Please find below the second part of a paper I already started. I Started this part too and added all the charts that it asks for, just missing all the methods part. 

Attached you will find a sample paper that can work as guide and other resources that will be helpful. Also the rubric. Everything is APA 7th edition

StimulusMaterials and Researcher Instructions – Spring, 2021 – Fake News Study

Instructions: This Spring, we are going to run a series of studies looking at how comments regarding “fake news” on Facebook impact participant ratings of Facebook users. Our independent variable in the study (the variable that we control) is how a Facebook user responds when others call a story the user shared “fake news”. That is, the fake news poster will either politely agree that the story was fake, politely disagree that the story was fake, or rudely disagree that the story was fake. We will measure what participants think about our fake news poster as well as the fake news itself.

1). For your first experimental study, you will play the role of researcher, and you will collect data from three different participants (though you will combine your data with other class members, so your final data set will have 100 to 140 people!). There are two phases to this study. In the first phase, you will orally ask participants if they are willing to participate in a research study. In the second phase, participants will complete a five-part survey. In Part One, participants read the Facebook page for Corey McMillan, getting some general information about Corey and looking at a recent Facebook story that Corey shared as well as several comments regarding the validity of that story. In Part Two, participants will rate their impressions of Corey (Note that the name “Corey” is gender-neutral. This way all participants can complete ratings about Corey that don’t rely on gender expectations). In Part Three, participants will rate Corey’s comments as well as the comments of two other Facebook users. In Part Four, participants will complete demographic questions. Finally, in Part Five, participants will tell us what they recall about Corey’s final response. To run this study, use the following steps:

A). Your first task is to approach three different participants (not all at the same time!). Preferably, they will be people that you do not know, and cannot be taking a psychology research methods class during the Summer or Fall semester of 2020 or the current Spring 2021 semester. Please DO NOT complete this study yourself, and if possible use only FIU students as participants (no family / friends – You will use them in a later replication study toward the end of the Spring semester, and they cannot participate twice). There are 48 students in our class, so with each getting data from 3 people, our final sample will be around 140 participants total.

1). Note that there will be a “Covid alternative” to data collection if you are unable to collect data yourself. Ask your instructor about that option, but there is a good chance that you will already see some pre-completed “Covid Alternative” documents in Canvas.

2). Even if you use the “Covid Alternative”, read the information below, as it will help you write your future papers. You don’t need to mention that you used the Covid Alternative, but you will pretend like you did collection the information yourself.

B). Phase I: Informed Consent

1). Informed Consent:

· Ask the potential participant if he or she is willing to participate in a study for your research methods class. You will get their informed consent verbally. Tell them:

“Hello, I am conducting a study for my research methods class. I was wondering if you would be willing to participate. The study takes about five to ten minutes. There are no risks to participating, and the main benefit is that I can complete my class assignment. Will you participate?”

· An oral Yes or No response is fine. If they say no, thank them and find a different participant. If they say yes, move to the next step (Phase II – Questionnaire).

C). Phase II: “Questionnaire”

1). General Instructions

· After getting participant’s oral informed consent, randomly give them
ONE
of the three “Research Study – Florida International University – Spring 2021” documents. These three documents contain our independent variable for the study (Again, note that we have one independent variable with three levels). One third of our research participants will be in the “Rude Disagree” condition, one third will be in the “Polite Disagree” condition, and one third will be in the “Polite Agree” condition (More on this below!)

· Ask participants to follow the instructions at the top of the questionnaire. Tell them to read EVERYTHING on the Facebook page, as they will answer questions about it later and will need to do so through memory. They can move through the five “Parts” in this survey at their own pace. Make sure they complete all questionnaire parts (though they can leave some demographic questions blank if they do not want to provide the details).

2). Questionnaire

· In Part I, we ask participants to look at the Facebook “About” page for a person named Corey McMillan. The page contains a picture masthead (full of American flags) and Corey’s profile picture (a silhouette of a man and woman hugging – Note that it is not specified which person is “Corey”, so Corey could be either the man or the woman). The page also includes a generic “Intro” section, “Photos”, “Friends”, and “Life Events” on the left side of the page. On the right side of the page is a comment from Corey followed by a story Corey shared (“FCC forces CNN to change its accreditation from “news” to “entertainment”). The story is followed by two comments by other people (Peyton Halliburton and Riley Anderson) who both say that the CNN story Corey shared is fake news. Please note that EVERYTHING on Corey’s Facebook page up to this point is identical across all three of our conditions (but don’t tell participants that!). So what differs? Corey’s last post at the bottom of the page.

· In Condition RD, or the “Rude Disagree” Condition, Corey responds in a rude manner to Peyton and Riley, disagreeing that the story is fake. Corey mocks the two commenters (who called his shared story “fake”) by going on a rude tirade. Specifically, Corey says:

· “You liberal idiots never think, do you? Of course the government can regulate cable news networks when it comes to news items. Like I said, look it up if you don’t believe me (If you can pull your heads out of your butts long enough to do a quick google search you’ll find out for yourselves!). The US government holds news stations to really high standards when it comes to accuracy and truthfulness. You morons can’t call the story I shared fake just because it doesn’t support your own point of view.”

· In Condition PD, or the “Polite Disagree” Condition, Corey responds in a more polite manner, though still disagrees that the story is fake. Corey says:

· “You gave me some stuff to think about. Unfortunately, you guys are wrong. Of course the government can regulate cable networks when it comes to news items. Like I said, look it up if you don’t believe me (If you do a quick google search I’m sure you’ll find that out for yourselves!). The US government holds news stations to really high standards when it comes to accuracy and truthfulness. You can’t call the story I shared fake news just because it doesn’t support your own point of view.”

· In Condition PA, or the “Polite Agree” Condition, Corey responds in a polite manner and agrees that the story is fake. Corey says:

· “You gave me some stuff to think about. Unfortunately, I was wrong. The government doesn’t regulate cable news networks. I told you to look it up if you didn’t believe me (Then I did a quick google search myself and found out you were correct!). Although the US government should hold news stations to really high standards when it comes to accuracy and truthfulness, cable news isn’t regulated. I don’t like it when people call something fake news just because if it doesn’t support their own point of view, but in this case the story I shared was fake.”

· A quick note for you (the researcher): If you look at the bottom of the survey in the fine print Facebook information (Privacy, Terms, Advertising, etc.), you will see the letters RD, PD, or PA. Those relate to the condition for that specific survey. The RD stands for Rude Disagree, the PD stands for Polite Disagree, and the PA stands for Polite Agree. The initials will help YOU quickly know which survey is which, though the initials should be meaningless for participants. No need to mention this in your future papers, but it is a god way to keep track of your surveys

· In Part II, participants will give their impressions of Corey McMillan (the original Facebook user and fake news sharer). There are eight statements about Corey that participants are asked to agree or disagree with. All eight are rated on an interval scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). These statements include, “Corey seems like a reasonable person”, “Corey seems like a polite person”, etc.

· Although you
can
look at any (or all) of these eight questions when you write Paper II (which focuses on the methods and results for this study), we will probably only focus on one or two. The ones I find most interesting are question #3 (“Corey seems like an open-minded person”) and question #6 (“Corey seems tolerant of opposing opinions”).

· In Part III, participants rate seven additional statements, with most focused on the Facebook comments. These questions probe into the extent to which participants thought the CNN news story was fake (before and after reading the comments), whether the participant would add their own comment if they saw the same conversation on social media, and the emotions they felt after reading Corey’s last post.

· The ones I find most interesting are question #3 (“If I saw this Facebook conversation on my own social media, I would add my own comment”) and question #7 (“I would be willing to engage in a back-and-forth conversation with Corey”).

