School of Psychology

PS1001 Practical Report 1 Cover Sheet

Please insert your report, and reference section and appendices into this one document and
upload it all in one file to Turnitin before the deadline.

TO BE COMPLETED BY THE STUDENT:

This box to be completed by the
student in the case of work being
submitted late. Please tick penalty level:
1 day late:____
2 days late:____
3 days late:____
4 Days late:____
Other: ____ days late

Put a cross in this box to

acknowledge that you understand
that late penalties will be applied
to work submitted after the
deadline (unless a mitigating
circumstances request is
successful).

Student ID: 1 5 9 0 0 9 4 8 3

Word Count: 616 ___

(excluding this cover sheet, the Appendices & Reference section)

Submission of this work is acknowledgement that you understand and accept the School and University rules,
regulations, and penalties for plagiarism/poor academic practice.

Self-reflection on Assignment
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE STUDENT:
Using the ‘Marking descriptors for Reports’ (provided in PUSH and in the Year 1 Psychology Practicals
handbook – copy available online if you’ve lost your hardcopy) describe how you used them to write this
piece of work. You can also add specific comments to your marker here, e.g. “I wasn’t sure how to refer
to previous research and would appreciate feedback focusing on this aspect”.

Self-Reflection on assignment:
  I used the handbook to understand what content goes into the method and
results section (e.g. materials sub-section in method), so I can effectively
highlight my understanding of a report.
 Appropriately used SPSS to analyse the data through the output that I created
specifically for the results section.

Please save this file as your student number followed by PS1001 report 1,
e.g. “012345678 PS1001 report1”
Basis of Marking:
A practical report is essentially a report of a research study and as such it must convey to the reader what
was done, why this was done (rationale), how the research was conducted, what was found and what the
findings mean (in themselves and in terms of relevant theory). These aspects are not marked individually:
the mark given reflects the overall standard of the report content (one good ‘section’ cannot compensate
for a poor section). An abbreviated form of the marking criteria class descriptors are given below (please
see your module handbook or PUSH for the full descriptors).

Class Descriptors
An outstanding answer demonstrating excellent understanding of the topic, research
First
design/methodology, and findings, with all analyses completed appropriately. Shows independent
Class
thought and critical evaluation of the findings and relevant theory, accurately supported by
specifically detailed (and appropriately cited) evidence.
An answer showing a very good understanding of the topic, research design/methodology, and
Upper
findings, with all analyses completed adequately. It has a critical approach to the relevant theory
Second
and findings, with a sound attempt at interpretation.
A satisfactory understanding of the topic, design/methodology and analyses. Some minor errors
Lower
and omissions. Accurate coverage of material, but with limited evidence of critical evaluation of
Second
the theory and findings. Some lack of understanding and/or unsubstantiated claims.
Third Shows a minimal understanding of some of the topical and methodological issues. Substantial
omissions, errors or irrelevant material. Very little critical evaluation of the theory and findings.
Fail Shows little evidence of understanding of the required components.

TO BE COMPLETED BY THE MARKER:

Marker’s ID number: Moderated By: Provisional Mark:

(before any deductions for lateness)

The marker’s feedback given below is merely a guide to indicate which aspects can be
improved and to what extent (the grades given do not, individually, relate to the
overall mark). Not all aspects are equally weighted:

Level of understanding demonstrated:

STANDARD
Fail 3rd 2.2 2.1 1st
Title
Hypothesis
Design and method
Results section

Report style:
STANDARD
Fail 3rd 2.2 2.1 1st
Concise scientific style

If you wish to seek advice on improving reports please visit the Help Desk to speak to a
member of staff.
Insert Report followed by reference section and appendices here :

The effect of lucky superstitious beliefs in performance on an anagram task.

Hypothesis
Participants presented with displays of lucky superstitious beliefs will perform better on the anagram task
than participants without.

Method
Participants
A group of One-hundred and Forty-one undergraduate Psychology students aged 18-41 years (M=19.26
years; S.D. = 3.548 years); with 27 males, 111 females and 3 unstated genders (see Appendix A/B). There
was Sixty-four participants in the ‘lucky’ condition and Seventy-seven in the control (see Appendix B).
Design
Independent groups design was used, with participants placed in either the ‘lucky’ condition or control. The
front half of the lecture hall was participants who were allocated into the control condition and the back half
of the lecture hall were participants allocated in the ‘lucky’ condition.
Materials
The materials used were a consent form for all participants to sign prior to the experiment and an anagram
sheet; for the ‘lucky’ condition the anagram sheets used had lucky symbols/displays (e.g. I’ll keep my
fingers crossed for you!) with instructions, whereas in the control condition the anagram sheets used only
displayed instructions (e.g. 10 min).
Procedure
Participants were handed a half folded sheet face down whiles they were asked to sign a consent form; the
sheet was given to participants in both the ‘lucky’ condition and control. Participants were asked to turn
over/unfold the sheet, participants in the ‘lucky’ condition had phrases and symbols of luck displayed on the
anagram sheet, whereas control had no phrases/symbols displayed. Participants were given a minute to look
over the sheet and write down their participant number (which was allocated when they signed the consent
form) and gender. An online stopwatch was then displayed to indicate a period of 10 minutes to solve the 20
anagrams for both the ‘lucky’ and control condition; participants were also told that some of the 20
anagrams had more than one solution, therefore, the task had a maximum score of 43. At the end of the 10
minutes participants were asked to re-fold the sheets and hand them back promptly. Participants were then
informed about the difference in the sheets provided to the front half of the lecture hall (control condition) in
comparison to the back half of the lecture hall (‘Lucky’ condition) and reminded that they had one day to
request withdrawal of their data from the results.

Data Analyses
Each word solution for an anagram was given 1 mark, thus, all the word solutions for the 20 anagrams were
added up and scored out of 43 (as there were 43 possible word solutions) for each participant and scores
were allocated alongside their participant number.

Results
The amount of anagrams solved (dependent variable) by participants in the experiment was a minimum of
Two and maximum of Twenty (M=10.18; S.D. =3.839), as shown in Appendix A. The number of anagrams
solved by all participants in the experiment had a moderately normal distribution with a skewness of 0.233
(see Appendix A). Participants in the ‘lucky’ condition solved 3-19 anagrams with an average of 16
anagrams, where as participants in the control solved 2-20 anagrams, with an average of 18 anagrams.
However, the ‘lucky’ condition showed better performance in number of anagrams solved (M=10.03; S.D.
=3.371) than participants in the control (M=10.31; S.D. =4.206), as shown in Appendix A. In addition, the
number of anagrams solved in the control has a fairly normal distribution with skewness of 0.162, in
comparison to, the number of anagrams solved in the ‘lucky’ condition which has a moderately right skewed
distribution as most of the data falls to the left of the mean, thus, a skewness of 0.316 (see Fig.1.).

Fig. 1.
Number of Anagrams Solved in the Control and ‘Lucky’ condition.
Appendix A: Descriptive Statistics

Minimum, Maximum, Mean and Standard Deviation of Participant Age

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

age 141 18 41 19.26 3.548

Valid N (listwise) 141

Number of Anagrams Solved by all Participants

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error

Total number of anagrams

141 2 20 10.18 3.839 .233 .204
solved
Valid N (listwise) 141

Number of Anagrams Solved by Participants in the Control and ‘Lucky’ condition

Descriptives

Condition (control/lucky) Statistic Std. Error

Total number of Control Mean 10.31 .479

anagrams solved 95% Confidence Lower Bound 9.36
Interval for Mean Upper Bound 11.27

5% Trimmed Mean 10.23

Median 10.00

Variance 17.691

Std. Deviation 4.206

Minimum 2

Maximum 20

Range 18

Interquartile Range 6

Skewness .162 .274

Kurtosis -.139 .541

Lucky Mean 10.03 .421

95% Confidence Lower Bound 9.19

Interval for Mean Upper Bound 10.87

5% Trimmed Mean 9.96

Median 10.00

Variance 11.364

Std. Deviation 3.371

Minimum 3
 Maximum 19

Range 16

Interquartile Range 5

Skewness .316 .299

Kurtosis -.102 .590

Appendix B: Frequencies

Frequency of Female and Male Participants in the Experiment

gender

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid not stated 3 2.1 2.1 2.1

male 27 19.1 19.1 21.3

female 111 78.7 78.7 100.0

Total 141 100.0 100.0

Frequency of Participants in ‘Lucky’ and Control condition

Condition (control/lucky)

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Control 77 54.6 54.6 54.6

Lucky 64 45.4 45.4 100.0

Total 141 100.0 100.0