WRITING A RESEARCH REPORT*
A research report in psychology is divided into seven to nine sections. Click on any of the following section titles to read their descriptions.
Title Page Discussion Abstract References Introduction Appendix Methods Assembling the Report Results Research Report Example
The first page of the report serves as the title page. It is not numbered, and should contain: 1) the title of your study, 2) the author’s name, and 3) the author’s institutional affiliation. This information is centered in the middle of the page.
The abstract mus summarize the research paper in no more than 120 words. It should include all elements of the research report. Enough information should be given so that anyone who reads the research study after reading the abstract will not be surprised by what they find in the report. Even though the abstract appears first, it is usually written last because it essentially summarizes the work. Although the abstract is one of the shrtest sections of the study, it is often the most difficult to write because so much must be said in limited space. The abstract is published by abstracting services such as Psychological Abstracts and PsychLit.
The introduction begins the main body of your report.
When writing the introduction, ask yourself four basic questions:
1. What is the point of the study; what is the problem I am trying to solve?
2. What terms need to be defined?
3. How is the study I am considering related to other research that has been done in the area? How does my study build on or derive from other studies?
4. What is my working hypothesis or expectation?
General Format
When writing the introduction, you might proceed in the following manner. First, give a few general statements about the particular problem you are trying to solve. Next, go on to discuss the work other people have done in this area. This is called the literature survey and requires your reading the previous literature (i.e., head to PsychLit!). This survey might include a discussion not only of the studies but also of the theories in a particular area. You should then discuss how your work is related to other research and, more importantly, how it is different. That is, how will your methods and procedures yield information that other research has not provided? This section is of particular importance, because it represents the rationale and the logic behind your experiment. The strongest introductions are those that describe the research problem or hypothesis in such a way that the method section appears to be a natural consequence of that statement.
The last paragraph of your introduction should present your hypothesis.
Length
The length of the introduction is primarily determined by how much literature you survey (i.e., how many studies and theories you discuss). The literature survey need not be exhaustive, but it should be representative. With the exception of a few general references at the beginning of the introduction, the studies you cite should be directly related to your investigation. An analogy to a fast-tapering funnel seems appropriate. The beginning considers studies of broad interest, but the survey quickly gets down to highly relevant studies.
A Note on Style
Literature surveys can become quite monotonous to read. This is usually due to the style in which they are presented. To avoid this, try to intermix styles of research citation as often as possible. In addition, try to avoid making the survey choppy. One way to do this is to indicate to the reader how studies are related.
Instead of this:
Marx (1972) suggested that students who learn under the Keller method do well in science courses. Moe, Larry, and Curley (1960) reported that the Keller Plan raises exam grades in science courses. Several investigators found no relationship between learning under the Keller Plan and grades (Allen, 1975; Jeff et al., 1963; Mutt, 1972).
Try this:
Marx (1972) suggested that students who learn under the Keller method do well in science courses. Similarly, Joe, Larry, and Curley (1960) reported that the Keller Plan raises exam grades in science courses. In contrast, several investigators found no relationship between learning under the Keller Plan and grades (Allen, 1975; Jeff et al., 1963; Mutt, 1972).
Inserting a few connecting words between studies not only eliminates choppiness but also helps guide the reader through the experiments.
The methods section describes in detail how the study was conducted. It consists of three subsections: 1) participants (subjects), 2) apparatus, and 3) procedure.
Participants (Subjects)
1. List participants in the study.
2. Give the major demographic characteristics of the subjects, including age, sex, and any other information that may be relevant.
3. Indicate how the subjects were selected. Were they randomly selected, did they volunteer, did they participate as part of the requirements of a course?
4. If a subject did not complete the study, indicate that and give the reason why (for example, "One subject did not complete the experiment because she became ill").
5. If animals rather than people were used in the study, give the animals’ age, sex, weight, strain, and maintenance conditions.
Apparatus/Measures
Apparatus used in this context is a very general term. Broadly defined, it means whatever machines, equipment, devices, or materials you used to conduct the study. The latter item, materials (e.g., questionnaires), will be what most of you will have used.
