GCU PSY 550 Week 7 Benchmark Research Proposal Latest

GCU PSY 550 Week 7 Benchmark Research Proposal Latest

ORDER CUSTOM, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS ON GCU PSY 550 Week 7 Benchmark Research Proposal Latest

PSY550

PSY 550 Week 7 Benchmark Research Proposal Latest-GCU

Using the topic you have developed in PSY-530, write a Research Proposal (1,200-2,500 words) on a topic relevant to the course. To complete the Research Proposal, do the following:

Review the attached document “Research Proposal Guidelines”, as well as Topic 7 lecture section on The Results and Discussion Sections in the Research Proposal for a brief overview pertaining to “how to” complete the assignment.

1. Introductory section: Include hypothesis and a review of the literature.
2. Method section: Include subsections on Participants, Apparatus/Materials/Instruments, Procedure, and Design.
3. Results section: Include statistic, critical values, degrees of freedom, and alpha level.
4. Discussion section: Include interpretation of results, ethical concerns, limitations of study, and suggestions for future research.
5. Figures and Tables section: Include a minimum of two (either two figures, two tables, or a figure and a table).

Include at least 8-10 scholarly references.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies: 3.3: Design an innovative research study and 4.3: Plan and manage the necessary process for the completion of a research project.

Sample Work –

Abstract

Despite the way that past research has concentrated on a couple of connections between character, practices and online dating, there has been little research as of the level of reassurance and how it relates with online dating. This present study looks to build up a correlational relationship between self-esteem, finding and keeping a long-term partner. It is hypothesized that those with low self-esteem would utilize the frameworks for finding a long-term partner by winding up being pulled in quickly with those they address and finding their partner through more unequivocally aggressive methods. Further research would be relied upon to confine the restriction of this study.

Introduction

How individuals are discovering romantic partners have changed essentially over the span of decades. Beforehand, romantic relationships were shaped unintentionally, matchmaking and arranged marriages, to give some examples. While online dating, individuals are bombarded with an amazing proportion of contention, which makes it clear for one individual to ignore a potential mate. It is also easy to possibly misrepresent yourself in photos, maybe by finding the most complementing photo of yourself, which presumably won’t speak to an exact depiction of what your identity is. The fundamental purpose of the research was to look at if self-esteem played a role in the following: the quantity of potential partners an individual spoke with, to what degree it takes for the person to see themselves as having discovered a long-term relationship, and the accuracy to which the individual addressed themselves truly on the web or if they swelled their profile to make them show up more attractive.

Hypothesis

It is hypothesized that the individuals who have low self-esteem will talk with relatively less potential partners (8 or less). The individuals who have high self-esteem, will pick their partner on attractiveness, and will get connected to an individual much more rapidly, along these lines considering they have discovered a long-term partner inside a relatively short time frame (a month or less). It is additionally speculated that those low in self-esteem will have utilized a photo in their online dating profile, which will be more sexually assertive. For example, demonstrating more skin or showing themselves in a sexually explicit way in the photos, just as blowing up insights regarding themselves or their life to show up more sexually desirable, which may not really be true.

It is hypothesized that those who have high self-esteem will chat with at least 9 mates to locate a potential mate and talk with said a potential partner for scarcely a month before picking if that mate would be a potential longer-term mate. It is assessed that those who have high self- esteem will have utilized a photo or photos in their internet dating profiles, which will show themselves in a less expressly aggressive way and will have been reasonable in depicting themselves in their profile.

Literature Review

Since internet dating is a sensibly more cutting-edge wonder, little research has been driven with respect to confidence and internet dating. Undoubtedly, the main research found in regards to self-esteem Blackhart, Fitzpatrick, and Williamson (2014) conducted the online dating. Concerning the dispositional factors foreseeing usage of internet dating destinations and how these sections impact conduct related with internet dating, for example, logically risky behavior of not telling anybody when meeting a potential mate or taking off to a potential mate’s home without knowing them for long. The Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire “recommends that individuals who enter a relationship disposed to anxiously expect dismissal from significant others should be like (a) perceive intentional dismissal in their partners’ heartless or ambiguous behavior, (b) feel insecure and troubled about their relationship, and (c) react to perceived dismissal or threats of dismissal by their partner with aggression, diminished support, or jealous, controlling behavior” (Downey and Feldman, 1996). The Relationship Questionnaire is utilized while picking the kind of relationship that will support each volunteer (Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991). An avoidant-fearful association will have low self-esteem, fears excusal and has high weight seeing somebody (Manson, 2019). This study attested that the individuals who are high in dismissal duty (a nature of low confidence) are bound to online date and would tell others that they would meet a potential online accomplice very close, in like taking part in higher risk behavior (Blackhart, Fitzpatrick and Williamson, 2014).

Other research, conducted by Bryan and Sheldon (2017), contemplated the difference between clients of online dating sites and the individuals who exclusively use dating applications, for example, Tinder, recommending that the individuals who use dating applications rather than sites are considerably more prone to sleep with their partner on the first date and bound to participate in more risky behavior. Various studies, including those by Fullwood and Attrill-Smith (2018) and Kopaczewski (2017), how bona-fide individuals are online as opposed to meeting very close if this has any effect on the long-term relationship of a potential association. GCU PSY 550 Week 7 Benchmark Research Proposal Latest

Method

Participants

For this investigation, audits and studies were sent to 1,000 volunteers who joined internet dating within the propelling year and who have been single for one year. This investigation will think about volunteer’s ages from 18 to 75 years of the two sexes and each sexual tendencies (Median age of 23, 68% female, 90% hetero and 83% White/Caucasian).

Materials

Every participant would finish the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1989) and a dating stock that would be finished by the authority. This dating inventory would ask the following questions:

1. Have you ever met a romantic partner face to face that you met online?
2. If so, how long do you normally speak with someone prior to meeting with them face to face?
3. On average, how many potential long-term partners do you speak with at a time?
4. On average, do you choose a potential mate by their photos alone, description of themselves in their profile alone, or a combination of both?
5. How many photos of yourself do you have on your dating profile?
6. Do you have any photos of yourself, which show either your midriff, cleavage, butt/ cheeks, or any pose, which is purposely interpreted as sexual?

Procedure

Before starting the assessment, each volunteer will be given an informed consent and a debriefing form after completing the evaluation. They will also balance the dating stock survey made by the researcher and complete the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale sent to the volunteers by

email, so they can balance them on the site. When the volunteers have finished the questionnaires, the researchers would get an email notification. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale “utilizes a scale of 0–30 where a score under 15 may show a problematic low self-esteem” (Rosenberg, 1989). Along these lines, these polls would permit the researchers to deduce a number addressing a sequential measure of self-esteem per volunteer.

Design and Results

The planned used for this assessment will be a correlational nonexperimental plan. “Research can also be nonexperimental on the grounds that it centers on a statistical relationship between two factors but does not include the control of an independent variable, random task of members to conditions or orders of conditions, or both… In correlational research, the researcher measures the two factors of enthusiasm with little to zero attempt to control incidental factors and afterward evaluates the relationship between them” (Price, 2012).

The statistical test utilized for isolating the information assembled would be a Pearson’s correlational coefficient utilizing the Pearson thing second correlational. This would permit us to investigate those with low self-esteem and those with high self-esteem concerning their internet dating behavior. The alpha level to be utilized will be .05 to guarantee a 95% confidence level in our outcomes. We will calculate the basic worth dependent on df being 59 and the basic worth we have determined is 1.671 and will be utilized to assess whether we will reject or fail to dismiss the null hypothesis in the study. Considering we have to keep this at a 95% certainty level, we have decided the fundamental incentive as 1.671 and if the determined worth is outside the basic worth, we will excuse the null hypothesis.

