Instructions for Paper VI: Study Two Methods, Results, Discussion (Worth 30 Points)

Ryan J. Winter

Florida International University

Purpose of Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results, and Discussion

1). Psychological Purpose

The psychological purpose behind Paper IV is to make sure you can summarize what you did in your second study, how you did it, and what you found. This is similar to Paper II, but you will include information related to your second independent variable in Paper IV.

For the results section in Paper IV, you will provide information about your participants, materials, and procedure. Your participant section goes first, and it includes descriptive statistics about your sample (means and standard deviations for age and percentages of gender and race/ethnicity). This is a new sample of participants, so you cannot use Paper II for this information. Make it NEW! Your materials and procedure sections include information about what you did and how you did it. You should once again write this section for an audience who is unfamiliar with your newer study two variables, but you can actually summarize or refer back to study one variables if and when they carry over from study one to study two. In the end, just remember that you must educate your reader about your materials and procedure, giving enough detail so they could replicate study two on their own. Your Paper IV Methods section will thus look a lot like your Paper II, but in Paper IV you will describe BOTH independent variables as well as important dependent variables (especially any new ones you added). I suggest reviewing your Paper II feedback to see if you need more clarity in your methods descriptions, but make sure that your reader is clear about the mechanics of your new 2 X 2 factorial design.

You will also write a new Results section. Since you now have two independent variables and potentially new dependent variables, you will not be able to reuse ANY content from Paper II. Rather, you will write a more complicated results section focusing on a 2 X 2 factorial design here.

Your Discussion section for Paper IV will be a short summary of what you found in that study. Similar to Paper II, you can make some educated guesses about what you found and why you found it, but keep the focus on study two only (in Paper V due at the end of the semester, you will include a more advanced discussion section that looks at both study one and study two, so keep the Paper IV discussion focused only on study two).

2). APA Formatting Purpose

The second purpose of Paper IV is to again teach you proper American Psychological Association (APA) formatting for methods and results. In the instructions below, I tell you how to format your paper using APA style, but this time with a focus on your 2 X 2 factorial ANOVAs. Once again, there are a lot of specific requirements in APA papers (as specific as what to italicize), so pay attention to the instructions below as well as Chapter 14 in your textbook!

3). Writing Purpose

Paper IV is intended to help you figure out how to update a Methods, Results and Discussion section using a 2 X 2 factorial design. This is more complicated than the One Way ANOVA you used in Paper II, but you should still be able to clearly and succinctly tell you readers what you did, how you did it, and what you found. Similar to Paper III, we will give you feedback and help in this paper. You will then be able to revise it for your final paper in the course (Paper V). Thus doing a good job on Paper IV will mean fewer revisions for the final paper.

Note: The plagiarism limit is higher in this paper (up to 65%) since your classmates are doing the same study two design and will have similar results. Don’t go higher than that, though! 65% is the maximum allowed!

Note: You do not need to include any content from Papers I, II, and III here. You can use the same title page, but all we will look at and grade are the methods, results, discussion, and appendix information from Study Two.

Methods

This paper should be fairly easy for you! It is essentially a replication of your Paper II: Methods and Results (Study One) paper, except here you will extend that paper to include your second independent variable as well as any new dependent variables you may have created. You will also use a more complex data analysis process now that you have a 2 X 2 factorial design. Keep in mind that Study Two is different from Study One. It may use some of the same materials, but your descriptions in the methods section should be specific to your Study Two idea. If you reuse some of the same variables, please refer to study one (I encourage it! No need to repeat yourself if you are using identical materials), but if the elements are new make sure to FULLY describe them. The results themselves will be completely different, as the results section will take into account two independent variables, and your brief discussion will similarly be new. Below are some of the points to cover in this paper. I will highlight in purple the new components you should pay attention to for this paper.

Title Page: I expect the following format (1 point):

Use your headers and title information from your prior Paper III: Literature review. See prior instructions for more info about the title page!

Methods Section: I expect the following format (10 points):

Write Method at the front of this section, make it bold, and center it.

The participants section comes next. The word Participants is bolded and left justified. In this section …

As in Paper II, tell me who your participants were (college students, family members, friends) and how many there were. If the number starts a sentence, then spell out the number. “Two-hundred and five participants …”. If it is mid-sentence, then you can use numerals. “There were 205 participants in this study.” Make sure this is for your NEW SAMPLE. This sample will differ from Paper II, so you will have to provide all new demographic data.

Provide frequencies and descriptive statistics for the most relevant demographic characteristics.

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 variables (rather than categorical), so use descriptive statistics here (the range, mean, and the standard deviation). “Participants ranged from 18 to 77 (M = 24, SD = 3.50).” or “The average age of participants was 24 (SD = 3.50).” By now you should be able to find these on your own, but I will give you a hint: run frequencies and descriptives to get demographic data

Materials and Procedure

For this section, things are again very flexible. Some studies include the Materials and Procedure in the same section while others break them up into two sections

It is a matter of choice which you choose. For me, the more complex the design, the better it is to split them up. In one section I will describe what the materials are; in the next I describe what participants did with those materials (the procedure)

Your Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results, and Discussion is simple enough that I recommend combining them into one overall Materials and Procedure section. Here, you can refer back to your methods section from Paper II. (“We used the same Facebook Consensus manipulation as in study one, but here we included only the Support and Mixed conditions”).

Again, the words Materials and Procedure is 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. Assuming your study is similar to study one, I have the following recommendations (though your study may differ, so take these only as recommendations!):

First, talk about informed consent.

Second, talk about the different versions of the hindsight bias studies. Provide enough detail so that your readers know how the conditions differ. Imagine I need to replicate your design – give me enough detail so I can do so. Also fully describe your new independent variable for study two. For example, my additional IV may be whether participants are forewarned or not about the effects of consensus. I need to fully describe that new IV in the methods for this second study

For example, study two MIGHT look support versus mixed conditions as two levels of one IV. However, we might also look at forewarning versus no forewarning as a second IV. This involves four cells: 1) Forewarning with support feedback, 2) Forewarning with mixed feedback, 3) No forewarning with support feedback, and 4) No forewarning with mixed feedback.

Make sure you have a clear idea about what your four different conditions look like.

Third, talk about your dependent variables (that is, your survey questions. For these DVs, 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 9, etc.). If you used a scale, note the endpoints. That is, does a 1 mean it is high or is it low? “Participants were asked, ‘How surprising was the outcome?’, and they responded on a scale from 1 (unsurprising) to 10 (surprising).’” Highlight any new DVs you created for this study. For example, I may ask a manipulation check question asking if they were forewarned (“Did you read a warning that consensus impacts how people make judgments? Yes / No – Pick one.”)

Fourth, make sure to highlight which DVs you analyzed. If there are DVs participants completed but you did not analyze them, feel free to say those DVs were not analyzed.

Finally, mention debriefing

There is no set minimum or maximum on the length of the methods section, but I would expect at least a page or two as you detail your materials and procedure. Missing important aspects of your IVs and DVs or presenting them in a confused manner will lower your score in this section

Once again, make the new information VERY specific so that someone unfamiliar with your study could recreate your survey. If they can’t, you won’t do well!

Results Section: I expect the following format (10 points):

The results are the hardest part of this paper, so again, pay close attention to your lab presentation and book

First, write Results at the top of this section and center it boldface. This section comes directly at the end of the methods 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. For Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results, and Discussion, your study design should be more complex than your study one. You are dealing with a factorial design now (that is, you have more than one IV), such as a 2 X 2 or even a 2 X 3 study. Let me walk you through the guidelines for a 2 X 2 design.

First, run manipulation checks using at least one of your dependent variables (a dependent variable that assesses whether the independent variable manipulation worked). This analysis will differ depending on whether your dependent variable is nominal or interval / ratio

Nominal (categorical) dependent variable: IF you have a nominal DV (“Did you see supportive or mixed feedback?” or “Did you see a warning or no warning?”), you can run a chi square test.

Interval / ratio dependent variable: IF you have interval or ratio dependent variable (they have scales ranging from low to high), you can run a t-Test manipulation check (if you only have two levels to the IV) or an ANOVA (if you have three or more levels). For example, if I manipulated anger by giving half of the participants a hard time about their intelligence before they looked at the Facebook feedback, I might ask “On a scale of 1 to 9, how angry were you?” and then run a t-Test on the dependent variable anger to see if my manipulation did in fact work. That is, given two levels for my independent variable (angry versus control), they should rate themselves as more angry in the condition where I questioned their intelligence compared to a control condition

Note: I suspect you will have a nominal manipulation check question, so the chi square will be more likely. Also note that the manipulation check may have nothing to do with Abigail or her cheating behavior – it might be simply recall of whether participants were warned about consensus effects.

Second, run two 2 X 2 ANOVAs. Recall that this is univariate analysis of variance, but rather than focusing on one independent variable (like the One Way ANOVA), a 2 X 2 ANOVA looks at two different independent variables within the same test. YOUR job is to run two different 2 X 2 ANOVAs. Your first 2 X 2 ANOVA will focus on a dependent variable of your choice while the second 2 X 2 ANOVA will look at a different dependent variable. For EACH factorial ANOVA, you will report at least three F tests (an F for the main effect of IV #1, an F for the main effect of IV #2, and an F for the interaction). If your interaction is significant, then you may actually report additional F tests for each DV with the simple effects tests! I know this gets complex, so let’s break it down a bit and focus on just one 2 X 2 ANOVA. This test will yield two main effects and one interaction…

Main Effect #1 (IV #1): There will be a main effect in the ANOVA table for the first IV. Provide the degrees of freedom, F value, and p value. Regardless of whether it is significant, I want you to provide the means and standard deviation for both levels of the IV. For example (and ONLY as an example, since YOUR study independent variables will differ and I don’t know what your lab chose), imagine your first IV is “Warning”. Your main effect write up for this EXAMPLE of warning will look like this …

“Using forewarning (warned versus not warned) and condition (upward versus downward) as our IVs and the rating of “Abigail’s behavior was wrong” as our DV, there was no main effect for forewarning, F(1, 189) = 1.97, p > .05. Participants did not differ in their ratings in the warned (M = 2.35, SD = 1.21) versus not warned (M = 2.21, SD = 0.87) conditions.”

Warning IV Main Effect

Warned (M = 2.35) Not Warned (M = 2.21)

Main Effect #2 (IV #2): There will be a main effect in the ANOVA table for the second IV. Again, provide the F test. Regardless of significance, give the means and standard deviations for both levels of the IV. (This comes in the same paragraph as the main effect for warning)

“There was, however, a significant feedback condition main effect, F( 1, 189) = 3.42, p < .05. Participants rated Abigail’s behavior as less wrong in the support condition (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21) than participants in the mixed condition (M = 5.24, SD = 0.89).”

Feedback Consensus Condition Main Effect

Upward (M = 2.56) Downward (M = 5.24)

Interaction (IV #1 X IV #2): Finally, there will be an interaction for IV 1 X IV 2. Provide the initial interaction F test.

Interaction (either significant or not!). That is:

“The interaction was not significant, F(1, 187) = 1.22, p > .05.”

“The main effects were qualified by a significant Warning X Condition interaction, F(1, 187) = 6.61, p < .05.”

IF the interaction is not significant (e.g. p > .05), then just list the means and tell me they don’t differ. “This implies that participants in the support and warned condition (M = 2.76, SD = 1.27), the support and unwarned condition (M = 2.21, SD = 1.90), the mixed and warned condition (M = 2.72, SD = 2.87), and the mixed and unwarned condition (M = 2.78, SD = 3.45) did not differ from each other.”

However, IF there is a significant interaction, there are four more F tests you need to run (“simple effects” tests). This one gets complicated, but I’ll show you an example write-up (normally, this can all go in the same paragraph):

First, simple effects showed that support participants rated Abigail’s behavior as less wrong in the unwarned condition (M = 2.76, SD = 1.27) than support participants in the warned condition (M = 5.21, SD = 1.90), F(2, 95) = 6.24, p < .05.

Second, simple effects showed that mixed participants did not differ in their ratings of whether Abigail’s behavior was wrong in the warned condition (M = 5.78, SD = 3.45) and unwarned condition (M = 5.72, SD = 2.87), F(2, 93) = 1.13, p > .05.

Third, for participants who were warned, simple effect tests showed that participants did not differ in their ratings of whether Abigail’s behavior was wrong in the support (M = 5.21, SD = 1.27) and mixed condition (M = 5.78, SD = 3.45), F(2, 95) = 1.31, p > .05.

Fourth, for participants in the no warning condition, simple effect tests showed that participants felt Abigail’s behavior was less wrong in the support condition (M = 2.67, SD = 1.90) than unwarned participants in mixed condition (M = 5.72, SD = 2.87), F(2, 95) = 3.11, p < .05.

Warning Facebook Consensus Condition

Support Mixed

Warned Support Warned (M = 5.21) Mixed Warned (M = 5.78)

Not Warned Support Not Warned (M = 2.76) Mixed Not Warned (M = 5.72)

In general, this shows that participants rated Abigail’s as less wrong only in the support condition that lacked a warning. For both mixed conditions and the support condition that include a warning about consensus, participants tended to rate Abigail’s behavior as wrong.

Again, the warning is an EXAMPLE here. Your second independent variable will differ.

Please note that you might run a lot of statistical tests for one DV (like the original F test followed-up with simple effects tests). This still only counts as one DV. You need to look at three DVs total (one for the manipulation check and then two additional rating-scale DVs), so you might have as many as 11 or so statistical tests in this section.

Like the methods section, there is no page minimum or maximum for the results section, though I would expect it to be at least a paragraph or two for each dependent variable

Discussion Section (2 points)

In a short paragraph or two, write a brief discussion of your results. Tell me if you did or did not support your hypotheses. In this section, do NOT go into detail about the statistics. If I need that information, I’ll just look at your results section. Here, I just want a plain English summary of what you found. Something like …

“Overall, these results indicate that participants still tend to conform to the same opinion of others when those others are in full agreement (consensus). However, when there is no consensus from others or when participants are warned about how consensus might impact them in a situation where consensus occurs, participants are less likely to go along with the consensus.”

References are not required for this paper

Appendices: Study Two (4 points)

I want to make sure you are including the correct numbers in your results section, so I want you to include all relevant SPSS tables for each of your analyses in a series of appendices. You can include these as appendices A, B, C, and D for study two, but I actually recommend naming them E, F, G, and H since you have A, B, C, and D from study one already (or F, G, H, and I if you have five appendices from study one). Thus you should have a MINIMUM of eight appendices in your final paper, but just four appendices in Paper IV.

Appendix E: Demographic Information Study Two

Appendix F: Chi Square (or other Manipulation Check)

Make sure to include a table for your manipulation check. If you do a chi square for a nominal variable, this will include the cross-tabulation table and the chi square table. Or, if you do a t-Test or ANOVA, this will include the descriptive statistics as well as the t-Test table itself (or the ANOVA table itself)

Appendix G: first dependent variable (First 2 X 2 ANOVA)

Make sure to include your descriptive statistics table and your Tests of Between Subject Effects table. If your interaction is not significant, you’re done. If it is significant, normally you would run simple effects follow up tests. You still need to run them, but for purposes of this appendix all I need to see is the original ANOVA table and the original descriptive table.

Appendix H: Second dependent variable (Second 2 X 2 ANOVA)

This is the same as the second dependent variable above, but for a different dependent variable

Again, in the end, I expect four appendices for study two (one for demographics, one for a chi square/t-Test and one for each 2 X 2 ANOVA).

Appendices will come at the end of the paper

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.

Other Guidelines for Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results, and Discussion

1). Page size is 8 1/2 X 11” with all 4 margins set at one inch on all sides. You must use a Times New Roman 12-point font and double space all sentences/paragraphs in the paper.

2). 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.

Below is a write up for the significant interaction for the 2 X 2 ANOVA. Here, I just put it all in one paragraph, as it would appear in a results section (double space YOUR section, though). Notice there are 7 F tests for this significant 2 X 2 interaction.

Using forewarning (warned versus not warned) and feedback condition (support versus mixed) as our IVs and the rating of “Abigail’s behavior was wrong” as our DV, there was no main effect for forewarning, F(1, 189) = 1.97, p > .05. Participants did not differ in their feelings in the warned (M = 2.35, SD = 1.21) versus not warned (M = 2.21, SD = 0.87) conditions. There was, however, a significant feedback condition main effect, F( 1, 189) = 3.42, p < .05. Participants rated Abigail’s behavior as less wrong in the support condition (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21) than participants in the mixed condition (M = 5.24, SD = 0.89). The main effect was qualified by a significant Warning X Condition interaction, F(1, 187) = 6.61, p < .05. First, simple effects showed that support participants rated Abigail’s behavior as less wrong in the unwarned condition (M = 2.76, SD = 1.27) than support participants in the warned condition (M = 5.21, SD = 1.90), F(2, 95) = 6.24, p < .05. Second, simple effects showed that mixed participants did not differ in their ratings of whether Abigail’s behavior was wrong in the warned condition (M = 5.78, SD = 3.45) and unwarned condition (M = 5.72, SD = 2.87), F(2, 93) = 1.13, p > .05. Third, for participants who were warned, simple effect tests showed that participants did not differ in their ratings of whether Abigail’s behavior was wrong in the support (M = 5.21, SD = 1.27) and mixed condition (M = 5.78, SD = 3.45), F(2, 95) = 1.31, p > .05. Fourth, for participants in the no warning condition, simple effect tests showed that participants felt Abigail’s behavior was less wrong in the support condition (M = 2.67, SD = 1.90) than unwarned participants in mixed condition (M = 5.72, SD = 2.87), F(2, 95) = 3.11, p < .05. In general, this shows that participants rated Abigail’s as less wrong only in the support condition that lacked a warning. For both mixed conditions and the support condition that include a warning about consensus, participants tended to rate Abigail’s behavior as wrong.

Finally, go look at the supporting documents for this paper. There is a checklist, a grade rubric, and an example paper. All will give you more information about what we are specifically looking for as well as a visual example of how to put it all together. Good luck!