Research Paper Continuation: Follow Paper 2 Instructions and write according to instructions (I have attached a sample paper and structured out the format for Paper 2). - I have attached Paper 1 inst

COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING 1

The running head is a shortened version of the paper's title that appears on every page. It is written in all capitals, and it should be flush left in the document's header. No "Running head:" label is included in APA 7. It should be fewer than 50 characters (including spaces and punctuation)

Page numbers begin on the first page and follow on every subsequent page without interruption. No other information (e.g., authors' last names) are required.

Authors' names appear two lines below the title. They should be written as follows: first name, middle initial(s), last name- Omit all professional titles and/or degrees (e.g., Dr., Rev., PhD, MA).

Authors' affiliations follow immediately after their names.

Former Student

Florida International University

The paper's title should be centered, bold, and written in title case. It should be three or four lines below the top margin of the page. In this sample paper, we've put three blank lines above the title.

Method

Method is a level 1 heading - bold and centered Participants is a level 2 heading – Flush left and bold

Participants

All paragraph indented, 5-7 spaces

One hundred and twenty six students from Florida International University were randomly selected to participate in our study. Of these 126 participants, 37% (n = 47) were male and 63% (n = 79) were female. Ages ranged from a minimum of 17 to a maximum of 58 with an average of 22.32 years (SD = 6.30). Our sample consisted of 68.3% Hispanic Americans (n = 86), 8.7% African Americans (n = 11), 19% Caucasians (n = 24), 1.6% Asians (n = 2), and 2.4% who did not specify their ethnicity (n = 3).

Materials and Procedure is a level 2 heading – Flush left and bold

n, SD, M in italics

Materials and Procedure

In accordance with the standardized guidelines for informed consent, prospective participants were notified of the potential risks and benefits of participating in the study before being introduced to the research material. If the student verbally agreed to participate, he or she was given one of three different documents, each of which consisted of four parts or sections. In part one of the study, the participant read a short scenario concerning a paraplegic couple, Tina and Eugene, who requested a taxi for a night out with friends and when the taxi arrives, the driver promptly declines their fare upon seeing that they were both paraplegic. Each of the three documents depicted the same initial situation with alternate conditions (changeable, unchangeable, or neutral) that ultimately led to different outcomes of events.

In the changeable condition, Tina and Eugene decided to take Tina’s car, which was handicap equipped. A bridge along their route collapses mere minutes before the couple reached it. Unable to see the missing portion of the bridge in the night, Tina and Eugene drove off the road, into the river below, and drowned. The taxi driver, who had left 15 minutes earlier, managed to make it safely across, before the collapse. In the unchangeable condition, the situation remained mostly the same with the exception that the taxi driver arrived at the bridge after it had collapsed and plummeted into the water as well. He managed to make it out of the car and swim to safety, but Tina and Eugene drowned. In the neutral condition, the taxi driver did eventually agree to take Tina and Eugene to their destination downtown, albeit after much argument. Due to the recently collapsed bridge, the taxi driver drove his passengers and himself off the road and into the river below. He barely managed to make it out of the car before drowning. Tina and Eugene’s outcome remained the same.

After reading one of the scenarios described above, the participant continued on to the remainder of the study, which was composed of a series of open, partially open, and close-ended questions. In part two, the student participating in the study was asked to procure as many ‘If Only’ statements as possible, meaning that they had to list all the factors they could think of that could have possibly changed the outcome of the event. In part three, the participant was presented with a series of questions about their thoughts regarding the specific situation they read about. After reading each question, the participant was asked to record his or her response in a scale of one to nine. These questions included how avoidable they thought the accident was (1 = not at all avoidable, 9 = very avoidable) and how much blame the taxi driver deserved for the event (1 = no blame at all, 9 = total blame). The last question of part three was a yes or no question that asked the participant whether the taxi driver agreed to drive the couple or not. This final question served as an attention check, which informed us if the participant was actually attentive to the study and allowed us to exclude potentially misrepresentative responses form our data. Part four asked for the participant’s demographic information, including gender, age, ethnicity, their first language, and whether they were a student at Florida International University. Concluding the study, the participant was debriefed on his or her contribution to the study as well as our insights on counterfactual thinking and our main hypothesis.

Anchor points are in italics

Although we had several dependent variables, our primary focus involved the perceived blameworthiness of the taxi driver, the number of ‘If Only’ statements the participants could create, and the manipulation check regarding whether the driver agreed to take the couple. We hypothesized that participants would find the taxi driver more blameworthy for the couple’s death in the changeable condition, since he refused to drive Tina and Eugene while safely passing over the bridge himself. We also predicted that the participants in the changeable condition would generate more counterfactual (‘If Only’) statements than in the unchangeable or neutral conditions.

This is how you should write a significant p value

Results

Using survey condition (changeable vs. unchangeable vs. neutral) as our independent variable and whether participants recalled whether the taxi driver picked up the paraplegic couple as the dependent variable, we ran a manipulation check. The test was significant, χ2(2) = 93.95, p < .05. Participants in the changeable and unchangeable conditions correctly said the taxi did not pick up the couple (95.2% and 90.5%, respectively) while few participants in the neutral condition said the driver picked up the couple (4.8%). Phi showed a large effect (.99). This indicates that participants did pay attention to whether the taxi driver picked up the couple. See Appendix A..

Chi- square

For our main analysis, our first One-Way ANOVA test was conducted with the scenario conditions (changeable, unchangeable, or neutral) as the independent variable, and perceived blameworthiness of the taxi driver as our dependent variable. The test was significant, F(2, 122) = 3.55, p < .05. A subsequent Tukey post hoc test demonstrated that participants were more likely to blame the taxi driver in the changeable condition (M = 4.51, SD = 2.06) than in the unchangeable condition (M = 3.38, SD = 2.14). However, there were no significant difference for perceived blame between the neutral condition (M = 4.36, SD = 2.11) and either the changeable or unchangeable conditions. See Appendix B..

Write the results of the post hoc test: the comparison between the groups

This is how you should write a not significant p value

We were also interested in the number of ‘If Only’ statements generated for each condition. We ran a One-Way ANOVA test using the different conditions (changeable, unchangeable, or neutral) as our independent variable, and the number of counterfactuals produced as our dependent variable. The results revealed that the relationship between condition and number of ‘If Only’ statements produced was not significant, F (2, 123) = 1.79, p = .171. The number of counterfactuals generated in the changeable condition (M = 5.41, SD = 2.21), the unchangeable condition (M = 4.57, SD = 2.04), and the neutral condition (M = 4.88, SD = 1.85) did not differ. See Appendix C.

The heading discussion is a 1st level heading

Discussion

We predicted that participants would place more blame on an actor whose behavior led to an undesirable outcome (death) when that actor could have acted differently primarily because these participants would generate more “If Only” counterfactual statements that would lead them to see the outcome could have been avoided. Conversely, we predicted that participants who read about an undesirable outcome that could not have been avoided would assign less blame to the actor and would think of fewer counterfactual “If Only” statements. Results partially supported these predictions, as we did find more blame for in the changeable condition compared to the unchangeable (though neither differed from the neutral condition). However, the number of counterfactual statements that participants generated did not differ among our three conditions. It could be that participants were unfamiliar with the counterfactual task, which requires some deep thinking, though on a more unconscious level they could have seen the changeable condition as evidencing more elements of blame. This begs the question: what if participants were forced to think deeper? This is the focus of our second study.

This last two sentence is nice segue to the next lit review

Appendix A

Appendix is a level 1 heading.

Table must have a title and heading

Title tells me what type of statistics is in the table

These are not indented

Table 1.

Percentages (counts) of recalled scenario

*p<.05

No vertical line

Horizontal lines only at top and bottom of header and bottom of table

Table must be double spaced

Significance

Appendix B

Tables do not have to be in individual appendices, but they need to be on one page – not overlapping

Table 2.

Means and standard deviations of ANOVA results for the perceived blameworthiness and Number of Counterfactuals by type of scenario

*p<.05. **p<.001

Appendix C

Table 3. (Only necessary if you completed a t test)

Mean and standard deviation of t test results for the perceived blameworthiness

*p<.05