Discussion

This assessment would disconnect the connection between those who have low self- esteem and the individuals who have high self-esteem and their direct made during internet dating. A longitudinal report led at Harvard with relationships develops that the essential factor of how happy and solid somebody is relies predominantly on their relationships (Grant and Glueck, 2001). Getting significant results around the research could help people with comprehending themselves better and how they see themselves influences their romantic relationship. On the off chance that an individual handles that, they have low self-esteem, by then they are locked in to pick a typical choice for their future self. For example, an individual may not esteem that their past relationship had anything to do with them; they may not expect any mischief and feel that they are only a survivor of likelihood. With this sort of research, being adequately colossal, individuals could investigate the types of connections they have and pick choices about who they ought to be, and the other way around. Then again, if the findings are not huge by any stretch of the imagination, by then it unquestionably could help the people who might be shamed behavior that others may accept are not right. For example, a person who may have explicitly continuously aggressive photographs and messages might be an enabled person that would get a handle on what they require and have high self-esteem (something that would not be hypothesized as of now). This could draw in the individuals who feel decided to allow themselves simply be whom they are as they might be. As indicated by the ethical guidelines under the APA (2017), participants must be made aware of “the purpose behind the research, anticipated length, and procedures; their entitlement to participate to take an interest and to pull back from the exploration once support has started; the predictable outcomes of declining or withdrawing; reasonably foreseeable components that might be required to influence their

readiness to participant such as potential risks, potential dangers, discomfort, or adverse effects; any prospective research benefits; limits of confidentiality; incentives for prospective; and whom to contact for questions concerning the research and research participants’ rights.” In this way, before the assessment beginning, each volunteer will be sent an informed consent (attach below) to give each volunteer enough information concerning why the assessment is being done and for what reason. After the assessment or study has been closed, debriefing happens. A debriefing form (attached below) will be sent to each volunteer to respond to any inquiries and give all people definite data about the chance of the assessment. There would be no misleading used in this examination.

There are a few restrictions to this study. For example, taking into account the more historic nature of technology and the quick movement of technology, the middle age of the volunteers of this examination is genuinely enthusiastic 25 years of age and could be slanted since more older generations ages may just not be utilized to the technology, and thus would not online date. What’s more, the data from the examination would be gathered online through self- announced measures. As such, it’s entirely conceivable that participants didn’t precisely report their behavior to make themselves appear in a superior light-especially since a part of the questions are fairly direct. Future research on this topic could significantly add to psychology and the new discoveries of online dating. In future research, I trust it would be beneficial for the scientists to talk with the volunteers face-to-face to assemble expectation just as conduct to give signs of better picture of the reasonable responses given by the members. I also believe that having a touch of deception by not giving the volunteers the specific explanation behind the study would be helpful. For example, having two or three evaluations or questionnaires that have nothing to do with the assessment so the volunteers would not comprehend that the study ties self-esteem, since having low self-esteem is somewhat a stigma.

References

Blackhart, G. C., Fitzpatrick, J., & Williamson, J. (2014). Dispositional factors predicting use of online dating sites and behaviors related to online dating. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 113-118.

Bryant, K., & Sheldon, P. (2017). Cyber Dating in the Age of Mobile Apps: Understanding Motives, Attitudes, and Characteristics of Users. American Communication Journal, 19(2), 1.

Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(6), 1327.

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. (2017). American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/.

Fullwood, C., & Attrill-Smith, A. (2018). Up-Dating: Ratings of Perceived Dating Success Are Better Online than Offline. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 21 (1), 11– 15.

Kopaczewski, S. (2017). Beyond Honest: Demanding Hyperauthentic Presentation in Online Dating. Proteus, 31(1), 11–20.

Manson, M. (2019, August 23). Attachment Theory. Retrieved from https://markmanson.net/attachment-theory.

Online dating statistics. (2018) <http://statisticbrain.com/online-dating-statistics/>.

Price, P. (2012). Research methods in psychology. Washington, D.C: Saylor Academy. Rosenberg, M. (1998). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton university press. GCU PSY 550 Week 7 Benchmark Research Proposal Latest