It has been suggested that pupil size increases during emotional arousal. A researcher would, therefore, like to see whether the increase in pupil size is a function of the type of arousal (pleasant versus aversive). A random sample of five participants is selected for the study. Each participant views all three stimuli: neutral, pleasant, and aversive photographs. The neutral photograph portrays a plain brick building. The pleasant photograph consists of a young man and woman sharing a large ice cream cone. Finally, the aversive stimulus is a graphic photograph of an automobile accident. Upon viewing each stimulus, the pupil size is measured (in millimeters) with sophisticated equipment. The data are as follows. Use it to test whether pupil size varies based on type of arousal. Stimulus
It has been suggested that pupil size increases during emotional arousal. A researcher would, therefore, like to see whether the increase in pupil size is a
Stimulus
Participant Neutral Pleasant Aversive
A 4 8 3
B 3 6 3
C 2 5 2
D 3 3 6
E 3 8 4
The above scenario requires a repeated Anova, with a boxplot graph.
Question - I need to write an explanation for the output given. I am to include a statistical notation and explanation as to whether the results are significant or not significant.
EXAMPLES of Explanation:
Significant:
A One-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA was conducted to examine whether a preceding situation (watching a video of helping behavior, seeing first-hand someone help another person, or a neutral control condition) influenced the number of helping behaviors expressed by people. The null hypothesis was rejected - there is a difference between the control, video, and live conditions in number of helping behaviors F(2, 14) = 4.20, p =.037, Ƞp2 = .375. Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that the control group had significantly fewer helping behaviors than the live group (p = .015). No other comparison was significant (p > .05)
Non-significant:
A One-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA was conducted to examine whether a preceding situation (watching a video of helping behavior, seeing first-hand someone help another person, or a neutral control condition) influenced the number of helping behaviors expressed by people. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected F (2, 21) = 4.993, p= .35, Ƞ2 = .05. There is no difference between the control, video, and live conditions in number of helping behaviors shown.
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps with 1 images
