Counterfactual Thinking & Need for Cognition Selfie-Posting Literature Review Purpose of Paper V (Final Paper) 1). Psychological Purpose The psychologica

Counterfactual Thinking & Need for Cognition Selfie-Posting Literature Review Purpose of Paper V (Final Paper)

1). Psychological Purpose

The psychological purpose behind Paper V is to present your final paper. Essentially this paper will be similar to any article you would find in an academic journal. It will include a Title Page, Abstract, Literature Review (study one), Methods Section (study one), Results Section (study one), Brief Discussion Section (study one), Literature Review (study two), Methods Section (study two), Results Section (study two), Brief Discussion Section (study two), General Discussion Section, References, and Appendices. The good news is that for most of this paper you will simply combine Paper I, Paper II, Paper III, and Paper IV (including any needed revisions) for Paper V. Two new components for Paper V include the Abstract and a General Discussion section.

The Abstract is one of the first items readers see. You need to convey a lot of information in this very short paragraph, as the potential reader will decide whether to read your full paper based on the information in the Abstract. There are several elements needed in the Abstract about both of your studies, including information about: a). your research questions, b). your participants, c). your experimental methodology, d). your findings, and e). your conclusions. Being able to write a precise yet succinct Abstract takes some effort, so make sure you go through several drafts before settling on your final version. Make sure to include keywords / key phrases as well (remember entering keywords into PsycInfo when you searched for articles? The authors actually recommended those keywords, so if you want to increase the number of times your paper comes up for readers, use good keywords!)

Your General Discussion section will also be new in Paper V. Here, you will summarize your results from BOTH studies and draw conclusions, but you will NOT use statistics again. This section will evaluate both of your studies and see if (and how) they connect and lead you to general conclusions. That is, your general discussion is the end of your story, so make sure to tie it back to information that you presented throughout both of your studies. You can also identify flaws in your study designs as well as propose new directions for future research in this section.

2). APA Formatting Purpose

Paper V should follow all APA formatting guidelines. See our feedback on prior papers, use Chapter 14 in your textbook, and look at the instructions on the next page for help with formatting

3). Writing Purpose

Paper V is your final paper in the course, and it should reflect the skills and knowledge you have developed throughout the semester. You should be able to convey information to an educated reader, but one who is unfamiliar with your specific study and the content area. More importantly, many students use Paper V as their writing sample for graduate school applications, thus your paper should be grammatically correct and easy to read yet informative for a reader who may have little to no knowledge of your specific topic. Thus educate your reader, but keep in mind that your reader is probably intelligent.

Note that the plagiarism limit for Paper V is 50%. I expect less overlap in your lit reviews and discussions than in the methods / results. As usual, references, citations, and predictions are not included in the plagiarism limit.

Instructions for Paper V: Final Paper (Worth 75 Points)

Note that these instructions relate to the whole paper, but I concentrate on the Abstract and Discussion below since those are new elements in this paper. Refer to the instructions for Paper III: Study Two Literature Review for information on the study one literature review, methods, results, and discussion and the study two literature review and references. Refer to Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results and Discussion for information on the methods, results and discussion for study two.

