Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Math
Statistics
Meaning-making is "an active process through which people revise or reappraise an event or a series of events" (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002, p. 613). When people find meaning in their lives, it leads to benefits such as affirmed self-worth, the opportunity to appreciate one's accomplishments and personal beliefs, and even improved physical health. Researchers study meaning-making in a variety of ways, including through verbal interviews with participants, and asking them to write narratives of their lives. In this study, you want to see which method will elicit meaning-making more successfully in the middle of the COVID- 19 pandemic. You divide a total of 21 participants into 3 conditions: a verbal phone interview about their life and experiences in the pandemic, a written narrative task about their life and experiences in the pandemic, and a control condition with neither task. Afterwards, participants answer a scale measuring meaning in life (higher score = more meaning). Participants' scores are seen below (test assumptions and alpha at .05; apply Tukey's HSD or Scheffé's test using hand calculations): M SD c. d. Control 13 9 7 6 12 8 5 8.57 2.99 Verbal 18 10 15 13 20 9 12 13.86 4.06 Written 12 16 9 17 14 11 20 14.14 3.80 a. What statistic tool/test will you use based on the scenario above? b. Are the normality and homogeneity of variance assumptions satisfied? Confirm them by checking the assumptions using hand calculations or statistical programs. State the statistical notation of the null and alternative hypotheses Identify the critical region/s (not the critical region boundaries; provide the proper notation). e. Compute the test statistic/s (Show how you got the test statistic/s using hand calculations). f. Compute the effect size/s (Show how you got the effect size/s using hand calculations) and indicate its interpretation/s (e.g., small, medium, large size of the treatment effect). g. Are either of the two meaning-making research methods effective? Can you say that one method is more effective than the other? (Provide evidence to your answer by performing a post hoc test).

Meaning-making is "an active process through which people revise or reappraise an event or a series of events" (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002, p. 613). When people find meaning in their lives, it leads to benefits such as affirmed self-worth, the opportunity to appreciate one's accomplishments and personal beliefs, and even improved physical health. Researchers study meaning-making in a variety of ways, including through verbal interviews with participants, and asking them to write narratives of their lives. In this study, you want to see which method will elicit meaning-making more successfully in the middle of the COVID- 19 pandemic. You divide a total of 21 participants into 3 conditions: a verbal phone interview about their life and experiences in the pandemic, a written narrative task about their life and experiences in the pandemic, and a control condition with neither task. Afterwards, participants answer a scale measuring meaning in life (higher score = more meaning). Participants' scores are seen below (test assumptions and alpha at .05; apply Tukey's HSD or Scheffé's test using hand calculations): M SD c. d. Control 13 9 7 6 12 8 5 8.57 2.99 Verbal 18 10 15 13 20 9 12 13.86 4.06 Written 12 16 9 17 14 11 20 14.14 3.80 a. What statistic tool/test will you use based on the scenario above? b. Are the normality and homogeneity of variance assumptions satisfied? Confirm them by checking the assumptions using hand calculations or statistical programs. State the statistical notation of the null and alternative hypotheses Identify the critical region/s (not the critical region boundaries; provide the proper notation). e. Compute the test statistic/s (Show how you got the test statistic/s using hand calculations). f. Compute the effect size/s (Show how you got the effect size/s using hand calculations) and indicate its interpretation/s (e.g., small, medium, large size of the treatment effect). g. Are either of the two meaning-making research methods effective? Can you say that one method is more effective than the other? (Provide evidence to your answer by performing a post hoc test).

MATLAB: An Introduction with Applications
MATLAB: An Introduction with Applications
6th Edition
ISBN:9781119256830
Author:Amos Gilat
Publisher:Amos Gilat
Chapter1: Starting With Matlab
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1P
See similar textbooks
icon
Related questions
Question
Meaning-making is "an active process through which people revise or reappraise an event or a series of events" (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002, p. 613). When people find meaning in their lives, it leads to benefits such as affirmed self-worth, the opportunity to appreciate one's accomplishments and personal beliefs, and even improved physical health. Researchers study meaning-making in a variety of ways, including through verbal interviews with participants, and asking them to write narratives of their lives. In this study, you want to see which method will elicit meaning-making more successfully in the middle of the COVID- 19 pandemic. You divide a total of 21 participants into 3 conditions: a verbal phone interview about their life and experiences in the pandemic, a written narrative task about their life and experiences in the pandemic, and a control condition with neither task. Afterwards, participants answer a scale measuring meaning in life (higher score = more meaning). Participants' scores are seen below (test assumptions and alpha at .05; apply Tukey's HSD or Scheffé's test using hand calculations): M SD Control 13 9 7 6 12 8 5 8.57 2.99 Verbal 18 10 15 13 20 9 12 13.86 4.06 Written 12 16 9 17 14 11 20 14.14 3.80 a. What statistic tool/test will you use based on the scenario above? b. Are the normality and homogeneity of variance assumptions satisfied? Confirm them by checking the assumptions using hand calculations or statistical programs. c. State the statistical notation of the null and alternative hypotheses d. Identify the critical region/s (not the critical region boundaries; provide the proper notation). e. Compute the test statistic/s (Show how you got the test statistic/s using hand calculations). f. Compute the effect size/s (Show how you got the effect size/s using hand calculations) and indicate its interpretation/s (e.g., small, medium, large size of the treatment effect). g. Are either of the two meaning-making research methods effective? Can you say that one method is more effective than the other? (Provide evidence to your answer by performing a post hoc test).
Transcribed Image Text:Meaning-making is "an active process through which people revise or reappraise an event or a series of events" (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002, p. 613). When people find meaning in their lives, it leads to benefits such as affirmed self-worth, the opportunity to appreciate one's accomplishments and personal beliefs, and even improved physical health. Researchers study meaning-making in a variety of ways, including through verbal interviews with participants, and asking them to write narratives of their lives. In this study, you want to see which method will elicit meaning-making more successfully in the middle of the COVID- 19 pandemic. You divide a total of 21 participants into 3 conditions: a verbal phone interview about their life and experiences in the pandemic, a written narrative task about their life and experiences in the pandemic, and a control condition with neither task. Afterwards, participants answer a scale measuring meaning in life (higher score = more meaning). Participants' scores are seen below (test assumptions and alpha at .05; apply Tukey's HSD or Scheffé's test using hand calculations): M SD Control 13 9 7 6 12 8 5 8.57 2.99 Verbal 18 10 15 13 20 9 12 13.86 4.06 Written 12 16 9 17 14 11 20 14.14 3.80 a. What statistic tool/test will you use based on the scenario above? b. Are the normality and homogeneity of variance assumptions satisfied? Confirm them by checking the assumptions using hand calculations or statistical programs. c. State the statistical notation of the null and alternative hypotheses d. Identify the critical region/s (not the critical region boundaries; provide the proper notation). e. Compute the test statistic/s (Show how you got the test statistic/s using hand calculations). f. Compute the effect size/s (Show how you got the effect size/s using hand calculations) and indicate its interpretation/s (e.g., small, medium, large size of the treatment effect). g. Are either of the two meaning-making research methods effective? Can you say that one method is more effective than the other? (Provide evidence to your answer by performing a post hoc test).
Expert Solution
steps

Step by step

Solved in 8 steps with 3 images

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer
Similar questions
Recommended textbooks for you
MATLAB: An Introduction with Applications
MATLAB: An Introduction with Applications
Statistics
ISBN:
9781119256830
Author:
Amos Gilat
Publisher:
John Wiley & Sons Inc
Probability and Statistics for Engineering and th…
Probability and Statistics for Engineering and th…
Statistics
ISBN:
9781305251809
Author:
Jay L. Devore
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Statistics for The Behavioral Sciences (MindTap C…
Statistics for The Behavioral Sciences (MindTap C…
Statistics
ISBN:
9781305504912
Author:
Frederick J Gravetter, Larry B. Wallnau
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Elementary Statistics: Picturing the World (7th E…
Elementary Statistics: Picturing the World (7th E…
Statistics
ISBN:
9780134683416
Author:
Ron Larson, Betsy Farber
Publisher:
PEARSON
The Basic Practice of Statistics
The Basic Practice of Statistics
Statistics
ISBN:
9781319042578
Author:
David S. Moore, William I. Notz, Michael A. Fligner
Publisher:
W. H. Freeman
Introduction to the Practice of Statistics
Introduction to the Practice of Statistics
Statistics
ISBN:
9781319013387
Author:
David S. Moore, George P. McCabe, Bruce A. Craig
Publisher:
W. H. Freeman
SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS