper 2 Instructions and write according to instructions (I have attached a sample paper and structured out the format for Paper 2). – I have attached Paper 1 inst

Research Paper Continuation: Follow Paper 2 Instructions and write according to instructions (I have attached a sample paper and structured out the format for Paper 2). – I have attached Paper 1 inst
PAPER II 0 Instructions for Paper II: Study One Method, Results, and Discussion (Worth 35 Points) Maria Reid Florida International University Purpose of Paper II: Study One Method, Results, and Discussion 1). Psychological Purpose The psychological purpose behind Paper II is to make sure you can tell your reader what you did on your study, how you did it, and what you found. By now you have read several empirical studies in psychology, and you should be familiar with the Method, Results, and Discussion sections. Now is your chance to write Method, Results and Discussion! Like those prior studies you looked at in Paper I, you will provide information about your participants, materials, and procedure in your Method section. Your participant section goes first, and it includes descriptive statistics about your sample (means and standard deviations for age as well as percentages for gender and race/ethnicity). Your materials and procedure sections include information about what you did and how you did it. You should write this section for an audience who is unfamiliar with your specific study, but assume that they do know research Method. Thus educate your reader about your materials and procedure, giving enough detail so they could replicate the study. This includes explicitly describing your independent and dependent variables and talking about how you presented those variables to your participants. My suggestion is to look over the articles you summarized in Paper I and see how they wrote their Method. This will give you a good idea regarding the level of depth and detail you need in your own Method section. Your Results section follows. The purpose of this section is to make sure you can show how you analyzed the data and describe what you found. You will have a lot of help in this section from your lab instructors. Finally, I want you to include a short description of your findings. Tell me if you supported or did not support your hypotheses and explain why you got those results (you can actually speculate here if you like, but make it an “educated” speculation!) 2). APA Formatting Purpose The second purpose of Paper II: Method, Results and Discussion is to once again teach you proper American Psychological Association (APA) formatting for these sections. In the pages below, I will tell you how to format your paper using APA style. There are a lot of very specific requirements in APA papers (as specific as what to italicize), so pay attention to the instructions below as well as the APA powerpoint on canvas! 3). Writing Purpose Finally, this paper is intended to help you figure out how to write a Method, Results, and Discussion section. Many students find statistics daunting, but my hope here is that writing this paper will help you understand both the logic and format of statistics in results sections. We will once again give you a lot of feedback and help in this paper, which you help you when you write Papers IV and V later in the course. Make sure that you write this for an audience familiar with APA Method and results, but also for someone who needs you to tell them what you found. Note: The plagiarism limit is higher in this paper (up to 65%) since your classmates are doing the same design. Don’t go higher than that, though! 65% is the maximum allowed! Sorry for the length of the instructions! They are long, but take it one section at a time and you will get all of the content you need in your paper and get a great grade! Method Title Page: I expect the following format (1 point): The title page for your Paper II is identical to the one you used for Paper I: Literature Review Study One. For proper APA formatting, I suggest you either copy your title page from Paper I or review the title page instructions I gave you in Paper I. Abstract, Graphs, and Tables? These are optional You DO NOT need an abstract for Paper II: Method, Results, and Discussion (Study One). You can choose to include one if you want, but they will not be graded. Method Section: I expect the following format (15 points): For this paper, the Method section starts on page 2. Write Method at the top of this page, make it bold, and center it (see the top of this page as an example!) The participants section comes next. The word Participants is bolded and left justified. In this section … Tell me who your participants were (college students, family members, friends?) and how many there were. Note: If a number starts a sentence, then spell out the number. That is, “Two-hundred and five participants participated in this study.” If a number is mid-sentence, you can use numerals. “There were 205 participants in this study.” But keep numbers consistent. If you spell out a number at the start of the sentence, carry that through and spell out other numbers in the sentence. For statistics, always use numbers (for the mean, SD, %, etc.) Provide frequencies and descriptive statistics for relevant demographics. For some variables—like ethnicity and gender—you only need to provide frequency information (the number of participants who fit that category). “There were 100 men (49%) and 105 women (51%) in the study.” Or “The sample was 49% male (n = 100) and 51% female (n = 105).” Other variables—like age—are continuous (rather than categorical), so use descriptive statistics here (the range, mean, and the standard deviation). “Participants ranged in age from 18 to 77 (M = 24, SD = 3.50).” or “The average age of participants was 24 (SD = 3.50).” Your TA can help you find the mean and standard deviation for this assignment, though information is also available in a lab powerpoint. Make sure to italicize the n, M, and SD (the letters, not the numbers) Materials and Procedure For this section, things are flexible. Some studies include Materials and Procedure in the same section while others break them up into two sections. This is a matter of choice. In general, the more complex the design, the better it is to split up the Method and results. In one section, the author may describe the materials; in the next, they describe what participants did with those materials (the procedure). This is one option for you. However … However, your “Paper II: Method, Results and Discussion (Study One)” is simple enough that I strongly recommend combining them into one overall Materials and Procedure section. Again, the words Materials and Procedure are flush left. In this section … Provide information about your materials and your procedure. I suggest starting with your procedure. Tell your reader what your participants did in the order participants did them. Be specific here. I have the following recommendations: First, talk about the oral informed consent procedure. Second, talk about the three versions of the Study questionnaire. Provide enough detail so that your readers know how the three conditions differ. As a reader, I need to able to replicate your design, so you need to give me enough detail so I can do so. Third, talk about your dependent variables (that is, your survey questions. For these dependent variables, once again provide enough detail so I know exactly what questions you asked. For example, “Participants provided their gender, age, and race”. For other dependent variables, tell me how the responses were recorded (yes/no, true/false, a scale of 1 to 6, etc.). If you used a scale, note the endpoints/anchor points. That is, does a 1 mean it is high or is it low? “Participants were asked, ‘How frustrating was this task?’, and they responded on a scale from 1 (very frustrating) to 9 (not at all frustrating).’” Note that the descriptions of the points in the parentheses are in italics. Do not list all of the questions on the questionnaire but you do have to list the ones that you analyzed. Finally, mention debriefing There is no set minimum or maximum on the length of the Method section, but I would expect at least a page or two (though probably more. After all, your own research script took up several pages – you should provide a similar level of depth and detail in your Method section!). Missing important aspects of your IVs and DVs or presenting them in a confused manner will lower your score in this section. Results Section: I expect the following format (10 points): The results are the hardest part of this paper, and your lab powerpoints will help you with this part of the paper (also refer to the crash course statistics quizzes, which walk you through similar analyses!). First, write Results at the top of this section, center it, and use boldface. This section comes directly at the end of the Method section, so the results section DOES NOT start on its own page. For this assignment, include statistics about the most important variables in your study, including your IV (See note #3 below) and the DVs you feel are most important to your hypotheses. For this paper, you must run at least three different analyses on three different dependent variables. One must be a chi square for the question asking participants which to recall the theme of the advertisements (our manipulation check, which looks at the three options for the nominal variable in Part VI). At least one of the remaining two analyses must be a One Way ANOVA (I actually recommend that both of your last two analyses focus on One Way ANOVAs). The third analysis can be either an ANOVA or a t-Test. Since all ten of the Riley Washington impression questions in Part II are scaled 1 to 6, I recommend running ANOVAs on two of those ten dependent variables (on in the sexual category and one in the romance condition). Now, you could run an ANOVA on the question “Riley seems sexy” OR you could run a t-Test on the question “Riley seems sexy”, but because it is the same dependent variable, that only counts as one DV. We count the number of DVs you analyze – NOT the number of statistical tests you run! Chi square: Your first analysis will be a chi square, which you use if your DV is categorical (yes / no; yes / no / maybe; male / female, or … in our case, we have our “Theme” based questions in Part IV (See note #3 below). So let’s discuss the chi square, which does not look at means but rather counts how many responses there are compared to how many you would expect. Consider the DV in Part VI of your questionnaire Here, you can run a chi square looking at the frequencies of the three answer options We are interested in the chi square (χ2) and p value. We also provide percentages for each of our groups (rather than means and SD). “Using the priming condition as our independent variable (Sexuality, Romance, or Education) and the general ad theme participants recalled seeing as the dependent variable, we saw a significant effect, χ2(4) = 68.49, p < .05. Most participants in the sexuality condition recalled see an ad theme based on sexuality (98%); most participants in the romance condition recalled see ads about romance (96%); and most participants in education condition recalled seeing ads about education (90%). This indicates that participants saw our manipulation as intended.” Make sure to italicize the χ and p Make sure to use the greek letter χ or the English equivalent, which is Chi square. Do not use X. Your p value must be reported as p <.05 if it is insignificant. If it is not significant, then the exact value should be reported, e.g. p = .21 ANOVA: Since you have a condition independent variable with three levels (e.g. Sexuality, Romance, or Education), the most appropriate test is a One-Way ANOVA if your DV is scaled (like a 0 to 6 scale or a 1 to 6 scale). Your lab and lecture powerpoints show you how to conduct an ANOVA, but there are some guidelines I want to give you about how to write your results. Below, I am going to walk you through one analysis specific to this paper. However, keep in mind that you can run ANOVAs on several different DVs. First, there are several dependent variables to choose from. For my example analysis below, I want to focus on Part II in your survey. Since each of the ten questions in Part II are scaled variables that range from 1 to 6, each uses an interval scale, which is perfect for an ANOVA. (Other questions we can look at are all of those ranging from 1 to 6 in Part III). Second, given that this study has one IV with three levels and one DV that is on a continuous (ratio or interval) scale, a One-Way ANOVA is the best test to use to see if there are significant differences among the levels. We look first at the ANOVA table (or F table) and focus on the between subject factor. We note the degrees of freedom, the F value itself, and the p value. (We’ll get into two-way ANOVAs later in this course, but here we only have one independent variable, so it is a one-way ANOVA. Yes, we have three levels to our IV, but it is still only one IV). If the p value is significant (less than .05), we have one more step to take. Since this is a three level IV, we need to compare mean A to mean B, mean A to mean C, and mean B to mean C. We do this using a post hoc test (try using Tukey!). That will tell us which of the means differ significantly. You then write up the results. For example, let’s say I ran an ANOVA on the dependent variable “Riley seems sexy”. My write up would look like this (though note: I completely made up the data below, so don’t copy the numbers but you can copy the format!) … “Using the priming condition (Sexuality v. Romance v. Education) as our independent variable and ratings of “Riley seems sexy” as the dependent variable, we found a significant condition effect, F(2, 203) = 4.32, p < .05. Tukey post hoc tests showed that participants thought Riley seemed more sexy in the sexual condition (M = 4.56, SD = 1.21) than participants in both the romance (M = 2.24, SD = 0.89) and education (M = 2.23, SD = 0.77) conditions. The romance and education conditions, however, did not differ from each other.” Note there are lots of possible outcomes. The one above essentially says that condition S (Sexuality) differed from R (Romance) and E (Education), but that R and E did not differ from each other (In other words, S ≠ R = E). However, we might also find that NONE of the three conditions differ from each other (S = R = E) or we might find that ALL conditions differ from each other (S ≠ R ≠ E). As an example for this latter (S ≠ R ≠ E), I would predict no differences between the three conditions for the dependent variables “Riley seems educated” and “Riley seems outgoing” Make sure to italicize the F, p, M, and SD (as in the example) Pretty simple, right! I suggest going back and doing this same procedure for at least one additional scaled DV . However, if you choose you can do a t-Test on one of those other dependent variables as well. Here’s how: t-Test: If you have only two levels to your IV (e.g. Sexuality or Education only), things are even more simple. Here, you will run a t-Test (a t-Test looks at differences between only two groups). Again, your lab presentations tell you how to run this, but you can do it on your own as well (you can even run this if your study originally has three levels to the IV – when you go into the t-Test menu in SPSS, choose “define groups” and select 1 and 3 (Sexuality = 1 and Education = 3). This will let you look at two of the groups! You could also select “2 and 3” or “1 and 2” where the Romance condition = 2). Rather than an F value, we will look at the t value in the t-Test data output. Here, we have one number for the degree of freedom, we have the t value, and we have the p value. The nice thing about a t-Test is that since you only have two groups, you do not need a post hoc test like Tukey (you only need that if you have to compare three means. Here, we only have two means, so we can just look at them and see which one is higher and which is lower when our t-Test is significant). Then just write it up … “Using the priming condition (Sexuality v. Education) as our independent variable and ratings of “Riley seems sexy” as our dependent variable, we found a significant condition effect, t(203) = 8.12, p < .05. Participants rated Riley as more sexy in the sexuality condition (M = 5.56, SD = 1.21) than participants in the education condition (M = 2.23, SD = 0.77).” Repeat for other dependent variables Make sure to italicize the t, p, M , and SD (as in the example) Statistics order recommendation: For this paper, start your results section with the chi square (your manipulation check). Then talk about your main analyses. Make sure the analyses line up with your hypotheses. There is no page minimum or maximum for the results section, though I would expect it to be at least one paragraph for each dependent variable Appendices (4 points) I want to make sure you are including the correct numbers in your results section, so I want you to include all tables for each of your analyses in a series of appendices. Your tables must be in APA format. Appendix A: Include your tables for the percentages from your chi square and the crosstabs as well as the chi square statistics Appendix B: Include your tables for the means for your both dependent variables as well as the ANOVA statistics for ANOVA Appendix C (only if you did a t test): Include your tables for the means for your dependent variable as well as the t test statistics for a t test, if you did this. APA formatted tables must have a heading and a title. The heading should be something like Table 1, Table 2. The title should tell me what type of statistics used, the dependent and the independent variable. I should not have to look back at the text to know what is in the table. Here is an example of a good title: Means of depression scores by gender. APA tables do not have any vertical lines and a minimal of horizontal lines. A line at the top and bottom and one setting off the header. Discussion Study One (2 points) In this section, tell me about your findings and if they did or did not support your results. It might help to refer back to your hypotheses “We expected to find A but instead