Pre-registration assignment
Hi, a part of my thesis involves an assignment called pre-registration. It’s like the final thesis before collecting data and minus some background information. Below I’ve attached the structure of the essay as instructed, along with some work that I have completed for the assignment. I’m having a little trouble with the analysis bit, and am not sure how to go about it. It’s maximum word count is 1800, and is due on the 14th. If I could receive some help with this, it would be great.
Page1: Information Sheet
School of Psychology
Keynes College
University of Kent
Canterbury, CT2 7NP
Study Information Sheet
Title of Project:
Does your environment shape who you are? A study on personal values and beliefs
Ethics Approval Number:
XXX
Investigator(s):
Dr Alexander Kirchner
Prof Ayse K. Uskul
Rhea Bhandari
Researcher Email:
a.kirchner@kent.ac.uk
Aims of the Study: Thank you for expressing interest in participating in this study. This study has received ethical clearance from the Ethics Committee at the School of Psychology, University of Kent. The study is designed to examine people’s personal values and concerns, and will help us understand how the values that people hold may influence their decisions and perceptions of domestic living as well as their support for larger social movements.
└ For recruitment via University of Kent – RPS system:
Eligibility Requirements: You are eligible to participate in this study if you
· are 18 years of age or above,
· are currently living in the United Kingdom,
· and self-identify yourself as being of mixed ethnical background.
└ For recruitment of
1st Generation
participants via Prolific:
Eligibility Requirements: You are eligible to participate in this study if you
· are 18 years of age or above,
· are currently living in the United Kingdom, and
· have been born in one of the following countries:
. Spain
. Italy
. Portugal
. Greece
. Turkey
. Lebanon
. Morocco
. Tunisia
. Pakistan
. Iran
. Iraq
. Bangladesh
. Algeria
. Egypt
. Jordan
. Syria
. Afghanistan
. United Arab Emirates
. Yemen
. Oman
└ For recruitment of 2nd generation participants via Prolific:
Eligibility Requirements: You are eligible to participate in this study if you
· are 18 years of age or above,
· are currently living in the United Kingdom, and
· have been born in the United Kingdom,
· have at least one parent born in one of the following countries:
. Spain
. Italy
. Portugal
. Greece
. Turkey
. Lebanon
. Morocco
. Tunisia
. Pakistan
. Iran
. Iraq
. Saudi Arabia
. Bangladesh
. Algeria
. Egypt
. Jordan
. Syria
. Afghanistan
. United Arab Emirates
. Yemen
. Oman
What you will need to do and time commitment: The study consists of a series of questionnaires that will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. You will be presented with different statements or situations, and asked to report your attitudes, feelings, or intentions towards them. You will also be asked to provide information about several personal characteristics such as your age, gender, and ethnic background, however, throughout the questionnaire, no questions will be asked that will make you identifiable (please see more on confidentiality below).
Risks/Discomforts involved in participating: We do not foresee that participation in this study will cause any discomfort or distress.
Confidentiality of your data: Any responses you provide will be treated confidentially. Any publication resulting from this work will report only aggregated findings or fully anonymised examples that will not identify you. To enable this study, we need to collect some demographic information (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity), none of which will be linked to your name. To safeguard your rights, we will use the minimum personally identifiable information possible, and act according to the principles of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as outlined in the University Privacy Notice (
https://research.kent.ac.uk/researchservices/wp-content/uploads/sites/51/2018/12/GDPR-Privacy-Notice-Research-updated
).
Only members of the research team will have access to any personal information that may identify you, which will be stored separately from your other responses and securely. Any identifying information will be removed and destroyed as soon as possible after necessary data processing has been completed. At the end of the study, you will also be provided with a unique ID to guarantee anonymity in any correspondence with you about your data. Once fully anonymised, the responses you provide may be used by the research team, shared with other researchers, or made available in an online data repository.
└ For recruitment via University of Kent RPS:
Details of any payments/course credits: As a token of appreciation, you will receive 2 course credits for your participation.
└ For recruitment via Prolific:
Details of any payments/course credits: As a token of appreciation, you will receive £2.50 for your participation.
Voluntary participation: Remember that participation in this research study is completely voluntary. Even after you agree to participate and begin the study, you are still free to withdraw at any time and for any reason without any negative consequences. Please note that once your data have been included in published analysis or data repositories, it cannot be withdrawn. The questions are straightforward and there are no right or wrong answers. Although we would appreciate it if you could answer as many questions as possible, you can also leave any questions unanswered if you prefer.
Please do not hesitate to contact us by email [a.kirchner@kent.ac.uk] or phone [+44 (0)1227 826587] if you require additional information or if you wish to provide any comments. If you have any ethical concerns you may contact the Chair of the Committee for Ethics in Psychology at the University of Kent [
psychethics@kent.ac.uk
]. Alternatively, you can contact us by post at: Ethics Committee Chair, School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7NP. Finally, the University of Kent’s Head of Data Protection (Mr Jordan Hall) can be contacted at:
https://www.kent.ac.uk/governance/staff/profiles/counsec/hall-jordan.html
If you would like to participate in this study, please click the box below to indicate that you have read and understood the information we provided here and agree to participate. You can then click the ‘start’ button and begin your participation.
Alexander Kirchner-Häusler, Postdoctoral Researcher
Rhea Bhandari, Research Assistant
Ayse K. Uskul, Professor of Social Psychology, University of Kent
[ ] I have read the information provided above by the researchers and voluntarily agree to participate in this research.
|
Page 2: Informed Consent Sheet |
School of Psychology
Keynes College
University of Kent
Canterbury, CT2 7NP
RESEARCH INFORMED CONSENT FORM
|
Does your environment shape who you are? A study on personal values and beliefs |
XXX |
|
|
Dr Alexander Kirchner
Prof Ayse K. Uskul Rhea Bhandari |
Please read the following statements and, if you agree, tick the corresponding box to confirm agreement:
|
· I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet for the above study. I have had the opportunity to consider the information, and have been provided with information about who to contact and how in case I have remaining questions. |
□ |
||
|
· I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving any reason. |
□ |
||
|
· I understand that my data will be treated confidentially and any publication resulting from this work will report only data that does not identify me. My anonymised responses, however, may be shared with other researchers or made available in online data repositories. I also understand that de-identified data (data that cannot be linked to individual study participants) collected in this study will be kept indefinitely for future analyses. |
|||
|
· I freely agree to participate in this study. |
By clicking “Start” you confirm that you have read the above information carefully, that you consent to the points above, and that you freely agree to participate in this study.
