paper

The introduction section of the paper introduces the problem.

1. Start on a new page. It will be page 3 (the Title Page is 1, Abstract is 2). Center the title at the top of the page, in bold, using title case; it's the same title as on the title page. Do not write "introduction." Just double space the title like everything else, do not put an extra return.

Avoid:

a. Using the second person (you, your, you're)

b. Writing in a style that is too informal (too much like a magazine and not a professional research report). For example, opening with "have you ever wondered..." is not setting the right tone.

c. Writing in a style that is overly formal and stilted (too much like what people think is science writing). Try not to use the passive voice (e.g., "the participants were instructed..."; instead say "I instructed the participants..."). Also, watch your word choice. Don't seek out "big" words to convey your ideas. Write in simple, direct English with a properly formal tone.

2. The introduction tells your reader what you're investigating and why that's important. The global organization is an inverted triangle, as in Figure L2.1. Start broad, and narrow to a very sharp point (a description of your experiment). It should have three parts (not necessarily labeled).

Figure L2.1. The inverted triangle format of an introduction section.

a. Introduce the problem.

You should always start with a research question. What is it? What's the basic area in which you're working? This is brief (a paragraph or two). It sets up the rest of the introduction and encourages the reader to keep going (by getting them interested in the topic). A really good strategy is to include a particularly relevant research article to highlight the problem and the motivation behind the research. You want this paragraph to hook the reader and keep them going.

Here is a really good opening from Anglin (2019). It motivates you to be interested in the topic, explains what the topic is, provides a clear background for why they asked the question, and tells you the question.

"Although most scientists agree that humans evolved over time, climate change is a major threat, and childhood vaccinations do not cause autism, many people believe in creationism, doubt that climate change is a major concern, and are unsure whether vaccines cause autism (Cyranoski, 2010; Motel, 2014; Newport, 2014; Reiner et al., 2006). Research on motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and belief perseverance suggests that people maintain their beliefs in response to counter-evidence through biased information processing (see Kunda, 1990, for a review); they evaluate evidence opposing their views critically in an effort to undermine the evidence and uphold their beliefs (e.g., Cohen, Aronson, & Steele, 2000; Edwards & Smith, 1996; Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979; Miller, McHoskey, Bane, & Dowd, 1993; Munro & Ditto, 1997; Taber & Lodge, 2006). Indeed, a common conclusion from this literature is that beliefs do not yield to evidence—i.e., that people reject information challenging their beliefs in order to preserve them.

"Despite over 40 years of research and theory on the topic, further testing of this conclusion seems warranted. In empirical studies often cited as demonstrating belief perseverance, participants received an evenly mixed pattern of belief-consistent and belief-inconsistent findings. When the evidence is conflicting and mixed, people may retain or adopt more polarized beliefs (Corner, Whitmarsh, & Xenias, 2012; Lord et al., 1979; McHoskey, 1995; Miller et al., 1993; Taber & Lodge, 2006). Do people maintain their beliefs in response to clear, disconfirming evidence? The present research tested this question" (Anglin, 2019, p. 176).

b. Develop the background.

Give a brief review of the literature relevant to your experiment. Start with review articles if they're available. These summarize vast areas of the literature, so it's useful for your readers to know about them. Then, describe some of the research that led to your question. Start with stuff that's distantly related, and build to stuff that was specifically used to develop your study. (Keep in mind, however, that distantly related is a relative term. Everything included here should be vitally important to keep from wasting time.) If you can provide a structure, do it (as in "articles with similar questions," "articles with similar methodologies," "articles with similar findings," etc.). Try to give a fair overview for the average reader (someone who has some idea of the area, but isn't necessarily an expert). If there's a controversial issue, discuss both sides. The challenge: Say everything you need to say while saying as little as you possibly can.

Do:

1) Cite something for every statement of fact. If you present a fact without a citation, either you're plagiarizing that fact from the original source (and that is bad) or you're making it up (and that is bad). If you find yourself having a difficult time finding a citation for meaningless generalities (e.g., "for centuries humans have worried..."), remove those meaningless generalities from your paper.

For citation format, follow these examples:

Single author:

"Carroll (1994) described the use of tachistoscopes to present visual information rapidly."

"Visual information can be presented rapidly using a tachistoscope (Carroll, 1994)."

Two authors:

"Gernsbacher and Hargreaves (1988) claimed that first-mentioned actors provide..."

"First mentioned actors provide foundations for structure-building (Gernsbacher & Hargreaves, 1988)."

More than two authors:

"Langston et al. (1994) showed that experimental..."

"Experimental participants do not differ across the semester (Langston et al., 1994)."

If you quote someone, follow this example:

"A tachistoscope is a device that permits the rapid visual presentation of a stimulus" (Carroll, 1994, p. 95). (Note that you add the page number to the citation.)

Electronic source:

1. Opening

Research question: Do people develop a belief when presented with evidence supporting the belief?

The articles in the first section of the annotated bibliography below were chosen to motivate interest in the topic of belief change. Choose one to develop your opening paragraph and describe it along with the question.

2. Literature review

Build a bridge between the opening and the final part of the introduction. You have two things to review:

a. Previous research on belief change. A number of articles are in that section of the annotated bibliography below. Choose three or four of these that you think you can arrange into a nice structure and describe those. At the end of this part of the lit review I should know something about previous work on belief change. The last one you include should be especially related to the research we did.

b. Previous research on pyramid power. You need a careful transition to this section that does not interrupt the flow of your introduction. For example, "the belief we will target in this section is pyramid power." I have included a selection of pyramid research in the annotated bibliography. You should use some of that information to explain what the belief is that we are targeting. Try not to derail the introduction and make it seem like we are doing research on pyramid power (our topic is belief change; pyramid power just happens to be the belief we are trying to change).

3. Your experiment

The final paragraph of your introduction section is going to tell the reader about the experiment. Here is a detailed summary that will help you with that task.

The hypothesis was that people would change their belief when presented with information in favor of that belief. We manipulated the type of information on the test. Half of the items on the test (about the preserving power of pyramids) were in the belief change materials, and half were not (about the effects of pyramids on living things). We measured belief change. We predicted that belief would increase after the manipulation for items included in the belief change materials.

The final paragraph has the following four sentences. These words should start each sentence (but all in one paragraph).

a. My hypothesis was…

b. My independent variable was…

c. My dependent variable was…

d. I predict…

There's not really a good way to tell you about the experiment without basically writing the final paragraph for you. So, for this part of the paper, you can modify what I wrote into your own version of the final paragraph (with the right sentence starts). I'm not going to hold you accountable for trying to get it into your own words.