CourseLover
$10/per page/Negotiable
LAB REPORT
Word limit: 2000 words. The abstract and reference list are NOT included in the word limit. In-text
referencing, sub-headings, and table/figure information and captions ARE included in the word limit.
Method has been done already and doesn’t have to be included.
Sections to be included in the assignment.
Abstract < 200
words Introduction ~800
words Results ~400
words Discussion ~800 words
The data
The lab report constitutes a replication and extension of Rogers and Fay (2016). extend by
investigating how/if two different factors (age, and need for cognition) associate with the propensity
to stick with one’s own description when choosing a description to send to the audience. The
introduction is therefore expected to be focused upon justifying the precise hypotheses regarding
the direction of the expected relationship between description choice with both age, and need for
cognition. There should be 5 hypotheses in total as discussed
Based on Rogers and Fay (2016):
Hypothesis 1: Participants will choose their own descriptions more often than person X descriptions.
Hypothesis 2: Overall participants will rate their own descriptions as clearer than person X
descriptions.
Hypothesis 3: Participant ratings of clarity of descriptions will be associated with communication
choice.
Based on prior research:
Hypotheses 4 & 5: Participant age and self-reported need for cognition will be _______ associated
with communication choice
Relevant References: Horton, W. S., & Spieler, D. H. (2007). Age-related differences in
communication and audience design. Psychology and Aging, 22(2), 281-290.
Newman-Norlund et al. (2009). Recipient design in tacit communication. Cognition, 111, 46-54.
Specifically, there are three hypotheses regarding the replication attempt of Rogers and Fay (2016),
and there are two hypotheses regarding the extension upon the Rogers and Fay (2016) study. The
results section should provide statistics that can be used to answer all the hypotheses. Descriptive
statistics (means and standard deviations) for all variables of interest should be reported (preferably
in a table). A paired-samples t-test should be used to compare appraisal of personal descriptions
versus appraisal of the audience descriptions. Finally, correlations between variables should be reported (preferably in a table) as this will answer the extension hypotheses. Remember that a
results section should contain text to complement what gets provided in tables. The results should
be described in a way that makes the findings clear to the reader. See statistics document for some
resources on statistics relevant. The discussion section should re-state what was expected and
explain to the reader if the findings support or do not support what was predicted. As much as
possible, the findings should be explained in the context of the research literature. consider
limitations and future research ideas to include as this will help to show evidence of critical thinking
that the markers will be looking for.
Gender (0 = Female, 1 = Male) - Age - Prop_Self Proportion (%) of trials where the choice was made to send personal description to
Person X. This variable could theoretically range from 0% to 100%. - Appr_Self Appraisal of clarity for personal descriptions. This is a composite variable created from
averaging across all appraisals for all 20 personal descriptions. Descriptions were appraised as (1)
Extremely unlikely (2) Very unlikely (3) Somewhat unlikely (4) Somewhat likely (5) Very likely (6)
Extremely likely. Therefore, this variable could theoretically range from 1 to 6. - Appr_PersonX Appraisal of clarity for person X descriptions. This is a composite variable created
from averaging across all appraisals for all 20 person X descriptions. Descriptions were appraised as
(1) Extremely unlikely (2) Very unlikely (3) Somewhat unlikely (4) Somewhat likely (5) Very likely (6)
Extremely likely. Therefore, this variable could theoretically range from 1 to 6. - Appr_Self_min_PersonX Appraisal of person X descriptions subtracted from appraisal of personal
descriptions. This variable could theoretically range from +5 to -5. A positive score indicates that
overall a person rated their personal descriptions as clearer than the person X descriptions, and a
negative score indicates that overall a person rated their personal descriptions as less clear than the
person X descriptions. - NFC Need for Cognition. This is a composite variable created from averaging across all 18 Need for
Cognition items. This was done after reverse scoring the negative items in the scale. Items were rated
on a scale (1) Strongly disagree (2) Moderately disagree (3) Slightly agree (4) Neither agree no
disagree (5) Slightly agree (6) Moderately agree (7) Strongly agree. An overall measure was obtained by averaging across all items, where a higher score indicates a greater need for cognition. This
measure could theoretically range from 1 to 7.
Screening and assumption testing
Screening and assumption testing Screening for outliers and checking assumptions for the inferential
statistical tests is not expected
Formatting
formatted, and referencing conducted, as per APA 6th guidelines. Use Times New Roman Font,
double spaced Method
Sample and procedure
Participants were 255 University students (85% female; Mean age = 30.56, SD age =
10.67). These participants were spread across the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year of the undergraduate
degree. An online survey was used to conduct a study similar in design to Rogers and Fay
(2016). Participants began by producing their own personal descriptions for 20 abstract
shapes. When making personal descriptions participants were instructed to give the shape a
label, and include one additional piece of commentary information. For example, a shape
might be described as “Looks like a turtle, spinning on its back”, or “A supermodel, strutting
on the catwalk”, and so on.
After making their personal descriptions, participants were then required to choose a
set of descriptions to send to another person called ‘Person X’. The goal was to send Person
X a set of descriptions so that Person X could accurately match up the descriptions to the
appropriate shapes at a later time. For each shape, participants chose between sending Person
X their own personal description (that they had just made earlier) or to send Person X a
description which participants were informed was created by Person X. The Person X
descriptions were the same for all participants. The reason for using the same descriptions
across all participants was so that variation in participant choice could not be attributed to
different audience descriptions. After choosing a set of descriptions to send Person X, participants then appraised the
clarity of their personal descriptions, and the descriptions of Person X by rating all
descriptions on the question “What is the likelihood that a random other person would be able
to accurately match this description to the appropriate shape if the shape was included in an
array that includes all 20 shapes?”, using a scale (1) Extremely unlikely (2) Very unlikely (3)
Somewhat unlikely (4) Somewhat likely (5) Very likely (6) Extremely likely. In the final part
of the survey participants answered several self-report psychological trait measures. The only
trait measure of relevance to this study is the need for cognition scale that is described below.
Measures
Propensity to choose personal descriptions. Similar to Fay and Rogers (2016) a
single measure that serves to indicate the participant propensity to stick with their own
perspective when communicating to person X is obtained via working out the proportion of
the 20 shapes that the participant chose to send their own personal description to Person X
(instead of choosing Person X’s description). A higher score on this measure indicates a
higher propensity to choose one’s own description.
Appraisal of descriptions. Composite appraisal measures were obtained for both
personal descriptions and person X descriptions by averaging across all 20 shapes. An
additional composite measure was obtained by subtracting appraisal of Person X descriptions
from Personal descriptions. This measure provides an indication of the extent the participant
felt their descriptions were overall clearer than person X descriptions. A positive score on this
measure indicates the participant tended to think their own descriptions were clearer, and a
negative score on this measure indicates the participant tended to think person X descriptions
were clearer.
Need for cognition. The need for cognition scale (Cacioppo et al. 1996) is an 18-item
self-report measure that assesses a tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful thinking. An example item is “The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me”. Items were rated on a
scale (1) Strongly disagree (2) Moderately disagree (3) Slightly agree (4) Neither agree no
disagree (5) Slightly agree (6) Moderately agree (7) Strongly agree. An overall measure was
obtained by averaging across all items, where a higher score indicates a greater
need for cognition.