- Premium Academic Help From Professionals
- +1 810 395 5448
- support@essayshredder.com

Description

Results Section: I expect the following format (15 points) —hard to set page limit for this

section because you are strictly required to have 3 analyses.

a. The results are the hardest part of this paper, and your lab will help you with this part of

the paper. But this section is the most standardized part.

b. First, write Results at the top of this section, center it, and use boldface. This section

comes directly at the end of the Method 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,

including your IV (Type of Apology – Sincere, Insincere, and No Apology) and the

DVs (here, I require Part V (manipulation check), Part II Q1 Wrong, and Part II Q7

Sincere.

d. For this paper, you must run at least three different analyses (that is, focus on three

different dependent variables). One must be a chi square for Part V, our manipulation

check. One must be a one-way ANOVA on Part III Q1 Wrong. The last one must be

one-way ANOVA on Part II Q7 Sincere. Please note that if you run three tests on the

YOUR SHORT TITLE 5

same DV, that still only counts as one DV, you will lose points. We count the number

of DVs you analyze – NOT the number of tests you run!

i. Chi square: Your first analysis will be a chi square, which you use if your DV

is categorical (yes / no; yes / no / maybe; male / female, or … in our case, we

have Recall the apology on last question). So, let’s discuss the chi square, which

does not look at means but rather counts how many responses there are

compared to how many you would expect.

1. Consider DV last question on your questionnaire – “what hashtag did

Charlie end the Twitter post with?” Here, you can run a chi square

looking at the frequencies of the three answer options

2. We are interested in the chi square (χ

2

) and p value. We also provide

percentages for each of our groups (rather than means and SD).

a. “Using the type of apology primed on Facebook page (sincere vs.

no apology vs. insincere) as independent and recall of hashtag

Charlie ended the post with as the dependent variable, Chisquare test had a significant results, χ

2

(1) = 68.49, p = .031

(directly report p value, however, if SPSS output shows p

=.000, then write p < .001). Most participants in the sincere

condition recalled #SorrySorrySorry (98.45%); most participants

in the no apology condition recalled #WhatDoneIsDone

(96.02%); and most participants in insincere condition recalled

#SorryNotSorry (90.69%). This indicates that participants saw

our manipulation as intended.”

b. Make sure to round up to 2 decimals (except for p), italicize the χ

and p.

ii. ANOVA: Since you have a condition independent variable with three levels, the

most appropriate test is a One-Way ANOVA if your DV is scaled (like a 1 to 9

scale or a 1 to 6 scale). Your lab will show you how to conduct an ANOVA, but

there are some guidelines I want to give you about how to write your results.

1. First, for my example analysis below, I want to give you an example on

Charlie’s apology acknowledged the behavior was wrong.

2. We look first at the ANOVA table (or F table) and focus on the between

subject factor. We note the degrees of freedom, the F value itself, and

the p value.

3. If the p value is significant (less than .05), we have one more step to

take. Since this is a three level IV, we need to compare mean A to mean

B, mean A to mean C, and mean B to mean C. We do this using a Tukey

post hoc test. That will tell us which of the means differ significantly.

You then write up the results (Note: I completely made up the data

below).

a. “Using the type of apology primed on Facebook page (sincere vs.

no apology vs. insincere) and ratings of Facebook user’

warmness as the dependent variable, One-way ANOVA had a

significant result, F(2, 203) = 4.32, p = .02. Tukey post hoc tests

showed that participants agreed more strongly that the apology

showed the acknowledge of wrongfulness in sincere condition

YOUR SHORT TITLE 6

(M = 5.56, SD = 1.21) than those in insincere (M = 4.24, SD =

0.89) and no apology (M = 4.23, SD = 0.77) conditions. The

insincere and no apology conditions, however, did not differ

from each other. This supports the prediction that the way people

apologize influences how other people feel about the apology.”

i. Note there are three possible outcomes: NONE of the

three conditions differ (A = B = C). ALL differ from each

other (A ≠ B ≠ C). One differs from the other two, but

those other two do not differ (A ≠ B = C). You need to

write out the results based on your analysis results.

b. Make sure to round up to 2 decimals (except for p), and italicize

the F, p, M, and SD (as in the example)

c. Now you can run and write out the same ANOVA on our DVs

(Part II Q1, Part II Q7)

RUN THREE TESTS: One must be a chi square for Part V, our manipulation

check (WITHOUT LOOKING BACK, WHAT HASHTAG DID CHARLIE END THE TWITTER POST WITH?), One must be a one-way ANOVA on Part III Q1 Wrong ( SECOND PART OF THE SURVEY), The last one must be

one-way ANOVA on Part II Q7 Sincere (FIRST PART OF THE SURVEY).

study will be attached *** There are three different surveys: only thing that changes really is the very last Tweet : whether he apologizes or not and the hashtag he used. PLEASE READ 3 STUDIES FIRST AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW THE STUDY WAS COMPLETED.

I WILL ATTACH THE TABLES THAT I COMPLETED.

error: Content is protected !!

Open chat

You can contact our live agent via WhatsApp! Via our number +(323) 333-4455

Feel Free To Ask Questions, Clarifications, or Discounts, Available When Placing the Order.