Explain what the procedure is, what are the independent and dependent variables ? What experimental research did they use ? 10:40control or regulate their naturally occurring thoughtsand feelings (cf. Shafir et al., 2018). Following this part,Neural Self-Regulation of Social-Media Temptations1 Mental Logout- Be...1532200 ms+GDistraction+250 msEvent-related potential (ERP)recording and analysisDashboardet al., 2018). The average percentage of correct responseswas very high (91.66 %, SE 4.65%). Second, duringbreaks between experimental blocks, the experimenterasked participants to give examples of how they imple-mented the instructions in the two conditions and cor-rected them as needed. Third, during the experiment,we videotaped and watched participants' faces to makesure they were concentrating on the task. Finally, atthe completion of the experimental trials, eight addi-tional trials (four for each of the two instructions) werefollowed by a screen that asked participants to writedown how they implemented the required instruction.A judge who was blind to participants' instructions.coded each sentence as attentional distraction or temp-tation. The level of accuracy was very high (96.5%),indicative of adequate implementation of the instruc-tions (for more information, see Table $1 in the Supple-mental Material).Time to Blink700 msEEGS were recorded using an Active Two EEG recordingsystem (Biosemi, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Data200 msTimeexceeding 100 µV from CDA electrodes (P7, P8, Po7,Po8, Po3, and Po4). Following LPP analysis conventions(e.g., Shafir et al., 2018), we excluded from the aver-aged ERP waveforms any activity exceeding 80 µV fromooolCalendarDwere followed by a screen asking participants to reportwhich instruction they had just implemented (ShafirFig. 1. Example trial from the electroencephalogram task. At the start of each trial, participantssaw a fixation cross, followed by an instruction indicating the trial type (attentional distraction, asshown here, or temptation). Subsequent arrow cues indicated which side of the screen the participantshould attend. Afterward, two Facebook stimuli appeared (one on each side of the screen), andparticipants tried to distract themselves or watched the screen, depending on condition. Followingstimuli offset, participants were asked to rate their current desire to use their own Facebook profile.Event-related potentials (ERPs) were locked to the onset of the Facebook stimuli. The two ERPs ofinterest were the contralateral delay activity (CDA) and late positive potential (LPP).300-500 ms2,500 msCDALPP..5GºDesire Rating (1-5)+Until ResponseTo Dowere collected using 6-4 scalp electrodes at locations ofthe extended 10-20 system and two free electrodesplaced on the left and right mastoids. Electrooculo-grams (EOGs) were recorded using electrodes placed1 cm to the left and right of the external canthi to detecthorizontal eye movements and an electrode under theleft eye to detect blinks and vertical eye movements.The single-ended voltage was recorded between eachelectrode site and the common-mode-sense (CMS) elec-trode and driven-right-leg (DRL) electrode. Data weredigitized at 256 Hz, and off-line signal processing andanalysis were conducted using the EEGLAB Toolbox(Version 13.5.4b; Delorme & Makeig, 2004), the ERPLABToolbox (Version 7.0.0; Lopez-Calderon & Luck, 2014),and custom MATLAB scripts (The MathWorks, Natick,MA). The average of the left and right mastoids servedas references for all electrodes. Artifact detection wasperformed using a peak-to-peak analysis based on asliding window 200 ms wide with a step of 100 ms.1531Following CDA-analysis conventions (e.g., Balaban& Luria, 2015; Sternberg et al., 2018), we excluded trialsfrom the averaged ERP waveforms that included anyactivity exceeding 80 µV from the EOG electrodesbecause of ocular artifacts and trials containing activityNotificationsdistraction) as a within-participants independent vari-able. Confirming our predictions, results indicated thatthe attentional-distraction condition (M 2.02, SD =0.63) efficiently reduced the desire to use Facebook7Sternberg et al.Inbox7 10:40sures used in the study (additional background informa-tion collected for pilot purposes is described in theSupplemental Material available online). All experimen-tal procedures were approved by the institutionalreview board of Tel Aviv University and were performedin accordance with the approved guidelines.15301 Mental Logout- Be...changing their Facebook password (cf. Sternberg et al.,2018, 2020). This procedure was followed to enhancethe value and saliency of Facebook stimuli, and it guar-anteed that participants would not use Facebook imme-diately prior to or immediately following the main EEGexperiment. In general, deprivation procedures arewell-esIl-established in animal and human studies acrossmany fields (e.g., Grimm et al., 2001), including Face-book usage (Sternberg et al., 2018, 2020). Importantly,Sternberg et al. (2018) showed that this deprivationprocedure does not bias naturally occurring social-network usage, as revealed by finding a significantmedium-size positive correlation between