Title Page: I expect the following format (1 point):
This Title Page section will be one (1) page in proper APA format
Abstract (7 points) NEW SECTION
The Abstract starts on its own page, with the word Abstract centered (not bolded).
Make sure your header and page number is still on this abstract page
The abstract should be between 150 and 200 words, and must include all of the following elements
Identify your general problem or research question
Note your participants
Note your experimental method
Note your findings for both studies
Note your conclusions about the studies as a whole
Keywords / phrases are required for your paper (at least 5 keywords or phrases)
Literature Review (Study One): I expect the following format (6 points):
Include your revised literature review from Paper III: Study Two Literature Review. Those instructions continue to apply to this section (recall that you revised the study one literature review for Paper III, so that Paper III literature review will be your most recent version of that study one literature review)
The study one literature review must have minimum of two (2) full pages of text (not including the hypotheses) and a maximum of five (5) pages
Methods Section (Study One): I expect the following format (6 points):
Include your revised methods section from Paper III: Study Two Literature Review. Those instructions continue to apply to this section
There is no set minimum or maximum on the length of the methods section, but I would expect at least a page as you detail your materials and procedure. Missing important aspects of your IVs and DVs or presenting them in a confused manner will lower your score in this section
Results Section (Study One): I expect the following format (6 points):
Include your revised results section from Paper III: Study Two Literature Review. Those instructions continue to apply to this section
Like the methods section, there is no page minimum of maximum for the results section, though I would expect it to be at least a paragraph or two for each of the dependent variables you analyzed
Brief Discussion (Study One): I expect the following format (1 point):
Include a brief description of your study one findings (but avoid using statistics)
I expect a paragraph or two, revised from Paper III: Study Two Literature Review.
Literature Review (Study Two): I expect the following format (6 points):
Include your revised literature review from Paper III: Study Two Literature Review. Those instructions continue to apply to this section
The study two literature review must have minimum of two (2) full pages of text (with or without hypotheses) and a maximum of five (5) pages
Methods Section (Study Two): I expect the following format (6 points):
Include your revised methods section from Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Discussion, and Results. Those instructions continue to apply to this section
There is no set minimum or maximum on the length of the methods section, but I would expect at least a page as you detail your materials and procedure. Missing important aspects of your IVs and DVs or presenting them in a confused manner will lower your score in this section
Results Section (Study Two): I expect the following format (6 points):
Include your revised results section from Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results, Discussion. Those instructions continue to apply to this section
Like the methods section, there is no page minimum of maximum for the results section, though I would expect it to be at least a paragraph or two for each of the dependent variables you analyzed
Brief Discussion (Study Two): I expect the following format (1 point):
Include a brief description of your study one findings (but avoid using statistics)
I expect a paragraph or two, revised from Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results, Discussion
General Discussion (12 points) NEW SECTION
Write the word General Discussion at the top of this section and center it. This section comes directly at the end of the brief discussion section from study two, so the general discussion section DOES NOT start on its own page. See the example paper for some formatting visual hints.
At the beginning of this section, give a brief reminder of your predictions from both study one and study two. Then provide a discussion of your results. In English (not statistics), tell me what you found. In this discussion, you should talk about all of the following:
An explanation of your findings – across both studies, did your results support or not support your hypothesis?
If you found support, tie it in with the prior research you cited in your literature review as well as your predictions. You may want to refer back to your literature review, and re-cite some of the studies you mentioned there (I really recommend that, in fact!).
If you didn’t find any support for your hypotheses, contrast your findings with prior research. You can highlight differences in your methodologies. You may also find other studies that either support your results or help explain why you found what you found.
If one study found support and the other did not, try to explain the discrepancy.
In a nutshell, tell me how both studies help inform the reader about the nature of your variables and how they impact human behavior.
Next, examine study limitations – would other methods have been better? Were there problems with your study that a follow-up study should fix?
Propose future directions for research – If you could do your studies over again, what would you change? Or how might you expand them?
Optional: Talk about the ethics of your study – Did you follow ethical guidelines? Were participants harmed in any manner
The general discussion section must have minimum of one (1) full page of text and a maximum of three (3) pages. If it is only one pages, it better be very, very good! I actually expect to see closer to two pages
References: I expect the following format (6 points):
Include your revised references from Paper III: Literature Review (Study Two)
Include any new references you may have cited in the discussion section
References start on their own page
Follow all APA formatting rules for the references
We will mark off per number of error, so really make sure to proofread this. The same error in six references will leave you with zero points!
Appendices (3 points)
Here, simply include the eight appendices (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H) from Papers II and IV. Make sure each are clearly labeled. You might have more than eight, but you should have eight minimum
Overall writing quality (8 points)
Make sure you check your paper for proper spelling and grammar. The FIU writing center is available if you want someone to look over your paper (an extra eye is always good!) and give you advice. I highly recommend them, as writing quality will become even more important on future papers. NOTE that this writing quality is nearly 10% of your final paper grade, so I suggest you proofread!
You can also visit the Research Methods Help Center for some help or just someone to glance over your final paper.

Other Guidelines for Paper V: The Final Paper

1). Pay attention to the page length requirements
2). Page size is 8 1/2 X 11” with all 4 margins set at on inch on all sides. You must use a 12-point Times New Roman font. Double space EVERYTHING
3). When summarizing articles for your lit review and doing so in your own words, make sure you still cite the original source. Always use proper referencing procedures, which means that:
If you are inserting a direct quote from any source, it must be enclosed in quotations and followed by a parenthetical reference to the source. “Let’s say I am directly quoting this current sentence and the next. I would then cite it with the author name, date of publication, and the page number for the direct quote” (Winter, 2016, p . 4).
Note: We will deduct points if you quote more than three times in the whole paper, so keep quotes to a minimum. Paraphrase instead, but make sure you still give the original author credit for the material by citing it or using the author’s name (“In this article, Smith noted that …” or “In this article, the authors noted that…”)
4). PLEASE use a spell checker to avoid unnecessary errors. Proofread everything you write. I actually recommend reading some sentences aloud to see if they flow well, or getting family or friends to read your work.
Finally, go look at the supporting documents for this paper. Like prior papers, there is a checklist, a grade rubric, and an example paper for Paper V. All will give you more information about what we are specifically looking for as well as a visual example of how to put it all together in your paper. Good luck! Running head: SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION
Scenario Mutability and Need for Cognition: Appointing Blame
Former Student
Florida International University
1
SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION
2
Abstract
Research shows that Need for Cognition (NFC) and scenario mutability (how easy it is to alter
the outcome of an event) can play a role in the way people interpret those outcomes. The current
studies analyzed culpability assessed when a situation varied in mutability (in study one and two)
and when the NFC of each subject was assessed (study two). In both studies, undergraduate
participants read a scenario involving a taxi-accident in which an undesirable outcome could
have been avoided (changeable) or was unavoidable (unchangeable). In both studies, the
participants generated as many “If Only” statements as they could and rated how much blame the
actor in the scenario deserved for the undesirable outcome. For both studies, participants
assessed more blame in the changeable condition, but neither scenario nor NFC impacted
counterfactual statement generation. These results suggest that the mutability of a scenario is
important, but that counterfactual statements may explain how participants assess that mutability.
Keywords: need for cognition, counterfactual thinking, “If Only” statements, changeable
condition, unchangeable condition
SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION
3
Scenario Mutability and Need for Cognition: Appointing Blame
As free-willed beings, humans are often the victims of their own decisions. Imagine
accidentally running over a stray cat because you decided to look away from the road at the exact
moment the cat decided to cross the street. Following the accident, most people would be
plagued with thoughts of how alternative circumstances or decisions could have prevented such
an unfortunate situation. Every time an individual forms a ‘what if’ scenario in which he or she
mentally alters the course of events occurred, they are participating in a process that is known as
counterfactual thinking (Ruiselová, Prokopčáková, & Kresánek, 2007). This process allows
individuals to consider the multiple factors at play in a situation (i.e mutability), and to decide
what specific condition was responsible for the ultimate outcome of the event (Williams, LeesHaley, & Price 1996). The primary focus of our study is to analyze the extent of culpability
people place on a particular factor depending on the preventability of the outcome. That is, if it
is easy to “undue” an event that ends in a tragic outcome, will participants find an actor who fails
to engage in that easy behavior more at fault?
The development of counterfactual thoughts relies on the variability of the situation as
well as the knowledge that different actions could have resulted in alternate outcomes (Alquist,
Ainsworth, Baumeister, Daly, & Stillman, 2015). According to Alquist et al., situations that are
believed to be highly changeable generate more counterfactual thoughts than events that seem
unavoidable. However, ruminating on every conceivable alternative of a situation would take an
unlimited amount of time and resources. Instead of allotting so much time and energy on a
cognitive task, people tend to narrow down the different scenarios that come to mind according
to the degree of controllability of the factors involved (McCloy & Byrne, 2000). For example,
SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION
4
the deliberate decisions individuals make that ultimately lead to a certain outcome is considered
to be a controllable event, whereas uncontrollable events are unavoidable circumstances, such as
traffic jams or natural disasters (McCloy & Byrne, 2000). When mentally forming a scenario
different than the one occurred, individuals tend to change controllable rather than uncontrollable
events (2000). Therefore, events that are within an individual’s jurisdiction generally receive the
brunt of the blame for the resulting situation.
In a similar light, a study performed by McCloy and Byrne (2000), discovered that
inappropriate events are more often changed through the process of counterfactual thinking than
appropriate ones, especially when the outcome of these events was negative. Inappropriate
events include the decisions individuals make that are considered to be ‘socially wrong’, whereas
appropriate events are ‘socially acceptable’ actions. Due to these results, we can conclude that
what McCloy and Byrne consider to be “inappropriate controllable” events, will likely be
regarded as highly culpable factors in the outcome of a situation.
Another contributing factor to perceived culpability is the extent of knowledge of the
actors involved in an event, as well as the intent of their actions (Gilbert, Tenney, Holland, &
Spellman, 2015). For example, in the aforementioned scenario, had the driver known that
looking away from the road would have caused her to run over the stray cat, the driver would
have been more likely to be perceived guilty, even though the actions and the outcome of the
situation remained the same. This rationalization is the product of a bottom-up method of
thinking in which individuals are able to generate more counterfactual thoughts due to the actor’s
knowledge of the outcome (Gilbert et al., 2015). As these authors have noted, the increased
development of counterfactual thoughts will in turn attribute more responsibility to the actor,
SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION
5
which will ultimately increase perceived blame. But this is not the full picture when it comes to
focusing on the role of counterfactual thoughts in altering participant responses.
Study One
In pursuance of counterfactual thinking and its relationship to perceived blame, we have
devised a study that analyzed the extent of culpability people place on a particular factor
depending on the preventability of the outcome. We provided participants with one of three
scenarios, each of which depicted a variation of the same situation where alternate events lead to
different conclusions. In the changeable condition, an actor engaged in a behavior that led to an
undesirable outcome (death) that could have been avoided had he acted differently. In the
unchangeable condition, the same actor engaged in a behavior that once again led to an
undesirable outcome, but here the outcome could not have been avoided if he acted differently.
In the neutral condition, the actor engaged in an alternative behavior, but the outcome was still
undesirable. We predicted that participants would place more blame on the actor in the
changeable condition where the actor could have avoided the undesirable outcome had he
behaved differently than in both the unchangeable and neutral conditions, where the actor’s
behavior could not be altered. This is because we expected changeable participants to generate
more counterfactuals (more statements about how the actor could have behaved) in the
changeable condition.
Methods Study One
Participants
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 population consisted of 68.3% Hispanic
SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION
6
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). See Appendix A.
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. 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, the taxi driver arrived to pick up the couple, only to
promptly decline their fare upon seeing that they were both paraplegic. Without enough time to
call for another taxi, Tina and Eugene decided to take Tina’s car, which was handicap equipped.
In order to reach their destination, they had to cross a bridge that had been weakened the night
before due to a severe storm. The damaged bridge collapsed 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 arrived to
pick up the couple but promptly refused their fare as soon as he realized that they were both
SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION
7
paraplegic. In this 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), the causal role of the taxi driver in the couple’s death (1
= not at all causal, 9 = the most important cause), their thoughts on how much control the taxi
driver had (1 = no control, 9 = complete control), the negligence of the taxi driver (1 = not at all
negligent, 9 = completely negligent), how much money for damages the taxi driver was
responsible for (1 = no money, 9 = as much as possible), the foreseeability of the couple’s death
(1 = not at all foreseeable, 9 = completely foreseeable), 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,
SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION
8
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.
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.
Results Study One
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 in which we saw a significant
effect, X2(2) = 93.95, p < .001. 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. This indicates that participants did pay attention to whether the taxi driver picked up the couple. See Appendix B. For our main analysis, our first One-Way ANOVA test revealed significant differences among our independent variable, the scenario conditions (changeable, unchangeable, or neutral) and our dependent variable, perceived blameworthiness of the taxi driver, F(2, 122) = 3.55, p = SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION 9 .032. A subsequent Tukey post hoc test supported our hypothesis by demonstrating 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. These results indicate that in situations where the outcome is perceived as mutable (changeable), individuals are more likely to assign blame to the actor who could have acted differently (unchangeable). See Appendix C. 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. Our initial prediction that participants would develop more counterfactuals in the changeable condition was not supported since 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. Since the p-value for the ANOVA test was not significant, there was no need to run post hoc tests. See Appendix D. Discussion Study One 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 SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION 10 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 both the unchangeable and neutral conditions. 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. Study Two Although most of the general population engages in counterfactual thinking, the number of counterfactual thoughts created varies between people. This is because the development of numerous counterfactual thoughts is determined by the overall mutability of a situation as well as the distinct differences between individuals (Alquist, Ainsworth, Baumeister, Daly, & Stillman, 2015). For example, people who have an inclination for structuring situations in meaningful, integrated ways, or more aptly put, have a high need for cognition, are more prone to elaborate on presented information (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). Therefore, these individuals might be more likely to participate in the generation of counterfactual thoughts than individuals who typically avoid effortful cognitive activity, or have a low need for cognition (Sargent, 2004). Despite the fact that several studies have researched scenario mutability and need for cognition, no prior findings have examined the influence these two variables have on the assignment of blame. The primary focus of our second study, therefore, is to analyze the extent of culpability people place on a particular factor depending on the mutability of the situation as well as the distinct Need for Cognition of each subject. SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION 11 Need for Cognition (NFC) is defined as an individual’s dispositional tendency to participate in demanding cognitive behaviors (Curseu, 2006). People with a high-NFC tend to enjoy engaging in cognitive endeavors and generally undergo a deep elaboration of information (Strobel, Fleischhauer, Enge, & Strobel, 2015), while individuals with a low-NFC use cognitive heuristics and often rely on others’ opinions (Furnham & Thorne, 2013). Petrocelli and Dowd (2009) proposed that individuals with a high-NFC employ complex attributional systems that allow them to think theoretically and recognize situational elements as causes of behavior. For example, in the previously mentioned scenario, people with a high-NFC are likely to consider the external or environmental aspects—such as distracting traffic—as blameworthy factors in the unfortunate, accidental death of the stray cat. According to Curseu (2006), individuals with a high-NFC also tend to generate more alternative solutions to problems compared to low-NFC individuals who tend to avoid strenuous cognitive activities (Petrocelli & Dowd, 2009). Taking these components into account, it is reasonable to expect high-NFC subjects to produce more counterfactual thoughts than low-NFC subjects. Considering the distinct attributes of individuals with a high and low NFC, it is highly probable that attitudes towards judgments of blame are significantly different between the two conditions (Sargent, 2004). According to Sargent (2004), people with high-NFC usually prefer to tackle social problems involving crime rather than actually punishing the criminal responsible. This might be due to the complex attributional systems used by high-NFC individuals, which attributes behavior to “abstract, contemporary, external causes” and ultimately withdraws responsibility from the perpetrator and places it on societal influences instead (Sargent, 2004). Therefore, it is not surprising that Sargent found a negative correlation between high-NFC and punitive responses to crimes, since high-NFC individuals tend to view the criminal as a victim of SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION 12 circumstantial events. However, Sargent als... Purchase answer to see full attachment