found B” or “We expected to find A and our results supported this hypothesis.” Explain using plain English why you think your study turned out the way it did. IMPORTANT – Do NOT give me statistics again here. I can find those in your results section. Here, all I want is a plain English summary of your findings. Also, don’t give me results for a DV if you did not run an analysis on that DV. Only tell me about the results you actually looked at in the results section. There is no length requirement for this section, but I recommend at least four or five sentences Overall writing quality (3 points) Make sure you check your paper for proper spelling and grammar. The FIU writing center is available if you want someone to look over your paper (an extra eye is always good!) and give you advice. I highly recommend them, as writing quality will become even more important on future papers. I also recommend visiting the FIU Research Method Help Center if you need additional guidance with writing or statistical analyses. Other Guidelines for Paper II – Method and Results (Study One)   Page size is 8 1/2 X 11” with all 4 margins should be one inch. PLEASE use a spell checker to avoid unnecessary errors. Proofread everything you write. I actually recommend reading some sentences aloud to see if they flow well, or getting family or friends to read your work. Use the Paper II Checklist on the next page before you turn in your paper to make sure it is the best paper you can write! Checklist – Paper II: Study One Method, Results, and Discussion Use the check sheet below to make sure your paper is the best it can be! Make sure you answer “Yes” to all questions before submitting your paper! The first two sections duplicate the Paper I checklist, but those elements in purple are unique to you Method / Results / Discussion Paper II General Paper Format (This section is identical to the Paper I Checklist) Yes No Is everything in your paper double spaced, including references (here I mean the spacing above and below each line, not the spaces following a period)? Do you have one inch margins on all sides of the paper (one inch from the top of the page, one inch from the bottom, and one inch from each side) Are the first lines of all paragraphs indented another ½ inch (or 1 ½ inches from the page edge)? Are your paragraphs aligned left? (That is, text should be flush left, with lines lining up on the left of the page, but text should NOT line up on the right side of the page – it should look ragged) Do you need help figuring out how to configure a word document in APA format (inserting headers, page numbers, proper indents, etc.)? If YES or NO, I highly recommend watching this video which walks you through setting up an APA formatted paper! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pbUoNa5tyY​  Title page (This section is identical to the Paper I Checklist) Yes No Header Is the rest of your Running head title in ALL CAPS? Is your Running head in the same font as the rest of the paper? Do you have a page number that is flush right Title / Name / Institution Is your title 12 words (as recommended by the APA)? Do all title words with four letters or more start with a capital letter? Are your name and institution correct? Are your title, name, and institution elements centered Method Section (New Information in this section) Yes No Header Is your header title present and identical to your header title on the title page? Is your header title in ALL CAPS Do you have a page number starting on page 2 Title for the Method section Is the word “Method” centered and in bold at the top of your Method page? Method Section Continued Yes No Participants Do you have the word “Participants” flush left and in bold, right below the word “Method”? Did you list out your demographic characteristics, including gender, age, and ethnicity / race? Did you provide the descriptive statistics for (means and standard deviations) for age and italicize the letters M and SD? Did you provide frequencies for gender and ethnicity/race and italicize the n? Materials and Procedure Did you mention informed consent? Did you thoroughly describe your independent variable in enough depth and detail that another researcher could duplicate your materials? Did you give this IV a name that matches up with the name you refer to in the results section? Did you describe all of your most relevant dependent variables, noting the scales you used (e.g. “Yes / No”, “A scale ranging from 1 (not at all likely) to 9 (very likely))” for EACH of your DVs? Did you fully describe what participants went through in the study, noting the order in which they received study materials (e.g. first informed consent, then IVs, DVs, and debriefing)? Results Section (New Information in this section) Yes No Do you have the word “Results” centered and in bold, immediately following the Method section? Did you analyze at least two different dependent variables? Note: using a t-Test to analyze question #4 and an ANOVA to once again analyze question #4 does NOT count as two different DVs. That is the same DV analyzed twice. Make sure to look at two different DVs Did you mention both the IV and the DV by name when talking about your analysis? Did you include means and standard deviations within parentheses for each level of your independent variable? Did you italicize the letters F, t, p, M, SD, and χ2 (where appropriate)? Discussion Section (New Information in this section) Yes No Do you have the word “Discussion” centered and in bold, immediately following the results section? Did you remind your reader of your hypothesis? Did you mention whether you supported or did not support your hypothesis? Appendix Section – Study One (New Information in this section) Yes No Do you have the word “Appendix” centered on each Appendix page, followed by a description of the appendix content, immediately following the results section? In Appendix A (Chi Square), do you have the table (with percentages) for the chi square test ? In Appendix B (ANOVA), do you have the descriptives table for the ANOVA for your first dependent variable? In Appendix C (ANOVA or t-Test), do you have the descriptives table for the ANOVA for your second dependent variable? Do the analyses in Appendix C and B focus on DIFFERENT dependent variables? (Make sure you answer YES on this one!) Does each table have a heading and a title?
Research Paper Continuation: Follow Paper 2 Instructions and write according to instructions (I have attached a sample paper and structured out the format for Paper 2). – I have attached Paper 1 inst
LITERATURE REVIEW 0 Instructions for Paper I: Study One Literature Review Instructions (Worth 25 Points) Maria L. Reid Florida International University Purpose of Paper I: Study One Literature Review 1). Psychological Purpose This paper serves several purposes, the first of which is helping you gain insight into research papers in psychology. As this may be your first time reading and writing papers in psychology, one goal of Paper I is to give you insight into what goes into such papers. This study one-lit review will help you a). better understand the psychology topic chosen for the course this semester (See note #3 below), b). learn about the various sections of an empirical research report by reading five peer-reviewed articles (that is, articles that have a Title Page, Abstract, Literature Review, Methods Section, Results Section, and References Page), and c). use information gathered from research articles in psychology to help support your hypotheses for your first study this semester. Of course, you’ll be doing a study two literature review later in the semester, so think of this Paper I as the first part of your semester long paper. I recommend looking at the example Paper V, actually, to see what your final paper will look like. It might give you a better idea about how this current paper (as well as Papers II, III, and IV) all fit together into your final paper of the semester. In this current paper (Paper I), you will read five research articles, summarize what the authors did and what they found, and use those summaries to support your hypothesis. IMPORTANT: Yes you need five references, but keep in mind that you can spend a lot of time summarizing a few of them and just a sentence or two summarizing others. Thus, spend more time on the more relevant summaries! For this paper, start your paper broadly and then narrow your focus (think about the hourglass example provided in the lecture). My suggestion is to give a brief overview of your paper topic in your opening paragraph, hinting at the research variables you plan to look at for study one. Your next paragraphs will review prior research (those five references required for this paper). Make sure that you draw connections between these references rather than just listing them. Use smooth transitions between paragraphs, and build a case that supports your study predictions. Your final paragraphs should use the research you just summarized to support your research hypothesis. And yes, that means you MUST include your study one predictions in Paper I (which we provided in the researcher instructions and the debriefing statement. Use them!). A good hint is to look at the literature reviews on the articles that you are using as references as you write your own paper! See what those authors did in their literature reviews, and mimic their style, though in Paper I you will with your hypothesis rather than moving into your study methods. In Paper II, you will pick the topic up again, but in that future paper you will talk about your own study methods and results. 