Purpose of Paper III: Study Two Literature Review

Purpose of Paper III: Study Two Literature Review

Purpose of Paper III: Study Two Literature Review

1). Psychological Purpose

Paper III is intended to help you take your original Facebook Rudeness study one step further by letting you predict how a second independent variable of your lab’s choosing impacts participants. In this replication with extension study, you have a greater role in a). choosing which articles to include in your follow-up literature review as well as b). identifying how this new variable influences your hypotheses. The bulk of your points in Paper III will come from a new paper “literature review”, but—similar to journal articles you might have read—this second literature review comes between the discussion from study one and before the methods for study two . Purpose of Paper III: Study Two Literature Review. That is, your Paper III will include your original literature review from study one (revised based on feedback from Paper I), your study one methods, results, and discussion (revised based on feedback from Paper II), and a new literature review that both focuses on the results of study one but adds in new information and references for study two.

In other words, Paper III includes:

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

2). Your revised study one literature review (ending in the study one hypotheses).

3). Your revised study one methods section.

4). Your revised study one results section.

5). Your revised study one discussion section.

6). Your new study two literature review (ending in the study two hypotheses).

7). References for all citations in the paper (minimum 11 references required)

8). Your appendices from study one

 

The largest number of Paper III points are provided for your new study two literature review. Unlike your study one literature review, your study two literature review will essentially pick up after study one. Think of it as a “sequel” of sorts. It builds on and extends study one’s Facebook Rudeness focus, using two levels of your original independent variable (Rude Disagree and Polite Disagree) and the same dependent variables (e.g. impression of Corey, etc.) but extending them into a new study design. The good news here is that you can refer to study one as you write your study two literature review. In fact, that is something I encourage. You can also refer back to your study one literature review sources.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER NOW

The bulk of this study two literature review concerns a second independent variable that you and your lab will manipulate during the second part of the semester. You will need to find up to five references for this second independent variable, hopefully finding sources that build a bridge between studies one and two. In other words, in Paper III you will answer the following question: “Given our findings in study one, how will the presence of a second independent variable impact participant decisions?”

Similar to Paper I, you should end your literature review in Paper III by noting your specific hypotheses for study two. Here, you will address both main effects (outcomes associated with each independent variable alone) and interactions (the combined impact of your independent variables).

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 the lecture on APA formatting style (7th Edition). Purpose of Paper III: Study Two Literature Review.

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 Paper III. At the end of the semester, you will actually use Paper III as the opening section for your final course paper, so doing a good writing job Paper III will be very beneficial as you revise your papers for Paper V. Some students use Paper V as their writing sample for graduate programs, so make sure you write clearly and precisely for an educated reader!

Note: The plagiarism limit for Paper III is 30%. This is a bit higher given the overlap in the Paper II material, but your Paper I and new literature review in Paper III should be very unique to you. As usual, references and citations are not included in the plagiarism limit.

 

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

This paper will cover both study one (including the literature review, methods section, results section, and brief discussion from that study) and the introduction literature review to study two. This paper essentially tells the literature oriented story of your semester long project thus far. Your main job is to justify your study two predictions, and you do that by both showing how study one influenced your choice of variables in study two as well as citing prior research that supports your second independent variable in study two. At the end of the study two literature review section, you will provide your own study two predictions.

The good news is that we are continuing with our topic of the Facebook Rudeness 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 study one Facebook Rudeness manipulation. 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 Papers I and II.

  1. Title Page: I expect the following format (1 point):
    1. 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).
    2. You must have a header and page numbers on each page.
      1. If you don’t know how to insert headers, ask your lab instructor or myself.
      2. The header goes at the top of the paper and it is left justified.
        1. Use “Insert Headers” or click on the top of the page to open the header.
        2. The short title should be in ALL CAPS. This short running head title must be the same one as the rest of your paper. It should be no more than 50 characters including spaces and punctuation
        3. Insert a page number as well. While the header is flush left, the page number is flush right.
  1. Your Title should be midway up the page. Feel free to alter the title at this point so that it includes a better description of both study one and study two
  2. Include your name (First Last) and the name of your institution (FIU) beneath the paper title. For this class, only your own name will go on this paper. Double space everything.
  1. Literature Review Study One (5 points)
    1. Make sure to revise the study one literature review from Paper I based on feedback to that paper. The Paper I instructions still apply for that second in Paper II, so reread those instructions if you need a reminder on the requirements for your study one literature review.
    2. For Paper III, you will need eleven references total. You already have six for the study one literature review, so feel free to keep those same references. You can also add a few or take away a few from the study one literature review and make-up the difference in the study two literature review section (#7 below). My advice – keep your six references from study one and include five additional references for the study two literature review. Purpose of Paper III: Study Two Literature Review.
    3. Just remember to revise, revise, revise your study one lit review. If we made recommendations for improvement and you don’t change a word, you’ll lose all three points in this section.
  2. Methods Study One (3 points)
    1. Revise your methods from study one for this section based on feedback we gave you in Paper II. The Paper II instructions for methods still apply for this section.
    2. Again, revise, revise, revise or risk losing all points in this section
  3. Results Study One (3 points)
    1. Revise your results from study one for this section based on feedback we gave you in Paper II. The Paper II instructions for the results still apply for this section.
  4. Discussion Study One (1 point)
    1. Revise your discussion from study one for this section based on feedback we gave you in Paper II. The Paper II instructions for the discussion still apply for this section.
  5. Literature Review Study Two (10 points)
    1. APA formatting for the first page of your literature review
      1. 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.
    2. APA formatted citations for the literature review
      1. Between the literature review for study one and the literature review for study two, you have to have at least eleven references combined. All eleven sources must be based on empirical research reports (that is, each of these cited articles should have a literature review, a methods section, a results section, a conclusion/discussion, and references). 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 eleven of them. These may overlap among students, so it is okay to read the same articles as some of your classmates. You can use some 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).
          1. 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. I DO NOT allow the use of direct quotes. You will lose points if you use any quotes.
      2. Content-based requirements for your study two literature review
        1. 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 funnel 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.
        2. 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.
            1. For example, let’s say your new independent variable is “the effect of warnings on behavior”, with warning versus no warning as the two levels of the new IV. You would talk about research on warnings and how it impacts people. THEN you talk about how warning about rudeness of comments might impact person perception. So, step one is to introduce the new concept while step two is to show how the new concept fits in with your new study.
          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.Purpose of Paper III: Study Two Literature Review.  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 paper (Paper IV Methods, Results, and Discussion) focuses on the study that you actually did! In other words, at the end of your study two literature review you should …
            1. give a general overview of your research question
            2. 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 rudeness condition and main effect for your second IV) and the interaction of the two IVs as they work together. In other words, there should be SIX hypotheses in total.
          3. The literature review for study two must have a minimum of three (3) full pages of text (3.5 page with hypotheses) and a maximum of five (5) pages.
        3. Citations: I expect the following format (4 points)
          1. All in-text citations must be correct (correct APA formatting, correct dates)
        4. References: I expect the following format (4 points):
          1. 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.
          2. All eleven references that you cited in the literature review must be in this section (there should be more than eleven references here if you cited more than eleven articles). All of them must come from empirical articles.
          3. For references, make sure you:
            1. use alphabetical ordering (start with the last name of the first author)
            2. use the authors’ last names but only the initials of their first/middle name
  1. italicize the name of the journal article
  2. give the volume number, also in italics
  3. give the page numbers (not italicized) for articles
  1. Appendices: I expect the following format (1 point)
    1. Revise from Paper II (if needed). This should be an easy point! Just make sure the appendices go AFTER the references page (That is, an appendix “appends” the paper – it goes at the end!)
      1. Appendix A: Include your tables for age, gender, and ethnicity.
      2. Appendix B: Include your tables for your chi square and the crosstabs
  1. Appendix D: Include your tables for you second scaled DV
  1. Overall writing quality (3 points)
    1. 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;

Other Guidelines for Paper III: Literature Review

 

Here are a few tips about writing your study two literature review. Hopefully this will give you some good directions:

 

Methods

Participants

            One hundred and forty-one students from Florida International University took part on this study, the participants were randomly selected. Of these 141 and  participants, 48.2% (n=68) were male and 51.8% (n = 73) were female. Participant ages ranged from 18 to 40 with an average of 28.96 years (SD = 6.25). Our sample population for this study consisted of 88.7% Hispanic Americans (n = 125), 0.7% African Americans (n = 1), 4.3% Caucasians (n = 6), 5.7% Asians (n = 8), and 0.7% who were Native Indian (n = 1). Purpose of Paper III: Study Two Literature Review.About 50% of our participants reported English as their first language (n=71), while the other 50% did not report English as their first language (n=70).

Materials

            Three surveys were presented and each of them contained five parts. For part one, participants were asked to look at a fake Facebook page of Corey McMillan who works for Coldwell Banker, along with some landscape photos as well as a dog, intro information and one post that McMillan recently made. Corey’s profile picture showed a couple, one male and one female, leading participants not to rely on gender norms while completing the survey.

The difference between each of the three surveys was that McMillan’s post fell into a agree/disagree condition (either rude disagree, polite disagree, or polite agree). In the condition for rude disagree, McMillan reported to not agree at all with other users’ comments, claiming in a rude way that everyone else’s arguments were wrong and that his news were not fake. In the condition for polite disagree, McMillan’s arguments were in a calm tone, without rudeness, he gave the other user’s credit for their arguments, even though he did not agree, in a polite and respectful way. In the polite agree condition, McMillan states that he was wrong about his most recent post, communicating his ideas in a polite and respectful way, he agreed with the other user’s argument.

In part two of the survey, participants were asked to rate their impressions of Corey by going over eight different statements and answering them through an interval scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Some of these statement include “Corey seems like a reasonable person”, “Corey seems like a polite person”, “Corey seems like a rude person”, etc. In part three of the survey, seven statements were presented for participants to rate their impression of the comments that were posted on Facebook by Corey and the replies of other users, Peyton Halliburton, and Riley Anderson. Again, an interval scale was used, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), including statements such as “I think Peyton and Riley unfairly confronted Corey in their replies to Corey’s original post”, “Reading Corey’s last post made me feel angry”. “I would be willing to engage in a back-and-forth conversation with Corey”, etc. At the moment of creating our dependent variable, “negative impression”, we choose three statements from part three of the survey: “Reading Corey’s last post made me feel angry”, “After reading the comments, I believe the story of “CNN losing its news license” is fake”, “Before reading the comments, I suspected the story of “CNN losing its news license” was fake”, computing it by using the mean score from those participants’ “negative impression” by selecting those statements. Purpose of Paper III: Study Two Literature Review. As the scored for this variable where higher, the more participants agreed on negative statements, meaning they had a negative impression. For our second variable, “positive impression”, this dependent variable was based on the mean score of participants’ positive impression by selecting the following statements: “Corey seems like a likeable person”, “Corey seems like an open-minded person”, “Corey seems like a reasonable person”. If scores were to be high on this variable, that means participants had a good impression of Corey. Demographic information was asked in part four of the survey, including age, race, gender, first language, either if they were students at Florida International University or not and political affiliation. Participants were not required to answer all this questions, it was their right to leave any of them in blank if they refuse or felt uncomfortable when answering. Part five of the survey consisted on asking participants to recall how did Corey respond to the other users’ comments, Peyton and Riley, in order to tell if the participants were paying full attention when completing the survey.

Procedures

            For this study, participants were chosen randomly from Florida International University. The approach was made via email and were asked through a zoom conference if they were willing to participate in this study. During this zoom conference, students were informed of the procedure for this study and how long it would take, also they were knowledgeable that would not experience any risk during this research study. At the time the participant’s consent was acquired, the three survey were randomly handed and they were asked to complete them in an independently way. Participants took approximately 10 minutes to complete the survey online.

Results

            In this study, our independent variable was Facebook rudeness condition (rude disagree, polite disagree, polite agree) and whether participants recognized the condition they were in, was our dependent variable. We ran chi square test to check which results showed significance, X2(4) = 0.938, p <=0.919. 34.1%. Participants in the rude disagree condition agreed that Corey’s Facebook Rudeness seemed rude and 36.7% of the participants in the polite disagree condition agreed that Corey’s Facebook Rudeness seemed polite. Polite agree condition didn’t show any large effect.

Our main analysis, a One-Way ANOVA test for Facebook Rudeness condition (rude disagree, polite disagree, polite agree) as our independent variable and participant’s negative impression as our dependent variable. Results from this test showed a significant difference F(2, 138) = 3.160, p = .046 and our hypothesis was supported by a subsequent Tukey post hoc test, demonstrating that participants were more likely to agree on Corey’s rudeness in the rude disagree condition (M = 2.0227, SD = 0.82091) than in the polite disagree condition (M = 1.8542, SD = 0.7435). Purpose of Paper III: Study Two Literature Review. However, I significant difference resulted between the polite agree condition (M = 2.265, SD = 0.861) and the polite disagree condition. Results indicated that in situation where the outcome is polite agree, participants were more likely to have a positive impression from Corey.

