Psychology

Social media paper III.docx by Merlin Ramirez

Submission date: 01-Nov-2021 12:29PM (UTC-0400) Submission ID: 1690132663 File name: Social_media_paper_III.docx (6.54M) Word count: 2767 Character count: 14999

1

Title page - S1 Intro -3.5 S1 Methods -3 S1 Results -3 S1 Discussion -.75 S2 Intro - 8 In-text citation -.5 References - Appendix -.5 Writing -.75 -3 for lack of originality +3 extra credit for highlighting changes 15 + 3 (extra credit) - 3 (for lack of originality) = 15/35

1

You need to rewrite Study 2 literature review completely because your current review is off-topic (although you can make use of some of the paragraphs for Study 1 lit review). Your study 1 & 2 is NOT about social comparison nor forewarning. But you keep copied study information from the example paper. Three points were taken off for lack of originality. Please set up a meeting with Sarah or myself to discuss the actual topic of your Study 1 and 2.

1

5

6

7

8

9

2

3

4

56

7

8

10

Run-on

11

Run-on

13

14

15

16

17

18

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

19

20

22

23

25

28

You need to discuss at least 6 relevant references in Study 1 literature review, all of which should help you justify why people feel more negatively when they miss out on an event that is well-attended by others. When you discuss the past literature, you should review the main findings of the past research and discuss how their implication help support your study rationale. Do not simply cite a reference to support some personal opinions.

1

1

1

1

2

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

1

1

1

1

1

36

37

38

1

1

1

1

1

39

40

41

43

44

45

46

47 48

49

50 51 52 53

1

3

54

55

56

58

59

61

62

1

1

3

4

63

64

67

1

1

1

1

68

1

69

70

35% SIMILARITY INDEX

7% INTERNET SOURCES

5% PUBLICATIONS

33% STUDENT PAPERS

1 30% 2 1% 3 1% 4 1%

5 1% 6 1% 7 <1% 8 <1%

Social media paper III.docx ORIGINALITY REPORT

PRIMARY SOURCES

Submitted to Florida International University Student Paper

Submitted to University of Westminster Student Paper

link.springer.com Internet Source

Submitted to California Virtual Campus Region IV Student Paper

arpgweb.com Internet Source

Submitted to Seton Hill University Student Paper

journals.plos.org Internet Source

Jia Yuin Fam, Sri Bala Murugan, Caroline Yu Li Yap. "Envy in Social Comparison–Behaviour Relationship: Is Social Comparison Always Bad?", Psychological Studies, 2020 Publication

9 <1%

Exclude quotes Off

Exclude bibliography On

Exclude matches Off

www.researchgate.net Internet Source

FINAL GRADE

15/35 Social media paper III.docx GRADEMARK REPORT

GENERAL COMMENTS

Instructor

PAGE 1

Text Comment. Title page - S1 Intro -3.5 S1 Methods -3 S1 Results -3 S1 Discussion -.75 S2 Intro - 8 In-text citation -.5 References - Appendix -.5 Writing -.75 -3 for lack of originality +3 extra credit for highlighting changes 15 + 3 (extra credit) - 3 (for lack of originality) = 15/35

Comment 1

Come up with a title that better capture study 1 & 2 topic. 

Text Comment. You need to rewrite Study 2 literature review completely because your current review is off-topic (although you can make use of some of the paragraphs for Study 1 lit review). Your study 1 & 2 is NOT about social comparison nor forewarning. But you keep copied study information from the example paper. Three points were taken off for lack of originality. Please set up a meeting with Sarah or myself to discuss the actual topic of your Study 1 and 2.

PAGE 2

Comment 2

revise the title

Comment 3

Provide some citations to support these claims.

Comment 4

FOMO can happen in any context, not just social media.

QM

QM

Comment 5

Who are "they"? There is not citation at the beginning of this sentence.

Comment 6

This is not a complete sentence. 

Comment 7

Too specific to bring this up in the first paragraph. You have not even review the study topic nor the idea of social comparison. 

Comment 8

et al.

Strikethrough.

Comment 10

Study 1 is really about how extent of friend attendance affects FOMO in terms of emotions and behaviors. 

Run-on Run-on sentence: The sentence contains two or more independent clauses. Separate the clauses with a period or semicolon.

Comment 11

Need to provide citations to support this claim.

Run-on Run-on sentence: The sentence contains two or more independent clauses. Separate the clauses with a period or semicolon. Additional Comment

Also, do not talk about personal opinion or anecdotal example in a research paper. 

Strikethrough.

Comment 13

Work on transition between paragraphs.

Comment 14

Need to rewrite this sentence in your own words. It is directly taken from the example paper. -.5 for lack of originality. 

Comment 15

work on transition

Comment 16

provide a citation to support this claim. 

Comment 17

Provide a citation for this definition.

Comment 18

missing citation.

PAGE 3

Comment 19

Tie it back to Study 1. 

Comment 20

Work on transition between paragraphs. There was no review on envy in your previous paragraphs. 

Strikethrough.

Comment 22

et al.

Comment 23

These are simply based on personal opinion. You need to discuss actual research study that support the idea that when people miss out on an social event, they might feel negatively. 

Strikethrough.

Comment 25

et al. 

Strikethrough.

Strikethrough.

Comment 28

This is clearly taken from the example paper. Your Study 1 has nothing to do with social comparison on social media. Please rewrite your hypotheses and study purpose based on what you actually do. If you are still unsure about the topic of study 1 and 2, please set up a meeting with Sarah or myself. 

-.5 for lack of originality. 

Text Comment. You need to discuss at least 6 relevant references in Study 1 literature review, all of which should help you justify why people feel more negatively when they miss out on an event that is well-attended by others. When you discuss the past literature, you should review the main findings of the past research and discuss how their implication help support your study rationale. Do not simply cite a reference to support some personal opinions.

PAGE 4

Comment 29

missing , 

Comment 30

the maximum is wrong. 

Comment 31

the average is wrong and you are missing the SD. -.5

Comment 32

The % and n are all wrong here. Please double-check and report them correctly based on your output. -.5

Comment 33

This is directly taken from the example paper, which has nothing to do with your study. -.25

Comment 34

You need to clearly discuss how the three conditions differ from one another and provided specific example from the Facebook profile that distinguish them. -1

Comment 35

You need to note the number of statements in Part II, give example statements. -.25

PAGE 5

Comment 36

What a higher score mean on this new variable? -.25

Comment 37

Move this to where you discuss DVs. You still need to discuss what a higher score mean on this averaged variable. -.25

For the second DV, you only need to choose one statement from Part III. If you decided to average three statements, you need to make sure you use the computed variable to rerun your second ANOVA.

Comment 38

How long did it take to complete the survey? -.25

PAGE 6

Comment 39

This is NOT the topic of your study. -.25

Comment 40

What's the purpose of the chi-square? Is the result significant? -.5

Comment 41 no comment

Strikethrough.

Comment 43

Here, you should report the % of participants who correctly recall the condition they were in. The % do not pertain to how many participants in each condition complete the questionnaire. Rewrite. -.5

Comment 44

What is the conclusion of the chi-square? Did the participant pay attention? -.25

Comment 45

Wrong IV and DV. -.5

Comment 46

italicize all statistical symbols. -.25

Comment 47

This sentence does not make sense. The M for the some condition you reported is lower than that in the all condition. -.25

Comment 48

For the post-hoc results, you need to clearly discuss whether each pairs of comparison (all vs. none, all vs. some, some vs none) is significantly different from each other. -.5

Comment 49

What are the IV and DV for this test? -.5

Comment 50

For the post-hoc results, you need to clearly discuss whether each pairs of comparison (all vs. none, all vs. some, some vs none) is significantly different from each other. -.5

Comment 51

wrong conclusion. The F value is too low for the results to be significant at .05. 

-.25

Comment 52

Be consistent in using either Bonferroni or Tukey.

Comment 53

Wrong conclusion based on your output. -.25

PAGE 7

Comment 54

Rewrite this prediction to be consistent with how your measured your second DV. 

Comment 55

Wrong conclusion based on your output. -.5

Comment 56

Need to provide more context for Hunt (2018). -.25

Strikethrough.

Comment 58

This is NOT your Study 2 topic. 

Comment 59

Wrong topic for study 2.

Strikethrough.

Comment 61

This fit better for Study 1 literature review. 

Comment 62

This paragraph does not seems to relate to your Study 2 topic, and there is no citation at all in this paragraphs to support the claims made. 

PAGE 8

Comment 63

This fit better as the general introduction for Study 1. 

Comment 64

Do not talk about anecdotal example in a research paper. 

Strikethrough.

Strikethrough.

Comment 67 no comment

PAGE 9

Comment 68

This entire section is taken from the example paper. Most importantly, your Study 2 is NOT on forewarning nor social media. 

-2 for lack of originality. 

PAGE 10

PAGE 11

PAGE 12

PAGE 13

PAGE 14

PAGE 15

Comment 69

Your second ANOVA should be ran with the averaged score of your choose statement from Part III, according to your Materials section. You need to rerun this test and rewrite your Results section accordingly. -.5

PAGE 16

Comment 70

This should be your first ANOVA, based on your Materials section.