attached

PAPER III: STUDY TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 1
PAPER III: LITERATURE REVIEW 1

Checklist Paper III: Study Two Literature Review

Use the check sheet below to make sure your paper is the best it can be! Make sure you answer Yes to all questions before submitting your paper! Some sections duplicate checklists from prior papers while those in
purple focus on new
Study Two Literature Review elements.

General Paper Format (This section is identical to the Papers I and II Checklists)

Yes

No

1. Is
everything in your paper (including headers, the main body of your study one literature review, and references) in 12 point Times New Roman font?

2. Is
everything in your paper double spaced, including references (here I mean the spacing above and below each line, not the spaces following a period)?

3. Do you have one inch margins on all sides of the paper (one inch from the top of the page, one inch from the bottom, and one inch from each side)

4. Are the first lines of all paragraphs indented roughly inch?

5. Are your paragraphs aligned left? (That is, text should be flush left, with lines lining up on the left of the page, but text should NOT line up on the right side of the page it should look ragged)

6. Do you need help figuring out how to configure a word document in APA format (inserting headers, page numbers, indents, etc.)? If YES or NO, I recommend watching this video which walks you through setting up an APA formatted paper!

Title page (This section is identical to the Papers I and II Checklists)

Yes

No

Header

1. Is your header title in ALL CAPS, and is it a shorter version of your real title?

2. Is your Running head in 12 point Times New Roman font?

3. Do you have a page number that is flush right (also in 12 point Times New Roman font)?

4. Is your header title 50 characters or less (including spaces and punctuation)?

Title / Name / Institution

1. Is your title focused and short, avoiding unnecessary words and abbreviations that serve no purpose (as recommended by the APA)?

2. Does your title describe your general paper theme (while avoiding something bland like Paper Three: Literature Review)? Note that your header should be a shorter version of your title (For example, the first few words are fine)

3. Do all title words with three letters or more start with a capital letter?

4. Is your title in
bold?

5. If your title is longer than one line, is it double-spaced (like everything else in your paper)?

6. Are your name and institution correct?

7. Are your title, name, and institution elements centered and in 12 point Times New Roman font?

8. Does your title start three or four lines under the margin at the top of the page?

9. Are there two spaces between your paper title and your name?

Literature Review Study One (This section is nearly identical to Paper I)

Yes

No

Title for the literature review

1. Is your header title present and
identical to your header from the title page?

2. Is your header title in ALL CAPS and 12 point Times New Roman font?

3. Do you have a page number starting on page 2

4. Do you have the same title as your title page, and is it centered and
bold

Main body of the literature review

1. Does your literature review start broadly, giving a brief overview of the study one to come?

2. Does your literature review start to narrow down toward your hypotheses?

3. Do your paragraphs transition from one to the next? (That is, avoid simply listing studies you read. Tie them together. How does Study A in paragraph A relate to Study B in paragraph B?)

4. Does your paper end in your very specific hypotheses? (You will lose a lot of points if your paper doesnt provide the specific predictions!)

5. Did you make sure your predictions are written in the past tense?

6. Is your paper at least two pages long (not including the hypotheses)?

Citations for the literature review

1. Did you cite a minimum of 5 citations? (Note that you can give a lot of detail for some articles you cite but only a sentence or two for others. How much detail you go into depends on how important the article is in helping your support your hypotheses)

1.a If NO, do your citations between the study one and study two literature reviews add up to ten or more references?

2. Are your citations in APA format (That is, ONLY the last name of the author(s) and date of publication)?
a. Note that you do NOT include first names, initials, or the title of the article the authors wrote when citing. That information belongs in the references pages only.
b. Also note that you only use an ampersand the & symbol when it occurs within parentheses. In other instances, use the word and

3. If you quoted, did you provide a page number for the direct quote?

4. If you paraphrased in any way, did you cite the source of that information?

5. Did you cite everything that sounded like it was factual information?

6. Did you make sure the period follows the citation rather than coming before it?

7. If there are two authors, did you cite both of them? If in parentheses, did you use the & symbol? If outside of parentheses, did you use the word and?

