Running head STUDY TWO METHODS, RESULTS, DISCUSSION1PAPER IV.docx

Running head: STUDY TWO METHODS, RESULTS,
DISCUSSION 1
PAPER IV: STUDY TWO METHODS, RESULTS,
DISCUSSION 5
Instructions for Paper VI: Study Two Methods, Results,
Discussion (Worth 30 Points)
Ryan J. Winter
Florida International University
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!
Note: You do not need to include any content from Papers I, II,
and III here. You can use the same title page, but all we will
look at and grade are the methods, results, discussion, and
appendix information from Study Two.
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 new 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 the results 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.
1. Title Page: I expect the following format (1 point):
a. 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
social comparison manipulation as in study one, but here we
included only the Upward and Downward conditions”).
ii. Again, the words Materials andProcedure 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 survey.
Provide enough detail so that your readers know how the four
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 about the
effects of social comparison. I need to fully describe that new
independent variable in the methods for this second study
1. For example, study two MIGHT look upward versus
downward conditions as two levels of one IV. However, we
might also look at forewarning versus no forewarning as a
second IV. This involves four cells: 1) Forewarning with
upward posts, 2) Forewarning with downward, 3) No
forewarning with upward posts, and 4) No forewarning with

downward posts.
2. Make sure you have a clear idea about what your four
different conditions look like.
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
social comparison impacts how people make judgments? Yes /
No – Pick one.”)
iv. Fourth, make sure to highlight which DVs you analyzed. If
there are DVs participants completed but you did not analyze
them, 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 (that is, you have more than one IV), such
as a 2 X 2 or even a 2 X 3 study. Let me walk you through 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 is
nominal or interval / ratio
1. Nominal (categorical) dependent variable: IF you have a
nominal DV (“Did you see upward or downward posts?” 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 looked at the Facebook posts, 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 Pat
Masters or self-impressions – it might be simply recall of the
type of posts or recall of a warning.
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 ANOVA, 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. Main Effect #1 (IV #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 (upward versus downward) as our IVs and the rating
of “I feel good about myself” as our DV, there was no main
effect for forewarning, F(1, 189) = 1.97, p > .05. Participants
did not differ in their feelings in the warned (M = 2.35, SD =
1.21) versus not warned (M = 2.21, SD = 0.87) conditions.”
Warning IV Main Effect
Warned (M = 2.35)
Not Warned (M = 2.21)
2. Main Effect #3 (IV #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 social comparison
condition main effect, F( 1, 189) = 3.42, p < .05. Participants
rated themselves as feeling less good in the upward condition
(M = 2.56, SD = 1.21) than participants in the downward
condition (M = 5.24, SD = 0.89).”
Social Comparison Condition Main Effect
Upward (M = 2.56)
Downward (M = 5.24)
3. Interaction (IV #1 X IV #2): Finally, there will be an
interaction for IV 1 X IV 2. Provide the initial interaction F
test.
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 upward and unwarned condition (M = 2.76,
SD = 1.27), the upward and warned condition (M = 2.21, SD =
1.90), the downward and unwarned condition (M = 2.72, SD =
2.87), and the downward and 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 upward participants rated
themselves as feeling less good in the unwarned condition (M =
2.76, SD = 1.27) than upward participants in the warned
condition (M = 5.21, SD = 1.90), F(2, 95) = 6.24, p < .05.
ii. Second, simple effects showed that downward participants

