Research method , research report

Read the fictional experiment , then write up the experiment as a practical research report adhering to APA FORMATTING conventions. Should include , title should be no more than 12 words Abstract Introduction Method : participants, measures/ materials, design, procedures Results Discussion NO WORD LIMIT The background and method to a fictional experiment is provided Title – Your report should contain an appropriate title reflective of the study conducted. Your title should be no more than 12 words.  Abstract – The abstract should contain a brief overview of the main aspects of the study- including the problem under investigation, the reason for conducting the study, the participants, the experimental method, the key findings, and conclusions. Your abstract should be no more than 200 words.  Introduction – Your introduction should provide an evidence-based and/or theory-based rationale for why the research was needed. You should present information about what has been done in this area by other researchers. However, all material should be pertinent and relevant to the research study and should lead directly to the aims of the research. Your introduction should move from a general discussion of the problem area and then become more specific, ending with a clear experimental hypothesis. The references below and further resources to help with your introduction are available via Blackboard. However, you will also need to conduct your own search of the literature to find research to support your arguments.  Method – This section should explain how the research was carried out so that somebody else could replicate the study. Details about the method can be found in the information provided below. Your method should be separated into the following sections: o Participants – Who took part in the study? How were they selected? Where were they selected from? How many participants were there? Report the appropriate descriptive statistics (e.g. mean, SD, percentages), to give information about the demographic characteristics (e.g. age, sex) of the participants from each condition/group separately. You may wish to create a table to present the demographic information. o Measures/Materials – State what equipment or instruments (e.g. questionnaires) were used to collect the data. There is no need to list objects that are self-evident (e.g. pens, paper etc.). o Design – State the design of the study. Was the design independent or repeated measures? What were your variables (IV / DV) and how were they operationalised? What were the different groups/conditions? How were people allocated to conditions/groups? o Procedure – How were the data gathered? (e.g. did people take part individually, in groups or at the same time? Where did the research take place? How were participants responses recorded? etc.). Make sure that all information included is important and relevant to how the results were obtained. o Ethics – What ethical considerations did the researcher take?  Results – A table of results is available at the end of this document. You should enter the data into SPSS and run descriptive statistics (i.e. mean, SD) and the appropriate inferential statistical test to examine whether there is a significant difference in the dependent variable between the groups/conditions. Remember to conduct the appropriate checks to confirm that the assumptions required for the test have been met. This section should outlined a summary of your findings. You should describe the data using descriptive statistics (means, SDs etc.) and report the results of the statistical test in numerical and sentence form. You may also wish to create a table or graph to display the results. Report statistics, tables, and graphs in adherence with APA format. You should outline the key findings but not provide any explanation for the findings at this stage. Do not include any raw data or SPSS output.  Discussion – You should start your discussion by re-stating the key findings. Do not re-state any statistical results here, only the conclusions from them. Relate these findings back to both your experimental hypothesis and previous research. Do the results support or contradict previous research? You should also consider the limitations of the current experiment and provide suggestions for how the experiment could be improved. If you can think of a future study that could be conducted to take this research forward you can also include this in your discussion. You should end your discussion with a clear and concise conclusion that summarises the main findings and their implications. The references below and further resources to help with your discussion are available via Blackboard. However, you will also need to conduct your own search of the literature to find research to support your arguments.  References – You should ensure that any research you have cited in your report is fully referenced in accordance with APA format Research Report Information Below is information about a fictional psychology experiment. Background Does fostering empathy increase charitable giving? Mail campaigns are frequently used by charities as a method of raising funds. However, this method of fundraising is often ineffective in soliciting large amounts of donations. According to the empathy-altruism hypothesis, empathy evoIO-kes altruistic motivation and increases prosocial behaviour (Batson et al., 1991). Inducing empathy may, therefore, be an effective method of improving charitable giving within the context of requests for donations (Farrelly & Bennett, 2018). A particularly effective method of evoking empathy for another person is perspective taking: that is adopting the perspective of another individual in need (Davis, 1994). Thus, one way in which mail campaigns could evoke empathy in individuals receiving requests for donations is to encourage them to engage in perspective taking. Warren and Walker (1991) examined the effectiveness of this strategy by encouraging people who received written requests for donations to imagine themselves in the needy other’s circumstances. However, this empathy manipulation was not successful in increasing charitable giving. Batson, Early, and Salvarani (1997) suggest that there are two different forms of perspective taking: imagining how you would feel and imagining how another feels. Results from their study suggests that both of these forms of perspective taking induce empathy. However, imagining how you would feel also induces personal distress. This is an important distinction because research has shown that feelings of empathy increase individuals’ altruistic motivation to engage in prosocial behaviour in order to reduce the distress of the person in need. In contrast, feelings of personal distress increase individuals’ egoistic motivations and promote behaviour designed to escape or reduce the individuals own negative emotional state (Batson, 2008; Batson et al., 1997; Cialdini et al., 1987). It is, therefore, possible that the empathic manipulation in Warren and Walker’s (1991) experiment failed to increase charitable giving because it encouraged participants to imagine how they would feel in the needy other’s circumstances, rather than asking participants to imagine how the other person felt. Experiment The aim of the experiment was to investigate whether imagining how another in need feels is more effective in increasing charitable giving than imagining how you would feel in the needy others situation. The researchers recruited an opportunity sample of 200 undergraduate psychology students to take part in the study, 160 of which agreed to participate. The students were given written information about the study and provided informed consent before participating. No monetary or course credit inducements were offered. At the beginning of a lecture, the students were given a letter about a fictional charity that were raising money for a homeless shelter. The letters given out included an introduction about the problem of homelessness and a request for financial donations. All letters were identical with the exception of one manipulation: the form of perspective taking. Half of the letters encouraged the person reading the letter to imagine how they would feel if they were homeless (imagine-self condition). The other half of the letters encouraged the person reading the letter to imagine how the person who was homeless might feel (imagine-other condition). Students were randomly assigned to a condition and were not aware that some students had received different letters. After reading the letter once, participants were asked to answer the question “if you received this letter in the post, how prepared would you be to donate money to the cause?”. Responses were recorded on a scale from 1 (not at all prepared) to 10 (completely prepared). After the experiment was complete, participants were fully debriefed. The research was provided with ethical approval from the University of Worcester. References Batson, C. D. (2008). Empathy-induced altruistic motivation. Presented at the prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior symposium. Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Slingsby, J. K., Harrell, K. L., Peekna, H. M., & Todd, R. M. (1991). Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 61(3), 413 – 426. Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imaging how you would feel. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 23(7), 751 – 758. Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., & Beamman, A. L. (1987). Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly of selfishly motivated? Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(4), 749 – 758. Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark. Farrelly, D., & Bennett, M. (2018). Empathy leads to increased online charitable behaviour when time is the currency. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 42–46. Warren, P. E., & Walker, I. (1991). Empathy, effectiveness and donations to charity: Social psychology’s contribution. British journal of Social Psychology, 30(4), 325 – 337.