read the article and identify 6 critical feature of the introduction part
Chae
Lecture4IntroWritingaboutResearchandWritingIntroSV.pptxPSY 294: RESEARCH DESIGN &
ANALYSIS II
LECTURE 4:
Research Process and Introduction Writing
2
Variables in Experiments
Independent variables
Dependent variables
Continuous
Measured
Confounding variables
Control variables
Random variables
Discrete/ categorical variables
Manipulated (Quasi= measured)
Between or within-subjects
Overview of The Research Process
3
The Research Process
Research topic & literature review
Research question
Hypothesis
Design selection & method preparation
Data collection
Data analysis
Data interpretation
4
How are results published?
Academic journals
Research talks & posters at conferences
Talks at own department/university
Talks at other universities
5
AN Introduction to scientific writing in psychology: APA style
6
What is apa style?
A set of rules and guidelines
Writing style (e.g., clear communication, professional tone, reducing bias in language)
Structure of manuscript
Paraphrasing/citing sources
Mechanics of writing
Layout
Reporting design, findings
Ethical guidelines
7
Goal of scientific writing
“The main objective of scientific reporting is clear communication.” (APA Manual, p. 65)
Objectivity
Clarity
Professional tone
Minimize bias
Preciseness
Thoroughness
8
WRITING APPROACH
You are making an evidence-based, systematic argument
No common sense statements that cannot (or are not) supported by evidence
You are also telling a coherent, gradual story
Organization is key
9
WRITING STYLE
1. Don’t give life to what is inanimate
2. Use active voice & first person
3. Find the most direct ways of conveying the message
4. Use the fewest number of words without altering the content
5. Watch out for too extreme/conclusive language
10
great words to use
The extent to which
Plausible
Potential
Tend to be
Investigate
Explore
Conduct
Rather
Suggest, imply
Recent work/research
Is likely/unlikely to be
Specifically, particularly
Hence, thus, therefore
That is
Given that, as
Whereas
Although, even though
It therefore appears that
May/may not be
We believe, hypothesize, argue, predict
Important, essential, key
Nevertheless, however, regardless
Based on
11
WORDS TO AVOID
Confirm, prove, truth
Definitely, completely, absolutely, totally, always
Extremely, very
A lot
People are (instead, say “Some may be”)
Fascinating
Look at/into (instead, say “investigate”)
Throughout time, since the beginning of time
In today’s society, nowadays, today, these days
A person’s X (instead, say “people’s X”)
12
common mistakes
Participants, NOT subjects
Study vs. Experiment
“Data” is a plural noun
While = happening simultaneously (use “whereas”)
Since = only time (e.g., since 2012; use “given that” or “although”)
Effect = noun, affect = verb
They/their = plural (subject-verb agreement!)
Never use “he” “him” as default
Than = comparison, then = time sequence
Its = possessive, it’s = it is
Participant’s/author’s = singular, participants’/authors’ = plural
CORRELATION ≠ CAUSATION (Words that imply causation: “A caused/affected/influenced/determined B”)
Know your jargon! (e.g., personality, attitude, mood/emotion/affect, memory, evaluation, interaction…)
13
structure of the manuscript
Title Page
Abstract
Introduction
Method
Results
Discussion
References
Tables
Figures
Appendices
14
layout
1 inch margins
12 point Times New Roman font
Line-spacing: Double
Header on every page
Sample paper: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/18/
Another sample paper in the book: pg 507-521
15
Mechanics (APA Manual)
Headings & subheadings (p. 62)
Punctuation (p. 87)
Spelling (p. 96)
Capitalization (p. 101)
Italics (p. 104)
Key terms, labels, book & journal titles
Abbreviations (p. 106)
etc., i.e., e.g., et al.
Numbers (p. 111)
10 and above: numerals
16
Citing Sources
No need for extensive detail, but always describe findings
Discuss similar findings from different sources in a single paragraph
Tip: do not look at source when writing about it – helps with using own words
17
Citing Sources
Cite when you begin paraphrasing a source!
1-2 authors: always cite all authors
In text: Author and Author (year)
Parentheses: (Author & Author, year)
3-5 authors: cite all first time, et al. all subsequent times
In text: Author, Author, and Author (year) -> Author et al. (year)
Parentheses: (Author, Author, & Author, year) -> (Author et al., year)
5+ authors: Author et al from beginning
In text: Author et al. (year)
Parentheses: (Author et al., year)
Cite page numbers only with direct quotes (which should be used extremely sparingly)
18
references
Periodicals/journals
Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article: Subtitle of article. Title of Periodical, volume number, pages.
Example:
Bernstein, M. J., Young, S. G., Brown, C. M., Sacco, D. F., & Claypool, H. M. (2008). Adaptive responses to social exclusion social rejection improves detection of real and fake smiles. Psychological Science, 19, 981-983.
