Psych 225 Lecture 4Outline of Last Lecture 1) Lab Check-Lit ReviewOutline of Current Lecture 1) Paper updates/edits2) Fiske and Fogg articleCurrent LectureChange paper: add page numbers, fix headers, and adjust margins to all be 1”~change title to not include “effect of” etc. of authoritarianism because it is not a manipulated variable-the judge’s instruction is what is manipulated ~add that RWA was a 9 point scale of 15 items; lowest RWA scale anyone could get: 15 and 135 is the highest (material section) -reverse coding of every other item: gets people to stop and think about each item; you can’t just always say you support or disagree with all items right away without processing ~look at Brehm’s theory and reactance theory: “Brehem (as cited in Edwards & Bryans, 1997) argued that” (example) -cronbach’s alpha: internal consistency of those 15 items on a scale: to what extent do those items belong together; the highest the cronbach’s alpha is the more related they are and more likely that findings like ours could be reproduced ~give a few examples of items on the RWA scale/questionnaire -Google image should be sited in the references section Slide: Fiske and Fogg (1990)These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.-authors in psychology can only send their manuscript to one journal at a time and then have to wait for the review -send to a journal that is focused on your topic, and that is realistically at your level of writing Slide: Fiske and Fogg1) probability (manuscript will be accepted for publication): about 2%-on the first submission2) # of reviewers per manuscriptPossible outcomes~accepted~rejected~revise and resubmit 3) Method of Fiske and Fogg: content analysis~reviewers reports and editors decision letters~153 first submissions Slide: Fiske and Fogg Continued-broad range of APA journals-categorized and counted critical critiques? SEE SLIDESlide: Fiske and Fogg4) coded weaknesses, not strengths, why?-5) number of coders? Agreement on whether specific weaknesses belonged in categories?-severity of problems?Fiske and Fogg-Weakness from Table 1~interpretations and conclusions (Discussion): 16.1%~conceptual: pre-study (Intro): 15.2 -hard thinking kinds of issues*see slides for other study resultsRatio of criticism: broad categories~presentation: 2/3 ~execution: 1/3F&F eval of performance of reviewers?-recommendations to authors? ~have reviewers be critical ~testable hypothesis of supporting evidence ~stats drive study ~threats to internal validity ~reliability coefficient Categorical Variables -nominal variables/scaling: mutually exclusive categories that have numbers that are arbitrary: just separate categories ~ex. guilty vs. not guilty -does IV effect verdict? -logic of chi square test tells us that whatever the overall pattern is, it should be duplicated across the categories -formula on pg. 5 of course packet for chi square-expected certainty % for a category-higher difference the more powerful; more categories degrees of freedom: df= (r-1) (c-1) -doesn’t have to be dramatic; even subtle differences between observed and expected can make a
View Full Document
Unlocking...