8. If there are three or more authors in the same citation, did you use the phrase et al. every time you cited them?

Methods Section Study One (This section is identical to Paper II Methods Study One)

Yes

No

Title for the methods section

1. Is the word
Methods centered and in bold? (Note: No page break needed)

Yes

No

Participants

1. Do you have the word
Participants flush left and in bold, right below the word Methods?

2. Did you list out your demographic characteristics, including gender, age, and ethnicity / race?

3. Did you provide the descriptive statistics for (means and standard deviations) for age and italicize the letters
M and
SD?

4. Did you provide frequencies for gender and ethnicity/race and italicize the
N?

5. Did you refer readers to
Table 1 for the full listing of demographic info?

Materials and Procedure

1. Is the phrase
Materials and Procedure flush left and in bold?

2. Did you mention informed consent? (Most likely oral consent for study one)

3. Did you discuss any instructions the participant may have read?

4. Did you thoroughly describe any stimulus material that might have occurred before your actual independent variables (and photos, descriptions, profiles, questions, puzzles, etc.) that are a part of your study?

5. Did you thoroughly describe your independent variable (IV) in enough depth and detail that another researcher could recreate your materials?

6. Did you give your IV a name that matches up with the name you refer to in the results section?

7. Did you describe all of your most relevant dependent variables, noting the scales you used (e.g. Yes / No, A scale ranging from 1 (not at all likely) to 9 (very likely)) for EACH of your DVs?

8. Did you fully describe what participants went through in the study, noting the order in which they received study materials (e.g. first informed consent, then IVs, DVs, and debriefing)?

9. Did you fully describe your attention check (manipulation check) with enough detail that a reader unfamiliar with your study could recreate it, and did you include the scale for that attention check question?

10. Did you use the past tense when describing your methods (seeing how you already collected the data, and therefore do not discuss what participants will do)?

Results Section Study One (This section is identical to Paper II Results Study One)

Yes

No

Results

1. Do you have the word
Results centered and in bold, immediately following the methods section?

2. Was the first dependent variable you looked at your manipulation check question, and did you make sure you analyzed the correct DV?

3. Did you analyze at least two
different dependent variables for your other two analyses?

a. Note: Often your instructors prefer that you run two different ANOVAs. Ask them if they want a t-Test as one of the analysis.

4. Did you mention both the IV and the DV by name when talking about your analysis?

5. Did you include means and standard deviations within parentheses for
each level of your independent variable?

6. Did you italicize the letters
F,
t,
p,
M,
SD, and
X2 (where appropriate)?

7. Did you round ALL numbers to two decimal places (with the exception of the
p value, which can go as low as
p < .001 or p = .001). Discussion Section Study One (This section is identical to Paper II Discussion Study One) Yes No 1. Do you have the word Discussion centered and in bold, immediately following the results section? 2. Did you remind your reader of your hypothesis? 3. Did you mention whether you supported or did not support your hypothesis? Literature Review Study Two (This section is completely new) Yes No Title for the literature review 1. Do you have some title that denotes the start of study two (e.g. something as simple as Study Two is okay, though you can also have something that is descriptive of your new independent variable)? 2. Is this title centered and in bold? 3. Does your literature review start immediately after the study one discussion (there should be no page break unless it occurs naturally) Main body of the literature review 1. Does your new literature review start broadly with your second IV, giving a brief overview of what it entails? 2. Does your literature review start to narrow down toward your study two hypotheses? 3. Do your paragraphs transition from one to the next? (That is, avoid simply listing studies you read. Tie them together. How does Study A in paragraph A relate to Study B in paragraph B?) 4. Do you tie in your new IV with your original study one IV, showing how they might interact? 5. Does your paper end in your study two hypotheses? (More specifically, you should have a hypothesis for your main dependent variables). Citations for the literature review 1. Did you cite an additional 5 references (three of which MUST be peer-reviewed resources)? Note that you can give a lot of detail for some references but only a sentence or two for others. How much detail you go into depends on how important the article is in helping your support your hypotheses. 1.a If NO, do your citations between the study one and study two literature reviews add up to ten or more references? If yes, you are good here! 2. Are your citations in APA format (That is, ONLY the last name of the author(s) and date of publication)? a. Note that you do NOT include first names, initials, or the title of the article the authors wrote when citing. That information belongs in the references pages only. b. Also note that you only use an ampersand the & symbol when it occurs within parentheses. In other instances, use the word and 3. If you quoted, did you provide a page number for the direct quote? 4. If you paraphrased in any way, did you cite the source of that information? 5. Did you cite everything that sounded like it was factual information? 6. Did you make sure the period follows the citation rather than coming before it? 7. If there are two authors, did you cite both of them? If in parentheses, did you use the & symbol? If outside of parentheses, did you use the word and? 8. If there are three or more authors in the same citation, did you use the phrase et al. every time you cited them? References Page (This section is similar to Paper I, but with 10 references) Yes No Title for the references page 1. Do references start on their own page? 2. Is the word References centered? Is it in bold? References Make sure these are in APA format! 1. Are references listed in alphabetical order (starting with the last name of the first author listed) for all 10 articles you referenced? 2. Are all citations from the both literature reviews referenced? 3. Is the first line of the reference flush left while subsequent lines are indented (Note: Use the ruler function for this. DO NOT simply tab)? 4. Did you use the & symbol when listing more than one author name? 5. Did you include the date of publication 6. For article references, is the article title (which is not italicized) with only the first word and proper names starting with a capital letter? 7. For article references, is the name of the journal present with all major words starting with a capital letter (and this journal title is italicized)? 8. For article references, is the volume number italicized 9. For article references, are the page numbers present (not italicized) 10. For article references, is the DOI present Tables Study One (Similar to Paper II) Yes No 1. Do you have the word Table flush left on each Table page (followed by the next sequential Table number), with a description of the table content below the Table title? 2. In Table 1 (Demographics), do you have SPSS tables for gender, ethnicity, and age? (Note: Age might be in a general statistics table, but you should have specific frequency tables for both gender and ethnicity) 3. In Table 2 (Chi Square), do you have the crosstabs table (with percentages) plus the chi square test (with Pearson)? 4. In Table 3 (ANOVA), do you have the descriptives table, the ANOVA table, and the post hoc table for your first dependent variable? 5. In Table 4 (ANOVA or t-Test), do you have the descriptives table, ANOVA (or t-Test) table, and post hoc table (for the ANOVA) for your second dependent variable? 6. Do the analyses in Tables 3 and 4 focus on DIFFERENT dependent variables? (Make sure you answer YES on this one!) 7. Do the tables come AFTER the references? Writing Quality Yes No 1. Did you proofread your paper, go to the writing center, go to the research methods help center, or use the Pearson writer to make sure your paper flows well? 2. Did you use the past tense (which is recommended, since your papers in this class will reflect work you already did rather than work you will do)? 3. Did you use a scientific / objective terms like people, participants. users, readers, etc. (as opposed to subjective words like you, we, me, I, or us, etc.)