Guide to Writing Page 1

Introduction
The Opening Paragraph (What is this study about, anyway?).

Let the reader know two things immediately: (1) the general topic of the study, and (2) the
specific question being asked.

If you come across a paper that doesn't do this, you have every right to get grumpy. There
are just too many written things in the world (not only the academic world) for an author
to assume that the reader has the luxury of reading an entire page or two before they can
decide whether something is interesting to them. Insist that writers get to the point
immediately.

The Background Literature or Ideas (Has anyone ever thought about this topic before?).

This is the most obvious part of the introduction. It is also often the most detailed. But,
but, but, but .... note that it is only interesting if you have some motivation to read it. That's
why it is absolutely critical that the opening paragraph (#1 above) be your guide. Without
such a guide, these sections will too often leave one lost and parched in a desert of detail.

The Rationale (Why, why, why are you asking this question, Amanda?).

This is the "garden path" part of story telling. Lead your readers down it. They will follow
quite willingly if: (1) they are interested in your topic (opening paragraph), (2) the
background section leaves them with unanswered questions, and (3) you propose to
answer one of these questions. Motto: leading sheep is so easy if you first build the proper
fences.

The Design (How will you answer the question?)

Ah ... , this is where the journalist in you leaves off and the behavioral researcher in you
picks up. What clever little design do you have up your sleave that will answer the
question that everyone is now dying to find the answer to.

Describe the design in general. Leave out the details that will be covered in the Method.
This is a description of the conceptual design, not of all the dirty little details.

The Predictions (What will it mean if the experiment comes out this way? What will it mean if
it comes out that way?)

OK, so you don't have a clear hypothesis. You are not a betting kind of guy/gal.
Nonetheless, you must tell us what it will mean if the data come out this way or that.

On the other hand, you may have a clear hypothesis. Then your job is easy. Tell us what it
is. Having done that, you still have to tell us what it will mean if the data come out your
way.
 Guide to Writing Page 2

Method
Note. A reader must be able to find information on the following items somewhere in your
writeup. The organizational structure that follows is not the only one possible, but it is a fairly
typical one.

Observers (this is probably a more apt title for perception experiments than either "subjects,"
which is too feudal, or "participants," which is overly generic)
1. number
2. sample origin (what's the larger population from which this sample was drawn?)
3. what were the conditions of participation (course credit, payment, educational
experience, etc)

Apparatus
1. computer (hardware, generally)
2. software (programs, generally)
3. conditions of testing (lighting, room size, etc)

Stimuli
1. number and arrangement of visual elements (see Bundle and Display windows of
VScope, under the Setup menu)
2. size of visual elements (in degrees of visual angle units)
3. duration of elements (see Durations windows of VScope, under the Setup menu)

Procedure There are three subsections here, answering the following three questions:

What did this task feel like for the subjects?

1. description of observer's task (from observer's point of view)

How were the events in the experiment organized?

2. sequence of events within a trial, generally moving from the most local to the most
global (see Durations windows of VScope, under the Setup menu)
3. duration of each event (see Durations windows of VScope, under the Setup menu)
4. number of trial blocks (see General windows of VScope, under the Setup menu)
5. total number of trials (see General windows of VScope, under the Setup menu)

How were observers prepared for the experiment?

5. explicit instructions to subjects
6. description of practice, if any
 Guide to Writing Page 3

Results
The raw data

Begin with an opening statement that shows the reader very clearly what you think are the
basic units of data to be considered.

This is the place to point to Tables or Figures with contain these basic data points. Think of
this as the part of the paper that no one can ever change. Critics may quibble with your
theoretical framework, or they may quarrel with your analysis of the data, but if you do it
right, they can never touch or alter your data. For a psychologist, this is the "holy" part of
the paper.

The analysis

Show, in a step-by-step fashion, how you analyzed the raw data.

Then state (and/or show by Figures or Tables or Diagrams) the outcomes of this analysis.

This will be the most theory-bound part of the results section. For example, if further
developments in signal detection theory reveal a fatal flaw in current practice, this
subsection will look really silly in a few years. Nonetheless, it should be clear to the reader
how the signal detection analysis proceeded in your hands at the time of writing.

The summary

This does not have to come last. It may be placed right at the beginning, right after the raw
data, or at the end, its your choice. But, it must be there. Tell your readers what to think
about the data. They, being adults and independent thinkers, are of course free to differ
from you on your handling of the data, but you do everyone a service by clearly stating
how you summarize and interpret the main results.
 Guide to Writing Page 4

Discussion
The opening paragraph (What do you know after having done all of those statistics?).

Begin with a verbal statement of the main finding.

Continue with a statement referring to any secondary, minor, or unexpected findings.

These are the data that everyone is now going to have to come to terms with, including
you. The clearer you have presented and summarized these data, the better off you will be.

The connection to your rationale in doing the study (So, how do these results compare to your
original ideas?).

Make this connection explicit. The reader should not have to read your introduction
section to remember what you expected, or to remember the alternatives you thought were
possible at the beginning. Tell them here!

Implications (So what? Should anyone change their minds about anything?).

Has your understanding of the world changed, now that you have seen the outcome of
your study? How has it changed? Which other people should now change their minds
based on these findings?

Future directions for research (What now?)

Answer all three of the following questions:

(a) Which studies should be done?
(b) Why should they be done?
(c) How should they be done?