Book chapters
Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year). Title of chapter. In A. Editor (Ed.), Title of book (pp. page numbers). Location: Publisher.
Example:
Dovidio, J. F., Hebl, M., Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2006). Nonverbal communication, race, and intergroup interaction. In V. L. Manusov, & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 481-500). New York, NY: Sage Publications
19
PARAPHRASING, CITING, & PLAGIARISM
Direct plagiarism: lifting text with or without citations
Inappropriate paraphrasing with or without citations
Paraphrased, but missing citation
Self-plagiarism
20
Writing the Introduction Section
21
Purpose of the Introduction
Build a case for your hypothesis
Gradually immerse the reader to your argument (systematic organization!)
By the time you get to your hypothesis, it should not be a surprise (i.e., it is a logical continuation of what you have described)
22
Arguing Scientifically
You are an advocate of your study –argue for it and defend it with the help of empirical evidence (instead of with opinions, intuitions, and common sense)
Courtroom analogy: In building your argument, you build a case, which is that your hypothesis is:
Plausible (based on previous literature)
Novel
Interesting (and important)
Testable
23
Structure of the Introduction
Finally, snapshot: briefly describe how you plan to test that hypothesis
Hypothesis
24
Introduce problem
Gap in the literature & your twist
Rationale
Develop background
Stage 1: Introduce the Problem
Opening paragraph
Grabs attention in an evidence-based way
Broad introduction to the research problem
Try application to a societal issue: include a note on why this topic is especially important
Avoid dramatic & sweeping generalizations
Provides a glance into the current work
25
Stage 1: Introduce the Problem
Example (Fast & Chen, 2009, p. 1406):
“A startling 37% of American workers—roughly 54 million people—have been bullied at work, primarily having been sabotaged, yelled at, or belittled by their bosses (Workplace Bullying Institute & Zogby International, 2007). This statistic resonates with research showing a link between social power and aggression (i.e., acts aimed at harming other individuals, physically or otherwise; Fiske, 1993; Georgesen & Harris, 1998; Howard, Blumstein, & Schwartz, 1986; Keltner, Capps, Kring, Young, & Heerey, 2001; Kipnis, 1976). However, it also indicates that the link between power and aggression is not universal— after all, 63% of American workers have not been bullied at work. These observations raise an intriguing pair of questions: When are power holders most likely to behave aggressively, and why do they do so?”
26
Stage 2: Develop the Background
Describe what previous research indicates we know so far
Include evidence related to both IV and DV
Only describe research that is directly relevant to the logic behind your hypothesis
Organization and clarity are key: introduce one idea per paragraph and deliberately walk your reader through the logic
Ask yourself: How does this particular piece of evidence – i.e. study – take the reader one step closer to my hypothesis?
27
Stage 2: Develop the Background cont.
Describe key studies in detail (hypothesis, method, results, and implications)
Most important goal: Explain clearly what this evidence means for your hypothesis (i.e., don’t catalogue evidence, but interpret it in light of your hypothesis)
28
Stage 2: Develop the Background
Example (Fast & Chen, 2009, p. 1406):
“Psychologists have become increasingly interested in this issue (Georgesen & Harris, 2006). One line of research indicates that personality traits moderate the power-aggression link. Chen, Lee-Chai, and Bargh (2001) found that having power reduces the likelihood of harming others among people who are high in communal relationship orientation, but increases the likelihood of harming others among people who are high in exchange relationship orientation. Other work has shown that the need to protect one’s power appears to moderate the power-aggression link; power holders whose power or status is threatened become more dominant (Georgesen & Harris, 2006; Morrison, Fast, & Ybarra, 2009). Additionally, men who associate power with sex are more likely than others to engage in sexually aggressive behaviors when placed in a position of power (Bargh, Raymond, Pryor, & Strack, 1995). In the present research, we moved beyond these initial findings to examine the effects of self-perceptions of incompetence on power holders’ tendency to aggress.”
29
POWER AND SELF-PERCEIVED INCOMPETENCE
Power is typically defined as disproportionate control over other individuals’ outcomes as a result of the capacity to allocate rewards and administer punishments (e.g., Emerson, 1962; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). In contrast, self-perceived competence refers to perceptions of one’s personal ability to skillfully interact with and alter the environment, or, in other words, to be influential (White, 1959). Thus, one can hold a position of power while simultaneously perceiving oneself to have low competence in the domain of power (i.e., low ability to influence other people).”
Stage 3: Gap in the literature & your twist
Argue that the picture that emerges from previous literature is incomplete
Where is the gap in the literature (i.e., what have other authors overlooked?)
