Descriptive Research Study

Investigation of Positive and Negative

Affect of UniJos PhD Students toward their
PhD Research Project

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 Scientific Method
1: Ask 6: Share
Question Findings

2: Design 5. Reach
Study Conclusions

3: Collect 4. Analyze
Data Results
Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 1. Ask Question
• General research question: What is the
attitude of PhD students at UniJos toward their
PhD research project?
– Specific research questions:
• What is the level of positive affect that UniJos PhD
students have toward their PhD research project?
• What is the level of negative affect that UniJos PhD
students have toward their PhD research project?

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 2. Design Study
• Participants: UniJos PhD students who attend the
Research Seminar on 29 February, 2008.
• Instruments: PANAS Questionnaire (see next slide)
– Previously designed and validated by other researchers.
– Published in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
• Procedure: Administer questionnaire to PhD
students before the Research Seminar begins.

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 Questionnaire
Note the direction to
circle the best Part 1 requests demographic
response. Ticks can information.
be confusing when
trying to determine
what was selected,
but circling is
unambiguous.

Part 2 is the PANAS scale of Positive and Negative Affect. Other researchers have
developed and validated the PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegren, 1988). Due to copyright,
I cannot reproduce the entire questionnaire here, but it is free for anybody to use. See me
Dr. K. A. Korb
and I can get the questionnaire to you if you are interested.
University of Jos
 3: Collect Data
• Data was collected on 29 February 2008 when
the questionnaire was administered.

4. Analyze Results
• Data was entered into an Excel Spreadsheet.
– The next few slides outline how the results were
analyzed.

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 The blue rows are the This is the spreadsheet where I entered the data in
column headers that
describe what data each Microsoft Excel.
column contains. Each column is all of the
Each row is one responses for one question on
participant’s data. the questionnaire. I have
highlighted question 10
Demographic Questionnaire Items

Stu Sex Age Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

2,3 2 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 5 4 4 4

2 2 3 3 5 1 4 1 4 1 2 1 4 3 1 3 1 3 2 4 4 1 3 2

2 2 4 2 5 2 3 2 5 2 1 4 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1

2 2 3 3 5 3 3 2 5 2 2 1 4 3 2 4 1 4 2 4 5 2 3 2

2 1 3 1 5 2 4 2 4 1 2 2 5 1 2 4 1 4 2 5 3 2 4 2

2 9 3 1 3 4 2 2 2 1 5 1 3 1 3 4 1 3 2 4 3 2 4 2

2 2 3 1 5 2 3 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 3 4 5 4 4 3 2

2 2 3 1 5 2 3 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 3 4 5 4 4 3 2

2 1 3 3 5 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 4 5 1 2 1 3 1 4 5 2 4 1

2 1 3 3 5 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 4 5 1 2 1 3 1 4 5 2 4 1

2 2 3 4 5 2 4 2 3 1 5 1 4 3 1 4 1 4 3 4 4 2 4 3

2,3 2 5 3 5 5 5 4 3 2 3 1 4 2 1 5 1 3 2 5 5 5 4 2

2 2 4 4 4 2 3 2 3 4 4 1 3 1 2 3 5 3 2 5 4 2 3 3

2 2 4 99 5 5 5 4 3 4 4 2 3 2 4 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 4

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
Student:
Age:
The highlighted columns are demographic
1 is Masters
2 is PhD 1 is 20-29 characteristics. I used a code to ease analysis.
3 is Staff Sex: 2 is 30-39
1 is Male 3 is 40-49 Years enrolled in program: This participant did not give a response.
2 is Female 4 is 50-59 I typed the response circled. No Leaving blank cells can be confusing, so 9 is
5 is 60+ code was necessary. the value I used for a missing value.

Demographic Questionnaire Items

Stu Sex Age Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

2,3 2 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 5 4 4 4

2 2 3 3 5 1 4 1 4 1 2 1 4 3 1 3 1 3 2 4 4 1 3 2

2 2 4 2 5 2 3 2 5 2 1 4 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1

2 2 3 3 5 3 3 2 5 2 2 1 4 3 2 4 1 4 2 4 5 2 3 2

2 1 3 1 5 2 4 2 4 1 2 2 5 1 2 4 1 4 2 5 3 2 4 2

2 9 3 1 3 4 2 2 2 1 5 1 3 1 3 4 1 3 2 4 3 2 4 2

2 2 3 1 5 2 3 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 3 4 5 4 4 3 2

