Assignment 2, Midterm Review
Assignment 2, Midterm Review COMM 2820
Popular in Research Methods in Communication Studies
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Communication
verified elite notetaker
This 8 page Bundle was uploaded by Grace McBride on Thursday October 13, 2016. The Bundle belongs to COMM 2820 at Cornell University taught by S. Byrne in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 14 views. For similar materials see Research Methods in Communication Studies in Communication at Cornell University.
Reviews for Assignment 2, Midterm Review
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/13/16
RESEARCH METHODS MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE *do a SONAcredit 1) Validity of lab experiments slides, p 103-105 ch 6 2) The role of theory in research slides chap 2, 4 theory/lit review hypothesis test result (findings support or do not support H’s) 3) Validity, operationalization and conceptualization slides, 103-105, ch 6 4) Manifest and Latent variables slides, chap 10 5) Dixon study sampling and procedure dixon pdf, slides 6) Academic journal publications slides and chap 2 7) Research questions vs hypotheses and types of hypotheses obvious 8) Internal validity do the researchers affect the study? slides, p 103-105, ch 6 9) Content analysis and causal claims slides, ch 10 what kind of claims can they make about ppl and content 10) Database strengths and weaknesses 11) Content analysis sampling 12) What is the IRB IRB website and FAQ’s why do we have it? why is it there? 13) IRB and deception come up with a study, what would the IRB have to say about that what do they say about deception under what circumstances are you allowed to use deception 14) Directional, conditional, null hypotheses slides ch 5 15) Ethical principles of research slides 16) Paradigms slides ch 3 ex: positivist and systems have some similarities, *so like be able to distinguish the paradigms from each other 17) Criteria for causality slides, ch 3 (causality) eli’s presentation 18) Margin of error slides, ch 7 use example of assignment coming up how do you know a confidence about of margin of error google political polls and it will come up with a list of polls conducted and will give the candidates and will give the results and margin of error *which polls do i think are certain and which ones are not 19) Vulnerable populations IRB website, slides, ch 5 20) Random sampling vs random assignment difference between sampling and assignment know which one is going on in a scenario 21) Inductive vs deductive reasoning slides, ch 4 how each one moves from observations to generalizations inductive: moves from small to big, deductive: moves from big to small 22) Sections and purpose of sections of a research article sections and purpose of sections of a research article sections and chapter 2 what is a literature review, how is it reviewed, etc. methods section how it will be conducted results results of the study 23) Sample size, confidence level and population size slides, chap 7 what happens to confidence level as sizes rises what kind of confidence level do you want for certain samples 24) Intercoder reliability slides, chap 6, 10, dixon how do you know that any 2 coders are making the same decisions no calculations ignore formulas what are the diff ways you can do that 25) Correlation vs causation slides, chap 3 2 variables are correlated vs one causes the other understanding the difference is very important (come up with scenarios or examples) understand what a neg and positive correlation is 26) Sampling strategies stratified, snowball, cluster sampling scenario questions 27) Qualities of scientific research (Empirical, partial and dynamic, systematic, replicable, logical) empirical, partial and dynamic, systematic, replicable, logical give examples that fulfill those qualities (look @ chap 1) 28) Reliability and validity slides, p 103-105, chap 6 know what each are come up with a scenario of ones that are reliable and not valid, or both, or the opposite 29) Dependent and Independent variables slides, chap 3 *this is ridiculously important know which one is which write out hypotheses and be able to underline which one is which dependent: effect, what changes independent: what is doing the changes 30) Variables (conditional variable vs. third/spurious variable) slides (lets do some examples) third/spurious variables are the outside variables that can have an effect on an outcome that are not a part of the original independent and dependent variables conditional variables are ones that filter through an outcome depending on a certain variable (only if the person is a girl or only if the person is a nonsmoker) example: RQ: does watching the news cause anxiety? Directional Hypothesis: Watching the news causes feelings of anxiety * this is a casual claim Conditional Hypothesis: Watching the news causes feelings of anxiety in new voters but not experienced voters *a hypothesis can be both conditional and directional Third Variable:All new voters talked longer with the research assistant about the election *because it is all new voters, it effects the outcome *some external variable we didn't think of NULL: Watching the news will not make a difference in anxiety example 2: RQ: is posting on snapchat correlated to teen depression? Directional: the more teenagers post on snapchat, the more depressive symptoms they report Conditional: the more younger teens post on snapchat, the more depressive symptoms they report, whereas older teens who post more often report being happier Third Variable: the effect could also be explained by social media skills NULL: Posting on snapchat does not correlate with reports of depression or happiness COMM 2820 Assignment 2 Part 1 1. Frequent exposure to negative portrayals of immigrants in news reports increases stereotypic attitudes towards immigrants depending if you have interacted with other immigrants previously. 