research methods crash course quiz

Instructions: Recall the “Attractiveness of the essay author” study from your prior Crash Course Quizzes (#2, #3 and #4). The study focused on the attractiveness of an essay author, seeing how manipulating that attractiveness impacts participant assessments of the author’s argument that children should not own a cell phone.

For Crash Course #5, imagine you focus on the attractive and unattractive photographs only (so ignore the “No photo” condition for this crash course). Your prior crash courses showed that participant ratings did differ depending on the attractiveness of the author. Now you want to see if you can reduce the impact of attractiveness on participant ratings. You decide to warn some participants that an author’s attractiveness can impact their opinions. In the correction instruction present condition, participants read the following: “Please try to make sure your perceptions about the level of physical attractiveness of the person who wrote this message do not influence your ratings and judgments about the topic written in the message.” Participants in the correction instruction absent condition do not see this instruction.

In our new factorial study, participants receive one of four surveys that focus on a combination of the attractiveness conditions and the correction instructions condition: 1). Attractive + Correction Instruction Present, 2). Unattractive + Correction Instruction Present, 3). Attractive + Correction Instruction Absent, or 4) Unattractive + Correction Instruction Absent. All participants then rate the item “What is your opinion about children owning a cell phone?” on a 7-point scale (1 = against; 7 = in favor). Since the author is trying to persuade participants against allowing children to own a cell phone, the researchers predict that participants will score lower on this scale if the author is attractive than if she is unattractive, but that warning about attractiveness using the correction instruction will dampen the attractiveness effect.

Using this study, answer the questions below and transfer your answers to your Crash Course in Statistics – The 2 X 2 ANOVA Quiz #5 in Canvas (1 point per question). IMPORTANT: The answer options in Canvas may not be in the same order you see them below, so make sure to copy over the CONTENT of the answer and not simply the answer letter (A, B, C, D, or E). Note: If you want to run these analyses yourself, look for the SPSS file called “#5 2 X 2 Crash Course Data Attractiveness Fall” in Canvas – not required, but definitely recommended!)

1). What are the independent and dependent variables in this study? Choose the best option from those listed below.

A. There is one independent variable: the photo condition (unattractive versus attractive). There are two dependent variables. First, there is the correction instruction (present versus absent). Second, there is the participant ratings of “What is your opinion about children owning a cell phone?” on a 7-point scale (1 = against; 7 = in favor).

B. There are two independent variables. First, there is the photo condition (unattractive versus attractive). Second, there is the correction instruction (present versus absent). There are two dependent variables: First, there is the participant’s rating of the essay author attractiveness on a 1 (unattractive) to 7 (attractive) scale. Second, there is the participant ratings of “What is your opinion about children owning a cell phone?” on a 7-point scale (1 = against; 7 = in favor).

C. There are two independent variables. First, there is the photo condition (unattractive versus attractive). Second, there is the correction instruction (present versus absent). There is one dependent variable: participant ratings of “What is your opinion about children owning a cell phone?” on a 7-point scale (1 = against; 7 = in favor).

D. There are two independent variables. First, there is the photo condition (unattractive versus attractive). Second, there is the correction instruction (present versus absent). There is one dependent variable: participant ratings of “What is your opinion about children owning a cell phone?” on a 7-point scale (0 = against; 6 = in favor).

E. There are four independent variables. The first is the unattractive condition. The second is the attractive condition. The third is the correction instruction present condition. The fourth is the correct instruction absent condition. There is one dependent variable: participant ratings of “What is your opinion about children owning a cell phone?” on a 7-point scale (1 = against; 7 = in favor).

You run a Factorial AVOVA on this data set and get the following SPSS output. Using this output, interpret the information.

2). Choose the correct interpretation of the Tests of Between Subjects Effects table:

A. There are two significant main effects and one significant interaction

B. There is one significant main effect, one non-significant main effect, and one non- significant interaction

C. There is one significant main effect, one non-significant main effect, and one significant interaction

D. There are no significant main effects and one significant interaction

E. There are two significant main effects and one non-significant interaction

3). Which of the following is the accurate APA format for writing out the photo condition main effect (attractive vs. unattractive) and the dependent variable?

A. We ran a univariate ANOVA with photo condition (unattractive vs attractive) and correction instruction condition (present vs absent) as our two independent variables and participant ratings of “What is your opinion about children owning a cell phone?” as the dependent variable. There was no a significant main effect for the photo condition, F(1, 120) = 5.55, p > .05. Participants were equally against cell phones for children regardless of whether the author suggesting this proposal was attractive (M = 5.28, SD = 1.17) or unattractive (M = 5.72, SD = 0.87). This fails to support the idea that participants are persuaded by an attractive essay writer.

B. We ran a univariate ANOVA with photo condition (unattractive vs attractive) and correction instruction condition (present vs absent) as our two independent variables and participant ratings of “What is your opinion about children owning a cell phone?” as the dependent variable. There was no a significant main effect for the photo condition, F(1, 116) = 5.55, p > .05. Participants were equally against cell phones for children regardless of whether the author suggesting this proposal was attractive (M = 5.28, SD = 1.17) or unattractive (M = 5.72, SD = 0.87). This fails to support the idea that participants are persuaded by an attractive essay writer.

