(From p. 62)
|State IV and DV
|Operational definition of
|Statement of hypothesized relationship
between IV, DV
|Statement of how this relationship will be
Learning how to write the Introduction
eg. See PSY254 link but, expand!
e.g., Ch. 15
Stages of the Introduction:
1. introduce your topic area in a clever way
"Beauty is only skin deep". This is something that most people have heard at some point in their
life. But is this applied in the real world?" (Schuchman, Weber& Shaw, 1997)
2. What has been done on your topic in the past?
"Those perceived as attractive are evaluated more positively than less attractive individuals
(Dion, Berscheid & Walster, 1972). Similar results were found using Chinese students which
indicates this phenomenon is cross-cultural (Wuensch, Chia, Castellow, Chuang & Cheng, 1993).
According to research on rape, attractiveness has been found to have an effect on decisions of
guilt (Jacobsen & Popovich, 1993). In further mock jury experiments, subjects in deliberation
were more likely to give attractive defendants the benefit of the doubt and acquit them more than
unattractive defendants (MacCoun, 1990). These findings suggest that most people do not
ascribe to the notion of being only skin deep but rather beautiful people are perceived as better
people all around"
3. Identify a controversy in the research, that your study will ultimately resolve.
"There is however contradictory research. In domestic violence cases, the effect of physical
attractiveness played no significant role in juridical decision-making according to studies
conducted by Burke, Ames, Etherington and Pietsch (1990). McKelvie and Coley (1993) found
similar results. They determined that sentencing and severity of treatment of an offender
previously found guilty was not a function of the attractiveness of the offender. However,
McKelvie and Coley (1993) did find that psychiatric care was recommended more for less
attractive robbers. These results seem to suggest that the average person believes there is
something innately wrong with unattractive individuals"
Can the results they got be explained by a reason other than how they explain it? How?
Eg., "highly identified sports fans explained victory by focusing on their talents, but explained failure by focusing on bad luck."
Ask yourself what else could this be due to (other than their IV=identification)
|what's the confound?||Gender|
|how could it have confounded the results?||Could gender explain why highly identified
sports fans were using this self-serving bias
e.g., men more likely to use self-serving bias given socialization
|a partial concluding statement about how the IV may be related to the DV because of the confound||"therefore, high identifiers may have showed more self-serving bias because they were men"|
|statement on how your alteration would yield different scores on the DV||"If we were to redesign the study to include women, we might see that female high identifiers would show less self-serving bias given their socialization.|
|what's the confound?||Sample|
|how could it have confounded the results?
|a partial concluding statement about how the
IV may be related to the DV because of the
|statement on how your alteration would yield
different scores on the DV
4. Becoming specific: