This week, you will continue working on the second part of the lab that serves as your Major Project. Remember to apply the feedback you were given on the fi

Lab Report

Barbara Maclure

Dr. Kelly

Keiser University Online

8/03/2024

Lab Report

Research Question

Does the frequency of text messaging impact the level of perceived social support among participants over a one-week period?

Hypothesis

H1: Participants who receive frequent text messages will report higher levels of perceived social support compared to participants who receive infrequent text messages.

H0: There is no difference in the level of perceived social support between participants who receive frequent text messages and those who receive infrequent text messages.

Variables

IV: Frequency of text messaging (Categorical, Nominal: frequent vs. infrequent)

DV: Level of perceived social support (Continuous, Interval)

Methodology

Design

This experiment uses a single-subject ABAB design, focusing on the individual participant's responses over multiple phases. The factors involved are the frequency of text messaging (high frequency vs. low frequency).

Type of Subjects Design: Single-subject design with repeated measures.

Type of Design: ABAB (Reversal Design) to evaluate the effect of text messaging frequency on perceived social support.

Materials

i. Mobile phone for sending and receiving text messages.

ii. Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ) for measuring perceived social support.

iii. Data recording sheet to track frequency and timing of text messages.

Procedure

1. Baseline Phase (A): For the first week, participants receive one text message per day.

2. Intervention Phase (B): For the second week, participants receive five text messages per day.

3. Reversal to Baseline (A): For the third week, participants return to receiving one text message per day.

4. Reintroduction of Intervention (B): For the fourth week, participants again receive five text messages per day.

5. Throughout each phase, participants complete the SSQ at the end of each week to measure their perceived social support.

Results

i. Week 1 (A): Average SSQ score = 3.2

ii. Week 2 (B): Average SSQ score = 4.5

iii. Week 3 (A): Average SSQ score = 3.1

iv. Week 4 (B): Average SSQ score = 4.6

Discussion

The results suggest that the participants’ perceived social support is higher during the intervention phases (B) than during the baseline phases (A). In this case, the findings imply the following hypothesis: there is a positive correlation between the level of text messaging and the perception of social support among participants. This result has theoretical support from prior research pointing to the positive impact that more communication with other people has on social replenishment (Burke et al., 2022).

Limitations

i. Sample Size: As a single-subject design, the findings are based on individual responses and may not generalize to a larger population.

ii. Duration: The short duration of each phase (one week) may not capture long-term effects of text messaging frequency.

iii. External Factors: Uncontrolled variables such as participants' existing social networks and personal circumstances could impact their perceived social support.

Future Work

The future research opportunities may involve increasing the number of participants to make the results more generalizable, as well as increasing the length of the first and last phase to study the long-term impact. Further, the use of other nominal values might elaborate the data on personal perception of the SS degree and the context of its observation by the participants (Valkenburg & Peter, 2022).

Qualitative Reflection

Being involved in such an experiment was quite insightful since it helped, I appreciate the effect that the extent of text messaging has towards the perceived social support. It was during the said intervention phases where I was able to feel more Albert as well as to receive more support from my peers given the flow of conversations. However, during the baseline phases, the decrease of the frequency of text messages strengthened the feelings of loneliness. This fact proves how individuals should not stop communicating with their friends and families as it enhances the interaction and gives a real-life experience on the meaning of the quantitative results.

References

Burke, M., Kraut, R. E., & Marlow, C. (2020). Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 571-580. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979023

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2022). Online communication and adolescent well-being: Testing the stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1169-1182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00368.x

,

Raw Data Phase 1

<td

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.

This is the perfect opportunity to review current standards and findings around our selected questions. The goal here is to create awareness. The sections wh Use Introduction to Grant WritingLinks to an external site. to access information about grant writing to aid you in answering this week’s discussion question

Related Posts

Psychology

Substance-Related Disorders, Impulse-Control Disorders, and Methods of Intervention For this week’s discussion, share your thoughts about disruptive disorder

Psychology

Review the Campbell Family Case Study and identify the intergenerational issues and interactional patterns of communication and behavior. Review the family s

Psychology

Identify the categorization of exclusion associated with racial and ethnic discrimination found in the article. ? Examine the impact of colonialism, xenophob

All Rights Reserved Terms and Conditions
College pals.com Privacy Policy 2010-2018

