Abstract Abstract (4 marks) No longer than 250 words Needs to be self-contained Must include: aim, sample (participants), method, results & conclusions When describing participants – need details of culture, gender, age Will have an exercise in seminars on features of good abstracts

Introduction – General structure The introduction section should justify why the study is needed & should unfold an argument for that study & its hypotheses (predictions), with reference to prior research evidence and theory Starts with very general info (general relevance of area of research) & ends with very specific study aims & hypotheses First overview relevant knowledge on topic (including definitions) Then identify problem/gap in literature want to investigate Aim should follow logically on from research presented & gap/problem identified Hypotheses (what predict will find in relation to aims) should follow logically on from research too

What you should cover in this introduction See lab report guidelines document for more detail Identify general relevance of area of study: Correspondence bias (CB) - 2 marks Define, how it is operationalised (e.g., quiz show paradigm), why is it important to look at the CB cross- culturally Overview of previous research on the of topic (cross-cultural differences in CB) – 9 marks Explanations proposed for cross-cultural differences in CB - how may differences between cultures (e.g., cultural differences in perceptions of the self, and in awareness of situational constraints) lead to differences in CB? Summarise what has been found to date in previous research that has looked at cross-cultural differences in CB. Which cultures? Mixed findings? Rationale for the study (why is it needed), and study aims – 4 marks Hypotheses that follow from reasoned argument stemming from reviewed literature - 1 mark

Aim and hypotheses Rationale for the study should lead logically to the aim and hypotheses of the study. Aim of the study Compare levels of correspondence bias in Malaysians with levels of such bias in Australians. Hypotheses of the study Given the topic background we’ve just gone through (and this is the literature you will discuss in your intro), there are two predictions to be made: Do you predict correspondence bias to emerge in both Malaysian and Australian participants? Do you predict higher levels of correspondence bias in one culture than the other? Which? Given there are mixed findings in the literature, you have some freedom in relation to what you predict, and you can word it as one or two hypotheses Just make sure you justify your hypotheses & they clearly follow from the literature you’ve reviewed (“Based on the prior literature, it was predicted that….”

What to take from the readings (1) Textbook chapters Useful to broadly introduce the topic, why it’s important, and to define CB Introduction to dimensions of cultural differences A. M. Koenig, & K. K. Dean (2010). Cross-cultural differences and similarities in attribution. Useful overview of the literature on cross-cultural differences in attribution (including in CB), and how these differences relate to cultural differences Krull, D. S. et al. (1999). The fundamental fundamental attribution error: correspondence bias in individualist and collectivist cultures. Useful as an overview of research on cross-cultural differences in CB Useful to compare our study’s findings against this study, as it’s the only study using quizmaster paradigm to investigate cross-cultural differences in CB, & our study is a simplified replication of Experiment 2 Useful information for hypotheses – this study found significant CB in both American and Chinese students – would you predict the same in our study?

What to take from the readings (2) Miyamoto, Y., & Kitayama, S. (2002). Cultural variation in correspondence bias: The critical role of attitude diagnosticity of socially constrained behavior. Useful as an overview of research on cross-cultural differences in CB that is more recent than Krull et al. Found that sometimes people from a collectivist culture demonstrate less CB than those from an individualist culture, but sometimes they show just as much, depending on how much the constrained behaviour is seen to be diagnostic of a person’s true attitude Useful to help you make sense of why mixed findings emerge in relation to cross-cultural differences in CB Bochner, S. (1994). Cross-cultural differences in the self concept: A test of Hofstede’s individualism/collectivism distinction Useful for providing a rationale for why may expect a CB difference between Malaysia & Australia - provides evidence that Malaysia is collectivist/interdependent, and Australia is individualistic/ independent Additional references on topics such as Cross-cultural differences in attribution Cultural differences in correspondence bias The fundamental attribution error and culture