Paper 3

Instructions for Paper III: Study Two and Literature Review (Worth 35 Points)

Ryan J. Winter

Florida International University

Purpose of Paper III: Study Two and Literature Review

1). Psychological Purpose

Paper III is intended to extend your original study by looking at a second independent variable. It will include mini-versions of the paper sections you already wrote in Papers I and II, but this time geared towards a 2 X 2 Factorial Design

In other words, Paper III includes:

1). Your original title page (though feel free to change the title)

2). A very brief second literature review that focuses on your second independent variable (ending in the study two main effects and interaction hypotheses). This will require three new citations/references related to the new independent variable. I don’t expect more than three or so paragraphs here.

3). A short second methods section that notes your new independent and dependent variables for study two and your new participant set.

4). A short second results section where you need to run a 2 X 2 ANOVA on one independent variable

5). A new references page with a minimum of three NEW references

6). Your tables from study two (new tables related to the new set of participants and your 2 X 2 ANOVA)

Literature Review Study Two: While Study One focused solely on manipulating the donation condition (Low v. Middle v. High), it is possible that participants might base their own donation amounts on how generous they think they are. Fortunately, we asked the participants to rate the statement, “In my everyday life, I feel that I am generally more charitable than other people”. As a result, we can actually compare participants who self-describe themselves as charitable or uncharitable! So your study two is going to include a literature review that focuses on participant charitableness, which means that you need to do a follow-up literature review that focuses on how charitable people are.

Find three studies that focus on how people think about themselves, preferably focusing on whether they consider themselves to be charitable. But keep in mind that you want to look at participant charitableness and how it impacts (and is impacted by) your original independent variable: whether other people give low versus high donations (For Study Two, we are dropping out the middle donation condition so that we can focus on our 2 X 2 factorial design).

In your study two literature review, make sure you end the review discussing your predicted main effects (the effects of the low vs high donation prime on its own as well as the effects of self-charitableness on its own) as well as your predicted interaction (that is, the donation conditions X the self-charitable conditions).

Methods Section Study. This is going to be an easy section. First, give me your new demographic information (since we dropped the middle donation condition, your sample demographics will differ from Study One, so include a new participant demographics section). Then, tell me about your new independent variable (participant charitableness). Next describe how study two differs from study one. You can note that your dependent variables and independent variables are identical to those in study one, though do make sure to highlight any new DV’s you are looking at in study two.

Results Section Study Two. This is where things get a bit trickier. The good news is I only need to see one analysis. The bad news is it is a tough one to analyze. I want to see a 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA from you that focuses on one of your dependent variables (I suggest analyzing ONE of the same DVs you looked at in Study One, preferably Part II Question #1 – “Your own hypothetical donation amount (from $0 to $100)”). Make sure your analysis focuses on both the main effects of each independent variable as well as the interaction of both independent variables. If the interaction is significant, make sure to include simple effects tests

Discussion Study Two. This will be pretty easy. Give me a short paragraph telling me (in English) what your analysis revealed. Did you support or not support your predictions?

Tables Study Two. Here, I need two additional tables. First, give me the demographics table. Seocnd, give me the ANOVA tables. That is, give me the descriptives table for your 2 X 2 ANOVA as well as the 2 X 2 ANOVA table itself. You can include simple effects tables if you like (and if you find a significant interaction), but I don’t need to see them.

References Study Two. Make sure to include your three new references in a reference section. Although I am only requiring that you include the three new references, I suggest including the five from Paper I as well (for a total of eight references). In Paper IV, you’ll need to include them all anyway, so might as well do it early!

2). APA Formatting Purpose

The second purpose of Paper III: Literature Review is to once again teach you proper American Psychological Association (APA) formatting. 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, so pay attention to the instructions below as well as Chapter 14 in your book!

3). Writing Purpose

Finally, this paper is intended to help you refine your writing. My hope is that you will use feedback from Paper I and Paper II to improve your grammar, spelling, and content in future papers. At the end of the semester, you will combine Papers I, II, and III for your final course paper, so doing a good writing job Paper III will be very beneficial as you revise your papers for Paper IV. Many students use Paper IV as their writing sample for graduate programs, so make sure you write clearly and precisely for an educated reader!

Instructions for Paper III: Study Two (Worth 35 Points)

This paper will cover (briefly) the literature review, methods, results, discussion, references, and appendices for Study Two.

The good news is that we are continuing with our topic of the Charity Norm study. You wrote a lot on that already, so here you simply add to it, noting in a second “literature review” section how a second independent variable might interact with the Charity Norm manipulation from study one. Here are the components to keep in mind. By now, a lot of this should be familiar to you, so you’ll see a lot of overlap with the instructions and checklists from Paper I and Paper II.

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

a. This title page is a lot like the title page on your Papers I and II. See my “Title” page above as an example or reuse your title page from prior papers (though you may need to modify your title given your new IVs in this study). See the instructions for Papers I and II for more information on formatting the title page

2. Abstract? This is optional - Ask your instructor about it

a. You DO NOT need an abstract for Paper III: Study Two. You can include it if you want, but it will not be graded and they will not factor into the length of the paper. Check with your instructor to see if they prefer to see an abstract. You will write an Abstract for Paper IV, so keep in mind you will need one eventually.

3. Literature Review Study Two (10 points)

a. APA formatting for the first page of your literature review

i. Your study two literature review starts right after the discussion for study one. There is no page break, so have it come right after the discussion on the very next line.

b. APA formatted citations for the literature review

i. Between the literature review for study one and the literature review for study two, you have to have at least eight references combined. I require three new references for Paper III, but there is some flexibility here in that you can use some non-empirical research reports (books, law reviews, newspaper articles, etc.) The remaining two sources can also be primary sources, but you may also use secondary sources. Of course I recommend sticking with all primary sources (that is, each of these eight cited articles should have a literature review, a methods section, a results section, a conclusion/discussion, and references), but only six of the eight citations required for the final paper must be peer-reviewed. Note: Internet blogs and Wikipedia are not acceptable, even as secondary sources. Here is a bit more to note:

1. As in Paper I, I am not setting a maximum on the number of citations you can use, but between studies one and two you need at minimum eight references! These may overlap among students, so it is okay to read the same articles as some of your classmates. You can use all of the articles posted on Canvas for Paper I if you want, but note that you will need to find some new references as well (especially ones that focus on your second independent variable – Participant Charitableness).

a. Referring to your first study does not count as a reference.

2. Proper citations must be made in the paper – give credit where it is due, and don’t make claims that cannot be validated! If it sounds like a fact, then you must provide a citation to support that fact

3. DO NOT plagiarize. You will turn this in on Canvas, and we can check for plagiarism via turn-it-in. Paraphrasing is okay, but you must still cite the original author even if you do not use his or her words verbatim. If you rewrite what they say, it is still them that had the original idea, and they deserve credit for it

4. If you directly quote a source, make sure to provide a page number for where you found that quote. However, I prefer paraphrasing to direct quotes. I allow three quotes total for the whole paper (including the two that I allowed in Paper I). If you quote more than three times you will lose one point for each additional quote.

c. Content-based requirements for your study two literature review

i. Your study two literature review should use your study one results and prior research studies as a jumping off point, once again starting with a broad theme and then narrowing it down – think about the hourglass example your instructors have given you. Now imagine that you have a second hourglass right below the original one. You can start broadly again with information about the new study independent variable, and then once again narrow down as you near your hypotheses for study two.

ii. Think about your study two literature review this way: You are writing a sequel to study one, so your new story picks up where that story left off.

1. I want you to pay close attention to your own brief discussion from study one (Paper II discussion). You drew some conclusions there, but now is your chance to build on those conclusions. At the beginning of your new study two story, your audience knows some of the story from study one, so there is no need to rewrite what you already presented. Rather, you need to set the stage for the new sequel storyline. Introduce your new “character”, or your new independent variable. Talk about this somewhat in isolation (what does research say about this variable on its own). Once you define and clarify what this new variable is and how it has been used in prior research, start to show how it connects to your own study one.

a. For example, remember that your new independent variable is “participants high in charitableness versus participants low in charitableness”. After discussing some research about this topic, discuss how participant age might impact your donation independent variable. So, step one is to introduce the new concept (charitableness) while step two is to show how the new concept fits in with your original study (the donations from Michael’s friends – high versus low).

2. At the end of the story, start to lead the reader to the big cliffhanger (your study two hypothesis). By now you have introduced the characters as well as the plot, but then you want to build some anticipation in your reader – you want them to wonder what comes next! The last part of the literature review brings the reader to your study two hypotheses, or that potential twist ending to your story. That is, “Given what we saw in the literature, what happens if we do XYZ?” Thus you build your study to your hypotheses and end on another cliffhanger. The next sections (Methods, Results, and Discussion) focuses on the follow-up study. In other words, at the end of your study two literature review you should …

a. give a general overview of your research question

b. state your specific predictions / hypotheses given the studies you talked about in the literature review. This should look at both main effects and interactions, so you’ll need to address each IV on its own (main effect for high v low charitableness and main effect for high v low friend donations) and the interaction of the two IVs as they work together (charitableness X donation condition).

iii. You may or may not be able to find specific instances of “charitableness” in PsycInfo. I suggest using other potential synonyms, like “generosity”, “giving”, or “philanthropy”. You can also delve into other areas, like social comparison, the actor-observer effect, or pro-social behavior. Just make sure that your new sources help you set up and justify your predictions for study two.

d. The literature review for study two must have a minimum of three new references. I expect about one page of text (maximum 3 pages).

4. Methods Section: I expect the following format (6 points):

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

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

i. 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 differ from Paper II since there is a smaller number of participants, so you will have to provide all new demographic data.

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

1. 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).”

2. 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

iii. Make sure to callout the table (in this case refer your readers to Table 5 since you already have Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 from Study One).

c. Materials and Procedure

i. For this section, things are very simple. Since you are using data from the original data set, just focus on the new items

1. Independent variables

a. Mention you looked at the low and high donation conditions (like in study one) but that you dropped the middle donation condition (and explain why!)

b. Mention you looked at a new independent variable (participant charitableness). Describe how you collected that data (Hint: you looked at the median score for the dependent variable, “In my everyday life, I feel that I am generally more charitable than other people”. That is, you took the 1 to 6 scale and found the median (middle score, NOT the mean score) and split the data set into participants below the median score (the “low charitable group”) and those above the median score (the “high charitable group”).

2. Dependent variable

a. Mention any new dependent variable(s) that you looked at in study two (here, you can just say they were the same DVs you looked at in the original study, but I do suggest describing any that you plan to analyze in study two and include their scales again). No need to discuss all of the dependent variables if you did not analyze them

d. There is no set minimum or maximum on the length of the methods section,

5. Results Section: I expect the following format (6 points):

a. The results are the hardest part of this paper, so again, pay close attention to your instructor

b. 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.

c. For this final analysis, include statistics about your most important dependent variable in your study. You are dealing with a factorial design now (more than one IV). Let me walk you through some of the guidelines for a 2 X 2 design.

i. Run a 2 X 2 ANOVA for one DV minimum (This is still a univariate analysis of variance, but now with two IV’s). For this dependent variable, 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 seven different F tests for each DV with the simple effects tests! That is …

1. 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. Consider your new variable of charitableness (low versus high). Your main effect write up for this EXAMPLE of charitableness will look like this …

a. “Using charitableness (low versus high) and donation condition (low versus high) as our IVs and the rating of “participant hypothetical donation” as our DV, there was no main effect for charitableness, F(1, 189) = 1.97, p > .05. Participants did not differ in their donations in the low charitableness condition (M = $22.35, SD = $1.21) versus the low charitableness condition (M = $22.21, SD = $0.87).”

2. 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)

a. “There was, however, a significant friend donation condition main effect, F( 1, 189) = 3.42, p < .05. Participants donated less in the low friend donation condition (M = $22.56, SD = $1.21) than in the high friend donation condition (M = $35.24, SD = $0.89).”

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

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

i. “The Charitableness X Friend Donation Condition interaction was not significant, F(1, 187) = 1.22, p > .05.”

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

b. 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 low friend donation and low charitableness condition (M = $22.76, SD = $1.27), the low friend donation and high charitableness condition (M = $22.21, SD = $1.90), the high friend donation and low charitableness condition (M = $22.72, SD = $2.87), and the high friend donation and high charitableness condition (M = $22.78, SD = $3.45) did not differ from each other.”

c. 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):

i. First, simple effects showed that participants in the low friend donation condition donate less in the low charitableness condition (M = $22.76, SD = $1.27) than low friend donation condition participants in the high charitableness condition (M = $35.21, SD = $1.90), F(1, 95) = 6.24, p < .05.

1. (Notice that ALL participants here are in the low friend donation condition. You are simply comparing the two low vs. high charitableness conditions)

ii. Second, simple effects showed that high friend donation participants did not differ in hypothetical donations in the high charitableness condition (M = $35.72, SD = $3.45) vs low charitableness condition (M = $35.78, SD = $2.87), F(1, 93) = 1.13, p > .05.

iii. Third, for participants high in charitableness, simple effect tests showed that participants did not differ in their donations between the low friend donation condition (M = $35.21, SD = $1.27) and high friend donation condition (M = $35.72, SD = $3.45), F(1, 95) = 1.31, p > .05.

iv. Fourth, for participants low in charitableness, simple effect tests showed that participants donated less in the low friend donation condition (M = $22.67, SD = $1.90) than participants in high friend donation condition (M = $35.78, SD = $2.87), F(1, 95) = 3.11, p < .05.

v. In general, this shows that participants donated less money in the low friend donation and low self-charitableness condition compared to all other conditions, which did not differ from each other.

4. Again, the example above is just an EXAMPLE. Your analysis will differ.

d. 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

6. Discussion Section (1 points)

a. In a short paragraph or two, write a brief discussion of your 2 X 2 ANOVA result. Tell me if you did or did not support your hypotheses (both the main effects and the interaction). 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.

7. References: I expect the following format (3 points):

a. The References section starts on its own page, with the word References centered. Use proper APA format in this section or you will lose points.

b. You need at least three references that you cited in the study two literature review, but I suggest including those three plus the five from Paper I (that is, eight total). In your next paper, you will put all eight into the references section, so you might as well do so now and save some trouble for Paper IV.

c. For references, make sure you:

i. use alphabetical ordering (start with the last name of the first author)

ii. use the authors’ last names but only the initials of their first/middle name

iii. give the date in parentheses – e.g. (2007).

iv. italicize the name of the journal article

v. give the volume number, also in italics

vi. give the page numbers (not italicized) for articles

vii. provide the doi (digital object identifier) if present (not italicized)

8. Tables: I expect the following format (2 point)

a. Like the references, you can include all six Tables in Paper III, but I only require two new tables (the new demographics table for study two and the 2 X 2 ANOVA table, which includes descriptives for the Study Two demographics as well as the ANOVA table itself.

i. Option One (recommended appendices) :

1. Table 1: Study One Descriptives (age, gender, and ethnicity).

2. Table 2: Study One chi square and the crosstabs

3. Table 3: Study One first scaled DV

4. Table 4: Study One second scaled DV

5. Table 5: Study Two Descriptives (age, gender, and ethnicity)

6. Table 6: Study Two 2 X 2 ANOVA

ii. Option Two (The graded component)

1. Table 5: Study Two Descriptives (age, gender, and ethnicity)

2. Table 6: Study Two 2 X 2 ANOVA

9. Overall writing quality (6 points)

a. 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 III: Study Two

1. 1). Page size is 8 1/2 X 11” with all 4 margins set at 1”. You must use a 12-point font with Times New Roman font. EVERYTHING in the paper (including references) is double spaced

1. 2). When summarizing articles for your lit review and doing so in your own words, make sure you still cite the original source. Always use proper referencing procedures, which means that:

1. If you are inserting a direct quote from any source, it must be enclosed in quotations and followed by a parenthetical reference to the source. “Let’s say I am directly quoting this current sentence and the next. I would then cite it with the author name, date of publication, and the page number for the direct quote” (Winter, 2013, p . 5).

0. Note: We will deduct points if you quote more than three times in the paper, so keep quotes to a minimum. Paraphrase instead, but make sure you still give the original author credit for the material by citing it or using the author’s name (“In this article, Smith noted that …” or “In this article, the authors noted that…”)

1. 3). 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. Using Pearson Writer is also required

The above information is required for your paper, but I wanted to provide a few tips about writing your study two literature review as well. Hopefully this will give you some good directions:

· First, remember that you need three brand new references minimum for Paper III in your references section, though I recommend including all eight references (including those from Paper I)

· Second, I don't expect a lengthy discussion for each and every article that you cite for either study one or study two. You might spend a page on one study and a sentence or two on another. 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. If you do a near replication of a prior study, then I would expect you to spend more time discussing that prior research since it has a big impact on 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, like Paper I, Paper III is all about supporting your study two hypotheses. Know what your hypotheses are before you write the new literature review section, as it will help you determine how much time to spend on each article you are citing.

· Fourth, make sure to proofread, proofread, proofread! Use the Pearson Writer for help, but note that their suggestions are just that – suggestions. It is up to you to make sure the flow of the paper is easy to understand.

1. Finally, below is a write up for the significant interaction for the 2 X 2 ANOVA that I wrote above. 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 charitableness (low versus high) and friend donation condition (low versus high) as our IVs and the rating of “participant hypothetical donation” as our DV, there was no main effect for charitableness, F(1, 189) = 1.97, p > .05. Participants did not differ in their donations in the low charitableness condition (M = $22.35, SD = $1.21) versus the low charitableness condition (M = $22.21, SD = $0.87). There was, however, a significant friend donation condition main effect, F( 1, 189) = 3.42, p < .05. Participants donated less in the low friend donation condition (M = $22.56, SD = $1.21) than in the high friend donation condition (M = $35.24, SD = $0.89). The main effects were qualified by a significant Charitableness X Friend Donation Condition interaction, F(1, 187) = 6.61, p < .05. First, simple effects showed that participants in the low friend donation condition donate less in the low charitableness condition (M = $22.76, SD = $1.27) than low friend donation condition participants in the high charitableness condition (M = $35.21, SD = $1.90), F(1, 95) = 6.24, p < .05. Second, simple effects showed that high friend donation participants did not differ in hypothetical donations in the high charitableness condition (M = $35.72, SD = $3.45) vs low charitableness condition (M = $35.78, SD = $2.87), F(1, 93) = 1.13, p > .05. Third, for participants high in charitableness, simple effect tests showed that participants did not differ in their donations between the low friend donation condition (M = $35.21, SD = $1.27) and high friend donation condition (M = $35.72, SD = $3.45), F(1, 95) = 1.31, p > .05. Fourth, for participants low in charitableness, simple effect tests showed that participants donated less in the low friend donation condition (M = $22.67, SD = $1.90) than participants in high friend donation condition (M = $35.78, SD = $2.87), F(1, 95) = 3.11, p < .05. In general, this shows that participants donated less money in the low friend donation and low self-charitableness condition compared to all other conditions, which did not differ from each other.