1. Method
Separate subheadings for participants, materials, and procedure (3 marks in total)
Participants (1 mark)
Include all info provided in the assignment guidelines (e.g., number, age range, mean and standard deviation of age for Australians and Malaysians, how participants were recruited)
Materials (1 mark)
Include all info provided in the assignment guidelines
Procedure (1 mark)
Reword what is stated in the assignment guidelines document
Don’t cut words to save on word count if means you can’t replicate study, as that undermines whole purpose of method (& you’ll not get full marks for method)

2. Understanding the results
First of all, don’t panic – this is not a statistics assignment!
Results are worth minor marks (3 marks!)
All information you need has been provided for you in the assignment guidelines document – no need to go beyond this
What you need to include in your results section from the assignment guidelines:
The table – put into APA style, giving it a title
The statement of results
Do not interpret the results in the results section (that’s what the discussion is for!)

3. Is there CB in both cultures (across participants)?
CB is shown if participants estimate the general knowledge of the questioner to be higher than that of the answerer
If CB is present, there should be a significant main effect of role (questioner vs answerer) across participants
“A 2 (role: questioner/answerer) x 2 (culture: Australia/Malaysia) ANOVA revealed a main effect of role (correspondence bias), F(1, 158) = , p < .01.”
ie, across participants, questioners were perceived to be more knowledgeable than were answerers – there was CB
Means
Australians
Malaysians
Questioner’s general knowledge
68.19
70.42
Answerer’s general knowledge
42.91
40.43

4. Is there more CB in one culture?
If cultures do not differ in CB, there should be a significant main effect of role (questioner vs answerer) in both cultures, and the interaction between role and culture should not be significant
“A 2 (role: questioner/answerer) x 2 (culture: Australia/Malaysia) ANOVA revealed a main effect of role, F(1, 158) = , p < .01.” -- ie, there was CB
“There was no significant interaction of role by culture” – the amount of difference in knowledge of the questioner vs answerer did not differ by culture
“There was also no significant main effect of culture” – in fact there was no significant difference in mean scores by culture
Means
Australians
Malaysians
Questioner’s general knowledge
68.19
70.42
Answerer’s general knowledge
42.91
40.43

5. Discussion – General structure (1)
Purpose of the Discussion section:
Note what was found and interpret these findings, with reference to prior research evidence and theory
Specific (aim and whether hypothesis was supported)
General (implications of the study)
Start with a reminder of the aim of the study, followed by your hypothesis/es and whether the findings supported it. What do the findings show about cross-cultural differences in CB?
Explain and interpret findings, referring back to the material you covered in the introduction (previous research & theory)
Are our results consistent with those found by Krull et al. (1999)?
How can you use the previous research and theory to help explain the pattern of results we got?

6. Discussion - General structure (2)
Outline at least two limitations of the study & explain how they may have affected results of the study
Important to acknowledge the reasons we might be unsure about our findings.
This needs to be not only stated, but explained. Why do you believe a particular aspect of your study is limiting the conclusions drawn? In what way does it limit the conclusions? BUT this should not suggest your study is worthless…
Suggestions for future research following logically from this study’s results and/or its limitations
Conclusion - summarise the contributions that the study has made to the literature with respect to the aims
Have you addressed your research aims, and what conclusions can you draw from the study?
See guidelines document for specific details of what to include in your discussion

7. Discussion – Marking criteria
The discussion section should note what was found and interpret these findings, with reference to prior research evidence and theory (16 marks in total)
Must:
Restate aim and hypotheses, note whether hypotheses were supported (3 marks)
Explain and interpret the findings, compare and contrast this to previous research (9 marks)
Outline at least two limitations (2 marks)
Present some suggestions for future research that arise logically from this study (1 mark)
Provide a concluding paragraph that summarizes the contribution that study makes to the literature (1 mark)

8. References
References must be listed on a separate page according to APA (6th edition) style
You need to include all the reference material given to you in this list, as well as the additional articles you sourced

9. Appendices Appendices should be on a separate page. Appendix A
Provide a copy of the abstracts for the additional articles you found.
Must include title, author, journal, year, abstract itself
Screenshots are acceptable if full referencing details can be seen.