did not differ in their ratings of how good they feel in the
warning condition (M = 5.78, SD = 3.45) and no warning
condition (M = 5.72, 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 their ratings of feeling
good between the upward condition (M = 5.21, SD = 1.27) and
downward condition (M = 5.78, 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 felt less good in the upward
condition (M = 2.67, SD = 1.90) than unwarned participants in
downward condition (M = 5.72, SD = 2.87), F(2, 95) = 3.11, p <
.05.
Warning
Social Comparison Condition
Upward
Downward
Warned
Upward Warned (M = 5.21)
Downward Warned (M = 5.78)
Not Warned
Upward Not Warned (M = 2.76)
Downward Not Warned (M = 5.72)
v. In general, this shows that participants themselves as feeling
less good about themselves only in the upward comparison
condition that lacked a warning. For both downward conditions
(comparing to someone worse off) and the upward condition
that include a warning about social comparison, participants
tended to feel good about themselves.
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 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 participants who compare
themselves to someone worse off than them or warning
participants about the impact of social comparison decreases
participants’ likelihood of feeling bad about themselves.
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. 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.
1. 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.
1. 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 condition
(upward versus downward) as our IVs and the rating of “I feel
good about myself” as our DV, there was no main effect for
forewarning, F(1, 189) = 1.97, p > .05. Participants did not
differ in their feelings in the warned (M = 2.35, SD = 1.21)
versus not warned (M = 2.21, SD = 0.87) conditions. There was,
however, a significant photo social comparison condition main
effect, F( 1, 189) = 3.42, p < .05. Participants rated themselves
as feeling less good in the upward condition (M = 2.56, SD =
1.21) than participants in the downward condition (M = 5.24,
SD = 0.89). The main effects were qualified by a significant
Warning X Condition interaction, F(1, 187) = 6.61, p < .05.
First, simple effects showed that upward participants rated
themselves as feeling less good in the unwarned condition (M =
2.76, SD = 1.27) than upward participants in the warned
condition (M = 5.21, SD = 1.90), F(2, 95) = 6.24, p < .05.
Second, simple effects showed that downward participants did
not differ in their ratings of how good they feel in the warning
condition (M = 5.78, SD = 3.45) and no warning condition (M =
5.72, 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 feeling good
between the upward condition (M = 5.21, SD = 1.27) and
downward condition (M = 5.78, SD = 3.45), F(2, 95) = 1.31, p >
.05. Fourth, for participants in the no warning condition, simple
effect tests showed that participants felt less good in the upward
condition (M = 2.67, SD = 1.90) than unwarned participants in
downward condition (M = 5.72, SD = 2.87), F(2, 95) = 3.11, p <
.05.
· 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!
Running head: FINAL PAPER INSTRUCTIONS 1
PAPER V: FINAL PAPER INSTRUCTIONS 7
Instructions for Paper V: Final Paper (Worth 75 Points)
Ryan J. Winter
Purpose of Paper V (Final Paper)
The psychological purpose behind Paper V is to present your
final paper. Essentially this paper will be similar to any article
you would find in an academic journal. It will include a Title
Page, Abstract, Literature Review (study one), Methods Section
(study one), Results Section (study one), Brief Discussion
Section (study one), Literature Review (study two), Methods
Section (study two), Results Section (study two), Brief
Discussion Section (study two), General Discussion Section,
References, and Appendices. The good news is that for most of
this paper you will simply combine Paper I, Paper II, Paper III,
and Paper IV (including any needed revisions) for Paper V. Two
new components for Paper V include the Abstract and a General
Discussion section.

The Abstract is one of the first items readers see. You need to
convey a lot of information in this very short paragraph, as the
potential reader will decide whether to read your full paper
based on the information in the Abstract. There are several
elements needed in the Abstract about both of your studies,
including information about: a). your research questions, b).
your participants, c). your experimental methodology, d). your
findings, and e). your conclusions. Being able to write a precise
yet succinct Abstract takes some effort, so make sure you go
through several drafts before settling on your final version.
Make sure to include keywords / key phrases as well (remember
entering keywords into PsycInfo when you searched for
articles? The authors actually recommended those keywords, so
if you want to increase the number of times your paper comes
up for readers, use good keywords!)
Your General Discussion section will also be new in Paper V.
Here, you will summarize your results from BOTH studies and
draw conclusions, but you will NOT use statistics again. This
section will evaluate both of your studies and see if (and how)
they connect and lead you to general conclusions. That is, your
general discussion is the end of your story, so make sure to tie
it back to information that you presented throughout both of
your studies. You can also identify flaws in your study designs
as well as propose new directions for future research in this
section.
Paper V should follow all APA formatting guidelines. See our
feedback on prior papers, use Chapter 14 in your textbook, and
look at the instructions on the next page for help with
formatting
3). Writing Purpose
Paper V is your final paper in the course, and it should reflect
the skills and knowledge you have developed throughout the
semester. You should be able to convey information to an
educated reader, but one who is unfamiliar with your specific
study and the content area. More importantly, many students use

Paper V as their writing sample for graduate school
applications, thus your paper should be grammatically correct
and easy to read yet informative for a reader who may have
little to no knowledge of your specific topic. Thus educate your
reader, but keep in mind that your reader is probably intelligent.
Note that the plagiarism limit for Paper V is 50%. I expect less
overlap in your lit reviews and discussions than in the methods /
results. As usual, references, citations, and predictions are not
included in the plagiarism limit.
Instructions for Paper V: Final Paper (Worth 75 Points)
Note that these instructions relate to the whole paper, but I
concentrate on the Abstract and Discussion below since those
are new elements in this paper. Refer to the instructions for
Paper III: Study Two Literature Review for information on the
study one literature review, methods, results, and discussion and
the study two literature review and references. Refer to Paper
IV: Study Two Methods, Results and Discussion for information
on the methods, results and discussion for study two.
a. This Title Page section will be one (1) page in proper APA
format
2. Abstract (7 points) NEW SECTION
a. The Abstract starts on its own page, with the word Abstract
centered (not bolded).
b. Make sure your header and page number is still on this
abstract page
c. The abstract should be between 150 and 200 words, and must
include ALL of the following elements
i. Identify your general problem or research question
ii. Note your participants
iii. Note your experimental method
iv. Note your findings for both studies
v. Note your conclusions about the studies as a whole
d. Keywords / phrases are required for your paper (at least 5

keywords or phrases)
3. Literature Review (Study One): I expect the following format
(6 points):
a. Include your revised literature review from Paper III: Study
Two Literature Review. Those instructions continue to apply to
this section (recall that you revised the study one literature
review for Paper III, so that Paper III literature review will be
your most recent version of that study one literature review)
b. The study one literature review must have minimum of two
(2) full pages of text (not including the hypotheses) and a
maximum of five (5) pages
4. Methods Section (Study One): I expect the following format
(6 points):
a. Include your revised methods section from Paper III: Study
this section
b. There is no set minimum or maximum on the length of the
methods section, but I would expect at least a page 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
5. Results Section (Study One): I expect the following format (6
points):
a. Include your revised results section from Paper III: Study
this section
b. Like the methods section, there is no page minimum of
at least a paragraph or two for each of the dependent variables
you analyzed
6. Brief Discussion (Study One): I expect the following format
(1 point):
a. Include a brief description of your study one findings (but
avoid using statistics)
b. I expect a paragraph or two, revised from Paper III: Study
Two Literature Review.

7. Literature Review (Study Two): I expect the following format
(6 points):
a. Include your revised literature review from Paper III: Study
this section
b. The study two literature review must have minimum of two
(2) full pages of text (with or without hypotheses) and a
maximum of five (5) pages
8. Methods Section (Study Two): I expect the following format
(6 points):
a. Include your revised methods section from Paper IV: Study
Two Methods, Discussion, and Results. Those instructions
continue to apply to this section
b. There is no set minimum or maximum on the length of the
methods section, but I would expect at least a page 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
9. Results Section (Study Two): I expect the following format
(6 points):
a. Include your revised results section from Paper IV: Study
Two Methods, Results, Discussion. Those instructions continue
to apply to this section
b. Like the methods section, there is no page minimum of
at least a paragraph or two for each of the dependent variables
you analyzed
10. Brief Discussion (Study Two): I expect the following format
(1 point):
a. Include a brief description of your study one findings (but
avoid using statistics)
b. I expect a paragraph or two, revised from Paper IV: Study
Two Methods, Results, Discussion
11. General Discussion (12 points) NEW SECTION
a. Write the word General Discussion at the top of this section
and center it. This section comes directly at the end of the brief

discussion section from study two, so the general discussion
section DOES NOT start on its own page. See the example
paper for some formatting visual hints.
b. At the beginning of this section, give a brief reminder of your
predictions from both study one and study two. Then provide a
discussion of your results. In English (not statistics), tell me
what you found. In this discussion, you should talk about all of
the following:
i. An explanation of your findings – across both studies, did
your results support or not support your hypothesis?
1. If you found support, tie it in with the prior research you
cited in your literature review as well as your predictions. You
may want to refer back to your literature review, and re-cite
some of the studies you mentioned there (I really recommend
that, in fact!).
2. If you didn’t find any support for your hypotheses, contrast
your findings with prior research. You can highlight differences
in your methodologies. You may also find other studies that
either support your results or help explain why you found what
you found.
3. If one study found support and the other did not, try to
explain the discrepancy.
4. In a nutshell, tell me how both studies help inform the reader
about the nature of your variables and how they impact human
behavior.
ii. Next, examine study limitations – would other methods have
been better? Were there problems with your study that a follow-
up study should fix?
iii. Propose future directions for research – If you could do your
studies over again, what would you change? Or how might you
expand them?
iv. Optional: Talk about the ethics of your study – Did you
follow ethical guidelines? Were participants harmed in any
manner
c. The general discussion section must have minimum of one (1)
full page of text and a maximum of three (3) pages. If it is only

one pages, it better be very, very good! I actually expect to see
closer to two pages
12. References: I expect the following format (6 points):
a. Include your revised references from Paper III: Literature
Review (Study Two)
i. Include any new references you may have cited in the
discussion section
b. References start on their own page
c. Follow all APA formatting rules for the references
d. We will mark off per number of error, so really make sure to
proofread this. The same error in six references will leave you
with zero points!
13. Appendices (3 points)
a. Here, simply include the eight appendices (A, B, C, D, E, F,
G, and H) from Papers II and IV. Make sure each are clearly
labeled. You might have more than eight, but you should have
eight minimum
NOTE that this writing quality is nearly 10% of your final paper
grade, so I suggest you proofread!
b. You can also visit the Research Methods Help Center for
some help or just someone to glance over your final paper.
Other Guidelines for Paper V: The Final Paper
1. 1). Pay attention to the page length requirements
1. 2). Page size is 8 1/2 X 11” with all 4 margins set at on inch
on all sides. You must use a 12-point Times New Roman font.
Double space EVERYTHING
1. 3). When summarizing articles for your lit review and doing
so in your own words, make sure you still cite the original

source. Always use proper referencing procedures, which means
that:
2. If you are inserting a direct quote from any source, it must be
enclosed in quotations and followed by a parenthetical reference
to the source. “Let’s say I am directly quoting this current
sentence and the next. I would then cite it with the author name,
date of publication, and the page number for the direct quote”
(Winter, 2016, p . 4).
0. Note: We will deduct points if you quote more than three
times in the whole paper, so keep quotes to a minimum.
Paraphrase instead, but make sure you still give the original
author credit for the material by citing it or using the author’s
name (“In this article, Smith noted that …” or “In this article,
the authors noted that…”)
or friends to read your work.
1. Finally, go look at the supporting documents for this paper.
Like prior papers, there is a checklist, a grade rubric, and an
example paper for Paper V. 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 in your paper. Good luck!
Running head: STUDY TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 1
PAPER III: LITERATURE REVIEW 7

Instructions for Paper III: Study Two Literature Review (Worth
35 Points)
Ryan J. Winter
Purpose of Paper III: Study Two Literature Review
Paper III is intended to help you take your original Social
Comparison 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. 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 10

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 Social Comparison
focus, using two levels of your original independent variable
(either Upward vs. Downward, or Upward vs. Average) and
similar dependent variables (e.g. Pat / self-impressions, etc.)
but altering or 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.
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).
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 Chapter 14 in your book!
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. Many students use Paper V as their writing
sample for graduate programs, so make sure you write clearly
and precisely for an educated reader!
Note that the plagiarism limit for Paper III is 50%. 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, citations, and the predictions 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
Social Comparison 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 Social Comparison 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.
a. 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).
b. You must have a header and page numbers on each page.
i. If you don’t know how to insert headers, ask your instructor
or watch this very helpful video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pbUoNa5tyY.
ii. 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. Make sure to select the “Different first page” option
so that your title page header will differ from subsequent pages
2. The R in Running head is capitalized but the h is lower case,
followed by a colon and a short title (in ALL CAPS). This short
running head title can be the same one as the rest of your paper
or it can differ – the choice is yours, but 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.
iii. Want an example header? Look at the title page of these
instructions! You can use other titles depending on your own
preferences (e.g. SOCIAL MEDIA AND COMPARISON;
SOCIAL COMPARISON; JUDGING OTHERS; etc.).
c. 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
d. 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!
i. You can also refer to Chapter 14 in your textbook
2. Abstract? Again, this is not needed … yet! You’ll include it
later in Paper V.

3. Literature Review Study One (3 points)
a. 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.
b. For Paper III, you will need ten references total. You already
have five 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). That is, you can have seven references for study one
and three for study two, or six for study one and four for study
two, etc. My advice – keep your five references from study one
and include five additional references for the study two
literature review.
c. 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!
4. Methods Study One (3 points)
a. 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.
b. Again, revise, revise, revise or risk losing all points in this
section
5. Results Study One (3 points)
a. 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.
b. Do I need to mention revise?
6. Discussion Study One (1 point)
a. 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.
b. One word – revise!
7. Literature Review Study Two (10 points)

a. APA formatting for the first page of your literature review
i. 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.
b. APA formatted citations for the literature review
i. Between the literature review for study one and the literature
review for study two, you have to have at least ten references
combined. If you have five references in the study one lit
review, you need five more here. If you have seven for study
one, you need three here. In total, at least eight of these ten
references must be based on empirical research reports (that is,
each of these eight cited articles should have a literature
review, a methods section, a results section, a
conclusion/discussion, and references). The remaining two
sources can also be primary sources, but you may also use
secondary sources (books, law reviews, newspaper articles,
etc.). Of course I would recommend sticking with all primary
sources, but the choice is yours for the other two citations.
Note: Internet blogs and Wikipedia are not acceptable as
secondary sources. 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 ten of them! These may overlap among students, so
it is okay to read the same articles as some of your classmates.
You can use all 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).
a. 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. If you directly quote a source, make sure to provide a page
number for where you found that quote. However, I prefer
paraphrasing to direct quotes. I allow three quotes total for the
whole paper (including the two that I allowed in Paper I). If you
quote more than three times you will lose one point for each
additional quote.
c. Content-based requirements for your study two literature
review
i. 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 hourglass 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.
ii. 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.
a. 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 Social Comparison might impact
people. 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. 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 chapter (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 …
a. give a general overview of your research question
b. 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 belief perseverance and
main effect for your second IV) and the interaction of the two
IVs as they work together.
d. The literature review for study two must have a minimum of
two (2) full pages of text and a maximum of five (5) pages. This
time, I’ll let you include the hypotheses within that minimum 2
pages (though it would be very tight to get all of that info in
there in such a short lit review section).
8. Citations: I expect the following format (4 points)
a. All in-text citations must be correct (correct APA formatting,
correct dates, if directly quoted must have page numbers, and
uses et al. and & and correctly)
9. References: I expect the following format (5 points):
a. 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.
b. All ten references that you cited in the literature review must
be in this section (there should be more than ten references here
if you cited more than ten articles). However, at least eight must
come from empirical articles
c. For references, make sure you:
i. use alphabetical ordering (start with the last name of the first
author)
ii. use the authors’ last names but only the initials of their
first/middle name
iii. give the date in parentheses – e.g. (2007).
iv. italicize the name of the journal article
v. give the volume number, also in italics
vi. give the page numbers (not italicized) for articles
vii. provide the doi (digital object identifier) if present (not
italicized)
10. Appendices: I expect the following format (1 point)
a. Copy and paste from Paper II. 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!)
i. Appendix A: Include your tables for age, gender, and
ethnicity.
ii. Appendix B: Include your tables for your chi square and the
crosstabs
iii. Appendix C: Include your tables for your first scaled DV
iv. Appendix D: Include your tables for you second scaled DV
Other Guidelines for Paper III: Literature Review
1. 1). Pay attention to the page length requirements – 1 page for

the title page, 2-5 pages for the study one lit review, no
minimum page lengths for the study one methods, results, and
discussion sections, 2-5 pages for the study two literature
review, and at least 1 page for the references page. If you are
under the minimum, we will deduct points. If you go over the
maximum, we are a little more flexible (up to a half page or so),
but we want you to try to keep it to the maximum page.
1. 2). Page size is 8 1/2 X 11” with all 4 margins set at 1”. You
must use a 12-point font with Times New Roman font.
EVERYTHING in the paper (including references) is double
spaced
1. 3). When summarizing articles for your lit review and doing
so in your own words, make sure you still cite the original
source. Always use proper referencing procedures, which means
that:
2. If you are inserting a direct quote from any source, it must be
enclosed in quotations and followed by a parenthetical reference
to the source. “Let’s say I am directly quoting this current
sentence and the next. I would then cite it with the author name,
date of publication, and the page number for the direct quote”
(Winter, 2013, p . 5).
0. Note: We will deduct points if you quote more than three
times in the paper, so keep quotes to a minimum. Paraphrase
instead, but make sure you still give the original author credit
for the material by citing it or using the author’s name (“In this
article, Smith noted that …” or “In this article, the authors
noted that…”)
or friends to read your work. Using Pearson Writer is also
required
The above information is required for your paper, but I wanted
to provide a few tips about writing your study two literature

review as well. Hopefully this will give you some good
directions:
· First, remember that you need ten references total, eight of
which MUST be peer-reviewed
· Second, I don't expect a lengthy discussion for each and every
article that you cite for either study one or study two. You
might spend a page on one study and a sentence or two on
another. The amount of time you spend describing an article you
read should be proportional to how important it is in helping
you defend your hypotheses. If you do a near replication of a
prior study, then I would expect you to spend more time
discussing that prior research since it has a big impact on your
own study. If an article you read simply supports a global idea
that ties into your study but has very different methods (like
"frustrated people get mad!"), you can easily mention it in a
sentence or two without delving into a lot of detail. Tell a good
story in your literature review, but only go into detail about plot
elements that have a direct bearing on your study!
· Third, like Paper I, Paper III is all about supporting your study
two hypotheses. Know what your hypotheses are before you
write the paper, as it will help you determine how much time to
spend on each article you are citing.
· Fourth, make sure to proofread, proofread, proofread! Use the
Pearson Writer for help, but note that their suggestions are just
that – suggestions. It is up to you to make sure the flow of the
paper is easy to understand. Good luck!
· Fifth, please note that a different grader might grade your
Paper III than Paper I or II. As forewarning, the new grader
might mark off for Paper I and II elements that the prior grader
thought was okay. That is, the two graders may not agree with
each other on everything. Unfortunately, this happens, even

when I try to publish a paper in a journal. Two reviewers may
have no problem with my paper while two others nitpick a lot.
The same happens here. Just be aware that graders all use the
same paper checklist and grade rubric. They might emphasize
some elements more than others in those checklists depending
on their personal grading style, but if YOU pay attention to all
checklist elements then grading will not differ much regardless
of who graded! So, USE THE CHECKLISTS! I mark off a point
if the appendix comes before the references. I mark off if
reference article titles use incorrect capital letters. I mark off if
the letters p, F, M, and SD are not in italics. Everything I might
mark off for is included in the checklist, so if your paper passes
the checklist, I won’t have as much to mark off for! Use it (and
look at the example paper and grade rubric as well!)

Running head STUDY TWO METHODS, RESULTS, DISCUSSION1PAPER IV.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running head STUDY TWO METHODS, RESULTS, DISCUSSION1PAPER IV.docx

Similar to Running head STUDY TWO METHODS, RESULTS, DISCUSSION1PAPER IV.docx (14)

More from jeanettehully

More from jeanettehully (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running head STUDY TWO METHODS, RESULTS, DISCUSSION1PAPER IV.docx