1.a. I chose this conditional variable because it means that exposure to news reports may increase stereotypical attitudes. However, it makes sense that such a hypothesis is null if you have interacted with immigrants previously because that would influence your attitudes about immigrants. 2. Schemer provides information supporting his hypothesis from multiple angles and possible objectives. Schemer hypothesizes that the negative portrayal of immigrants in media increases viewers’stereotypical opinions about immigrants. More specifically, the more people watch biased media, the more the viewers agree to stereotypical tendencies. However, with this hypothesis comes a catch.According to Schemer, the more knowledgeable people are effects how susceptible people are to believing the biased media. Schemer found that not only do people cave to stereotypical ideas of immigrants after watching negative media, but that this was conditional upon how knowledgable the viewers are. However, the conditional aspect of Schemer’s hypothesis turned out to be an entirely dependent part of the study, whereby all results from the study depended on their knowledgeability.According to the study findings in Figure 1, the graphs portray a consistent inverse ratio between impact of exposure to negative media portrayal and knowledge level. Figure 2 proved just as significant in that as impact of exposure to positive media portrayal dependent on knowledge increased, proving that knowledge determines how much media impacts viewers. Schemer’s discussion supports his hypothesis because it not only describes the results of the study, but it relates the information back to the original hypothesis and how strong or weak the hypothesis was, but also how the different variables influence each other. 3. Do you think that Schemer (2012) provide sufficient evidence to conclude that exposure to negative portrayals of immigrants in news reports CAUSES people to have stereotypic attitudes toward immigrants? In developing your answer, consider the following questions: a) The criteria for determining a relationship between variables as causal has three parts. The first criteria is that the variables must be directly associated or correlated, which means that there must be a direct relationship between the independent and dependent variable. For example, if the variables are in the form of numbers, their relationship can be determined quantitatively. The second criteria is timing. In order for variables to be causal, the independent variable must happen before the dependent variable, to prove that the independent variable influenced the dependent. The third criteria is the relationship between the two variables need to cause each other, not by an outside third variable. This requires confirmation that there were no other possible explanations for the correlation between the variables. In Schemer’s study, the independent variable is exposure to biased media about immigrants, and the dependent variable is impact of the media on their COMM 2820 Assignment 2 attitudes about immigrants, whether it be more or less stereotypical. This causal relationship fulfills the first criteria, because exposure to media is known to have a direct relationship with how the content affects people. Not only is the content of exposure and effectiveness correlated to one another, but also exposure time and amount of impact are also related. The second criteria is also fulfilled by Schemers study because in order for stereotypical tendencies to spike or decrease, the viewers had to watch the biased content. Without watching the content or if watching the content after the research data is collected, then there would be no impact.As for the third criteria, I would not agree that there is a causal relationship between the variables. This is because there is a third variable within the study that controls how much or how little the exposure impacts the viewers’opinion on immigrants. Therefore, I cannot support the statement that the variables in this study have a causal relationship. b) One potential outside variable is one’s ties to immigrants our their own immigration status. Those that are immigrants will not be influenced by biased or false information about immigrants. Therefore, their reaction to the exposure of immigrant media will be influenced by their immigrant status.Asecond potential outside variable is political involvement. Those who feel strongly about the topic of immigrants are more likely to watch the political media that go along with their own political beliefs. So the impact of exposure to immigrant media may not be causal, but rather are both caused by a third variable. 4. The Institutional Review Board has criteria that determines the ethicality of a research study using humans as subjects. First, the research cannot cause any harm to the subject, whether it be physical, mental, psychological, or financial. Second, the research must be completely voluntary, with no evidence of coercion. Third, the research must have anonymity or confidentiality in order to protect the subject from any consequences, and also to reassure the subject to make sure they answer honestly.And lastly, deception is considered unethical unless the results are dependent upon deception. With the information provided, I would argue that this study abides by the ethical rules of the IRB. Watching television does not pose a threat in terms of harm, and the subjects’participation are completely voluntary. There is also no evidence of coercion, because there is no outside incentive to participate in the study. While the study brief does not disclose if the participants will remain anonymous, but there is no reason to believe the anonymity of the participants will be compromised.And lastly, deception appears to be necessary in order to keep the answers truthful and not subject to bias, so as long as the participants are debriefed at the end, the study passes the criteria for being ethical. PART 2 Abstract: College drinking continues to remain a public health problem that has been exacerbated by alcohol-related posts on social networking sites (SNSs).Although existing COMM 2820 Assignment 2 research has linked alcohol consumption, alcohol posts, and adverse consequences to one another, comprehensive explanations for these associations have been largely unexplored. Thus, we reasoned that students’personal motivations (i.e., espousing an alcohol identity, needing entertainment, and adhering to social norms) influence their behaviors (i.e., alcohol consumption and alcohol-related posting on SNSs), which can lead to alcohol problems. Using structural equation modeling, we analyzed data from 364 undergraduate students and found general support for our model. In particular, espousing an alcohol identity predicted alcohol consumption and alcohol-related SNS posting, needing entertainment predicted alcohol consumption but not alcohol-related SNS posting, and adhering to social norms predicted alcohol-related SNS posting but not alcohol consumption. In turn, alcohol consumption and alcohol-related SNS posting predicted alcohol problems. It is surprising that alcohol-related SNS posting was a stronger predictor of alcohol problems than alcohol consumption. We discuss the findings within their applied applications for college student health. 4. The authors approached this paper through the Positivist Paradigm. The Positivist Paradigm’s core assumptions are that reality is objective and can be analyzed through observation. The more critical point of the paradigm, however, is that social phenomena can be explained through various causes and factors. Such factors can be related to one another, but they can be individually identified and have individual influences on a situation. For this paper, the authors analyze specific factors that contribute to alcohol drinking and social media’s combined efforts that lead to alcohol problems. The authors identify that there are potentially multiple factors that contribute to this relationship such as alcohol identity, entertainment need, social norms, alcohol consumption, and social media behavior and how they all collectively and individual lead to the results of alcohol issues. So while there are individual effects of factors, we can observe people’s behavior and identify the individual influences they each have. 5. Identify whether the author or authors of your article have offered explicit hypotheses. YES NO Hypothesis Directional, Conditional or Something Else? COMM 2820 Assignment 2 1) Espousing an alcohol identity positively predicts (a). Directional consuming alcohol and (b) posting alcohol-related content on SNSs; in turn, these behaviors positively predict alcohol problems. 2) Needing entertainment positively predicts (a) 2. Directional consuming alcohol and (b) posting alcohol-related content on SNSs; in turn, these behaviors positively predict alcohol problems. 7. Identify whether the author or authors of your article have used a specific theory to guide their study. YES NO Theory Cited Hypothesis or Research Question 1. Social Identity Theory 1. Students’personal motivations influence their behaviors, which can 2. Theory of Normative Social Behavior lead to alcohol problems. 2. As peers generally view alcohol references positively, posting alcohol-related content may contribute to students’perceptions that drinking is normative and may increase students’likelihood of drinking. Article: College Students' Drinking and Posting About Alcohol: Forwarding a Model of Motivations, Behaviors, and Consequences. (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/ 10.1080/10810730.2016.1153763?scroll=top&needAccess=true)
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'