Counterfactual Thinking And Need For Cognition Literature Review

Anonymous
timer Asked: Mar 8th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $9.99

Question Description

Purpose of Paper III: Study Two Literature Review

1). Psychological Purpose

Paper III is intended to help you take your original Seflie 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 Selfie focus, using two levels of your original independent variable

(either Selfie vs. Groupie, or Selfie vs. Professional) and similar dependent variables (e.g.

impressions of Emma, 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?”

PAPER III: LITERATURE REVIEW

3

Like Paper I, you should end your literature review 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).

2). APA Formatting Purpose

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.

PAPER III: LITERATURE REVIEW

4

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 Selfie 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 Selfie manipulation from study one. 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 Paper I and Paper II.

1. Title Page: I expect the following format

(1 point)

:

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!

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 NARCISSISM; SEFLIES VS. GROUPIES; 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!

PAPER III: LITERATURE REVIEW

5

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

PAPER III: LITERATURE REVIEW

6

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 blackboard 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 blackboard, 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

PAPER III: LITERATURE REVIEW

7

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 Selfie 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)

:

PAPER III: LITERATURE REVIEW

8

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

11. Overall writing quality

(4 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 III: Literature Review

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.

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

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:

o

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).

1. 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

PAPER III: LITERATURE REVIEW

9

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...”)

4). 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. 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!)

