See attached

Running head: METHODS, RESULTS DISCUSSION INSTRUCTIONS 1

PAPER II: METHODS AND RESULTS INSTRUCTIONS 9

Instructions for Paper II: Study One Methods, Results, and Discussion (Worth 35 Points)

Ryan J. Winter

Florida International University

Purpose of Paper II: Study One Methods, Results, and Discussion

1). Psychological Purpose

The psychological purpose behind Paper II is to make sure you can tell your reader what you did on your study, how you did it, and what you found. By now you have read several empirical studies in psychology, and you should be familiar with the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections. Now is your chance to write Methods, Results and Discussion!

Like those prior studies you looked at in Paper I, you will provide information about your participants, materials, and procedure in your Methods section. Your participant section goes first, and it includes descriptive statistics about your sample (means and standard deviations for age as well as percentages for gender and race/ethnicity). Your materials and procedure sections include information about what you did and how you did it. You should write this section for an audience who is unfamiliar with your specific study, but assume that they do know research methods. Thus educate your reader about your materials and procedure, giving enough detail so they could replicate the study. This includes explicitly describing your independent and dependent variables and talking about how you presented those variables to your participants. My suggestion is to look over the articles you summarized in Paper I and see how they wrote their Methods. This will give you a good idea regarding the level of depth and detail you need in your own Methods section.

Your Results section follows. The purpose of this section is to make sure you can show how you analyzed the data and describe what you found. You will have a lot of help in this section from your lab instructors.

Finally, I want you to include a short description of your findings. Tell me if you supported or did not support your hypotheses and explain why you got those results (you can actually speculate here if you like, but make it an “educated” speculation!)

2). APA Formatting Purpose

The second purpose of Paper II: Methods, Results and Discussion is to once again teach you proper American Psychological Association (APA) formatting for these sections. In the pages below, I will tell you how to format your paper using APA style. There are a lot of very specific requirements in APA papers (as specific as what to italicize), so pay attention to the instructions below as well as Chapter 14 in your textbook!

3). Writing Purpose

Finally, this paper is intended to help you figure out how to write a Methods, Results, and Discussion section. Many students find statistics daunting, but my hope here is that writing this paper will help you understand both the logic and format of statistics in results sections. We will once again give you a lot of feedback and help in this paper, which you help you when you write Papers IV and V later in the course. Make sure that you write this for an audience familiar with APA methods and results, but also for someone who needs you to tell them what you found.

Note: The plagiarism limit is higher in this paper (up to 65%) since your classmates are doing the same design. Don’t go higher than that, though! 65% is the maximum allowed!

Note: You do NOT need to include your literature review / hypotheses in Paper II, as Paper II focuses just on your methods, results, and discussion. However, you’ll include those Paper I components later in Paper III, so do keep them handy!

Sorry for the length of the instructions! They are long, but take it one section at a time and you will get all of the content you need for your paper. It also increases your chances of getting a great grade!

Methods

1. Title Page: I expect the following format (1 point):

a. The title page for your Paper II is identical to the one you used for Paper I: Literature Review Study One. For proper APA formatting, either copy your title page from Paper I or review the title page instructions I gave you in Paper I. You can change your title if you like, but make sure it helps to describe your study (much like a title in PsycInfo describes what the authors did in their paper)

2. Abstract?

a. You DO NOT need an abstract for Paper II: Methods, Results, and Discussion (Study One). You cannot write it until you run both study one and two, so omit it for now

3. Methods Section: I expect the following format (15 points):

a. For this paper, the methods section starts on page 2.

b. Write Method at the top of this page, make it bold, and center it (see the top of this page as an example!)

c. The participants section comes next. The word Participants is bolded and left justified. In this section …

i. Tell me who your participants were (college students, family members, friends?) and how many there were.

1. Note: If a number starts a sentence, then spell out the number. That is, “Two-hundred and five participants participated in this study.”

2. If a number is mid-sentence, you can use numerals. “There were 205 participants in this study.”

3. But keep numbers consistent. If you spell out a number at the start of the sentence, carry that through and spell out other numbers in the sentence.

4. For statistics, always use numbers (for the mean, SD, %, etc.)

ii. Provide frequencies and descriptive statistics for relevant demographics.

1. For some variables—like ethnicity and gender—you only need to provide frequency information (the number of participants who fit that category). “There were 100 men (49%) and 105 women (51%) in the study.” Or “The sample was 49% male (N = 100) and 51% female (N = 105).”

2. Other variables—like age—are continuous (rather than categorical), so use descriptive statistics here (the range, mean, and the standard deviation). “Participants ranged in age from 18 to 77 (M = 24, SD = 3.50).” or “The average age of participants was 24 (SD = 3.50).” Your TA can help you find the mean and standard deviation for this assignment, though information is also available in a lab powerpoint.

3. Make sure to italicize the N, M, and SD (the letters, not the numbers)

d. Materials and Procedure

i. For this section, things are flexible. Some studies include Materials and Procedure in the same section while others break them up into two sections. This is a matter of choice.

1. In general, the more complex the design, the better it is to split up the methods and results. In one section, the author may describe the materials; in the next, they describe what participants did with those materials (the procedure). This is one option for you. However …

2. However, your “Paper II: Methods, Results and Discussion (Study One)” is simple enough that I strongly recommend combining them into
one
overall Materials and Procedure section.

ii. Again, the words Materials and Procedure are flush left. In this section …

1. Provide information about your materials and your procedure.

a. I suggest starting with your procedure. Tell your reader what your participants did in the order that participants did them. Be specific here. I have the following recommendations:

i. First, talk about the oral informed consent procedure.

ii. Second, talk about the three versions of the Facebook Consensus study questionnaire. Provide enough detail so that your readers know how the three conditions differ. Imagine I do not know what you did, but I need to able to replicate your design. YOU need to give me enough detail so I can do so. (Hint: Copy and paste the various questions or refer the reader to an appendix that has those materials!)

1. I want to stress that – pretend I have no idea what you did, but I want to repeat your design and procedures. That means you need to be VERY clear and detailed about what you did and how you did it.

2. At the end of the semester (for Paper V), someone other than your instructor / TA may grade your paper. They may know NOTHING about Consensus or Conformity, though they do know methods. Thus go into painstaking detail about what EACH section of the survey page looked like, including the participant instructions and the pictures

iii. Third, talk about your dependent variables (that is, your survey questions. For these dependent variables, once again provide enough detail so I know exactly what questions you asked. For example, “Participants provided their gender, age, and race”. For other dependent variables, tell me how the responses were recorded (yes/no, true/false, a scale of 1 to 6, etc.). If you used a scale, note the endpoints. That is, does a 1 mean it is high or is it low? “Participants were asked, ‘How frustrating was this task?’, and they responded on a scale from 1 (very frustrating) to 9 (not at all frustrating).’” Your study has a few really important DVs (including several DVs about participant impressions of Abigail and her cheating behavior as well as whether the participant agrees with the advice of Abigail’s friends. For these DVs, you again need to tell me what they are specifically!

iv. Fourth, make sure to highlight which specific DVs you analyzed. If there are DVs participants completed but you did not analyze it, feel free to say those that participants completed them but since they were not analyzed, they are not discussed further.

v. Fifth, make sure to be specific about your attention / manipulation check question!

vi. Finally, mention debriefing

e. There is no set minimum or maximum on the length of the methods section, but I would expect at least a page or two (though probably more. After all, your own research script took up several pages – you should provide a similar level of depth and detail in your methods section!). Missing important aspects of your IVs and DVs or presenting them in a confused manner will lower your score in this section.

f. Remember, make sure that another researcher can replicate your study based on your methods section. If they can’t, then you may not have enough detail!

4. Results Section: I expect the following format (10 points):

a. The results are the hardest part of this paper, and your lab powerpoints will help you with this part of the paper (also refer to the crash course statistics quizzes, which walk you through similar analyses!).

b. First, write Results at the top of this section, center it, and use boldface. This section comes directly at the end of the methods section, so the results section DOES NOT start on its own page.

c. For this assignment, include statistics about the most important variables in your study, including your IV (Condition – Support, Oppose, and Mixed) and the DVs you feel are most important to your hypotheses. There are several important DVs in your survey, including all of those in Part II (regarding cheating) and the first three DVs in Part III, especially Part III Question #3. All of these variables really focus on your predictions. Note that some instructors may not do this Facebook Consensus study at all, but the results section should follow the same guidelines regardless of your study topic.

d. More specifically, you must run at least three different analyses on three different dependent variables. One must be a chi square for the question asking participants which to recall how well Pat did in his job interview (our manipulation check, which looks at the three options for the nominal variable in Part V). One analysis must be a One Way ANOVA (I recommend looking at any of the statements in Part II). The third analysis should be a t-Test on Part III Question #3. Why? Because the mixed condition makes this question tough for participants to answer (the question asks if they would give the same advice as Abigail’s friends, but because the mixed condition mixes oppositional and supportive comments, it is tough to know what the “same advice” would involve. A t-Test just looking at the two consensus groups is best here). Of course, you can run ANOVA’s or t-Tests on virtually all of the Part II and Part III Questions, but you cannot look at the same DV with both a t-Test and an ANOVA. We count the number of DVs that you analyze – NOT the number of statistical tests you run!

i.
Chi square
: Your first analysis will be a chi square, which you use if your DV is categorical (yes / no; yes / no / maybe; male / female, or … in our case, we have our “Feedback” question in Part V (The feedback supported Abigail’s behavior; opposed it; was mixed). So let’s discuss the chi square, which doesn’t look at means but rather counts how many responses there are compared to how many you would expect.

1. Consider the DV in Part V of your questionnaire – “Without looking back, what general feedback did Abigail’s friends give her? (Mark one with an X)” The options were supported, opposed, or mixed. Here, you can run a chi square looking at the frequencies of the three answer options

2. We are interested in the chi square (χ2) and p value. We also provide percentages for each of our groups (rather than means and SD).

a. “Using Facebook consensus condition as our independent variable (support, oppose, or mixed) and recall of the feedback Abigail’s friends gave her as the dependent variable, we saw a significant effect, χ2(4) = 68.49, p < .001. Most participants in the “support” condition recalled “supporting” feedback (98%); most participants in the “oppose” condition recalled a “oppositional” feedback (96%); and most participants in mixed condition recalled an “mixed” feedback (90%). This indicates that participants saw our manipulation as intended.”

b. Alternatively, you can just look at correct versus incorrect responses. This is a bit trickier to run in SPSS, since you need to add up ALL those who correctly remembered the correct feedback (those in the support condition who recalled “supportive feedback” + those in the oppose condition who recalled “oppositional feedback” + those in the mixed condition who recalled “mixed feedback”) and compare them to ALL the people who were incorrect in their recall. In this instance, you wouldn’t want the chi square to be significant. That is, you might conclude that χ2(4) = 1.49, p > .05, indicating that there was no difference between those who got the manipulation check question correct across the three different conditions. (In other words, participants weren’t more correct in one condition compared to another). My advice is to go with the chi square in a. above

c. Make sure to italicize the χ and p

ii.
ANOVA
: Since you have a condition independent variable with three levels (e.g. Support, Oppose, or Mixed), the most appropriate test is a One-Way ANOVA if your DV is scaled (like a 0 to 5 scale or a 1 to 6 scale). Your lab and lecture powerpoints show you how to conduct an ANOVA, but there are some guidelines I want to give you about how to write your results. Below, I am going to walk you through one analysis specific to this paper. However, keep in mind that you can run ANOVAs on several different DVs.

1. First, there are several dependent variables to choose from. For my example analysis below, I want to focus on Part II in your survey (cheating impressions). Since each of these seven questions are scaled variables that range from 1 to 6, each uses an interval scale, which is perfect for an ANOVA.

2. Second, given that this study has one IV with three levels and we will look at one DV at a time, a One-Way ANOVA is the best test to use to see if there are significant differences among the three IV levels for that one DV. We look first at the ANOVA table (or F table) and focus on the between subject factor. We note the degrees of freedom, the F value itself, and the p value. (We’ll get into two-way ANOVAs later in this course, but here we only have one independent variable, so it is a one-way ANOVA. Yes, we have three levels to our IV, but it is still only one IV).

3. If the p value is significant (less than .05), we have one more step to take. Since this is a three level IV, we need to compare mean A to mean B, mean A to mean C, and mean B to mean C. We do this using a post hoc test (try using Tukey!). That will tell us which of the means differ significantly. You then write up the results. For example, let’s say I ran an ANOVA on the dependent variable “Abigail’s behavior was wrong”. My write up would look like this (though note: I completely made up the data below, so don’t copy the numbers!) …

a. “Using consensus condition (support v. oppose v. mixed) as our independent variable and ratings of “Abigail’s behavior was wrong” as the dependent variable, we found a significant condition effect, F(2, 203) = 4.32, p < .05. Tukey post hoc tests showed that participants felt the cheating was less wrong in the support condition (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21) than participants in both the oppose (M = 4.24, SD = 0.89) and mixed (M = 4.23, SD = 0.77) conditions. The oppose and mixed conditions, however, did not differ from each other. This supports our prediction that participants exposed to unanimously supportive friend comments would similarly support Abigail, while any opposition (whether unanimous or not) would make her behavior seem more wrong.”

i. Note there are lots of possible outcomes. The one above essentially says that condition S (support) differed from O (oppose) and M (mixed), but that O and M did not differ from each other (In other words, S ≠ O = M). However, we might also find that NONE of the three conditions differ from each other, so they are all equal (S = O = M) or we might find that ALL conditions differ from each other (S ≠ O ≠ M), so they all differ

ii. As an example for this latter (S ≠ O ≠ M), I would predict no differences between the three conditions for the dependent variable “Abigail’s behavior was wrong”

b. Make sure to italicize the F, p, M, and SD (as in the example)

c. Pretty simple, right! I suggest running an ANOVA on any of the statements in Part II (though I suggest doing more than one ANOVA here – the practice will help you, so look at multiple Part II DVs!)

d. You could run a t-Test on one of those Part II dependent variables as well, but for this semester’s study on consensus, I actually want you to run a t-Test on Part III Question #3. Here’s how:

iii.
t
-Test
: If you have only two levels to your IV (e.g. Support and Oppose only), things are even more simple.

