After reading Paper III instruction, you should know that Paper III includes: Title page, revised Paper I (Study One literature review), revised Paper II (Study One Method, Results, and Discussion), Study Two literature review, and references (at least 10 references combining study one lit rev, and study two lit rev).
Here, I want to remind you that in your Study Two literature review, you should specifically focus on the new IV. Find minimum 5 references indicating the relationship between new IV AND how people’s perspectives changed (no need to limit to social media or online chat). Make sure all the references you found are peer-viewed published articles (thesis or dissertation is NOT peer-viewed published article). Try to also connect Paper I and the new literature review. Importantly, you should end your new literature review by specific hypotheses—addressing two main effects (original IV AND new IV), and one interaction effect (combined effect of two IVs) on two DVs (same with Paper I). You can find hypothesis template in Paper III instruction.
Paper III also includes revised Paper I and Paper II. Revising based on our comments is essentially important. We put a lot effort and time to leave feedback, please do not ignore them (Paper I comments have already been released to you. We will finish Paper 2 grading soon so you can revise it). If you ignore our comments, and do not revise anything, we will grade very harshly on repeated mistakes, and you will most likely fail the paper. Remember, “fail the paper” is almost equivalent “fail the class”!
Additional information about the study:
Debriefing Statement
Thank you for participating in our study on the impact of information valence and debunking on belief formation and change! We appreciate your involvement and hope that you found it interesting and enjoyable.
What
In this study, we investigated how the valence (positive or negative) of information about a public figure (Jamie Rogers) would affect people’s beliefs and opinions. We also explored whether providing a retraction (debunking) of the information would affect these beliefs.
How
You were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2×2 experimental design. The two factors we manipulated were:
1. Response Condition: You received either positive or negative information about Jamie Rogers.
2. Debunking: After receiving the initial information, some participants were given a retraction stating that the story was fake, while others did not.
Your opinions about Jamie Rogers were measured before the retraction and after the retraction (if applicable) to assess any changes. (Second IV)
Why
The purpose of this study is to understand how people form and potentially change their beliefs based on the information they receive. We are interested in how the valence of information and the presence of a retraction influence these processes. This research may offer beneficial insight into the dissemination of misinformation and strategies for its correction.
Hypotheses and Predictions
We hypothesized that:
1. Initial Belief Formation: Participants would form beliefs consistent with the valence of the initial information they received (positive or negative).
2. Effect of Debunking: Participants who received a retraction would be more likely to change their beliefs than participants who did not receive a retraction.
3. Belief Perseverance: Some participants might exhibit belief perseverance, where they continue to hold their initial beliefs despite the retraction.
Thank You