? Note that you can use the word I when referring to your own work. Rubric Paper Three Criteria Ratings Title Page Criteria (1 point) 1. Header (in ALL CAPS) 2. Page number 3. Descriptive Title (in bold) 4. Your Name 5. Your University 6. Perfect APA formatting Meets all criteria 1 point Does not meet all criteria 0 point Literature Review Study One Criteria (3 points) 1. Starts broad and narrows. 2. Presents info clearly, educating the reader 3. Has smooth transitions between paragraphs 4. Includes 5 citations in APA format (minimum) 5. Concludes with study one predictions 6. Is 2 pages (minimum) excluding the predictions Meets all criteria 3 points Meets 3 to 4 criteria 1 to 2 points Meets 0 to 2 criteria 0 points Methods Study One Criteria (3 points) 1. Presents participant data 2. Provides details about the materials (independent and dependent variables, consent, debriefing, etc.) 3. Provides details about the procedure (flow of info) 4. Uses correct APA format Meets all criteria 3 points Meets 2 to 3 criteria 1 to 2 points Meets 0 to 1 criteria 0 points Results Study One Criteria (3 points) 1. Presents the results for three different analyses (one Chi Square, one ANOVA, one that is either a t-Test or an ANOVA) 2. Includes correct statistical numbers for each analysis 3. Includes correct APA formatting for each analysis Meets all criteria 3 points Meets only 2 criteria 1 to 2 points Meets 0 to 1 criteria 0 points Discussion Study One Criteria (1 point) 1. Reviews the hypothesis 2. Compares the findings to the hypotheses 3. Avoids statistical numbers Meets all criteria 1 point Does not meet all criteria 0 point Literature Review Study Two (10 points) 1. Starts broad and narrows. 2. Presents info clearly, educating the reader about the new independent variable 3. Has smooth transitions between paragraphs 4. Includes enough citations in APA format to bring Paper III to 10 references (minimum) 5. Concludes with study two predictions (including a main effect prediction for your first IV, a main effect prediction for your second IV, and the interaction predictions for your first and second IVs 6. Is a minimum of 2 pages Meets all criteria 10 points At least 5 criteria 7 to 9 points Meets at least 4 criteria 4 to 6 points Meets at least 3 criteria 1 to 3 points Meets 0 to 2 criteria 0 points Citations Criteria (4 points) 1. Provides citations for all factual claims 2. Provides citation in proper APA format 3. Uses proper APA format for quotes (if used) and does not overquote Meets all criteria 4 points Meets 3 criteria 2 to 3 points Meets 2 criteria 1 to 2 points Meets 0 to 1 criteria 0 points Reference Section Criteria (5 points) 1. Includes 10 references (minimum) 2. References are listed alphabetically (by first author) 3. All references are in APA format (all but the first line indented, journal name in italics, title has mostly lower-case letters except the first word / proper nouns, authors first and middle names use initials, etc.) Meets all criteria (No APA errors) 5 points Meets 3 criteria (but with some APA errors) 3 to 4 points Meets 2 criteria 2 to 3 points Meets 1 criteria 1 to 2 point Meets 0 criteria 0 points Tables Criteria (1 point) 1. Includes all four tables from study one: a. Demographics table (the descriptives table for age and frequency tables for gender and race) b. Chi square table (with crosstab table and chi square table) c. One ANOVA tables (with descriptives, ANOVA table, and post hoc table as needed) d. One additional ANOVA table or one t-Test table (with descriptive table and t-Table) Meets all criteria 1 point Does not meet all criteria 0 point Writing Quality Criteria (4 points) 1. Uses proper spelling and punctuation 2. Has good transition between sentences 3. Includes good detail that informs the reader about important information in each paper section 4. Avoids plagiarism Meets all criteria 4 points Meets 3 criteria 2 to 3 points Meets 2 criteria 1 to 2 points Meets 0 to 1 criteria 0 points STUDY TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 1 PAPER III: LITERATURE REVIEW 2 Instructions for Paper III: Study Two Literature Review (Worth 35 Points) Ryan J. Winter Florida International University Paper III: Table of Contents Item Page # Cover Page 1 Table of Contents 2 Purposes of Paper III Study Two Literature Review 3 1. The psychological purpose (Paper overview) 3 2. The APA formatting purpose 4 3. The writing purpose 4 Notes About Paper I Study One Literature Review 4 Formal Paper Instructions 5 The Title Page (1 point) 5 The Abstract (Not needed for this paper) 5 The Literature Review Study One (3 points) 5 Methods Study One (3 points) 5 Results Study One (3 points) 6 Discussion Study One (1 point) 6 Literature Review Study Two (10 points) 6 1. The first page of literature review two 6 2. APA formatted citations for literature review two 6 3. Content-based requirements for literature review two 7 4. Length requirements for literature review two 8 Citations for Paper III (4 points) 8 References for Paper III (5 points) 9 Tables for Paper III (1 point) 9 Writing Quality for Paper III (4 points) 9 Other Guidelines for Paper III: Literature Review 9 Other Hints for Paper III: Literature Review 10 Rubric Paper Three 11 Purposes of Paper III: Study Two Literature Review 1. The psychological purpose (Paper overview) Paper III is intended to help you take your original Social Loafing study one step further by letting you predict how a second independent variable of your labs choosing impacts participants. In this replication with extension Study Two, you have a greater role in a). choosing which articles to include in your follow-up literature review as well as b). identifying new hypotheses that take into account your new independent variable. The bulk of your Paper III points will come from a new literature review, with this second literature review coming between the discussion from study one (i.e. the end of Paper II) and the methods for study two (i.e. the beginning of Paper IV). That is, your Paper III will include your original literature review from study one (revised based on feedback from Paper I), your study one methods, results, and discussion (revised based on feedback from Paper II), a new literature review that adds in new information, and will conclude with your references from both literature reviews. In other words, Paper III includes: 1). Your original title page (though feel free to change the title) 2). Your revised study one literature review (ending in the study one hypotheses). 