Background
The 2016 US Presidential Election brought considerable attentionto the phenomenon of “fake news”: entirely fabricated and oftenpartisan content that is presented as factual. Researchersevaluated one mechanism that may contribute to the believability offake news: fluency via prior exposure. Using an actual fake newsheadline presented as it was seen on Facebook (Kid Rocklaunches campaign to run for U.S. Senate in 2018), theresearchers hypothesized that previous exposure to the fake newsstory would increase perceptions of accuracy. Subjects werepre-screened to determine in which of 3 groups they belonged: 1) noprevious exposure to the fake news story, 2) previous exposure tothe fake news story and had not heard that the story was,in fact, fake, or 3) previous exposure to the fake news storybut had heard that the story was, in fact, fake. Theyrecorded perception of the accuracy of the news story (ranging from1 (definitely false) to 6 (definitely true)).
Please complete all empty boxes in the tables below.
Data
| No exposure (Group A) | Previous exposure, not informed it was fake (Group B) | Previous exposure, informed it was fake (Group C) |
1 | 3 | 6 |
1 | 6 | 6 |
2 | 6 | 6 |
4 | 4 | 5 |
1 | 5 | 5 |
4 | 4 | 4 |
3 | 5 | 3 |
2 | 6 | 4 |
1 | 6 | 6 |
6 | 3 | 3 |
5 | 3 | 6 |
Mean | | | |
St. Dev | 1.79 | 1.29 | 1.22 |
n | | | |
N | |
One-way ANOVA (please show your work!)
Source of variability | df | SS | MS | F | h2 |
Between-groups | | 31.09 | | | |
Within-groups (error) | | 63.64 | | | |
Total | | 94.73 | | | |
Critical F-value (obtain from F table) | | |
Is the ANOVA significant? Y or N | | |
| | | | | | |
Post-hoc results using the Tukey test
Comparison | p-value | Significant? Y or N |
Group A versus Group B | .0095 | |
Group A versus Group C | .0033 | |
Group B versus Group C | .6156 | |
Full interpretation of the results
- Describe ANOVA results.
- Describe post-hoc results (if applicable).
- Describe differences between groups.
- Interpret effect size.
|