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Paper III: Study Two Literature Review – Grading Rubric (35 points) 1). Title Page (1 point – 1 page – Revised from Papers I and II) Items of relevance: Proper Running head in header Student name and Institution 2). Abstract / Tables (Not Required – No Points) 3). Literature Review Study One (3 points – 2 to 5 pages not including the hypotheses – Revised from Paper I) 4). Methods Section Study One (3 points – Revised from Paper II) 5). Results Section Study One (3 points – Revised from Paper II) 6). Discussion Section Study One (1 point – Revised from Paper II) 7). Literature Review Study Two (10 points – 2 to 5 pages, which can include the hypotheses – NEW SECTION) Items of relevance: a). Psychological Purpose: Your study two literature review paper will meet the psychological objectives for this section, including: 1). narrowing your paper from general information about your new study variables toward specific information towards the end (tells the sequel ro your study one story) 2). presenting the information clearly, educating your reader about your new area of research while referring back to study one materials (lit review, methods, results, and discussion). Keep in mind that your new variable might be in an area that is new to readers. Assume they need you to teach them the material. 4). you should have smooth transitions between paragraphs. 3). end your study two literature review with your specific hypotheses / predictions about study two (make sure to talk about both main effects and interactions) b). APA Formatting Purpose: Your paper will meet the formatting objectives for this section, including: 1). proper APA formatting for title, header, and page numbers 2). You should have ten citations (minimum) with at least eight of them coming from primary (peer-reviewed) sources. Citations should match up with the references in your reference section. Citations are in proper APA format 8) Proper Citations (4 points) Items of relevance: Support information that appears “factual” Citations are in appropriate APA format, including correct use of direct quotes 9) Reference Section (5 points) Items of relevance: Ten references minimum (same as cited in the paper) in proper APA format 10). Appendixes – (1 point) You should include four appendices from Study One, one for the demographics information, one for the chi square, one for the first dependent variable (an ANOVA is required), and one for the second dependent variable (An ANOVA is preferred, but a t-Test acceptable) 11). Writing Quality (4 points) a). Writing Purpose: Your paper will meet the writing objectives for this section, including: 1). proper grammar and spelling, good flow to the paper, good transition sentences between paragraphs 2). We are going to grade HARD here, so make sure it is clear, easy to read, and precise! Note: Use the Paper Checklist, too! It is much more detailed then this grading rubric! Running head: PAPER III: STUDY TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 1 Checklist – Paper III: Study Two Literature Review Use the check sheet below to make sure your paper is the best it can be! Make sure you answer “Yes” to all questions before submitting your paper! Some sections duplicate checklists from prior papers while those in purple focus on new Study Two Literature Review elements. Yes Yes Yes General Paper Format (This section is identical to the Papers I and II Checklists) No 1. Is everything in your paper (including headers, the main body of your miniliterature review, and your references) in 12 point Times New Roman font? 2. Is everything in your paper double spaced, including references (here I mean the spacing above and below each line, not the spaces following a period)? 3. Do you have one inch margins on all sides of the paper (one inch from the top of the page, one inch from the bottom, and one inch from each side) 4. Are the first lines of all paragraphs indented roughly ½ inch? 5. Are your paragraphs aligned left? (That is, text should be flush left, with lines lining up on the left of the page, but text should NOT line up on the right side of the page – it should look ragged) 6. Do you need help figuring out how to configure a word document in APA format (inserting headers, page numbers, proper indents, etc.)? If YES, I highly recommend watching this video which walks you through setting up an APA formatted paper! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pbUoNa5tyY No Title page (This section is identical to the Papers I and II Checklists) Header 1. Do you have the phrase “Running head” in your header (with a lower case h)? 2. Is the rest of your Running head title in ALL CAPS? 3. Is your Running head in 12 point Times New Roman font? 4. Do you have a page number (1) that is flush right (also in 12 point Times New Roman font)? 5. Is your header 50 characters or less (including spaces and punctuation)? Title / Name / Institution 1. Is your title 12 words or less (as recommended by the APA)? 2. Does your title describe your general paper theme (while avoiding something blank like “Paper Three: Literature Review”)? Note that your header and title can differ! 3. Do all title words with four letters or more start with a capital letter? 4. Are your name and institution correct? 5. Are your title, name, and institution elements centered and in 12 point Times New Roman font? Literature Review Study One (This section is nearly identical to Paper I) No Title for the literature review 1. Do you have the identical title you used on the title page rewritten at the top of your literature review? 2. Is this title centered? 3. Does your literature review start on page 2? PAPER III: LITERATURE REVIEW Main body of the literature review 1. Does your literature review start broadly, giving a brief overview of the study one to come? 2. Does your literature review start to narrow down toward your hypotheses? 3. Do your paragraphs transition from one to the next? (That is, avoid simply listing studies you read. Tie them together. How does Study A in paragraph A relate to Study B in paragraph B?) 4. Does your paper end in your very specific hypotheses? (You will lose a lot of points if your paper doesn’t provide the specific predictions!) 5. Did you make sure your predictions are written in the past tense? 6. Is your paper at least two pages long (not including the hypotheses)? Citations for the literature review 1. Did you cite a minimum of 5 references (all peer-reviewed resources)? Note that you can give a lot of detail for some references but only a sentence or two for others. How much detail you go into depends on how important the article is in helping your support your hypotheses. 