Week 3 Worksheet FINISHED
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Cincinnati, Main Campus *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2002
Subject
Communications
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by ProfSquid3990
Name: Paityn Townsend
This experiment examined the effects of judicious swearing on persuasion in a pro-attitudinal speech. Eighty-seven
participants (3 groups; 29 participants per group) listened to one of three versions of a speech about lowering tuition that
manipulated where the word ‘‘damn’’ appeared (beginning, end, or nowhere/control). Assume α = .05 for all analyses. Note: the purpose of this assignment is to get you more comfortable with interpreting the results of a one-way
ANOVA (as you will see below, the F-values are provided to you). You will do one-way ANOVA calculations in next
week’s worksheet!
Data analysis 1: Does swearing affect the
persuasiveness of a speaker? Persuasiveness scores ranged from 1 (not at all persuasive) to 7 (very persuasive).
Group A. Swearing at beginning
of speech
Group B. Swearing at end of
speech
Group C. No swearing
Mean
4.42
4.34
4.14
St. Dev
0.45
0.41
0.40
One-way ANOVA: F
= 3.751
p
= 0.027
Between groups df
: 3
Within groups df
: 29
Post-hoc results: Comparison
Significant? Group A versus Group B
No
Group A versus Group C
Yes
Group B versus Group C
Yes
Your interpretation of the results (in APA format!)
1)
Describe ANOVA results.
Group A (swearing at beginning of speech) M
= 4.42, SD
= 0.45. Group B (swearing at the end of speech) M
= 4.34, SD
= 0.41. Group C (no swearing) M
= 4.14, SD
= 0.40. P = 0.027.
2)
Describe post-hoc results (if applicable).
Group A versus Group B had no significant difference. Group A versus Group C had a significant difference. Group B versus Group C had a significant difference.
Data analysis 2: Does swearing affect the
intensity of a speaker? Intensity scores ranged from 1 (not at all intense) to 7 (very intense).
Group A. Swearing at beginning
of speech
Group B. Swearing at end of
speech
Group C. No swearing
Mean
4.89
5.02
4.40
St. Dev
0.81
0.98
1.03
The data presented in this activity were data from Scherer & Sagarin (2004). Indecent influence: The positive effects of obscenity on persuasion.
One-way ANOVA: F
= 3.473
p
= 0.035
Between groups df
: 3
Within groups df
: 29
Post-hoc results: Comparison
Significant? Group A versus Group B
No
Group A versus Group C
Yes
Group B versus Group C
Yes
Your interpretation of the results (in APA format!)
1)
Describe ANOVA results.
Group A (swearing at beginning of speech) M
= 4.89, SD
= 0.81. Group B (swearing at the end of speech) M
= 5.02, SD
= 0.98. Group C (no swearing) M
= 4.40, SD
= 1.03. P = 0.035.
2)
Describe post-hoc results (if applicable).
Group A versus Group B had no significant difference. Group A versus Group C had a significant difference. Group B versus Group C had a significant difference.
Data analysis 3: Does swearing affect the credibility of a speaker? Credibility scores ranged from 1 (not at all credible) to 7 (very credible).
Group A. Swearing at beginning
of speech
Group B. Swearing at end of
speech
Group C. No swearing
Mean
4.91
4.98
4.91
St. Dev
0.75
0.76
0.73
One-way ANOVA: F
= 0.052
p
= 0.945
Between groups df
:
3
Within groups df
: 29
Your interpretation of the results (in APA format!)
1)
Describe ANOVA results.
Group A (swearing at beginning of speech) M
= 4.91, SD
= 0.75. Group B (swearing at the end of speech) M
= 4.98, SD
= 0.76. Group C (no swearing) M
= 4.91, SD
= 0.73. P = 0.945.
2)
Describe post-hoc results (if applicable).
No post-hoc results were taken.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help