Order ID 6463784949 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Sources/References 6 Number of Pages 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions PLEASE, ANSWER THE FOLLOWING TO DISCUSSION SEPARATELY. REACH ME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. USE AS MANY SOURCES AS YOU CONSIDER NECESSARY. THANKS.
DISCUSSION #4
This is one of the most important parts of this course – I want you to work with your group to design a follow-up study using the apology idea. Your instructor will present the ideas to the whole class, and you will vote on which one you would like to do for your final class project. As you work on this discussion, try to think about what other variable might interact with apologies. I’ll give you a few examples below, but try to get creative with your group. Look at prior research and see if you can use some of their work as a follow-up to your study. Have fun with it!Okay, consider some ideas I was thinking about for a follow-up Twitter apology study (Personally, I would recommend the second or third idea, as there is a lot of research you could draw on about these topics, which would make Paper III much easier to write).
First, you can alter the way that other “people” (made up by us, of course) think about Charlie’s apology. That is, participants will see the responses of Charlie’s friends to the apology. Regardless of the hashtag we use (#SorryNotSorry versus #SorrySorrySorry), some of Charlie’s friends will say that the apology seemed sincere versus some friends saying it was not very sincere. Here, you could simply enter comments under Charlie’s apology. For a friend who saw the apology as insincere, they could say “Wow Charlie, were you rolling your eyes as you wrote that apology?” versus a friend who saw it as sincere, who might say “Wow Charlie, you seemed to reach deep into your heart as you wrote that apology”). We could even alter the number of positive versus negative retweets associated with the original apology. Will this interact with our manipulated sincerity condition? Note that we have four conditions here: 1). Original sincere apology (#Sorry#Sorry#Sorry) and friends see it as sincere, 2). Original sincere apology (#Sorry#Sorry#Sorry) and friends see it as insincere, 3). Original insincere apology (#Sorry#Not#Sorry) and friends see it as sincere, and 4). Original insincere apology (#Sorry#Not#Sorry) and friends see it as insincere. What would you predict that we would find here?
Second, we could alter the “priors” for Charlie. That is, we could work in the fact that Charlie has (versus has not) been banned from other stores in the past for not following the rules. Would having such “priors” alter perceptions of his sincere versus insincere apology? Or what if we designate Charlie’s as male versus female (we didn’t make this clear in study one). Would Charlie’s gender interact with a sincere versus insincere apology?
A third idea might involve having participants take the perspective of Charlie. That is, asking participants to write out an autobiographical memory can impact how they view an event. Here, we could have participants recall a time when they apologized for something and meant it versus a time they apologized for something and did not mean it. Would recalling their own experience impact how they view Charlie’s apology?
Fourth, we could alter the timing of the apology. Research has shown that people see an apology as more sincere if it occurs immediately rather than if there is a delay. We could alter the twitter apology so that the apology occurred shortly after Charlie’s behavior or it was a few weeks after the fact. Here, we could have a friend of Charlie’s comment on the timing (“Charlie, I can tell you’ve thought about this event a lot since it occurred yesterday” versus “Charlie, I can tell you’ve thought about this event a lot since it occurred three weeks ago”).
Fifth, we can have the store accept versus not accept the apology. That is, Charlie can note that after his sincere versus fake apology, the store retained the ban or ended it early. Or it could be that Charlie’s apology triggered some potential problems at his workplace. After all, some bad behavior in someone’s personal life can lead to workplace complications (think about individuals fired for posting something insensitive on social media). What if it appeared that Charlie was only apologizing because he seemed to be under duress (apologize or be fired) versus did so of his/her own volition. Again, an easy way to manipulate this is to have a friend comment on the original tweet saying, “Charlie, you know your supervisor forced you to apologize” versus, “Charlie, you know your supervisor appreciated you coming forward to apologize”.).
Finally, you can look at some participant characteristics if you like. You could see if participant gender interacts with the manipulated apology sincerity (do males see an insincere apology differently than females). Or you can focus on participant age. Do older participants see Charlie’s behavior differently than younger participants? Just remember that if you choose a participant characteristic, you cannot draw cause-effect conclusions (since you cannot randomly assign someone to be high versus low in self-monitoring or to be a man or a woman). That is why I would prefer that you manipulate some feature of the study so you can randomly assign people to one of the four different conditions.
As you can see, there are tons of ways to extend your original study. Work with your classmates to identify the one you like best, and then let your instructor know. Your instructor will take the consensus vote for the whole class and let you know what the study will be for study two. In this discussion, I want EACH of you to do three things. First, tell me which study you want to do (that is, which second independent variable you find most interesting). Second, give me a reference in APA format for one peer reviewed research article that has something to do with this second variable. This article does not have to involve apologies at all, but it must have something to do with your second independent variable. Third, give me a hypothesis for what you expect to occur if your new independent variable is chosen for the class project.
DISCUSSION #5
Now that we have a study idea, it is time to figure out what materials we need for the new study. Among your group members, I want you to assign yourselves a task for the new study. Two people should work on each task, and I’ll let whoever logs in first get to pick which task they want for themselves (see, it pays to login ***Task A: Informed consent form. For these two people, I want you to write up a short informed consent form as participants would see on the first page of a web study. It should include all of the information needed for a participant to decide whether to participate in the study, including: 1) a brief summary of what they will do in the study (but make sure to keep it a little vague so you don’t give away the hypotheses!), 2) the risks of participating, 3) the benefits of participating, 4). The amount of time the study should take, 5) permission to participate.
Task B: Additional Independent Variables. For these two people, you need to focus on how you want to set up the IVs are the variables we manipulate, so concentrate on both of them. First, there is the apology manipulation. If our class is using the sincere versus insincere apology, that one is done! If using a different way to manipulate apologies, you’ll need to create those. For the second IV, this one is all new, so these two people will need to figure out how to manipulate the second variable (or where to find scales to measure some trait, like a need for cognition scale). Feel free to work together or independently, and your instructor will look for and find the best IVs created by at least one group in the course.
Task C: Additional Dependent Variables. For these two people, concentrate on how you want to measure the variables influenced by your independent variables. That is, how are you going to see what impact the apology manipulation has on participants? You can measure this based on scales, fill-in-the-blank questions, rankings, etc. Try to think of manipulation check questions for the new IVs other group members are creating (for example, if you alter participant self-esteem, make sure that those who are supposed to have high self-esteem actually have high self-esteem when compared to those who should have low self-esteem. You’ll need such a manipulation check question to see if they paid similar attention to your other independent variable).
Task D: Debriefing statement. For these two people, you need to write up the debriefing statement that participants will read after they complete the study. Here, tell them about the study (what you did, how you did it, why you did it) and explain your hypotheses and your predictions. Make sure to thank them for participating!
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!