2). APA Formatting Purpose The second purpose of Paper I: Study One Literature Review is to teach you proper American Psychological Association (APA) formatting. In the instructions below, I tell you how to format your paper using APA style. There are a lot of very specific requirements in APA papers, so pay attention to the instructions below as well as your APA Formatting powerpoint presentation! Keep in mind that methods at FIU uses the 7th edition of the APA formatting manual. 3). Writing Purpose Finally, this paper is intended to help you grow as a writer. Few psychology classes give you the chance to write papers and receive feedback on your work. This class will! We will give you extensive feedback on your first few paper in terms of content, spelling, and grammar. You will even be able to revise aspects of Paper I and include them in future papers (most notably Papers III and V). My hope is that you craft a paper that could be submitted to an empirical journal. Thus readers may be familiar with APA style but not your specific topic. Your job is to educate them on the topic and make sure they understand how your study design advances the field of psychology. In fact, your final paper in this class (Paper V), might be read by another professor at FIU and not your instructor / lab assistant. Thus write your paper for that reader – a person who may know NOTHING about your topic and your specific study but is familiar with the mechanics of APA formatted papers and research methodology. Note #1: The plagiarism limit for Paper I is 30%. This excludes any overlap your paper might have with regard to citations, references, and the hypotheses. Make sure your paper falls under 30% (or 35% if including your predictions). Note #2: I am looking for 2.5 pages minimum for Paper I, including your study predictions, but that is the bare minimum. If it is only 2 pages, it better be really, really good (as I don’t think I could write Paper I in less than three pages and do the research topic justice, so aim for 3 to 4 pages). Note #3: Although the study topic changes each semester, these paper instructions remain the same. The topic for this particular semester will be discussed in class and in Lab as well as posted in the modules and the relevant assignments. If you have any doubts, questions or concerns, ask Prof Reid, or your TA. Instructions for Paper I: Study One Literature Review (Worth 25 Points) Students: Below are lengthy instructions on how to write your study one literature review. There is also a checklist at the end of this document, which I recommend you print out and “check off” before submitting your final paper (Your graders are sticklers for APA format, so make sure it is correct! We mark off if you have a misplaced “&”, so carefully review all of your work and use the checklist! It WILL help you get a good grade). Also look at the example paper in Canvas. It will show you what we expect. We use the 7th Edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association for all paper formatting in this class (though note that we adhere to the professional paper formatting, not the separate student formatting version also present in the APA publication manual). Title Page: I expect the following format. (5 Points) You must have a header and page numbers on each page. If you don’t know how to insert headers, ask your instructor or watch this very helpful video! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZTCN6yOgSg The header goes at the top of the paper and it is left justified. Use “Insert Headers” or click on the top of the page to open the header. Alternatively, click anywhere at the top of the page and it should open the headers. Your header title is simply a shortened version of your original title. Pull a few relevant words from your title (no more than 3) Just make sure that it is in ALL CAPS. It should be no more than 50 characters including spaces and punctuation Insert a page number as well. The header is flush left, but the page number is flush right. The page number for the title page is 1. This same header will appear on every page of your document including the title page. Want an example header? Look at the title page of these instructions! You can use other titles depending on your own preferences (e.g. PRIMING SEXUALITY; PRIMING STUDIES; SOCIAL MEDIA AND SEX; FACEBOOK AND ADVERTISEMENTS; etc.). Your Title itself should be midway up the page. Again, see my “Title” page on the first page of this current document as an example of the placement, but for your title you must come up with a title that helps describe your study one. Do NOT put “Paper One” or a variation of “Literature Review” for your title. Rather, think about the titles you saw in PsycInfo. Titles need to let the reader know what YOUR paper involves, so make your title descriptive. You title should be about a line long. Your title must also be in bold text. Make sure that every word with four or more letters starts with a capital letter. You can use lower-case letters for words like “and”, “with”, “the”, but in general start each title word with a capital letter. Follow this with two spaces Your name (First and Last) and the name of your institution (FIU) are beneath the title. For this class, your own name (and ONLY your name) will go on this paper. Double space everything! You can also refer to the APA Format powerpoint for guidance, though I suggest looking at the example papers. There is one from a prior student in this course and one based on a document provided by the APA. Both have comments and notes to direct you toward correct formatting. This Title Page section will be on page 1 Abstract? You DO NOT need an abstract for Paper I. In fact, because your abstract needs to summarize your study results, you cannot write it until you run your studies. So omit the abstract until you get to Paper V. Literature Review Section (12 points) First page of your literature review (Page 2) Proper header with page numbers. Your running head title will appear in the header of your page WITHOUT the phrase “Running head”. To insert this header, use the headers program. The title of your paper should be on the first line of page two, centered. It is IDENTICAL to the title on your title page. Just copy and paste it! The beginning text for your paper follows on the next line Citations for the literature review Your paper must cite a minimum of five (5) empirical research articles that are based on studies conducted in psychology. That is, each of the three citations you use should have a literature review, a methods section, a results section, a conclusion/discussion, and references. For this first paper, you MUST use at least three of the five articles provided in the blackboard folder. You can use four if you like, but your must use three at minimum – however, you cannot use all five. For that fifth article, you must find it using PsycInfo. There are some other conditions for this fifth article that you must follow: First, remember that the fifth article cannot be any of the five you have been given. Second, for your fifth article, it can be based on a wide variety of topics, etc. Trust me, there are TONS of topics that can help you in your paper. Just choose one that will help you support your experimental hypothesis for your study. That is, it has to help you justify your study one hypothesis (all students are using this same hypothesis, so make sure to read it. You can find it in the researcher instructions along with the questionnaires you are giving to participants. I actually suggest copying and pasting that hypothesis into this first paper at the end). Finally, you can have more than five references if you want, but you must have a minimum of five references. Proper citations must be made in the paper – give credit where credit is due, and don’t make claims that cannot be validated. If you use a direct quote, make sure to provide a page number for where you found that quote in the citations. Do not directly quote too often, though. You can have no more than one direct quote in the whole paper (though zero quotes would be even better). Instead, I would like you to paraphrase when possible. Requirements for the information in your literature review Your study one literature review should use prior research as a starting point, narrowing down the main theme of your specific project – think about the hourglass example I gave in class. The last part of your literature review should narrow down your focus onto your own study, eventually ending in your study hypothesis. However, DO NOT go into specific details about your methods. You will talk about your specific methods in Paper II in a few weeks. Again, to make it clear, at the end of your paper you will give an overview of your research question, providing your specific predictions/hypotheses. The literature review must have minimum of two (2) full pages NOT INCLUDING THE HYPOTHESES. It has a maximum of five (5) pages (thus, with the title page and references page, the paper should be between 4.5 and 7 pages). If it is only four and a half pages (again, including the hypotheses), it better be really, really good. I don’t think I could do this paper justice in fewer than five pages, so if yours isn’t at least five pages I doubt it will get a good grade. References (6 points) The References section starts on its own page, with the word References centered and bold. Use proper APA format in this section or you will lose points. All five references that you cited in the literature review must be in this section (there should be more than five references here if you cited more than five articles, which is fine in this paper). However, at least three must come from the article folder on blackboard while the remaining two can come from either the last blackboard paper or two new ones from psychinfo. Only peer-reviewed articles are allowed here (no books, journals, websites, or other secondary resources are allowed for paper one). For references, make sure you: use alphabetical ordering (start with the last name of the first author) use the authors’ last names but only the initials of their first/middle name give the date in parentheses – e.g. (2007). italicize the name of the journal article give the volume number, also in italics give the page numbers (not italicized) for articles provide the doi (digital object identifier) if present (not italicized) Writing Quality (2 Points) This includes proper grammar and spelling. The above information is required for your paper, but I wanted to provide a few tips about writing your literature review as well. Students often struggle with the first paper, but hopefully this will give you some good directions: First, remember that you need 5 references, all of which MUST be peer-reviewed (three coming from the blackboard folder and one or two that you find on your own using PsycInfo). Second, I don’t expect a lengthy discussion for each and every article that you cite. You might spend a page talking about Article A and a sentence or two on Article B. The amount of time you spend describing an article you read should be proportional to how important it is in helping you defend your hypotheses. See if there is a prior study that looks a lot like yours (hint – there is at least one, which I based this study on, but you’ll have to find it on your own!). I would expect you to spend more time discussing that prior research since it is hugely relevant to your own study. If an article you read simply supports a global idea that ties into your study but has very different methods (like “frustrated people get mad!”), you can easily mention it in a sentence or two without delving into a lot of detail. Tell a good story in your literature review, but only go into detail about plot elements that have a direct bearing on your study! Third, this paper is all about supporting your hypotheses. Know what your hypotheses are before you write the paper, as it will help you determine how much time to spend on each article you are citing. My suggestion is to spend some time describing the nature of your topic, and then talking about studies that looked at this area. Use those studies to help defend your own study hypothesis. That is, “Since they found X in this prior study, that helps support the hypothesis in the present study”. Do you remember your two hypotheses? Okay, I’ll be really helpful here. BELOW are your hypotheses. In your paper, support it! Just remember that the rest of your paper needs to be at least two full pages NOT INCLUDING the hypothesis below. In other words, including the hypotheses below, your actual text for your paper should be at least two and a half pages! Look at the researcher instructions for Study One for the hypotheses Finally, make sure to proofread, proofread, proofread! Good luck! Checklist – Paper One: Study One Literature Review Use the check sheet below to make sure your paper is the best it can be! Make sure you answer “Yes” to all questions before submitting your paper or you will lose points! General Paper Format Yes No Is everything in your paper double spaced, including references (here I mean the spacing above and below each line, not the spaces following a period)? Do you have one inch margins on all sides of the paper (one inch from the top of the page, one inch from the bottom, and one inch from each side) Are the first lines of all paragraphs indented roughly ½ inch? Are your paragraphs aligned left? (That is, text should be flush left, with lines lining up on the left of the page, but text should NOT line up on the right side of the page – it should look ragged) Do you need help figuring out how to configure a word document in APA format (inserting headers, page numbers, proper indents, etc.)? If YES or NO, I highly recommend watching this video which walks you through setting up an APA formatted paper! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZTCN6yOgSg Title page Yes No Header Is your running head 3 words or less? Is the rest of your Running head title in ALL CAPS? Is your Running head in 12 point Times New Roman font? Do you have a page number that is flush right Title / Name / Institution Is your title at least a line long? Do all title words with four letters or more start with a capital letter? Is your title bold? Is there an extra space after? Are your name and institution correct? Are your title, name, and institution elements centered Literature Review Yes No Header Is your header title present and identical to your header title on the title page? Is your header title in ALL CAPS Do you have a page number starting on page 2 Title for the literature review Do you have the identical title you used on the title page rewritten at the top of your literature review? Is this title centered? And bold? Literature Review Continued Yes No Main body of the literature review Does your literature review start broadly, giving a brief overview of the paper to come? Does your literature review start to narrow down toward your hypotheses? Do your paragraphs transition from one to the next? (That is, avoid simply listing studies you read. Tie them together. How does Study A in paragraph A relate to Study B in paragraph B?) Does your paper end in your hypotheses? Is your paper at least two pages long (not including the hypotheses)? Citations for the literature review Did you cite a minimum of 5 citations? (Note that you can give a lot of detail for some articles you cite but only a sentence or two for others. How much detail you go into depends on how important the article is in helping your support your hypotheses) Are your citations in APA format (That is, ONLY the last name of the author(s) and date of publication)? Note that you do NOT include first names, initials, or the title of the article the authors wrote when citing. That information belongs in the references pages only. Also note that you only use an ampersand – the & symbol – when it occurs within parentheses. In other instances, use the word “and” If you quoted, did you provide a page number for the direct quote? If you paraphrased in any way, did you cite the source of that information? References Page Yes No Title for the references page Do references start on their own page? Is the word “References” centered and bold?? References – Make sure these are in APA format! Are references listed in alphabetical order (starting with the last name of the first author listed)? Are all citations from the literature review referenced? Is the first line of the reference flush left while subsequent lines are indented (Note: Use the ruler function for this. DO NOT simply tab)? Did you use the “&” symbol when listing more than one author name? Did you include the date of publication For article references, is the article title (which is not italicized) present, with only the first word and proper names starting with a capital letter? For article references, is the name of the journal present with all major words starting with a capital letter (Note: this journal title is italicized)? For article references, is the volume number italicized For article references, are the page numbers present (not italicized) For article references, is the DOI present
Research Paper Continuation: Follow Paper 2 Instructions and write according to instructions (I have attached a sample paper and structured out the format for Paper 2). – I have attached Paper 1 inst
COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING 1 The running head is a shortened version of the paper’s title that appears on every page. It is written in all capitals, and it should be flush left in the document’s header. No “Running head:” label is included in APA 7. It should be fewer than 50 characters (including spaces and punctuation) Page numbers begin on the first page and follow on every subsequent page without interruption. No other information (e.g., authors’ last names) are required. Appointing Blame to Decisions that are not in Our Control: Counterfactual Thinking Authors’ names appear two lines below the title. They should be written as follows: first name, middle initial(s), last name- Omit all professional titles and/or degrees (e.g., Dr., Rev., PhD, MA). Authors’ affiliations follow immediately after their names. Former Student Florida International University The paper’s title should be centered, bold, and written in title case. It should be three or four lines below the top margin of the page. In this sample paper, we’ve put three blank lines above the title. Method Method is a level 1 heading – bold and centered Participants is a level 2 heading – Flush left and bold Participants All paragraph indented, 5-7 spaces One hundred and twenty six students from Florida International University were randomly selected to participate in our study. Of these 126 participants, 37% (n = 47) were male and 63% (n = 79) were female. Ages ranged from a minimum of 17 to a maximum of 58 with an average of 22.32 years (SD = 6.30). Our sample consisted of 68.3% Hispanic Americans (n = 86), 8.7% African Americans (n = 11), 19% Caucasians (n = 24), 1.6% Asians (n = 2), and 2.4% who did not specify their ethnicity (n = 3). Materials and Procedure is a level 2 heading – Flush left and bold n, SD, M in italics Materials and Procedure In accordance with the standardized guidelines for informed consent, prospective participants were notified of the potential risks and benefits of participating in the study before being introduced to the research material. If the student verbally agreed to participate, he or she was given one of three different documents, each of which consisted of four parts or sections. In part one of the study, the participant read a short scenario concerning a paraplegic couple, Tina and Eugene, who requested a taxi for a night out with friends and when the taxi arrives, the driver promptly declines their fare upon seeing that they were both paraplegic. Each of the three documents depicted the same initial situation with alternate conditions (changeable, unchangeable, or neutral) that ultimately led to different outcomes of events. In the changeable condition, Tina and Eugene decided to take Tina’s car, which was handicap equipped. A bridge along their route collapses mere minutes before the couple reached it. Unable to see the missing portion of the bridge in the night, Tina and Eugene drove off the road, into the river below, and drowned. The taxi driver, who had left 15 minutes earlier, managed to make it safely across, before the collapse. In the unchangeable condition, the situation remained mostly the same with the exception that the taxi driver arrived at the bridge after it had collapsed and plummeted into the water as well. He managed to make it out of the car and swim to safety, but Tina and Eugene drowned. In the neutral condition, the taxi driver did eventually agree to take Tina and Eugene to their destination downtown, albeit after much argument. Due to the recently collapsed bridge, the taxi driver drove his passengers and himself off the road and into the river below. He barely managed to make it out of the car before drowning. Tina and Eugene’s outcome remained the same. After reading one of the scenarios described above, the participant continued on to the remainder of the study, which was composed of a series of open, partially open, and close-ended questions. In part two, the student participating in the study was asked to procure as many ‘If Only’ statements as possible, meaning that they had to list all the factors they could think of that could have possibly changed the outcome of the event. In part three, the participant was presented with a series of questions about their thoughts regarding the specific situation they read about. After reading each question, the participant was asked to record his or her response in a scale of one to nine. These questions included how avoidable they thought the accident was (1 = not at all avoidable, 9 = very avoidable) and how much blame the taxi driver deserved for the event (1 = no blame at all, 9 = total blame). The last question of part three was a yes or no question that asked the participant whether the taxi driver agreed to drive the couple or not. This final question served as an attention check, which informed us if the participant was actually attentive to the study and allowed us to exclude potentially misrepresentative responses form our data. Part four asked for the participant’s demographic information, including gender, age, ethnicity, their first language, and whether they were a student at Florida International University. Concluding the study, the participant was debriefed on his or her contribution to the study as well as our insights on counterfactual thinking and our main hypothesis. Anchor points are in italics Although we had several dependent variables, our primary focus involved the perceived blameworthiness of the taxi driver, the number of ‘If Only’ statements the participants could create, and the manipulation check regarding whether the driver agreed to take the couple. We hypothesized that participants would find the taxi driver more blameworthy for the couple’s death in the changeable condition, since he refused to drive Tina and Eugene while safely passing over the bridge himself. We also predicted that the participants in the changeable condition would generate more counterfactual (‘If Only’) statements than in the unchangeable or neutral conditions. This is how you should write a significant p value Results Using survey condition (changeable vs. unchangeable vs. neutral) as our independent variable and whether participants recalled whether the taxi driver picked up the paraplegic couple as the dependent variable, we ran a manipulation check. The test was significant, χ2(2) = 93.95, p < .05. Participants in the changeable and unchangeable conditions correctly said the taxi did not pick up the couple (95.2% and 90.5%, respectively) while few participants in the neutral condition said the driver picked up the couple (4.8%). Phi showed a large effect (.99). This indicates that participants did pay attention to whether the taxi driver picked up the couple. See Appendix A.. Chi- square For our main analysis, our first One-Way ANOVA test was conducted with the scenario conditions (changeable, unchangeable, or neutral) as the independent variable, and perceived blameworthiness of the taxi driver as our dependent variable. The test was significant, F(2, 122) = 3.55, p < .05. A subsequent Tukey post hoc test demonstrated that participants were more likely to blame the taxi driver in the changeable condition (M = 4.51, SD = 2.06) than in the unchangeable condition (M = 3.38, SD = 2.14). However, there were no significant difference for perceived blame between the neutral condition (M = 4.36, SD = 2.11) and either the changeable or unchangeable conditions. See Appendix B.. Write the results of the post hoc test: the comparison between the groups This is how you should write a not significant p value We were also interested in the number of ‘If Only’ statements generated for each condition. We ran a One-Way ANOVA test using the different conditions (changeable, unchangeable, or neutral) as our independent variable, and the number of counterfactuals produced as our dependent variable. The results revealed that the relationship between condition and number of ‘If Only’ statements produced was not significant, F (2, 123) = 1.79, p = .171. The number of counterfactuals generated in the changeable condition (M = 5.41, SD = 2.21), the unchangeable condition (M = 4.57, SD = 2.04), and the neutral condition (M = 4.88, SD = 1.85) did not differ. See Appendix C. The heading discussion is a 1st level heading Discussion We predicted that participants would place more blame on an actor whose behavior led to an undesirable outcome (death) when that actor could have acted differently primarily because these participants would generate more “If Only” counterfactual statements that would lead them to see the outcome could have been avoided. Conversely, we predicted that participants who read about an undesirable outcome that could not have been avoided would assign less blame to the actor and would think of fewer counterfactual “If Only” statements. Results partially supported these predictions, as we did find more blame for in the changeable condition compared to the unchangeable (though neither differed from the neutral condition). However, the number of counterfactual statements that participants generated did not differ among our three conditions. It could be that participants were unfamiliar with the counterfactual task, which requires some deep thinking, though on a more unconscious level they could have seen the changeable condition as evidencing more elements of blame. This begs the question: what if participants were forced to think deeper? This is the focus of our second study. This last two sentence is nice segue to the next lit review Appendix A Appendix is a level 1 heading. Table must have a title and heading Title tells me what type of statistics is in the table These are not indented Table 1. Percentages (counts) of recalled scenario In the scenario, did the taxi driver agree Scenario Yes No Total χ2 Changeable 4.8 (2) 95.2 (40) 100 (42) 143.8* Unchangeable 9.5 (4) 90.5 (38) 100 (42) Neutral 95.2 (40) 4.8 (2) 100 (42) *p<.05 No vertical line Horizontal lines only at top and bottom of header and bottom of table Table must be double spaced Significance Appendix B Tables do not have to be in individual appendices, but they need to be on one page – not overlapping Table 2. Means and standard deviations of ANOVA results for the perceived blameworthiness and Number of Counterfactuals by type of scenario Scenario Changeable Unchangeable Neutral F p η2 perceived blameworthiness 4.51 (2.16) 3.38 (2.10) 4.36 (2.14) 125.7 .002** .02 Number of Counterfactuals 5.40 (2.3) 4.51 (2.03) 4.99 (1.85) 221.0 .042* .15 *p<.05. **p<.001 Appendix C Table 3. (Only necessary if you completed a t test) Mean and standard deviation of t test results for the perceived blameworthiness Scenario Mean standard deviation t (41) p Cohen’s D Changeable 5.40 2.30 42 2.87 .042* .9 Neutral 4.99 1.85 42 *p<.05
Research Paper Continuation: Follow Paper 2 Instructions and write according to instructions (I have attached a sample paper and structured out the format for Paper 2). – I have attached Paper 1 inst
CHEATING AND PERSPECTIVE TAKING Cheaters and Non-Cheaters’ Feelings Throughout Assessment: Perspective Taking Cheaters and Non-Cheaters’ Feelings Throughout Assessment: Perspective Taking Perspective-taking can be altered depending on where a person stands within a situation (Best & Shelly 2018). Just because one person feels or acts a certain way towards a situation, doesn’t mean all parties involved will feel and think the same way. One topic that may have various perspectives would be cheating; it comes in all forms, whether it’s physical or emotional. In recent years, more and more cases of academic dishonesty are now of the digital/cyber formats (Best & Shelly 2018). Academic dishonesty, particularly cheating, remains a persistent concern in educational environments. Understanding the factors that impact individuals’ attitudes towards cheating and their affective reactions during evaluation is important for effectively addressing this matter. This paper reviews studies on perspective-taking and its impact on attitudes towards cheating, the use of self-knowledge in social inference, personality traits related to cheating behavior, and the influence of self-awareness on ethical judgments. Mobile apps for social media influences academic dishonesty universally. It’s indicated that students often use social media for school-related activities but rarely use them to cheat (Best & Shelley, 2018). Specific programs, including messaging, taking screenshots, and audio recording, are more likely to be used for deceiving purposes. Even though most students see cheating as bad and may express disapproval for it, they are unlikely to intervene or prevent it within their classrooms (Xie et al., 2022). These results demonstrate how social media may encourage students to engage in different and complex forms of academic dishonesty. Apart from how influential social media may be, there is a link between inner personal flaws and cheating that finds impulsivity, sensation-seeking, and the ability to perceive things from others’ points of view major indicators of dishonest behavior. These findings state that features within personality play a fundamental role in shaping moral judgment (McTernan et al., 2014). Factors like impulsivity and empathy can play a role in mediating the choice to cheat, highlighting the importance of individual variability in moral judgement. Research also shows that impulsivity, sensation-seeking, and the ability to take the viewpoint of others are all linked to engaging in dishonest activities more often. These results highlight the importance of context in decision-making and provide insight into the possible mediation roles of empathy and impulsivity in the choice to cheat. Identifying oneself within social inferences demonstrates the flow of thought process within different perceptions. The flexible self-application hypothesis, states that the way in which one person’s self-knowledge applies to another varies depending on how similar the perspective taker and the target individual are. When people take others’ perspectives, they are more likely to project their own features and preferences onto others who are different from them while doing the opposite for those who are more like themselves; self-target similarity influences perspective-taking inferences (Todd et al., 2016). Perspective-taking improves interpersonal understanding by analyzing its effectiveness in anticipating the ideas and mental states of others (Eyal et al., 2018). Predicting emotions, identifying false grins, spotting liars, learning activity preferences, and gauging others’ feelings were all tested in trials which show that changing one’s viewpoint does not always lead to the greater good and may even have the opposite effect. Having a discussion with the person may help better understand their point of view than just reading about it. In conclusion, the reviewed journals provide a distinctive understanding of cheaters and non-cheaters’ possible feelings and reasonings, particularly in relation to perspective-taking. The findings highlight the importance of considering individual differences, such as personality traits and self-target similarity, in shaping individuals’ perspectives and behaviors. Furthermore, the influence of social factors, including moral self-awareness and technology, adds complexity to understanding academic dishonesty. Future research can expand on these insights to develop interventions and strategies to encourage academic integrity and ethical decision-making. We have several predictions in this study. Generally, if participants take the perspective of an eager-cheater or a hesitant-cheater, then they will more strongly disagree that using an answer key is cheating than if they take the perspective of a non-cheater, with little to no differences expected between the eager-cheater and hesitant-cheater conditions. Conversely, if participants take the perspective of an eager-cheater or a hesitant-cheater (compared to taking the perspective of a non-cheater), then they should more strongly agree that using an answer key is acceptable if the answers are already easy to find, if the professor does not bother to change the exam, if the exam is extremely difficult, if the person using the answer key is not paying for the answers, and if other students are likely to use the answers. References Best, L. M., & Shelley, D. J. (2018). Academic dishonesty: Does social media allow for increased and more sophisticated levels of student cheating? International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 14(3), 1-14. https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2018070101 Eyal, T., Steffel, M., & Epley, N. (2018). Perspective mistaking: Accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 114(4), 547-571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000115 McTernan, M., Love, P., & Rettinger, D. (2014). The influence of personality on the decision to cheat. Ethics & Behavior, 24(1), 53-72. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.819783 Todd, A. R., Simpson, A. J., & Tamir, D. I. (2016). Active perspective-taking induces flexible use of self-knowledge during social inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(12), 1583-1588. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000237 Xie, G. X., Chang, H., & Rank-Christman, T. (2022). Contesting dishonesty: When and why perspective-taking decreases ethical tolerance of marketplace deception. Journal of Business Ethics, 175, 117-133. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04582-6
Research Paper Continuation: Follow Paper 2 Instructions and write according to instructions (I have attached a sample paper and structured out the format for Paper 2). – I have attached Paper 1 inst
DATA OUTPUT 9 Data Output Data Output Demographic Frequencies Statistics Part C: Gender (1 = M, 2 = F, 3 = NB, 4 = O) Part C: Age Part C: Race N Valid 140 136 141 Missing 3 7 2 Mean 1.54 26.35 2.33 Std. Deviation .592 9.646 1.543 Minimum 1 16 1 Maximum 4 59 7 Part C: Gender (1 = M, 2 = F, 3 = NB, 4 = O) Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Male 69 48.3 49.3 49.3 Female 68 47.6 48.6 97.9 Non-Binary 1 .7 .7 98.6 Other 2 1.4 1.4 100.0 Total 140 97.9 100.0 Missing System 3 2.1 Total 143 100.0 Part C: Race Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid White 45 31.5 31.9 31.9 Latino/a 62 43.4 44.0 75.9 Indigenous 4 2.8 2.8 78.7 Black 16 11.2 11.3 90.1 Asian 6 4.2 4.3 94.3 MENA 2 1.4 1.4 95.7 Other 6 4.2 4.3 100.0 Total 141 98.6 100.0 Missing System 2 1.4 Total 143 100.0 Chi-Square Output Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater) * Part D: Attention Check (1 = Eager, 2 = Hesitant, 3 = Refused) Crosstabulation Part D: Attention Check (1 = Eager, 2 = Hesitant, 3 = Refused) Total User was eager User was hesitant User refused Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater) Eager-Cheater Count 39 7 0 46 % within Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater) 84.8% 15.2% 0.0% 100.0% Hesitant-Cheater Count 10 36 3 49 % within Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater) 20.4% 73.5% 6.1% 100.0% Non-Cheater Count 4 2 42 48 % within Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater) 8.3% 4.2% 87.5% 100.0% Total Count 53 45 45 143 % within Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater) 37.1% 31.5% 31.5% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 157.685a 4 .000 Likelihood Ratio 159.539 4 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 92.107 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 143 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 14.48. Symmetric Measures Value Approximate Significance Nominal by Nominal Phi 1.050 .000 Cramer’s V .743 .000 N of Valid Cases 143 One Way ANOVA 1 Descriptives Part A1: Using an answer key is cheating N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Eager-Cheater 46 3.43 1.241 .183 3.07 3.80 1 6 Hesitant-Cheater 49 3.65 1.032 .147 3.36 3.95 2 6 Non-Cheater 48 4.60 1.621 .234 4.13 5.07 1 7 Total 143 3.90 1.406 .118 3.67 4.13 1 7 ANOVA Part A1: Using an answer key is cheating Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 36.744 2 18.372 10.546 .000 Within Groups 243.886 140 1.742 Total 280.629 142 Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Part A1: Using an answer key is cheating Tukey HSD (I) Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater) (J) Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater) Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Eager-Cheater Hesitant-Cheater -.218 .271 .700 -.86 .42 Non-Cheater -1.169* .272 .000 -1.81 -.52 Hesitant-Cheater Eager-Cheater .218 .271 .700 -.42 .86 Non-Cheater -.951* .268 .002 -1.59 -.32 Non-Cheater Eager-Cheater 1.169* .272 .000 .52 1.81 Hesitant-Cheater .951* .268 .002 .32 1.59 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Part A1: Using an answer key is cheating Tukey HSDa,b Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater) N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 2 Eager-Cheater 46 3.43 Hesitant-Cheater 49 3.65 Non-Cheater 48 4.60 Sig. .699 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 47.634. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. One Way ANOVA 2 Descriptives Part B3: Easy to imagine being the WhatsApp user N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Eager-Cheater 46 3.72 1.587 .234 3.25 4.19 2 7 Hesitant-Cheater 49 4.59 1.153 .165 4.26 4.92 2 7 Non-Cheater 48 5.06 .727 .105 4.85 5.27 4 6 Total 143 4.47 1.315 .110 4.25 4.69 2 7 ANOVA Part B3: Easy to imagine being the WhatsApp user Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 43.633 2 21.817 15.122 .000 Within Groups 201.975 140 1.443 Total 245.608 142 Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Part B3: Easy to imagine being the WhatsApp user Tukey HSD (I) Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater) (J) Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater) Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Eager-Cheater Hesitant-Cheater -.874* .247 .002 -1.46 -.29 Non-Cheater -1.345* .248 .000 -1.93 -.76 Hesitant-Cheater Eager-Cheater .874* .247 .002 .29 1.46 Non-Cheater -.471 .244 .134 -1.05 .11 Non-Cheater Eager-Cheater 1.345* .248 .000 .76 1.93 Hesitant-Cheater .471 .244 .134 -.11 1.05 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Part B3: Easy to imagine being the WhatsApp user Tukey HSDa,b Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater) N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 2 Eager-Cheater 46 3.72 Hesitant-Cheater 49 4.59 Non-Cheater 48 5.06 Sig. 1.000 .139 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 47.634. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. Write Up There were 143 participants within the study, between the ages of 16 and 59 years old representing the age scope of the university, with the average age being M=26.35 and a standard deviation (SD = 9.65). Out of the 143 participants, 48.3% (n=69) were male, 47.6% (n= 68) were female, 0.7% (n = 1) were nonbinary, 1.4% (n = 2) identified as other. In terms of racial/ethnic diversity, the participants were somewhat diverse as 31.5% ((n=45) were white, 43.4% (n = 62) we Latino/a, 2.8% (n= 4) were Indigenous, 11.2% (n =18) were Black, 4.2% (n = 6) were Asian, 1.4% (n = 2) were MENA, 4.2% (n = 6) were from Other races. The Chi-square was significant χ2(2) = 157.67, P < 0.001. The results indicate that most participants in the Eager-Cheater category 84.8% (n = 39) identified their correct condition. In the Hesitant-Cheater category, 73.4% (n = 36) recalled their assigned condition. Finally, in the Non-cheater condition, 87.5% (n = 42) identified their condition correctly. This indicates that most participants were found attentive. We ran a One-Way ANOVA with perspective condition as our IV (Eager vs. Hesitant vs. Non-Cheater) and “Using an answer key is cheating” as our DV, which was significant, F (2, 140) = 10.55, p <.01. The Turkey post hoc test showed that participants provided different views on whether using answer key is cheating where eager-cheater group (M = 3.43, SD = 1.24) differed from hesitant-cheater (M = 3.65, SD = 1.03) and the non-cheater (M = 4.60, SD = 1.62) conditions. We ran a One-Way ANOVA with perspective condition as our IV (Eager vs. Hesitant vs. Non-Cheater) and “I found it easy to imagine being the WhatsApp user” as our DV, which was significant, F (2, 140) = 15.12, p <.01. The Turkey post hoc test revealed that participants provided different agreement with taking the user’s perspective and that the eager-cheater group (M = 3.72, SD = 1.58) significantly differed from the hesitant-cheater (M = 4.59, SD = 1.15) and the non-cheater (M = 5.06, SD = 0.73) conditions.
Research Paper Continuation: Follow Paper 2 Instructions and write according to instructions (I have attached a sample paper and structured out the format for Paper 2). – I have attached Paper 1 inst
CHEATING AND PERSPECTIVE TAKING Cheaters and Non-Cheaters’ Feelings Throughout Assessment: Perspective Taking Methods Participants There were 143 participants within the study, between the ages of 16 and 59 years old representing the age scope of the university, with the average age being M=26.35 and a standard deviation (SD = 9.65). Out of the 143 participants, 48.3% (n=69) were male, 47.6% (n= 68) were female, 0.7% (n = 1) were nonbinary, 1.4% (n = 2) identified as other. In terms of racial/ethnic diversity, the participants were somewhat diverse as 31.5% ((n=45) were white, 43.4% (n = 62) we Latino/a, 2.8% (n= 4) were Indigenous, 11.2% (n =18) were Black, 4.2% (n = 6) were Asian, 1.4% (n = 2) were MENA, 4.2% (n = 6) were from Other races. Materials and Procedure Results The Chi-square was significant χ2(2) = 157.67, P < 0.001. The results indicate that most participants in the Eager-Cheater category 84.8% (n = 39) identified their correct condition. In the Hesitant-Cheater category, 73.4% (n = 36) recalled their assigned condition. Finally, in the Non-cheater condition, 87.5% (n = 42) identified their condition correctly. This indicates that most participants were found attentive. We ran a One-Way ANOVA with perspective condition as our IV (Eager vs. Hesitant vs. Non-Cheater) and “Using an answer key is cheating” as our DV, which was significant, F (2, 140) = 10.55, p <.01. The Turkey post hoc test showed that participants provided different views on whether using answer key is cheating where eager-cheater group (M = 3.43, SD = 1.24) differed from hesitant-cheater (M = 3.65, SD = 1.03) and the non-cheater (M = 4.60, SD = 1.62) conditions. We ran a One-Way ANOVA with perspective condition as our IV (Eager vs. Hesitant vs. Non-Cheater) and “I found it easy to imagine being the WhatsApp user” as our DV, which was significant, F (2, 140) = 15.12, p <.01. The Turkey post hoc test revealed that participants provided different agreement with taking the user’s perspective and that the eager-cheater group (M = 3.72, SD = 1.58) significantly differed from the hesitant-cheater (M = 4.59, SD = 1.15) and the non-cheater (M = 5.06, SD = 0.73) conditions. Discussion Appendix A Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 157.685a 4 .000 Likelihood Ratio 159.539 4 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 92.107 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 143 Appendix B Table 2. Means and standard deviations of ANOVA results for the perception of using an answer key is cheating Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 36.744 2 18.372 10.546 .000 Within Groups 243.886 140 1.742 Total 280.629 142 Table 3. Means and standard deviations of ANOVA results for the perception of Easy to imagine being the WhatsApp user Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 43.633 2 21.817 15.122 .000 Within Groups 201.975 140 1.443 Total 245.608 142