1 2 3

Get our Mobile App
at m.chester.ac.uk and sign in
with your student account.
Always keep the app updated.
Connect To UoC WiFi
Turn On Bluetooth
Turn On GPS / Location
Services
Open the Mobile App
Tap Check In within 30 minutes.
Can’t see the correct event? Pull
down to refresh.

Can’t Check In? See your tutor after class.

Talk to your Department’s Student Attendance Contact.
Need Help? See the LIS Helpdesk in the library for technical issues.
Check portal.chester.ac.uk/attendance for more information.
PS7301: Researching Thought
and Behaviour
How to write a quantitative lab
report
 Brief reminder of experiment
(run on 12 December 2018)
• Social Priming, Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg
(1998), Experiment 1, attempt to replicate
• Independent Variable (IV, a.k.a. “factor”):
Priming condition
• Three levels: Professor Priming, Secretary
Priming, Control (doodling)
• Dependent Variable (DV): score (0-42) on a
Trivial Pursuit-based general knowledge quiz
 Hypotheses
• “…we investigated the impact of stereotype priming on overt behavior.
In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were primed with the stereotype
of professors, of which intelligence and knowledgeability are central
features. We hypothesized that on a subsequent, ostensibly unrelated,
general knowledge task, the participants' performance would be
enhanced when compared with performance in no-prime and
intelligence irrelevant control conditions. “(D & v K, 1998, p. 868)
• Hypothesis for global ANOVA (if replicating): There will be a
significant effect of priming condition on the trivial pursuit
score (note H0: not)
• More specific hypotheses:
• Professor Priming > Secretary Priming AND
• Professor Priming > Control.
 Design and analysis of the study
• 1 x 3 design:
• One IV (priming condition), three levels (professor priming,
secretary priming, control)
• One DV: score on Trivial Pursuit (0 - 42)
• Analysis:
– Diagnostic tests for data screening (normality, homogeneity of
variance)
– One-way ANOVA (between subjects, independent samples), to be
reported alongside descriptive statistics (means and SDs), effect size,
Bayesian statistics
– Any appropriate pairwise comparisons (a priori or post hoc) if
justified (might not be, be prepared to justify briefly either way)
 Sections of a quantitative report
• Title –
• Abstract –
• Introduction – WHY?
• Method – HOW?
– (Participants, Materials, Procedure, Design & Analysis) – guided by original
Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) paper, Experiment 1, but describe our
study in sufficient detail so that replication of ours can take place.
• Results – WHAT?
– Diagnostic, descriptive, inferential, Bayesian statistics ( + follow-up pairwise
comparisons only if needed)
• Discussion – SO WHAT?
• References – APA format
• Appendix or appendices
 Conventions
• Conventional location of information (sections
/ subsections) – helps reader find info
• Conventional reporting format (helps
standardise, ensures all relevant info is
available)
• APA format: American Psychological
Association, Style Manual, edition 6 (APA6).
 General advice
• Point of view: researcher
• Tense: past tense – all the way through (because written
after study is completed)
• Active voice now preferred (“we showed stimuli”), passive
used to be preferred (“stimuli were shown”), and is also still
acceptable and avoids awkward I / we issues.
• Academic writing style, evidence-based arguments, scholarly
(references), concise, very clear, relevant information only.
• Look at example papers in the field to gain ideas / models of
how to write this up (without plagiarising)
 Word count
• Word limits: The word count is 2,000 words (+10%, if needed). From
the University of Chester Regulations: "Permissible word count excludes
the student’s name, title of module and assignment, references to
sources, bibliography*, graphs, tables, maps, diagrams, captions and
appendices. These lie outside the stated word limit.”
• * for “bibliography”, read “list of references”
•
• After clarification, we discovered that in-text citations within brackets
do NOT count towards the word count:
• 1) “This was not significant (Smith, 2011)”  “Smith, 2011” does not
count towards word count.
• ...but in-text citations that are not in brackets DO count towards the
word count:
• 2) “Smith (2011) found that...”  “Smith” counts towards word count
 Title
• As brief as possible, about 12 words is ideal, with some variation
• No uninformative words
• Catches the essence, invites to read
• Using DV / IV can be useful
• Using “replication” in title may be useful in this case
– Bad title: Investigating the effects of the Digit Span Task on the
processes of working memory, using three conditions; a control
condition, an articulatory suppression task and a spatial suppression
task. (too long, too much info)
– Bad title: Memory experiment (too short, not specific enough)
– Good title: The effect of verbal and spatial interference on the
retention of digits
 Abstract
• Often written last
• Must contain information on each section
• From intro: background / rationale
• From method: essence of what you did
• From results: bottom-line findings, not much detail
• From discussion: implications / interpretation/ theory
• In most APA: one paragraph, length around 150 words
(150-250 is a common range in journals).
• Counts towards word count
 Introduction
• Focused (not a general essay on topic)
• “Funnel” structure (broader to narrower)
• Sets out rationale of study in context of prior theoretical /
empirical work, which it cites
– Some social priming literature AND account of the replication crisis
both needed to build the rationale. Keep it streamlined.
• Ends with hypotheses, which often necessitates a little
information on the operationalisation just before (e.g. IV / DV)
• Coherent line of argument / story, not loose collection of
paragraphs. Use “signposting” prose elements, see e.g. http://
www.sagepub.com/redman/8.2.pdf
 Method
• Important message:
• Enough information to allow for replication
• Traditional subsections (more shortly)
• Put information in the correct subsection
• Be comprehensive, yet concise
• Do not include irrelevant information
 Method subsections
• Participants
• Materials
• Procedure
• Design and analysis
 Method: Participants
• How many (see SPSS file), how allocated to conditions
(randomly handed out), how many in each condition
(see SPSS), characteristics (MSc students, two
programmes), (relevant demographics only if available –
do not make them up)
• Ends with statement: Ethical approval was given by the
University of Chester Psychology Department Ethics
Committee. Participants were treated in accordance
with the ethical guidelines of the British Psychological
Society. (or phrasing variant of your choice)
 Method: Materials
• Describe materials that were prepared before the experiment ran
– Trivial pursuit questions
• Describe design features (e.g. multiple choice versions of trivial pursuit
questions created especially, equal numbers from each question category),
numbers of questions(42), number of multiple choices (4) etc.
• Do not include: Participant information sheet or consent form (no need), or
scoring sheet as materials. They were subsidiary paperwork, but not
experimental materials.
• Include one or two multiple choice questions as examples in your materials
subsection so that the reader can understand the nature of the questions.
Add “see PS7301 Moodle Page for full list”.
– Note in e.g. a dissertation you may include lists of materials as an Appendix and
would refer to the Appendix in the main body of the text e.g. “See Appendix A for a
full list of questions”
 Method: Procedure
• Give a blow-by-blow account of what happened to
participants from start to end of experiment
• Include instructions, sequence of events, timings, etc.
Use slides / booklets available via Moodle to
reconstruct these details
• Briefly mention informed consent, but no need to go
into detail unless you want to highlight special features
(e.g. deception-relevant features).
• NOT the place to introduce features of materials for
the first time. Do this in Materials.
 Method: Design & Analysis
• State IV and levels, DV, state type of design
(within / between subjects)
• Outline analysis technique(s) briefly – as you
will report analysis shortly anyway.
• Can include justification for analysis choices if
needed here or in results, whichever fits best.
• Should be a very brief subsection.
 Results
• Open with some prose on the scoring (scoring should not be part of the procedure subsection
of the method)
• If you carried out data screening, that can be next (e.g., normality homogeneity of variance)
• Descriptives (means and SDs) can be embedded in ANOVA reporting sentence or presented
separately, whichever suits your style / presentation
• Include an effect size, for ANOVA usually (partial) eta squared and include the Bayes Factor
(the analysis would ordinarily be either frequentist or Bayesian, but we’ll use a hybrid here for
teaching purposes)
• End with any planned or post hoc comparisons, if used, or state that no further tests were
carried out. Briefly justify your choice either way (with citations, if useful).
• Make sure the reader has a clear idea of what you found. Comment on direction of difference
if appropriate.
• It is OK to briefly state whether hypotheses were supported, but do not interpret in the
Results section why or why not – leave that for the Discussion.
• This section will also be relatively brief as the results are relatively simple.
• As your findings become more complex (e.g. for dissertation), a summary of the findings can
be useful to end the results section.
 Discussion
• Briefly summarise the findings to open the section.
• Then interpret / explain your findings: What do these mean in relation to the original
research idea / theory / hypotheses / previous findings?
• If null result: discuss issues of statistical power (were there enough participants to
detect an effect of this size? Can the effect size or Bayes Factor help decide between
a type II error vs. a genuine null effect?
• If significant result: discuss in relation to hypotheses
• Either way: How do the results affect previous theoretical thinking (if they do?) or
how do they complement the previous pool of empirical work?
– If there are multiple interpretations of your findings, marshall literature to help you evaluate
the plausibility of each.
• Talk about context (e.g. in our case, the issue of replication).
• Were variations in methodology between our replication and the original paper
potentially responsible for differences in results? – consider relevant methodological
issues, again marshalling literature to underpin arguments that you put forward.
• End with brief concluding statement.
 References
• List references in alphabetical order in APA format
• Only list references cited in the text
– Make sure you cite all relevant sources, in relation to plagiarism vs.
originality / academic integrity, which is very bad for your academic record
– Word-for-word quotations need to be quoted following APA guidelines:
“quoted words” (author(s), year, page number)
– CHECK INDUCTION SLIDES ABOUT ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AGAIN IF NEEDED
(SEE PROGRAMME MOODLE PAGE)
• Double-check for completeness and formatting.
• Takes time – allow enough time.
– Keep good records. Technology can be useful aid (e.g. EndNote, Evernote
screen clipping etc.)
 Appendix / Appendices
• A space for material that is too long to include
in main section
• Typically used for e.g. lists of sentences,
scenarios, long instructions in full.
• In our case, not needed. Just include the
reference to the list on Moodle.
 Marking and achievement
• Level 7 marking criteria, used in conjunction
with advice on conventions and content in this
lecture.
• At the top end, greater sophistication and
“professional feel” / “journal article feel” will
boost grade
• To feel confident that you will pass, inspect
marking criteria closely. Ask for advice if
unsure.
 Module-based support
• Workshop now: supported writing using a template
– Suggest results and method can be best to write / plan
first while support is on hand
• Workshop next week 6 February 2019, opportunity
to work and also “draft reading” – i.e. show you
tutor a paragraph and / or an outline plan, in line
with the postgraduate draft reading policy (see
module handbook).
• Email support can be useful for quick queries. Please
look in the documentation first. Please only ask your
own lab tutor.
Department-based general statistical support

• For more general help, there is a drop-in

statistics surgery.
• Postgraduates: Wednesday 9:15-9:45 and 17-
17:30, Not for module-specific queries (e.g.
lab report)
 University-based Support
• LTI Study Skills https://
portal.chester.ac.uk/lti/Pages/study-skills-for-students.aspx
– Maths and stats support
– Writing and referencing support
• Study Skills e-Resources, Seminars (including bespoke
seminars for > 5 students), FeedForward E-assistance (partial
draft check for issues, 3 working days by email), One-to-one
appointments (max 5 per year), can be other campus or Skype
• Follow link above for more details