Ifyou want to have students read an article that is analyzed as a multiple-groupexperiment (there are five levels of the independent variable), or if you wantto students read an article that uses a hybrid design (the nonexperimentalfactor is political party), or if you want students to see that they canunderstand an article that uses regression, consider assigning the followingarticle:
As you can see from eitherthe Abstract (available at
the article is interesting.In addition, it is easy for your students to obtain (students who buy the bookcan get it by using the Infotrac® subscription that comes with ResearchDesign Explained, as well as from
Table 1 Helping Students Understand the Article | |
Section | Tips, Comments, and Problem Areas |
Abstract | Rationalization postulate Congruent: match Perceived likelihood: how likely a person believes an event is to occur Nonpartisans: people not interested in politics Subjective desirability: how much a person likes an outcome |
Introduction | Paragraph 1 Pundits: media experts Acute: noticeable, painful Paragraph 2 “align ….” (first sentence): match up their views of how much they like something with the likelihood of that thing occurring. Constrain their hopes: keep their hopes from being too high Cope defensively: change how people view things; use defense mechanisms Paragraph 3 The general idea of this paragraph is that we know people rationalize what has already happened so people may rationalize what is going to happen. Cognitive dissonance: see bottom of page 47, cartoon on page 48, and table on page 49 of Research design explained. Post-decisional justification: right after making a choice, people tend to value what they chose more and value what they did not choose less. Derogate: put down; criticize Attributions: judgments Attributes: characteristics System justification: the idea that people accept that their country’s system is good and should continue. Status quo: the way things are Paragraph 4 The general idea of this paragraph is that changing one thought or attitude may change other thoughts and attitudes. In this article, the focus will be on changing beliefs about how likely an event is will change attitudes about how desirable that event is. Paragraph 5 The rationalization postulate says that people will engage in both “sweet lemon” and “sour grape” rationalizations. So, if people learn their candidate is likely to lose, they will experience “sweet lemons” by deciding that the opposing candidate’s weaknesses are not as serious as they previously thought and by deciding that the candidate has more strengths than they previously thought. In addition, people will experience sour grapes by deciding that their candidate was not as good as they originally thought and by deciding that their candidate had more serious weaknesses than they originally thought. Paragraph 6 Correlational research finds a relationship between liking events and believing that they are likely. However, correlational evidence cannot tell us whether people are liking what they expect to get (rationalization) or hoping that they will get whether they want (wish fulfillment). To see whether people rationalize what they expect to get, we need to do experiments. Paragraph 7 Do experiments in which we make an event seem more likely make that event seem more desirable? One experiment that made certain events seem more likely suggested that the answer is “yes,” but a related experimentuggested the answer was “no.” Perhaps the study that did not find evidence for rationalization did not use events that were emotional enough to motivate rationalization. Paragraph 8 The argument is that the 1982 study may have found an effect for sour grapes but not for sour lemons because the study provided “sweet grapes” (the big reward) but did not provide a “sour lemon.”. Paragraph 9 People are more likely to rationalize when things that matter to them. Politics probably matters more to people who identify themselves with a party than for those who do not. Thus, people who belong to a party are most likely to rationalize. Paragraphs 10 and 11 The authors’ rationalization hypothesis predicts that all those who are personally involved in the election will shift their feelings toward the candidate who is favored to win, whereas undecided voters will not be affected by who is expected to win. Their “rationalization” prediction is different from 1. the underdog effect prediction: that people will like the candidate who is behind. 2. The bandwagon prediction (that undecideds will be most influenced by hearing that one candidate is expected to win) 3. The intergroup conflict prediction that competition would lead to disliking the other party’s candidate even more (losing a war or even an athletic contest does not usually lead to the loser liking the winner more). 4. Cognitive dissonance prediction that tknowing that one’s candidate will lose may cause one to be even more committed to that candidate (“I liked him because he was right, not because I thought he would win”). Last paragraph (paragraph 12) Positive linear relationship … : the more people believe a candidate will win, the more they will like that candidate. For more about positive linear relationships, see Figure 10-2, p. 297. To see that not all relationships are linear, see Figure 10-3, p. 298. |
Method | Pretty straightforward. |
Results | Second paragraph Do not be concerned that the authors used regression to analyze their results. The results would look essentially the same had they used analysis of variance (ANOVA). Third paragraph The significant interaction between manipulation and group (Democrat, Republican, Nonpartisan) suggests that the manipulation’s effect is not the same for each group. Therefore, rather than looking only at the manipulation’s a effect by looking at its effect averaged over all three groups, we should examine the manipulation’s effect on each group. The authors explore the manipulation’s effect on each group by doing separate regression analyses for each group. Beta: In this case, betas are the same as correlation coefficients. |
Discussion | Fairly straightforward—if you understand the introduction. Transpire: happen |