1. Here, you will run a t-Test (a t-Test looks at differences between only two groups). Again, your lab presentations tell you how to run this, but you can do it on your own as well (you can even run this if your study originally has three levels to the IV – when you go into the t-Test menu in SPSS, choose “define groups” and select 1 and 2 (Support = 1 and Oppose = 2). This will let you look at two of the groups! You could also select “2 and 3” or “1 and 3” where the Mixed condition = 3).

2. Rather than an F value, we will look at the t value in the t-Test data output. Here, we have one number for the degree of freedom, we have the t value, and we have the p value.

3. The nice thing about a t-Test is that since you only have two groups, you do not need a post hoc test like Tukey (you only need that if you have to compare three means. Here, we only have two means, so we can just look at them and see which one is higher and which is lower when our t-Test is significant). Then just write it up …

a. “Using consensus condition (support v. oppose) as our independent variable and ratings of “I would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave her” as our dependent variable, we failed to find a significant condition effect, t(203) = 1.12, p > .05. Participants in both the support condition (M = 4.56, SD = 1.21) and participants in the oppose condition (M = 4.24, SD = 0.89). said they would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave her. This indicates that participants do pay attention to consensus and feel fine conforming their own beliefs in line with that consensus”

b. Repeat for other dependent variables

c. Make sure to italicize the t, p, M , and SD (as in the example)

iv. Statistics order recommendation: For this paper, start your results section with the chi square (your manipulation check). Then talk about your main analyses (Any question from Part II followed by the analysis of the Part III Question #3 dependent variable). Make sure the analyses line up with your hypotheses.

e. There is no page minimum or maximum for the results section, though I would expect it to be at least a paragraph or two for each dependent variable

5. Appendices (4 points)

a. I want to make sure you are including the correct numbers in your results section, so I want you to include all relevant SPSS tables for each of your analyses in a series of appendices.

i. Appendix A: Include your tables for age, gender, and ethnicity.

ii. Appendix B: Include your tables for your chi square and the crosstabs

iii. Appendix C: Include your tables for your first dependent variable (This must be an ANOVA table, the descriptive statistics table for that ANOVA, and the post hoc test whether it is significant or not)

iv.

Appendix D: Include your tables for you second dependent variable (You should include t-Test tables here. This would involve both the descriptives for the t-Test and the t-Test output itself

v. Appendix E: (If applicable)

b. Hint: The best way to get these tables is to copy them directly from SPSS. In the SPSS output, right click on the table, copy it, and then paste it into your appendix. Another alternative is to use a “snipping” tool (search “snipping tool” in Microsoft Word to find it). You can highlight an area on any computer page and save it as a picture. Copy the picture and paste it into your appendix. Easy!

i. I’m not worried if your table is not all on the same line. If it spills over into the next page, that is fine. I just need to see the full table

c. Make sure to give a proper name to the appendix (e.g. Appendix A – Study One Demographics)

6. Discussion Study One (2 points)

a. In this section, tell me about your findings and if they did or did not support your results. It might help to refer back to your hypotheses “We expected to find A but instead found B” or “We expected to find A and results supported this hypothesis.” Explain using plain English why you think your study turned out the way it did.

b. IMPORTANT – Do NOT give me statistics again here. I can find those in your results section. Here, all I want is a plain English summary of your findings.

c. Also, don’t give me results for a DV if you did not run an analysis on that DV. Only tell me about the results you actually looked at in the results section.

d. There is no length requirement for this section, but I recommend at least four or five sentences

7. Overall writing quality (3 points)

a. Make sure you check your paper for proper spelling and grammar. The FIU writing center is available if you want someone to look over your paper (an extra eye is always good!) and give you advice. I highly recommend them, as writing quality will become even more important on future papers. I also recommend visiting the FIU Research Methods Help Center if you need additional guidance with writing or statistical analyses. Also, remember to upload this paper through the Pearson writer before uploading to Canvas!

b. Make sure to use the past tense throughout your paper. You already did the paper, so don’t tell me what participants are going to do. Tell me what they did!

Other Guidelines for Paper II – Methods and Results (Study One)

 

1. 1). Page size is 8 1/2 X 11” with all 4 margins should be one inch. You must use a 12-point font in Times New Roman.

1. 2). PLEASE use a spell checker and/or Pearson Writer to avoid unnecessary errors. Proofread everything you write. I actually recommend reading some sentences aloud to see if they flow well, or getting family or friends to read your work.

1. Use the Paper II Checklist on the next page before you turn in your paper to make sure it is the best paper you can write!

1. Finally, go look at the supporting documents for this paper. Like Paper I, there is a checklist, a grade rubric, and an example paper for Paper II. All will give you more information about what we are specifically looking for as well as a visual example of how to put it all together in your paper. Good luck!

Checklist – Paper II: Study One Methods, Results, and Discussion

Use the check sheet below to make sure your paper is the best it can be! Make sure you answer “

Yes

” to all questions before submitting your paper! The first two sections duplicate the Paper I checklist, but those elements in purple are unique to you Methods / Results / Discussion Paper II

Yes

No

Yes

No

Header

Yes

No

General Paper Format (This section is identical to the Paper I Checklist)

Yes

No

1. Is everything in your paper (including headers, the main body of your mini-literature review, and your references) in 12 point Times New Roman font?

2. Is everything in your paper double spaced, including references (here I mean the spacing above and below each line, not the spaces following a period)?

3. Do you have one inch margins on all sides of the paper (one inch from the top of the page, one inch from the bottom, and one inch from each side)

4. Are the first lines of all paragraphs indented another ½ inch (or 1 ½ inches from the page edge)?

5. Are your paragraphs aligned left? (That is, text should be flush left, with lines lining up on the left of the page, but text should NOT line up on the right side of the page – it should look ragged)

6. Do you need help figuring out how to configure a word document in APA format (inserting headers, page numbers, proper indents, etc.)? If YES or NO, I highly recommend watching this video which walks you through setting up an APA formatted paper! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pbUoNa5tyY​

Title page (This section is nearly identical to the Paper I Checklist)

Header

1. Do you have the phrase “Running head” in your header (with a lower case h)?

2. Is the rest of your Running head title in ALL CAPS?

3. Is your Running head in 12 point Times New Roman font?

4. Do you have a page number that is flush right (also in 12 point Times New Roman font)?

5. Is your header 50 characters or less (including spaces and punctuation)?

Title / Name / Institution

1. Is your title 12 words or less (as recommended by the APA)?

2. Does your title describe your general paper theme (while avoiding something blank like “Paper Two: Methods Results, and Discussion”)? Note that your header and title can differ!

3. Do all title words with three letters or more start with a capital letter?

4. Are your name and institution correct?

5. Are your title, name, and institution elements centered and in 12 point Times New Roman font?

Methods Section (New Information in this section)

1. Is your header title present and identical to your header title on the title page?

2. Is your header title in ALL CAPS and 12 point Times New Roman font?

3. Does your header on this second page omit the phrase “Running head”

4. Do you have a page number starting on page 2

Title for the methods section

1. Is the word “Methods” centered and in bold at the top of your methods page?

Participants

1. Do you have the word “Participants” flush left and in bold, right below the word “Methods”?

2. Did you list out your demographic characteristics, including gender, age, and ethnicity / race?

3. Did you provide the descriptive statistics for (means and standard deviations) for age and italicize the letters M and SD?

4. Did you provide frequencies for gender and ethnicity/race and italicize the N?

5. Did you refer readers to Appendix for the full listing of demographic tables?

Materials and Procedure

1. Did you mention informed consent?

2. Did you discuss any instructions the participant may have read?

3. Did you thoroughly describe any stimulus material that might have occurred before your actual independent variables (and photos, descriptions, profiles, questions, puzzles, etc.) that are a part of your study?

4. Did you thoroughly describe your independent variable (IV) in enough depth and detail that another researcher could recreate your materials?

5. Did you give your IV a name that matches up with the name you refer to in the results section?

6. Did you describe all of your most relevant dependent variables, noting the scales you used (e.g. “Yes / No”, “A scale ranging from 1 (not at all likely) to 9 (very likely))” for EACH of your DVs?

7. Did you fully describe what participants went through in the study, noting the order in which they received study materials (e.g. first informed consent, then IVs, DVs, and debriefing)?

8. Did you fully describe your attention check (manipulation check) with enough detail that a reader unfamiliar with your study could recreate it, and did you include the scale for that attention check question?

9. Did you use the past tense when describing your methods (seeing how you already collected the data, and therefore do not discuss what participants will do)?

Yes

No

Results Section (New Information in this section)

1. Do you have the word “Results” centered and in bold, immediately following the methods section?

2. Was the first dependent variable you looked at your manipulation check question, and did you make sure you analyzed the correct DV?

3. Did you analyze at least two different dependent variables for your other two analyses? a. Note: using a t-Test to analyze a question Like #3) and an ANOVA to once again analyze question #3 does NOT count as two different DVs. It is the same DV analyzed twice. Make sure to look at two different DVs

4. Did you mention both the IV and the DV by name when talking about your analysis?

5. Did you include means and standard deviations within parentheses for each level of your independent variable?

6. Did you italicize the letters F, t, p, M, SD, and X2 (where appropriate)?

7. Did you round ALL numbers to two decimal places (with the exception of the p value, which can go as low as p < .001 or p = .001).

Yes

No

Discussion Section (New Information in this section)

1. Do you have the word “Discussion” centered and in bold, immediately following the results section?

2. Did you remind your reader of your hypothesis?

3. Did you mention whether you supported or did not support your hypothesis?

Yes

No

Appendix Section – Study One (New Information in this section)

1. Do you have the word “Appendix” centered on each Appendix page, followed by a description of the appendix content, immediately following the results section?

2. In Appendix A (Demographics), do you have SPSS tables for gender, ethnicity, and age? (Note: Age might be in a general “statistics” table, but you should have specific frequency tables for both gender and ethnicity)

3. In Appendix B (Chi Square), do you have the crosstabs table (with percentages) plus the chi square test (with Pearson)?

4. In Appendix C (ANOVA), do you have the descriptives table, the ANOVA table, and the post hoc table for your first dependent variable?

5. In Appendix D (ANOVA or t-Test), do you have the descriptives table, ANOVA (or t-Test) table, and post hoc table (for the ANOVA) for your second dependent variable?

6. Do the analyses in Appendix C and D focus on DIFFERENT dependent variables? (Make sure you answer YES on this one!)

Yes

No

Writing Quality

1. Did you proofread your paper, go to the writing center, go to the research methods help center, or use the Pearson writer to make sure your paper flows well?

2. Did you use the past tense (which is recommended, since your papers in this class will reflect work you already did rather than work you will do)?

3. Did you use a scientific / objective terms like “people”, “participants”. “users”, “readers”, etc. (as opposed to subjective words like “you”, “we”, “me”, “I”, or “us”, etc.)?

Running head:

COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING

1

4

COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING: APPOINTING BLAME

11

COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING

Comment by Ryan Winter: Do you know how to enter a header? Click on the “Insert” menu at the top of word, click on “Header”, and then type in the header whatever you want. There is even a box that you can check that allows you to have a different header on the first page than subsequent pages.

Counterfactual Thinking: Appointing Blame Comment by Ryan Winter: The title page here is essentially the same one from Paper I. It has the title (in APA format), author name, and university affiliation.
Want my advice? If you did well on the Paper I title page, reuse it!

Former Student

Florida International University

Methods Comment by Ryan Winter: The word Method here is centered and bolded, as is recommended by the APA

Participants Comment by Ryan Winter: Participant (also bolded) is flush left

One hundred and twenty six students from Florida International University were randomly selected to participate in our study. Of these 126 participants, 37% (n = 47) were male and 63% (n = 79) were female. Ages ranged from a minimum of 17 to a maximum of 58 with an average of 22.32 years (SD = 6.30). Our sample population consisted of 68.3% Hispanic Americans (n = 86), 8.7% African Americans (n = 11), 19% Caucasians (n = 24), 1.6% Asians (n = 2), and 2.4% who did not specify their ethnicity (n = 3). See Appendix A. Comment by Ryan Winter: When a number starts a sentence, spell out the number Comment by Ryan Winter: Note the mean and standard deviation here, which is helpful for knowing about the makeup of the sample. The mean, of course, is the average Comment by Ryan Winter: Make sure to provide your demographics charts in your appendix. I expect to see one for gender, one for age, and one for ethnicity

Materials and Procedure Comment by Ryan Winter: Also bolded and flush left. You will notice that this author combined materials and procedures, which was good for this simple study. She could have separated them, though, and talked about the taxi scenario and questionnaires in a “materials” section and the procedure separately in the “procedure” section. I like this combined choice, though, for this design.

In accordance with the standardized guidelines for informed consent, prospective participants were notified of the potential risks and benefits of participating in the study before being introduced to the research material. If the student verbally agreed to participate, he or she was given one of three different documents, each of which consisted of four parts or sections. In part one of the study, the participant read a short scenario concerning a paraplegic couple, Tina and Eugene, who requested a taxi for a night out with friends. Each of the three documents depicted the same initial situation with alternate conditions (changeable, unchangeable, or neutral) that ultimately led to different outcomes of events. Comment by Ryan Winter: Noting the IV helps a lot. You can tell the author knows what his IV is. There is only one, with three levels

In the changeable condition, the taxi driver arrived to pick up the couple, only to promptly decline their fare upon seeing that they were both paraplegic. Without enough time to call for another taxi, Tina and Eugene decided to take Tina’s car, which was handicap equipped. In order to reach their destination, they had to cross a bridge that had been weakened the night before due to a severe storm. The damaged bridge collapsed mere minutes before the couple reached it. Unable to see the missing portion of the bridge in the night, Tina and Eugene drove off the road, into the river below, and drowned. The taxi driver, who had left 15 minutes earlier, managed to make it safely across, before the collapse. In the unchangeable condition, the situation remained mostly the same with the exception that the taxi driver arrived at the bridge after it had collapsed and plummeted into the water as well. He managed to make it out of the car and swim to safety, but Tina and Eugene drowned. In the neutral condition, the taxi arrived to pick up the couple but promptly refused their fare as soon as he realized that they were both paraplegic. In this condition, the taxi driver did eventually agree to take Tina and Eugene to their destination downtown, albeit after much argument. Due to the recently collapsed bridge, the taxi driver drove his passengers and himself off the road and into the river below. He barely managed to make it out of the car before drowning. Tina and Eugene’s outcome remained the same. Comment by Ryan Winter: Notice how thorough the description of the scenario is here. If you wanted to replicate this study, you would know exactly what to do because the author tells you exactly what she did. Make sure the description of your IV is equally clear.

After reading one of the scenarios described above, the participant continued on to the remainder of the study, which was composed of a series of open, partially open, and close-ended questions. In part two, the student participating in the study was asked to procure as many ‘If Only’ statements as possible, meaning that they had to list all the factors they could think of that could have possibly changed the outcome of the event. In part three, the participant was presented with a series of questions about their thoughts regarding the specific situation they read about. After reading each question, the participant was asked to record his or her response in a scale of one to nine. These questions included how avoidable they thought the accident was (1 = not at all avoidable, 9 = very avoidable), the causal role of the taxi driver in the couple’s death (1 = not at all causal, 9 = the most important cause), their thoughts on how much control the taxi driver had (1 = no control, 9 = complete control), the negligence of the taxi driver (1 = not at all negligent, 9 = completely negligent), how much money for damages the taxi driver was responsible for (1 = no money, 9 = as much as possible), the foreseeability of the couple’s death (1 = not at all foreseeable, 9 = completely foreseeable), and how much blame the taxi driver deserved for the event (1 = no blame at all, 9 = total blame). The last question of part three was a yes or no question that asked the participant whether the taxi driver agreed to drive the couple or not. This final question served as an attention check, which informed us if the participant was actually attentive to the study and allowed us to exclude potentially misrepresentative responses form our data. Part four asked for the participant’s demographic information, including gender, age, ethnicity, their first language, and whether they were a student at Florida International University. Concluding the study, the participant was debriefed on his or her contribution to the study as well as our insights on counterfactual thinking and our main hypothesis. Comment by Ryan Winter: You know exactly what the DVs are here, and you know the range for each scale. This is VERY important. If you tell me the scale was 1 to 9 but that is it, I won’t know if 1 is a good score or a bad score. Does 9 mean they could avoid it or they could not avoid it? I need to see both the scale AND the labels for the DV to make sense Comment by Ryan Winter: You can see her procedure, right! Very clear, very step-by-step

Although we had several dependent variables, our primary focus involved the perceived blameworthiness of the taxi driver, the number of ‘If Only’ statements the participants could create, and the manipulation check regarding whether the driver agreed to take the couple. We hypothesized that participants would find the taxi driver more blameworthy for the couple’s death in the changeable condition, since he refused to drive Tina and Eugene while safely passing over the bridge himself. We also predicted that the participants in the changeable condition would generate more counterfactual (‘If Only’) statements than in the unchangeable or neutral conditions.

Results Comment by Ryan Winter: Results is centered and bold. The results section comes right after the methods – there is no page break

Using survey condition (changeable vs. unchangeable vs. neutral) as our independent variable and whether participants recalled whether the taxi driver picked up the paraplegic couple as the dependent variable, we ran a manipulation check in which we saw a significant effect, X2(2) = 93.95, p < .001. Participants in the changeable and unchangeable conditions correctly said the taxi did not pick up the couple (95.2% and 90.5%, respectively) while few participants in the neutral condition said the driver picked up the couple (4.8%). Phi showed a large effect. This indicates that participants did pay attention to whether the taxi driver picked up the couple. See Appendix B. Comment by Ryan Winter: The chi square here is useful for data that is nominal in nature (that is, there is no numerical difference between factors). Here, they either read about a taxi picking up the couple or they didn’t. We cannot look at a mean or average value here (what is the average between yes and no?), so the chi square looks at the number of people who say yes and the number who say no. Here, we want the participants in some conditions to say yes (if the taxi picked up the couple) and no (if he didn’t pick them up) Comment by Ryan Winter: I’ll need to see the tables for the crosstabs in the appendix as well. Include both the crosstabs table and the chi square table and make sure the numbers in the paragraph align with the numbers in the table

For our main analysis, our first One-Way ANOVA test revealed significant differences among our independent variable, the scenario conditions (changeable, unchangeable, or neutral) and our dependent variable, perceived blameworthiness of the taxi driver, F(2, 122) = 3.55, p = .032. A subsequent Tukey post hoc test supported our hypothesis by demonstrating that participants were more likely to blame the taxi driver in the changeable condition (M = 4.51, SD = 2.06) than in the unchangeable condition (M = 3.38, SD = 2.14).. However, there were no significant difference for perceived blame between the neutral condition (M = 4.36, SD = 2.11) and either the changeable or unchangeable conditions. These results indicate that in situations where the outcome is perceived as mutable (changeable), individuals are more likely to assign blame to the actor who could have acted differently (unchangeable). See Appendix C. Comment by Ryan Winter: A One Way ANOVA is appropriate here since there are three levels to the single IV and the DV is on an interval scale (it ranges from 1 to 9) Comment by Ryan Winter: The student here provided an exact p value. This is acceptable, though you can also use p < .05, p > .05, or p < .01 where appropriate Comment by Ryan Winter: As you can see, this student did find significance, so she ran post hoc tests on the ANOVA using Tukey. But what if there was no significance,? Well, look what happens in the next ANOVA! Comment by Ryan Winter: For this appendix, include the descriptives, ANOVA, and post hoc tables from SPSS