2 2 3 1 5 2 3 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 3 4 5 4 4 3 2

2 1 3 3 5 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 4 5 1 2 1 3 1 4 5 2 4 1

2 1 3 3 5 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 4 5 1 2 1 3 1 4 5 2 4 1

2 2 3 4 5 2 4 2 3 1 5 1 4 3 1 4 1 4 3 4 4 2 4 3

2,3 2 5 3 5 5 5 4 3 2 3 1 4 2 1 5 1 3 2 5 5 5 4 2

2 2 4 4 4 2 3 2 3 4 4 1 3 1 2 3 5 3 2 5 4 2 3 3

2 2 4 99 5 5 5 4 3 4 4 2 3 2 4 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 4

Since 9 is a valid response to years Dr. K. A. Korb

enrolled, 99 is the missing value here. University of Jos
 The highlighted columns are the responses for each
question on the questionnaire. I typed the number
that each participant wrote for each question.

Demographic Questionnaire Items

Stu Sex Age Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

2,3 2 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 5 4 4 4

2 2 3 3 5 1 4 1 4 1 2 1 4 3 1 3 1 3 2 4 4 1 3 2

2 2 4 2 5 2 3 2 5 2 1 4 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1

2 2 3 3 5 3 3 2 5 2 2 1 4 3 2 4 1 4 2 4 5 2 3 2

2 1 3 1 5 2 4 2 4 1 2 2 5 1 2 4 1 4 2 5 3 2 4 2

2 9 3 1 3 4 2 2 2 1 5 1 3 1 3 4 1 3 2 4 3 2 4 2

2 2 3 1 5 2 3 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 3 4 5 4 4 3 2

2 2 3 1 5 2 3 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 3 4 5 4 4 3 2

2 1 3 3 5 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 4 5 1 2 1 3 1 4 5 2 4 1

2 1 3 3 5 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 4 5 1 2 1 3 1 4 5 2 4 1

2 2 3 4 5 2 4 2 3 1 5 1 4 3 1 4 1 4 3 4 4 2 4 3

2,3 2 5 3 5 5 5 4 3 2 3 1 4 2 1 5 1 3 2 5 5 5 4 2

2 2 4 4 4 2 3 2 3 4 4 1 3 1 2 3 5 3 2 5 4 2 3 3

2 2 4 99 5 5 5 4 3 4 4 2 3 2 4 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 4

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 I counted up the frequency
that each demographic was
Demographics The countif function in
Excel can count each code
selected in the for you.
Two people selected two options in this
questionnaires and made
category. Otherwise all values should add up
these frequency charts.
to 14, the number of participants.

University Status Gender

Masters 0 Male 3
PhD 14
Female 10
Staff 2
Other 0 Missing 1

Age Years in Program

20-29 0 1 4
30-39 0 2 1
40-49 9 3 5
50-59 4 4 3
60+ 1 Missing 1
Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 • On the questionnaire, items 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12,
14, 16, 17, and 19 measured Positive Affect.
– For each participant, I added the responses for
these items to get a grand total for Positive Affect.

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 I added up the responses for each participant in
blue to get an overall Positive Affect (PA) score
in green.

Questionnaire Items

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 PA

4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 39

5 1 4 1 4 1 2 1 4 3 1 3 1 3 2 4 4 1 3 2 37

5 2 3 2 5 2 1 4 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 29

5 3 3 2 5 2 2 1 4 3 2 4 1 4 2 4 5 2 3 2 40

5 2 4 2 4 1 2 2 5 1 2 4 1 4 2 5 3 2 4 2 39

3 4 2 2 2 1 5 1 3 1 3 4 1 3 2 4 3 2 4 2 29

5 2 3 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 3 4 5 4 4 3 2 37

5 2 3 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 3 4 5 4 4 3 2 37

5 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 4 5 1 2 1 3 1 4 5 2 4 1 38

5 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 4 5 1 2 1 3 1 4 5 2 4 1 38

5 2 4 2 3 1 5 1 4 3 1 4 1 4 3 4 4 2 4 3 39

5 5 5 4 3 2 3 1 4 2 1 5 1 3 2 5 5 5 4 2 41

4 2 3 2 3 4 4 1 3 1 2 3 5 3 2 5 4 2 3 3 32

5 5 5 4 3 4 4 2 3 2 4 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 35

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 • On the questionnaire, items 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11,
13, 15, 18, and 20 measured Negative Affect.
– For each participant, I added the responses for
these items to get a grand total for Negative
Affect.