· In Part IV, participants will complete demographic questions. Most of these items are easy to complete without violating participant’s privacy, but they will know they can leave blank any question(s) they feel uncomfortable answering.

· In Part V, participants will tell us what they recall Corey saying in response to the two people who commented on the fake news story (“Corey politely disagreed that the shared CNN story was fake”, “Corey rudely disagreed that the shared CNN story was fake”, or “Corey politely agreed that the shared CNN story was fake”).

· Unlike the statements in Parts II and III (which used interval scales, allowing us to analyze them with t-Tests or ANOVAs), the nominal scale used in Part V (three answer options in no particular order) only permit us to use a chi square analysis. We’ll discuss those more as we get to Paper Two.

D). Once participants have completed the questionnaire, debrief them regarding the study. That is, tell them about Corey’s different responses to the fake news comments as well as your main hypothesis. Read them the following:

“Thank you for participating. The purpose of this survey is to study participant impressions of “fake news” on Facebook and the comments of social media users discussing fake news. To test this, all participants read the Facebook page of a user named Corey McMillan. Corey shared a news story about the Federal Communication Commission forcing CNN to alter its accreditation license from news to entertainment. Two additional Facebook users commented on this story, noting that it was “fake news”. The main difference between study conditions was how Corey responded to these comments. For one third of our participants, Corey responded in a very rude manner, mocking and insulting the commentators while insisting that the story was not fake. One third of our participants saw a polite response from Corey, who similarly disagreed that the story was fake, but disagreed more respectfully. Finally, one third of our participants also saw a polite response from Corey, but in this final version Corey agreed that the story was fake.

In general, we predicted that participants who read about a social media user who rudely disagreed with feedback that a news story the user shared was “fake” would rate the user less favorably than participants who read about a social media user who either politely disagreed with the feedback or politely agreed with feedback, with user favorability ratings not differing between these latter two polite conditions.

More specifically, we predicted that participants who read about a social media user who rudely disagreed with feedback that a news story the user shared was “fake” would find that user less reasonable, less polite, less open-minded, less likeable, less civil, and less tolerant of opposing views, and more rude and more willing to mock other’s opinions than participants who read about a user who either politely disagreed or politely agreed with the feedback, with no differences emerging between these two polite conditions. Similarly, we predicted that participants who read a rude comment would feel more angry, less hopeful, and be less likely to engage in a conversation with the rude user and less likely to post their own comment on social media than participants who read polite comments, though no differences were expected between conditions in which the polite user agreed or disagreed that the shared story was fake.

We will test these hypotheses in our methods course this semester. Thank you for participating!

**Methods Students: Note that the underlined paragraphs above will be helpful when you write Paper I! In fact, you can use that underlined paragraphs in your first paper if you like (just copy and paste it into your hypotheses). However, the predictions ARE NOT INCLUDED in your minimum page count. That is, you can copy/paste the predictions, but they do not count in the page minimum!

Also note that in the first sentence of the last paragraph, I highlighted eight different dependent variables (reasonable, polite, open-minded, etc.). Since you are not required to analyze every dependent variable in your survey, feel free to edit this sentence to include ONLY the main dependent variable(s) that you plan to analyze (this applies mostly to Paper II when you figure out which DVs you want to focus on in your Results Section analysis). Similarly, the last sentence in the second paragraph discusses four different dependent variables (angry, hopeful, likely to engage in a conversation, and likely to post). Feel free to edit this as well. There is no point in making predictions about dependent variables that you did not actually analyze, so just focus on the two dependent variable most relevant to your own study in your predictions.)

2). Hold onto the completed questionnaires, as you will use them in an upcoming lab. You will enter data into SPSS and analyze it during your lab. Important note: Each student researcher is responsible for collecting data from three participants (one participant for each study condition – PA, PD, and RD). However, we will combine survey data from ALL students in your lab section, so your final sample will include at least 100 to 140 or so participants. In your papers (especially Paper II), you will use this total set of research participants (at least 100), NOT just the three that you collected yourself. Don’t even discuss “Three participants”, as that is not correct. Discuss ALL participants in your papers

3). One last note: Pay close attention to these instructions! You can use them as the basis for Paper II later this semester when you discuss your methods section. That being said, these instructions are too long for a methods section, and includes information you will need to omit for Paper II. When writing that paper, make sure to only report the important aspects (what you actually did in the study). Write about what you actually did in the study!

Checklist – Paper Two: 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 Please note that the 7th Edition of the American Psychological Association Publication Manual has some flexibility in terms of language, font, spacing, and other items, but that papers in this course MUST adhere to the guidelines listed before.

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 study one literature review, and 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 roughly ½ inch?

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, indents, etc.) using the professional (not student) formatting guidelines? If YES or NO, I recommend watching this video which walks you through setting up an APA formatted paper! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZTCN6yOgSg

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

Yes

No

Header

1. Is your header title in ALL CAPS, and is it a shorter version of your real title?

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

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

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

Title / Name / Institution

1. Is your title focused and short, avoiding unnecessary words and abbreviations that serve no purpose (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 should be a shorter version or your title (For example, the first few words are fine)

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

4. Is your title in bold?

5. If your title is longer than one line, is it double-spaced (like everything else in your paper)?

6. Are your name and institution correct?

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

Methods Section (New Information in this section)

Yes

No

Header

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

Yes

No

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, and 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 (callout) to Table 1 for a full list of demographic info?

6. Did you provide Table 1 (with demographic information) after the callout?

Materials and Procedure

1. Is the phrase “Materials and Procedure” flush left and in bold?

2. Did you mention informed consent? (Most likely oral consent for study one)

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

4. 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?

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

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

7. 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?

8. 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)?

9. 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?

10. 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)?

Results Section (New Information in this section)

Yes

No

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: Often your instructors prefer that you run two different ANOVAs. Ask them if they want a t-Test as one of the analysis.

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). 8. Did you provide all Tables after doing a “callout” for each? Discussion Section (New Information in this section) Yes No 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? Tables Section – Study One (New Information in this section) Yes No 1. Do you have the word “Table” centered on each Table page (followed by the next sequential number), followed by a description of the table content, immediately following the results section? 2. In Table 1 (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 Table 2 (Chi Square), do you have the crosstabs table (with percentages) plus the chi square test (with Pearson)? 4. In Table 3 (ANOVA), do you have the descriptives table, the ANOVA table, and the post hoc table for your first dependent variable? 5. In Table 4 (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 Tables 3 and 4 focus on DIFFERENT dependent variables? (Make sure you answer YES on this one!) 7. Did each table come immediately after the in-text callout? Writing Quality Yes No 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.)? Note that you can use the word “I” when referring to your own work.

COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING

1

4

COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING: APPOINTING BLAME

2

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. Alternatively, click anywhere on the top of the page and it will open the header

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). The 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 Table 1. 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

Table 1 Comment by Ryan Winter: You will have at least four tables for Study One. Label them in terms of table number (and make sure to provide a callout for the table in the results section). Tables are numbered sequentially, with the word Table flush left and in bold.

Demographics – Study One Comment by Ryan Winter: The table title is right above the table itself. It is flush left and is in italics. For Table 1, include all of your demographics (the statistics table, the gender table, and the ethnicity table). Note: We do not need to see the age table, which focuses on the age frequencies. It is better to use the mean age in the statistics table (rather than the age frequency in the age table).
Make sure each table is flush left

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). 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). Remaining questions focused on a series of statements about the taxi drive, all rated on scales ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 9 (Strongly Agree). These statements included, “The taxi driver was reckless”, “the taxi driver was patient”, “The taxi driver was careful”, and “The taxi driver was hasty”. 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 attentive to the study and allowed us to exclude potentially misrepresentative responses from our data. 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: Since these four questions all use the same 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 9 (Strongly Agree) scale, the student only provide the scale once. It gets repetitive if you add the same scale after each question.

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 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. As such, these are the only three dependent variables that we analyzed.

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%). Cramer’s V, which is most appropriate for a 3 X 2 chi square, showed a large effect. This indicates that participants did pay attention to whether the taxi driver picked up the couple. See Table 2. 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: Add in the callout “Table 2” and then add the table immediately after the callout

Table 2

Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study One

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 Table 3. 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: Again, have the callout (Table 3) followed by the actual Table 3

Table 3

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

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 Table 4. 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

Table 4

ANOVA Number of Counterfactuals – Study One

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 Table 5.

Table 5

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! Comment by Ryan Winter: If your t-Table goes onto multiple lines, that is okay. This student just deleted a few columns from the t-Test to make it fit the page, but if your t-Table goes over into other rows, that is okay.

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.

Research Study – Florida International University – Spring, 2021

Part I: Imagine you saw the following Facebook Page. Carefully read EVERYTHING on this page, as we

will ask you about your impressions on the next page of this survey.

Corey McMillan

Corey McMillan

This may not make you CNN lovers very happy!

CNN News is no longer a licensed news station according to the Federal

Communication Commission. They had to change their license from

“news” to “entertainment.” That’s right! They legally don’t have to provide

any facts in their reporting anymore. CNN is in the same category as

Saturday Night Live, Tiger King, and Swamp People.

If you don’t believe me, look it up yourself!

AmericanPolitics.com

FCC Forces CNN to change its accreditation from “news” to

“entertainment.”

Peyton Halliburton
You know the story you shared is fake news, right? I saw the same article

flagged as false the other day by independent fact checkers from Facebook.

Riley Anderson
Peyton is right. Unlike broadcast TV channels, cable news networks like Fox

News, CNN, and MSNBC aren’t “licensed” like you imply. There is no

government organization (like the FCC) that can take away a cable “news”

license because such licenses never existed for cable stations.

Corey McMillan
You gave me some stuff to think about. Unfortunately, I was wrong. The

government doesn’t regulate cable news networks. I told you to look it up if

you didn’t believe me (Then I did a quick google search myself and found out

you were correct!). Although the US government should hold news stations

to really high standards when it comes to accuracy and truthfulness, cable

news isn’t regulated. I don’t like it when people call something fake news just

because if it doesn’t support their own point of view, but in this case the story

I shared was fake.

PA

Part II: Rate your impressions of Corey McMillan, the Facebook page owner and original poster)

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Corey seems like a reasonable person

2. Corey seems like a polite person

3. Corey seems like an open-minded person

4. Corey seems to lack civility

5. Corey seems like a rude person

6. Corey seems tolerant of opposing opinions

7. Corey seems willing to mock other’s opinions

8. Corey seems like a likeable person

Part III: Rate your impressions of the comments posted on Facebook by Corey McMillan (the original

Facebook poster) and the replies by Peyton Halliburton and Riley Anderson.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Before reading the comments, I suspected the
story of “CNN losing its news license” was fake

2. After reading the comments, I believe the story
of “CNN losing its news license” is fake

3. If I saw this Facebook conversation on my own
social media, I would add my own comment

4. I think Peyton and Riley unfairly confronted
Corey in their replies to Corey’s original post

5. Reading Corey’s last post made me feel angry

6. Reading Corey’s last post made me feel hope

7. I would be willing to engage in a back-and-forth
conversation with Corey

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 political affiliation? _____ Republican _____ Democrat _______ Other

Part V: Finally, in the last comment, how did Corey respond to Peyton and Riley? (Select one)

_____ Corey rudely disagreed that the shared CNN story was fake

_____ Corey politely disagreed that the shared CNN story was fake

_____ Corey politely agreed that the shared CNN story was fake

ResearchStudy – Florida International University – Spring, 2021

Part I: Imagine you saw the following Facebook Page. Carefully read EVERYTHING on this page, as we

will ask you about your impressions on the next page of this survey.

Corey McMillan

Corey McMillan

This may not make you CNN lovers very happy!

CNN News is no longer a licensed news station according to the Federal

Communication Commission. They had to change their license from

“news” to “entertainment.” That’s right! They legally don’t have to provide

any facts in their reporting anymore. CNN is in the same category as

Saturday Night Live, Tiger King, and Swamp People.

If you don’t believe me, look it up yourself!

AmericanPolitics.com

FCC Forces CNN to change its accreditation from “news” to

“entertainment.”

Peyton Halliburton
You know the story you shared is fake news, right? I saw the same article

flagged as false the other day by independent fact checkers from Facebook.

Riley Anderson
Peyton is right. Unlike broadcast TV channels, cable news networks like Fox

News, CNN, and MSNBC aren’t “licensed” like you imply. There is no

government organization (like the FCC) that can take away a cable “news”

license because such licenses never existed for cable stations.

Corey McMillan
You liberal idiots never think, do you? Of course the government can regulate

cable news networks when it comes to news items. Like I said, look it up if

you don’t believe me (If you can pull your heads out of your butts long

enough to do a quick google search you’ll find out for yourselves!). The US

government holds news stations to really high standards when it comes to

accuracy and truthfulness. You morons can’t call the story I shared fake just

because it doesn’t support your own point of view.

RD

Part II: Rate your impressions of Corey McMillan, the Facebook page owner and original poster)

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Corey seems like a reasonable person

2. Corey seems like a polite person

3. Corey seems like an open-minded person

4. Corey seems to lack civility

5. Corey seems like a rude person

6. Corey seems tolerant of opposing opinions

7. Corey seems willing to mock other’s opinions

8. Corey seems like a likeable person

Part III: Rate your impressions of the comments posted on Facebook by Corey McMillan (the original

Facebook poster) and the replies by Peyton Halliburton and Riley Anderson.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Before reading the comments, I suspected the
story of “CNN losing its news license” was fake

2. After reading the comments, I believe the story
of “CNN losing its news license” is fake

3. If I saw this Facebook conversation on my own
social media, I would add my own comment

4. I think Peyton and Riley unfairly confronted
Corey in their replies to Corey’s original post

5. Reading Corey’s last post made me feel angry

6. Reading Corey’s last post made me feel hope

7. I would be willing to engage in a back-and-forth
conversation with Corey

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 political affiliation? _____ Republican _____ Democrat _______ Other

Part V: Finally, in the last comment, how did Corey respond to Peyton and Riley? (Select one)

_____ Corey rudely disagreed that the shared CNN story was fake

_____ Corey politely disagreed that the shared CNN story was fake

_____ Corey politely agreed that the shared CNN story was fake

Research Study – Florida International University – Spring, 2021

Part I: Imagine you saw the following Facebook Page. Carefully read EVERYTHING on this page, as we

will ask you about your impressions on the next page of this survey.

Corey McMillan

Corey McMillan

This may not make you CNN lovers very happy!

CNN News is no longer a licensed news station according to the Federal

Communication Commission. They had to change their license from

“news” to “entertainment.” That’s right! They legally don’t have to provide

any facts in their reporting anymore. CNN is in the same category as

Saturday Night Live, Tiger King, and Swamp People.

If you don’t believe me, look it up yourself!

AmericanPolitics.com

FCC Forces CNN to change its accreditation from “news” to

“entertainment.”

Peyton Halliburton
You know the story you shared is fake news, right? I saw the same article

flagged as false the other day by independent fact checkers from Facebook.

Riley Anderson
Peyton is right. Unlike broadcast TV channels, cable news networks like Fox

News, CNN, and MSNBC aren’t “licensed” like you imply. There is no

government organization (like the FCC) that can take away a cable “news”

license because such licenses never existed for cable stations.

Corey McMillan
You gave me some stuff to think about. Unfortunately, you guys are wrong.

Of course the government can regulate cable networks when it comes to news

items. Like I said, look it up if you don’t believe me (If you do a quick google

search I’m sure you’ll find that out for yourselves!). The US government

holds news stations to really high standards when it comes to accuracy and

truthfulness. You can’t call the story I shared fake news just because it

doesn’t support your own point of view.

PD

Part II: Rate your impressions of Corey McMillan, the Facebook page owner and original poster)

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Corey seems like a reasonable person

2. Corey seems like a polite person

3. Corey seems like an open-minded person

4. Corey seems to lack civility

5. Corey seems like a rude person

6. Corey seems tolerant of opposing opinions

7. Corey seems willing to mock other’s opinions

8. Corey seems like a likeable person

Part III: Rate your impressions of the comments posted on Facebook by Corey McMillan (the original

Facebook poster) and the replies by Peyton Halliburton and Riley Anderson.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Before reading the comments, I suspected the
story of “CNN losing its news license” was fake

2. After reading the comments, I believe the story
of “CNN losing its news license” is fake

3. If I saw this Facebook conversation on my own
social media, I would add my own comment

4. I think Peyton and Riley unfairly confronted
Corey in their replies to Corey’s original post

5. Reading Corey’s last post made me feel angry

6. Reading Corey’s last post made me feel hope

7. I would be willing to engage in a back-and-forth
conversation with Corey

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 political affiliation? _____ Republican _____ Democrat _______ Other

Part V: Finally, in the last comment, how did Corey respond to Peyton and Riley? (Select one)

_____ Corey rudely disagreed that the shared CNN story was fake

_____ Corey politely disagreed that the shared CNN story was fake

_____ Corey politely agreed that the shared CNN story was fake

FACEBOOKRUDENESS 10

Facebook Rudeness: Is Facebook a Platform that Unites or Separates?
Andreina E. Corral B
Florida International University

Methods

Participants

There were 187 participants. Of these, 100 were male (53.5%) and 87 were female (46.5%). The age of the sample ranged from 16 to 59 (M = 25.35, SD = 9.12). This included 25.1% Caucasian (N= 45), 47.6% Hispanic (N = 89), 1.6% Native American (N = 3), 16.6% African American (N = 31), 4.3% Asian (N = 8), and 4.8% of participants reporting “Other” (N = 9)
Table 1

Demographics- Study One

Age

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

16

1

.5

.5

.5

17

3

1.6

1.6

2.1

18

18

9.6

9.6

11.8

19

11

5.9

5.9

17.6

20

16

8.6

8.6

26.2

21

28

15.0

15.0

41.2

22

19

10.2

10.2

51.3

23

28

15.0

15.0

66.3

24

8

4.3

4.3

70.6

25

5

2.7

2.7

73.3

26

4

2.1

2.1

75.4

27

11

5.9

5.9

81.3

29

3

1.6

1.6

82.9

31

1

.5

.5

83.4

32

5

2.7

2.7

86.1

33

3

1.6

1.6

87.7

34

1

.5

.5

88.2

35

1

.5

.5

88.8

38

2

1.1

1.1

89.8

42

1

.5

.5

90.4

43

4

2.1

2.1

92.5

45

4

2.1

2.1

94.7

46

1

.5

.5

95.2

48

2

1.1

1.1

96.3

50

1

.5

.5

96.8

53

1

.5

.5

97.3

56

1

.5

.5

97.9

59

4

2.1

2.1

100.0

Total

187

100.0

100.0

Materials and Procedure

Results

Table 2

Cross-tabs and Chi Square- Study One

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid

Missing

Total

N

Percent

N

Percent

N

Percent

Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) * Attention Check (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

187

100.0%

0

0.0%

187

100.0%

Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) * Attention Check (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) Crosstabulation

Attention Check (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

Rude Disagree (RD)

Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

Rude Disagree (RD)

Count

46

% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

69.7%

Polite Disagree (PD)

