Writing Up Research

Class 24

The “Feline Groovy” Study

I. Prediction: Having a pet will reduce workplace conflict 2. Design: 60 employees were either given a kitten or a book on conflict resolution. Participants were also identified as working in high stress or low stress environments. 3. Measures: Number of conflicts at work, ratings of tension. 4. Results: Wildly successful. Receiving a pet reduced conflicts, esp. at high-stress environments. 5. Next step: Declare victory to the world (i.e., prepare an article for publication).

 

enter “shape of journal article” here

APA Format of the Journal Article

Section                                      Purpose

Brief encapsulation of question, methods, results

General problem area, related research, statement of hypothesis, summary of method.

Participants, design, and procedures. Description shows 1) how methods fit hypothesis, and 2) provide means for replication

Preliminary findings (manip. checks), main findings, secondary findings (internal analyses).

Abstract

Introduction

Method

Results

Discussion Relate main findings to predictions, caveats, relate findings to other research & theory, broader issues

The Order of Presentation vs. The Order of Preparation

Order of Presentation

1. Abstract

2. Introduction

3. Methods

4. Results

5. Discussion

Order of Preparation

1. Methods

2. Results

3. Introduction (4?)

4. Discussion (5?)

5. Abstract

APA Manual’s Level of Detail

* When to use parentheses * Spacing of characters in mathematical equations * How to cite an unpublished paper presented at a meeting * How to fill a cell in a table for which there are no applicable data * Where to place copyright permission footnotes

1970s:

Schmirtz, A.B. (1974). How come APA always changes its style? Journal of Grumbling, 25, 102-154.  

Use Only the Most Current APA Manual

1970s:

Schmirtz, A.B. (1974). How come APA always changes its style? Journal of Grumbling, 25, 102-154. 1990s Schmirtz, A.B. (1994). They’ve done it again! Journal of

Grumbling, 28, 82-194.

2000s

Schmirtz, A.B. (2004). These people are nuts! Journal of Grumbling, 30, 1124-1984.

Use Only the Most Current APA Manual

Scientific Writing is Not Poetry

Today my son soldRoses at a coffeehouse in LondonHe approached the tableI was sitting at with merry friends His hair is gray. He is older than me.But he is my son.He says perhapsI know him.He was my father. My heart broke in his chest. Yehuda Amichai

Identity evolves through experience.

A person’s current identity is determined by his/her past experiences and choices. A person’s future identity will likewise be shaped by his/her current experiences and choices. Joe Blow, Ph.D.

Scientific Writing Can Be (and Should Be) Good Writing

In the high anxiety condition, the subjects, strangers to one another, entered a room to find facing them a gentleman of serious mien, horn-rimmed glasses, dressed in a laboratory coat, stethoscope dribbling out of his pocket, behind him an array of formidable electrical junk.

Stanley Schachter (1959), Anxiety and affiliation But how social are we really? We live in a social arena; virtually all our actions are directed toward or are responses to others. Yet to what end? In our interactions with others do we ever really care about them, or is the target of our concern always, exclusively ourselves?

Daniel Batson, (1990) How social an animal? American Psychologist

Clarity is crucial:  write clearly and directly

Wrong: Pets, little friends to whom we confide our lives, who see usat our best and at our worst, upon whom we lavish praise and, yes,vent our spleen. How does chronic interaction with these non-humanorganisms condition the nature of our social intercourse as occur at and during our places of employment?

Right: This research tests whether pet ownership reduces social friction at work.

Provide a story with a single narrative line.

Wrong: This research starts with X. But let’s consider X in the widercontext of YZA. Indeed, this brings to mind Q, and its associations withP and L.

Right: This research is about X. Everything I say in this article will beabout how I tested X, and what I learned about X.

Do not write only for narrow audience in your particular discipline.

Good writing is good teaching. 

How, and for Whom, to Write

Planning the Write-Up

Base your write-up on: A.   your actual results B.   anticipated results.

Analyze results first “Fishing” is/ is not immoral. Qualifications:

Make unanticipated findings “Study X” and ????.

Do not ???? important but counter-predicted results.

But simply getting it wrong is not a publishable story. Main Point: Make your most instructive finding the centerpiece.

Planning the Write-Up

Base your write-up on your actual results, not anticipated results. Analyze results first “Fishing” is not immoral. Qualifications:

Make unanticipated findings “Study 1” and replicate.

Do not suppress important but counter-predicted results.

But simply getting it wrong is not a publishable story. Main Point: Make your most instructive finding the centerpiece.