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 I added up the responses for each participant in
gray to get an overall Negative Affect (NA) score
in blue.

Questionnaire Items

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 PA NA

4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 39 35

5 1 4 1 4 1 2 1 4 3 1 3 1 3 2 4 4 1 3 2 37 13

5 2 3 2 5 2 1 4 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 29 17

5 3 3 2 5 2 2 1 4 3 2 4 1 4 2 4 5 2 3 2 40 19

5 2 4 2 4 1 2 2 5 1 2 4 1 4 2 5 3 2 4 2 39 18

3 4 2 2 2 1 5 1 3 1 3 4 1 3 2 4 3 2 4 2 29 23

5 2 3 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 3 4 5 4 4 3 2 37 25

5 2 3 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 3 4 5 4 4 3 2 37 25

5 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 4 5 1 2 1 3 1 4 5 2 4 1 38 13

5 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 4 5 1 2 1 3 1 4 5 2 4 1 38 13

5 2 4 2 3 1 5 1 4 3 1 4 1 4 3 4 4 2 4 3 39 21

5 5 5 4 3 2 3 1 4 2 1 5 1 3 2 5 5 5 4 2 41 26

4 2 3 2 3 4 4 1 3 1 2 3 5 3 2 5 4 2 3 3 32 27

5 5 5 4 3 4 4 2 3 2 4 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 35 36

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 • Now that I have grand scores for Positive
Affect and Negative Affect, I want to know
what the average scores for both construct
are. By averaging the scores, I will then be
able to interpret the scores on the Likert scale
that was originally administered.
– To do this, I divided the total Positive Affect and
total Negative Affect scores by 10, the number of
items that measure each construct.
– By adding up the scores and dividing by the
number of scores, I am in effect calculating the
mean score for each construct.

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 I divided the total PA score by
10, the number of items that I did the same
measured PA to get the for NA.
Average PA score in the next
column.

Questionnaire Items

Avg Avg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 PA PA NA NA
4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 39 3.9 35 3.5
5 1 4 1 4 1 2 1 4 3 1 3 1 3 2 4 4 1 3 2 37 3.7 13 1.3
5 2 3 2 5 2 1 4 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 29 2.9 17 1.7
5 3 3 2 5 2 2 1 4 3 2 4 1 4 2 4 5 2 3 2 40 4 19 1.9
5 2 4 2 4 1 2 2 5 1 2 4 1 4 2 5 3 2 4 2 39 3.9 18 1.8
3 4 2 2 2 1 5 1 3 1 3 4 1 3 2 4 3 2 4 2 29 2.9 23 2.3
5 2 3 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 3 4 5 4 4 3 2 37 3.7 25 2.5
5 2 3 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 3 4 5 4 4 3 2 37 3.7 25 2.5
5 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 4 5 1 2 1 3 1 4 5 2 4 1 38 3.8 13 1.3
5 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 4 5 1 2 1 3 1 4 5 2 4 1 38 3.8 13 1.3
5 2 4 2 3 1 5 1 4 3 1 4 1 4 3 4 4 2 4 3 39 3.9 21 2.1
5 5 5 4 3 2 3 1 4 2 1 5 1 3 2 5 5 5 4 2 41 4.1 26 2.6
4 2 3 2 3 4 4 1 3 1 2 3 5 3 2 5 4 2 3 3 32 3.2 27 2.7
5 5 5 4 3 4 4 2 3 2 4 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 35 3.5 36 3.6

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 • The average (Avg) PA and NA scores can
now be interpreted on the Likert scale, i.e. an
average score of 3.6 is midway between
having moderate Positive Affect and quite a bit
of Positive Affect.
– 1 is low PA or NA
– 5 is high PA or NA
– 3 is average.
• Now that I have average PA and NA scores
for each participant, I want to know the
average PA and NA score for my overall
sample.
Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 S/No Avg PA Avg NA
1 3.9 3.5
Each row lists the Avg
PA and Avg NA score 2 3.7 1.3
previously calculated
3 2.9 1.7
for each participant.
4 4.0 1.9
5 3.9 1.8
6 2.9 2.3
7 3.7 2.5
8 3.7 2.5 For PA, an average of
3.64 means that the
9 3.8 1.3 typical PhD student
10 3.8 1.3 feels about midway
between moderately
11 3.9 2.1 and quite a bit of
Positive Affect toward
The Overall Mean was 12 4.1 2.6 their Research Project.
calculated by adding
up all of the scores and 13 3.2 2.7
dividing by 14, the
number of scores.
14 3.5 3.6 For NA, an average of
2.22 means that the
typical PhD student
feels close to a little
Overall 3.64 2.22
Negative Affect toward
Mean their Research Project.

