Part 1: These questions are based on the lectures for the week
1. What is one tip that was given on the review article on mindfulness?
2. What should you include in the results section?
Part 2: The lectures on correlation and experimental studies will help you answer these questions. Also please consult the useful infographic below and save it in a place that you can access it for later when writing your papers!
In this part you will practice reporting results from experimental and correlational studies. Given the information about the study, how would you report the results? You may need to use guidance from APA to help you.
e.g. Given the information: Dr. Fazio, a memory researcher, wants to understand how misinformation is learned.
Hypothesis: Repeating untrue statements will increase the likelihood that a statement will be judged as true.
Sample: 503 participants
Procedure: participants read a set of statements and are asked to rate them as true or untrue. Next they’re given some of the untrue statements again and asked to rate them along with some new statements that they’ve never seen.
Results: Repeated statements truth rating: M = .59, SD = 0.32
New statements truth rating: M = .53, SD = .32
t(502) = 9.19, p < .001, d = 0.41
(this is loosely based on Fazio, Rand & Pennycook, 2019)
I would write a mock results section: (note: I can tell by the information given that this is a within-subjects experimental design. Therefore, I can use causal language in my results section)
This research investigated the influence of repetition on truth ratings of various statements. As predicted, participants’ (N = 503) truth ratings were higher for repeated statements (M = .59, SD = 0.32) than for new statements (M = .53, SD = .32). This shows that repetition of a statement increased the likelihood that the statement would be rated as true, t(502) = 9.19, p < .001, d = 0.41.
3. Dr. Lee, an adolescent researcher, wants to investigate the effect of social media “likes” on adolescents’ emotional wellbeing (Lee, et al., 2020)
Hypothesis: Those that get fewer “likes” than others will be emotionally distressed
Sample: 613 13 to 15-year-olds
Procedure: Participants are randomly assigned to receive few (vs many) likes during a standardized social media interaction.
Results: Feelings of rejection: Mfew likes = 3.51, SDfew likes = 1.86; Mmany likes = 2.05, SDmany likes = 1.34, t(596) = 8.97, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .84
a. Is this experimental or correlational?
b. Write your mock results section here:
4. Dr. Moulton wants to know the influence of parental wealth on children’s cognitive ability (Moulton, 2020).
Hypothesis: Researchers predict that parental wealth (net total wealth, net housing wealth, net financial wealth, and house value) is associated with higher cognitive scores from children.
Sample: 8,645, 11-year-olds
Procedure: Participants’ families are surveyed about various aspects of their socioeconomic status (S.E.S. Cognitive ability was measured using the British Ability Scales (BAS–II) Verbal Similarities which assesses verbal reasoning and verbal knowledge (Hansen, 2014).
Results: The correlation between wealth and cognitive ability was r = .19, p < .001, N = 8,645.
c. Is this experimental or correlational?
d. Write your mock results section here:
5. Dr. Ursache is interested in whether preschoolers’ emotion knowledge would relate to later academic achievement among children of color in historically disinvested neighborhoods (based on: Ursache, et al., 2020)
Hypothesis: Researchers predict that emotional knowledge is associated with higher math and reading achievement 1 and 3 years later
Sample: 1,050 primarily Black children (over half from immigrant families) living in historically disinvested neighborhoods
Procedure: Participants’ emotional knowledge was evaluated using the Preschool Emotion Interview (PEI) that test whether children can accurately evaluate how another person is feeling. Then participants’ are re-evaluated 1 and 3 years later to test their math and reading achievement using the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (K‐TEA)
Results: The correlations between PEI and K-TEA
One year later: r = .23, p < .001, N = 1,050
Three years later: r = .18, p < .001, N = 1,050
e. Is this experimental or correlational?
f. Write your mock results section here: