Psychology Lab Report

This is a 1500 word psychology lab report, APA format, 5 – 8 references (all in ZIP folder), assignment information is as attached in word doc called ‘Assignment Information(1) (1)’. Marking rubric is in ‘Psych Lab Report Instructions’.

Proper grammar, no plagiarism, APA format.

Do let me know if this is doable for deadline Thursday, 9th May.

The Assignment

Write an APA article based on the experiment you conducted in class. The marking rubric is as attached. Part of a tutorial will be dedicated to report writing.

Use the research hypotheses given to you. Suggested readings are as attached in ZIP folder. You should choose two or three papers to prepare the literature review. Do not copy and paste information from the articles, but integrate the information found in those papers to create your introduction. Try to use previous findings and theories that support the researcher’s predictions (i.e., the researcher’s hypotheses). That is, you need to explain why the researcher has those hypotheses and you should have some explanations of why these results are predicted (i.e., theory). The results will be given to you. Part of a lecture will be used to explain the experiment and the results.



Types of blocks in the experiment:

Pure trials in one block of trials (e.g., only shapes in all trials)

Mixed trials in a block (e.g., shape-to-shape trials and shape-to-filler trials)


Previous Findings

Mixing cost. There have been found longer response latencies for repeated trials (e.g., shape-to-shape) in the mixed blocks than in repeated trials (e.g., shape-to-shape) in the pure blocks. The mixing cost is a measure of a person’s capacity to monitoring and coordinating different rules. Mixing costs measure attentional capacity.

Switch cost. There have been found longer response latencies on switch trials (e.g., shape-to-filler) than repeated trials (e.g., shape-to-shape) in mixed blocks. The switch costs refer to the effort needed to execute a response to the change in rule. It involves interference from the previous trial (which had another rule) and the capacity to inhibit an automatic response. Task-switching costs measure switching capacity and inhibition of automatic responses. This is a measure of executive function.


Researcher’s Hypotheses

Mind wandering will be negatively associated with attentional capacity and executive function. The effects of mind wandering will be stronger for executive functions than for attentional capacity.




Multitasking Task

For the materials section of your lab report, just explain the stimuli. For the procedure section, you may mention the number of trials, the duration of the task, what the participants saw and did, and so on. If you cannot remember the details, you can re-do the experiment again or summarise information found in


Mind Wandering

Mind Wandering Questionnaire (WMQ; Mrazek, Phillips, Franklin, Broadway, & Schooler, 2013). This questionnaire measures frequency of mind wandering (MW). Higher scores indicate higher frequency of MW. The psychometric properties of MWQ had been validated across different samples (Mrazek et al., 2013). In Singapore, the questionnaire has shown good internal consistency (Chronbach’s alpha = .75) (Kong, 2016).



Suggested Readings (as attached in ZIP Folder)

Ju, Y. J., & Lien, Y. W. (2018). Who is prone to wander and when? Examining an integrative effect of working memory capacity and mindfulness trait on mind wandering under different task loads. Consciousness and Cognition, 63, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2018.06.006

Kane, M. J., Brown, L. H., McVay, J. C., Silvia, P. J., Myin-Germeys, I., & Kwapil, T. R. (2007). For whom the mind wanders, and when: An experience-sampling study of working memory and executive control in daily life. Psychological Science, 18(7), 614-621. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01948.x

Kane, M. J., & McVay, J. C. (2012). What mind wandering reveals about executive-control abilities and failures. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 348-354. doi:10.1177/0963721412454875

Kong, D. X. (2016). Creativity: Automatic or systematic? Exploring the relationship between mind wandering, mindfulness and creativity (Unpublished honours thesis). James Cook University, Singapore.

Marcusson-Clavertz, D., Cardeña, E., & Terhune, D. B. (2016). Daydreaming style moderates the relation between working memory and mind wandering: Integrating two hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 42(3), 451-464. doi:10.1037/xlm0000180

McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2009). Conducting the train of thought: Working memory capacity, goal neglect, and mind wandering in an executive-control task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 35(1), 196-204. doi:10.1037/a0014104

Randall, J. G., Beier, M. E., & Villado, A. J. (2019). Multiple routes to mind wandering: Predicting mind wandering with resource theories. Consciousness and Cognition, 67, 26-43. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2018.11.006

Robison, M. K., & Unsworth, N. (2017). Working memory capacity and mind-wandering during low-demand cognitive tasks. Consciousness and Cognition, 52, 47-54. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2017.04.012

Rummel, J., & Boywitt, C. D. (2014). Controlling the stream of thought: Working memory capacity predicts adjustment of mind-wandering to situational demands. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21(5), 1309-1315. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0580-3

Unsworth, N., & Robison, M. K. (2016). The influence of lapses of attention on working memory capacity. Memory and Cognition, 44(2), 188-196. doi:10.3758/s13421-015-0560-0



APA paper

Cover page

(Running head, name, institution, word count)


(150-200 words, max. 5 keywords)





Use the database to check number of participants, average age and SD, number of males and females, and whatever you think is relevant to understand who the participants were.


Describe the multitasking task and the questionnaire. Information about the task (what is in each trial/condition) can be found in (experiment 1) and information about the questionnaire is in this document (above).


Describe the session (sequence of tasks, duration of each task, method of data collection [manual, computerized], the duration of the session, number of people during the session, the instructions, etc.).


These are the findings:

Correlation between mind wandering and attention capacity was not significant, r(105) = -.17, p = .08.

Correlation between mind wandering and executive functions was not significant, r(105) = .02, p = .86.


Report using APA style. This is an example that you need to change based on the results above:

A Pearson’s correlation was used to test whether depression and anxiety were co-morbid conditions. The tests showed a significant positive relationship, r(120) = .63, p < .001. The results suggested that participants with higher levels of depression showed higher levels of anxiety.




Add only the references of the citations you used (i.e., the papers or books you read)