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 This chart created in
Excel plots the overall
average PA and NA
scores.

Positive and Negative Affect of UniJos PhD Students Toward their

Research Project

5.00
.

4.00
Average Affect Score

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
Positive Affect Negative Affect

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 • Now that I have analyzed the Positive and
Negative Affect for PhD students overall, I
would like to compare Positive and Negative
Affect by the demographic characteristics that
I assessed.
• When comparing results by demographic
characteristics, this study turns into a Causal-
Comparative Research Design (a subset of
the Descriptive design) because I will be
comparing PA and NA between naturally
occurring variables (e.g., sex and age)
Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 I first wanted to compare PA and NA Average Affect
by sex. I sorted the data so all of the Demographic Scores
male data (coded as 1) and female Stu Sex Age Yrs Avg PA Avg NA Next, I calculated the mean PA and
data (coded as 2) were together. NA score within sex. In other words,
2 1 3 1 3.9 1.8
I added up the 3 PA scores for the
2 1 3 3 3.8 1.3
men and divided by 3 (the number of
2 1 3 3 3.8 1.3 male scores). Likewise, I added up
2 2 3 1 3.7 2.5 the female PA scores and divided by
2 2 3 1 3.7 2.5 10 (the number of female scores).
2 2 4 2 2.9 1.7
2 2 3 3 3.7 1.3
2 2 3 3 4 1.9
The 9 means that this person did not
2,3 2 5 3 4.1 2.6
record their sex. Since I don’t know
whether this person was male or 2 2 3 4 3.9 2.1

female, I do not include their data in 2,3 2 4 4 3.9 3.5

this analysis. 2 2 4 4 3.2 2.7
2 2 4 99 3.5 3.6
2 9 3 1 2.9 2.3
These are the average scores for
males vs. females.

Positive Negative
  Affect Affect

To determine whether the differences Male 3.83 1.47

The standard for determining statistical
between the scores are statistically Female 3.66 2.44 significance is a p value less than .05.
significant and not due to chance, I t-test (p) 0.45 0.05 This value of .05 therefore is statistically
conducted a t-test to compare scores significant, meaning that the difference
between males and females. between the average male and female
Dr. K. A. Korb NA score is not likely due to chance.
University of Jos
 This chart created in
Excel plots the average
PA and NA scores by
sex.

Positive and Negative Affect of PhD Students toward

their PhD Research Project by Sex
.

5
Average Affect Score

3
Male
Female
2

0
Positive Affect Negative Affect

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 I next wanted to compare PA and NA Average Affect
by age. I sorted the data by age. 3 Demographic Scores
means 40-49, 4 means 50-59, and 5 Stu Sex Age Yrs Avg PA Avg NA
means 60+. Since there was only 1
2 1 3 1 3.9 1.8
person 60+, I decided to create 2
categories: 40-49 (coded 3) and 50+ 2 1 3 3 3.8 1.3

(coded 4 and 5). 2 1 3 3 3.8 1.3

2 2 3 1 3.7 2.5
2 2 3 1 3.7 2.5
2 2 3 3 3.7 1.3 Next, I calculated the mean PA and
2 2 3 3 4 1.9 NA score by age.
2 2 3 4 3.9 2.1
2 9 3 1 2.9 2.3
2 2 4 2 2.9 1.7
2,3 2 4 4 3.9 3.5
2 2 4 4 3.2 2.7
2 2 4 99 3.5 3.6
2,3 2 5 3 4.1 2.6
These are the average scores within
each age group.

Positive Negative
I again determined whether differences   Affect Affect
between the mean scores were 40-49 years 3.71 1.89
statistically significant by conducting a 50+ years 3.52 2.82
t-test. The p of .02 is statistically significant,
t-test (p) 0.39 0.02
meaning that PhD students 50+ years old
have significantly more NA than those
Dr. K. A. Korb
40-49.
University of Jos
 Positive and Negative Affect of PhD Students
toward their PhD Research Project by Age of
the Student
.