Discussion

            Our predictions were that participants in the rude disagree condition would score higher in the negative impression than those participants in the polite disagree and polite agree condition, so they would agree ore with the negative statements about Corey’s rudeness and disagree more with positive statements in comparison to participants in the rude disagree and polite agree condition. Also, we hypothesized that participants were more likely to agree on Corey’s rudeness in the rude disagree condition than in the polite condition.

Results supported our hypothesis, as we found that people in the rude disagree condition were more likely to score higher in the negative impression, so they feel Corey was not reasonable or either a polite person while those in the polite disagree condition would have a positive impression, feeling that Corey is an open minded and polite person when reading his comments. In order to dive in deeper and understand better Facebook rudeness, we decided to do some research on priming effects. 

References

Spottswood, E. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2016). The positivity bias and prosocial deception on facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 252–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.019

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER NOW

Appendix A – Demographics – Study One

Statistics  
  Gender Age Ethnicity  
N Valid 141 141 141  
Missing 0 0 0  
Mean 1.5177 28.9645 2.1489  
Median 2.0000 28.0000 2.0000  
Mode 2.00 24.00 2.00  
Std. Deviation .50147 6.24890 .75533  
Minimum 1.00 18.00 1.00  
Maximum 2.00 40.00 5.00  

Ethnicity
  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Caucasian 6 4.3 4.3 4.3
Hispanic American 125 88.7 88.7 92.9
Native Indian 1 .7 .7 93.6
African American 1 .7 .7 94.3
Asian American 8 5.7 5.7 100.0
Total 141 100.0 100.0  

Gender		  
  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent  
Valid Male 68 48.2 48.2 48.2  
Female 73 51.8 51.8 100.0  
Total 141 100.0 100.0    

 

Appendix B – Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study One

Conditions(1 = A, 2 = B, 3 = C) * Impression (1 = A, 2 = B, 3 = C) Crosstabulation
  Impression Total
Rude Disagree Polite Disagree Polite Agree
Condition(Rude disagree, polite disagree, polite agree) Rude Disagree Count 13 16 15 44
% within Condition(Rude disagree, polite disagree, polite agree) 29.5% 36.4% 34.1% 100.0%
Polite Disagree Count 18 15 15 48
% within Condition(Rude disagree, polite disagree, polite agree) 37.5% 31.2% 31.2% 100.0%
Polite Agree Count 16 15 18 49
% within Condition(Rude disagree, polite disagree, polite agree) 32.7% 30.6% 36.7% 100.0%
Total Count 47 46 48 141
% within Condition(Rude disagree, polite disagree, polite agree) 33.3% 32.6% 34.0% 100.0%

 

Chi-Square Tests  
  Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)  
Pearson Chi-Square .938a 4 .919  
Likelihood Ratio .931 4 .920  
Linear-by-Linear Association .000 1 .996  
N of Valid Cases 141      
  a.       0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 14.35.

 

Appendix C-ANOVA Negative Impression- Study One

Descriptive
   
    N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum
  Lower Bound Upper Bound
  No 44 2.0227 .82091 .12376 1.7731 2.2723 1.00 3.00
  Sincere 48 1.8542 .74347 .10731 1.6383 2.0700 1.00 3.00
  Insincere 49 2.2653 .86061 .12294 2.0181 2.5125 1.00 3.00
  Total 141 2.0496 .82225 .06925 1.9127 2.1865 1.00 3.00
 

ANOVA
  Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 4.145 2 2.073 3.160 .046
Within Groups 90.507 138 .656    
Total 94.652 140      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multiple Comparisons
(I) Condition(Rude disagree, polite disagree, polite agree) (J) Condition(Rude disagree, polite disagree, polite agree) Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Rude Disagree Polite Disagree .16856 .16902 .580 -.2319 .5690
Polite Agree -.24258 .16820 .322 -.6411 .1559
Polite Disagree Rude Disagree -.16856 .16902 .580 -.5690 .2319
Polite Agree -.41114* .16446 .036 -.8008 -.0215
Polite Agree Rude Disagree .24258 .16820 .322 -.1559 .6411
Polite Disagree .41114* .16446 .036 .0215 .8008
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Purpose of Paper III: Study Two Literature Review