Question
Answered step-by-step
dine1209
Methods Analysis Assignment #10 – Spring, 2023 (5 points) …
Methods Analysis Assignment #10 – Spring, 2023 (5 points)
Instructions: Ready for an assignment that incorporates all the skills that you’ve learned this semester? Using your methodology skills, your statistics skills, and your SPSS skills (as well as links to a few SPSS data sets), complete the questions below. IMPORTANT: Answer options may be in a different order, so make sure to choose carefully! Also note that some questions are harder than others, so they are worth more points than the easy ones!
Part One (Use the SPSS DataAnalysisFIU#1FacilitationSpring.sav data set for this section).
Social Facilitation: When you are riding a bicycle, do you find that you ride faster when there are other people around you? What about your daily run? Do you run harder when there are other joggers nearby? What if you are solving problems? Do you solve them faster when other people are observing you?
There is a lot of research on “Social Facilitation”, or the idea that dominant responses become more likely in the presence of other people. For example, bicyclists cycle faster when in a crowd, runners run harder, and people solve math problems much faster in the presence of other people (provided they are “easy” math problems that solvers are already likely to correctly answer).
Imagine you d a study looking at social facilitation. You recruit participants with experience playing basketball for a free-throw competition. You ask each to make 20 free-throw shots for thebasket from the free-throw line. However, participants make these free-throws under one of three situations. Some participants make their free-throws when they are alone. Othersmake their free-throws with inattentive friends nearby (the friends do not interact with the participant during the free-throws). Remaining participants make their free-throws with their friends nearby, though in this case their friends actively cheer the participant (attentive friends shouting things like “You can do it!). You want to see how well the participants do (that is, how many free-throws they successfully complete out of 20)under these conditions.
Facilitation Condition: Alone vs. Inattentive Friends vs. Attentive Friends
Measures: First, for your attention check for condition recall, you ask participants to select the option that best describes the presence of others near them as they made their basketball free-throws: “I was alone”, “My friends were nearby but did not pay attention to my free-throws”, or “My friends were nearby and paid attention to my free-throws.” Second, for your main analysis, you determine how many free-throws the participant successfully completed (ranging from 0 successful throws to 20successful throws).
Predictions: Due to social facilitation principles, you predict that these experienced basketball players will successfully complete more free-throws (that is, “sink more basketball shots”) when they are surrounded by attentive friends than when they are surrounded by inattentive friends or when they are alone, with those in the inattentive friends condition successfully completing more free throws than those who are alone.
Using this study design, answer the following questions:
1). What is the main independent variable in this study, and how many levels are there for this independent variable? Choose the BEST option (.5 points)
A. IV: Facilitation Condition, with two levels (Alone vs. Attentive Friends)
B. IV: Facilitation Condition, with three levels (Alone vs. Inattentive Friends vs. Attentive Friends)
C. IV: Free-Throw Success, with two levels (Successfully completes all 20 free-throws vs. Successfully completes 0 free-throws)
D. IV: Facilitation Condition Recall, with three selection levels (“I was alone” vs. “My friends were nearby but did not pay attention to my throws” vs. “My friends were nearby and paid attention to my throws”)
2). What are the dependent variables in this study, and what scale of measurement are they based on (using NOIR)? Choose the BEST option (.5 points)
A. DV #1: Facilitation Condition Recall: Nominal scale – DV #2: Number of successful free-throws: Nominal scale
B. DV #1: Facilitation Condition Recall: Nominal scale – DV #2: Number of successful free-throws: Ratio scale
C. DV #1: Facilitation Condition Recall: Interval scale – DV #2: Number of successful free-throws: Interval scale
D. DV #1: Facilitation Condition: Nominal scale – DV #2: Number of successful free-throws: Ordinal scale
3). You will run some data analyses using the DataAnalysisFIU#1FacilitationSpring.sav SPSS file in Canvas. Use your independent variable and your nominal dependent variable in the SPSS analysis. (Hint: Your scale of measurement for the nominal dependent variable should let you know which specific statistical test to use!). After running the test, choose the correct analysis, write-up, and conclusion from the options below (1.5 points)
A. We ran a chi square using Facilitation Condition as the independent variable (Alone, Inattentive Friend, Attentive Friends) and participants’ recall regarding the presence of others nearby as they took their free-throws as the dependent variable. A significant effect failed to emerge, ?2(4) = 103.63, p > .05. There was no difference in participant recall of who was nearby during their free-throws regardless of condition. Cramer’s V, which is appropriate for this design, was weak. Participants were therefore incorrect in describing the people around them at the time of the free-throws.
B. We ran a chi square using Facilitation Condition as the independent variable (Alone, Inattentive Friend, Attentive Friends) and participants’ recall regarding the presence of others nearby as they took their free-throws as the dependent variable. A significant effect emerged, ?2(1) = 58.70, p < .001. Most participants in the Alone condition (86.7%, or 26 out of 30 participants) recalled "I was alone". Most participants in the Inattentive Friends condition (83.3%, or 25 out of 30 participants) recalled "My friends were nearby and paid attention to my free-throws." Finally, most participants in the Attentive Friends condition (76.7%, or 23 out of 30 participants) recalled "My friends were nearby and paid attention to my free-throws." Cramer's V, which is appropriate for this design, was strong. Participants were therefore correct in describing the people around them at the time of the free-throws. C. We ran a chi square using Facilitation Condition as the independent variable (Alone, Inattentive Friend, Attentive Friends) and participants' recall regarding the presence of others nearby as they took their free-throws as the dependent variable. A significant effect emerged, ?2(4) = 103.63, p < .001. Most participants in the Alone condition (86.7%, or 26 out of 30 participants) recalled "I was alone". Most participants in the Inattentive Friends condition (83.3%, or 25 out of 30 participants) recalled "My friends were nearby and paid attention to my free-throws." Finally, most participants in the Attentive Friends condition (76.7%, or 23 out of 30 participants) recalled "My friends were nearby and paid attention to my free-throws." Cramer's V, which is appropriate for this design, was strong. Participants were therefore correct in describing the people around them at the time of the free-throws. D. We ran a One-Way ANOVA using Facilitation Condition as the independent variable (Alone, Inattentive Friend, Attentive Friends) and participants' recall regarding the presence of others nearby as they took their free-throws as the dependent variable. A significant effect emerged, F(2, 87) = 88.95, p < .001. Tukey post hoc tests showed that participants thought they were more alone in the "Alone" condition (M = 1.20, SD = 0.55) than in the "Inattentive Friends" condition (M = 2.17, SD = 0.38) and the "Attentive Friends" condition (M = 2.77, SD = 0.43), with participants also feeling more alone in the "Inattentive Friends" condition than in the "Attentive Friends" condition. This indicates that participants did indeed feel more alone when they were alone or their friends ignored them. 4). For the main analysis, you predicted that the participants would successfully complete more free-throws (that is, "sink more basketball shots") when they were surrounded by attentive friends than when they were surrounded by inattentive friends or when they were alone, with those in the inattentive friendscondition successfully completing more free throws than those who were alone. Run the correct analysis to see if you confirmed your predictions, and choose the correct conclusion from the options below (1.5 points) A. We ran a One-Way ANOVA using Facilitation Condition as the independent variable (Alone, Inattentive Friend, Attentive Friends) and how many free-throws the participant successfully completed as the dependent variable. A significant effect emerged, F(2, 87) = 12.08, p < .001. In support of the hypotheses, Tukey post hoc tests showed that participants successfully completed more free-throws in the Attentive Friends condition (M = 15.93, SD = 1.98) than in both the Inattentive Friends condition (M = 14.73, SD = 1.66) and the Alone condition (M = 13.53, SD = 2.01), though participants did not differ in their free-throw success between the Inattentive Friend condition and the Alone condition. B. We ran a One-Way ANOVA using Facilitation Condition as the independent variable (Alone, Inattentive Friend, Attentive Friends) and how many free-throws the participant successfully completed as the dependent variable. A significant effect emerged, F(2, 87) = 12.08, p < .001. In support of the hypotheses, Tukey post hoc tests showed that participants successfully completed more free-throws in the Attentive Friends condition (M = 15.93, SD = 1.98) than in both the Inattentive Friends condition (M = 14.73, SD = 1.66) and the Alone condition (M = 13.53, SD = 2.01), with participants also successfully completing more free-throws in the Inattentive Friend condition than in the Alone condition. C. We ran a One-Way ANOVA using Facilitation Condition as the independent variable (Alone, Inattentive Friend, Attentive Friends) and how many free-throws the participant successfully completed as the dependent variable. A significant effect emerged, F(2, 89) = 12.08, p = .000. In support of the hypotheses, Tukey post hoc tests showed that participants successfully completed more free-throws in the Attentive Friends condition (M = 15.93, SD = 1.98) than in both the Inattentive Friends condition (M = 14.73, SD = 1.66) and the Alone condition (M = 13.53, SD = 2.01), with participants also successfully completing more free-throws in the Inattentive Friend condition than in the Alone condition. D. We ran a One-Way ANOVA using Facilitation Condition as the independent variable (Alone, Inattentive Friend, Attentive Friends) and how many free-throws the participant successfully completed as the dependent variable. A significant effect failed to emerge, F(2, 87) = 12.08, p = .10. In contrast to the hypotheses, participants successfully completed a similar number of free-throws in the Attentive Friends condition (M = 15.93, SD = 1.98), the Inattentive Friends condition (M = 14.73, SD = 1.66), and the Alone condition (M = 13.53, SD = 2.01). Part Two (Use the SPSS DataAnalysisFIU#2FacilitationSpring.sav data set for this section). Imagine we alter the design a bit. First, in terms of the Facilitation Condition, we retain only the "Alone" and "Attentive Friends" conditions (dropping the "Inattentive Friends" condition). Second, we wonder what would happen if some of our participants had no prior experience with shooting free-throws. According to social facilitation theory, having an audience increases the dominant response of the participant. That is, a participant who is good at basketball should perform better in front of a crowd when engaging in free-throws (since their dominant response is to play good!). Participants with no basketball experience should perform worse in front of a crowd (since their dominant response is to play lousy!). We therefore recruit participants who have formerly played basketball within the past three years (at either a high school or college level) and those who have never played basketball. This results in four conditions: 1). Experienced basketball participants who perform their free-throws alone. 2). Experienced basketball participants who perform their free-throws in front of attentive friends. 3). Inexperienced basketball participants who perform their free-throws alone. 4). Inexperienced basketball participants who perform their free-throws in front of attentive friends. The dependent variables remain the same, though we add a new manipulation check question that asks participants about their basketball history ("Have you played organized basketball at either the high school or collegiate level in the last three years?" Yes or No). 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: Social Facilitation Condition, three levels (Alone vs. Inattentive Friends vs. Attentive Friends) - IV #2: Experience Condition, three levels (Experienced Participant vs. Inexperienced Participant vs. Intermediate Experience Participant). B. IV#1: Social Facilitation Condition, two levels (Alone vs. Attentive Friends) - IV #2: Experience Condition, two levels (Experienced Participant vs. Inexperienced Participant). C. IV#1: Social Facilitation Condition, two levels (Alone vs. Inattentive Friends) - IV #2: Experience Condition, two levels (Experienced Participant vs. Inexperienced Participant). D. IV#1: Social Facilitation Condition, four levels (Alone vs. Attentive Friends vs. Attentive Coworkers vs. Attentive Strangers) - IV #2: Experience Condition, two levels (Experienced Participant vs. Inexperienced Participant). 6). Consider all of the possible main effects and interactions for this study. Use the SPSS file named DataAnalysisFIU#2FacilitationSpring.sav to 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 is one significant main effect, one non-significant main effect, and no significant interaction D. There are two significant main effects but there is no significant interaction