ID	Gender	DateTaken	Music	Phase 1- Task A																																									Phase 2 Task B
Andrea	F	4/3/23		1.95	2.71	1.58	2.15	1.21	1.33	2.56	2.56	2.59	1.12	1.53	3.66	2.62	1.61	1.01	0.69	1.18	2.06	2.27	0.94	1.70	2.37	1.93	2.47	1.70	1.08	2.84	2.81	0.66	2.59	0.94	1.73	2.34	1.04	1.31	1.20	2.43	1.68	1.16	0.80		1.03	1.61	1.25	0.78	1.74	1.98	2.26	2.21	2.51	1.25	2.49	0.50	1.51	1.66	0.47	2.74	0.68	2.48	0.48	2.41	2.26	0.68	2.51	0.47	1.87	2.59	2.16	2.31	2.33	2.55	2.01	0.48	2.49	2.44	2.54	1.95	0.46	2.48	0.44	0.60	0.83	1.45	2.80	2.10	1.63	0.80	1.74	2.04	1.36	1.56
Arielle	F	4/4/23		1.45	1.92	1.87	2.32	2.66	1.50	1.20	0.76	0.70	2.20	2.99	2.03	2.04	1.00	2.03	1.20	0.90	0.62	2.21	1.82	1.04	1.86	0.72	1.37	2.24	0.69	1.55	2.77	2.87	1.95	1.42	0.72	2.16	1.51	2.17	1.37	2.98	0.68	2.88	2.15		1.93	0.75	1.68	1.14	0.46	2.63	2.33	1.98	2.12	0.86	2.29	0.86	1.45	2.30	2.64	1.59	1.18	2.75	1.52	2.33	0.41	1.74	2.28	1.75	0.47	1.20	2.79	1.16	2.49	0.66	1.68	1.16	0.91	2.06	0.79	1.91	2.24	1.46	0.67	1.36	2.66	1.97	2.08	1.98	2.25	0.51	1.79	2.49	2.67	1.62
Carol	F	4/4/23		0.97	1.89	1.30	2.15	2.90	4.46	0.90	1.28	2.49	1.44	1.19	2.46	1.16	2.75	1.29	2.78	2.94	1.75	1.83	1.42	0.83	1.95	2.39	1.04	0.78	2.87	0.64	1.52	0.64	1.79	2.27	1.63	2.04	1.15	2.80	2.85	1.07	2.82	1.33	1.83		2.73	0.89	1.67	1.34	2.64	2.10	2.11	2.62	2.74	2.09	4.40	4.15	2.68	2.23	2.54	1.78	0.73	1.19	0.53	2.65	1.21	0.60	1.84	1.88	2.18	2.37	0.47	0.59	0.50	1.55	2.48	1.67	2.68	2.38	1.60	1.74	0.90	0.74	0.51	1.64	1.17	0.67	0.81	0.89	0.76	2.40	1.88	1.83	1.69	2.19
CeeCee	F	4/3/23		1.38	1.95	1.25	2.66	2.97	1.05	2.06	1.96	1.52	2.30	1.54	1.43	0.67	1.99	1.79	1.27	2.88	2.50	2.59	1.80	1.20	1.63	0.68	1.33	0.91	2.90	1.08	2.65	1.75	1.85	2.18	1.67	2.60	1.23	0.77	1.03	1.50	2.77	3.81	0.61		2.51	1.30	2.76	0.99	2.33	0.63	2.66	0.86	1.77	2.52	2.14	1.27	0.64	0.61	1.79	2.24	2.63	2.33	1.34	1.91	2.14	0.57	1.76	2.11	0.66	1.73	2.76	0.62	1.28	2.71	1.71	1.89	2.55	1.55	2.09	1.00	1.54	0.77	0.87	0.60	2.12	1.51	1.47	0.68	0.72	2.16	1.97	2.00	2.09	0.44
Chase	M	4/4/23		1.32	1.05	1.52	2.72	1.02	1.44	1.74	2.69	2.12	1.42	1.24	2.04	2.72	2.13	1.55	1.16	2.86	1.29	2.33	1.00	2.20	1.05	1.49	2.02	2.83	2.95	1.41	1.93	2.81	2.42	2.25	1.38	3.00	2.16	2.59	1.56	2.92	1.40	1.37	2.13		1.81	3.19	2.54	4.24	2.15	2.52	1.99	4.40	4.15	1.05	1.62	4.48	1.19	3.68	2.14	3.36	4.24	1.59	2.89	3.01	4.18	3.36	2.21	2.94	1.57	2.63	1.17	4.14	1.73	1.49	2.18	3.55	1.51	1.08	4.48	1.81	4.36	2.49	1.29	1.85	2.17	1.11	3.49	1.70	3.80	3.74	1.96	2.28	2.31	2.71
Christopher	M	4/4/23		2.93	2.23	2.74	2.84	2.55	2.12	1.56	2.22	1.96	1.89	1.90	3.00	2.83	2.54	2.37	1.46	1.40	1.75	2.85	1.05	1.05	0.92	1.03	1.96	1.67	4.13	2.06	1.82	1.76	2.25	2.59	2.47	1.30	1.53	1.87	2.26	0.87	0.61	2.25	1.23		1.06	2.45	2.79	1.35	1.57	1.74	1.49	0.99	0.58	2.23	0.78	1.23	1.65	0.46	1.15	1.45	1.22	0.91	1.36	0.52	0.45	1.11	1.15	2.18	0.47	2.68	0.84	1.82	2.69	1.37	1.61	1.97	0.42	1.28	0.56	2.38	1.41	0.65	2.09	0.70	0.90	1.01	2.14	0.74	0.79	1.89	1.05	1.22	1.57	2.75
Danielle	F	4/6/23		2.02	3.19	1.00	2.98	1.63	2.41	2.82	2.09	2.08	1.17	3.20	1.61	2.55	2.79	1.05	2.98	3.06	2.35	1.64	1.67	3.46	3.25	1.22	2.65	2.97	1.10	3.22	2.31	1.16	2.27	2.97	2.40	1.30	2.37	1.99	3.32	2.10	2.41	1.37	2.00		2.92	2.02	3.38	2.96	1.90	2.21	3.16	1.32	2.00	4.36