PSY30009
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Assignment 2: Research Report
Self-control and motivation to control prejudice in attitudes towards asylum-seekers

Please note that this handout contains a general description of the study and the reasoning behind it. You must NOT simply copy text from this handout into your Lab Report – to do so will be considered plagiarism and will be treated accordingly.

BACKGROUND

The asylum seeker issue is a highly contentious one in contemporary Australian society, attracting significant media and political attention. Variously referred to as “boat people”, “forced migrants”, or, in political-legal terms, “illegal maritime arrivals”, asylum seekers are foreign nationals who seek refugee status in another country due to fear of persecution in their home country. Since the arrival of the first officially recorded group of asylum seekers to Australian shores in 1976, the attitudes of Australians towards asylum-seekers, particularly those that arrive on Australian shores by boat, has fluctuated between opposite poles of compassion and hostility, and all points in between (Betts, 2001). More recently, the attitudes have tended towards being more negative (Phillips & Spinks, 2010). Several reasons are given for this shift in public attitudes against asylum seekers, including social, political, and media reporting factors (see McKay, Thomas, & Kneebone, 2012). Investigation of the psychological factors underpinning the formation of these attitudes towards asylum seekers in Australia is an emerging area of research (e.g., Greenhalgh & Watt, 2015).

Two psychological factors that would appear to be closely related to the formation of attitudes regarding asylum seekers are motivations to control prejudice and cognitive self-control. The motivation to control prejudice varies within individuals along two dimensions – an internal motivation and an external motivation (Plant & Devine, 1998). Those with high levels of internal motivation to control prejudice are motivated to be non-prejudiced and display the same attitudes regardless of social circumstances. Those with high levels of external motivation to control prejudice however, are motivated to appear non-prejudiced and are likely to alter their attitudes according to the prevailing social circumstance. Self-control is a cognitively effortful process that overrides an individual’s prepotent response to environmental stimuli (Baumeister, Muraven, & Tice, 2000). Often this prepotent response is socially undesirable, particularly in the context of issues concerning race and ethnicity (e.g., Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995), and requires effortful self-control to avoid undesirable thoughts and behaviours being expressed. Effortful self-control is thought to be moderated by neural structures in the pre-frontal cortex (PFC; Heatherton & Wagner, 2011), structures that have been shown to have a limited capacity to control the expression of socially undesirable attitudes and behaviours (Hagger, Wood, Stiff, & Chatzisarantis, 2010). Depletion of cognitive resources through experimental tasks requiring heavy engagement of these neural structures, for example, being forced to overcome unwanted impulses, has been shown to affect behavioural self-control on subsequent tasks (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007).

Prejudices against outgroups, particularly those that are of a different race or ethnicity (such as the vast majority of Australian asylum seekers), appear to be automatically activated, and may only be inhibited by effortful self-control (Devine, 1989) and other mediating cognitive processes (Monteith et al., 2002; Monteith et al., 2010). Prejudicial attitudes against asylum seekers therefore, can be seen as prepotent responses that can only be inhibited by actively exerting cognitive self-control. If cognitive self-control is depleted however, these prepotent negative attitudes are more likely to be expressed.

THE CURRENT STUDY

This study investigates whether the discrepancy between implicit attitudes (i.e., those that are formed without conscious awareness) and explicit attitudes (i.e., those that are consciously and deliberately formed) varies as a function of both external motivation to control prejudice and depletion of cognitive self-control resources.

In this study, depletion of cognitive self-control was manipulated by having half of the participants complete a Go/NoGo response inhibition task (to deplete cognitive self-control) and the other half complete a cognitive task that does not deplete cognitive resources. All participants also completed a questionnaire that measured internal and external motivations to control prejudice . We also measured your attitudes towards asylum seekers: you completed a measure of your explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers, as well as another Go/NoGo task, this time measuring your implicit attitudes towards asylum seekers.

The study was therefore conducted as a 2 (Self-control depletion vs. No self-control depletion) x 2 (High vs. Low external motivation to control prejudice) between-groups experimental design. The design is between-groups because each respondent falls into only one of the study’s conditions. It is a 2 x 2 design because there are two independent variables, each with two levels: self-control (depletion vs. no depletion), and external motivation to control prejudice (high vs. low). Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the two self-control (depletion or no depletion) conditions. External motivation to control prejudice varies naturally – we measured it, and then used a median split procedure to allocate participants to either the high or low external motivation to control prejudice conditions. These two independent variables created four separate conditions.

1. Self-control depletion and High external motivation to control prejudice: Participants in this condition completed the Error Awareness Task in order to facilitate depletion of cognitive self-control. They also scored above the sample median on the External Motivation to Control Prejudice scale.

2. Self-control depletion and Low external motivation to control prejudice: Participants in this condition completed the Error Awareness Task in order to facilitate depletion of cognitive self-control. They also scored below the sample median on the External Motivation to Control Prejudice scale.

3. No self-control depletion and High external motivation to control prejudice: Participants in this condition completed the Sentence Completion Task (which does not deplete cognitive self-control). They also scored above the sample median on the External Motivation to Control Prejudice scale.
4. No self-control depletion and Low external motivation to control prejudice: Participants in this condition completed the Sentence Completion Task (which does not deplete cognitive self-control). They also scored below the sample median on the External Motivation to Control Prejudice scale.

The main dependent variable was the discrepancy between each participant’s implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers.

Henceforth, the key variables in this study will be labelled as follows:

IV_SelfControl: The independent variable “Self-control depletion” (manipulated by the experimenter, with two levels: depletion or no depletion)

IV_EMCP: The independent variable “External motivation to control prejudice” (measured, with two levels determined by median split: high external motivation to control prejudice or low external motivation to control prejudice)

DV_AttDiff: The dependent variable “Discrepancy between implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers” (measured, calculated as the difference between standardised scores on the implicit and explicit attitudes measures)
KEY QUESTIONS OF THIS RESEARCH REPORT

In this research report, you will be asking the following questions:

1. Do those high in external motivation to control prejudice show a greater discrepancy between their implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers than those low in external motivation to control prejudice?

If so, this would indicate support for the EMCP construct.

2. Does participation in the self-control depletion task result in lower discrepancy between implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers than participation in the non-depletion task?

If yes, then we have support for the notion that self-control depletion can affect expression of attitudes regarding social issues.

3. Does the effect of self-control depletion on implicit/explicit attitude discrepancy depend on whether people are high or low on explicit motivation to control prejudice?

Here, we ask whether we might find an interaction: Do people high in external motivation to control prejudice show a larger (or smaller) difference in implicit/explicit attitude discrepancy scores between the self-control depletion and no depletion conditions, compared to those low in external motivation to control prejudice? If yes, then we have evidence of an interaction between the two IVs. That is, the effect of self-control depletion on implicit/explicit attitude discrepancy is stronger (or weaker) for those high in external motivation to control prejudice, compared to those low in external motivation to control prejudice.

The first thing you will need to do is construct hypotheses that reflect these questions. You should review the relevant literature, and from that literature, derive logical predictions about what we will find in this study in relation to the three Research Questions outlined above. Remember, when stating your hypotheses, you need to specify the direction of any main effects or interaction effects.
ANALYSES TO TEST YOUR HYPOTHESES

You should follow the steps laid out in the Data Analysis Handout to analyse your data set.

The first thing you will need to do is check whether participants passed or failed the manipulation checks. We conduct manipulation checks to ensure that our participants registered our manipulations (our IV’s) in the study in the way that we intended. If participants did not (i.e., if they failed the manipulation checks), it is important to deal with them appropriately, possibly by excluding them from the remainder of our analyses. More information about how to do this will be contained in your Data Analysis Handout.

Once you have conducted the manipulation checks as instructed, you will conduct further analyses to:

– Describe the standard demographic characteristics of your sample (gender, age)
– Test your hypotheses

The hypotheses will test for the following effects:

1. Do those high in external motivation to control prejudice show a greater discrepancy between their implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers than those low in external motivation to control prejudice?

You will look for the main effect of external motivation to control prejudice (IV_EMCP) on discrepancy between implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers (DV_AttDiff) in a 2 (IV_SelfControl) x 2 (IV_EMCP) between-groups ANOVA.
2. Does participation in the self-control depletion task result in lower discrepancy between implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers than participation in the non-depletion task?

You will look for the main effect of self-control depletion (IV_SelfControl) on discrepancy between implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers (DV_AttDiff) in a 2 (IV_SelfControl) x 2 (IV_EMCP) between-groups ANOVA.
3. Does the effect of self-control depletion on implicit/explicit attitude discrepancy depend on whether people are high or low on explicit motivation to control prejudice?

You will look for an interaction between external motivation to control prejudice (IV_EMCP) and self-control depletion (IV_SelfControl) on discrepancy between implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers (DV_AttDiff) in a 2 (IV_SelfControl) x 2 (IV_EMCP) between-groups ANOVA.
For more information about the analyses you will conduct, you should refer to the Data Analysis Handout.

For more information about the measures in this study, you should refer to the document called “Measures used in the study”, which is provided for you on Blackboard. This document contains information about the items in the questionnaire and the cognitive tasks, as well as information about how scores were calculated for each of the variables in the analyses that you will conduct.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR WRITING UP THE RESEARCH REPORT

The report is worth 40% of your final grade in the unit, and will be marked out of 100. The breakdown of marks (out of 100) is given below.

Introduction (24 marks): A useful format for the Introduction is to structure it in terms of the following (major) sections: (1) Describe the ‘real world’ problem – What is the applied or practical significance of the research? e.g., Why is research on attitudes towards asylum seekers important? (2) The scientific or theoretical problem: What has and has not been done in previous research on this topic? What are the limitations of past research in this area? What is the ‘gap’ in knowledge we are seeking to address in the current research? Key concepts (e.g., implicit and explicit attitudes, self-control, prejudice, and motivation to control prejudice) should be clearly defined and explained, as should formal definitions of asylum seekers and refugees. (3) Aims/research questions and hypotheses. Most of the intellectual energy that goes into this report should be directed towards the theoretical and empirical rationale provided for the hypotheses. Formulate hypotheses that reflect the study aims. Justify hypotheses by tying them to related research so they flow smoothly and directly from the literature. The majority of the marks will be given for the analytical ability shown in building a case for the link between cognitive self-control and motivations to control prejudice, and how these constructs might relate to attitudes towards asylum seekers.

Method (12 marks): Include subheadings for Design, Participants, Materials/Measures and Procedure. The Design section should describe the 2 x 2 between-groups experimental design. The dependent variable should also be specified. The Participants section should describe the nature of the individuals who participated in the research. The Materials/Measures section should only describe the questions used in the research report. Don’t forget to describe the questions used for the manipulation checks. Materials (cognitive tasks and questionnaire) used as part of the experiment should also be described. The Procedure should describe exactly what happened (i.e., participants randomly assigned to conditions, instructions given in each condition, etc.).

Results (16 marks): This report is not a test of your statistical knowledge and you will be given data analysis guidelines to assist you later in the semester. The statistics should be used as a tool to demonstrate whether or not the expected theoretical relationships are supported. The data file, SC_2015.SAV is available on Blackboard.

Discussion (24 marks): Discuss the findings in relation to the aims and hypotheses and literature cited in your Introduction. Were your hypotheses supported? If so, what evidence is there that the results are reflecting “true” relationships versus methodological factors? If they were not supported, discuss possible reasons for this. Discuss limitations of the study (these should be tied directly to the results) and provide suggestions for future research. Provide conclusions relating to the role of cognitive self-control and motivations to control prejudice in the formation of attitudes towards asylum seekers, and, if relevant, consider other explanatory variables.

Your report should also include a Title Page, Abstract, and References. The title of the report must specify the IVs and DVs. The Abstract (6 marks) should be no more than 150 words in length. Marks will also be awarded for overall integration (8 marks) and references and presentation (10 marks). The references you have been given should be sufficient to begin your literature review. However, you should explore the relevant literature further and include additional references in your report.
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The Research Report should be a maximum 3500 words, with +/- 10% flexibility on the word count. This word limit does NOT include Title page, Tables, Figures, or References, but it does include the Abstract. As an approximate guide, use the following: Abstract (150 words), Introduction (approx. 1200 words), Method and Results (approx. 1200 words combined), Discussion (approx. 1000 words).

Your assignment should be typed and double-spaced using a standard 12 point font. Use APA formatting throughout, including for Tables and Figures. You may place your tables within the text of the Results section (i.e., no need to use the manuscript submission convention of placing tables at the end of the article). Do not attach the materials, questionnaire or SPSS printouts of your results to your Research Report. As your formatting guide, refer to the APA Publication Manual.

Your assignment must be submitted as a single document, via Blackboard, no later than 11:55pm on Friday of Week 9. A cover sheet must be completed by you and uploaded to BlackBoard (as a separate document) along with the submitted assignment by the deadline. Standard assessment cover sheets can be found here: http://www.swinburne.edu.au/student-administration/docs/student/Cover_sheet_for_submission_of_work_for_assessment.pdf

Your assignment will be submitted in Turnitin (through BlackBoard). Well in advance of your submission, you should familiarise yourself with the documentation in the folder called “Turnitin Information”, which you will find under the “Assessments” tab on BlackBoard.

You must check that your assignment submission has correctly uploaded, in an acceptable file format, well in advance of the deadline. Allow plenty of time to correct any technical difficulties, as they will not be considered the basis for any extension.

As per the unit outline, a penalty of 10% per day (including weekends) applies for late submissions, and submissions more than 5 days late will receive zero marks.

Extensions may be granted in exceptional circumstances. Requests for extensions of 6 days or less must be submitted to your tutor in writing, before the assignment due date. Requests for extensions of 7 days or more must be submitted to the university’s online special consideration (SPC) tool, no later than three working days after the due date. Immediately upon submitting an extension request to the SPC online tool, students should also email their tutor to notify their tutor that they are requesting an extension via the SPC online tool, as well as the length of the extension they are requesting. All extension requests must be accompanied by appropriate documentation (i.e. a medical certificate for illness, a counsellor’s/psychologist’s letter for psychological issues or personal circumstances). The documentation should indicate the length of time for which the student was impacted by the illness/circumstance. Remember that pressure of other work (whether university work or paid work) does not count as a basis for an extension. Students should not assume that they will be granted an extension until they are notified of its approval.

REFERENCES/ESSENTIAL READING

(Essential reading shown in bold. In addition to the listed readings, you are expected to source additional references that you determine to be important in covering this topic.)

Baumeister, R. F., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Ego depletion: A resource model of volition, self-regulation, and controlled processing. Social Cognition, 18(2), 130-150.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351-355. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x

Betts, K. (2001). Boat people and public opinion in Australia. People and Place, 9(4), 34-48.

Boldero, J., & Whelan, J. (2011). Australians’ attitudes toward culturally similar and culturally dissimilar migrants. In G. M. Ruggiero, S. Sassaroli, Y. Latzer & S. Suchday (Eds.), Perspectives on immigration and terrorism (pp. 105-114). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5-18.

Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1013-1027.

Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297-327. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145225

Greenhalgh, E. M., & Watt, S. E. (2015). Preference for consistency and value dissimilarities in dehumanization and prejudice toward asylum seekers in Australia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 110-119. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2066

Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 495-525. doi: 10.1037/a0019486

Heatherton, T. F., & Wagner, D. D. (2011). Cognitive neuroscience of self-regulation failure. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(3), 132-139. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.12.005

McKay, F. H., Thomas, S. L., & Kneebone, S. (2012). ‘It would be okay if they came through the proper channels’: Community perceptions and attitudes toward asylum seekers in Australia. Journal of Refugee Studies, 25(1), 113-133. doi: 10.1093/jrs/fer010

Monteith, M. J., Ashburn-Nardo, L., Voils, C. I., & Czopp, A. M. (2002). Putting the brakes on prejudice: On the development and operation of cues for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1029-1050. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.5.1029

Monteith, M. J., Mark, A. Y., & Ashburn-Nardo, L. (2010). The self-regulation of prejudice: Toward understanding its lived character. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13(2), 183-200. doi: 10.1177/1368430209353633

Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The GO/NO-GO Association Task. Social Cognition, 19(6), 625-664. doi: 10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886

Phillips, J., & Spinks, H. (2010). Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976. Canberra: Parliamentary Library.

Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 811-832.

Richeson, J. A., & Trawalter, S. (2005). Why do interracial interactions impair executive function? A resource depletion account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 934-947. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.934

PSY30009
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Assignment 2: Research Report
Self-control and motivation to control prejudice in attitudes towards asylum-seekers

Please note that this handout contains a general description of the study and the reasoning behind it. You must NOT simply copy text from this handout into your Lab Report – to do so will be considered plagiarism and will be treated accordingly.

BACKGROUND

The asylum seeker issue is a highly contentious one in contemporary Australian society, attracting significant media and political attention. Variously referred to as “boat people”, “forced migrants”, or, in political-legal terms, “illegal maritime arrivals”, asylum seekers are foreign nationals who seek refugee status in another country due to fear of persecution in their home country. Since the arrival of the first officially recorded group of asylum seekers to Australian shores in 1976, the attitudes of Australians towards asylum-seekers, particularly those that arrive on Australian shores by boat, has fluctuated between opposite poles of compassion and hostility, and all points in between (Betts, 2001). More recently, the attitudes have tended towards being more negative (Phillips & Spinks, 2010). Several reasons are given for this shift in public attitudes against asylum seekers, including social, political, and media reporting factors (see McKay, Thomas, & Kneebone, 2012). Investigation of the psychological factors underpinning the formation of these attitudes towards asylum seekers in Australia is an emerging area of research (e.g., Greenhalgh & Watt, 2015).

Two psychological factors that would appear to be closely related to the formation of attitudes regarding asylum seekers are motivations to control prejudice and cognitive self-control. The motivation to control prejudice varies within individuals along two dimensions – an internal motivation and an external motivation (Plant & Devine, 1998). Those with high levels of internal motivation to control prejudice are motivated to be non-prejudiced and display the same attitudes regardless of social circumstances. Those with high levels of external motivation to control prejudice however, are motivated to appear non-prejudiced and are likely to alter their attitudes according to the prevailing social circumstance. Self-control is a cognitively effortful process that overrides an individual’s prepotent response to environmental stimuli (Baumeister, Muraven, & Tice, 2000). Often this prepotent response is socially undesirable, particularly in the context of issues concerning race and ethnicity (e.g., Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995), and requires effortful self-control to avoid undesirable thoughts and behaviours being expressed. Effortful self-control is thought to be moderated by neural structures in the pre-frontal cortex (PFC; Heatherton & Wagner, 2011), structures that have been shown to have a limited capacity to control the expression of socially undesirable attitudes and behaviours (Hagger, Wood, Stiff, & Chatzisarantis, 2010). Depletion of cognitive resources through experimental tasks requiring heavy engagement of these neural structures, for example, being forced to overcome unwanted impulses, has been shown to affect behavioural self-control on subsequent tasks (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007).

Prejudices against outgroups, particularly those that are of a different race or ethnicity (such as the vast majority of Australian asylum seekers), appear to be automatically activated, and may only be inhibited by effortful self-control (Devine, 1989) and other mediating cognitive processes (Monteith et al., 2002; Monteith et al., 2010). Prejudicial attitudes against asylum seekers therefore, can be seen as prepotent responses that can only be inhibited by actively exerting cognitive self-control. If cognitive self-control is depleted however, these prepotent negative attitudes are more likely to be expressed.

THE CURRENT STUDY

This study investigates whether the discrepancy between implicit attitudes (i.e., those that are formed without conscious awareness) and explicit attitudes (i.e., those that are consciously and deliberately formed) varies as a function of both external motivation to control prejudice and depletion of cognitive self-control resources.

In this study, depletion of cognitive self-control was manipulated by having half of the participants complete a Go/NoGo response inhibition task (to deplete cognitive self-control) and the other half complete a cognitive task that does not deplete cognitive resources. All participants also completed a questionnaire that measured internal and external motivations to control prejudice . We also measured your attitudes towards asylum seekers: you completed a measure of your explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers, as well as another Go/NoGo task, this time measuring your implicit attitudes towards asylum seekers.

The study was therefore conducted as a 2 (Self-control depletion vs. No self-control depletion) x 2 (High vs. Low external motivation to control prejudice) between-groups experimental design. The design is between-groups because each respondent falls into only one of the study’s conditions. It is a 2 x 2 design because there are two independent variables, each with two levels: self-control (depletion vs. no depletion), and external motivation to control prejudice (high vs. low). Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the two self-control (depletion or no depletion) conditions. External motivation to control prejudice varies naturally – we measured it, and then used a median split procedure to allocate participants to either the high or low external motivation to control prejudice conditions. These two independent variables created four separate conditions.

1. Self-control depletion and High external motivation to control prejudice: Participants in this condition completed the Error Awareness Task in order to facilitate depletion of cognitive self-control. They also scored above the sample median on the External Motivation to Control Prejudice scale.

2. Self-control depletion and Low external motivation to control prejudice: Participants in this condition completed the Error Awareness Task in order to facilitate depletion of cognitive self-control. They also scored below the sample median on the External Motivation to Control Prejudice scale.

3. No self-control depletion and High external motivation to control prejudice: Participants in this condition completed the Sentence Completion Task (which does not deplete cognitive self-control). They also scored above the sample median on the External Motivation to Control Prejudice scale.
4. No self-control depletion and Low external motivation to control prejudice: Participants in this condition completed the Sentence Completion Task (which does not deplete cognitive self-control). They also scored below the sample median on the External Motivation to Control Prejudice scale.

The main dependent variable was the discrepancy between each participant’s implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers.

Henceforth, the key variables in this study will be labelled as follows:

IV_SelfControl: The independent variable “Self-control depletion” (manipulated by the experimenter, with two levels: depletion or no depletion)

IV_EMCP: The independent variable “External motivation to control prejudice” (measured, with two levels determined by median split: high external motivation to control prejudice or low external motivation to control prejudice)

DV_AttDiff: The dependent variable “Discrepancy between implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers” (measured, calculated as the difference between standardised scores on the implicit and explicit attitudes measures)
KEY QUESTIONS OF THIS RESEARCH REPORT

In this research report, you will be asking the following questions:

1. Do those high in external motivation to control prejudice show a greater discrepancy between their implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers than those low in external motivation to control prejudice?

If so, this would indicate support for the EMCP construct.

2. Does participation in the self-control depletion task result in lower discrepancy between implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers than participation in the non-depletion task?

If yes, then we have support for the notion that self-control depletion can affect expression of attitudes regarding social issues.

3. Does the effect of self-control depletion on implicit/explicit attitude discrepancy depend on whether people are high or low on explicit motivation to control prejudice?

Here, we ask whether we might find an interaction: Do people high in external motivation to control prejudice show a larger (or smaller) difference in implicit/explicit attitude discrepancy scores between the self-control depletion and no depletion conditions, compared to those low in external motivation to control prejudice? If yes, then we have evidence of an interaction between the two IVs. That is, the effect of self-control depletion on implicit/explicit attitude discrepancy is stronger (or weaker) for those high in external motivation to control prejudice, compared to those low in external motivation to control prejudice.

The first thing you will need to do is construct hypotheses that reflect these questions. You should review the relevant literature, and from that literature, derive logical predictions about what we will find in this study in relation to the three Research Questions outlined above. Remember, when stating your hypotheses, you need to specify the direction of any main effects or interaction effects.
ANALYSES TO TEST YOUR HYPOTHESES

You should follow the steps laid out in the Data Analysis Handout to analyse your data set.

The first thing you will need to do is check whether participants passed or failed the manipulation checks. We conduct manipulation checks to ensure that our participants registered our manipulations (our IV’s) in the study in the way that we intended. If participants did not (i.e., if they failed the manipulation checks), it is important to deal with them appropriately, possibly by excluding them from the remainder of our analyses. More information about how to do this will be contained in your Data Analysis Handout.

Once you have conducted the manipulation checks as instructed, you will conduct further analyses to:

– Describe the standard demographic characteristics of your sample (gender, age)
– Test your hypotheses

The hypotheses will test for the following effects:

1. Do those high in external motivation to control prejudice show a greater discrepancy between their implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers than those low in external motivation to control prejudice?

You will look for the main effect of external motivation to control prejudice (IV_EMCP) on discrepancy between implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers (DV_AttDiff) in a 2 (IV_SelfControl) x 2 (IV_EMCP) between-groups ANOVA.
2. Does participation in the self-control depletion task result in lower discrepancy between implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers than participation in the non-depletion task?

You will look for the main effect of self-control depletion (IV_SelfControl) on discrepancy between implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers (DV_AttDiff) in a 2 (IV_SelfControl) x 2 (IV_EMCP) between-groups ANOVA.
3. Does the effect of self-control depletion on implicit/explicit attitude discrepancy depend on whether people are high or low on explicit motivation to control prejudice?

You will look for an interaction between external motivation to control prejudice (IV_EMCP) and self-control depletion (IV_SelfControl) on discrepancy between implicit and explicit attitudes towards asylum seekers (DV_AttDiff) in a 2 (IV_SelfControl) x 2 (IV_EMCP) between-groups ANOVA.
For more information about the analyses you will conduct, you should refer to the Data Analysis Handout.

For more information about the measures in this study, you should refer to the document called “Measures used in the study”, which is provided for you on Blackboard. This document contains information about the items in the questionnaire and the cognitive tasks, as well as information about how scores were calculated for each of the variables in the analyses that you will conduct.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR WRITING UP THE RESEARCH REPORT

The report is worth 40% of your final grade in the unit, and will be marked out of 100. The breakdown of marks (out of 100) is given below.

Introduction (24 marks): A useful format for the Introduction is to structure it in terms of the following (major) sections: (1) Describe the ‘real world’ problem – What is the applied or practical significance of the research? e.g., Why is research on attitudes towards asylum seekers important? (2) The scientific or theoretical problem: What has and has not been done in previous research on this topic? What are the limitations of past research in this area? What is the ‘gap’ in knowledge we are seeking to address in the current research? Key concepts (e.g., implicit and explicit attitudes, self-control, prejudice, and motivation to control prejudice) should be clearly defined and explained, as should formal definitions of asylum seekers and refugees. (3) Aims/research questions and hypotheses. Most of the intellectual energy that goes into this report should be directed towards the theoretical and empirical rationale provided for the hypotheses. Formulate hypotheses that reflect the study aims. Justify hypotheses by tying them to related research so they flow smoothly and directly from the literature. The majority of the marks will be given for the analytical ability shown in building a case for the link between cognitive self-control and motivations to control prejudice, and how these constructs might relate to attitudes towards asylum seekers.

Method (12 marks): Include subheadings for Design, Participants, Materials/Measures and Procedure. The Design section should describe the 2 x 2 between-groups experimental design. The dependent variable should also be specified. The Participants section should describe the nature of the individuals who participated in the research. The Materials/Measures section should only describe the questions used in the research report. Don’t forget to describe the questions used for the manipulation checks. Materials (cognitive tasks and questionnaire) used as part of the experiment should also be described. The Procedure should describe exactly what happened (i.e., participants randomly assigned to conditions, instructions given in each condition, etc.).

Results (16 marks): This report is not a test of your statistical knowledge and you will be given data analysis guidelines to assist you later in the semester. The statistics should be used as a tool to demonstrate whether or not the expected theoretical relationships are supported. The data file, SC_2015.SAV is available on Blackboard.

Discussion (24 marks): Discuss the findings in relation to the aims and hypotheses and literature cited in your Introduction. Were your hypotheses supported? If so, what evidence is there that the results are reflecting “true” relationships versus methodological factors? If they were not supported, discuss possible reasons for this. Discuss limitations of the study (these should be tied directly to the results) and provide suggestions for future research. Provide conclusions relating to the role of cognitive self-control and motivations to control prejudice in the formation of attitudes towards asylum seekers, and, if relevant, consider other explanatory variables.

Your report should also include a Title Page, Abstract, and References. The title of the report must specify the IVs and DVs. The Abstract (6 marks) should be no more than 150 words in length. Marks will also be awarded for overall integration (8 marks) and references and presentation (10 marks). The references you have been given should be sufficient to begin your literature review. However, you should explore the relevant literature further and include additional references in your report.
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The Research Report should be a maximum 3500 words, with +/- 10% flexibility on the word count. This word limit does NOT include Title page, Tables, Figures, or References, but it does include the Abstract. As an approximate guide, use the following: Abstract (150 words), Introduction (approx. 1200 words), Method and Results (approx. 1200 words combined), Discussion (approx. 1000 words).

Your assignment should be typed and double-spaced using a standard 12 point font. Use APA formatting throughout, including for Tables and Figures. You may place your tables within the text of the Results section (i.e., no need to use the manuscript submission convention of placing tables at the end of the article). Do not attach the materials, questionnaire or SPSS printouts of your results to your Research Report. As your formatting guide, refer to the APA Publication Manual.

Your assignment must be submitted as a single document, via Blackboard, no later than 11:55pm on Friday of Week 9. A cover sheet must be completed by you and uploaded to BlackBoard (as a separate document) along with the submitted assignment by the deadline. Standard assessment cover sheets can be found here: http://www.swinburne.edu.au/student-administration/docs/student/Cover_sheet_for_submission_of_work_for_assessment.pdf

Your assignment will be submitted in Turnitin (through BlackBoard). Well in advance of your submission, you should familiarise yourself with the documentation in the folder called “Turnitin Information”, which you will find under the “Assessments” tab on BlackBoard.

You must check that your assignment submission has correctly uploaded, in an acceptable file format, well in advance of the deadline. Allow plenty of time to correct any technical difficulties, as they will not be considered the basis for any extension.

As per the unit outline, a penalty of 10% per day (including weekends) applies for late submissions, and submissions more than 5 days late will receive zero marks.

Extensions may be granted in exceptional circumstances. Requests for extensions of 6 days or less must be submitted to your tutor in writing, before the assignment due date. Requests for extensions of 7 days or more must be submitted to the university’s online special consideration (SPC) tool, no later than three working days after the due date. Immediately upon submitting an extension request to the SPC online tool, students should also email their tutor to notify their tutor that they are requesting an extension via the SPC online tool, as well as the length of the extension they are requesting. All extension requests must be accompanied by appropriate documentation (i.e. a medical certificate for illness, a counsellor’s/psychologist’s letter for psychological issues or personal circumstances). The documentation should indicate the length of time for which the student was impacted by the illness/circumstance. Remember that pressure of other work (whether university work or paid work) does not count as a basis for an extension. Students should not assume that they will be granted an extension until they are notified of its approval.

REFERENCES/ESSENTIAL READING

(Essential reading shown in bold. In addition to the listed readings, you are expected to source additional references that you determine to be important in covering this topic.)

Baumeister, R. F., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Ego depletion: A resource model of volition, self-regulation, and controlled processing. Social Cognition, 18(2), 130-150.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351-355. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x

Betts, K. (2001). Boat people and public opinion in Australia. People and Place, 9(4), 34-48.

Boldero, J., & Whelan, J. (2011). Australians’ attitudes toward culturally similar and culturally dissimilar migrants. In G. M. Ruggiero, S. Sassaroli, Y. Latzer & S. Suchday (Eds.), Perspectives on immigration and terrorism (pp. 105-114). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5-18.

Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1013-1027.

Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297-327. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145225

Greenhalgh, E. M., & Watt, S. E. (2015). Preference for consistency and value dissimilarities in dehumanization and prejudice toward asylum seekers in Australia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 110-119. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2066

Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 495-525. doi: 10.1037/a0019486

Heatherton, T. F., & Wagner, D. D. (2011). Cognitive neuroscience of self-regulation failure. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(3), 132-139. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.12.005

McKay, F. H., Thomas, S. L., & Kneebone, S. (2012). ‘It would be okay if they came through the proper channels’: Community perceptions and attitudes toward asylum seekers in Australia. Journal of Refugee Studies, 25(1), 113-133. doi: 10.1093/jrs/fer010

Monteith, M. J., Ashburn-Nardo, L., Voils, C. I., & Czopp, A. M. (2002). Putting the brakes on prejudice: On the development and operation of cues for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1029-1050. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.5.1029

Monteith, M. J., Mark, A. Y., & Ashburn-Nardo, L. (2010). The self-regulation of prejudice: Toward understanding its lived character. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13(2), 183-200. doi: 10.1177/1368430209353633

Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The GO/NO-GO Association Task. Social Cognition, 19(6), 625-664. doi: 10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886

Phillips, J., & Spinks, H. (2010). Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976. Canberra: Parliamentary Library.

Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 811-832.

Richeson, J. A., & Trawalter, S. (2005). Why do interracial interactions impair executive function? A resource depletion account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 934-947. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.934