UCD Parenting Skills Collectivistic Values & Respect to Authority Research Paper

OVERVIEW

You will work in a small group (4-5people) to design and conduct a simple study about a communication topic (some example topics that would be suited to a simple study appearon GauchoSpace). You will decide as a group which topic to study and whether it would be appropriate to conduct a surveyor anexperimentto investigate your topic. You and your group members (with some guidancefrom 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 a7-8page 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 studiesin academic journals that will provide you withsome 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 set of variables) thatyou will attempt to testinyour study. Your hypotheses MUST be based on the literature (i.e., the empirical studiesthat you find!).In other words, you must provide justification from the scientific literaturefor what you are predicting! You may also include a research questionfor some additional variables that you would like to include/investigate as part of yourstudy.

Step 3) Develop a research designthat helps you testyour hypothesis (i.e., a surveyor 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 effectsof 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 materialsyou will need (e.g., experimental manipulations, stimulus videos, etc.). When deciding howto construct your measures, remember to consider how you will later analyzethem (i.e., how will you know if yourhypothesis was supported or not?).

Step 5) Collect data. Much of this canbe done mid-quarter during your discussion section, as many of youwillserve as each other’s subjects, filling out each other’s surveys and participating in each other’s experiments. Often it is also necessary to collect data outsideof 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 correlationsbetween variables). However, you are not requiredto use statistics (i.e., you may “eyeball” your data in order to compare means, etc.). Your TA will help you identifywhat 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 youwill compute simple correlations among your variables.Part II

–The Paper: ON YOUR OWN, you will write a paper that should have FIVEsectionsin this order:

INTRODUCTION (note thatthis section doesn’t actually get its own labeled headinglike 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 eachempirical study you briefly summarize what the study didand describe the main findingsthat 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 whyyou are making your prediction(s) and posing your question(s).METHODIn the Method section, you should describe specifically what you didin your study. Using the appropriate subheadingsfor your particularstudy (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 writingshould be in your ownwords!RESULTSIn this section you should briefly report what kind of data analysis you did (e.g., you computed means on yourDV for the different IV groups, or you computed a correlation between your IV and DV scales), and then report the resultingdata. 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.DISCUSSIONThis is the most important section! Here you need to interpret your findings and critiqueyour study.First, what can you concludeon 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 WEAKNESSESof 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 (experimentor 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).See next page for important rules and tips about format, writing style, grading, late papers, etc….REQUIREMENTS AND POLICIESFORMAT: The paper should be 7-8pagesof text (but NOTcounting title page, references, graphs/tables, or appendices). It should betyped, double-spaced, page-numbered, with roughly 1″ margins and Times 12 pt font. Note that Word’s default settings (and probably also those ofother programs, such as Pages) are usually wrongfor this assignment(margins too big, font too small, extra line spaces inserted after paragraphs, etc.), so you’ll need to change yoursettings! Follow the “88 paper format template” posted on GauchoSpace for how to format each section of your paper(it includes lots of advice as well!).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(7thedition)for citations within the text of your paper, as well as for your reference list. You will find some guidelines forAPA 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. SeeBe 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: You are required to submit on GauchoSpace, by the due date and time, an electronic versionof your paper (saved as a WORD .doc or .docx file). Emailed versions of papers are NOT acceptable (unless by emergency arrangement with yourTA). Late papers are penalized 5 points off per day. GRADING: Remember first that your actual results (whether your hypotheses were supported or not) DO NOT DETERMINE your grade; it’s what you SAY about your results that matters. Your score will be based on how well your papershowsthe following: ability to express an accurate and thorough understanding of your study, of course material,and outside research; depth and effectiveness at articulating and supporting your criticisms; clarity and authority in writing style and organization; and excellent execution of the assignment. We evaluate these qualities by comparing your paper to others, not to some “ideal” objective we have in mind for the paper. This is because each TA may have a different ideal in mind, so it is the actual set of papers submitted that tells us what level of excellence is achievable. After years of experience with Comm 88 papers, I can tell you that we usually see a very high level of achievement indeed, so it is a mistake to think that if you just “do what the assignment asks” you will get a good grade. Doing the assignment is the minimum, and usually results in an “average” grade (i.e., in the “C+” range). To lift your grade above average, you will need to use the language ofthe course convincingly, show sophistication in your thinking,and apply and integrate course concepts withclarity, depth, and insight(especially in the discussion section)–this is what the high achieving papers tend to do

Research Question:

• Do collectivistic cultural values generate more respect in a child-parent relationship and respect for authority if the parenting style is more permissive?

2 Hypothesis:

• The more individualistic values present in a family, the less respect is generated within parent-child relationships.
• The more a child is exposed to authoritarian values, the more negative of a response the child expresses to authority.

Possible Variables

• Variable 1: Cultural Values *IV & Categorical
  • Collectivistic or individualistic cultural values
• Variable 2: Child’s Perception of Amount of Respect in Relationship with Parent *DV & Continuous
  • Questionnaire with hypotheticals/rate how strongly you agree w/ statements
  • Possibly interview people
• Variable 3: Parenting Styles *IV & Categorical
  • How child perceives parenting style (Authoritarian vs. Permissive)
  • , also questionnaire
• Variable 4: How a Child’s Response to Authority is Impacted by Parenting Style *DV & Continuous
  • Questionnaire on how kids respond to obedience (answering hypotheticals)

• Articles to use in the essay

• Sidebotham, P. (2001). Culture, stress and the parent-child relationship: A qualitative study of parents’ perceptions of parenting. Child: Care, Health and Development, 27(6), 469-485. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.ucsb.edu:2048/10.1046/j.1365-2214.2001.00229.x
• Shen, J. J., Cheah, C. S. L., & Yu, J. (2018). Asian american and european american emerging adults’ perceived parenting styles and self-regulation ability. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 9(2), 140-148. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.ucsb.edu:2048/10.1037/aap0000099
• Do the associations of parenting styles with behavior problems and academic achievement vary by culture? Results from a meta-analysis By Pinquart, Martin & Kauser, Rubina (Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology Vol.24, Iss. 1)
• Ancestral landscapes in human evolution: Culture, childrearing and social wellbeing by Narvaez, Darcia & Valentino, Kristin, + more we can just search it up
• The relationship between perceived parenting style, filial piety, and life satisfaction in Hong Kong

The data is attached as a file. It is shown in excel spreadsheet.

The template should be like this:

*********(HAS to be APA style citations throughout the paper)

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 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), 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.
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.

References
Last Name, F. M. (Year). Article Title. Journal Title, Pages From – To.
Last Name, F. M. (Year). Book Title. City Name: Publisher Name.