If you would like a copy of this consent form to keep, please ask the researcher. If you have any complaints or concerns about this research, you can direct these, in writing, to the Chair of the Psychology Research Ethics Committee by email at:
psychethics@kent.ac.uk
. Alternatively, you can contact us by post at: Ethics Committee Chair, School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7NP.
|
Page 3: Traditional Egalitarian Attitudes towards Sex Roles |
Domestic and Societal Life
Below you will find a series of statements describing various aspects of domestic and societal life. Please read each statement carefully and indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement.
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
(Scale: 0 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree)
1. Women should be more concerned with clothing and appearance than men.
2. Women should have as much sexual freedom as men.
3. The man should be more responsible for the economic support of the family than the woman.
4. The belief that women cannot make as good supervisors or executives as men is a myth.
5. Ultimately a woman should submit to her husband’s decision.
6. Some equality in marriage is good, but by and large the husband ought to have the main say-so in family matters.
7. Having a job is just as important for a wife as it is for her husband.
8. In groups that have both male and female members, it is more appropriate that leadership positions be held by males.
9. Having a challenging job or career is as important as being a wife and mother.
10. Men make better leaders.
11. Almost any woman is better off in her home than in a job or profession.
12. A woman’s place is in the home.
13. The role of teaching in the elementary schools belongs to women.
14. The changing of diapers is the responsibility of both parents.
15. Men who cry have weak character.
16. A man who has chosen to stay at home and be a house-husband is not less masculine.
17. As head of the household, the father should have the final authority over the children.
18. Men and women should only have close friends of their own gender.
19. There is no problem with a man and a woman being close friends with each other.
|
Page 4: Gender-based Attitudes Child Rearing Scales |
Raising Children
Below you will find a series of statements when it comes to raising children. Please read each statement carefully and indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement.
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
(Scale: 0 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree)
1. It’s okay for children to help around the house, but I would not ask a son to dust or set the table.
2. Education is more important for sons than for daughters.
3. It is as important to steer a daughter toward a good job as it is with a son.
4. I would give a daughter as much encouragement and help in getting an education as I would with a son.
5. It is more important to raise a son to be strong and independent than to raise a daughter that way.
6. It is more important to raise a son so he will be able to hold down a good job when he’s grown, but that’s not so major with a daughter.
7. I see nothing wrong with giving a little boy a doll to play with.
|
Page 5: Liberal Feminist Attitude and Ideology Scale Short Scale (LFAIS) (Woodbrown, 2015) |
Women in Society
Below you will find a series of statements regarding women and society. Please read each statement carefully and indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement.
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
(Scale: 0 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree)
1. Although women can be good leaders, men make better leaders.
2. Women in the United Kingdom are treated as second-class citizens.
3. A woman should have the same job opportunities as a man.
4. Men should respect women more than they currently do.
5. Doctors need to take women’s health concerns more seriously.
6. Women are already given equal opportunities with men in all important sectors of their lives.
7. Women have been treated unfairly on the basis of their gender through most of human history.
8. Women should be considered as seriously as men as candidates for Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
9. Many women in the workforce are taking jobs away from men who need the jobs more.
|
Page 6: Honor Attribution scale (HAS) – Men (Mosquera et al., 2011) |
Desirable Attributes
Below are a series of attributes that may be seen as desirable in men. Please read each attribute carefully and rate how much you find each attribute to be desirable for
men.
To what extent do you find the below attributes desirable for men?
(Scale: 1 = Not desirable at all to 5 = Extremely desirable)
1. Accepting social norms
2. Honesty
3. Hospitality
4. Marrying somebody with a good reputation
5. One’s family having a good reputation
6. One’s own good reputation
7. Protecting one’s family reputation
8. Being respected by others
9. Satisfying one’s parents’ expectation
10. Controlling sexual desires
11. Discretion
12. Modesty
13. Respecting the head of the family
14. Virginity before marriage
15. Discreet clothing
16. Loyalty to one’s partner
17. Shyness
18. Authority over one’s family
19. Physical strength
20. Having pride
21. Sexual Adventures
22. High socio-economic status
23. Precedence
24. Protecting one’s family’s well-being property
|
Page 7: Honor Attribution scale (HAS) – Women (Mosquera et al., 2011) |
Desirable Attributes
Below are a series of attributes that may be seen as desirable in women. Please read each attribute carefully and rate how much you find each attribute to be desirable for
women.
To what extent do you find the below attributes desirable for women?
(Scale: 1 = Not desirable at all to 5 = Extremely desirable)
1. Accepting social norms
2. Honesty
3. Hospitality
4. Marrying somebody with a good reputation
5. One’s family having a good reputation
6. One’s own good reputation
7. Protecting one’s family reputation
8. Being respected by others
9. Satisfying one’s parents’ expectation
10. Controlling sexual desires
11. Discretion
12. Modesty
13. Respecting the head of the family
14. Virginity before marriage
15. Discreet clothing
16. Loyalty to one’s partner
17. Shyness
18. Authority over one’s family
19. Physical strength
20. Having pride
21. Sexual Adventures
22. High socio-economic status
23. Precedence
24. Protecting one’s family’s well-being property
|
Page 8: Vancouver Index of Acculturation (Paulhus, 2013) |
Societal Practices
Below you will be presented with a series of statements. Many of these statements will refer to your “heritage culture”, meaning the original culture of your family (other than British). It may be the culture of your birth, the culture in which you have been raised, or any culture in your family background. If there are several, pick the one that has influenced you most (e.g. Indian, Pakistani, Italian, Turkish) and please answer all of the items for that one culture that you have chosen. If you do not feel that you have been influenced by any other culture, please name a culture that influenced previous generations of your family.
Your heritage culture (other than British) is: _______
Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.
(Scale: 1 = Disagree all to 9 = Agree)
1. I often participate in my heritage cultural traditions
2. I often participate in mainstream British cultural traditions
3. I would be willing to marry a person from my heritage culture.
4. I would be willing to marry a white British person.
5. I enjoy social activities with people from the same heritage culture as myself.
6. I enjoy social activities with typical British people.
7. I am comfortable interacting with people of the same heritage as myself.
8. I am comfortable interacting with British people
9. I enjoy entertainment (e.g. movies, music)
10. I enjoy British entertainment (e.g. movies, music)
11. I often behave in ways that are typical of my heritage culture.
12. I often behave in ways that are typically British.
13. It is important for me to maintain or develop the practices of my heritage culture.
14. It is important for me to maintain or develop British cultural practices.
15. I believe in the values of my heritage culture.
16. I believe in mainstream British values.
17. I enjoy the jokes and humor of my heritage culture.
18. I enjoy British jokes and humor.
19. I am interested in having friends from my heritage culture.
20. I am interested in having British friends.
|
Page 9: Subjective Wellbeing (Andrews and Withey, 1976) |
|
Page 9: Subjective Wellbeing
(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) |
Well-being
Below are five statements that you may agree or disagree with. Using the 1 – 7 scale below, indicate your agreement with each item by placing the appropriate number on the line preceding that item. Please be open and honest in your responding.
1. In most ways my life is close to my ideal.
2. The conditions of my life are excellent.
3. I am satisfied with my life.
4. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.
5. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.
(Scale: 1 = Strongly disagree – 4 = Neither agree nor disagree – 7 = Strongly agree)
Well-being
The following question asks how satisfied you feel about your life.
How satisfied are you with your life as a whole?
(Scale: 1 = Not at all satisfied – 5 = Somewhat satisfied – 10 = Completely satisfied)
Page 10: Relationship Status and Living Situation
(Self-created items)
Relationship Status
Below we would like to ask you some questions about your current relationship status and living situation.
What is your current relationship status?
O Single
O In a relationship
O Married
O Other (Please specify:): _____
└ If participant responds to be married or in a relationship:
Are you and your partner currently living together?
O Yes
O No
Do you have children?
O No children
O Children under 18 years old
O Children above 18 years old
└ If participant responds to have children:
Are your children currently living with you?
O Yes
O No
Page 11: Demographic Information
Finally, we would like to ask you for some background information. Please, be assured that all the information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and your answers will be retained under a participant number and never associated with your name.
1. What is your gender?
O
Male
O
Female
O Other (please specify): ____________
2. How old are you?
__________ years
3. In which country were you born?
(Dropdown Menu)
· Spain
· Italy
· Portugal
· Greece
· Turkey
· Lebanon
· Morocco
· Tunisia
· Pakistan
· Iran
· Iraq
· Saudi Arabia
· Bangladesh
· Algeria
· Egypt
· Jordan
· Syria
· Afghanistan
· United Arab Emirates
· Yemen
· Oman
· Other (please specify below)
└ If participant chooses other:
Please further specify the country you were born in: _____
└ If participant reports to not be born in UK:
3a. How old were you when you moved to the UK? _____
4. In what country was your mother born? (Dropdown Menu)
5. In what country was your father born? (Dropdown Menu)
. United Kingdom
. Spain
. Italy
. Portugal
. Greece
. Turkey
. Lebanon
. Morocco
. Tunisia
. Pakistan
. Iran
. Iraq
. Saudi Arabia
. Bangladesh
. Algeria
. Egypt
. Jordan
. Syria
. Afghanistan
. United Arab Emirates
. Yemen
. Oman
. Other (Please specify below)
└ If participant chooses other for either their mother or father or both:
4a. / 5a. Please further specify in which country your mother / father was born: _____
6. Of which countries do you have a passport/identity card?
_________________________________
7. What is/are your native language/s? (i.e., the language/s you speak at home)
_________________________________
8. Are you currently living in the United Kingdom?
O Yes O No
└ If participant chooses “Yes”:
8a. Are you in the United Kingdom primarily to …
· Work
· Study
· Work and Study
· Other (Please specify):__________
9. What is your ethnic background?
If you identify with more than one ethnic group, please indicate all that apply (cont’d on following page).
White
o English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish
o Irish
o Gypsy or Irish Traveller
o Any other White background (Please specify below):
Asian
o Indian
o Pakistani
o Bangladeshi
o Chinese
o Any other Asian background (Please specify below):
Black / African / Caribbean
o Black
o Caribbean
o African
o Any other Black background (Please specify below):
Other ethnic groups
o Arab
o Any other ethnic background (Please specify below):
└ If participant chooses any “Other” category:
Please further specify your ethnic background.
_________________________________
10. What is your religious background?
· None
· Hindu
· Muslim Shia
· Muslim Sunni
· Sikh
· Christian Protestant
· Christian Orthodox
· Jewish
· Buddhist
· Other (please specify): ___________________________________
11. How important is religion to you?
· Very important
· Fairly important
· Somewhat important
· Not at all important
12. Please read the information below, and indicate your answer by entering a number.
|
Think of this ladder as representing your social status in the country you live in. At the top of the ladder are the people who are the best off — those who have the most money, the most education, and the most respected jobs. At the bottom are the people who are the worst off — those who have the least money, the least education, and the least respected or no job. Where would you place yourself on this ladder compared to people in the country you live in? Your answer: ____________ |
10 |
Top |
|
9 |
||
|
8 |
||
|
7 |
||
|
6 |
||
|
5 |
Middle |
|
|
4 |
||
|
3 |
||
|
2 |
||
|
1 |
||
|
0 |
Bottom |
|
Page 12: Debriefing |
Thank you for your participation! The study is now over.
At this point we would like to tell you more about the research project in which you just participated.
This study is exploring the perceptions and attitudes of several immigrant groups in the United Kingdom, particularly from the Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, and Northern African countries, who all fill in the same questionnaire as you have done. All of these regions have been considered as places in which being an honorable person in the eyes of others is a central cultural goal.
In this study, we are particularly interested whether the importance of honor for one’s life may change as people settle in new countries where honor may be less central (e.g. the UK), and if changes in honor may be linked to changes in other perceptions and attitudes of daily life. This is why you have been asked to e.g. rate the desirability of different characteristics of what may be an “honorable” person, and to indicate your agreement with several statements related to domestic roles and wider social movements.
|
Below is your unique participant ID. Please note down the ID and keep it somewhere safe. In case you wish to request the deletion of your data at a later time (possible until the end of data collection), we will ask you to provide your ID so that we can identify your information anonymously. Your unique ID is: 12345678 |
Thank you for your participation in our study. We appreciate your support and hope that you decide to support our work again in the future. If you would like a summary of the findings of this study, please contact Alexander Kirchner (a.kirchner@kent.ac.uk) the researchers with your email address so we can send it to you when the data have been analyszed and reports have been produced.
Please click “Next” in order to return to (SONA / Prolific) to claim your compensation.
If you have any complaints or concerns about this research, you can direct these to the Chair of the Psychology Research Ethics Committee by email at: psychethics@kent.ac.uk. Alternatively, you can contact the ethics committee chair by post at: Ethics Committee Chair, School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7NP.
ANALYSES
(TASK For rhea: Write out RQs into hypotheses, add note about why)
RQ1: Does honor endorsement decrease as a function of
(a) generational status, or
(b) time spent in country?
H1a: The 1st generation endorses more in honor than the 2nd generation.
The proposed hypothesis: is that the 1st generation endorses honor more than their offsrpings/more than the 2nd generation
H1a: t-test between 1st generation and 2nd+ generation immigrants
H1b: The time spent in the host country decreases an individual’s endorsement in their cultural honor. 2nd generation immigrants show a decrease in endorsing honor as compared to the 1st generation.
H1b: Correlation: Honor endorsement & Years spent in UK (in 2nd generation only)
RQ2: Does honor endorsement decrease differently for men and women, i.e.
(a) do men acculturate more in masculine honor endorsement, and
(b) females more in feminine honor endorsement?
Generations:
H2a: Men acculturate more in Masculine honor endorsement in the host country, leading to a decrease in honor endorsement from their heritage country.
1st gen: In order to maintain strong ties to the heritage culture,
H2b: Women acculturate more in feminine honor endorsement in the host country, thus leading to a decrease in honor endorsement from their heritage country.
H2a: Males: Repeated t-test between generations on male honor endorsement and female honor endorsement
H2b: Females: Repeated t-test between generations on male honor endorsement and female honor endorsement
Time Spent in Country:
H2 i: Longer the time spent in the host country, the more the individuals acculturate to the host culture, lowering the endorsement of honor in both men and women.
H2c: 2nd gen Males: Correlation / Regression: Male and Female honor endorsement & Years spent in UK
H2d: 2nd gen Females: Correlation / Regression: Male and Female honor endorsement & Years spent in UK
RQ3: Does a decrease in honor endorsement in general, or gender-specific honor in particular, relate to various other gender indicators, e.g
· cross-gender friendships,
· Decrease in honor endorsement- increase in advocating for cros s-gender friendships.
· gender equality,
· Decrease in honor endorsement- decrease in perception about gender inequality.
· feminist attitudes?
· A decrease in honor endorsement would lead to an increase in feministic attitudes.
H3: People who show greater decreases in their honor endorsement would show more tolerance towards cross-gender friendships, more egalitarian gender roles, and more support towards the feminist cause.
General Honor:
H2a: Linear Regression: Any of the above outcomes ~
H2b: Females: Repeated t-test between generations on male honor endorsement and female honor endorsement.
Expected Numbers
|
Total 300, 150 in each group |
1st Generation |
2nd Generation |
||
| Male |
75 |
|||
| Female |
Ethical Considerations
Structure
1. Consent:
· – Informed consent (4 points, different aspects of their participation, they have to agree to all)
· – Information page (describing study and gives participants information, they have to say that they read it)
· Involvement: voluntary and they are welcome to withdraw without a penalty.
· – Any issues during the study (report to whom: researchers/ethics committee)
· – If they want to stop (they can at any point) and withdraw (–> will have to send us the random ID → until the end of data collection)
· – Recruitment method: either Prolific full study , or RPS → then prolific for rest
· – Participants selection: see criteria above.
· – Target sample: 300 people, 150 in each generation, 75 each gender in each group
· – Will be told about the information stage: what the study is (not specifically in detail- so as not to cause any biases)
· – Once informed about the stage, consent will be ensured
2. The study procedure
· – Duration of study : 20 min
· – Explanation of the study (At the beginning of the questionnaire, the study procedure begins with the participant reading the information page, providing details primarily about the research purposes, their right to withdraw, and who to contact for further information.)
· – Items on the information page (study eligibility: above 18, resident/non-resident of UK)
· – Describe questionnaire (Likert Scale)
· – How will the questions be designed? (from established scales)
· – How will the research session conclude?
· – Participants reminded of their right to withdraw.
· – Compensation: How much do participants get for their participation? → 2.50
3. The Effect of Participants
· – Research protocol reduced the effects on the participants. → No stress that people cannot encounter in regular life, but in case people experience stress we have included some resources in the debriefing.
· – Potential consequences- minimized.
· – Protocol outlines (20 mins for the questionnaire to be completed)
· – Procedure/ questionnaire doesn’t require any invasive measurement, so no possible physical or psychological damage.
· – – If a concern is posed during analysis, participants will be advised during the procedures.(can get in touch with the researchers/ethics committee)
· – They can withdraw incase problems arise during the study.
4. Confidentiality and Data storage
· – Following protocols
· – Digital type of data will be obtained (Prolific, Qualtrics, SPSS datasheet).
· – Participants name will not be stored at all, all personal information will be stored under a random id in the prolific as well as in our system (if they want to withdraw from the study- easier to locate their data if they’re confidential rather than anonymous)
· – Informed consent, unique identification code → Random 8 digit id
+ prolific id from the system
· – Data stored on Qualtrics
· – Will be stored in a storage that is backed up by the university and only accessible by approved staff (minimizing the risk of data loss or interfering with the data.
· – Prolific used to collect data- highly secure and anonymous.
· – There will be no details in the final year project that may contribute to the potential detection of a single person and their results as the data will be gathered and general patterns will be published, so it is not possible to identify specific sets of data, maintaining confidentiality. → all your study will present average measures, not individual data points
· – Conclusion (additional guidelines: for any problems that might arise)
Pre-registration
Importance of replication in science
1. The process of repeating research to determine the extent to which findings generalize across time and across situations.
2. We work under the understanding that some of our findings may be incorrect (reduce to type 1 and 2 error, but can’t eliminate them entirely under normal circumstances.
3. Open Science Collaboration (2015): Reproducibility is a key requirement of good science, but till what extent does it characterizes current research is unknown.
4. Direct (exact) replication
· Determines whether the results come out the same
· Recreates the scientific methods used in conditions of an earlier study.
5. Conceptual Replication
· Attempts to confirm the previous findings using a different set of specific methods that generally test the same idea.
· Same hypothesis is tested- using a different set of methods and measures.
The Replication Crisis
1. Replicability crisis- reproducibility crisis
2. Methodological crisis- where scientists have found that results of many scientific studies are difficult/impossible to replicate/reproduce on subsequent investigation.
3. Caused- by Journals’ strong preference to publish significant findings (file-drawer effect) and acceptance of a range of analyses.
Openness and System Programs
1. The principles of Open science
· Open data
· Open source
· Open access
· Open Methodology
· Open peer-review
· Open educational resources
Assignment
1. Overall upper word limit is 2000
2. Includes (section word limits)
· Research description- 200 to 300 words
· Hypotheses/ Research question
·
Methodology Plan
– 750 to 1000 words
· Analysis design – 250 to 500 words
· Ethical design – 150-500 words
Title
1. Working title of your study (same title that will be submitted as your actual project)
2. Title should be specific and informative description of a project.
· APA format (7th edition)
· Name 2 or 3 variables involved, relationship between them being tested (based on causal or a correlational design), and the participant population sampled.
Research Description
1. Content
· Brief of your study
· Some background
· Gap in knowledge which the study is designed to fill
· A brief description of the kind of methods used and the purpose of these methods.
· This section is like an abbreviated introduction to your study up until the hypothesis, entered in the next box.
· The description shouldn’t be longer than the length of an abstract.
· It can shed some light on the context for the purpose study- but great detail is not required here.
· Referencing (optional)
Hypotheses/Research questions
1. List specific, concise and testable hypotheses.
2. State them as a relationship between a hypothetical situation of the real world (
“if taste affects preference”) and the kind of observation that would help confirm that (“then mean preference will be higher or higher concentration of sugar.”)
3. STATE if the hypothesis are directional or non-directional.
4. IF directional- state the direction.
5. Predicted effect is also appropriate here.
6. IF a specific interaction is important to your research, you can list that as a separate hypothesis.
7. IF you don’t have a testable hypothesis due to exploratory nature of your study, OUTLINE your RQ.
8. How will your study further your knowledge of this topic?
Methodology Plan
1. Describe methodology.
2. This will look a lot like a method section written in the future tense.
3. Be CLEAR enough that a reader unfamiliar with your study will understand what you will be doing.
4. Include separate sections for:
· Participants
· population you will sample
· how (students using RPS, online participants recruited via friends, male adults in yoga)
· Consult with supervisor to describe how many participants you will ideally need to recruit.
· Study design (what are the variables? Is it a within-subject design etc)
· Describe the setting and context given to participants in general terms (e.g. “participants will be brought into a lab and told they will be taking part in a taste test.”)
· If it is an experiment, STATE if there are any other variables are manipulated between-participants and how.
· Describe variables that will be compared within-participants or used as dependent measures.
· State how you are measuring them (e.g. using a questionnaire or other instruments) (include sub-headings here)
· The description should flow in a chronological order
· Describe how manipulations can vary between subjects, so we get an idea of what participants will be going through.
· This section can be written in a variety of ways
· The key is for a researcher – be detailed as in necessary given the specifics of their study.
Analysis Plan
1. Describe as well as you are able to prepare the data for analysis and any exclusion criteria.
· For example, you may have a ten-item scale of extraversion that you will average into a measure. You may be acquiring physiological data that your supervisor will help you turn into four indexes of autonomic bodily arousal. As an exclusion criterion, you might exclude participants who answer to a check item that they have failed to understand the vignette they were supposed to read.
2. Statistical model will be used to test each hypothesis?
3. Include- type of model (e.g.- t-test, ANOVA, correlation, multiple regression, chi-square test, etc)
4. Explain what will be included as predictors, outcomes, or covariates.
5. Please specify any interactions or follow-up analyses you anticipate running.
6. If you plan on using any controls/manipulation checks you could mention that here.
7. IF your study will use qualitative methods how will you analyse the data
8. This is perhaps the most important and most complicated question within the preregistration. As with all of the other questions, the key is to provide a specific recipe for analyzing the collected data. Ask yourself: is enough detail provided that someone else could run the same analysis again the same way?
Ethical Plan
1. Which parts of your design require a consideration of ethical issues? Consider the four major areas:
· Consent, right to withdraw, anonymity/confidentiality, and effects on participants.
· Identify any issues your study may have and put in place a plan to deal with these issues.
· Some projects will have very few ethical issues but all will have something that can be anticipated and dealt with.
2. This is not as easy as it may seem. Make sure you consider all the specific ethical concerns raised by your study (even the analysis) and carefully think through solutions at each point.
3. Does your design require deception? Will participants be exposed to stimuli they may find distressing?
Secondary analyses
Final Year Project
Preregistration Assignment
Dr Andrew Russ
1
Lecture Overview
The Importance of Replication in Science
The ‘Replication Crisis’ in Psychology
Open Science and Preregistration
Your Assignment
2
The Importance of Replication in Science
The process of repeating research to determine the extent to which findings generalize across time and across situations
We work under the understanding that some of our findings may be incorrect (we reduce type 1 and type 2 error but can’t eliminate them entirely under normal circumstances)
Reproducibility is a key requirement of good science, but to what extent it characterises current research is unknown (Open Science Collaboration, 2015)
3
Direct (Exact) Replication
To determine whether the results come out the same
Exactly recreate the scientific methods used in conditions of an earlier study
Conceptual Replication
Attempt to confirm the previous findings using a different set of specific methods that test the same idea
Same hypothesis is tested, but using a different set of methods and measures.
The Importance of Replication in Science
4
The Replication Crisis
Replicability crisis; reproducibility crisis
Methodological crisis in which scientists have found that results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate/reproduce on subsequent investigation
Caused by Journals’ strong preference to publish significant findings (file-drawer effect) and acceptance of a range of analyses
5
6
Openness and System Programs
The Principles of Open Science
Open data
Open source
Open access
Open methodology
Open peer review
Open educational resources
7
The assignment
A simplified version of the preregistration challenge offered by Open Science
Overall upper word limit is 2,000 words (not 10% over)
Includes (section word limits are guides only):
Title
Research Description 200-300 words
Hypotheses/Research Question
Methodology Plan 750-1,000 words
Analysis Design 200-500 words
Ethical Design 150-500 words
8
title
Provide the working title of your study. It may be the same title that you will eventually submit as your final report, but it is not a requirement.
More info: The title should be a specific and informative description of a project. Following APA style (7th edition, Journal Article Reporting Standards) it should name the two or three main variables involved, the relationship between them being tested (making clear whether this is based on a causal or a correlational design), and the participant population sampled. Unless the research is highly exploratory in nature, vague titles such as ‘Fruit fly preregistration plan’ are not appropriate.
Example: Effect of sugar on brownie tastiness among University students. (This is a food lab experiment varying sugar between conditions. Because it is an experiment with random assignment to a sugar condition, you can use the causal phrase “effect of”.)
Example 2: Relationship between sugar and dessert preference in an online sample. (This is a correlational study asking for opinions of different brands of desserts that have more or less sugar in their recipe. Because it is only correlational, “relationship between” is more effective).
9
Research description
Please give a brief description of your study, including some background, the gap in knowledge which the study is designed to fill, a brief description of the kind of methods used, and the purpose of these methods. This section is like an abbreviated introduction to your study up until the hypothesis, which is entered in the next box.
Example: Though there is strong evidence to suggest that sugar affects taste preferences, the effect has never been demonstrated in brownies. Therefore, among university students in a lab session, we will measure taste preference for four different levels of sugar concentration in a standard brownie recipe to determine if the effect exists in this pastry.
More info: The description should be no longer than the length of an abstract. It can give some context for the proposed study, but great detail is not needed here for your preregistration. References are optional.
10
Hypotheses/ research question
List specific, concise, and testable hypotheses. State them as a relationship between a hypothetical situation of the real world (“If taste affects preference”) and the kind of observation that would help confirm that (“then mean preference will be higher for higher concentrations of sugar.”) Please state if the hypotheses are directional or non-directional. If directional, state the direction. A predicted effect is also appropriate here. If a specific interaction is important to your research, you can list that as a separate hypothesis.
Example: If taste affects preference, then mean preference indices will be higher with higher concentrations of sugar. This is a directional hypothesis (as the sugar variable gets higher, the preference variable does.)
Example 2: If there are age differences in preference for milkshake ingredients, then children in different years in school should show different preferences for strawberry, vanilla, chocolate, and orange. This is a non-directional hypothesis (the exact match-up between ages and flavours is not predicted) OR
11
Hypotheses/ research question
If you do not have a testable hypothesis due to the exploratory nature of your study, outline your research question. How will your study further your knowledge of this topic?
Example 3. This exploratory study will code open-ended responses to a question about a moral dilemma involving animal research, in order to produce a model of how people justify different moral concerns in this situation.
12
Methodology plan
Describe your methodology. This will look a lot like a method section written in the future tense. Make sure you are clear enough that a reader unfamiliar with this area of research or your study will understand what you will be doing. In a typical study, this should include separate sections for:
Participants. Say what population you will sample, and how (students using the RPS, online participants recruited via friends, male adults in a yoga class). Consult with your supervisor to describe how many participants you will ideally need to recruit.
Include your study design (i.e. what are the variables? Is it a within-subjects design etc?).
Describe the setting and context given to participants in general terms (“e.g. Participants will be brought into a lab and told they will be taking part in a taste test.”)
If it is an experiment, state whether any variables are manipulated between-participants, and how.
Also describe variables that will be compared within-participants, or used as dependent measures. Say how you are measuring them, for example by using questionnaires or other instruments. Sub-headings might be helpful here.
The description should flow in chronological order, and describe how manipulations can vary between subjects, so that we get an idea of what participants will be going through.
Example: We have a between-subjects design with 1 factor (amount of sugar in mg) with 4 levels. Taste perception will be measured using a rating scale with 5 levels: ….
More info: This section can be written in a variety of ways. The key is for a researcher to be as detailed as is necessary given the specifics of their study.
13
Analysis plan
First, describe as well as you are able the preparation of the data for analysis and any exclusion criteria. For example, you may have a ten-item scale of extraversion that you will average into a measure. You may be acquiring physiological data that your supervisor will help you turn into four indexes of autonomic bodily arousal. As an exclusion criterion, you might exclude participants who answer to a check item that they have failed to understand the vignette they were supposed to read.
What statistical model will you use to test each hypothesis? Please include the type of model (e.g. t-test, ANOVA, correlation, multiple regression, chi-square test, etc) and explain what will be included as predictors, outcomes, or covariates. Please specify any interactions or follow-up analyses you anticipate running. If you plan on using any controls, or manipulation checks you may mention that here. If your study will use qualitative methods how will you analyze the data?
Example: We will use a one-way between-subjects ANOVA to analyze our results. The manipulated, categorical independent variable is ‘sugar’ whereas the dependent variable is our taste index.
More information: This is perhaps the most important and most complicated question within the preregistration. As with all of the other questions, the key is to provide a specific recipe for analyzing the collected data. Ask yourself: is enough detail provided that someone else could run the same analysis again the same way?
14
ethical plan
Which parts of your design require a consideration of ethical issues? Consider the four major areas: Consent, right to withdraw, anonymity/confidentiality, and effects on participants. Identify any issues your study may have and put in place a plan to deal with these issues. Some projects will have very few ethical issues but all will have something that can be anticipated and dealt with.
Example: We are priming participant responses to a task by telling them they scored high/low in a preceding personality test. We will tell participants this was a deception, and will explain why this was necessary both verbally and in writing in the debrief. We will include
More information: This is not as easy as it may seem. Make sure you consider all the specific ethical concerns raised by your study (even the analysis) and carefully think through solutions at each point. Does your design require deception? Will participants be exposed to stimuli they may find distressing?
15
Secondary analyses
Complete this assignment as though you were collecting the data
It is very important you understand the rationale and methodology of the data collection for you final report.
16
Pre-registration Assignment Form
Study Information
Title
Does your environment shape who you are? A study based on personal values and beliefs.
Description
Migration may take place in an effort to pursue new prospects or to avoid confrontation. Adapting to a foreign nation (acculturation) is a dynamic phase in which heritage culture integrates with popular culture. Many studies have shown variables such as age, gender and level of education, religiosity and background can affect the process of acculturation, but very few have had access to the effects acculturation has on perceived gender roles and whether this stems from a real difference across generations. This study examines the perceptions and attitudes across a variety of migrant groups in the United Kingdom, especially Mediterranean, Arab and Northern African countries. All these areas have been called “honour cultures,” i.e. places where “honour” and becoming an upright individual in the presence of others is a core cultural aim. 300 participants area asked to complete a questionnaire In this research, we are interested in whether the value of honour for one’s life may change when people settle in new countries where honour may be less important (e.g. the United Kingdom) and where changes in honour may be related to changes in other beliefs and attitudes of everyday life. In particular, the goal is to examine whether the endorsement of masculine and feminine honour will change as a result of acculturation, and whether these changes will be followed by simultaneous changes in the various indicators of gender equality, such as gender equality, the appropriateness of cross-gender friendships, or the promotion of xenophobia.
Hypotheses/ Research Question
The 1st generation of honour cultures immigrants will show higher levels of honour than the 2nd generation of immigrants. Due to prolonged exposure to the host country (UK), there will be a decrease in the number of honoured immigrants in the 2nd generation. In addition, men and women of these two generations will differ in their recognition of honour due to perceived gender roles that change with acculturation. Immigrants who show larger drops in their honour will be expected to show more appreciation for cross-gender friendships, more equitable gender roles, and more enthusiasm for the feminist cause.
Participants
Our analysis is typically targeted at the recruitment of two major classes 1st generation immigrants to the UK, and second generation immigrants to the UK). Participants are listed as coming from a community of honour, and the countries selected for this analysis are Mediterranean, African and Asian countries (i.e Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Oman). Participants can be acquired through two separate channels: the online study engagement system for students at the University of Kent and the Prolific Industry Online Recruiting Site. In RPS, they will earn a total of 2 credits for their participation. Data collection in the RPS is expected to continue until the end of the year. In the event that we are not able to completely recruit our target sample of 300 participants through RPS by that point, we will then complete the data collection through Prolific. Prolific subjects are paid in proportion to the time of the study and will earn £2.50 for their participation in the questionnaire.
Procedure
At the beginning of the questionnaire, participants are presented with an information sheet accompanied by comments that they have ticked to give their permission. Participants are told by the questionnaire that the research examines people’s perspectives on social problems, including their perceptions and encounters with a broad variety of social classes.
Participants are also instructed to establish a unique identifier in order to keep the data confidential, but also to allow the data to be located if the person wants to withdraw from the sample. The instructions given to build a unique identifier are as follows (e.g., 12345678). The questionnaire finishes by thanking the participants for their involvement and telling them that their data has been collected.
The questionnaire will take 20-25 minutes. It consists of 122 brief answers; participants answer questions about their own cultural values and views, experiences, expectations and behaviours of everyday life. The questionnaire elements are calculated using the Likert scale to quantify the perceptions and opinions of the participants.
Questionnaire Measures
Participants will first read a project information sheet that will describe the intent and estimated length of the study, as well as the rights of the participants, and that participating is voluntary and risk-free. The informed consent sheet would ask participants to give their consent to four separate points of consent. By checking the box next to each consent point, participants will show that they intend to participate, recognise the details given on the information sheet, and participate on a voluntary basis.
Gender roles. ‘Egalitarian attitudes towards gender roles’ (Knud & Larsen,1988; 17 items) can be used as a potential predictor (DV) test ‘change of honour endorsement by acculturation’. This scale assesses the stereotypical perceptions of both men and women and how they perceive gender roles in household, social and job environments (‘Women who cry have a bad character’). Participants score their compliance with the scale statements (from 0= Strongly Disagree to 6= Strongly Agree)
Cross-Gender friendships. The scale “Attitudes towards cross-gender friendships (2 items; self-created):” We created 2 items to test attitudes towards cross-gender close friendships: “Men and women should only have close friends of their own sex” and There is no problem with a man and a woman being close friends.” Participants score their compliance with the scale statements from 0= Strongly disagree to 6= Strongly Agree. We would determine whether these items have an accurate scale of attitudes towards cross-gender relations, and then theoretically use this scale as a predictor (DV) of honour transition by acculturation.
Child rearing. Gender-based Attitudes towards Child-Rearing (GATCR; Hoffman & Kloska, 1995; 7 items): This scale measures peoples’ attitudes towards child rearing in today’s society, and if their views differ for the two gender in terms of education (“Education is more important for sons than for daughters”), household (“It’s okay for children to help around the house, but I would not ask a son to dust or set the table”) and societal settings (“ It is as important to steer a daughter toward a good job as it is with a son.”). Participants rate their agreement with the statements on a scale from 0 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree. We will use this scale as a potential indicator (DV) of change in honor endorsement through acculturation.
Feminism Scale. The Liberal Feminist Attitude and Ideology Scale – Short Scale (LFAIS; Woodbrown, 2015; 9 items): This scale measures liberal feminist attitudes in regards to women and society. The scale taps into the domains of gender role attitudes (“Women have been treated unfairly on the basis of their gender through most of human history”), and feminist ideology (“Women should have the same opportunities as a man”). We excluded one item from the original 10 item scale (“Women can best overcome discrimination by doing the best that they can at their jobs, not by wasting time with political activity”) since in many of the groups under study many women were likely not in employment. Participants rate their agreement with the statements on a scale from 0 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree. We will use this scale as a potential indicator (DV) of change in honor endorsement through acculturation.
The Honor Attribution Scale (HAS; Mosquera et. al, 2011; 24 items): This scale assesses individual honor endorsement in participants. Participants are presented with a series of honor attributes (e.g. Honesty, Loyalty to one’s partner) that may be seen desirable in men, women, or for individuals in general. Participants will fill out this scale twice, once rating the extent that they perceive these attributes as desirable for men, and once rating the extent that they perceive these attributes as desirable for women. The desirability of each attribute will be rated on a scale from 1 = Not desirable at all to 5 = Extremely desirable. We will use this scale as our main assessment of people’s endorsement of honor as a personal value in their lives.
Vancouver Index of Acculturation (VIA; Paulhus; 2013; 16 items): This scale measures individuals’ orientations towards one’s heritage as well as host culture, i.e. the extent to which individuals participate in practices of both their host and heritage culture (e.g. “I often participate in my heritage cultural traditions”), and the importance that these practices have to them (e.g. “It is important for me to maintain or develop British cultural practices.”). Participants will be first asked which is their heritage culture, and will then be asked to rate their agreement with the following statement with that culture in mind. Participants rate their agreement with the statements on a scale from 1 = Disagree to 9 = Agree. We will use this scale as a control variable, indicating the extent to which an individual has acculturated to British culture and/or is maintaining their own heritage culture.
Well-being (Andrews and Withey, 1976): We will assess overall well-being in participation with a single item: “How satisfied are you with your life as a whole?” Participants will rate the item on a scale of 0 =Not at all to 10 = Completely satisfied. We will use this scale as an exploratory variable, examining whether individuals showing higher wellbeing may tend to acculturate more to the host culture, to maintain their heritage culture, or both.
Relationship Status: In this section, participants will be asked general questions about their relationship status (single, married, cohabiting) as well as on their family status (number and age of children, cohabiting with children). We will use this information as a contextual variable, examining whether people who are in a relationship or not, and who have children or not, may answer questions about gender systematically different or not.
Demographical Information (11 items): Finally, participants will provide information about themselves including their sex, age, country of birth, length of stay in the UK, where their parents were born, the languages they speak, ethnic background, religiosity, and perceived social status in the country they live in.
Analysis Plan
Analysis design
[Your analysis plan here. 250-500 word suggested limit]
1. Describe as well as you are able to prepare the data for analysis and any exclusion criteria.For example, you may have a ten-item scale of extraversion that you will average into a measure. You may be acquiring physiological data that your supervisor will help you turn into four indexes of autonomic bodily arousal. As an exclusion criterion, you might exclude participants who answer to a check item that they have failed to understand the vignette they were supposed to read.
2. Statistical model will be used to test each hypothesis?
3. Include- type of model (e.g.- t-test, ANOVA, correlation, multiple regression, chi-square test, etc)
4. Explain what will be included as predictors, outcomes, or covariates.
5. Please specify any interactions or follow-up analyses you anticipate running.
6. If you plan on using any controls/manipulation checks you could mention that here.
8. This is perhaps the most important and most complicated question within the preregistration. As with all of the other questions, the key is to provide a specific recipe for analyzing the collected data. Ask yourself: is enough detail provided that someone else could run the same analysis again the same way?
1. T-test
· One tailed t-test
· between 1st generation and 2nd generation
· Power Analyses: For a medium effect, with alpha = 0.05 and power of 0.8, we need 278 participants (139 in each generation group).
· One tailed t-tests
2. Correlation
· honor endorsement and years spent
· 2nd gen
· For a within group correlation with medium effect, alpha = 0.05 and power of 0.8, we need 64 participants in a group.
3. Repeated t-test
· linear regression
· between generations (males + females)
· Honor attribution scale
4. Correlation/Regression
· honor endorsement & years spent
· Both- males and females
· For a within group repeated t testwith medium effect, alpha = 0.05 and power of 0.8, we need 71 participants in a group.
To investigate whether each aspect honor values predicts acculturation outcomes in immigrants of 2 generations
Ethical Considerations
Ethical design
[Your ethical design here. 150-500 word suggested limit]
Participants will give their informed consent at the beginning of the study, before the questionnaire starts. An information page explaining elements of the study, such as the purpose of the research, what will happen during and after the study, and any possible risks or inconveniences will be included in the initial stage of the online questionnaire. In addition, information on how their involvement is voluntary will be provided. If they were to face any problems before or after the study has taken place, the participant is informed of how they can contact the researchers or a superior. The participant would have received enough details about the study from this information to decide whether they want to continue or withdraw their involvement.
The participants would be provided a general description to avoid biasing responses however not in grave detail as this can cause biases where a participant gives a specific response because they believe that the researcher is looking for this. Once they have been informed of the details of the study, consent from participants will be ensured, as the participant will have to check a box next to declarations of consent and ensure that they have understood the information provided, thus ensuring that the participant gives their informed consent.
The research protocol reduced the effects on the participants. Potential consequences such as offending, humiliating or disturbing the participant have been minimised by only using research questions that are not aimed at a participant with certain views and values, as well as by not using offensive language throughout.
The protocol outlines that it will take approximately 20 minutes for the questionnaire to be completed online, which leaves out the effect of extreme fatigue. Since the procedure does not require any invasive measurement methods, neither does the questionnaire cause possible physical or psychological damage, therefore, it can be deduced that any stress that may arise may not be different from the stress that participants encounter in their daily lives.
The research does not re-trigger past traumas because the questions do not enable the participant to remember past experiences or distressing memories in order to address the questions, as the questions are intended to test the impact of acculturation and interaction on perceptions and attitudes of daily life.
If any problem occurs during the study, the participant will be told that they have the right to withdraw from the study immediately and that they may contact them about their issues, such as the researchers, the research supervisor or the ethics committee. In addition, if the participants have questions after the study is done, the same contact details will be provided and advised on how to withdraw from the study if they wish to do so.
Protocols to maintain confidentiality in this study are in place to protect the participants and store data safely, following ethical guidelines. Only digital types of data will be obtained by the research (Prolific, Qualtrics datasheet, SPSS datasheet). After receiving informed consent, a unique identification code consisting of a combination of numbers (random 8 digits) and a prolific ID will be given by the participant, enabling researchers to classify the data of the participant without using personal information, thereby allowing confidentiality to remain intact. There will be no details in the final year project that may contribute to the potential detection of a single person and as we would only report and analyse aggregate information, so it is not possible to identify specific sets of data, maintaining confidentiality.
The procedure for the researchers to submit their specific participant code by making the statements needed to create the code if a participant has asked to withdraw from the study. The researchers will then mark the data of the participant from the protected data file and will begin to permanently remove all the data from all secure data files for this participant. The data obtained by ‘Qualtrics’, will be stored on a single password-protected account accessible only by the researchers and research supervisors to ensure confidentiality. The data is then exported for review into an SPSS file. This file will contain only the unique code of the participant given when the questionnaire has been completed and no personal information will be retained. In order to guarantee the confidentiality and protection of the collected data, it will be stored in a storage that is backed up by the university and only accessible to the approved staff to minimise the risk of data loss or interfering with the data.
As the study would use ‘Qualtrics’ to collect data, this program’s security is known to be highly secure and its framework is designed for confidentiality since access is heavily limited, so it can be inferred that confidentiality is acceptable. It will be moved to all protected storage spaces after the data is gathered to ensure the data is not lost or tampered with.
There will be no details in the final year project that may contribute to the potential detection of a single person and their results as the data will be gathered and general patterns will be published, so it is not possible to identify specific sets of data, maintaining confidentiality.
In conclusion, as a consequence of the research protocol and materials, possible ethical concerns about consent, confidentiality and the impact on participants have been carefully considered and discussed. To mitigate any negative effects on participants and to ensure that the data of a participant is kept confidential and safe, guidelines have been placed in place. In order to support the research sample, but more importantly to protect the researcher, additional guidelines were placed in place to deal with any problem that might arise.