replication with extension’ study. That is, we are going to extend our Study One in that rather than just one independent variable, we are going to have two different independent variables. After reading all Research Methods students’ GD4 posts and further discussion with other Research Method course sections’ professors, it was decided that we will be going with the idea of altering the intentionality (or premeditation) of Charlie when it comes to not wearing a mask. That is, we will focus on the same Sincerity manipulation from study one for our first independent variable (IV1), keeping the insincere (#SorryNotSorry) condition and the sincere (#SorrySorrySorry) conditions only, as they make good comparison groups. (We will thus drop the no apology condition since it often overlapped with the other two groups in study one). For the second independent variable (IV2), we will focus on Intentionality (i.e., Charlie’s friend noting that Charlie’s actions were either intentional or unintentional). That is, Charlie’s friend (Chris Burnet, who Charlie mentioned in the original study), will add his own tweet following Charlie’s hashtag of either #SorryNotSorry or #SorrySorrySorry. Chris’s tweet will be one of the following, going out to others who read Charlie’s tweets:
1). Chris Burnet: “Just FYI everyone, I was with Charlie earlier in the day. Before we headed to the mall, Charlie was actually complaining about being forced to wear a mask when going out. Think about that if you are judging Charlie.” (Intentional condition)
2). Chris Burnet: “Just FYI everyone, I was with Charlie earlier in the day. Before we headed to the mall, Charlie was actually complaining about people who forgot their masks when going out. Think about that if you are judging Charlie.” (Unintentional condition)
This gives us a 2 (Sincerity: Sincere versus Insincere apology) X 2 (Intention: Intentional versus Unintentional) factorial design. That is, there will be four conditions:
So what are those predictions (i.e., Study Two hypotheses)? Recall that we are going to break our predictions down into two main effects (the impact of only one independent variable at a time) and one interaction (the impact of both independent variables interacting with each other). Each of the two dependent variables in Study Two will have two main effect predictions and one interaction prediction (i.e., six (!) hypotheses in total, for two DVs). Let me give you an example looking at the dependent variable, “I would accept Charlie’s apology”.
Main Effect Sincerity: Participants in the sincere condition will find Charlie’s apology more acceptable than participants in the insincere condition. (This is based on what we found in study one)
Main Effect Intention: Participants in the unintentional condition will find Charlie’s apology more acceptable than participants in the intentional condition (You’ll need to do some research to back up this claim, though it makes more sense that an unintentional / accidental action will be more acceptable than an action that was intended)
Interaction Sincerity X Intention: Participants will find Charlie’s apology most acceptable in the sincere and unintentional condition and least acceptable in the insincere and intentional condition, with participants in the sincere and intentional condition and participants in the insincere and unintentional conditions falling between those extremes. However, participants in the unintentional but insincere condition should find the apology slightly more acceptable than those in the intentional but sincere condition. (Again, you’ll need to justify this hypothesis by doing your literature review)
Keep in mind that each dependent variable in your Study Two will need similar main effect and interaction hypotheses. You also want some overlap between Study One and Study Two, so you might want to focus your predictions for Study Two on the same dependent variables you analyzed in Study One.
Look at PsycInfo and find some additional references (primary sources only!) for your Paper III – Study Two Literature Review. Your task is to find prior research that looks at intentional versus unintentional behaviors and use that literature to help support or justify your study two’s predictions. Good keywords for PsycInfo might be “intent”, “premeditation”, “purpose”, “accidental”, and the like.
You will be writing a second literature review that focuses on your new independent variable (IV2) “Intentionality”. There are a lot of articles you could look at that focus on, for example, the one that I just found and attached to this announcement.
Please read through my pervious paper and please use sources on PSYCINFO.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more