Regarding equipment:
1. When standard equipment is used, it is sufficient to give the name, model number, and manufacturer of the equipment.
2. When custom-made equipment is used, a more complete description is necessary. For example, if you constructed your own operant chamber it is necessary to give the dimensions and the materials used. Often a diagram will help.
3. It is not necessary to specify common equipment, such as pencil or paper.
4. Be sure to tell what each piece of equipment was used for; don’t simply list them.
Regarding questionnaires:
5. Describe tests and measurements you chose to use, (e.g., what they are designed to measure, how they were constructed/obtained, reliability and validity information if it’s available) and the context in which they are presented (e.g., were subjects assured of confidentiality).
Procedure
The purpose of the procedure subsection is to explain, in detail, how the data were collected. The description of the procedure should be written so that a person unfamiliar with your study could read it and then replicate the study. In fact, a good test of the clarity of this subsection is to give it to someone unfamiliar with your study, have them read it through, and see if they believe they could run the study exactly as you ran it.
When writing the procedure subsection, you should attempt to answer two basic questions:
1. How was the independent variable administered? If the subjects were people, describe how they were treated. In most instances, this entails a description of the instructions given to each person/group. It may be appropriate to give a verbatim account of the directions. Also describe the task each subject was required to complete.
2. How was the dependent variable recorded? Simply describe how you collected the data. If you were measuring the number of times that two three-year-olds touched each other while playing, indicate whether you observed them directly and counted or recorded their actions on videotape and counted while watching the tape.
Now that you have explained why and how you did your study, it's time to report what you found. Ask yourself the following questions as you structure your results section:
What did I find?
How can I say what I found in a careful, detailed way?
Will what I have said be clear to the reader?
Have I left out anything of importance?
As is the case with all other aspects of your report, the results portion should be written in paragraph form. Also a statistical description of the results is needed as appropriate to your statistical tests. Reporting statistical findings in a concise yet understandable way requires that you follow the conventions we already discussed in class. But they do bear repeating: The usual convention is to present the descriptive statistics first followed by the results of the descriptive/inferential statistical tests. When reporting statistics you should report what statistic was used, the number of degrees of freedom, the computed value of the statistic, and the probability of obtaining the computed value of the statistic by chance. Each of these is organized in a precise order.
Examples:
Reporting t-tests:
Boys (M = 66.66, SD = 8.34) were found to be significantly more aggressive than girls (M = 53.04, SD = 7.34) in the playground situation, t(28) = 2.33, p = .04.
Reporting ANOVAs:
There was a significant difference in performance between the three distraction conditions, F(2,27) = 3.69, p < .05.
Reporting chi-squares:
Psychology majors were significantly more likely to classify themselves as "humanistic" than were engineering majors, χ2(1, N = 60) = 4.47, p < 0.05.
All non-Greek, single-letter terms used in reporting statistical results (e.g., F, t, p, M, SD) should be italicized in the manuscript. With this format, readers can easily interpret the importance of certain results even if they are not familiar with the statistical procedure used because the probability value at the end of the report will mean the same thing.
Often the most effective way of presenting statistical information is to organize it in a table or figure. Tables and figures should be carefully labeled for the reader. Tables should give the reader enough information so they can be interpreted without information from the text. See the APA manual for instructions on constructing tables and figures.
There is no one correct way of presenting the results of a study. It is often useful for the researcher to try to organize results in various ways--testing both tables and figures to determine which method is most effective.
The results section of the research report simply presents the data. No attempt is made to interpret the data nor to discuss their implications. The purpose of the discussion, then, is fourfold: 1) to interpret the results of the statistical analysis presented in the results section, 2) to discuss the implications of these results, 3) to compare the results with those of previous studies, and 4) to make suggestions for future research.
Interpretation of Statistical Analysis
The most straightforward way to begin the discussion section is to state whether your results support your hypothesis (results do not prove or disprove anything). If the data clearly do or do not support the hypothesis, then a simple statement to this effect will usually suffice. In many instances, however, you will find that it is difficult to interpret the data because of one, or more likely several, flaws in the study. Some flaws would lead a professional to redo the study. Since this is a course project you're writing about, you do not have this luxury. It is your job to discuss the flaws and explain how they might be corrected in subsequent studies. Many problems arise in conducting studies, and it's your responsibility to report them and to give the reader some idea of how disruptive they were to your results.
