# Psy3215 Florida International University Selfie-Posting User Study

### Would you like us to handle your paper? Use our company for better grades and meet your deadlines.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Purpose of Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results, and Discussion

1). Psychological Purpose

The psychological purpose behind Paper IV is to make sure you can summarize what you did in your second study, how you did it, and what you found. This is similar to Paper II, but you will include information related to your second independent variable in Paper IV.

For the results section in Paper IV, you will provide information about your participants, materials, and procedure. Your participant section goes first, and it includes descriptive statistics about your sample (means and standard deviations for age and percentages of gender and race/ethnicity). This is a new sample of participants, so you cannot use Paper II for this information. Make it NEW! Your materials and procedure sections include information about what you did and how you did it. You should once again write this section for an audience who is unfamiliar with your newer study two variables, but you can actually summarize or refer back to study one variables if and when they carry over from study one to study two. In the end, just remember that you must educate your reader about your materials and procedure, giving enough detail so they could replicate study two on their own. Your Paper IV Methods section will thus look a lot like your Paper II, but in Paper IV you will describe BOTH independent variables as well as important dependent variables (especially any new ones you added). I suggest reviewing your Paper II feedback to see if you need more clarity in your methods descriptions, but make sure that your reader is clear about the mechanics of your new 2 X 2 factorial design.

You will also write a new Results section. Since you now have two independent variables and potentially new dependent variables, you will not be able to reuse ANY content from Paper II. Rather, you will write a more complicated results section focusing on a 2 X 2 factorial design here.

Your Discussion section for Paper IV will be a short summary of what you found in that study. Similar to Paper II, you can make some educated guesses about what you found and why you found it, but keep the focus on study two only (in Paper V due at the end of the semester, you will include a more advanced discussion section that looks at both study one and study two, so keep the Paper IV discussion focused only on study two).

2). APA Formatting Purpose

The second purpose of Paper IV is to again teach you proper American Psychological Association (APA) formatting for methods and results. In the instructions below, I tell you how to format your paper using APA style, but this time with a focus on your 2 X 2 factorial ANOVAs. Once again, there are a lot of specific requirements in APA papers (as specific as what to italicize), so pay attention to the instructions below as well as Chapter 14 in your textbook!

3). Writing Purpose

Paper IV is intended to help you figure out how to update a Methods, Results and Discussion section using a 2 X 2 factorial design. This is more complicated than the One Way ANOVA you used in Paper II, but you should still be able to clearly and succinctly tell you readers what you did, how you did it, and what you found. Similar to Paper III, we will give you feedback and help in this paper. You will then be able to revise it for your final paper in the course (Paper V). Thus doing a good job on Paper IV will mean fewer revisions for the final paper.

Note: The plagiarism limit is higher in this paper (up to 65%) since your classmates are doing the same study two design and will have similar results. Don’t go higher than that, though! 65% is the maximum allowed!

**Methods**

This paper should be fairly easy for you! It is essentially a replication of your Paper II: Methods and Results (Study One) paper, except here you will extend that paper to include your second independent variable as well as any dependent variables you may have created. You will also use a more complex data analysis process now that you have a 2 X 2 factorial design. Keep in mind that Study Two is different from Study One. It may use some of the same materials, but your descriptions in the methods section should be specific to your Study Two idea. If you reuse some of the same variables, please refer to study one (I encourage it! No need to repeat yourself if you are using identical materials), but if the elements are new make sure to FULLY describe them. The results themselves will be * completely*different, as now that section will take into account two independent variables, and your brief discussion will similarly be new. Below are some of the points to cover in this paper. I will highlight in purple the new components you should pay attention to for this paper.

- Title Page: I expect the following format (
**1 point**):- Use your headers and title information from your prior Paper III: Literature review. See prior instructions for more info about the title page!

2.Methods Section: I expect the following format (**10 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 will differ from Paper II, 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

c.**Materials and Procedure **

i.For this section, things are again very flexible. Some studies include the Materials and Procedure in the same section while others break them up into two sections

1.It is a matter of choice which you choose. For me, the more complex the design, the better it is to split them up. In one section I will describe what the materials are; in the next I describe what participants did with those materials (the procedure)

2.Your Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results, and Discussion is simple enough that I recommend combining them into one overall Materials and Procedure section. Here, you can refer back to your methods section from Paper II. (“We used the same photo manipulation as in study one, but here we included only the Selfie and Groupie conditions”).

ii.Again, the words **Materials and****Procedure**is flush left. In this section …

1.Provide information about your materials and your procedure.

a.I suggest starting with your procedure. Tell your reader what your participants did in the order participants did them. Be specific. Assuming your study is similar to study one, I have the following recommendations (though your study may differ, so take these only as recommendations!):

i.First, talk about informed consent.

ii.Second, talk about the different versions of the hindsight bias studies. Provide enough detail so that your readers know how the conditions differ. Imagine I need to replicate your design – give me enough detail so I can do so. Also fully describe your new independent variable for study two. For example, my additional IV may be whether participants are forewarned or not. I need to fully describe that new independent variable in the methods for this second study

1.Study two looks selfies verses groupies as two levels of one IV. However, we also looked at Forewarning versus No Forewarning as a second IV. This involves four cells: 1) Forewarning with selfies, 2) Forewarning with groupies, 3) No forewarning with selfies, and 4) No forewarning with groupies

iii.Third, talk about your dependent variables (that is, your survey questions. For these DVs, once again provide enough detail so I know exactly what questions you asked. For example, “Participants provided their gender, age, and race”. For other dependent variables, tell me how the responses were recorded (yes/no, true/false, a scale of 1 to 9, etc.). If you used a scale, note the endpoints. That is, does a 1 mean it is high or is it low? “Participants were asked, ‘How surprising was the outcome?’, and they responded on a scale from 1 (unsurprising) to 10 (surprising).’” Highlight any new DVs you created for this study. For example, I may ask a manipulation check question asking if they were forewarned (“Did you read a warning that seeing selfies might impact impressions? Pick one.”)

iv.Fourth, make sure to highlight which DVs you analyzed. If there are DVs participants completed but you did not analyze it, feel free to say those DVs were not analyzed.

v.Finally, mention debriefing

d.There is no set minimum or maximum on the length of the methods section, but I would expect __at least a page or two__as you detail your materials and procedure. Missing important aspects of your IVs and DVs or presenting them in a confused manner will lower your score in this section

e.Once again, make the new information VERY specific so that someone unfamiliar with your study could recreate your survey. If they can’t, you won’t do well!

3.Results Section: I expect the following format (**10 points**):

a.The results are the hardest part of this paper, so again, pay close attention to your lab presentation and book

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 assignment, include statistics about the most important variables in your study. For Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results, and Discussion, your study design should be more complex than your study one. You are dealing with a factorial design now (more than one IV), such as a 2 X 2 or 2 X 3. Let me walk you through some of the guidelines for a 2 X 2 design.

i.First, run manipulation checks using __at least one__of your dependent variables (a dependent variable that assesses whether the independent variable manipulation worked). This analysis will differ depending on whether your dependent variable

1.Nominal (categorical) dependent variable: __IF__you have a nominal DV (“Did you see selfies or groupies?” or “Did you see a warning or no warning?”), you can run a chi square test.

2.Interval / ratio dependent variable: __IF__you have interval or ratio dependent variable (they have scales ranging from low to high), you can run a t-Test manipulation check (if you only have two levels to the IV) or an ANOVA (if you have three or more levels). For example, if I manipulated anger by giving half of the participants a hard time about their intelligence before they read looked at the Instagram photos, I might ask “On a scale of 1 to 9, how angry were you?” and then run a *t*-Test on the dependent variable anger to see if my manipulation did in fact work. That is, given two levels for my independent variable (angry versus control), they should rate themselves as more angry in the condition where I questioned their intelligence compared to a control condition

3.Note: I suspect you will have a nominal manipulation check question, so the chi square will be more likely. Also note that the manipulation check may have nothing to do with Emma Wood impressions – it might be simply recall of the type of photos or recall of a warning. No need to mention Emma impressions!

ii.Second, run two 2 X 2 ANOVAs. Recall that this is univariate analysis of variance, but rather than focusing on one independent variable (like the One Way ANOVA), a 2 X 2 ANOVA looks at two different independent variables within the same test. YOUR job is to run two different 2 X 2 ANOVAs. Your first 2 X 2 ANOVA will focus on a dependent variable of your choice while the second 2 X 2 ANOVA will look at a different dependent variable. For EACH factorial ANOVAs, 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 additional *F*tests for each DV with the simple effects tests! I know this gets complex, so let’s break it down a bit and focus on just one 2 X 2 ANOVA. This test will yield two main effects and one interaction…

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. For example (and ONLY as an example, since YOUR study independent variables will differ and I don’t know what your lab chose), imagine your first IV is “Warning”. Your main effect write up for this EXAMPLE of warning will look like this …

a.“Using forewarning (warned versus not warned) and condition (selfie versus groupie) as our IVs and the rating of “Emma seems selfish” as our DV, there was no main effect for forewarning, *F*(1, 189) = 1.97, *p*> .05. Participants did not differ in their selfishness ratings of Emma in the warned (*M*= 2.35, *SD*= 1.21) versus not warned (*M*= 2.21, *SD*= 0.87) conditions.”

Photo | |

Selfie ( | Groupie ( |

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 photo condition main effect, *F*( 1, 189) = 3.42, *p*< .05. Participants rated Emma as more selfish in the selfie condition (*M*= 5.56, *SD*= 1.21) than the groupie condition (*M*= 3.24, *SD*= 0.89).”

Photo | |

Selfie ( | Groupie ( |

3.Finally, there will be an interaction for IV 1 X IV 2. Provide the *F*test again.

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

i.“The interaction was not significant, *F*(1, 187) = 1.22, p > .05.”

ii. “The main effects were qualified by a significant Warning X 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 selfie in the unwarned condition (*M*= 5.76, *SD*= 1.27), the selfie warned condition (*M*= 2.21, *SD*= 1.90), the groupie unwarned condition (*M*= 2.72,*SD*= 2.87), and the groupie warned condition (*M*= 2.78, *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 selfie participants saw Emma as more selfish in the unwarned condition (*M*= 5.76, *SD*= 1.27) than participant in the warned condition (*M*= 2.21, *SD*= 1.90), *F*(2, 95) = 6.24, *p*< .05.

ii.Second, simple effects showed that groupie participantsdid not differ in their ratings of Emma’s selfishness in the warning condition (*M*= 2.78, *SD*= 3.45) and no warning condition (*M*= 2.72, *SD*= 2.87), *F*(2, 93) = 1.13, *p*> .05.

iii.Third, for participants who were warned, simple effect tests showed that participants did not differ in ratings of Emma’s selfishness between the selfie prime condition (*M*= 2.76,*SD*= 1.27) and groupie prime condition (*M*= 2.78, *SD*= 3.45), *F*(2, 95) = 1.31, *p*> .05.

iv.Fourth, for participants in the no warning condition, simple effect tests showed that participants thought Emma was more selfish in the selfie prime condition (*M*= 5.21, *SD*= 1.90) than the groupie prime condition (*M*= 2.72, *SD*= 2.87), *F*(2, 95) = 3.11, *p*< .05.

Warning | Type of Photo | |

Selfie | Groupie | |

Warned | Selfie Warned ( | Groupie Warned ( |

Not Warned | Selfie Not warned ( | Groupie Not Warned ( |

v.In general, this shows that participants rated Emma as more selfish in the selfie condition, but only when not warned about the effects of selfies on impressions of Instagram users.

4.Again, the warning is an EXAMPLE here. Your second independent variable will differ.

iii.Please note that you might run a lot of statistical tests for one DV (like the original *F*test followed-up with simple effects tests). This still only counts as one DV. You need to look at three DVs total (one for the manipulation check and then two additional Emma impression DVs), so you might have as many as 11 or so statistical tests in this section.

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 for each dependent variable

4.Discussion Section (**2 points**)

a.In a short paragraph or two, write a brief discussion of your results. Tell me if you did or did not support your hypotheses. 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. Something like …

i.Overall, these results indicate that warning participants about the impact of selfies decreases participants’ perceptions of selfie after being exposed to such photos, especially when compared to not warning them.