3). Your revised study one methods section (with demographics tables). 4). Your revised study one results section (with tables). 5). Your revised study one discussion section. 6). Your new study two literature review (ending in the study two hypotheses). 7). References for all citations in the paper (minimum 10 references required) 8). Your appendices from study one (optional, and only if applicable) The largest number of Paper III points come from your study two literature review, which will essentially pick up after study one. Think of it as a sequel of sorts. It builds on and extends study ones Social Loafing focus, using only two levels of the Study One loafing condition independent variable (either Individual Total vs. Group Total, Individual Total vs. Group Average, or Group Total vs. Group Average) and similar dependent variables (e.g. Number of math problems solved, Rating statements about completing math problems, etc.). However, study two will alter or extend your independent and dependent variables into a new study design. The good news here is that you can refer to study one as you write your study two literature review. In fact, I encourage that! You can also refer back to your study one literature review sources and recite them. The bulk of this study two literature review concerns a second independent variable that you and your lab will manipulate during the second part of the semester. You will need to include five new references for this new independent variable, hopefully finding sources that build a bridge between studies one and two. In other words, in Paper III you will answer the following question: Given our findings in study one, how will the presence of a second independent variable impact participant decisions? Similar to Paper I, you should end your literature review in Paper III by noting your specific hypotheses for study two. Here, you will address both main effects (outcomes associated with each independent variable alone) and interactions (the combined impact of your independent variables on your dependent variables). Keep in mind your audience: Write this paper for someone who may be familiar with statistics and research methods but may be unfamiliar with the topic of social loafing as well as your new independent variable. Thus teach your audience about the topic, but assumer they know methods. Also keep in mind that this paper (and those to come) might come in handy in the future! That is, you can use this paper as a writing sample for graduate programs and/or jobs. Knowing that, also know that your future graduate program or job may know even less about this topic than your professors and TAs, so write for them. Write clearly, be informative, and impress an audience that includes both your teachers AND those beyond this class! 2. The APA formatting purpose The second purpose of Paper III: Literature Review is to once again teach you American Psychological Association (APA) formatting. In the pages below, I will tell you how to format your paper using APA style. There are a lot of very specific requirements in APA papers, so pay attention to the instructions below and the APA formatting powerpoint lecture! Your audience most likely knows APA formatting already, so make sure you can adhere to the rules of APA style! 3. The writing purpose Finally, this paper is intended to help you refine your writing. My hope is that you will use feedback from Paper I and Paper II to improve your grammar, spelling, and content in Paper III. At the end of the semester, you will use Paper III as the opening for your final course paper, so doing a good writing job Paper III will be very beneficial as you revise your papers for Paper V. Many students use Paper V as their writing sample for graduate programs or jobs that require a writing sample, so make sure you write clearly and precisely for an educated reader as you might find this paper useful long after you get your final grade in the course! Notes About Paper III Study Two Literature Review Note #1: The plagiarism limit for Paper III is 50%. This is a bit higher than your Paper I literature review (given the overlap in the Paper II material), but your original literature review from Paper I and your new literature review in Paper III should be very unique to you. As usual, references, citations, and the predictions are not included in the plagiarism limit. Note #2: I am looking for 2 pages minimum for the study two literature review in Paper III, including your study predictions. But this is the bare minimum. If it is only 2 pages, it better be really, really good. Since you are including your Paper I and Paper II sections, your Paper III might have close to 15 pages. Instructions for Paper III: Study Two Literature Review (Worth 35 Points) This set of instructions will briefly cover your study one sections (including the literature review, methods section, results section, and brief discussion from that study) and give a more in-depth review of the literature review for study two. Paper III essentially tells the literature-oriented story of your semester long project thus far. Your main job is to justify your study two predictions, and you do that by showing how study one influenced your choice of variables in study two as well as how prior research supports your new study two independent variable. The good news is that we are continuing with our Social Loafing topic. You wrote a lot on that already, so here you will simply add to it, noting in a second literature review section how a second independent variable might interact with your study one Social Loafing manipulation. Here are the components to keep in mind. By now, a lot of this should be familiar to you, so you will see a lot of overlap with the instructions and checklists from Papers I and II. Title Page (1 point) 1. Title page format: This title page is a lot like the title page on your Papers I and II. See the Title Page section of those instruction documents as an example or reuse your title page from prior papers (though you can modify your title given your new IV in Study Two). The Abstract? 1. Abstract? Again, this is not needed yet! You will write it for the first time in Paper V. Literature Review Study One (3 points) 1. Literature review study one content a. Make sure to revise the study one literature review from Paper I based on feedback we gave you on that paper. The Paper I instructions still apply, so reread them if you need a reminder of the requirements for the study one literature review. b. For Paper III, you will need ten references total. You already have five references from the study one literature review, so feel free to keep those as is. That means you only need five more for Paper III, though most of the new references will go into the Literature Review section for Study Two c. Just remember to revise, revise, and revise your study one literature review. We gave you a lot of recommendations for improving Paper I, so if you do not modify that section for Paper III, you will not get all three points in this section! Methods Study One (3 points) 1. Methods section content a. Revise your methods from study one for this section based on feedback we gave you in Paper II. The Paper II instructions for methods still apply for this section. b. Again, revise, revise, revise or risk losing points in this section. Make sure to include your demographics table right after the Table 1 callout Results Study One (3 points) 1. Results section format a. Revise your results from study one for this section based on feedback we gave you in Paper II. The Paper II instructions for the results still apply for this section. Make sure to include the tables for the chi square and ANOVAs after their callout b. Do I need to mention revise? Discussion Study One (1 point) 1. Discussion section format a. Revise your discussion from study one for this section based on feedback we gave you in Paper II. The Paper II instructions for the discussion still apply here. b. One word Revise! Literature Review SHOW MORE... INFORMATIONAL INTERVIEW PLEASE READ CAREFULLY Assignment Rubric KIN 605: Sport Sponsorship Assignment Rubric Instructor Name: Point Value: 75 points Student Name: CATEGORY Excellent (2523 points) Good (2216 points) Fair (1511 points) Poor (100 points) Score Compliance With Assignment Directions The paper or video contains all of the elements required in the assignment directions. The paper or video contains most of the elements required in the assignment directions. The paper or video contains some of the elements required in the assignment directions. The paper or video contains few or none of the elements required in the assignment directions. Excellent (2523 points) Good (2216 points) Fair (1511 points) Poor (100 points) Evaluation The evaluation reflects a thorough understanding of the assignment concepts and cites sources. The evaluation reflects a good understanding of the assignment concepts and cites sources. The evaluation reflects a fair understanding of the assignment concepts and cites sources. The evaluation reflects a poor understanding of the assignment concepts and cites sources. Excellent (2523 points) Good (2216 points) Fair (1511 points) Poor (40 points) Organization The paper or video is very clear, logical, and easy to follow. The paper or video is mostly clear, logical, and easy to follow. The paper or video is somewhat clear, logical, and easy to follow. The paper or video is not clear, logical, or easy to follow. Total Score 0 Feedback Sheet2 Sheet3 Brief One of the most beneficial exercises you can do to expand your professional network and improve the job search process, is conduct informational interviews. An informational interview is, in essence, you interviewing someone you would like to learn from or possibly work for. It is a casual discussion designed to help you better understand the person, their profession or position, and gain as much knowledge and information as you can. It is not designed for you to ask for a job, but rather to listen, learn, and network. UC Berkley provides a very useful resource that will guide you through the process of setting up and conducting a successful informational interview: Instructions Select a sport industry professional that works in sponsorship or corporate partnerships (NOT employed at the University of Miami). Set up a 20-30 minute informational interview (either in- person or over the phone) to learn about their career and how it relates to everything you have learned throughout the course. You can ask any questions you would like, but a list of possible topics to guide you is below. You may want to take this time to learn if this career path is right for you, clarify any questions you had about the class, understand what it is like working in the sports business industry, or ask for tips to breaking into the field once you graduate. Once you have completed the interview, write a 3-5 essay about what you gained from the experience and how the information you garnered relates to what you learned over the past 7 weeks. Possible interview topics might include how to: prospect for new sponsors determine fit create sponsorship proposals pitch clients close sponsorship deals conduct activation leverage partnerships over time generate sales evaluate success or renew relationships.