(For the final write-up of your study I will be looking for you to discuss the issues below in your discussion section. I will react to each of the issues by giving it a rating on two criteria: 1) how clear and accurate your analysis seems to be, and 2) the depth of your analysis. I'll rate each on a four-point scale:
Clarity and Accuracy of Analysis
Depth of Analysis/Effort
The issues are:
- Comment on the quality of your measures’ representation of the original concepts you proposed in your hypothesis.
- Comment on the appropriateness of the type of scales you used as measures.
- Comment on the validity of the measurements.
- How did you obtain your subjects? What can you say about your sampling technique? How does itaffect the validity of your results (i.e., how much sampling error was there)? How could you have gathered your sample differently to increase its validity?
- Are there any characteristics of the particular people you used as subjects that lead you to worry about the quality of your results? How might you have overcome these problems?
- What did you do to insure that you treated your subjects ethically? In highsight, can you think of anything you could have done differently?
- What type of study did you perform to test the hypotheses? On what characteristics have you based your categorization?
If you conducted a non-experimental study:
- Did you see any inherent strengths or weaknesses in the study’s ability to validly answer the hypotheses (i.e., guarding against experimenter biases, situational demand characteristics, etc.)?
- How could you have strengthened the design?
- If your study involved observation, describe the instruments you used to record your observations, and comment on their reliability and validity.
- If your study involved a questionnaire, comment on the questionnaire’s structure (e.g., type of items) and the overall quality of the questionnaire. How did you administer your questionnaire?
- What are the strengths and weakness of the method you used? In hindsight, can you detect any experimenter biases in the manner you administered your questionnaire? Any demand characteristics?
If you conducted an experimental study:
- Did you see any inherent strengths or weaknesses in the study’s ability to validly answer the hypotheses (i.e., guarding against different types of error variance, such as experimenter biases, situational demand characteristics, etc.)? Another way to go about getting at this issue is to ask if you can think of any possible confounds in your experiments design. How could you have strengthened the design?
Don't worry if you conduct a study and it turns out that the results are nonsignificant. This often provides information as useful as that supplied by significant findings. Treat these results the same way as you would significant results. Also don't assume that nonsignificant results need to be explained away--they may not be due to a faulty study design or poor measure. It may simply be that your hypothesis was incorrect.)
Implications of Results and Comparison with Past Studies
If you are in the "blessed" position of having statistically significant results untouched by counfounding (extraneous) variables, the next step after making a statement about whether your data support your hypothesis is to discuss the implications of the data. Compare your results with earlier studies, particularly those you cited in your introduction. Are your results consistent with those of other researchers? If not, why not?
Suggestions for Future Research
A final aspect of the discussion section is to suggest what studies might be done next. A short statement is sufficient.
All material cited or paraphrased in the research report must be included in the reference section. Refer to the APA publication manual for proper referencing styles.
The purpose of this final section is to display the materials that don't fit into the body of the paper, such as tables and figures, questionnaires, and stimulus materials used in experiments.
Your final research report should be assembled as follows:
Title, author, and affiliation (centered on a separate, unnumbered page).
Abstract (on a separate page, numbered page 1). The abstract is always written as one paragraph.. The word abstract is centerd at the top of the page.
Introduction (separate page). The introcution is not labeled.
Methods. Skip two lines (double space) after the last line of the introduction and center the work Methods.
Subjects, Apparatus, and Procedure. Each of these subheadings is capitalized, underlined, and typed at the left margin.
Results. Skip two lines after the methods section and center and underline the word Results.
Discussion. Skip two lines after the results section and center and underline the word Discussion.
References (separate page). Center the word References on the top of a new page.
Tables. Each table should appear on a separate page, and each should have a label and a title (see APA Publication Manual).
Figures. The same rules apply to figures as to tables.