1.a If NO, do your citations between the study one and study two literature reviews add up to ten or more references? 2. Are your citations in APA format (That is, ONLY the last name of the author(s) and date of publication)? a. Note that you do NOT include first names, initials, or the title of the article the authors wrote when citing. That information belongs in the references pages only. b. Also note that you only use an ampersand – the & symbol – when it occurs within parentheses. In other instances, use the word “and” 3. If you quoted, did you provide a page number for the direct quote? 4. If you paraphrased in any way, did you cite the source of that information? 5. Did you cite everything that sounded like it was factual information? 6. Did you make sure the period follows the citation rather than coming before it? Methods Section Study One (This section is identical to Paper II – Methods Study One) Yes No Title for the methods section 1. Is the word “Methods” centered and in bold? (Note: No page break needed) Yes No Participants 1. Do you have the word “Participants” flush left and in bold, right below the word “Methods”? 2. Did you list out your demographic characteristics, including gender, age, and ethnicity / race? 3. Did you provide the descriptive statistics for (means and standard deviations) for age and italicize the letters M and SD? 4. Did you provide frequencies for gender and ethnicity/race and italicize the N? 5. Did you refer readers to Appendix for the full listing of demographic tables? Materials and Procedure 1. Did you mention informed consent? 2. Did you discuss any instructions the participant may have read? 2 PAPER III: LITERATURE REVIEW 3. Did you thoroughly describe any stimulus material that might have occurred before your actual independent variables (and photos, descriptions, profiles, questions, puzzles, etc.) that are a part of your study? 4. Did you thoroughly describe your independent variable in enough depth and detail that another researcher could duplicate your materials? 5. Did you give your IVs names that matches up with the name you refer to in the results section? 6. Did you describe all of your most relevant dependent variables, noting the scales you used (e.g. “Yes / No”, “A scale ranging from 1 (not at all likely) to 9 (very likely))” for EACH of your DVs? 7. Did you fully describe what participants went through in the study, noting the order in which they received study materials (e.g. first informed consent, then IVs, DVs, and debriefing)? 8. Did you fully describe your attention check (manipulation check) with enough detail that a reader unfamiliar with your study could recreate it, and did you include the scale for that attention check question? 9. Did you use the past tense when describing your methods (seeing how you already collected the data, and therefore do not discuss what participants will do)? Results Section Study One (This section is identical to Paper II – Results Study One) Yes No Results 1. Do you have the word “Results” centered and in bold, immediately following the methods section? 2. Did you analyze at least three different dependent variables, including one chi square and at least one ANOVA? 3. Did you mention all of the IVs and the DV by name when talking about your analysis? 4. Did you include means and standard deviations within parentheses for each level of your independent variable? 5. If your ANOVA was significant, did you include post hoc tests? 6. Did you italicize the letters F, t, p, M, SD, and X2 (where appropriate)? 7. Did you round ALL numbers to two decimal places (with the exception of the p value, which can go as low as p < .001 or p = .001). Discussion Section Study One (This section is identical to Paper II – Discussion Study One) Yes No 1. Do you have the word “Discussion” centered and in bold, immediately following the results section? 2. Did you remind your reader of your hypothesis? 3. Did you mention whether you supported or did not support your hypothesis? Yes No Literature Review Study Two (This section is completely new) Title for the literature review 1. Do you have some title that denotes the start of study two (e.g. something as simple as “Study Two” is okay, though you can also have something that is descriptive of your new independent variable)? 3 PAPER III: LITERATURE REVIEW 2. Is this title centered? 3. Does your literature review start immediately after the study one discussion (there should be no page break unless it occurs naturally) Main body of the literature review 1. Does your new literature review start broadly with your second IV, giving a brief overview of what it entails? 2. Does your literature review start to narrow down toward your study two hypotheses? 3. Do your paragraphs transition from one to the next? (That is, avoid simply listing studies you read. Tie them together. How does Study A in paragraph A relate to Study B in paragraph B?) 4. Do you tie in your new IV with your original study one IV, showing how they might interact? 5. Does your paper end in your study two hypotheses? (More specifically, you should have a hypothesis for your main dependent variables). Citations for the literature review 1. Did you cite an additional 5 references (three of which MUST be peerreviewed resources)? Note that you can give a lot of detail for some references but only a sentence or two for others. How much detail you go into depends on how important the article is in helping your support your hypotheses. 1.a If NO, do your citations between the study one and study two literature reviews add up to ten or more references? If yes, you are good here! 2. Are your citations in APA format (That is, ONLY the last name of the author(s) and date of publication)? a. Note that you do NOT include first names, initials, or the title of the article the authors wrote when citing. That information belongs in the references pages only. b. Also note that you only use an ampersand – the & symbol – when it occurs within parentheses. In other instances, use the word “and” 3. If you quoted, did you provide a page number for the direct quote? 4. If you paraphrased in any way, did you cite the source of that information? 5. Did you cite everything that sounded like it was factual information? 6. Did you make sure the period follows the citation rather than coming before it? Yes References Page (This section is similar to Paper I, but with 10 references) No Title for the references page 1. Do references start on their own page? 2. Is the word “References” centered? References – Make sure these are in APA format! 