We were also interested in the number of ‘If Only’ statements generated for each condition. We ran a One-Way ANOVA test using the different conditions (changeable, unchangeable, or neutral) as our independent variable, and the number of counterfactuals produced as our dependent variable. The results revealed that the relationship between condition and number of ‘If Only’ statements produced was not significant, F(2, 123) = 1.79, p = .171. Our initial prediction that participants would develop more counterfactuals in the changeable condition was not supported since the number of counterfactuals generated in the changeable condition (M = 5.41, SD = 2.21), the unchangeable condition (M = 4.57, SD = 2.04), and the neutral condition (M = 4.88, SD = 1.85) did not differ. Since the p-value for the ANOVA test was not significant, there was no need to run post hoc tests. See Appendix D. Comment by Ryan Winter: So this student ran a second ANOVA, which I think is best. But since the dependent variable used here was scaled (confidence, which is on a 1 to 9 scale), the student could have just as easily run a t-Test focusing on only two levels of the IV. Let me show you what that might look like.
“We ran a t-Test looking only at the changeable and unchangeable conditions as our independent variable and number of If Only statements generated as our dependent variable. The t-Test was not significant, t(72) = 1.76, p > .05. Participants did not generate any more counterfactuals in the changeable condition (M = 5.56, SD = 2.76) than in the unchangeable condition (M = 4.36, SD = 2.06).”
I could do something similar comparing the changeable and neutral conditions with a t-Test or comparing the neutral and unchangeable conditions, but running three t-Tests is a lot. Much easier to do it with one ANOVA, which looks at all three comparisons at the same time! Comment by Ryan Winter: Even though the ANOVA was not significant, I’d still like you to provide the means and standard deviations for the analysis

Finally, we ran an independent samples t-Test with the changeable and unchangeable conditions only and “How avoidable was the accident” as the dependent variable, which was significant, t(82) = 2.71, p < .01. Participants thought the accident was more avoidable in the changeable condition (M = 5.31, SD = 1.77) than in the unchangeable condition (M = 4.21, SD = 1.85). See Appendix E. Comment by Ryan Winter: Please note that some studies will include a t-Test and some will not. I am providing a t-Test analysis here to give you an example of how to write up a t-Test in your paper, but you may or may not use a t-Test in your own study analysis

Discussion Comment by Ryan Winter: Your discussion does not need to be extensive, but I do want you to note whether you supported or did not support your hypothesis and provide some possible reasons for your findings. You can make some educated guesses about what might be going on, but make them reasonable!

We predicted that participants would place more blame on an actor whose behavior led to an undesirable outcome (death) when that actor could have acted differently primarily because these participants would generate more “If Only” counterfactual statements that would lead them to see the outcome could have been avoided. Conversely, we predicted that participants who read about an undesirable outcome that could not have been avoided would assign less blame to the actor and would think of fewer counterfactual “If Only” statements. Results partially supported these predictions, as we did find more blame for in the changeable condition compared to the unchangeable (though neither differed from the neutral condition), and they thought the accident was more avoidable in the changeable condition than in the unchangeable condition. However, the number of counterfactual statements that participants generated did not differ among our three conditions. It could be that participants were unfamiliar with the counterfactual task, which requires some deep thinking, though on a more unconscious level they could have seen the changeable condition as evidencing more elements of blame. This begs the question: what if participants were forced to think deeper? This is the focus of our second study. Comment by Ryan Winter: This question here is actually a lead-in to the student’s next study. Your own methods, results, and discussion paper can end here, but keep in mind that your final paper is only halfway done right now! In Paper III, IV, and V, you will help design a follow-up study to your first study, so as you write this paper try to think about what you would do differently and what you might add in a follow-up study.

Appendix A – Demographics – Study One Comment by Ryan Winter: Don’t forget to add your appendices to the paper. I need to see one for each analysis (demographics, the chi square, your first DV ANOVA, and your second DV ANOVA). Make sure they are properly labeled and that the numbers in your tables align with the numbers in your results section
Also note that normally you would not submit SPSS tables to a journal. You can submit tables and figures, but not SPSS tables. For this class, though, I want to make sure you did the interpretation correctly and looked at the right tables, so I want you to include the actual SPSS output in a series of appendices. Comment by Ryan Winter: To add these charts, simply go into your SPSS output. You can right-click on the table and then copy it. Then just paste it into your appendix!
Alternatively, you can use the “Snipping tool” function available on most computers. (Do a search for it!). This allows you to draw a virtual box around text and then copy it like a picture. Then just paste the picture into the appendix
Finally, your last option is to do the work by hand. Insert a table with rows and columns and transfer over the information. This is the hard way, though. Both of the options above took me less than a minute. Recreating a table manually will take a much longer time!

Appendix B – Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study One

Appendix C – ANOVA Blame – Study One Comment by Ryan Winter: Make sure to give a good description of YOUR dependent variable. In this paper, she looked at blame as a DV, so she put that word here. Use YOUR dependent variable in the description

Appendix D – ANOVA Number of Counterfactuals – Study One

Appendix E – t-Test “Was the accident avoidable?” – Study One Comment by Ryan Winter: Note that you may not run a t-Test in your study. If you do, make sure to include both the group statistics and the independent samples t-Test tables!

Research Study – Florida International University – Spring, 2020

Part I
: Imagine you saw the following Facebook Page. Carefully read EVERYTHING on this page, as we will ask you about your impressions of Abigail Foster (the Facebook owner) on the next page of this survey.

Abigail Foster

Part II: Without looking back, please rate your impressions of Abigail Foster’s test-taking behavior below

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. Abigail’s behavior was wrong

2. Abigail’s behavior was understandable

3. Abigail’s behavior was reasonable

4. Abigail’s behavior was unethical

5. Abigail’s behavior was immoral

6. Abigail’s behavior was appropriate

7. Abigail’s behavior was unacceptable

Part III: Without looking back, please rate how YOU would advise Abigail, rate how YOU would respond if you mistakenly received the answer key from the professor, and then generally rate Abigail

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. I would advise Abigail to keep silent

2. I would try to comfort Abigail

3. I would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave her

4. If I received the answers, I would keep silent

5. If I received the answers, I would confess

6. Abigail seems warm

7. Abigail seems good-natured

8. Abigail seems confident

9. Abigail seems competitive

10. Abigail seems sincere

11. Abigail seems moral

12. Abigail seems competent

Part IV: Please provide the following demographic information. Note: you can leave blank any question you feel uncomfortable answering.
1. What is your gender (Mark one with an X)? _____ Male _____ Female
2. What is your age? __________
3. What is your race/ethnicity? (Mark one with an X):
___ Caucasian ___ Hispanic American ____ Native Indian ___ African American
___ Asian American Other: __________________ (Please Indicate)
4. Is English your first language? (Mark one with an X): _____ Yes _____ No
If no, what is your first language? __________________
5. Are you a student at FIU (Mark one with an X): _____ Yes ______ No
6. What is your relationship status? _____ Single / No Relationship _____ In a relationship
Part V: Without looking back, what general feedback did Abigail’s friends give her? (Mark one with an X)

___ The feedback supported her behavior ___ The feedback opposed her behavior ___ Feedback was mixed
OC

Research Study – Florida International University – Spring, 2020

Part I
: Imagine you saw the following Facebook Page. Carefully read EVERYTHING on this page, as we will ask you about your impressions of Abigail Foster (the Facebook owner) on the next page of this survey.

Abigail Foster

Part II: Without looking back, please rate your impressions of Abigail Foster’s test-taking behavior below

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. Abigail’s behavior was wrong

2. Abigail’s behavior was understandable

3. Abigail’s behavior was reasonable

4. Abigail’s behavior was unethical

5. Abigail’s behavior was immoral

6. Abigail’s behavior was appropriate

7. Abigail’s behavior was unacceptable

Part III: Without looking back, please rate how YOU would advise Abigail, rate how YOU would respond if you mistakenly received the answer key from the professor, and then generally rate Abigail

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. I would advise Abigail to keep silent

2. I would try to comfort Abigail

3. I would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave her

4. If I received the answers, I would keep silent

5. If I received the answers, I would confess

6. Abigail seems warm

7. Abigail seems good-natured

8. Abigail seems confident

9. Abigail seems competitive

10. Abigail seems sincere

11. Abigail seems moral

12. Abigail seems competent

Part IV: Please provide the following demographic information. Note: you can leave blank any question you feel uncomfortable answering.
1. What is your gender (Mark one with an X)? _____ Male _____ Female
2. What is your age? __________
3. What is your race/ethnicity? (Mark one with an X):
___ Caucasian ___ Hispanic American ____ Native Indian ___ African American
___ Asian American Other: __________________ (Please Indicate)
4. Is English your first language? (Mark one with an X): _____ Yes _____ No
If no, what is your first language? __________________
5. Are you a student at FIU (Mark one with an X): _____ Yes ______ No
6. What is your relationship status? _____ Single / No Relationship _____ In a relationship
Part V: Without looking back, what general feedback did Abigail’s friends give her? (Mark one with an X)

___ The feedback supported her behavior ___ The feedback opposed her behavior ___ Feedback was mixed
OC

Research Study – Florida International University – Spring, 2020

Part I
: Imagine you saw the following Facebook Page. Carefully read EVERYTHING on this page, as we will ask you about your impressions of Abigail Foster (the Facebook owner) on the next page of this survey.

Abigail Foster

Part II: Without looking back, please rate your impressions of Abigail Foster’s test-taking behavior below

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. Abigail’s behavior was wrong

2. Abigail’s behavior was understandable

3. Abigail’s behavior was reasonable

4. Abigail’s behavior was unethical

5. Abigail’s behavior was immoral

6. Abigail’s behavior was appropriate

7. Abigail’s behavior was unacceptable

Part III: Without looking back, please rate how YOU would advise Abigail, rate how YOU would respond if you mistakenly received the answer key from the professor, and then generally rate Abigail

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. I would advise Abigail to keep silent

2. I would try to comfort Abigail

3. I would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave her

4. If I received the answers, I would keep silent

5. If I received the answers, I would confess

6. Abigail seems warm

7. Abigail seems good-natured

8. Abigail seems confident

9. Abigail seems competitive

10. Abigail seems sincere

11. Abigail seems moral

12. Abigail seems competent

Part IV: Please provide the following demographic information. Note: you can leave blank any question you feel uncomfortable answering.
1. What is your gender (Mark one with an X)? _____ Male _____ Female
2. What is your age? __________
3. What is your race/ethnicity? (Mark one with an X):
___ Caucasian ___ Hispanic American ____ Native Indian ___ African American
___ Asian American Other: __________________ (Please Indicate)
4. Is English your first language? (Mark one with an X): _____ Yes _____ No
If no, what is your first language? __________________
5. Are you a student at FIU (Mark one with an X): _____ Yes ______ No
6. What is your relationship status? _____ Single / No Relationship _____ In a relationship
Part V: Without looking back, what general feedback did Abigail’s friends give her? (Mark one with an X)

___ The feedback supported her behavior ___ The feedback opposed her behavior ___ Feedback was mixed
SC

Study Set-Up

Main Theme and Three Level Independent Variable: Morally ambiguous situation presented via a Facebook post with the female user asking for her friends’ opinions regarding her actions. In some, there is 100% consensus favorable to what she did; in another there is 100% consensus unfavorable to what she did; in the last there is a mixture of positive and negative feedback.

Moral Dilemma: The user relates a story that the instructor handed out exams in class in a class where she was really struggling with the content, but must have included the answer key in the version she got. She didn’t say anything, and simply copied down the correct answers (though she missed a few so it wasn’t so obvious she was cheating). She still got the highest grade by far in the class. The instructor curves the scores, so she knows that her benefit hurt other students. She feels bad about it, and wants to know if students think she is a terrible person and whether she should tell the instructor what happened.

Dependent variables:

1. Warm-Cold Scale

2. Accepting / Rejecting what she did

3. Self-Ratings

Abigail’s Post

So, I did something … well, something I’m kind of embarrassed about. I’ve been having a hard time in my statistics class, and I knew I was going to fail the exam. I studied for it so hard, too! Well, the prof handed out the exam, and he must have made a mistake, because when I got my test, it turned out it was (wait for it!) … the answer key. I know, I know. I should have turned it in, but I REALLY needed to pass the exam. I used the answer key, and got the best score on the exam. Turns out the rest of the class did really bad, and the prof said he had planned to curve the grade. However, since someone got a perfect score, there was no curve needed. I’m sure if I’d done worse, the curve would have brought some other student scores up. So am I a bad person? Should I tell the prof what happened. I don’t know. Help!

Positive Feedback (Consensus)

1. Wow, Abigail, sounds like you really lucked out there. Take the grade. You “earned” it!

2. I agree. You got lucky! Incredibly lucky! I’d probably take the grade, too. I’ve taken that class, and it is impossibly hard. Anything you can do to make it a bit easier on yourself is worth it.

3. Listen, it’s not like you intended to cheat going into the exam. The prof should have checked to make sure he was only handing out blank exams. His mistake – your big break! Take the grade

4. Yeah, I’m of the same opinion. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth! Take the win

5.

You know that if you didn’t get the answer key, another student would have and then THEY would have the highest grade and you’d lose out in the curve. Don’t feel too bad

6. I’ve read the other comments on your wall, Abigail, and I think they gave you some good advice. If you go to the prof now, you might get in real trouble, and it’s not like you went in planning to use the answer key.

7. What can I say that hasn’t already been said? Their loss – your gain!

8. If it were me, I’d tell the prof … NOT! Don’t be crazy, Abby. You might blow the next exam, so it will all even out in the end

Negative Feedback (Consensus)

1. Wow, Abigail, though it sounds like you really lucked out there, you can’t take the grade. You didn’t really “earn” it!

2. I agree. You got lucky! Dishonorably lucky. I’d never take the grade. I’ve taken that class, and it is impossibly hard, but taking the easy way out isn’t worth it.

3. Listen, it’s not like you intended to cheat going into the exam. The prof should have checked to make sure he was only handing out blank exams. His mistake – but your integrity. Don’t take the grade

4. Yeah, I’m of the same opinion. Look this gift horse in the mouth! It’s a loser

5. You know that if you didn’t get the answer key, another student would have and then THEY would have the highest grade and you’d lose out in the curve. How would you feel then?

6. I’ve read the other comments on your wall, Abigail, and I think they gave you some good advice. If you don’t go to the prof now, you might get in real trouble later. Just tell him it’s not like you went in planning to use the answer key.

7. What can I say that hasn’t already been said? The whole class lost – only you gained.

8. If it were me, I’d tell the prof … DEFINITELY! Don’t be crazy, Abby. You might ace the next exam, so it will all even out in the end if you tell

Middling Feedback (No Consensus)

1. Wow, Abigail, though it sounds like you really lucked out there, you can’t take the grade. You didn’t really “earn” it!

2. I disagree. You got lucky! Incredibly lucky! I’d probably take the grade, too. I’ve taken that class, and it is impossibly hard. Anything you can do to make it a bit easier on yourself is worth it.

3. Listen, it’s not like you intended to cheat going into the exam. The prof should have checked to make sure he was only handing out blank exams. His mistake – but your integrity. Don’t take the grade
4. Yeah, I’m of the same opinion. Look this gift horse in the mouth! It’s a loser
5. You know that if you didn’t get the answer key, another student would have and then THEY would have the highest grade and you’d lose out in the curve. Don’t feel too bad

6. I’ve read the other comments on your wall, Abigail, and I think they gave you some good advice. If you go to the prof now, you might get in real trouble, and it’s not like you went in planning to use the answer key.
7. What can I say that hasn’t already been said? The whole class lost – only you gained.
8. If it were me, I’d tell the prof … NOT! Don’t be crazy, Abby. You might blow the next exam, so it will all even out in the end

https://www.classtools.net/FB/1461-xvmsXS

A

N

OVA

Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong

Sum of Squares

df

Mean

Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

9.434

2

4.717

5.811

.004

Within Groups

107.970

133

.812

Total

117.404

135

Descriptives

Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong
N
Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Support

46

3.3261

.73195

.10792

3.1087

3.5434

2.00

6.00

Oppose

41

3.9512

.94740

.14796

3.6522

4.2503

1.00

6.00

Mixed

49

3.7959

.99957

.14280

3.5088

4.0830

2.00
6.00
Total

136

3.6838

.93256

.07997

3.5257

3.8420

1.00
6.00

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong
Tukey HSD
(I) Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed)
(J) Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed)
Mean Difference (I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.
95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Support
Oppose
-.62513*
.19352
.004
-1.0838
-.1665
Mixed
-.46983*
.18497
.033
-.9083
-.0314
Oppose
Support
.62513*
.19352
.004
.1665
1.0838
Mixed
.15530
.19070
.695
-.2967
.6073
Mixed
Support
.46983*
.18497
.033
.0314
.9083
Oppose
-.15530
.19070
.695
-.6073
.2967
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Homogeneous Subsets

Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong
Tukey HSDa,b
Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed)
N
Subset for alpha = 0.05

1
2
Support
46
3.3261
Mixed
49
3.7959
Oppose
41
3.9512
Sig.
1.000
.692
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 45.087.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.
ONEWAY PartIIIKeepSilentAbigail BY IVCondition
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING ANALYSIS
/POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA(0.05).

Frequencies

Statistics
Race
N
Valid
140
Missing
0

Race

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Caucasian
36
25.7
25.7
25.7
Hispanic
56
40.0
40.0
65.7
Native Indian
3
2.1
2.1
67.9
African American
24
17.1
17.1
85.0
Asian American
9
6.4
6.4
91.4
Other
12
8.6
8.6
100.0
Total
140
100.0
100.0

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=PartIVGender
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies

Statistics
Gender (1 = M, 2 = F)
N
Valid
135
Missing
5

Gender (1 = M, 2 = F)

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Male
62
44.3
45.9
45.9
Female
73
52.1
54.1
100.0
Total
135
96.4
100.0
Missing
System
5
3.6

Total
140
100.0

DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=IVCondition
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX

Descriptive Statistics

N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed)
140
1.00
3.00
2.0214
.82643
Valid N (listwise)
140

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid
Missing
Total
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Attention Check (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed)
136
97.1%
4
2.9%
140
100.0%

Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Attention Check (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Crosstabulation

Attention Check (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed)
Total
Feedback supported her behavior
Feedback opposed her behavior
Feedback was mixed
Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed)
Support
Count
37
1
7
45

% within Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed)
82.2%
2.2%
15.6%
100.0%
Oppose
Count
1
35
7
43

% within Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed)
2.3%
81.4%
16.3%
100.0%
Mixed
Count
5
4
39
48

% within Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed)
10.4%
8.3%
81.3%
100.0%
Total
Count
43
40
53
136
% within Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed)
31.6%
29.4%
39.0%
100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value
df
Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
147.039a
4
.000
Likelihood Ratio
142.630
4
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
62.028
1
.000
N of Valid Cases
136

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12.65.

Symmetric Measures

Value
Approximate Significance
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
1.040
.000
Cramer’s V
.735
.000
N of Valid Cases
136

T-TEST GROUPS=IVCondition(1 2)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=PartIIISameAdvice
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).

T-Test

Group Statistics

Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed)
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Part III: I would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave her
Support
46
4.3478
.70608
.10411
Oppose
45
4.4000
.78044
.11634

Independent Samples Test

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means

F
Sig.
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)

Part III: I would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave her
Equal variances assumed
.759
.386
-.335
89
.739

Equal variances not assumed

-.334
87.697
.739