To help you along the way, here are a few general comments about writing in psychology in general for everyone to consider:
Scientific writing should be clear and concise. If you want to make a point, state it as succinctly and clearly as possible. Delete any words or phrases that aren’t absolutely necessary to the clarity of your report. For example, "It was shown by Boylan & Mancari in their 1987 article entitled, "Social and Personality Factors Influencing the Passage of Salt," becomes "Boylan & Mancari (1987) found…"
It's an APA no-no to make any statement of fact without referencing that statement (see pages 95-98 of APA manual). Remember, scientific psychology takes the stand that nothing is true until it has been repeatedly demonstrated (supported, not proven) through valid empirical studies, so avoid generalizations.
Unless you feel that it is absolutely necessary, avoid quoting long passages. It may be necessary to quote or paraphrase some material (with a citation, of course), but your paper should reflect your thoughts on a particular topic after you have researched and synthesized material from the sources you feel are pertinent.
Beware of gender bias (see pg. 50 in APA manual). Use plural pronouns when you refer to both genders. Use masculine or feminine pronouns only if the situation calls for it.
Be careful of how you use verb tense. The APA recommends:
Match the subject’s number with its following pronouns (e.g., "a person who chooses to focus their attention," should be "people who choose to focus their attention).
Use the active voice as much as possible. Avoid the passive voice. You write in the active voice when you represent the subject of your sentence as performing the action expressed by your verb (e.g., Rice & Gempf theorized that salt moves from one end of the table to the other…). You write in the passive voice when the subject undergoes the action expressed by your verb (e.g., It was theorized by Rice & Gempf that salt moves…).
Below is an example of a paper I recently wrote. It's the same paper I handed out at the beginning of the semester, if you still have it. Any words you find printed in red are not part of a research report, but are instead used as guides. I've also separated the paper's subsections for clarity's sake only. They are not to be separated unless otherwise instructed by the APA manual.
A final note. Web pages do not indent the first line of paragraphs or reference entries. The APA style manual requires this, however. Be sure to check style requirements before handing in your final paper.
The Relationship Between Dogmatism and Religiousness Revisited
Jeffrey B. Adams
Saint Michael's College
Jeff Capobianco
Howard Community Health
Presented at the 1996 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
The relationship between dogmatism and religious orientation remains controversial. Reveiws by Donahue (1985) and Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis (1993) indicate that this controversy is fueled by the fact that few studies have empirically investigated this relationship. In addition, Donahue has suggested that existing studies' reliance on correlational analysis of I-E data confounds the intrinsic and extrinsic orientations with the empirically distinct indiscriminately proreligious and indiscriminately antireligious orientations. This study was conducted to add to the empirical literature and to test Donahue's claim. while correlational analysis of responses to Allport and Ross's (1967) Religious Orientation Scale and Rokeach's (1960) Dogmatism Scale mirror those reported by Donahue and Batson et al., ANOVA analysis of the data reveals a significant interaction between the orientations, supporting Donahue's criticism of previous studies.
The devoutly religious person tends to be inflexibly closed, intolerant, and unchanging. Religiousness, therefore, is in many respects equivalent to irrational thinking and emotional disturbance (Ellis, 1980, p. 637).
Are religious individuals more dogmatic than those who proclaim themselves nonreligious? Despite the gravity of this question and the significant implications of its possible answers, the relationship between religiousness and dogmatism remains unclear and controversial. Results of early empirical investigations (e.g., Gregory, 1957; Rokeach, 1960, 1973) provided moderate support for the claims of psychologists such Albert Ellis (1980; see quote above). Results from later studies (e.g., Hoge & Carroll, 1973; Kahoe, 1974; Paloutzian, Jackson, & Crandal, 1978; Thompson, 1974) qualified these earlier findings. Utilizing Allport's theoretical distinction between mature/intrinsic and immature/extrinsic approaches to religion, researchers found a link between an extrinsic religious orientation and dogmatism, but no relationship for the intrinsic orientation.