1. Are references listed in alphabetical order (starting with the last name of the first author listed) for all 10 articles you referenced? 2. Are all citations from the literature review referenced? 3. Is the first line of the reference flush left while subsequent lines are indented (Note: Use the ruler function for this. DO NOT simply tab)? 4. Did you use the “&” symbol when listing more than one author name? 4 PAPER III: LITERATURE REVIEW 5. Did you include the date of publication 6. For article references, is the article title (which is not italicized) with only the first word and proper names starting with a capital letter? 7. For article references, is the name of the journal present with all major words starting with a capital letter (and this journal title is italicized)? 8. For article references, is the volume number italicized 9. For article references, are the page numbers present (not italicized) 10. For article references, is the DOI present Appendix Section – Study One (Similar to Paper II) Yes No 1. Do you have the word “Appendix” centered on each Appendix page, followed by a description of the appendix content, immediately following the results section? 2. In Appendix A (Demographics), do you have SPSS tables for gender, ethnicity, and age? (Note: Age might be in a general “statistics” table, but you should have specific frequency tables for both gender and ethnicity) 3. In Appendix B (Chi Square), do you have the crosstabs table (with percentages) plus the chi square test (with Pearson)? 4. In Appendix C (ANOVA), do you have the descriptives table, the ANOVA table, and the post hoc table for your first dependent variable? 5. In Appendix D (ANOVA or t-Test), do you have the descriptives table, ANOVA (or t-Test) table, and post hoc table (for the ANOVA) for your second dependent variable? 6. Do the analyses in Appendix C and D focus on DIFFERENT dependent variables? (Make sure you answer YES on this one!) 7. Do the appendices come AFTER the references? Yes No Writing Quality 1. Did you proofread your paper, go to the writing center, go to the research methods help center, or use the Pearson writer to make sure your paper flows well? 2. Did you use the past tense (which is recommended, since your papers in this class will reflect work you already did rather than work you will do)? 3. Did you use a scientific / objective terms like “people”, “participants”. “users”, “readers”, etc. (as opposed to subjective words like “you”, “we”, “me”, “I”, or “us”, etc.)? 5 Running head: SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION Counterfactual Thinking and Need for Cognition: Appointing Blame Former Student Florida International University 1 SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION 2 Counterfactual Thinking and Need For Cognition: Appointing Blame As free-willed beings, humans are often the victims of their own decisions. Imagine accidentally running over a stray cat because you decided to look away from the road at the exact moment the cat decided to cross the street. Following the accident, most people would be plagued with thoughts of how alternative circumstances or decisions could have prevented such an unfortunate situation. Every time an individual forms a ‘what if’ scenario in which he or she mentally alters the course of events occurred, they are participating in a process that is known as counterfactual thinking (Ruiselová, Prokopčáková, & Kresánek, 2007; Williams, Lees-Haley, & Price 1996). This process allows individuals to consider the multiple factors at play in a situation (i.e mutability), and to decide what specific condition was responsible for the ultimate outcome of the event. The primary focus of our study is to analyze the extent of culpability people place on a particular factor depending on the preventability of the outcome. That is, if it is easy to “undue” an event that ends in a tragic outcome, will participants find an actor who fails to engage in that easy behavior more at fault? The development of counterfactual thoughts relies on the variability of the situation as well as the knowledge that different actions could have resulted in alternate outcomes (Alquist, Ainsworth, Baumeister, Daly, & Stillman, 2015). According to Alquist et al., situations that are believed to be highly changeable generate more counterfactual thoughts than events that seem unavoidable. However, ruminating on every conceivable alternative of a situation would take an unlimited amount of time and resources. Instead of allotting so much time and energy on a cognitive task, people tend to narrow down the different scenarios that come to mind according to the degree of controllability of the factors involved (McCloy & Byrne, 2000). For example, the deliberate decisions individuals make that ultimately lead to a certain outcome is considered SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION 3 to be a controllable event, whereas uncontrollable events are unavoidable circumstances, such as traffic jams or natural disasters (McCloy & Byrne, 2000). When mentally forming a scenario different than the one occurred, individuals tend to change controllable rather than uncontrollable events (2000). Therefore, events that are within an individual’s jurisdiction generally receive the brunt of the blame for the resulting situation. In a similar light, a study performed by McCloy and Byrne (2000), discovered that inappropriate events are more often changed through the process of counterfactual thinking than appropriate ones, especially when the outcome of these events was negative. Inappropriate events include the decisions individuals make that are considered to be ‘socially wrong’, whereas appropriate events are ‘socially acceptable’ actions. Due to these results, we can conclude that what McCloy and Byrne consider to be “inappropriate controllable” events, will likely be regarded as highly culpable factors in the outcome of a situation. Another contributing factor to perceived culpability is the extent of knowledge of the actors involved in an event, as well as the intent of their actions (Gilbert, Tenney, Holland, & Spellman, 2015). For example, in the aforementioned scenario, had the driver known that looking away from the road would have caused her to run over the stray cat, the driver would have been more likely to be perceived guilty, even though the actions and the outcome of the situation remained the same. This rationalization is the product of a bottom-up method of thinking in which individuals are able to generate ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

Kevins_Jr
School: UIUC

Attached.

Running Head: LITERATURE REVIEW

Counterfactual Thinking and Need for Cognition: Literature Review
Former Student
Florida International University

1

LITERATURE REVIEW

2

Counterfactual Thinking and Need for Cognition;
Literature review
Introduction
As free-willed creatures, people are regularly the casualties of their own choices. Envision
inadvertently running over a stray feline since you chose to turn away from the street at the accurate
minute the feline chose to cross the road. Following the incident, most by far would be tormented
with contemplations of how elective conditions or decisions could have foreseen such an appalling
situation. Each time individual structures an 'envision a situation where' circumstance in which the
individual judiciously alters the course of events occurred, they are looking into a method that is
known as counterfactual thinking (Ruiselová, Prokopčáková, and Kresánek, 2007; Williams, LeesHaley, and Price 1996. This strategy empowers individuals to consider the distinctive segments at
play in a situation (i.e. inconstancy) and to pick what unequivocal condition was accountable for
an authoritative aftereffect of the event. The fundamental point of convergence of our examination
is to explore the level of culpability people place on a particular factor dependent upon the
preventability of the outcome. That is if it is definitely not hard to "fix" an event that shut in a
dismal outcome, will individuals find an entertainer who fails to partake in that basic lead more to
the fault?
The growth of the counterfactual ideas depends on the variability of the situation as well
as the know-how in un relating instances could have impacted in alternate feedbacks. Facing the
discussion from Acquits et al, instances that are considered to be highly replaceable develop more
counterfactual opinions than the events which are not easy to do away with. However, thinking
deeply on every possible best option of a situation would take a shorter time and minimal usage of
the resources at large resources. Rather than squandering so much time and vitality on less intricate

LITERATURE REVIEW

3

issues, individuals will, in general, abbreviate down the diverse events which emerge on one, s
mind contingent upon the dimension of coordinating verifiable which are included. Included
(McCloy and Byrne, 2000). For instance, the examined choices identities make that at last lead to
a specific effect is liked to be a reasonable event, though wild occasions are unavoidable
conditions, for example, traffic on the huge urban communities which happens unwittingly upheld
by arbitrary cases, for example, mishaps or the event of catastrophic events (McCloy and Byrne,
2000). Regularly when a conceivable framing a situation emerges, unique in relation to the one
happened, individuals happen to change into controllable instead of wild occasions (2000). Hence,
examples that are inside an individual locale consequently gets the brunt of the fault for the
subsequent circumstance.
In a comparable light, an investigation performed by McCloy and Byrne (2000),
demonstrated that the least expected occasions more often than not are progressively changed
through the procedure of legally binding reasoning than the most expected once as a rule, all the
more so when the aftereffects of these occasions were negative. Less expected occasions
incorporate the choices which an individual makes that are viewed as 'socially off-base'.

Writing Review: Study One

The progress of counterfactual examinations depends upon the inconstancy of the
circumstance correspondingly as the finding that different activities could have accomplished
exchange results (Alquist, Ainsworth, Baumeister, Daly, and Stillman, 2015). As indicated by
Alquist et al., conditions that are recognized to be exceedingly factor make more counterfactual
considerations than occasions that appear, apparently, to be unavoidable. All things considered,

LITERATURE REVIEW

4

ruminating on each possible option of a condition would take a boundless extent of time and assets.
Rather than doling out so much time and vitality on an enthusiastic undertaking, individuals will
when all is said in done tight down the undeniable conditions that ring a toll as per the component
of controllability of the parts included (McCloy and Byrne, 2000). For instance, the deliberate
choices people make that, over the long haul, lead to a specific result is viewed as a controllable
occasion, while wild occasions are unavoidable conditions, for example, roads turned parking
structures or unfortunate events (McCloy and Byrne, 2000). Precisely when reasonably forming a
situation not actually equal to the one happened, people will with everything taken into account
change controllable instead of wild occasions (2000). Thusly, events that are inside an individual's
zone, generally, get the brunt of the blame for the ensuing condition. In a relative light, an
examination performed by McCoy and Byrne (2000), found that improper occasions are
considerably more as regularly as conceiva...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
awesome work thanks

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors