Evans Alvarez Results Discussion Draft
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Southern California *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
314
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by JudgeJaguar3925
Results
We hypothesized that … (clearly list your hypotheses).
We conducted a 3 X 2 multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) to determine the
effect of three forms of educational intervention (control being normal class session; single intervention being socio-emotional learning; and multi-faceted intervention being socio-
emotional learning and intergroup dialogue intervention) and ethnic membership (Israeli-Jewish vs. Israeli-Palestinian) on two dependent variables, morally-relevant theory of mind and attribution of intentions. We found a significant effect of educational intervention on the two dependent measures, Wilks
=.856, F
(4,580)=11.69, p
<.001. We also found significant differences on the two dependent measures as a function of the interaction of educational intervention with ethnic membership, Wilks
=.872, F
(4,580)=10.29, p
<.001. Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the dependent variables (morally-relevant theory of mind and attribution of intentions) for the six, education intervention by ethnic membership, groups.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Morally-Relevant Theory of Mind and Attribution of Intention
Scores for Each Group
Dependent Variable
Treatment Condition
Mean
SD
MoToM
I-J at Control
-.356
1.29
I-P at Control
-.029
.769
I-J at Single
.463
1.21
I-P at Single -.075
.693
I-J at Multi
-.224
.692
I-P at Multi
.221
.972
I-J at Control
-.654
.692
AoI
I-P at Control
.025
1.13
I-J at Single
-.009
.942
I-P at Single -.263
.857
I-J at Multi
.722
.619
I-P at Multi
.178
1.12
Note
: I-J = Israeli-Jewish; I-P = Israeli-Palestinian
As follow-up tests to the MANCOVA, we conducted an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test for each dependent variable. We executed specific group comparisons using the Bonferroni method for adjusting alpha to control for Type I errors in multiple comparisons.
With respect to our first dependent variable, morally-relevant theory of mind, the ANCOVA regarding the effects of educational intervention on morally-relevant theory of mind was significant, F
(2,291)=4.20, p
=.016. The ANCOVA regarding the effects of the educational intervention by ethnic membership on morally-relevant theory of mind was significant, F
(2,291)=8.07, p
<.001. There were no significant main effects of ethnic membership on morally-relevant theory of mind (
p
> .05).
We conducted post hoc analyses to determine the effects of the interaction by examining the Bonferroni adjusted confidence intervals. Table 2 presents the 95% confidence intervals around the means of each DV in each group. Table 2
95% Confidence Intervals Around Means of Dependent Measures for Each Group
Dependent Variable
Treatment Condition
95%CI Lower Bound
95%CI Upper Bound
MoToM
I-J at Control
-.618
-.093
I-P at Control
-.291
.234
I-J at Single
.201
.726
I-P at Single
-.338
.188
I-J at Multi
-.486
.039
I-P at Multi
-.044
.481
I-J at Control
-.903
-.403
AoI
I-P at Control
-.224
.276
I-J at Single
-.258
.242
I-P at Single
-.512
-.012
I-J at Multi
.473
.973
I-P at Multi
-.075
.425
Note
: I-J = Israeli-Jewish; I-P = Israeli-Palestinian
Whereas Palestinian children exhibited no significant differences in morally-relevan
theory of mind scores whether they took part in the control condition (95%CI from -.291 to .234), single intervention condition (95%CI from -.338 to .188), or multi-faceted intervention condition (95%CI from -.044 to .481), Jewish children achieved significantly higher levels of morally-relevant theory of mind when engaging in the single intervention condition (95%CI from .201 to .726) compared to participating in either the multi-faceted intervention (95%CI from -.486 to .039) or the control condition (95%CI from -.618 to -.093). Palestinian children exhibited an interesting non-significant opposite trend. In contrast to Jewish children, Palestinian
children seem to exhibit somewhat lower morally-relevant theory of mind scores under the single
intervention condition as compared to a relatively higher morally-relevant theory of mind when engaging in the multi-faceted intervention condition or control condition. The trend was not
found to be significant in this investigation but may bear further examination. Figure 1 displays the mean morally-relevant theory of mind for each group.
Figure 1
Morally-Relevant Theory of Mind by Educational Intervention and Ethnic Membership
With respect to our second dependent variable, the ANCOVA regarding the effects of
education intervention on attribution of intentions was significant, F
(2,291)=19.71, p
<.001. The ANCOVA regarding the effects of the educational intervention by ethnic membership interaction
on attribution of intentions was significant, F
(2,291)=12.71, p
<.001. There were no significant main effects of ethnic membership on attribution of intentions (
p
> .05). Whereas Palestinian children exhibited no significant differences in attribution of intention scores whether they took part in the control condition (95%CI from -.224 to .276), single intervention condition (95%CI from -.512 to -.012), or multi-faceted intervention condition (95%CI from -.075 to .425), Jewish children exhibited statistically significant levels of attribution of intentions in all educational intervention conditions: control condition (95%CI from -.903 to -.403), single intervention condition (95%CI from -.258 to .242), or multi-faceted intervention condition (95%CI from .473
to .973). Jewish children obtained this significant attribution of intention scores in an upward trend demonstrating more reported positive intentions as level of educational intervention increases (from no intervention, to single intervention, to muti-faceted intervention). On the other hand, Palestinian children exhibited a similar nonsignificant trend as before, where they scored lower attribution of intention scores under the single intervention condition as compared to a relatively higher attribution of intention scores when engaging in the multi-faceted intervention condition or control condition.
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
Figure 2
Attribution of Intention by Educational Intervention and Ethnic Membership
Important
-
Make sure to actually change the variable names in the SPSS so that your figures look correct!!!
-
Make sure to actually change the variable names in the Results template so that the Results correctly reflect your own variables
Discussion
-
First paragraph: A brief summary of your hypotheses, what you did, what you found. Did
you end up finding support for your hypotheses or no?
1. Hypothesis: a. Treatment internvetions would different/more higher MoToM/positive intention than control.
b. Multifacted itnernvetion more higher MoToM/positive intention compared to single intervention
2. What I do:
- Have Israeli-Jewish and Israeli-Palestinian children undertake different educational interventions - either a normal class session, SEL intervention, and SEL intervention that incorporates intergroup dialogue – for 2 weeks.
- Afterwards, we have the children do an MoToM Accidental Transgessor task in which we measure there morally-relevant theory of mind and attribution of intentions. 3. Found: In regards to the first hypothesis, the children did significantly perform better in morally-relevant theory of mind and attribution of intentions under the treatment conditions compared to the control. Children under the single intervention exhibited a significant higher morally-relevant theory of mind competence in compared to the control
and the multifaceted intervention exhibited more positive intentions in compared to the control. However, there was partial support for the second hypothesis. Whereas the multifaceted intervention performed more positive intentions than the single intervention,
there was no significant difference between the multifaceted intervention and the single intervention in morally-relevant theory of mind. Interactions explained:
Unexpectedly, there was interaction found between educational intervention and ethnic membership on the two dependent measures. Israeli-Jewish children tend to performed better in the morally-relevant theory of mind task under the single intervention condition compared to other conditions and performed in a similar rate under the multifaceted intervention conditions compared to the control. Additionally, Israeli-Jewish children tend to attribute more positive intentions as level of educational intervention increases (from no intervention, to single intervention, to muti-faceted intervention). Although, there was a nonsignificant interaction between Palestinian and educational intervention for both dependent measures, Palestinian children seem to exhibit lower morally-relevant theory of mind and negative intentions under the single intervention compared to the other conditions.
-
Do your best to explain what might have happened with the data. Give an explanation, regardless of how weird the results look
1. Explain Israeli Jewish results: ALL interventions worked for AOI, ONLY SINGLE worked in MoToM, LACK IN MULTI for MoToM may be do SEL+IGD group were exposed to skills training and intergroup contact components simultaneously, it may be the case that it takes youth longer to apply the social-cognitive and social-emotional skills
they learned in novel situations involving the outgroup. 2. Explain Israeli Palestinian results: lack of significant improvements in MoToM and AoI due to children unable to learn SEL skills or SEL+IGD from failure of the interventions to cater their lessons culturally, thus only seen relative differences between educational intervention conditions.
-
Identify some other possible explanations that might explain what’s going on with the results
majority/minority group have differences in when understanding intentionality and thus influencing their attribution of intentions.
- Assumption: The culture-oriented focus of the SEL intervention influenced minority (close to ones culture) to be more biased projectioning accurate intentionality and attributions of such intentionality compared to majority cultures (less close to owns culture)
1. Explain Israeli Jewish results:
- As Majority group, must likely have no contact with minority group thus the SEL+IGD must have confuse them thus influencing low MoToM result
2. Explain Israeli Palestinian results: - The reason for the non signicnat trend is minority group’s level of low intergroup trust and/or high intergroup threat influenced their outgroup evaluation measures even when exposed to SEL and SEL+IGD
groups more
1. SEL: When minority groups (no contact) they are more psychologically close off (closer to culture and SEL was actual made within there culture) and thus less understanding of outgroup intentions and more perceive as negative intentions (perceive and morally-relveant salient situation with outgroup as threat).
2. SEL+IGD: When minority (in contact) they are more cognitively understanding of outgroup members (able to link to their own experiences as minority group) thus able to intergrate although culturally oriented SEL better for outgroup intentionality understanding and attributions of such intentions more positively - No citations are necessary, but you can if you want to
-
Make a statement regarding how your study resolves problems in the field/ in the world -
Explain contribution of your study to the field, to our understanding
-
Discussion should be 1-2 pages; 2 pages max
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