Study: Two researchers want to see if the presence of a rifleincreases how participants retaliate against someone who previouslycriticized them. The researchers (designated A and B) design atwo-part study.

In Part One, all participants write a brief essay about theirpolitical views. Another participant (actually a confederate, or aresearcher pretending to be a participant) reads the essay andcomments that it is “One of the worst essays I’ve ever read in mylife”.

In Part Two, all participants are taken to a new room that hasone of three objects lying on a table in the corner: a rifle, awater gun, or a tennis racket. Researcher A tells the participantsto ignore the item, which was accidentally left in the room fromanother study. Instead, Researcher A asks participants whether they1) agree or 2) disagree with the criticism they received on theiressay. After recording the participants’ responses, Researcher Aasks the participants if they would be willing to participate in asecond study by Researcher B, who is interested in measuringpeople’s ability to detect traces of hot sauce poured into in a cupof water. Researcher B says that the confederate from the firststudy already agreed to participate as the taste tester, so all theparticipant needs to do is add as much hot sauce to a cup as theywant, which the confederate will then drink. Researcher B explainsthat 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 waterbefore and after the addition of the hot sauce and calculates thedifference (in grams). The researchers thus operationally define“retaliation” in terms of “how many grams of hot sauce participantsadded to the confederate’s water cup”, which ranges from 0 to 50grams. Although they believe that all participants will want toretaliate against the confederate based on the confederate’scriticism, the researchers hypothesize that participants will addsignificantly more hot sauce to the water when in the presence of arifle or a water gun than when in the presence of the tennisracket. They do not expect difference between the water gun andrifle conditions.

Using this study design, answer the following fourquestions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. We ran a chi square using condition as the independentvariable (Rifle versus Water Gun versus Tennis Racket) and whetherparticipants agreed with the criticism as the dependent variable. Asignificant effect emerged, χ² (2) = 2.89, p< .05. Participants were more likely to disagree with thecriticism in the rifle condition (90%) than in the water guncondition (85%) and tennis racket condition (70%). This indicatesthat participants disagreed with the criticism more in someconditions than others.

C. We ran a chi square using condition as the independentvariable (Rifle versus Water Gun versus Tennis Racket) and whetherparticipants agreed with the criticism as the dependent variable. Asignificant effect did not emerge, χ² (2) = 2.89p > .05. Participants were equally likely to disagreewith the criticism in the rifle, water gun, and tennis racketconditions (90%, 85%, and 70%, respectively). This indicates thatparticipants disagreed with the criticism similarly across allconditions.

D. We ran a One Way ANOVA using condition as the independentvariable (Rifle versus Water Gun versus Tennis Racket) and whetherparticipants agreed with the criticism as the dependent variable. Asignificant effect did not emerge, F(2, 57) = 1.44,p > .05. Participants were similarly likely to agreewith 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 notsignificant, a post hoc test was not necessary. This indicates thatparticipants disagreed with the criticism similarly across allconditions.

4). For the main analysis, the authors predicted thatparticipants would add more hot sauce in retaliation for the essaycriticism when in the presence of either a rifle or a water gunthan when in the presence of a tennis racket, though the rifle andwater gun conditions would not differ from one another. Run thecorrect analysis to see if they confirmed their predictions, andchoose the correct conclusion from the options below (1.5points)

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

B. We ran a One Way ANOVA using condition as the independentvariable (Rifle versus Water Gun versus Tennis Racket) and how muchhot sauce participants added to the cup fo water as the dependentvariable. A significant effect did not emerge, F(2, 57) =4.13, p > .05. Participants added similar levels of hotsauce 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 notsignificant, a post hoc test was not necessary. This indicates thatparticipants were not influenced by the presence of a rifle, watergun, or tennis racket in the experimental room.

C. We ran a One Way ANOVA using condition as the independentvariable (Rifle versus Water Gun versus Tennis Racket) and how muchhot sauce participants added to the cup of water as the dependentvariable. A significant effect emerged, F(2, 57) = 4.13,p < .05. Tukey post hoc tests showed that participantsadd 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 racketcondition (M = 17.05, SD= 9.31), though the watergun and tennis racket conditions did not differ from each other.This partially confirms the predictions, as only the presence of areal gun (in this case a rifle) led to higher levels ofretaliation.   

D. We ran a One Way ANOVA using condition as the independentvariable (Rifle versus Water Gun versus Tennis Racket) and how muchhot sauce participants added to the cup of water as the dependentvariable. A significant effect emerged, F(2, 57) = 4.13,p < .001. Tukey post hoc tests showed that participantsadd 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 racketcondition (M = 17.25, SD= 9.31), though the watergun and tennis racket conditions did not differ from each other.This partially confirms the predictions, as only the presence of areal gun (in this case a rifle) led to higher levels ofretaliation.   

Part Two (Use the SPSSDataAnalysisFIU#2HotsauceSummer.sav data set for thissection).

Imagine we alter the design a bit. First, in terms of items leftbehind, we focus only on the rifle and the tennis racket conditionsonly. Second, we tell them that the confederate has either a hightolerance for spicy food or a low tolerance for spicy food. Thedependent variables remain the same. Using this new design, answerthe following questions.

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

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

B. IV #1: Item, three levels (Rifle versus Water Gun versusTennis 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 NewResearcher) – IV #2: Confederate, two levels (Believes he is aresearcher versus Does not believe)

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

A. There are two significant main effects and a significantinteraction

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

C. There are two significant main effects but there is nosignificant interaction

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