Style of Methods Section

Version B

We created two conditions, getting a 10 week old kitten(pet owner condition) or getting a conflict resoluton book titled Be Nice, be Happy (book condition) on day one. We also supplied corresponding instructions to both groups, and told all subjects to rate their moods and record their conflicts for the next 8 weeks.

Version A

Participants were placed in either the pet condition or the book conditions. Pet condition participants were given a 10-week old kitten, and were supplied feeding and care instructions. Book condition participants received "Be Nice, Be Happy", a text on conflict resolution. All participants then completed conflict event reports and mood rating sheets twice a day, for 8 weeks.

Which version is better? Version A—adopts participants’ perspective

Methods—General Pointers Lead readers through the methods as if they were participants. Labeling Experimental Conditions

A  Participants in the pet owner condition ("PO participants"), ...B  Participants in the pet owner condition ("pet owner participants"), ...C  Participants in the pet owner condition ("Group 1 participants"),...

Which is best? B: Most clear, doesn’t require “back referencing” Rule of thumb—what’s the most user-friendly?

Level of Detail

A   Efforts to obtain kittens were hampered by inept animal shelter staff.

B   Pre-testing indicated that 6-8 week old kittens were most ready to form new bonds.

Which is best? B: Avoid tale of woes; do report important criteria. Rule of thumb—what’s helpful for replication?

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Main Analyses

Supplementary Analyses

ResultsI. Preliminary Analyses

a. How data were prepared for analyses

(1) Data coding

(2) Creating scales, subscales, reliabilities

b. Manipulation checks

c. Outliers

Main Analyses

a. Remind reader of main question

b. Remind how question was asked

c. Declare what stat used

d. Results in clear English

e. Support results with stats, numbers

f. Relate numbers to real behavior

Reporting Statistics: Form

A. Results show, as predicted, that pet owner subjects reported lower feelings of tension than did book owner subjects (p < .01).

OR B. Results were analyzed in a one way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). As predicted, pet owner subjects reported tension lower (M = 2.03, SD = 3.01) than did book owner subjects (M = 4.44, SD = 4.05), F (1, 46) = 4.56, p < .01, Eta2 = .24. Note that a rating of 2 = "low tension" and a rating of 4 = "high tension".

Reporting Statistics: Form

WRONG

Results show, as predicted, that pet owner subjects reported lower feelings of tension than did book owner subjects (p < .01). RIGHT

Results were analyzed in a one way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). As predicted, pet owner subjects reported tension lower (M = 2.03, SD = 3.01) than did book owner subjects (M = 4.44, SD = 4.05), F (1, 46) = 4.56, p < .01, Eta2 = .24. Note that a rating of 2 = "low tension" and a rating of 4 = "high tension".

* Describe statistic used* Report parameters (means, SDs)* Report statistic in full (metric, obtained value)* Report effect size (Eta2)* Relate rating numbers to values (i.e., 2 = "low tension")

Reporting Statistics: Standards and Manner

WHAT'S WRONG HERE?

In accord with predictions, cat owner subjects were arrested for barroom brawls (M = 1.13, SD = 0.98) less often than book-owner subjects (M = 1.57, SD = 1.01) , F (1, 59) = 2.23, p = .16.

Reporting Statistics: Standards and Manner

Levels of signifance:

p < .05 -- Standard significancep < .10 -- Marginal significance

p < .15 -- Non-significant trendp > .15 -- Not significant

NOTE: Not all sub-disciplines credit p > .05

In accord with predictions, cat owner subjects were arrested for barroom brawls (M = 1.13, SD = 0.98) less often than book-owner subjects (M = 1.57, SD = 1.01) , F (1, 59) = 2.23, p = .16.

Reporting Statistics: Standards and Manner

WHAT'S WRONG HERE?

Manipulation checks showed that cat owner subjects' history of aggression (M = 3.24, SD 1.15) did not differ from book owner subjects' history of aggression (M = 4.56, SD = 1.78) , F (1, 59) = 2.83, p = .08.

In accord with predictions, cat owner subjects reported marginally lower stress (M = 2.04, SD = 0.57) than did book-owner subjects (M = 2.98, SD = 1.11) , F (1, 59) = 3.01, p = .06.

Reporting Statistics: Standards and Manner

Inconsistent use of significance standard

Manipulation checks showed that cat owner subjects' prior history of aggression (M = 3.24, SD 1.15) did not differ from book owner subjects' prior history of aggression w (M = 4.56, SD = 1.78) , F (1, 59) = 2.83, p = .08.

