The final paper requires a comprehensive write-up of a research project, including sections such as a title page, abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, references, and at least one figure, totaling 12-15 pages. Each section has specific requirements, such as including a minimum of 8 peer-reviewed references and adhering to APA formatting guidelines. Grading will be based on completeness and quality, with a detailed rubric provided for each section of the paper.

1. Final Paper Description
Description:
Your final paper will be a complete write up of your research
project. It will include a title page (1 page), an abstract (1
page), an introduction (3 - 4 pages), a method section (1/2 - 1
pages), a results section (1/2 - 1 page), a discussion section (3 –
4 pages), a reference section (1 - 2 pages), and at least one
figure (1 page). Your final paper should be between 12 – 15
pages and you must include at least
8
appropriate references. Your paper must be written using APA
format. See the APA manual or Appendix A of our textbook for
more information about this.
Most of your final paper will have already been written as part
of earlier writing assignments. I’ve indicated which sections or
content are new by bolding the section title and specifying what
is new in the description below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Title Page:
Your title page should be a single page that includes the
following information: a header with your running head and
page number, the title of your paper, your name, and your
affiliation.
Abstract:
Your abstract should be a single page that provides a brief
(150-250 word) summary of your study. You should describe
your research question, hypothesis, method, results, and the
implications of your results.

2. Note that this is a new section that was not included in the
previous writing assignments. You must write an abstract as
part of the final paper.
Introduction:
Your introduction section should introduce your research
question to the reader and provide information about previous
research to justify and motivate your own hypothesis. For your
draft of this section, I would encourage you to try and write at
least two pages (although you can always write more -
remember that more content allows us to give more feedback!).
Your draft should contain the following information:
·
An introductory paragraph that discusses the general question or
problem that you plan to investigate. This paragraph should end
with your research question.
o
This paragraph should provide the basic motivation for why
your study is necessary and what you are investigating.
·
A detailed description of at least
3
specific research studies that relate to your topic
o
These must be psychological studies published in a peer
reviewed journal within the last 15 years
o
Your description should include:
§
What the researchers did, including:

3. ·
An identification of the hypothesis
·
A brief (1 – 2 sentence) description of the sample
·
A brief (3 – 5 sentence) description of the materials and
procedure used
§
What they found, including:
·
An identification of the statistical test(s) used
·
A statement of whether or not they found support for their
hypothesis
·
A brief (2 – 3 sentence) discussion of the specific findings
§
An explanation of what the results mean in relation to your own
study.
·
Consider critiquing the previous study (e.g., identify flaws or
issues with the research), discussing limitations of the study
(e.g., what else could have been explored or included), or
identifying how this work could be built on by additional
research.
Each description should be about ½ - 1 page in length. The

4. goal when describing each study is to provide further
motivation for your study, and to help build an argument for
your hypothesis. Be sure to cite the study you’re describing
once per paragraph in APA format.
Note that in previous drafts you were only required to discuss 2
previous research studies, so you will need to add one
additional description of a research study for the final paper.
·
A closing paragraph that identifies your hypothesis and
provides a brief description of the goals and basic methodology
for your study.
You must cite a minimum of 3 peer-reviewed psychology
journal articles in your introduction section, but most students
will need to cite between 4 and 5 articles in order to support all
of the points made in this section.
Method:
The purpose of the method section is to describe your study in
sufficient detail so that your reader could replicate your work.
For most students, the method section will be between ½ - 1
pages in length. It should include the following information:
·
A participants subsection. This should describe how many
people participated, who the participants were, how they were
recruited, what [if anything] they received as compensation, and
basic demographic information (e.g., gender, age, etc).
·
A materials subsection. This should describe the materials used
in your study
·

5. A procedure subsection. This describes what participants did in
your study step by step.
You must cite the OPL study in your method section if you
selected the experiment project.
Results:
Your results section describes your data and analysis. In this
section, you should specify what you analyzed, how you
analyzed it, and what you found. Your results should include
descriptive statistics as well as inferential statistics. You must
report your results in both words and using appropriate
notation. For most students, the results section will be between
½ - 1 page.
Discussion:
Your discussion section should explain what you found and
what it means. For the final paper, your discussion should be
between 3 - 4 pages. While writing your discussion, be sure to
include the following information:
·
An explanation of your results
·
An explanation of what your results mean in relation to your
hypothesis
·
A description of how your results relate to previous research.
Specifically, did you results match what previous researchers
have found? If so, why? If not, why not? You should plan to
discuss at least 2 studies here.
·

6. A description of any potential flaws, limitations, or confounds
in your study that might have impacted your results. Consider
your sample, your materials, your design, etc. and analyze them
to determine what you could have done differently or better in
order to improve the validity/reliability of your study or to
produce different results.
·
A description of where you could go next in this research area.
This could be a suggestion for follow up studies, new directions
to explore, or how to revise your own study
·
A closing paragraph that summarizes the current understanding
of this topic based on previous research and your study
Most students will need to cite at least 3 sources in their
discussion section (2 peer reviewed psychology journal articles
that relate to their findings, and the textbook to support the
discussion of flaws/limitations/confounds), but additional
citations may be needed to support your arguments in this
section.
References:
In this section, you will provide references for all of the sources
that you cited in your paper. Do not include references for any
papers that you haven’t cited! You will need a minimum of
8
appropriate references (peer reviewed psychological articles
published between 2000 – 2015) but many students will need to
reference at least 10 articles in order to fully support their
points. Note that I will allow you to cite the textbook as one of
your 8 references even though it does not meet these criteria,
but the OPL website will not count as one of your 8 required
references. For most students, you reference section will be 1 –
2 pages in length.

7. Figure:
This is will be a single page that includes a graph of your
results.
Grading:
A grading rubric (“Final Paper Grading Rubric”) has been
posted separately that indicates the breakdown and number of
points available for each section of this assignment. Keep in
mind that this assignment will be graded based on both
completeness and the quality of the work. Students who include
the required information but do not provide sufficient detail,
who include unnecessary or irrelevant content, or whose writing
is unclear will not receive full points.
Final Research Paper Grading Rubric
Grading will be completed using the following rubric:
Exemplary
Satisfactory
Somewhat Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Title Page (1 pt)
Student included a complete title page in APA format
1
1
.25 - .75
0
Abstract (2 pts)

8. Student included a complete abstract, including a description of
the research question, method, and results
1
1
.25 - .75
0
Overall, enough information was included in the abstract to give
the reader an accurate understanding of what the full paper was
about
1
1
.25 - .75
0
Introduction (11 pts)
Student clearly stated a focused problem in their introductory
paragraph
1
1
.25 - .75
0
Student specified their research question in the introductory
paragraph
.5
.5
.25
0

9. Student identified at least three appropriate research studies to
use in support of their hypothesis
1.5
1.25 – 1.5
.25 – 1
0
Student adequately described each research study, including
information about the method and the results
3
2.5 - 3
.25 – 2.25
0
Student formulated logical conclusions related to each study
described
1.5
1.25 – 1.5
.25 – 1
0
Student included a closing paragraph that specified the goals of
the study and a brief description of the method
1
.75 – 1
.25 – .5
0
Student specified their hypothesis in the closing paragraph
.5
.5
.25
0
Overall, the introduction provided adequate information to
motivate the hypothesis
2
1.75 - 2
.25 – 1.5

10. 0
Method (5 pts)
Student included a complete participants section, including:
the number of participants, a description of the participants,
relevant demographic information, and what kind of
compensation they received
1
.75 – 1
.25 – .5
0
Student included a complete description of the measures used
for their study
1
.75 – 1
.25 – .5
0
Student fully and clearly described the procedure for the study
1
.75 – 1
.25 – .5
0
Overall, the method section included sufficient information for
a reader to replicate the study from this section alone
2
1.75 - 2
.25 – 1.5
0
Results (4.5 pts)

11. Student correctly identified the statistical analysis used
.5
.5
.25
0
Student correctly described the results in words
1
.75 – 1
.25 – .5
0
Student correctly described the results in notation
1
.75 – 1
.25 – .5
0
Overall, the results section provided an accurate description of
the analysis and results for this study.
2
1.75 - 2
.25 – 1.5
0
Discussion (12 pts)
Student accurately interpreted the results of the analysis
1
.75 – 1
.25 – .5
0

12. Student drew appropriate conclusions about the results of the
analysis
1
.75 – 1
.25 – .5
0
Student identified connections between the results of their study
and at least two other relevant research studies
1
.75 – 1
.25 – .5
0
Student adequately described each of the two relevant research
studies, including information about the method, results, and/or
conclusions
2
1.75 - 2
.25 – 1.5
0
Student identified appropriate limitations/flaws to the research
design
1
.75 – 1
.25 – .5
0
Student adequately explained how each limitation/flaw was
relevant to their research design
1
.75 – 1
.25 – .5
0
Student identified appropriate and thoughtful directions for
future research

13. 1
.75 – 1
.25 – .5
0
Overall, the student drew appropriate conclusions about the
results of their study
2
1.75 - 2
.25 – 1.5
0
Overall, the student provided adequate explanation to support
the conclusions about the results of their study
2
1.75 - 2
.25 – 1.5
0
References (4 pts)
Student provided at least 8 complete, APA formatted references
to peer-reviewed psychological journal articles published in the
last 15 years
4
3.5 - 4
.25 – 3.25
0
Bonus:
Student provided additional complete, references to peer-
reviewed psychological journal articles published in the last 15
years (.25 pt for each; maximum of 1 extra credit point)

14. Figure (1 pt)
Student included an appropriate and accurate graph of their
results
1
.75 - 1
.25 - .5
0
Overall (9.5 pts)
Overall, the paper was focused around the identified research
question
1
.75 - 1
.25 - .5
0
Overall, the student used knowledge from relevant, credible
sources to support their position
1
.75 - 1
.25 - .5
0
Overall, the student was able to synthesize information from
multiple sources/viewpoints relevant to their research question
1
.75 - 1
.25 - .5
0
Student used adequate citations throughout their paper

15. .5
.5
.25
0
Student correctly formatted their paper in APA format
4
3.5 - 4
.25 – 3.25
0
Student used correct spelling and grammar throughout
2
1.75 - 2
.25 – 1.5
0
Total Possible Points: 50
Home
About OPL
Register
Teacher Tour
Studies
Data

16. Code
Resources
Submissions
Help
First Impressions
(Editor:
James Collins
)
Introduction
The "First Impressions" experiment is a computer-based version
of a classic study conducted by Hamilton and Gifford (1976,
Study 1). Jay Jackson (2001) provides a succinct explanation of
the significance of this research:
"Research has demonstrated that people pay special attention to
distinctive or rare events and recall such events with relative
ease (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976; Hamilton & Sherman, 1996) ..
When two distinctive or rare events co-occur, people tend to
notice that relation more readily, encode the information more
effectively, and recall such relations with greater
ease.(Matthews, 1996). Consequently, people often subjectively
overestimate how often two distinctive events occur together.
This tendency has been dubbed the illusory correlation because
it involves perceiving a relation that does not exist or is weaker
in reality than perceived (Garcia-Marques & Hamilton, 1996).
This cognitive process can influence the content of stereotypes.
For example, it partly explains why many White Americans
overestimate the rate at which African Americans engage in
criminal activity (both are distinct or rare events). p. 273-274."
Design
The current experiment is faithful to the original (Hamilton &
Gifford, 1976) in its primary details. Participants read about
people who belong to either a majority or minority group, with

17. twice the number of majority members (n = 26) as minority
members (n = 13). The information conveyed about each of the
people describes a desirable or an undesirable behavior. The
ratio of desirable to undesirable behaviors is 9:4 in both groups,
but because both minority members and undesirable behaviors
are rare events, research participants should form illusory
correlations and judge the minority members less favorably than
majority group members.
Method
The stimulus materials are 39 facial caricatures of male and
female adults differing in age and race. The faces were selected
from a clip art collection of prominent people, though the ones
used in this 39-person set are highly unlikely to be recognizable
to participants. Sample faces are shown in
Figure 1
.
Figure 1
The task for participants is to learn something about the people
whose faces make up the task stimuli. They do so by clicking on
each face in the 39-face set. When a face is clicked, a text
balloon pops up with information about the person. The 39
statements are given in Appendix A. The information designates
the person as either an Alpha Delta or a Beta Omicron and
describes a positive or a negative act or attribute of the person
that. The pairing of a face with information about the face is
random with the constraint that there are 26 Alpha Deltas to 13
Beta Omicrons and that there are 18 positive and 8 negative acts
by Alpha Deltas and 9 positive and 4 negative acts by Beta
Omicrons. The information produced by a mouse click remains
on the screen until the mouse is released. This permits people to
read and process the information at their own pace. Once the
mouse in released, the face is greyed out, and the information
about the face cannot be re-displayed.
Once all 39 faces are clicked, a set of 7-pt Likert scales appear
on the screen. Participants indicate their impressions of Alpha
Deltas and Beta Omicrons using these rating scales. The ratings

18. are made for the three positive attributes (popular, honest, and
helpful) and three negative attributes (lazy, unhappy, and
irresponsible). Scores from these separate scales are available in
the data output along with an composite measure of the ratings
on positive attributes and negative attributes. A final dependent
measure is a rating of the proportion of Alpha Deltas and Beta
Omicrons who revealed negative things about themselves.
Data Analyses
Sample data appears below:
Figure 2
Positive and negative attribute ratings (on a 7-pt Likert scale)
for Alpha Deltas and Beta Omicrons are calculated as composite
scores and as six separate ratings (i.e., popular, honest, helpful,
lazy, unhappy, and irresponsible) for each. A repeated measures
t-test is appropriate to test whether the composite means differ
from one another. There is an additional computation of the
participant's estimation of the proportion of negative statements
about Alpha Deltas and Beta Omicrons. Again, a dependent or
repeated measures (i.e., correlated groups) t-test will reveal if
the different is significant.
The second measures of interest are the estimates particpants
made for the percent of negative statements that were made
about Alphas and Betas. These are labeled
"ApercentofNegative" and "BPercentofNegative" in the data.
The actual percent of negative statements is 31% for both
groups (26/8 for Alphas and 13/4 for Betas).
Students wishing to perform inferential analyses on the data
have several options.
A one-way repeated measures anova followed by planned
comparisons of Alphas and Betas on each of the six attributes
will reveal whether there were differences between the ratings
of Alphas and Betas on the six attributes. If Alphas are found to
be rated more highly on positive atributes and Betas more
highly on negative attributes, the results are consistent with the
hypothesis that illusory correlation contributes to stereotype
formation.

19. Dependent measures t-tests can be used to compare, first, the
composite positive rating for Alphas (ASumofPositive) to the
composite positive rating for Betas (BSumofPositive) and,
second, the composite negative rating for Alphas
(ASumofNegative) to the composite positive rating for Betas
(BSumofNegative). If Alphas are found to have higher
composite positive ratings and Betas are found to have higher
composite negative ratings, the results are consistent with the
hypothesis that illusory correlation contributes to stereotype
formation.
One-sample t-tests can be used to judge whether, first, the
estimated percent (ApercentofNegative) differed from the target
value of 31% for Alphas and, second, whether the estimated
percent (BPercentofNegative) differed from the target value of
31%. The result of these tests will indicate whether participants
tend to overestimate the proportion of negative statements due,
perhaps, to greater salience for negative than positive
statements.
A dependent measures t-test can be used to compare the percent
estimates (APercentofNegative and BPercentofNegative) made
for Alphas and Betas. A significant difference reflecting higher
estimates for Betas (the minority group) is consistent with the
illusory correlation phenomenon that is hypothesized to
contribute to stereotype formation.
Applications/Extensions
This study allows participants to experience the formation of
initial impressions and the roles minority/majority status and
positive/negative attributes play in that formation process.
Further comparisons can be made to the Implicit Association
Test study also available here in the Online Psychology
Laboratory.
References
Garcia-Marques, L., & Hamilton D.L. (1996). Resolving the
apparent discrepancy between
the congruency effect and the expectancy-based illusory

20. correlation effect.
The TRAP model.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71
, 845-860.
Hamilton, D.L., & Gifford, R.K. (1976). Illusory correlation in
interpersonal perception:
A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
12
, 392-407.
Hamilton, D.L., & Sherman, S.J. (1996). Perceiving persons and
groups.
Psychological Review, 103
, 336-355.
Jackson, J.W. (2000). Demonstrating the concept of illusory
correlation.
Teaching of Psychology, 27
, 273-276.

21. Matthews, R.A. (1996). Base-rate errors and rain forecasts.
Nature, 382
, 766.
Appendix A
Statements by Alpha Deltas
I volunteer with Meals on Wheels.
I visited a sick friend in the hospital today.
I am rarely late for work.
I planted seedlings in the park
I helped a lost child in the supermarket yesterday.
I donated clothes to charity.
I volunteered to tutor needy students.
I drive my elderly neighbor to the grocery store.
I work out to keep in shape.
I received a promotion at work.
I sing in the church choir.
I took a hurt stray dog to the vet.
I helped a friend move to a new apartment.
I take the neighborhood kids swimming.

22. I volunteer in an after-school reading program.
I give blood to the Red Cross regularly.
I earned a community service award from the
Chamber of Commerce.
I used vacation time to work with Habitat for
Humanity.
I cheated on last year's federal taxes.
I am self absorbed to a fault.
I kicked a dog for no good reason.
I ran a red light.
I failed to show up for a scheduled job interview.
I have crude table manners.
I stole the neighbor's newspaper one morning.
I rarely wash my car.
Statements by Beta Omicrons
I helped a needy child.
I went out of my way to return a lost wallet to its
owner.
I am well liked by my colleagues.
I converse easily with strangers.

23. I learned how to fly an airplane.
I am recognized as an excellent musician.
I helped paint my neighbor's house.
I organized a birthday party for a co-worker.
I am considered to be a very dependable person.
I dented the fender of a parked car and did not leave
my name.
I never return library books on time.
I yelled at a little boy who was bothering me.
I often tailgate when driving.
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
OPL Citation
In association with:
National Science Foundation
,
National Science Digital Library
,
American Psychological Association Education Directorate
.
All materials on this site are protected by United States
Copyright Law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, published or broadcast without prior written

24. permission. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright, or other notice from copies of the content. The OPL
web site managed by the OPL Advisory Board and materials
remain the property of the authors. All Rights Reserved.
Funding provided by the National Science Foundation [DUE -
0435058]