31
Stage 3: Explain Your Twist
Example (Fast & Chen, 2009, p. 1407):
“Drawing on this distinction, we propose that a lack of perceived personal competence may foster aggression among the powerful. We base this idea on the notion that power increases the degree to which individuals feel that they need to be competent— both in order to hold onto their power (Georgesen & Harris, 2006) and to fulfill the demands and expectations that come with their high-power roles (Fast, 2009).”
32
Stage 4: Rationale
Why do we need to fill this gap and answer this question? (no need to be earth-shattering)
How can we apply this new knowledge to real issues? (think society, medicine, law, business, education, etc.)
Justify your study
33
Stage 4: State the Rationale
Example (Fast & Chen, 2009, p. 1406):
Back to the beginning…
“A startling 37% of American workers—roughly 54 million people—have been bullied at work, primarily having been sabotaged, yelled at, or belittled by their bosses (Workplace Bullying Institute & Zogby International, 2007). This statistic resonates with research showing a link between social power and aggression (i.e., acts aimed at harming other individuals, physically or otherwise; Fiske, 1993; Georgesen &Harris, 1998; Howard, Blumstein, & Schwartz, 1986; Keltner, Capps, Kring, Young, & Heerey, 2001; Kipnis, 1976). However, it also indicates that the link between power and aggression is not universal— after all, 63% of American workers have not been bullied at work. These observations raise an intriguing pair of questions: When are power holders most likely to behave aggressively, and why do they do so?”
34
Stage 5: State Your Hypothesis
How will your study fill the gap in the literature?
Describe the direction of your proposed effect (i.e., which group will score higher?)
Remind your audience of the logic behind your hypothesis (e.g., “Given that X and X (year) found that…, it is plausible that… Therefore, in the current work, we reasoned that…”)
35
Stage 5: State Your Hypothesis
Example (Fast & Chen, 2009, p. 1407):
“It stands to reason, then, that power holders who perceive themselves as lacking in competence should feel especially threatened (e.g., a chief executive officer who feels unable to influence a subordinate would likely feel more threatened than a low-level staff member who also lacks interpersonal influence). Wide-ranging research suggests that threat often leads to an internal state of ego defensiveness (e.g., Carver, Lawrence, & Scheier, 1999; Higgins, 1987; Maner et al., 2005; Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Goldenberg, 2003; Stone & Cooper, 2001). This defensive state may, in turn, lead power holders who feel incompetent to become aggressive, a common response to ego defensiveness (e.g., Baumeister, 1998; Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Kernis, Grannemann, & Barclay, 1989). In sum, power holders who perceive themselves as personally incompetent might display aggression as a response to ego defensiveness.”
36
Stage 6: Preview Your Study
Provide a snapshot by briefly overviewing your method, including the procedure
Mention how you’ll manipulate your IV & measure your DV
37
Stage 6: Preview Your Study
Example (Fast & Chen, 2009, p. 1407):
“We tested these ideas in four studies, using multiple measures and manipulations of power, perceived incompetence, and aggression to test two main predictions: (a) that power paired with self-perceived incompetence leads to aggression, and (b) that boosts in self-worth eliminate the tendency of power holders who perceive themselves as incompetent to aggress, presumably by reducing the ego threat brought on by the pairing of power and self-perceived incompetence.”
38
Notes on Writing
Better to be redundant than to leave gaps in your argument
Better to write too simply than too complexly
Capitalize on clarity: walk the reader through the logic very deliberately
Pay attention to the “flow” of your writing (e.g., use transitional statements)
Triple-check paraphrasing & citations
39
Common Pitfalls
Lack of citing – argument not based on empirical evidence
Previous literature described not consistent with or relevant to hypothesis
Logic of hypothesis is not fully explained (it comes off as a surprise)
Why the study matters not clearly explained
Confusing flow: ideas do not logically follow one another
40
Uhlmann, E., & Swanson, J. (2004). Exposure to violent video games increases automatic aggressiveness. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 41-52. LINK
Read the article
Identify the 6 critical features of the intro
Introduce Problem
Develop Background
The Authors’ Twist (gap)
Rationale for study
State your hypothesis
Preview of Current Work
ICA #1
Uhlmann, E., & Swanson, J. (2004). Exposure to violent video games increases automatic aggressiveness. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 41-52. LINK
Read the article
Identify the 6 critical features of the intro
Introduce Problem
Develop Background
The Authors’ Twist (gap)
Rationale for study
State your hypothesis
Preview of Current Work
ICA #1
Introduction Draft 1
Written individually
Due 9/25, beginning of lecture (typed, APA, upload to canvas)
Approximately 5 pages (< 3 = -10pts)
Minimum 8 citations (-10pts)
References APA (-10pts)
43
44
45