In accord with predictions, cat owner subjects reported marginally lower stress (M = 2.04, SD = 0.57) than did book-owner subjects (M = 2.98, SD = 1.11) , F (1, 59) = 3.01, p = .06.

Reporting Statistics: Standards and Manner

WHAT'S WRONG HERE?

Manipulation checks showed that cat owner subjects' prior history of aggression (M = 3.24, SD 1.15) did not differ from book owner subjects' prior history of aggression w (M = 4.56, SD = 1.78) , F (1, 59) = 2.83, p = ns.

In accord with predictions, cat owner subjects reported marginally lower stress (M = 2.04, SD = 0.57) than did book-owner subjects (M = 2.98, SD = 1.11) , F (1, 59) = 3.01, p = .06.

Reporting Statistics: Standards and Manner

Avoid "p = ns", and don't use it electively

Manipulation checks showed that cat owner subjects' prior history of aggression (M = 3.24, SD 1.15) did not differ from book owner subjects' prior history of aggression w (M = 4.56, SD = 1.78) , F (1, 59) = 2.83, p = ns.

In accord with predictions, cat owner subjects reported marginally lower stress (M = 2.04, SD = 0.57) than did book-owner subjects (M = 2.98, SD = 1.11) , F (1, 59) = 3.01, p = .06.

Supplemental Analyses and Anecdotes

Supplemental Analyses:  Amplify main results, indicate processes The benefits of pet ownership may be mediated by mood. Pet owner participants reported more positive moods (M = 3.85, SD = 2.41) than did book owner subjects (M = 1.97, SD = 2.04), F (1, 59) = 7.86, p < .01. When mood was statistically controlled the effect of pet ownership on conflicts was no longer significant, F (1, 59) =1.33, p = 26.

Anecdotes:  Enliven main results  One pet owner participant, harassed by a hostile supervisor, reported"I wasn’t really all that upset. I understood his rage; he did not have a Publius to come home to."

GRAPHING DONE WRONG

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Pet Book

What’s wrong?

21. Y axis not labeled 2. No legend (can’t ID second factor) 3.       No title 4.       

Grid lines—get rid of them 5.        3-D: Not APA permitted; looks amateurish 6.        Bars not distinct colors 7.        Wrong font—use sans serif type (e.g., arial)

GRAPHING DONE RIGHT

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Pet Book

No. C

onfli

cts

Low StressHigh Stress

Figure X. The number of weekly at-work conflicts as a function of pet ownership and stress level at work.

Tables Done Wrong

  Low Stress High Stress

Pet 5.5 15.2

Book 3.6 5.5

1. Poorly titled.2. Formatting lines not correct3. Spacing is single, should be double4. Indep. variables (pet, stress) not labeled5. Means only one decimal; should be two.6. No standard deviation7. No indication of condition ns8. No indication of differences between conditions

Problems

Structure of Introduction

Begin broadly—locate your work in its theoretical domain.

This study concerns the relation between stress and conflict, and how affiliation can moderate this relation.

Become more specific, narrow down to your general question.

One important source of affiliation is pets. Pets can improvephysical health (Richards, 1978). However, less is known about the interpersonal benefits of having pets.

Target particular research question.

This study is concerned with how having a pet affects theability to deal effectively with interpersonal friction.

And finally state specific design and prediction.

Participants in this study were either given a kitten, or a book ondealing with conflicts. We predicted that kitten owners would getinto fewer at-work conflicts than would book owners.

Opening Statement: Which one is correct?

A People with pets appear to enjoy a number of emotional and interpersonal benefits. Some of these benefits, and their causes, received initial theoretical framing by Tarzan, Jane, & Cheetah (1938). Current research supports this early work.

B Tarzan, Jane, & Cheetah (1938) developed one of the earliest theories of pet ownership. From this and related research we know that people with pets appear to enjoy a number of emotional and interpersonal benefits.

Open with statement about people, not psychologists. A is correct.

Wording: Which is correct?

A  Does having a pet counteract dysphoria?

B  Does having a pet make people happier?

Avoid jargon. Use simplest language possible. B is correct.

Kent's Personal Pet (a-hem) Peeve

When individuals get into conflicts, work suffers.

When we are with a pet, we are more tolerant of others.

Thus, one might consider getting a pet to reduce stess-induced anger.

Some people get angry due to work stress, but when this happens to one, it is important that the individual find a way to cope.

So now what's wrong???

Kent's Personal Pet (a-hem) Peeve

When people individuals get into conflicts, work suffers.

When people we are with a pet, they we are more tolerant of others.

Thus, people one might consider getting a pet to reduce stess-induced anger.