Count

19

% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

28.8%

Polite Agree (PA)

Count

3

% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

5.5%

Total

Count

68

% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

36.4%

Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) * Attention Check (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) Crosstabulation

Attention Check (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

Polite Disagree (PD)

Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

Rude Disagree (RD)

Count

19

% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

28.8%

Polite Disagree (PD)

Count

44

% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

66.7%

Polite Agree (PA)

Count

8

% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

14.5%

Total

Count

71

% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

38.0%

Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) * Attention Check (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) Crosstabulation

Attention Check (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

Total

Polite Agree (PA)

Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

Rude Disagree (RD)

Count

1

66

% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

1.5%

100.0%

Polite Disagree (PD)

Count

3

66

% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

4.5%

100.0%

Polite Agree (PA)

Count

44

55

% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

80.0%

100.0%

Total

Count

48

187

% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

25.7%

100.0%

The Chi square was significant, X2(4) =149 p<.001. Most “rude disagree “participants recalled seeing Corey rudely disagree. The story was fake (70%) Most “polite disagree “participants recalled seeing Corey politely disagreeing the story was fake (67%). Finally, most polite agree participants recalled seeing Corey politely agree the story was fake (80%) Cramer’s V, which is appropriate for this 3x3 test, was strong. These findings indicate that participants saw our story manipulation as was intended. Table 3 Anova - Study One Table 4 Anova Corey’s Post Made Me Angry – Study One Table 5 t-Test Notes Input Data C:\Users\owner\Downloads\SPSS Study One Facebook Rudeness Study – live.sav Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter

Weight

Split File

N of Rows in Working Data File

187

Missing Value Handling

Definition of Missing

User defined missing values are treated as missing.

Cases Used

Statistics for each analysis are based on the cases with no missing or out-of-range data for any variable in the analysis.

Syntax

T-TEST GROUPS=IVCondition(2 3)
  /MISSING=ANALYSIS
  /VARIABLES=PartIIRude
  /ES DISPLAY(TRUE)
  /CRITERIA=CI(.95).

Resources

Processor Time

00:00:00.08

Elapsed Time

00:00:00.30

Group Statistics

Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Part II: Corey seems like a rude person

Polite Disagree (PD)

66

2.98

.920

Polite Agree (PA)

55

2.71

.786

Group Statistics

Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA)

Std. Error Mean

Part II: Corey seems like a rude person

Polite Disagree (PD)

.113

Polite Agree (PA)

.106

Independent Samples Test

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F

Sig.

t

Part II: Corey seems like a rude person

Equal variances assumed

.006

.938

1.753

Equal variances not assumed

1.778

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Part II: Corey seems like a rude person

Equal variances assumed

119

.082

.276

Equal variances not assumed

118.917

.078

.276

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Part II: Corey seems like a rude person

Equal variances assumed

.157

-.036

.587

Equal variances not assumed

.155

-.031

.583

Independent Samples Effect Sizes

Standardizera

Point Estimate

95% Confidence Interval

Lower

Part II: Corey seems like a rude person

Cohen’s d

.862

.320

-.041

Hedges’ correction

.867

.318

-.040

Glass’s delta

.786

.351

-.015

Independent Samples Effect Sizes

95% Confidence Intervala

Upper

Part II: Corey seems like a rude person

Cohen’s d

.680

Hedges’ correction

.675

Glass’s delta

.713

a. The denominator used in estimating the effect sizes. 
Cohen’s d uses the pooled standard deviation. 
Hedges’ correction uses the pooled standard deviation, plus a correction factor. 
Glass’s delta uses the sample standard deviation of the control group.

We ran an independent sample t-test with condition as our independent variable (RD v PD) and “Corey seems like a rude person” as our dependent variable. It was significant, t (130) =2.13, p<.05. Participants thought Corey was more rude in the rude disagree condition (M= 3.40, SD =1.19) than in the polite disagree condition (M=3.00, SD=.92).