deprivedFacebook usage time in the laboratory and nondeprivedFacebook usage time at home.In the main experiment, following EEG setup, weexplained to participants that during the task, theywould view well-recognized social-media-related imagesunder two conditions: (a) a temptation condition thatinvolved naturally watching social-media stimuli andallowing social-media-related thoughts and associatedintentions to use social-media (e.g., freely thinkingabout one's Facebook profile, recent activities, and con-tent) and (b) an attentional-distraction condition thatinvolved trying to control the influence of social-mediastimuli and associated thoughts by directing attentionto absorbing neutral thoughts unrelated to Facebookstimuli (i.e., thinking about geometric shapes or dailyroutine activities). The instructions for both conditionsare considered the gold standard in self-regulationresearch; multiple prior studies show the efficacy ofsimilar attentional-distraction manipulations in regulat-ing unpleasant emotions and appetitive desires (Shafiret al., 2018; for a review, see Sheppes, 2020).The experimenter taught the participants how toimplement the instructions in both conditions (givingtwo examples for each condition). Then, during a four-trial learning phase, participants were asked to talk outloud about how they implemented each instruction.(two examples for each instruction), and they werecorrected by the experimenter whenever they imple-mented the instructions in either condition incorrectly.Specifically, in the attentional-distraction condition,participants were corrected by the experimenter if theirproduced thoughts were not perceived as neutral forthem, if these thoughts were somehow related to Face-book stimuli, or if these thoughts did not fit one of thetwo categories (geometric shapes or daily routine activi-ties). In the temptation condition, participants werecorrected if their thoughts and feelings were not relatedto their personal Facebook usage or if they tried tocontrol or regulate their naturally occurring thoughtsand feelings (cf. Shafir et al., 2018). Following this part,Neural Self-Regulation of Social-Media TemptationsGDashboard188Calendardistance of approximately 70 cm.ProcedureTwenty-four hours prior to the experiment, we deacti-vated participants' access to Facebook for 48 hr byBSternberg et al.we explained to participants the general structure ofeach trial, followed by a 20-trial practice phase...5GºThe actual task consisted of 16 blocks that wereseparated by short breaks; each block contained 25trials (yielding a total of 400 analyzed trials). Each trial(see Fig. 1) started with a fixation cross in the middleof the screen, followed by a screen containing therequired instruction ("Distraction" for the attentional-distraction condition or "Watch" for the temptation con-dition). Then arrow cues pointing right or left (with anequal probability) indicated which side of the screenthe participant should attend. This screen was followedby the presentation of two Facebook stimuli (randomlyselected with equal probability to appear in each of thetwo experimental conditions), one on each side of thescreen. The bilateral presentation of Facebook stimuliis required for CDA analysis (see CDA Analysis sectionbelow; for a review, see Luria et al., 2016). During thepresentation of Facebook stimuli, participants imple-mented the required instruction ("watch" social-mediacontent or "distract" oneself from social-media content).Following stimuli offset, participants were asked to ratetheir current desire to use their own Facebook profileon a scale ranging from 1 (not feeling a desire at all) to5 (feeling extreme desire).Following standard procedures in CDA experimentsthat are intended to minimize perceptual differences.(e.g., Balaban & Luria, 2015; Luria et al., 2016), weinstructed participants to maintain their gaze at thecenter of the screen during the presentation of Face-book stimuli. Trials that included eye movements wereexcluded from analyses. Participants were taught toblink in two defined points prior to and following stim-uli presentation.Importantly, the fact that both experimental condi-tions used the same stimuli and that trials with eyemovements were excluded preclude low-level percep-tual alternative interpretations for the observed differ-ences between the temptation and attentional-distractionconditions. Specifically, by excluding trials with eyemovements, we ruled out the possibility that peopleused attentional-deployment strategies that entailedbottom-up processes (e.g., closing their eyes or divert-ing their gaze) rather than the instructed top-downprocesses (e.g., thinking about shapes or daily neutralactivities while maintaining their gaze at the center) toregulate their emotions (for a discussion, see van Reekumet al., 2007).To DoSeveral measures were used to ensure that partici-pants concentrated during the task and correctly fol-lowed instructions. First, 60 randomly chosen trialswere followed by a screen asking participants to reportwhich instruction they had just implemented (Shafir7CNotifications1531Inbox

Question

Explain what the procedure is, what are the independent and dependent variables ? What experimental research did they use ? 10:40control or regulate their naturally occurring thoughtsand feelings (cf. Shafir et al., 2018). Following this part,Neural Self-Regulation of Social-Media Temptations1 Mental Logout- Be...1532200 ms+GDistraction+250 msEvent-related potential (ERP)recording and analysisDashboardet al., 2018). The average percentage of correct responseswas very high (91.66 %, SE 4.65%). Second, duringbreaks between experimental blocks, the experimenterasked participants to give examples of how they imple-mented the instructions in the two conditions and cor-rected them as needed. Third, during the experiment,we videotaped and watched participants' faces to makesure they were concentrating on the task. Finally, atthe completion of the experimental trials, eight addi-tional trials (four for each of the two instructions) werefollowed by a screen that asked participants to writedown how they implemented the required instruction.A judge who was blind to participants' instructions.coded each sentence as attentional distraction or temp-tation. The level of accuracy was very high (96.5%),indicative of adequate implementation of the instruc-tions (for more information, see Table $1 in the Supple-mental Material).Time to Blink700 msEEGS were recorded using an Active Two EEG recordingsystem (Biosemi, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Data200 msTimeexceeding 100 µV from CDA electrodes (P7, P8, Po7,Po8, Po3, and Po4). Following LPP analysis conventions(e.g., Shafir et al., 2018), we excluded from the aver-aged ERP waveforms any activity exceeding 80 µV fromooolCalendarDwere followed by a screen asking participants to reportwhich instruction they had just implemented (ShafirFig. 1. Example trial from the electroencephalogram task. At the start of each trial, participantssaw a fixation cross, followed by an instruction indicating the trial type (attentional distraction, asshown here, or temptation). Subsequent arrow cues indicated which side of the screen the participantshould attend. Afterward, two Facebook stimuli appeared (one on each side of the screen), andparticipants tried to distract themselves or watched the screen, depending on condition. Followingstimuli offset, participants were asked to rate their current desire to use their own Facebook profile.Event-related potentials (ERPs) were locked to the onset of the Facebook stimuli. The two ERPs ofinterest were the contralateral delay activity (CDA) and late positive potential (LPP).300-500 ms2,500 msCDALPP..5GºDesire Rating (1-5)+Until ResponseTo Dowere collected using 6-4 scalp electrodes at locations ofthe extended 10-20 system and two free electrodesplaced on the left and right mastoids. Electrooculo-grams (EOGs) were recorded using electrodes placed1 cm to the left and right of the external canthi to detecthorizontal eye movements and an electrode under theleft eye to detect blinks and vertical eye movements.The single-ended voltage was recorded between eachelectrode site and the common-mode-sense (CMS) elec-trode and driven-right-leg (DRL) electrode. Data weredigitized at 256 Hz, and off-line signal processing andanalysis were conducted using the EEGLAB Toolbox(Version 13.5.4b; Delorme & Makeig, 2004), the ERPLABToolbox (Version 7.0.0; Lopez-Calderon & Luck, 2014),and custom MATLAB scripts (The MathWorks, Natick,MA). The average of the left and right mastoids servedas references for all electrodes. Artifact detection wasperformed using a peak-to-peak analysis based on asliding window 200 ms wide with a step of 100 ms.1531Following CDA-analysis conventions (e.g., Balaban& Luria, 2015; Sternberg et al., 2018), we excluded trialsfrom the averaged ERP waveforms that included anyactivity exceeding 80 µV from the EOG electrodesbecause of ocular artifacts and trials containing activityNotificationsdistraction) as a within-participants independent vari-able. Confirming our predictions, results indicated thatthe attentional-distraction condition (M 2.02, SD =0.63) efficiently reduced the desire to use Facebook7Sternberg et al.Inbox7 10:40sures used in the study (additional background informa-tion collected for pilot purposes is described in theSupplemental Material available online). All experimen-tal procedures were approved by the institutionalreview board of Tel Aviv University and were performedin accordance with the approved guidelines.15301 Mental Logout- Be...changing their Facebook password (cf. Sternberg et al.,2018, 2020). This procedure was followed to enhancethe value and saliency of Facebook stimuli, and it guar-anteed that participants would not use Facebook imme-diately prior to or immediately following the main EEGexperiment. In general, deprivation procedures arewell-esIl-established in animal and human studies acrossmany fields (e.g., Grimm et al., 2001), including Face-book usage (Sternberg et al., 2018, 2020). Importantly,Sternberg et al. (2018) showed that this deprivationprocedure does not bias naturally occurring social-network usage, as revealed by finding a significantmedium-size positive correlation between deprivedFacebook usage time in the laboratory and nondeprivedFacebook usage time at home.In the main experiment, following EEG setup, weexplained to participants that during the task, theywould view well-recognized social-media-related imagesunder two conditions: (a) a temptation condition thatinvolved naturally watching social-media stimuli andallowing social-media-related thoughts and associatedintentions to use social-media (e.g., freely thinkingabout one's Facebook profile, recent activities, and con-tent) and (b) an attentional-distraction condition thatinvolved trying to control the influence of social-mediastimuli and associated thoughts by directing attentionto absorbing neutral thoughts unrelated to Facebookstimuli (i.e., thinking about geometric shapes or dailyroutine activities). The instructions for both conditionsare considered the gold standard in self-regulationresearch; multiple prior studies show the efficacy ofsimilar attentional-distraction manipulations in regulat-ing unpleasant emotions and appetitive desires (Shafiret al., 2018; for a review, see Sheppes, 2020).The experimenter taught the participants how toimplement the instructions in both conditions (givingtwo examples for each condition). Then, during a four-trial learning phase, participants were asked to talk outloud about how they implemented each instruction.(two examples for each instruction), and they werecorrected by the experimenter whenever they imple-mented the instructions in either condition incorrectly.Specifically, in the attentional-distraction condition,participants were corrected by the experimenter if theirproduced thoughts were not perceived as neutral forthem, if these thoughts were somehow related to Face-book stimuli, or if these thoughts did not fit one of thetwo categories (geometric shapes or daily routine activi-ties). In the temptation condition, participants werecorrected if their thoughts and feelings were not relatedto their personal Facebook usage or if they tried tocontrol or regulate their naturally occurring thoughtsand feelings (cf. Shafir et al., 2018). Following this part,Neural Self-Regulation of Social-Media TemptationsGDashboard188Calendardistance of approximately 70 cm.ProcedureTwenty-four hours prior to the experiment, we deacti-vated participants' access to Facebook for 48 hr byBSternberg et al.we explained to participants the general structure ofeach trial, followed by a 20-trial practice phase...5GºThe actual task consisted of 16 blocks that wereseparated by short breaks; each block contained 25trials (yielding a total of 400 analyzed trials). Each trial(see Fig. 1) started with a fixation cross in the middleof the screen, followed by a screen containing therequired instruction (&#34;Distraction&#34; for the attentional-distraction condition or &#34;Watch&#34; for the temptation con-dition). Then arrow cues pointing right or left (with anequal probability) indicated which side of the screenthe participant should attend. This screen was followedby the presentation of two Facebook stimuli (randomlyselected with equal probability to appear in each of thetwo experimental conditions), one on each side of thescreen. The bilateral presentation of Facebook stimuliis required for CDA analysis (see CDA Analysis sectionbelow; for a review, see Luria et al., 2016). During thepresentation of Facebook stimuli, participants imple-mented the required instruction (&#34;watch&#34; social-mediacontent or &#34;distract&#34; oneself from social-media content).Following stimuli offset, participants were asked to ratetheir current desire to use their own Facebook profileon a scale ranging from 1 (not feeling a desire at all) to5 (feeling extreme desire).Following standard procedures in CDA experimentsthat are intended to minimize perceptual differences.(e.g., Balaban & Luria, 2015; Luria et al., 2016), weinstructed participants to maintain their gaze at thecenter of the screen during the presentation of Face-book stimuli. Trials that included eye movements wereexcluded from analyses. Participants were taught toblink in two defined points prior to and following stim-uli presentation.Importantly, the fact that both experimental condi-tions used the same stimuli and that trials with eyemovements were excluded preclude low-level percep-tual alternative interpretations for the observed differ-ences between the temptation and attentional-distractionconditions. Specifically, by excluding trials with eyemovements, we ruled out the possibility that peopleused attentional-deployment strategies that entailedbottom-up processes (e.g., closing their eyes or divert-ing their gaze) rather than the instructed top-downprocesses (e.g., thinking about shapes or daily neutralactivities while maintaining their gaze at the center) toregulate their emotions (for a discussion, see van Reekumet al., 2007).To DoSeveral measures were used to ensure that partici-pants concentrated during the task and correctly fol-lowed instructions. First, 60 randomly chosen trialswere followed by a screen asking participants to reportwhich instruction they had just implemented (Shafir7CNotifications1531Inbox

Accepted Answer

Research is a systematic study of a particular topic that contributes to the pool of knowledge.…