communication studies research paper

According to the instruction below, me and my group already done the part 1 which is the survey and have all the data in an excel, we researched about how listening to music effects you while studying. participants were assigned listening to lyrical, non-lyrical and no music while reading. I will attach all files that needed for this paper below, please pay really attention this is a formal research paper and it needs to be done very well. Thank you y’all.

2

>Form Responses

1 1

1

1 1 1 2 0 2 3

3 0

0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0

0 21 1 0 1 1 1 2 4 1 3

0

1 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 2

0

0 3 0 1 0 2 1 1 1

7 0 20 0 1 0 1 1 2 4 1 2

0 20 1 3 0 1 1 2 0 2 2

0 22 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3

0 20 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 3

0 22 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 2

0

1 1 1 1 1 0 4 0 3

0 20 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1

0 21 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 3

0 21 0 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 2

0 21 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 2

0 20 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 2 2

0 18 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 1

19 0 20 1 1 1 0 1 2 4 1 2
20 0 21 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 2
21 0 20 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 2
22 0 19 1 3 0 1 1 2 2 1 2

0 19 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 3

0 19 1 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 2

0 21 1 3 1 1 1 2 0 2 3

0 21 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 2

0 21 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 3

0 20 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 2

0 19 0 3 0 0 1 1 2 0 1

0 19 1 0 1 1 1 2 4 1 3

0 19 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 2

0 20 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 1 2

0 23 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

0 20 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 3

0 20 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 3

0 24 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 1

0 21 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 3

0 20 1 4 0 1 1 1 4 0 2

0 20 1 0 1 0 1 2 4 1 2

0 20 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 2

0 19 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 3

1=correct

n-lyrical

1=no

34782609

2.04

																																																																														Response #	Score	Age:	Gender:	Ethnicity:	Question One	Question Two	Question three	Meaning of song	Prefer music	type of music	points earned
																																																																																																																																				0											21																									3
			22
										4
5	2	7
6																20
8
9
10
11
12									19
13
14
15
16
17
	18
	23
	24
25
26
27
28
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
2=no music	17=no music	Total points 38	Average 2.235294118	2.24
0 = male	0 = white	1= correct		1=correct	0 = incorrect	0=did not listen		1=no	7 prefer	15=nonlyrical	Total points 34	Average 2.266666667	2.27	Average of both lyrical/non
1 = female	1 = hispanic or latino	1 = correct	0=lyrical	5 prefer	8=lyrical	Total points 13	Average 1.625	1.63		2.04
2 = african american	2=N/A	2=yes
3 = asian or pacific islander	4=somewhat	Average for song preferance:
4 = native american or american indian	Prefer mean 1.916666667	1.92
somewhat:	Somewhat average:
Reponses 9	2.555555556	2.56

RUNNINGHEAD: Shortened Version of Your Title

Your Title [should be descriptive of your study]

Author [your name — INCLUDE ONLY ON HARD COPY VERSION]

Perm [your 7-digit perm #]

Comm 88

Fall 2016

TA: [Your TA’s Name]

University of California, Santa Barbara

[Reminder—You do not need to write an “Abstract” for your study]

A Running Head is optional

for this paper

This document is a “mock up” of the

Comm 88 paper format, with some tips

and help for each of the sections included.

The gray “side bar” to the right is where

you will see reminders of the official

instructions for the assignment for each

section (be sure to review these!)

RUNNING HEAD: Shortened Version of Your Title 1

Your Title Again Here

Start with the introduction, which does not need its own heading. Your opening

paragraph should tell the issue that you are investigating and why it needs to be investigated.

Remember, scholarly writing (throughout the paper) should be clear, succinct, and avoid using “I”

or “We”. One way to do this is to use other ways to refer to your study, such as “The present

study investigates…” (as opposed to “We wanted to investigate…”). You can also use the

passive voice (as long as you don’t overdo it), such as “An experiment was conducted…” (as

opposed to “We conducted an experiment…”).

Next in this section is where you’re going to do your literature review and summarize

your (minimum TWO) empirical studies. You probably do not need any subheadings in this

section since your literature review is smaller than what would appear in published studies. For

each study, you should report what it was about, what they did, and what they found (see .

Your studies DO NOT have to be exactly the same as your groupmates’; it’s possible

they’re not the same studies you brought in earlier in the quarter. They MUST be relevant to

your hypotheses, and you MUST include copies of the abstracts in an appendix at the end of your

paper.

Be sure then to tie the findings to your own study! If you are using conceptual

definitions of variables from the prior studies, discuss that here too (some variables need more

conceptualization than others). Use the studies to provide a rationale for your hypotheses—a

clear argument for why, based on logic and the prior research, you are predicting the specific

relationships between variables in your study. Your hypotheses DO NOT have to be exactly the

same as your groupmates’. Here’s an example of what your hypotheses might look like (one is

associational and one is causal, just to give you an example of each—but yours will be different

Page #1 starts here (the title

page does not count as a page!)

Comment [DM1]: Reminder of the
assignment instructions on GS for this

section:

INTRODUCTION (note that this section
doesn’t actually get its own labeled
heading like the others do)
In this first section, you should introduce
your topic, review the literature (the two or
more empirical studies), and state your
hypotheses and any additional research
question(s). As you review the literature,
be sure that for each empirical study you
briefly summarize what the study did and
describe the main findings that are
relevant to your own study (do not just pull
quotes from the article!). Use the studies
to provide justification for your hypotheses
and/or background for your research
questions. It is important to explain why
you are making your prediction(s) and
posing your question(s).

RUNNING HEAD: Shortened Version of Your Title 2

depending on what kind of study you did). Be sure to put each hypothesis/research question on

its own line, indented like this:

H1: There will be a positive relationship between amount of communication and

satisfaction in a relationship.

H2: Participants who see an objectifying ad will report lower self-esteem than

participants who see an empowering ad.

Note that your hyps do not have to be grouped together like this (especially if you have a

different rationale for each one), and they do not have to be placed at the end of this section. The

placement of hypotheses and research questions depend on how you organize your literature

review and rationale.

Method

This section is where you describe what you did in your study. It will have several

subheadings, but the particular headings you use will vary depending on what kind of study you

did. Here are some typical subheadings that are useful:

Sample

Report your sampling technique (e.g., convenience sample), and how you gathered it (e.g., sent

survey links to Facebook friends, etc.). Describe your sample (e.g., how many participants total?

What were the demographics–e.g., gender, age, race–if you collected info on that).

Procedure

Describe the basic procedure for your study. If you did a survey, this just means a simple

statement of how you distributed or collected your survey data (in person, online, etc.). If you

did an experiment, identify what the separate conditions were for your IV (i.e., what was the

manipulation?). Did you use a factorial design? How were participants assigned to conditions?

If you showed/created anything to show to your subjects (whether for a survey or an experiment),

Comment [DM2]: Reminder of the
assignment instructions on GS for this

section:

In the Method section, you should
describe specifically what you did in your
study. Using the appropriate
subheadings for your particular study
(e.g., sample, procedure, measures, etc.),
you should describe the overall design,
participants, procedure, and variables
(including how they were
operationalized/measured). If you
combined several items into a scale for a
particular DV, then describe that in this
section too. You don’t need to write out
every single item in the text of your paper,
but give a couple example items and then
direct your reader to the appendix for the
rest (be sure include as an appendix a
copy of any questionnaires or other
materials you used). The content of this
section will likely be very similar for all the
members of your group, but the writing
should be in your own words!

RUNNING HEAD: Shortened Version of Your Title 3

it would also help to have a separate heading and section for “stimulus materials” where you can

describe them (and also add them as an Appendix).

Measures

If you did a survey, it is helpful to split this section up into IVs and DVs. How were your IVs

operationalized? How were your DVs operationalized? If you did an experiment, you should

describe your IV in an earlier section (see above), so this section would be for “Dependent

Measures.”

What kind of scales did you use (e.g., Likert, semantic differential, etc.)? How many points were

on the scale (e.g., 5, 7, 9…)? If you used an existing measure (e.g., the Big Five Inventory) cite

where you found it. Include examples of specific questionnaire items that were used for each

variable, and then direct your reader to an Appendix to see the complete wording of items.

Results

Explain what kind of data analysis you did (e.g., correlation) and report your results. It

tends to be helpful if you restate a hypothesis first (e.g., “H1 predicted that…”) and then how

your analyses supported it or not (e.g., “Analyses of the mean scores do not support this

hypothesis. Specifically,…”). Be sure to report the key numbers. You can either 1) insert

numbers within the text itself (such as “Perception of credibility was higher for those who saw

the humorous speaker (M = 3.45) than for those who saw the boring speaker (M = 2.12)”; or “A

positive correlation (r = .37) was found between credibility and likability…”); or 2) put the

actual numbers in a table or graph (e.g., “Table 1 shows the mean scores for…”) and just

describe the results within the text like the examples above. The tables and graphs themselves

should be attached as separate pages at the END of your paper, so that they do not take up

valuable space for writing.

Comment [DM3]: Reminder of the
assignment instructions on GS for this

section:
In this section you should briefly report what

kind of data analysis you did (e.g., you

computed means on your DV for the different

IV groups, or you computed a correlation

between your IV and DV scales), and then

report the resulting data. In other words, report

differences in mean scores between people in

different groups or experimental conditions

(e.g., on question X., men on average scored

5.2 while women scored 6.8), or report r values

for correlations between variables, etc. You

may find that tables or graphs are useful ways

of presenting means and/or percentages.

RUNNING HEAD: Shortened Version of Your Title 4

Remember that hypotheses aren’t “proven true”, rather, they are “supported” or

“evidence was found for”… Also, save for the discussion section any comments you have about

why you may have gotten the results that you got.

Discussion

**THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SECTION OF THE PAPER**!! Remember it

doesn’t matter what your results were (such as whether or not your hypotheses were supported,

etc); what’s important is that you can use course terms to intelligently discuss your findings and

critique the strengths and weaknesses of your study.

Summarize your findings and explain what they mean. Don’t repeat the numbers, but

rather explain what the implications are for your findings (Are your results consistent with or

contradictory to the studies that you used as the basis for your hypotheses? Why or why not?).

If your hypotheses were not supported (or some were and some weren’t), can you explain why

not? Your explanation of your findings can be a nice lead-in to the critique of your study,

because some of your study’s limitations may provide an explanation or insightful understanding

of your findings. That can usually make for a more meaningful discussion section than just

having a separate part of your discussion where your list/describe strengths and weaknesses as

separate things that have no connection to your findings.

As you identify strengths and weaknesses, try to avoid just inserting course terms when

they don’t really relate. Instead think critically about your study. Dig deep to show that you fully

understand the ins and outs of the scientific process and can apply the appropriate terms

insightfully. Explain what might have gone wrong or what could’ve been done differently (where

appropriate, and especially if you can tie those issues to your findings), and then finally give

suggestions for future research.

Comment [DM4]: Reminder of the
assignment instructions on GS for this

section:

This is the most important section!
Here you need to interpret your findings
and critique your study.

First, what can you conclude on the
basis of your findings? In other words,
were your hypotheses supported (and if
you posed a research question, what
was the answer)? Do the findings relate
or not relate to the previous research
you examined (and why or why not, do
you think)? NOTE that your actual
results (what you found) DO NOT
AFFECT your grade—it’s what you
SAY about your results, etc., that
matters!

Second, what were the
STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES of
the methodological decisions you made
in your study? What effect(s) do you
think your design, your sample, and/or
your measures had on your results?
Note that different issues are important
to discuss in this section depending on
what kind of study you did (experiment
or survey). For example, proper
sampling is more important for surveys,
whereas proper random assignment is
more crucial for experiments. Refer
back to your lecture notes or the
appropriate textbook chapter to review
the specific issues relevant to your type
of study. Some issues you may want to
consider here are: operationalization
(e.g., How might your
definitions/measures have affected your
results?); internal and/or external validity
(e.g., How well are you able to make
causal statements [if you are trying to]?
How well are you able to generalize
beyond your sample or to other
settings/conditions?). The best papers
will be ones that discuss the most
relevant issues and that provide the
most interesting insight and thorough
use of course material.

Finally, suggest ways in which the

study could be improved upon or supported

further by future research (e.g., better

definitions, other methods for addressing the

topic).

RUNNING HEAD: Shortened Version of Your Title 5

References

Last Name, F. M. (Year). Article Title. Journal Title, Pages From – To.

Last Name, F. M. (Year). Book Title. City Name: Publisher Name.

Comment [DM5]: See the APA help
documents posted on GauchoSpace for

formatting help.

RUNNING HEAD: Shortened Version of Your Title 6

Tables and Graphs

Insert your tables and graphs on a separate page that comes after your References.

RUNNING HEAD: Shortened Version of Your Title 7

Appendix A

Questionnaires/measures should be attached as an appendix. You may also need to add more

appendices for other printed materials, such as stimulus materials for an experimental

manipulation (advertisements, facebook threads, etc.).

RESEARCH PROJECT AND PAPER

The goal of the project and paper is for you: 1) to experience in groups the process of reviewing the literature
and designing and conducting your own study, and 2) to learn individually to write a research report and
critically evaluate strengths and weaknesses of research methods based on the experience with your study.

OVERVIEW

You will work in a small group (3-4 people) to design and conduct a simple study about a
communication topic (some example topics that would be suited to a simple study appear on GauchoSpace).
You will decide as a group which topic to study and whether it would be appropriate to conduct a survey or
an experiment to investigate your topic.
You and your group members (with some guidance from your TA) will together research the
literature, propose hypotheses/research questions, select a design, construct measures, and collect and
analyze data. You will then, ON YOUR OWN, write a 7 – 8 page paper describing what your study was, what
the findings were, and what were the methodological strengths and weaknesses.

SPECIFICS

Part I – The Project: WITH YOUR GROUP, you must do the following:

Step 1) Find at least two empirical studies in academic journals that will provide you with some background
on your topic and that will help you develop the hypotheses and research questions for your study.
EVERY topic has relevant literature to find (if you find none, you’ll need either to switch topics or be
more creative in your use of the studies that are there!)

Step 2) Develop at least two hypotheses (i.e., two different predictions, involving different variables) that you
will attempt to test in your study. Your hypotheses MUST be based on the literature (i.e., the
empirical studies that you find!). In other words, you must provide justification from the scientific
literature for what you are predicting! You may also include a research question for some additional
variables that you would like to include/investigate as part of your study.

Step 3) Develop a research design that helps you test your hypothesis (i.e., a survey or experiment). —
Steps 2 & 3 may be done simultaneously, as your design should be guided by the hypotheses you
would like to test. Some designs are better suited to certain questions/hypotheses than are others.
For example, if you want to examine the relationship between texting and relationship closeness, a
survey might be appropriate, whereas if you want to know the effects of texting on perceptions of
relational messages, you would most likely conduct an experiment.

Step 4) Construct measurement instruments (e.g., questionnaire items) and gather other materials you will
need (e.g., experimental manipulations, stimulus videos, etc.). When deciding how to construct your
measures, remember to consider how you will later analyze them (i.e., how will you know if your
hypothesis was supported or not?).

Step 5) Collect data. Much of this can be done mid-quarter during your discussion section, as many of you
will serve as each other’s subjects, filling out each other’s surveys and participating in each other’s
experiments. This means that you will need to bring copies of your surveys and questionnaires,
etc., to the relevant sections in order to collect data. Often it is also necessary to collect data
outside of section, particularly for those studies that need more male subjects or non-student
populations. REMEMBER TO FOLLOW THE “RULES FOR 88 PROJECTS” document!!

Step 6) Compile data and interpret results. You are encouraged to analyze your data statistically (i.e., see if
your data produce significant differences between group means or significant correlations between
variables). However, you are not required to use statistics (i.e., you may “eyeball” your data in order
to compare means, etc.). Your TA will help you identify what type of analysis is appropriate for your
study, but most likely you will either compute means (averages) for your scale items and compare
the means, or you will compute simple correlations among your variables.

Part II – The Paper: ON YOUR OWN, you will write a paper that should have FOUR sections:

INTRODUCTION (note that this section doesn’t actually get its own labeled heading like the others do)
In this first section, you should introduce your topic, review the literature (the two or more empirical

studies), and state your hypotheses and any additional research question(s). As you review the
literature, be sure that for each empirical study you briefly summarize what the study did and describe
the main findings that are relevant to your own study (do not just pull quotes from the article!). Use the
studies to provide justification for your hypotheses and/or background for your research questions. It is
important to explain why you are making your prediction(s) and posing your question(s).

METHOD
In the Method section, you should describe specifically what you did in your study. Using the appropriate

subheadings for your particular study (e.g., sample, procedure, measures, etc.), you should describe
the overall design, participants, procedure, and variables (including how they were
operationalized/measured). If you combined several items into a scale for a particular DV, then describe
that in this section too. You don’t need to write out every single item in the text of your paper, but give a
couple example items and then direct your reader to the appendix for the rest (be sure include as an
appendix a copy of any questionnaires or other materials you used). The content of this section will likely
be very similar for all the members of your group, but the writing should be in your own words!

RESULTS
In this section you should briefly report what kind of data analysis you did (e.g., you computed means on

your DV for the different IV groups, or you computed a correlation between your IV and DV scales), and
then report the resulting data. In other words, report differences in mean scores between people in
different groups or experimental conditions (e.g., on question X., men on average scored 5.2 while
women scored 6.8), or report r values for correlations between variables, etc. You may find that tables or
graphs are useful ways of presenting means and/or percentages.

DISCUSSION
This is the most important section! Here you need to interpret your findings and critique your study.

First, what can you conclude on the basis of your findings? In other words, were your hypotheses
supported (and if you posed a research question, what was the answer)? Do the findings relate or
not relate to the previous research you examined (and why or why not, do you think)? NOTE that
your actual results (what you found) DO NOT AFFECT your grade—it’s what you SAY about
your results, etc., that matters!

Second, what were the STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES of the methodological decisions you made in
your study? What effect(s) do you think your design, your sample, and/or your measures had on
your results? Note that different issues are important to discuss in this section depending on what
kind of study you did (experiment or survey). For example, proper sampling is more important for
surveys, whereas proper random assignment is more crucial for experiments. Refer back to your
lecture notes or the appropriate textbook chapter to review the specific issues relevant to your type of
study. Some issues you may want to consider here are: operationalization (e.g., How might your
definitions/measures have affected your results?); internal and/or external validity (e.g., How well are
you able to make causal statements [if you are trying to]? How well are you able to generalize
beyond your sample or to other settings/conditions?). The best papers will be ones that discuss the
most relevant issues and that provide the most interesting insight and thorough use of course
material.

Finally, suggest ways in which the study could be improved upon or supported further by future research
(e.g., better definitions, other methods for addressing the topic).

REQUIREMENTS AND POLICIES

See next page for important rules and tips about format, writing style, grading, late papers, etc.…

REQUIREMENTS AND POLICIES

FORMAT: The paper should be 7-8 pages of text (not counting title page, references, appendices, graphs).
It should be typed, double-spaced, page-numbered, with roughly 1″ margins and Times 12 pt font! Note
that Word’s default settings are usually wrong for this assignment (margins too big, font too small, extra
line spaces inserted after paragraphs, etc.), so you’ll need to change these settings! Include a title page
with your name and your TA’s name/section clearly identified (but do not put your name anywhere else in
the paper, as your TA will be grading “blindly”). You do not need an “abstract” section, but you should
repeat the title of the paper at the top of the first page of text (so that your TA can see your title without
knowing who wrote the paper).

WRITING STYLE: Your goal is to show that you have learned the principles of this course and that you can
use the language of this course in appropriate and meaningful ways! You are reporting on your research
as though it were a “real” study, so you should sound like a social scientist. Try to avoid “I/we” language
and other ways of sounding too colloquial/casual. But don’t just throw in big words or convoluted
sentences to try to sound “academic” either, as this usually ends up just not making sense. The goal is
to present your study and your critique of your study with CLARITY and AUTHORITY!

APA STYLE CITATIONS and PLAGIARISM: Since this assignment requires you to make good use of the
thoughts, writings, and work of others, proper citations are essential. Your paper must follow APA
style for citations within the text of your paper, as well as for your reference list. You will find some
guidelines for APA style in your reader, you will likely also have an APA style exercise in section, and
you are encouraged to follow the example you see in most communication or psychology journal articles.
Plagiarism will result minimally in a zero grade, and will likely also result in a failing grade in the
course and further disciplinary action.

Be especially carefully not to “borrow” from another student’s paper, as this is also plagiarism (whether or
not specific words have been changed). I strongly suggest that you do not even READ a portion of one
your group member’s papers (even just for “ideas”), as it is very difficult to word things differently once
you’ve seen how someone else has done it. Although the project was designed and conducted as a
group, the WRITING of the paper (including the ideas) must be entirely YOUR OWN!

TURNING IN PAPERS: Unless your TA officially informs you differently, paper assignments are due in hard
copy version on the designated date in lecture (see syllabus and course schedule). Electronic versions
of papers are not accepted, except in the case of verifiable emergency and with the permission your TA.
Late papers are marked down 5 points per day (note that if your paper is late, it will be considered
“turned in” when the TA receives the paper). Always keep a copy of your paper on hand for your
records, and remember that it is your responsibility to see that your TA receives your paper! In
cases of serious emergency, you must notify your TA and Professor Matni immediately, and we will
proceed from there, depending on the severity and verifiability of the emergency.

Note also that if you do not turn in the research paper, you will fail the course (regardless of your other
scores), and you will not be permitted to take the final exam.

GRADING: Your score will be based on how well your paper shows, compared to the papers of other
students, accurate and thorough understanding of your study and of course material and outside
research, depth and effectiveness at articulating and supporting your criticisms, university level writing
style and organization, and adherence to the assignment. Note that we DO NOT DEDUCT points from
your paper, but rather you EARN points for writing with clearer understanding and for making better,
stronger, more insightful arguments than other papers do. The “average” papers receive the equivalent
of about a B-/C+ grade (the “median” score), and we go up and down from there (with the top scores
being given to the BEST papers). And remember that your actual results (what you found) DO NOT
DETERMINE your grade—it’s what you SAY about your results that matters.

I wish you much success with your project and paper!

Link to survey:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1oQoB6fylZG6OmXxr96ZPTKGQGQxET34VNSWfOvZCxTU