Still, the question of whether or not religious individuals are more closed-minded than nonreligious people continues to be an issue of contention today. Following their review of the literature, Batson, Schoenrade and Ventis (1993) point out that while the evidence shows no relationship between intrinsic religiousness and dogmatism, there also "is little indication that the relationship [of intrinsic religiousness] to measures of open-mindedness and flexibility is positive" (p. 287). Furthermore, Batson et al. interpret positive correlations between the intrinsic orientation and religious orthodoxy as implying that intrinsic religiousness is appropriately considered a fanatical approach to religion, one that is "rigid, uncritical, and dependent" (p. 163). They contend that the Intrinsic scale fails to assess Allport’s mature religious sentiment, and propose that a more open-minded and flexible approach to religion is to be found in a quest orientation.
A close look at Batson et al.'s review gives evidence that their conclusions may be premature. Their reviews of research investigating the connection between "open-mindedness and flexibility" and I-E and quest are limited to only eight and four studies respectively. And of these, only four I-E studies examine dogmatism as their measure of open-mindedness, while no quest study looks at this measure. Certainly, further work in this area is strongly needed. In addition, of the I-E studies examined by Batson et al., none utilized Allport's original fourfold typology, settling instead on separate correlations for the intrinsic and extrinsic scales. As Donahue (1985) argues, such an analysis confounds distinct orientations, (i.e., the intrinsic and indiscriminately proreligious orientations, and the extrinsic and indiscriminately antireligious orientations), obscuring a possible interaction between intrinsic and extrinsic orientations that has been found with other variables, such as prejudice and obedience. It is the intention of this study to investigate whether or not this interactive pattern exists for dogmatism as well.
Participants
One hundred and thirty college students (26 freshmen, 43 sophomores, 26 juniors, and 35 seniors) attending a small Roman Catholic college in New England volunteered to participate. Subjects were offered one chance each in a lottery drawing for their participation, with a top prize of $35, a second prize of $20, and a $10 third prize.
Procedure
Four large group meetings were held in which subjects were administered the Religious Orientation Scale (Allport and Ross, 1967), the Religious Life Inventory (Batson and Ventis, 1982), the Doctrinal Orthodoxy Scale (Batson and Ventis, 1982), and the Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, 1960). The sequence of the questionnaires was counterbalanced to guard against possible order effects.
Correlational Analyses
Correlations between the I-E measures and dogmatism (see Table 1) were similar to those reported in Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis's (1993) review, with the extrinsic orientation significantly related to dogmatism (r = .28, p<.01), and no significant relationship between dogmatism and the intrinsic orientation (r = .10) being found. Additionally, the intrinsic orientation was strongly correlated with religious orthodoxy (r = .60, p<.01), while the extrinsic orientation was not significantly related (r = -.15). In contrast to these similarities, correlations for the quest orientation showed two differences from those reported by Batson et al. The first discrepancy was that while Batson et al. report predominately positive correlations between the quest orientation and open-mindedness and flexibility, the relationship between dogmatism and quest for this sample was not significant (r = .13). Secondly, the intrinsic orientation and the quest approach were significantly related (r = .23, p<.05), a result that contrasts with the insignificant correlations reported by both Batson et al. and by Donahue (1985).
ANOVA Analysis
Following Donahue’s (1985) call for greater standardization of scoring procedures, low and high intrinsic groups and low and high extrinsic groups were formed using Allport's theoretical median splits (27 for intrinsic, 33 for extrinsic) in forming the fourfold typology. A 2 X 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run using the dogmatism score as the dependent variable and the intrinsic and extrinsic scores as the independent variables. The results of this test showed a significant interaction between the intrinsic and extrinsic scores, F(1, 129) = .03. Post hoc analyses revealed the following sequence of mean differences: Intrinsic (M = 99.78) = extrinsic (M = 103.18) = indiscriminately antireligious (M = 103.49) < indiscriminately proreligious (M = 112.50) (see Table 2).
An additional ANOVA was run using the orthodoxy score as the dependent variable and the intrinsic and extrinsic scores as the independent variables. The results revealed a significant main effect for the intrinsic orientation, F(1,128) = 31.96, p < .0001, with neither the extrinsic main effect, F(1,28) = 1.77, p < .19, nor the interaction, F(1,128) = .60, p < .44, achieving significance.
I-E and Dogmatism
Correlational analysis of our Religious Orientation Scale and Dogmatism Scale data replicates previous findings reported by Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis (1993), with extrinsics showing a significant relationship with dogmatism, and intrinsics evidencing no relationship. Furthermore, our finding of a strong correlation between the intrinsic orientation and religious orthodoxy also concurs with those reported by Batson et al. These combined findings have been interpreted by Batson et al. as meaning that intrinsics are not open-minded, flexible individuals. However, switching from a correlational to ANOVA analysis of the dogmatism data calls this conclusion into question. While the main effects mimic the correlational findings—a significant main effect for the extrinsic orientation, F (1,129) = 4.67, p < .03, and a nonsignificant effect for the intrinsic orientation, F (1,129) = .07, p < .79--the significant interaction effect reveals that it is the indiscriminately proreligious individuals who are the most closed-minded of the four orientation groups. In addition, pure intrinsics score the lowest on Rokeach’s Dogmatism Scale, though the difference between the intrinsics’ score and either the extrinsic or the indiscriminately antireligious groups’ scores did not achieve statistical significance.
What is to be made of the pure intrinsics' low dogmatism score combined with their high orthodoxy scores? Accepting many researchers' conclusion that the intrinsic scale measures religious commitment (Kirkpatrick & Hood, 1990), and accepting Rokeach's (1960) characterization of an open belief system as "the extent to which the person can receive, evaluate, and act on relevant information received from the outside on its own intrinsic merits" (p.57), we suggest that of the four orientations, pure intrinsics come closest to Allport's heuristic character of a mature religious sentiment. "It is characteristic of the mature mind that it can act whole-heartedly even without absolute certainty. It can be sure without being cocksure" (Allport, 1950, p. 81). Pure intrinsics are highly committed to their religious faith, yet accepting of any system that helps "find out better and fuller answers to the questions that perplex [them]" (Allport, 1950, p.81).
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443.
Batson, C. D., & Ventis, W. L. (1982). The religious experience: A social-psychological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psychological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Donahue, M. J. (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400-419.
Ellis, A. (1980). Psychotherapy and atheistic values: A response to A. E. Bergin's "Psychotherapy and religious values." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 635-639.
Gregory. W. E. (1957). The orthodoxy of the authoritarian personality. Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 217-232.
Hoge, D. R., & Carroll, J. W. (1973). Religiosity and prejudice in Northern and Southern churches. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 12, 181-197.
Kahoe, R. D. (1974). Personality and achievement correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 812-818.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hood, R. W. (1990). Intrinsic-Extrinsic religious orientation: The boon or bane of contemporary psychology of religion? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 442-462.
Paloutzian, R. F., Jackson, S. L., & Crandall, J. E. (1978). Conversion experience, belief system, and personal and ethical attitudes. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 6, 266-275.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems. New York: Basic Books.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.
Thompson, A. D. (1974). Open-mindedness and indiscrimination antireligious orientation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 13, 471-477.
Appendix 1
Table 1
Correlations Among Religious Orientations Scales and Dogmatism Scale
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Scales Intrinsic Extrinsic Quest Orthodoxy Dogmatism Intrinsic -.11 .23* .60** .10 Extrinsic .15 -.15 .28** Quest -.09 .13 Orthodoxy .12 __________________________________________________________________________________________
* Significant at .05 level
** Significant at .01 level
TABLE 2
Mean Dogmatism Scores for Interaction Between Intrinsic Religiousness and Extrinsic Religiousness.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Extrinsic
Religiousness Intrinsic Religiousness Low
High
Low
103.49
(n=37)
103.18
(n=22)
High
99.78a
(n=49)
112.50a
(n=22)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
a significantly different at .01 level
(*Some material contained on this page is attributable to the following sources. Refer to these texts for in-depth coverage of these issues:
Graziano, A. M., & Raulin, M. L. (1997). Research methods: A process of inquiry. New York: Longman.
Rosnow, R. L., Rosnow, M. (1992). Writing papers in psychology, (2nd Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Solomon, P. R. (1985). A student’s guide to research report writing in psychology. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company.)