5.References are not required for this paper

6.Appendices: Study Two **(4 points)**

a.I want to make sure you are including the correct numbers in your results section, so I want you to include all relevant SPSS tables for each of your analyses in a series of appendices. You can include these as appendices A, B, C, and D for study two, but I actually recommend naming them E, F, G, and H since you have A, B, C, and D from study one already. That way, when you get to Paper V, you’ll have all eight appendices in alphabetical order A through H

i.Appendix E: Demographic Information Study Two

ii.Appendix F: Chi Square (or other Manipulation Check)

1.Make sure to include a table for your manipulation check. If you do a __chi square__for a nominal variable, this will include the cross-tabulation table and the chi square table. __Or__, if you do a __t____-Test or ANOVA__, this will include the descriptive statistics as well as the *t*-Test table itself (or the ANOVA table itself)

iii.Appendix G: first dependent variable (First 2 X 2 ANOVA)

1.Make sure to include your descriptive statistics table and your Tests of Between Subject Effects table. If your interaction is not significant, you’re done. If it is significant, normally you would run simple effects follow up tests. You still need to run them, but for purposes of this appendix all I need to see is the original ANOVA table and the original descriptive table.

iv.Appendix H: Second dependent variable (Second 2 X 2 ANOVA)

1.This is the same as the second dependent variable above, but for a different dependent variable

**b.**In the end, I expect four appendices for study two (one for demographics, one for a chi square/*t*-Test and one for each 2 X 2 ANOVA).

**c.**Appendices will come at the end of the paper

7.Overall writing quality **(3 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 IV: Study Two Methods, Results, and Discussion__

- 1). Page size is 8 1/2 X 11” with all 4 margins set at one inch on all sides. You must use a Times New Roman 12-point font and double space all sentences/paragraphs in the paper.
- 2). 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.
- Below is a write up for the significant interaction for the 2 X 2 ANOVA. 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 forewarning (warned versus not warned) and photo condition (selfie versus groupie) as our IVs and ratings of “Emma is selfish” as our DV, there was no main effect for warning, *F*(1, 189) = 1.97, *p*> .05. Participants did not differ in their ratings of Emma’s selfishness in the warned (*M*= 2.35, *SD*= 1.21) versus not warned (*M*= 2.21, *SD*= 0.87) conditions. There was, however, a significant main effect for photo condition, *F*( 1, 189) = 3.42, *p*< .05. Participants rated the sentence “Emma is selfish” higher in the selfie condition (*M*= 5.56, *SD*= 1.21) than in the groupie condition (*M*= 3.24, *SD*= 0.89). The main effect was qualified by a warning X photo condition interaction, *F*(1, 187) = 6.61, *p*< .05. First, simple effects showed that selfie participants rated Emma as more selfish in the unwarned condition (*M*= 5.76, *SD*= 1.27) than selfie participants in the warned condition (*M*= 2.21, *SD*= 1.90), *F*(2, 95) = 6.24, *p*< .05. Second, simple effects showed that groupie participants did not differ in their ratings of Emma’s selfishness in the warning condition (*M*= 2.78, *SD*= 3.45) and no warning condition (*M*= 2.72, *SD*= 2.87), *F*(2, 93) = 1.13, *p*> .05. Third, for participants who were warned, simple effect tests showed that participants did not differ in their ratings of Emma’s selfishness in the selfie condition (*M*= 2.76, *SD*= 1.27) and groupie conditions (*M*= 2.78, *SD*= 3.45), *F*(2, 95) = 1.31, *p*> .05. Fourth, for participants in the no warning condition, simple effect tests showed that participants rated Emma as more selfish in the selfie condition (*M*= 5.21, *SD*= 1.90) than in the groupie condition (*M*= 2.72, *SD*= 2.87), *F*(2, 95) = 3.11, *p*< .05. In general, this shows that participants rated Emma as more selfish when primed with selfies and not warned about the effects of selfies than in all other conditions.

- Finally, go look at the supporting documents for this paper. There is a checklist, a grade rubric, and an example paper. All will give you more information about what we are specifically looking for as well as a visual example of how to put it all together. Good luck!

### Do you need help with this or a different assignment? We offer CONFIDENTIAL, ORIGINAL (Turnitin/LopesWrite/SafeAssign checks), and PRIVATE services using latest (within 5 years) peer-reviewed articles. Kindly click on ORDER NOW to receive an A++ paper from our masters- and PhD writers.

Get a 15% discount on your order using the following coupon code SAVE15

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper