Question

Study: Two researchers want to see if the presence of a rifle increases how participants retaliate against someone who previously criticized them. The researchers (designated A and B) design a two-part study.

In Part One, all participants write a brief essay about their political views. Another participant (actually a confederate, or a researcher pretending to be a participant) reads the essay and comments that it is “One of the worst essays I’ve ever read in my life”.

In Part Two, all participants are taken to a new room that has one of three objects lying on a table in the corner: a rifle, a water gun, or a tennis racket. Researcher A tells the participants to ignore the item, which was accidentally left in the room from another study. Instead, Researcher A asks participants whether they 1) agree or 2) disagree with the criticism they received on their essay. After recording the participants’ responses, Researcher A asks the participants if they would be willing to participate in a second study by Researcher B, who is interested in measuring people’s ability to detect traces of hot sauce poured into in a cup of water. Researcher B says that the confederate from the first study already agreed to participate as the taste tester, so all the participant needs to do is add as much hot sauce to a cup as they want, which the confederate will then drink. Researcher B explains that the hot sauce is very strong, so the water helps to dilute it. After participants add the hot sauce, Researcher B thanks, debriefs, and dismisses them.

To measure retaliation, the researchers weigh each cup of water before and after the addition of the hot sauce and calculates the difference (in grams). The researchers thus operationally define “retaliation” in terms of “how many grams of hot sauce participants added to the confederate’s water cup”, which ranges from 0 to 50 grams. Although they believe that all participants will want to retaliate against the confederate based on the confederate’s criticism, the researchers hypothesize that participants will add significantly more hot sauce to the water when in the presence of a rifle or a water gun than when in the presence of the tennis racket. They do not expect difference between the water gun and rifle conditions.

Using this study design, answer the following four questions:

1). What is the independent variable in this study, and how many levels are there to each? Choose the correct response (.5 points)

A. IV: Item left in the room, with two levels (Gun or Tennis Racket)

B. IV: Agreement with the criticism with two levels (1 = Agree and 2 = Disagree)

C. IV: The researchers, with two levels (A and B)

D. IV: Item left in the room, with three levels (Rifle, Water Gun, or Tennis Racket)

2). What is/are the dependent variable(s) in this study, and what scale of measurement are they based on (NOIR)? Choose the BEST option (.5 points)

A. DV #1: Criticism Agreement: Nominal scale. – DV #2: Amount of hot sauce added: Ratio scale

B. DV #1: Criticism Agreement: Nominal scale. – DV #2: Amount of hot sauce added: Interval scale

C. DV #1: Item left in the room: Nominal scale. – DV #2: Criticism Agreement: Ordinal Scale

D. DV #1: Criticism Agreement: Interval scale. – DV #2: Amount of hot sauce added: Nominal scale.

3). We are going to run some analyses on the data. First, use the independent variable and the nominal dependent variable in an SPSS analysis. (Hint: Your scale of measurement for the nominal dependent variable should let you know which statistical test to use!). Choose the correct analysis, write-up, and conclusion from the options below (1.5 points)

A. We ran a chi square using condition as the independent variable (Rifle versus Water Gun versus Tennis Racket) and whether participants agreed with the criticism as the dependent variable. A significant effect emerged, χ² (2) = 2.89, p < .05. Participants were more likely to agree with the criticism in the tennis racket condition (30%) than in the rifle condition (10%) and water gun condition (15%). This indicates that participants agreed with the criticism more in some conditions than others.   

B. We ran a chi square using condition as the independent variable (Rifle versus Water Gun versus Tennis Racket) and whether participants agreed with the criticism as the dependent variable. A significant effect emerged, χ² (2) = 2.89, p < .05. Participants were more likely to disagree with the criticism in the rifle condition (90%) than in the water gun condition (85%) and tennis racket condition (70%). This indicates that participants disagreed with the criticism more in some conditions than others.

C. We ran a chi square using condition as the independent variable (Rifle versus Water Gun versus Tennis Racket) and whether participants agreed with the criticism as the dependent variable. A significant effect did not emerge, χ² (2) = 2.89 p > .05. Participants were equally likely to disagree with the criticism in the rifle, water gun, and tennis racket conditions (90%, 85%, and 70%, respectively). This indicates that participants disagreed with the criticism similarly across all conditions.

D. We ran a One Way ANOVA using condition as the independent variable (Rifle versus Water Gun versus Tennis Racket) and whether participants agreed with the criticism as the dependent variable. A significant effect did not emerge, F(2, 57) = 1.44, p > .05. Participants were similarly likely to agree with the criticism in the rifle condition (M = 1.90, SD = 0.31), the water gun condition (M = 1.85, SD = 0.37) and the tennis racket condition (M = 1.70, SD= 0.47). Since the F test was not significant, a post hoc test was not necessary. This indicates that participants disagreed with the criticism similarly across all conditions.

4). For the main analysis, the authors predicted that participants would add more hot sauce in retaliation for the essay criticism when in the presence of either a rifle or a water gun than when in the presence of a tennis racket, though the rifle and water gun conditions would not differ from one another. Run the correct analysis to see if they confirmed their predictions, and choose the correct conclusion from the options below (1.5 points)

A. We ran an independent samples t-Test using condition as the independent variable (Rifle versus Water Gun) and how much hot sauce participants added to the cup of water as the dependent variable. A significant effect emerged, t(38) = 2.86, p > .05. Participants added more hot sauce to the water in the rifle condition (23.05, SD = 6.56) than in the water gun condition (M = 17.25, SD = 6.25). This indicates that the presence of a rifle increases retaliation more than the presence of a water gun.

B. We ran a One Way ANOVA using condition as the independent variable (Rifle versus Water Gun versus Tennis Racket) and how much hot sauce participants added to the cup fo water as the dependent variable. A significant effect did not emerge, F(2, 57) = 4.13, p > .05. Participants added similar levels of hot sauce to the water in the rifle condition (M = 23.05, SD = 6.56), the water gun condition (M = 17.25, SD = 6.25) and the tennis racket condition (M = 17.05, SD= 9.31). Since the F test was not significant, a post hoc test was not necessary. This indicates that participants were not influenced by the presence of a rifle, water gun, or tennis racket in the experimental room.

C. We ran a One Way ANOVA using condition as the independent variable (Rifle versus Water Gun versus Tennis Racket) and how much hot sauce participants added to the cup of water as the dependent variable. A significant effect emerged, F(2, 57) = 4.13, p < .05. Tukey post hoc tests showed that participants add more hot sauce in the rifle condition (M = 23.05, SD = 6.56) than in both the water gun condition (M = 17.25, SD = 6.25) and the tennis racket condition (M = 17.05, SD= 9.31), though the water gun and tennis racket conditions did not differ from each other. This partially confirms the predictions, as only the presence of a real gun (in this case a rifle) led to higher levels of retaliation.   

D. We ran a One Way ANOVA using condition as the independent variable (Rifle versus Water Gun versus Tennis Racket) and how much hot sauce participants added to the cup of water as the dependent variable. A significant effect emerged, F(2, 57) = 4.13, p < .001. Tukey post hoc tests showed that participants add more hot sauce in the rifle condition (M = 23.05, SD = 6.56) than in both the water gun condition (M = 17.05, SD = 6.25) and the tennis racket condition (M = 17.25, SD= 9.31), though the water gun and tennis racket conditions did not differ from each other. This partially confirms the predictions, as only the presence of a real gun (in this case a rifle) led to higher levels of retaliation.   

Part Two (Use the SPSS DataAnalysisFIU#2HotsauceSummer.sav data set for this section).

Imagine we alter the design a bit. First, in terms of items left behind, we focus only on the rifle and the tennis racket conditions only. Second, we tell them that the confederate has either a high tolerance for spicy food or a low tolerance for spicy food. The dependent variables remain the same. Using this new design, answer the following questions.

5). What is/are the independent variable(s) in this study, and how many levels are there to each? (.5 points)

A. IV #1: Criticism Agreement, two levels (Agree versus Disagree) – IV #2: Amount of hot sauce added (0 versus 50)

B. IV #1: Item, three levels (Rifle versus Water Gun versus Tennis Racket) – IV #2: Tolerance (High versus Low)

C. IV #1: Item, two levels (Rifle versus Tennis Racket) – IV #2: Tolerance (High versus Low)

D. IV #1: Researcher, two levels (Original Researcher versus New Researcher) – IV #2: Confederate, two levels (Believes he is a researcher versus Does not believe)

6). Consider all of the possible main effects and interactions for this study. Run a 2 X 2 ANOVA (I will let YOU figure out which dependent variable to use for this!). Choose the option below that best describes the outcome. (.5 points)

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

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

C. There are two significant main effects but there is no significant interaction

D. There is one significant main effect, one non-significant main effect, and no significant interaction

Answer 1

1. The correct answer is Option D. IV: Item left in the room, with three levels (Rifle, Water Gun, or Tennis Racket).

2. The correct answer is Option A. DV #1: Criticism Agreement: Nominal scale. – DV #2: Amount of hot sauce added: Ratio scale.

3. The correct answer is Option C. We ran a chi square using condition as the independent variable (Rifle versus Water Gun versus Tennis Racket) and whether participants agreed with the criticism as the dependent variable. A significant effect did not emerge, χ2 (2) = 2.89 p > .05. Participants were equally likely to disagree with the criticism in the rifle, water gun, and tennis racket conditions (90%, 85%, and 70%, respectively). This indicates that participants disagreed with the criticism similarly across all conditions.

4. The correct answer is Option C. We ran a One Way ANOVA using condition as the independent variable (Rifle versus Water Gun versus Tennis Racket) and how much hot sauce participants added to the cup of water as the dependent variable. A significant effect emerged, F(2, 57) = 4.13, p < .05. Tukey post hoc tests showed that participants add more hot sauce in the rifle condition (M = 23.05, SD = 6.56) than in both the water gun condition (M = 17.25, SD = 6.25) and the tennis racket condition (M = 17.05, SD= 9.31), though the water gun and tennis racket conditions did not differ from each other. This partially confirms the predictions, as only the presence of a real gun (in this case a rifle) led to higher levels of retaliation.

Please post the other questions separately. As per the answering guidelines we are supposed to answer just one question or four sub parts of the same question.