C. We ran a univariate ANOVA with photo condition (unattractive vs attractive) and correction instruction condition (present vs absent) as our two independent variables and participant ratings of “What is your opinion about children owning a cell phone?” as the dependent variable. There was a significant main effect for the photo condition, F(1, 120) = 5.55, p < .05. Participants were more against cell phones for children if the author suggesting this proposal was attractive (M = 5.28, SD = 1.17) than if she was unattractive (M = 5.72, SD = 0.87). This supports the idea that participants are persuaded by an attractive essay writer.

D. We ran a univariate ANOVA with photo condition (unattractive vs attractive) and correction instruction condition (present vs absent) as our two independent variables and participant ratings of “What is your opinion about children owning a cell phone?” as the dependent variable. There was a significant main effect for the photo condition, F(1, 116) = 6.43, p < .01. Participants were more against cell phones for children if the author suggesting this proposal was attractive (M = 5.28, SD = 1.17) than if she was unattractive (M = 5.72, SD = 0.87). This supports the idea that participants are persuaded by an attractive essay writer.

E. We ran a univariate ANOVA with photo condition (unattractive vs attractive) and correction instruction condition (present vs absent) as our two independent variables and participant ratings of “What is your opinion about children owning a cell phone?” as the dependent variable. There was a significant main effect for the photo condition, F(1, 116) = 5.55, p < .05. Participants were more against cell phones for children if the author suggesting this proposal was attractive (M = 5.28, SD = 1.17) than if she was unattractive (M = 5.72, SD = 0.87). This supports the idea that participants are persuaded by an attractive essay writer.

4). Which of the following is the correct write-up for the interaction and (if significant) follow-up simple effects tests?  

A.  The interaction of photo condition*instruction condition was not significant, F(1, 116) = 6.43, p > .05. Since this is not significant, there was no need to run simple effects follow-up tests.  

B.  The interaction of photo condition*instruction condition was not significant, F(1, 120) = 6.43, p > .05. Since this is not significant, there was no need to run simple effects follow-up tests.

C. The interaction of photo condition*instruction condition was not significant, F(1, 116) = 6.43, p > .05. We would need to run four simple effects tests. 1). We would look at the unattractive condition only (to see if the instruction present versus absent conditions differed). 2). We would look at the attractive condition only (to see if the instruction present versus absent conditions differed). 3). We would look at instruction present condition only (to see if the unattractive condition differed from the attractive condition). 4). We would look at instruction absent condition only (to see if the unattractive condition differed from the attractive condition).

D.  The interaction of photo condition*instruction condition was significant, F(1, 116) = 6.43, p < .01. We would need to run four simple effects tests. 1). We would look at the unattractive condition only (to see if the instruction present versus absent conditions differed). 2). We would look at the attractive condition only (to see if the instruction present versus absent conditions differed). 3). We would look at instruction present condition only (to see if the unattractive condition differed from the attractive condition). 4). We would look at instruction absent condition only (to see if the unattractive condition differed from the attractive condition).

E.  The interaction of photo condition*instruction condition was significant, F(1, 116) = 6.43, p < .05. We would need to run four simple effects tests. 1). We would look at the unattractive condition only (to see if the instruction present versus absent conditions differed). 2). We would look at the attractive condition only (to see if the instruction present versus absent conditions differed). 3). We would look at instruction present condition only (to see if the unattractive condition differed from the attractive condition). 4). We would look at instruction absent condition only (to see if the unattractive condition differed from the attractive condition).     

5). Below is a set of two SPSS simple effects tests using the split file function (Note that this only looks at two of the simple effects tests rather than all four. The first simple effects looks at the correction instruction present while the second simple effects test looks at the correction instruction absent.

After looking at the charts above, I interpret it this way:

“Following the significant original interaction, the first follow-up simple effects tests showed significance for the instruction present condition, F(1, 58) = 0.02, p < .05, with participants more against cell phones for children if the author suggesting this proposal was unattractive and the instruction was present (M = 5.47, SD = 0.82) than if she was attractive and the instruction was present (M = 5.50, SD = 1.25). The second simple effects test showed no significance for the instruction absent condition, F(1, 58) = 13.34, p > .05 with participants equally against cell phones for children regardless of whether the author suggesting this proposal was unattractive and the instruction was absent (M = 5.97, SD = 0.85) or if she was attractive and the instruction was absent (M = 5.07, SD = 1.05).”

Is this a correct interpretation of those simple effects tests? Why or why not?

A. Yes, it is a correct interpretation in its entirety (there was no significant difference between the unattractive and attractive conditions when the correction instruction was absent, but when the instruction was present participants were more against cell phones when the author was attractive than when she was unattractive).

B.  It is partially correct, as both simple effects tests were significant (participants in the correction instruction present conditions were more against cell phones when the author was attractive than when she was unattractive. Similarly, when the correction instruction was absent, participants were more against cell phones when the author was attractive than when she was unattractive)  

C. It is partially correct, as neither simple effect was significant (there was no significant difference between the attractive and unattractive conditions for either the correction instruction present or correction instruction absent conditions)

D. It is mostly correct, except for the write-up for the instruction present condition. In the write-up, the means and standard deviations are switched. That is, in the instruction present condition, the attractive mean and SD should be (M = 5.97, SD = 0.85) while the unattractive mean and SD should be (M = 5.07, SD = 1.05).

E. It is entirely incorrect, as the simple effects test for the correction instruction present condition was not significant while the simple effects test for the correction instruction absent condition was significant. This ends the crash course quizzes in this course! I hope you found them useful. If you plan on doing research in the future, I suggest saving the documents on your own computer. You might find them useful as a reminder for using SPSS (or working with statisti

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *