Writhing essay and SPSS

Here are the instructions paper 4 instructions 

below is paper two for feedback 

STUDYTWO METHODS, RESULTS, DISCUSSION 1

STUDY TWO METHODS, RESULTS, DISCUSSION 11

Instructions for Paper VI: Study Two Methods, Results, Discussion (Worth 30 Points)

Ryan J. Winter

Florida International University

Purpose of Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results, and Discussion

1). Psychological Purpose

The psychological purpose behind Paper IV is to make sure you can summarize what you did in your second study, how you did it, and what you found. This is similar to Paper II, but you will include information related to your second independent variable in Paper IV.

For the Methods section in Paper IV, you will provide information about your participants, materials, and procedure. Your participant section goes first, and it includes descriptive statistics about your sample (means and standard deviations for age and percentages of gender and race/ethnicity). This is a new sample of participants, so you cannot use Paper II for this information. Make it NEW! Your materials and procedure sections include information about what you did and how you did it. You should once again write this section for an audience who is unfamiliar with your new study two variables, but you can summarize or refer back to study one variables if and when they carry over from study one to study two. In the end, just remember that you must educate your reader about your materials and procedure, giving enough detail so they could replicate study two on their own. Your Paper IV Methods section will thus look a lot like your Paper II, but in Paper IV you will describe BOTH independent variables as well as important dependent variables (especially any new ones you added). I suggest reviewing your Paper II feedback to see if you need more clarity in your methods descriptions, but make sure that your reader is clear about the mechanics of your new 2 X 2 factorial design as well.

You will also write a new Results section. Since you now have two independent variables, some new dependent variables, and a new set of participants, you will not be able to reuse ANY of your results from Paper II. Rather, you will write a brand new results section that focuses on a 2 X 2 factorial design here.

Your Discussion section for Paper IV will be a short summary of what you found in Study Two. Similar to Paper II, you can make some educated guesses about what you found and why you found it, but keep the focus on study two only (in Paper V,, you will include a more advanced discussion section that looks at both study one and study two, so keep the Paper IV discussion focused only on study two).

2). APA Formatting Purpose

The second purpose of Paper IV is to again teach you proper American Psychological Association (APA) formatting for methods and results. In the instructions below, I will tell you how to format your paper using APA style, but this time with a focus on your 2 X 2 factorial ANOVAs. Once again, there are a lot of specific requirements in APA papers (as specific as what to italicize), so pay attention to the instructions below as well as the APA formatting powerpoint presentation.

3). Writing Purpose

Paper IV is intended to help you figure out how to update a Methods, Results and Discussion section using a 2 X 2 factorial design. This is more complicated than the One Way ANOVA you used in Paper II, but you should still be able to clearly and succinctly tell you readers what you did, how you did it, and what you found. Similar to Paper III, we will give you feedback and help in this paper. You will then be able to revise it for your final paper in the course (Paper V). Thus doing a good job on Paper IV will mean fewer revisions for the final paper.

Note #1: The plagiarism limit is higher in this paper (up to 65%) since your classmates are doing the same study two design and will have similar results. Don’t go higher than that, though! 65% is the maximum allowed!

Note #2: You DO NOT need to include any content from Papers I, II, and III here. You can use the same title page, but all we will look at and grade are the methods, results, discussion, and tables from Study Two.

Note #3: Similar to Paper II, there is no set minimum or maximum page limit for Paper IV. However, we are still looking for good detail about your study design and your study results

Instructions for Paper VI: Study Two Methods, Results, Discussion (Worth 30 Points)

This paper should be fairly easy for you! It is essentially a replication of your Paper II: Methods and Results (Study One) paper, except here you will extend that paper to include your second independent variable as well as any new dependent variables you may have created. You will also use a more complex data analysis process now that you have a 2 X 2 factorial design. Keep in mind that Study Two is different from Study One. You may reuse some of the same methods section materials from Study One, but your descriptions in the methods section should be specific to your Study Two idea. If you reuse some of the same variables, you can refer to study one (I encourage it! No need to repeat yourself if you are using identical materials), but if the elements are new, make sure to FULLY describe them. The results will be
completely
different from Study One, as Study Two has two independent variables and a new participant sample. Your discussion will similarly be new. Below are some of the points you need to cover in this paper. I highlight in purple the new components you should pay attention to for Paper IV.

1. Title Page: I expect the following format (1 point):

a. Use your headers and title information from your prior Paper III: Literature review. See prior instructions for more info about the title page!

2. Methods Section: I expect the following format (10 points):

a. Write Method at the front of this section, make it bold, and center it.

b. The participants section comes next. The word Participants is bolded and left justified. In this section …

i. As in Paper II, tell me who your participants were (college students, family members, friends) and how many there were. If the number starts a sentence, then spell out the number. “Two-hundred and five participants …”. If it is mid-sentence, then you can use numerals. “There were 205 participants in this study.” Make sure this is for your NEW SAMPLE. This sample will differ from the participants you used for Study One, so you will have to provide all new demographic data.

ii. Provide frequencies and descriptive statistics for the most relevant demographic characteristics.

1. For some variables, like ethnicity and gender, you only need to provide frequency information (the number of participants who fit that category). “There were 100 men (49%) and 105 women (51%) in the study.” Or “The sample was 49% male (N = 100) and 51% female (N = 105).”

2. Other variables, like age, are continuous variables (rather than categorical), so use descriptive statistics here (the range, mean, and the standard deviation). “Participants ranged from 18 to 77 (M = 24, SD = 3.50).” or “The average age of participants was 24 (SD = 3.50), with ages ranging from 18 to 77.” By now you should be able to find these on your own, but I will give you a hint: run frequencies and descriptives to get demographic data

iii. Make sure to provide a callout to your demographics table. My suggestion is to call it “Table 5” since your first study (and Papers II and III) already includes Tables 1 through 4.

1. Your actual Table 5 will come immediately after the callout in-text

c. Materials and Procedure

i. For this section, things are again very flexible. Some studies include the Materials and Procedure in the same section while others break them up into two sections

1. Your Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results, and Discussion is still simple enough that I recommend combining them into one overall Materials and Procedure section. Here, you can refer back to your methods section from Paper II rather than repeating all of the same information. (“We used the same Twitter Apology manipulation as in study one, but here we included only the

Sincere

and

Insincere

apology conditions”).

ii. Again, the words Materials and Procedure is flush left. In this section …

1. Provide information about your materials and your procedure.

a. I suggest starting with your procedure. Tell your reader what your participants did in the order participants did them. Be specific. Assuming your study is similar to study one, I have the following recommendations (though your study may differ, so take these only as recommendations!):

i. First, talk about informed consent (this time given online via Qualtrics).

ii. Second, talk about the different versions of the study materials. Provide enough detail so your readers know how the conditions differ. Imagine I need to replicate your design – give me enough detail so I can do so. Also fully describe your new independent variable for study two. For example, my additional IV may be whether the Twitter apology is immediate (a day after the incident) vs. delayed (a month after the incident). I need to FULLY describe this new “timing IV” in the methods for this second study

1. Thus study two MIGHT look at the sincere versus insincere conditions as two levels of the first IV and timing (immediate versus delayed) as the second IV. This involves four conditions: 1) Sincere and immediate, 2) Sincere and delayed, 3) Insincere and immediate, and 4) Insincere and delayed.

2. Make sure you have a clear idea about what your four different conditions look like, and go into detail about the new IV. If I was looking at timing but didn’t tell you that one version had a day delay and another had a month delay, then you wouldn’t have a good sense of that “delay”. For all you know, it could be a minute versus an hour delay. That’s why I need to be specific on how I manipulated that new IV.

iii. Third, talk about your dependent variables (that is, your survey questions). For these DVs, once again provide enough detail so I know exactly what questions you asked. For example, “Participants provided their gender, age, and race”. For other dependent variables, tell me how the responses were recorded (yes/no, true/false, a scale of 1 to 9, etc.). If you used a scale, note the endpoints. That is, does a 1 mean it is high or is it low? “Participants were asked, ‘How surprising was the outcome?’, and they responded on a scale from 1 (unsurprising) to 10 (surprising).’” Highlight any new DVs you created for study Two. That is, I may ask an attention check question asking if the Tweet was posted immediately (posted within a day of the incident) or delayed (posted more than a day after the incident). I still need to report that new DV in enough detail that my reader will know exactly what the new DV entails.

iv. Fourth, make sure to highlight which DVs you analyzed. If there are DVs participants completed but you did not analyze them, feel free to say those DVs were not analyzed.

v. Finally, mention debriefing. (A brief mention is enough, as most readers will know what debriefing entails. Keep the debriefing description short).

d. There is no set minimum or maximum on the length of the methods section, but I would expect at least a page or two as you detail your materials and procedure. Missing important aspects of your IVs and DVs or presenting them in a confused manner will lower your score in this section

e. Once again, make the new information VERY specific so that someone unfamiliar with your study could recreate your survey. If they can’t, you won’t do well!

3. Results Section: I expect the following format (10 points):

a. The results are the hardest part of this paper, so again pay close attention to your lab presentation and book

b. First, write Results at the top of this section and center it boldface. This section comes directly at the end of the methods section, so the results section DOES NOT start on its own page.

c. For this assignment, include statistics about the most important variables in your study. For Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results, and Discussion, your study design will be more complex than study one. You are dealing with a factorial design now (that is, you have more than one IV), such as a 2 X 2 or even a 2 X 3 study. Let me walk you through the guidelines for a 2 X 2 design

i. First, run manipulation or attention check on at least one of your dependent variables. The type of analysis will depend on whether your dependent variable is nominal or interval / ratio

1. Nominal (categorical) dependent variable: IF you have a nominal DV (“Did you see #SorrySorrySorry or #SorryNotSorry?” or “Was the apology immediate or delayed?”), you can run a chi square test on them much like you did in Paper II for Study One.

2. Interval / ratio dependent variable: IF you have interval or ratio dependent variable (it has a scale format ranging from low to high), you can run a t-Test (if you only have two levels to the IV) or an ANOVA (if you have three or more levels).

a. For example, if I manipulated anger by giving half of the participants a hard time about their intelligence before they looked at the Twitter page, I might ask “On a scale of 1 to 9, how angry were you?” and then run a t-Test on the anger-based dependent variable to see if my manipulation did in fact work. That is, given two levels for my independent variable (angry versus control), they should rate themselves as more angry in the condition where I questioned their intelligence compared to a control condition

3. Note: I suspect you will have a nominal manipulation check question, so the chi square will be more likely. Also note that the manipulation check may have nothing to do with the sincerity of Charlie’s apology – it might be simply a recall of whether the apology was immediate or delayed.

ii. Second, run two 2 X 2 ANOVAs (or factorial ANOVAs). Recall that these involve univariate analysis of variance, but rather than focusing on one independent variable (like the One Way ANOVA), a 2 X 2 ANOVA looks at two different independent variables within the same test. Each 2 X 2 ANOVA will focus on a dependent variable of your choice. You will report at least three F tests for each ANOVA (an F for the main effect of IV #1, an F for the main effect of IV #2, and an F for the interaction). However, if the interaction is significant, you will report four additional F tests (called simple effects tests), or 7 F tests total for the ANOVA. I know this is complex, so let’s break it down and focus on an example 2 X 2 ANOVA. This test will yield two main effects and one interaction…

1. Main Effect #1 (IV #1): There will be a main effect in the ANOVA table for the first IV. Provide the degrees of freedom, F value, and p value. Regardless of whether it is significant, I want you to provide means and standard deviation for both levels of the IV. For example (and ONLY as an example), imagine your first IV is the “Timing” of the apology. Your main effect write-up will look like this …

a. “Using timing (immediate versus delayed) and apology (sincere versus insincere) as our IVs and the rating of “Charlie’s apology seemed sincere” as our DV, there was no main effect for timing, F(1, 189) = 1.97, p > .05. Participants did not differ in their ratings in the immediate (M = 2.35, SD = 0.21) versus delayed (M = 2.21, SD = 0.87) timing conditions.”

Timing IV Main Effect
Immediate (M = 2.35)	Delayed (M = 2.21)

2. Main Effect #2 (IV #2): There will be a main effect in the ANOVA table for the second IV. Again, provide the F test. Regardless of significance, give the means and standard deviations for both levels of the IV. (This should come in the same paragraph as the main effect for warning)

a. “There was, however, a significant apology condition main effect, F( 1, 189) = 3.42, p < .05. Participants thought the apology was more sincere in the sincere condition (M = 4.56, SD = 1.21) than participants in the insincere condition (M = 2.24, SD = 0.89).”

Apology Condition IV Main Effect
Sincere (M = 4.56)	Insincere (M = 2.24)

3. Interaction (IV #1 X IV #2): Finally, there will be an interaction for IV 1 X IV 2. Provide the initial interaction F test.

a. Interaction (either significant or not!). That is:

i. “The Timing X Apology Condition interaction was not significant, F(1, 187) = 1.22, p > .05.”

ii. “The main effects were qualified by a significant Timing X Apology Condition interaction, F(1, 187) = 6.61, p < .05.”

b. IF the interaction is not significant (e.g. p > .05), then just list the means and tell me they don’t differ.

i. “The Timing X Apology Condition interaction was not significant, F(1, 187) = 1.22, p > .05. This implies that participants in the sincere and immediate condition (M = 2.76, SD = 0.27), the sincere and delayed condition (M = 2.21, SD = 0.90), the insincere and immediate condition (M = 2.72, SD = 0.87), and the insincere and delayed condition (M = 2.78, SD = 0.45) did not differ from each other.”

c. However, IF there is a significant interaction, there are four more F tests you need to run (“simple effects” tests). This one gets complicated, but I’ll show you an example write-up (normally, this all goes in the same paragraph):

i. “The main effects were qualified by a significant Timing X Apology Condition interaction, F(1, 187) = 6.61, p < .05, necessitating simple-effects tests. First, simple effects showed that participants rated the apology as less sincere in the sincere delayed condition (M = 2.67, SD = 0.27) than in the sincere immediate condition (M = 5.21, SD = 1.90), F(1, 95) = 6.24, p < .05.

1. (Notice that ALL participants here are in the sincere condition. You are simply comparing immediate vs. delay)

ii. Second, simple effects showed that sincerity ratings did not differ between participants in the insincere immediate condition (M = 2.78, SD = 0.45) and the insincere delayed condition (M = 2.72, SD = 1.87), F(1, 93) = 1.13, p > .05.

iii. Third, for the delayed apology, simple effect tests showed that participants did not differ in their sincerity ratings between the sincere delayed condition (M = 2.67, SD = 0.27) and the insincere delayed condition (M = 2.72, SD = 0.45), F(1, 95) = 1.31, p > .05.

iv. Fourth, for the immediate apology, simple effect tests showed that participants rated the apology as more sincere in the sincere immediate condition (M = 5.21, SD = 1.90) than in the insincere immediate condition (M = 2.78, SD = 0.87), F(1, 95) = 5.11, p < .05.

Warning	Apology Condition (Sincere versus Insincere)
Sincere	Insincere
Immediate	Sincere Immediate (M = 5.21)	Insincere Immediate (M = 2.78)
Delayed	Sincere Delayed (M = 2.67)	Insincere Delayed (M = 2.72)

v. In general, this shows that participants thought the apology was most sincere in the sincere and immediate condition. However, when it was insincere (immediate or delayed) and when it was sincere but delayed, participants saw the apology as lower in sincerity.

4. Again, the timing X apology interaction above is an EXAMPLE. Your second independent variable may not involve “timing”, and your numbers will differ even if you use the same timing IV.

iii. Please note that you might run a lot of statistical tests for one DV (like the original F test followed-up with simple effects tests). This still only counts as one DV. You need to look at three DVs total (one for the manipulation check and then two additional rating-scale DVs), so you might have as many as 15 or so statistical tests in this section.

d. Like the methods section, there is no page minimum or maximum for the results section, though I would expect it to be at least a paragraph or two for each dependent variable

e. Make sure to provide both a callout to the table for each analysis as well as the tables themselves immediately following the callout.

4. Discussion Section (2 points)

a. In a short paragraph or two, write a brief discussion of your results. Tell me if you did or did not support your hypotheses. In this section, do NOT provide statistical information. I just want a plain English summary of what you found, such as …

i. “Overall, these results indicate that delaying an apology decreases ratings of the apology sincerity. This happens when the apology starts out as insincere, but a delay also makes a genuinely sincere apology look more insincere. Thus to increase ratings of sincerity, have a sincere apology occur immediately!

5.

References are not required for this paper

6. Tables: Study Two (4 points)

a. I want to make sure you are including the correct numbers in your results section, so I want you to include all relevant SPSS tables for each of your analyses after each callout in-text. For Study Two, you can title them Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4, but I actually recommend naming them 5, 6, 7, and 8 since you have 1, 2, 3, and 4 from study one already.

i. Table 5: Demographic Information Study Two (comes after the participant section callout)

ii. Table 6: Chi Square (or other Manipulation Check)

1. Make sure to include a table for your manipulation check. If you do a chi square for a nominal variable, this will include the cross-tabulation table and the chi square table. Or, if you do a
t
-Test or ANOVA, this will include the descriptive statistics as well as the t-Test table itself (or the ANOVA table itself)

2. This table comes directly after the manipulation check table callout

iii. Table 7: first dependent variable (First 2 X 2 ANOVA)

1. Make sure to include your descriptive statistics table and your Tests of Between Subject Effects table. If your interaction is not significant, you’re done. If it is significant, normally you would run simple effects follow up tests. You still need to run them, but for purposes of this appendix all I need to see is the original ANOVA table and the original descriptive table.

2. This table comes directly after the 2 X 2 ANOVA table callout

iv. Table 8: Second dependent variable (Second 2 X 2 ANOVA)

1. This is similar to Table 7 above, but for a different dependent variable

2. This table comes directly after the 2 X 2 ANOVA table callout

b. Appendices will come at the end of the paper (only if applicable)

i. Since your tables are in-text, you probably will not have an appendix, though you might choose to reproduce some of your study stimulus materials in an appendix (but this is not required)

7. Overall writing quality (3 points)

a. Make sure you check your paper for proper spelling and grammar. The FIU writing center is available if you want someone to look over your paper (an extra eye is always good!) and give you advice. I highly recommend them, as writing quality will become even more important on future papers.

Other Guidelines for Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results, and Discussion

 

1. 1). Page size is 8 1/2 X 11” with all 4 margins set at one inch on all sides. You must use a Times New Roman 12-point font and double space all sentences/paragraphs in the paper.

1. 2). PLEASE use a spell checker to avoid unnecessary errors. Proofread everything you write. I actually recommend reading some sentences aloud to see if they flow well, or getting family or friends to read your work.

1. Below is a write up for the significant interaction for the 2 X 2 ANOVA. Here, I just put it all in one paragraph, as it would appear in a results section (double space YOUR section, though). Notice there are 7 F tests for this significant 2 X 2 interaction.

Using timing (immediate versus delayed) and apology condition (sincere versus insincere) as our IVs and the rating of “Charlie’s apology seemed sincere” as our DV, there was no main effect for timing, F(1, 189) = 1.97, p > .05. Participants did not differ in their ratings in the immediate (M = 2.35, SD = 0.21) versus delayed (M = 2.21, SD = 0.87) timing conditions. There was, however, a significant apology condition main effect, F( 1, 189) = 3.42, p < .05. Participants thought the apology was more sincere in the sincere condition (M = 4.56, SD = 1.21) than participants in the insincere condition (M = 2.24, SD = 0.89). The main effects were qualified by a significant Timing X Apology Condition interaction, F(1, 187) = 6.61, p < .05.” First, simple effects showed that participants rated the apology as less sincere in the sincere delayed condition (M = 2.67, SD = 0.27) than in the sincere immediate condition (M = 5.21, SD = 1.90), F(1, 95) = 6.24, p < .05. Second, simple effects showed that sincerity ratings did not differ between participants in the insincere immediate condition (M = 2.78, SD = 0.45) and the insincere delayed condition (M = 2.72, SD = 1.87), F(1, 93) = 1.13, p > .05. Third, for the delayed apology, simple effect tests showed that participants did not differ in their sincerity ratings between the sincere delayed condition (M = 2.67, SD = 0.27) and the insincere delayed condition (M = 2.72, SD = 0.45), F(1, 95) = 1.31, p > .05. Fourth, for the immediate apology, simple effect tests showed that participants rated the apology as more sincere in the sincere immediate condition (M = 5.21, SD = 1.90) than in the insincere immediate condition (M = 2.78, SD = 0.87), F(1, 95) = 5.11, p < .05. In general, this shows that participants donated thought the apology was most sincere in the sincere and immediate condition. However, when it was insincere (immediate or delayed) and when it was sincere but delayed, participants saw the apology as lower in sincerity.

· Finally, go look at the supporting documents for this paper. There is a checklist, a grade rubric, and an example paper. All will give you more information about what we are specifically looking for as well as a visual example of how to put it all together. Good luck!

SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION

1

4

COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING: APPOINTING BLAME

10

SCENARIO MUTABILITY & COGNITION

Comment by Ryan Winter: Title pages should be a piece of cake by now!

Scenario Mutability and Need for Cognition: Appointing Blame

Former Student

Florida International University

Method Study Two Comment by Ryan Winter: The good news here is that the set up for the methods for study two is similar to the set up for study one. You can copy and paste a bit, but there are going to be some really IMPORTANT differences that I will highlight throughout

Participants

One hundred and sixty subjects, 90% (n = 144) university students, were recruited to participate in study two. Of these 160 participants, 33% (n = 52) were male and 67% (n = 108) were female. Ages ranged from a minimum of 17 to a maximum of 64 with an average of 22.38 years (SD = 5.14). Our sample population consisted of 76% Hispanic Americans (n = 122), 9% African Americans (n = 15), 9% Caucasians (n = 14), 3% Asian American (n = 5), and 3% Others (n = 4). See Table 6. Comment by Ryan Winter: The participant section in Paper IV is similar to that in Paper II, but your participants will differ. IMPORTANT: Include your sample and numbers for study two, as these participants are not the same ones you used in study one Comment by Ryan Winter: Note that this student started her tables with Table 6. She had five tables from Study One, so it makes sense for her to start with Table 6 for study two. For you, I am pretty sure you will continue listing tables starting with Table 5. Comment by Ryan Winter: Make sure to have a callout (“Table 6”) followed immediately by the table. You can group all demographics into the same table (Include the “Statistics”, “Gender”, and “Ethnicity” tables all under the general “Table 6” phrase)

Table 6

Demographics – Study Two

Materials and Procedure

Prospective participants were asked to take part in an online study being conducted for research purposes. If the subject agreed to participate, verbally or otherwise, he or she was directed to the survey developed through Qualtrics software. In accordance with the standardized guidelines for informed consent, subjects were first notified of the potential risks and benefits of participating in the study before being introduced to the research material. Once the participant confirmed their approval, they were eligible to continue with the rest of the survey, which consisted of six different parts or sections. Comment by Ryan Winter: It’s a new study (online this time!) so make sure to note it accordingly

In section one of the study, we manipulated the subject’s Need for Cognition (NFC) by randomly assigning them to one of two possible groups. Depending on which group the subject was appointed to, they were presented with either five low-NFC or five high-NFC statements procured from the 18-item NFC scale developed by Caccioppo et al. (1984). After reading each statement, the participant was then asked to rate how much they agreed with each remark on a number scale. The numbers on the scale ranged from one (somewhat agree) to seven (completely agree). For example, a participant presented with a set of high-NFC statements was asked to rate the statement “I prefer complex to simple problems,” while a participant presented with a set of low-NFC statements was asked to rate the statement “I only think as hard as I have to” on the previously mentioned number scale. Comment by Ryan Winter: For your study, make sure to include all new relevant information. This student author used Need for Cognition as her second independent variable, so it was important to elaborate on how they was manipulated and measured in her study

In section two of the study, participants read one of two short scenarios concerning a paraplegic couple, Tina and Eugene, who requested a taxi for a night out with friends. These scenarios were identical to the ones used in study one. Here, however, we omitted the neutral condition since it did not differ from the unchangeable condition. Once again, and similar to study one, participants continued on to section three of the study, which asked them to provide 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. Subjects were able to complete a total of ten statements, though they were not required to fill in all ten. Comment by Ryan Winter: You’ll notice a very brief mention of the scenarios here. Since this author talked about them in detail in the methods section for study one, there is no need to say it all again. He readers already know what the study involves now, so no need to go into detail about it once again

Similar to study one, section four presented participants with a series of 12 questions about their general thoughts regarding the specific situation they read about. These questions included how avoidable they thought the accident was, the causal role of the taxi driver in the couple’s death, their thoughts on how much control the taxi driver had, the negligence of the taxi driver, their dissatisfaction of scenario outcome, the foreseeability of the couple’s death, how much blame the taxi driver deserved for the event, how much control Eugene and Tina had in the event, how legally responsible the taxi driver was, how guilty the taxi driver should feel, how fair the taxi driver’s decision was, and how difficult it was to imagine a different outcome. After reading each question, the participant was asked to record his or her response in a scale of one to nine. The last question of section four 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 actually attentive to the study and allowed us to exclude potentially misrepresentative responses from our data. Comment by Ryan Winter: Again, the dependent variables mentioned in this paragraph are summarized rather than getting a detailed look as they did in study one. The DVs are important to mention, but if they are identical to those in study one there doesn’t need to be a great amount of detail.

Section five of the survey consisted of the remaining eight manipulation check questions for NFC. Similar to section one of the study, the participant was asked to rate eight dispositional statements on a scale of one to seven. For example, the statement “Thinking is not my idea of fun” would be rated from a scale of one (extremely uncharacteristic) to seven (extremely characteristic). Comment by Ryan Winter: These DVs are new (not present in study one) and are important to describe as new variables in study two

The last section of the study asked for the participant’s demographic information, including gender, age, ethnicity, country of birth, their first language, whether they are a student at Florida International University, etc. Several questions asked about information directly relevant to the scenario such as if the subject had ever been in a major car accident or if he or she knew anyone who was paraplegic. Concluding the study, the participant was debriefed.

Although we had several dependent variables, our primary focus involved the perceived blameworthiness of the taxi driver and the number of ‘If Only’ statements the participants could create. We also analyzed the interaction between scenario mutability and NFC for both dependent variables.

Results
Study Two Comment by Ryan Winter: Results are again brand new for this paper, so make sure they reflect your new Factorial design

Using condition (changeable versus unchangeable) as the independent variable and whether the taxi driver agreed to drive the couple as the dependent variable, the manipulation check was not significant. That is, very few participants in both the changeable (5%) and unchangeable (2.5%) conditions said the taxi driver picked up the paraplegic couple, X2(1) = .69, p > .05. Phi, which is most appropriate for a 2 X 2 chi square, showed a low effect. This is not surprising, as we eliminated the neutral condition (in study one, this was the only condition where the taxi did, in fact, pick up the couple). Thus participants did pay attention to their condition in study two. See Table 7. Comment by Ryan Winter: Again, include a callout to the table and then immediately provide the table

Table 7

Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study Two

To test our first dependent variable, we ran a 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA with NFC (high vs. low) and scenario condition (changeable vs. unchangeable) as our independent variables and the perceived blameworthiness of the taxi driver as our dependent variable. Results demonstrated no significant main effect for NFC on perceived blame, F(1, 152) = 1.69, p = .196. This means that there was no meaningful differences in the assignment of culpability between the high-NFC (M = 3.72, SD = 2.44) and low-NFC group (M = 4.12, SD = 2.49). There was, however, a significant main effect for scenario condition, F(1, 152) = 3.98, p = .048. Participants in the changeable condition (M = 4.27, SD = 2.35) perceived the taxi driver to be more blameworthy for the couple’s death than participants in the unchangeable condition (M = 3.56, SD = 2.47). Unfortunately, there was no interaction of NFC and scenario, F(1, 152) = 0.00, p = .985, meaning that perceived culpability did not significantly differ among high NFC changeable participants (M = 4.04, SD = 2.28), high NFC unchangeable participants (M = 3.27, SD = 2.44), low NFC changeable participants (M = 4.56, SD = 2.44), and low NFC unchangeable participants (M = 3.77, SD = 2.51). See Table 8

Table 8

ANOVA Perceived Blameworthiness – Study Two Comment by Ryan Winter: She changed her title here a bit from Paper II, but still looked at a similar variable (blame) for Paper III

To test our second dependent variable, we ran another 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA with NFC (high vs. low) and scenario condition (changeable vs. unchangeable) as our independent variables and number of “If Only” counterfactual statements as our dependent variable. There was no main effect for NFC on the number of “If Only” thoughts generated, F(1, 156) = .001, p = .975. This means that there was no difference in the number of counterfactual thoughts generated between the high-NFC group (M = 3.87, SD = 1.77) and low-NFC group (M = 3.81, SD = 2.46). Similarly, there was no main effect between for scenario, F(1, 56) = 2.05, p = .154. That is, there was no significant difference in the number of “If Only” statements generated between the changeable condition (M = 4.09, SD = 2.28) and the unchangeable condition (M = 3.60, SD = 1.97). We also examined the overall interaction between the two independent variables (high vs. low-NFC and unchangeable vs. changeable scenario) and the dependent variable. We found that there was no interaction of NFC and scenario condition, F(1, 156) = 1.04, p = .310, meaning that the number of “If Only” thoughts created did not vary between the high NFC unchangeable condition (M = 3.79, SD = 1.92), high NFC changeable condition (M = 3.93, SD = 1.68), low NFC unchangeable condition (M = 3.46, SD = 2.01), or low NFC changeable condition (M = 4.29, SD = 2.93). See Table 9. Comment by Ryan Winter: If you look back at the example paper for Paper III, you’ll see the hypotheses for this results section. The results once again focus on two different dependent variables, but in a factorial design each DV has two main effects and one interaction associated with it. Comment by Ryan Winter: So no main effects and no interaction for this first variable. I still want to see the means, though, so include them.

Table 9

ANOVA Number of Counterfactuals – Study Two

Discussion Study Two

Although study two posited that Need for Cognition would impact participants and their generation of counterfactual statements and their assessment of blame, results did not support this contention. For both dependent variables, Need for Cognition did not result in main effects. Despite predictions to the contrary, those high in NFC did not generate any more counterfactuals than those low in NFC, and those high in NFC did not blame the taxi driver any more than those low in NFC. Nor did NCF interact with scenario, despite our prediction that those high NFC would generate the most counterfactuals and find the most blame when given the changeable scenario compared to other conditions. However, scenario did show a significant main effect such that participants found more blame for the taxi driver in the changeable condition than the unchangeable condition.