Some people get angry due to work stress, but when this happens to them one, it is important that they the individual find a way to cope.

Much better

Discussion

Reverse Hour Glass Remind reader of main question, purpose of research Tell what study showed, in operational terms. Compare results to other, related research Relate research to broader issues, perhaps applications Discuss limitations of your research Conclusion

Tell what study showed in operational terms

This study tested whether owning a pet reduces work-related conflicts. Results confirm that this is so. Participants who received an 10-week old kitten (i.e., pet-owner subjects) had fewer conflicts, and recovered more quickly from conflicts, than did participants who received texts on conflict resolution (i.e., non pet-owner subjects).

Compare results to related research and theory.

Packard (1988) found that pet ownership increased interpersonal empathy and reduced playground violence among hyper-violent children.The current research suggests that a similar process may be occurring among normal adults in the context of work-place relations.

Caveats:  Discuss obvious limitations of research.

These findings may not extend to people with fur allergies.

The fit between pet and owner may be a critical moderator.

Closing -- Avoid banal endings: i.e., More research is clearly needed.

Try for ending that orients reader to new perspective.

Thus, not only should one work at being kind to pets,but perhaps having a pet will help us be kind at work.

Abstract Length: 120-150 words, depending on journal Content:

Problem under investigationSubjectsMethodFindingsConclusions and Implications

Not easy to cram all this in, and make it readable. But, this is the cover that people will see, and decide whether to read more.

Saying a Lot, With Little, to a General Audience

Strategic Redundancy is a Good Thing

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. Abraham Lincoln (1863) Gettysburg Address

In 2 parags, states: Who, when, where, why, and what.

Word count = 90

Larson, J.T., To, Y.M, & Fireman, G. (2007). Children’s understanding and experience of mixed emotions.

Psychological Science, 18, 186-191.

Though some models of emotion contend that happiness and sadness are mutually exclusive in experience, recent findings suggest that adults can feel happy and sad at the same time in emotionally complex situations. Other research has shown that children develop a better conceptual understanding of mixed emotions as they grow older, but no research has examined children’s actual experience of mixed emotions. To examine developmental differences of mixed emotions, we showed children ages 5 to 12 scenes from an animated film that culminated with a father and daughter’s bitter farewell. In subsequent interviews, older children were more likely than younger children to report experiencing mixed emotions. These results suggest that in addition to having a better conceptual understanding of mixed emotions, older children are more likely to actually experience mixed emotions in emotionally complex situations. [135 WORDS]

Workplace conflict diminishes productivity, increases absenteeism, and contributes to chronic illness. It is also stubbornly resistant to coaching and instruction. Pet ownership, in contrast, improves mood, reduces stress, and provides social support. This study tested whether pet ownership would reduce workplace conflict. Sixty employees at a blunt weapons factory (32% female) participated in a 10 week quasi-experiment. Half the participants received a 10 week old kitten (pet owner subjects) and the others received a conflict resolution text (book subjects). All subjects self-reported daily conflicts and mood over the next 10 days. Results showed that pet owner subjects reported and displayed fewer conflicts and improved mood compared to book subjects. The benefit of pet ownership appeared to be mediated by mood, as indicated by covariation tests. These findings recommend pet ownership as a means to reduce workplace conflict.

Word count = 137

ABSTRACT

Title

A. Not catty cuz of kitty: How furry friends fend off fury fits.

B. Interspecies cohabitation as an antidote to interpersonal conflict under varying conditions of aversive arousal.

C. Pet ownership reduces workplace conflict.

D. Does pet ownership reduce workplace conflict? A controlled study confirming the social support benefits of pet ownership among a demographically diverse workplace sample.

CORRECT TITLE? C

Length: 12 – 15 words

Should capture central theme of your research

Should include key words that promote location in data base search

Go for accuracy rather than cuteness

Re-Writing and Writing Tips Poor writing hinders publication: 15% - 20% articles rejected just on basis of writing.

Use standard terms throughout.  Be strategically redundant.

Right: Subjects in the pet owner condition (“pet owners”) received a 10 week old kitten. Pet owners were given instructions on proper pet care. Pet owners were also given a 10 week supply of cat food.

Use parallel construction

Right: Pet owners were contacted twice a month to ensure that they were following pet care instructions. Book owners were also contracted twice a month to ensure that they were also keeping up with required reading.

Set paper aside for a while, return to it when not so familiar. Get comments from friends Accept need to be compulsive about details Accept need to restructure the paper Be willing to “kill your darlings”. See the paper as an end in itself, not as a means to an end.

The End

Re-Writing and Writing Tips (continued)