5
Average Affect Score

3
40-49 years
50+ years
2

0
Positive Affect Negative Affect

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 • Since the differences in Negative Affect
scores between males and females were
different, we might be tempted to conclude
that being female causes increased Negative
Affect toward the PhD research project.
• Likewise, we might also be tempted to
conclude that being older causes increased
Negative Affect toward the PhD research
project.
• However, you CANNOT do this. See the next
slide to find out why.
Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos

Note that the 3 males all happen to

be in the 40-49 age category. Average Affect
Demographic Scores
Stu Sex Age Yrs Avg PA Avg NA
2 1 3 1 3.9 1.8
2 1 3 3 3.8 1.3
2 1 3 3 3.8 1.3
2 2 3 1 3.7 2.5
2 2 3 1 3.7 2.5
2 2 3 3 3.7 1.3
2 2 3 3 4 1.9
However, the females are spread out
2 2 3 4 3.9 2.1
in all 3 age categories.
2 2 4 2 2.9 1.7
2,3 2 4 4 3.9 3.5
2 2 4 4 3.2 2.7
2 2 4 99 3.5 3.6
2,3 2 5 3 4.1 2.6
2 9 3 1 2.9 2.3

Because the lower NA scores are associated with male students and students in the lower
age bracket, AND because all 3 males are also in the lowest age bracket, we cannot
determine whether the Negative Affect scores are caused by sex or by age. This is why we
cannot make causal statements with a descriptive research design.
 Dr. K. A. Korb
Finally, I wanted to compare PA and Average Affect
University of Jos
NA by years enrolled in the PhD Demographic Scores
program so I sorted the scores by Stu Sex Age Yrs Avg PA Avg NA
Yrs. I decided to group the 2 1 3 1 3.9 1.8
participants by those in the program
2 2 3 1 3.7 2.5
1-2 years and those in the program
3-4 years. 2 2 3 1 3.7 2.5
2 9 3 1 2.9 2.3
2 2 4 2 2.9 1.7
2 1 3 3 3.8 1.3 Next, I calculated the mean PA and
2 1 3 3 3.8 1.3 NA score by years in the program.
2 2 3 3 3.7 1.3
The 99 means that this person did 2 2 3 3 4 1.9
not record their years in the program.
2,3 2 5 3 4.1 2.6
Therefore, their scores were not
included in this analysis. 2 2 3 4 3.9 2.1
2,3 2 4 4 3.9 3.5
2 2 4 4 3.2 2.7
2 2 4 99 3.5 3.6
These are the average scores for
each set of years in the program.

Positive Negative
I again determined whether differences   Affect Affect
between the mean scores were 1-2 years 3.42 2.16
statistically significant by conducting a 3-4 years 3.80 2.09
t-test. Since the p values were greater
t-test 0.09 0.86
than .05, there were no statistically
significant differences.
 Positive and Negative Affect of PhD Students toward their PhD
Research Project by Years Enrolled in the Program
.

5
Average Affect Score

3
1-2 years
3-4 years
2

0
Positive Affect Negative Affect

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 5: Reach Conclusions
• Conclusions
– Describing the current state of Affect by overall mean scores:
• The typical PhD student at UniJos feels quite a bit of Positive Affect toward
their Research Project.
• The typical PhD student at UniJos feels little Negative Affect toward their
Research Project.
– Comparing the current state of Affect by demographic characteristics:
• Female students tend to feel slightly more Negative Affect toward their
Research Project than males.
• Older students tend to feel slightly more Negative Affect toward their
Research Projects than younger students.
• There were no significant differences in Negative Affect by years enrolled
in the PhD program.
• There were no significant differences in Positive Affect for any of the
demographic characteristics.

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 6: Share Findings
• In my write-up for this research study, I would need to include
the following information in the Methods section.
– Participants
• 14 PhD students at UniJos
• Sex:
– Male: 3
– Female: 10
– Missing: 1
• Age:
– 40-49: 9
– 50-59: 4
– 60+: 1
• Years enrolled in program:
– 1 year: 4
– 2 years: 1
– 3 years: 5
– 4 years: 3
– Missing: 1

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 6: Share Findings
• Methods Section, Continued
• Research Design: Descriptive
– Describing a phenomenon as it is
• Instrument: PANAS (Positive and Negative Affect Scale)
– Measures two affective state dimensions
• Positive affect – the state of high energy, full concentration, and pleasurable
engagement
• Negative affect – the state of unpleasurable engagement and distress
– Participants responded to how they feel when think about working on
their PhD Research Project
• 10 items for Positive Affect
• 10 items for Negative Affect
• 5-point Likert scale from 1 (very slightly) to 5 (extremely)
– Developed and validated by Watson, Clark, and Tellegren (1988)

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 6: Share Findings
• Methods Section, Concluded
• Procedure:
– Administer PANAS before PhD Research Seminar
• Data Analysis:
– Mean for Positive Affect and Negative Affect
– Calculated mean of PA and NA by demographic
groups
• Compared means by demographic group by t-test

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 6: Share Findings
• Results
– In the Results section, I would include the tables
with mean values (for the sample overall in
addition to sex, age, and years enrolled) as well
as the charts.
– I also need to include the standard deviation of
scores for each mean value so the readers will
know how much variation there is.

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 Calculating the Standard Deviation Here I calculated the Standard Deviation (SD) for NA. The
1. Subtract each score from average NA score was 2.2.
the mean. (This gives you
the deviation.) Average Affect Standard Deviation
Scores Calculations
2. Square each deviation.
3. Add up the squared Dev
Square
deviations. First subtract each NA score from Avg PA Avg NA Deviation d
4. Divide the sum by total the mean of 2.2
(1.8 - 2.2 = -0.4) 3.9 1.8 -0.4 0.16
number of scores.
3.7 2.5 0.3 0.09
5. Take the the square root of
the product. 3.7 2.5 0.3 0.09
Next square each deviation 2.9 2.3 0.1 0.01
(-0.4 * -0.4 = 0.16)
Therefore, the Standard Deviation is 2.9 1.7 -0.5 0.25
the square root of the average 3.8 1.3 -0.9 0.81
deviation. 3.8 1.3 -0.9 0.81
3.7 1.3 -0.9 0.81
4 1.9 -0.3 0.09
4.1 2.6 0.4 0.16
3.9 2.1 -0.1 0.01
3.9 3.5 1.3 1.69
3.2 2.7 0.5 0.25
Now add up all of the squared 3.5 3.6 1.4 1.96
deviations (i.e., 0.16 + 0.09 + 0.09 +
0.01 + …)
Sum 7.19
Divide the sum by 14,
the number of scores.
Avg Dev 0.51
Finally, take the square root of
Dr. K. A. Korb the Avg. Deviation to get the
SD. SD 0.72
University of Jos
 I calculated the standard deviation of the Avg
scores for PA and NA separately. Once I calculated
the standard deviations for the overall sample for
PA and NA, I sorted the data by Sex, Age, and Yrs
to find the standard deviations for those
demographics. This procedure was similar to the
Average Affect
Demographic Scores
procedure for calculating the average PA and NA
scores.
Stu Sex Age Yrs Avg PA Avg NA
2 1 3 1 3.9 1.8
2 2 3 1 3.7 2.5
2 2 3 1 3.7 2.5
2 9 3 1 2.9 2.3
2 2 4 2 2.9 1.7
2 1 3 3 3.8 1.3
2 1 3 3 3.8 1.3
2 2 3 3 3.7 1.3
2 2 3 3 4 1.9
2,3 2 5 3 4.1 2.6
2 2 3 4 3.9 2.1
2,3 2 4 4 3.9 3.5
2 2 4 4 3.2 2.7
2 2 4 99 3.5 3.6

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 6: Share Findings
These are the standard deviations
for each demographic where I
reported a mean.
This low standard deviation means Positive Negative
that there was very little variation in   Affect Affect
PA scores for the males (see next Overall 0.38 0.72
slide).
     
Male 0.06 0.29
Female 0.37 0.73 This large score means that there
were great differences between NA
     
scores for those enrolled in the
40-49 years 0.32 0.50 program for 3-4 years (see next
50+ 0.49 0.77 slide).
     
1-2 years 0.48 0.38
3-4 years 0.27 0.80

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 These scores range from
approximately 1 to 4. This results in
Look at how closely these scores are a much higher standard deviation.
– right around 4. This results in a low
standard deviation.

Male Positive Affect Scores Enrolled 3-4 Years Negative Affect Scores

5 5

4 4
.

.
3 3
Score on PA

NA Score
2 2

1 1

0 0

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos
 6: Share Findings
• Discussion
– In the Discussion section, I would discuss the conclusions
that I reached in Step 5.
– I should also include Implications of the research,
Limitations of the study, and Directions for Future
Research.
• Implications: Supervisors should pay careful attention to the
distress level of female and older students and provide additional
support when necessary.
• Limitations: Small sample size and is limited to ASSE students.
• Directions for Future Research: Conduct a similar study with a
broader range of departments; Examine whether counseling
interventions decrease Negative Affect

Dr. K. A. Korb
University of Jos