Research paper
Running Head: NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY STUDY 1
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY STUDY 22
Normative Social Influence: Charity Study
Florida International University
Methods
Participants
In this study, Researcher and students did not know any other participants to increase unbiasedness in the results of the analysis. Out of the 147 participants, were students from Florida International University 90.5%(n=133), while 9.5% (n=14) were not students from the University.51.7%(n=76) of them were males, and the rest 48.3% (n=71) were females. Participants were asked to report their races. Hispanic, 27.9% (n=41) Caucasian, 11.6% (n=17) African Americans, 4.8% (n=7) Asian Americans, 1.4% (n=2) Native Americans and 6.8%(n=10) who specified their race as “Others.” The sample consisted overall of 47.6% (n=70). The average of the participants’ ages was 22 years (SD = 8.72) with the youngest participant reporting age as 3 years and the oldest was 72 years with a mean of 24.585 years. Donations were described as High, Middle or Low with N = 53, 43 and 51 respectively.
Materials and Procedure
The researcher didn’t know the participants of this study, and an introduction to the participant was necessary. The researcher’s information is, what the study is about, and the time it might take to complete the study is communicated to the participant to enable them to commit until the end of the study. The researcher asks the potential participant whether he or she is willing to participate on the study. The participants responses are answered orally with a “Yes” or “No” response which determines the next move of the researcher. Once the participant says No the researcher will need to move and find a willing participant. When the participant is willing to take the study, the researcher picks a questionnaire randomly from one of the three “Research Study – Florida International University–Summer, 2020” documents. Participants are asked to read the instructions of the questionnaire carefully, given that they will be asked to answer questions later concerning the same ones. After reading the information in the questionnaire, they were asked how much they could donate if participants received $100.
The questionnaire given contains instructions guiding the participant to look into a Facebook account of user named a “Michael Bezjian.” The account includes false information and advertisement pleading for donations to charity instead of buying Michael Bezjian gifts on his birthday. Every piece of the provided information is the same on the user’s page. Friends, adverts, and the nature of comments were identical except that the amount of money comments displayed differ. One participant, he/ she will read comments that Michael's friends indicated they would donate either $5 to $10, $25 to $30 or $45 to $50 depending on the questionnaire selected randomly by the researcher. These are the amounts grouped as Low, Medium or High, ($5 to $10, $25 to $30 and $45 to $50), respectively. The aim here is to examine whether the participant’s contribution is determined by the contributions indicated in the comments of the Facebook user. We expected that those who get a questionnaire with low contributions would contribute less and those with high contribution comments will contribute more money for charity.
The participants were asked several questions thereafter to determine the difference in the impact of the three groups in contributions. The participants were asked: 1. How much would you donate? 2. How much do you think others would donate? 3. If you could donate time instead, how much time would you donate? Note that in all three questions, participants will provide a number ranging from 0 to 100 (in either dollars or hours).
Participants will be asked to rate their impressions Michael Bezjian on a scale of 1 to 6 where 1 represents (Strongly Disagree), and 6 represent (Strongly Agree). The participants also answered demographic questions; they were informed it could leave them blank. They were finally asked to indicate whether the dollar amounts that Michael’s friends noted in their comments were low ($5 to $10), middle ($25 to $30), or high ($45 to $50).
The study's dependent variable is the number of participants willing to contribute some amount of money or time to the charity grouped as low, medium, or high. After reading the comments on Facebook, they were asked how much they could contribute grouping the amount into three categories low ($5 to $10), middle ($25 to $30), or high ($45 to $50).
The independent variables are the amount of time and money indicated by comments grouped as low, medium or high depending on whether the amount in the comment is between low ($5 to $10), middle ($25 to $30), or high ($45 to $50). Other variables were the ages of participants and races, are not used in the study. The primary focus is on comments, and the number of participants was willing to contribute.
The researcher thanked the participants and indicated the study's aim as a determination if the amount of money donated by Facebook friends to a charity influences the amount of money that participants are willing to donate to the same cause hypothetically. Participants were explained the low dollar condition ($5 or $10), medium dollar condition ($25 or $30) and high dollar condition ($45 or $50). The researcher explained that participants in the high dollar condition willing to donate more money and time to a charity and think that other participants would similarly donate more money than participants in the low dollar condition, with middle dollar condition participants falling in the middle. We also predict that participants in the high dollar condition will rate other donors as being more warm, generous, and caring as well as less stingy and selfish than participants in the low dollar condition, with middle dollar condition participants falling in the middle.
Results
A cross-tabs was carried out on the amount of money contributed with the condition, that is, high, medium and low condition. Using the conditions and the number of people who contributed different amount of money, there was statistical significant effect using chi-squre, (20) = 65.178, p < 0.001. Most people who did not contribute anything are in the low condition (53.8%). People who contributed are all in the high condition (100%) showed comments amounting to 35$. Most of the participants (75%) in the lower condition made donations of $15. In the middle condition made donations of 25$, Findings show all participants are willing to donate but changes in the condition they fall in. Refer to Appendix B.
Main Analysis of the first One-way ANOVA was conducted in order to test the significance differences of the relationship between the amounts (time) contributed and the three conditions. The result showed statistical significance with F (2, 144) = 11.82, P = .000. Shows that according to donations amounts (Time) are likely to donate average: Tukey Post Hoc tests shows that there is a statistical significance between the conditions proving high dollars conditions are shown to put more than other donors. (M:28.68, SD= 14.55) the high condition has (M = 22.56, SD = 10.08), middle condition has (M = 16.57, SD = 13.62) and low condition has (M = 16.57, SD = 13.62) (Warner R., 2008) refer to Appendix C.
The amount of time participants was willing to donate depending on the condition, running a One-way ANOVA from the three conditions. The initial predictions using the independent variable (three conditions) and donations/times as dependent variable. The results reveal between condition and donation amount in time was significantly supported by statics, F (2,144) =5.44, p =.005. The high dollar condition willing to donate more for charity (M=7.77, SD=5.05) assuming other participants would donate more amounts than low condition (M = 5.49, SD = 3.15), Refer to Appendix D and lastly the middle conditions having minimal values (M=7.90, SD = 3.66). The p-value proves ANOVA test was significant and the Tukey post hoc tests confirming results from conditions.
Discussion
This study focuses mainly on the psychological concept of normative social influence (Deutsch M. & Gerard H., 1955). We examined willingness to contribute to a charity by showing contribution samples grouped as low, medium, and high, to participants selected to fill the questionnaires. Analysis reports the three conditions (Low, medium, and high). The amount of time and money participants are willing to contribute according to the researcher's Facebook comments that belong to the three conditions provided to them. The analysis shows that the differences in the means for the amount of time and money participants are willing to contribute significantly different.
Participants in the “High category” reported a more considerable mean than the participants categorized in the low condition. The medium condition contributes on average compared to both high and low conditions implying that medium participants remain in the middle condition.
The study shows we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the amount of money donated by Facebook friends to charity influences the amount of money that participants are willing to donate to the same cause hypothetically.
Appendix A – Demographics
|
Statistics |
||||
|
|
Gender (1 = M, 2 = F) |
Age |
Race |
|
|
N |
Valid |
147 |
147 |
147 |
|
|
Missing |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Mean |
1.4830 |
24.5850 |
2.3810 |
|
|
Median |
1.0000 |
22.0000 |
2.0000 |
|
|
Mode |
1.00 |
22.00 |
2.00 |
|
|
Std. Deviation |
.50142 |
8.72082 |
1.46340 |
|
|
Minimum |
1.00 |
3.00 |
1.00 |
|
|
Maximum |
2.00 |
72.00 |
6.00 |
|
Gender (1 = M, 2 = F) |
|||||
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
|
|
Valid |
Male |
76 |
51.7 |
51.7 |
51.7 |
|
|
Female |
71 |
48.3 |
48.3 |
100.0 |
|
|
Total |
147 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
|
Race |
|||||
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
|
|
Valid |
Caucasian |
41 |
27.9 |
27.9 |
27.9 |
|
|
Hispanic |
70 |
47.6 |
47.6 |
75.5 |
|
|
Native Indian |
2 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
76.9 |
|
|
African American |
17 |
11.6 |
11.6 |
88.4 |
|
|
Asian American |
7 |
4.8 |
4.8 |
93.2 |
|
|
Other |
10 |
6.8 |
6.8 |
100.0 |
|
|
Total |
147 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Appendix B – Crosstabs and Chi Square
|
Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) * Part II: Donation Amount (Money) Cross tabulation |
||||||||||||||
|
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
Total |
||||||||||||
|
|
.00 |
5.00 |
10.00 |
15.00 |
20.00 |
25.00 |
30.00 |
35.00 |
40.00 |
45.00 |
50.00 |
|
||
|
Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) |
High |
Count |
4 |
1 |
6 |
1 |
4 |
5 |
8 |
6 |
8 |
7 |
3 |
53 |
|
|
|
% within Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
30.8% |
10.0% |
28.6% |
12.5% |
20.0% |
25.0% |
40.0% |
75.0% |
57.1% |
100.0% |
50.0% |
36.1% |
|
|
Middle |
Count |
2 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
8 |
15 |
8 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
43 |
|
|
|
% within Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
15.4% |
20.0% |
19.0% |
12.5% |
40.0% |
75.0% |
40.0% |
0.0% |
14.3% |
0.0% |
16.7% |
29.3% |
|
|
Low |
Count |
7 |
7 |
11 |
6 |
8 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
51 |
|
|
|
% within Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
53.8% |
70.0% |
52.4% |
75.0% |
40.0% |
0.0% |
20.0% |
25.0% |
28.6% |
0.0% |
33.3% |
34.7% |
|
Total |
Count |
13 |
10 |
21 |
8 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
8 |
14 |
7 |
6 |
147 |
|
|
|
% within Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||
|
|
Value |
df |
Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) |
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
65.178a |
20 |
.000 |
|
Likelihood Ratio |
71.132 |
20 |
.000 |
|
Linear-by-Linear Association |
19.626 |
1 |
.000 |
|
N of Valid Cases |
147 |
|
|
|
a. 20 cells (60.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.76. |
Appendix C – ANOVA Donation Amount (Money)
|
Descriptive |
||||||||
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
||||||||
|
|
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error |
95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
Minimum |
Maximum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Bound |
Upper Bound |
|
|
|
High |
53 |
28.6792 |
14.54935 |
1.99851 |
24.6689 |
32.6895 |
.00 |
50.00 |
|
Middle |
43 |
22.5581 |
10.08134 |
1.53739 |
19.4556 |
25.6607 |
.00 |
50.00 |
|
Low |
51 |
16.5686 |
13.61948 |
1.90711 |
12.7381 |
20.3992 |
.00 |
50.00 |
|
Total |
147 |
22.6871 |
13.93812 |
1.14960 |
20.4151 |
24.9591 |
.00 |
50.00 |
|
ANOVA |
|||||
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
|||||
|
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
Between Groups |
3812.944 |
2 |
1906.472 |
11.182 |
.000 |
|
Within Groups |
24550.662 |
144 |
170.491 |
|
|
|
Total |
28363.605 |
146 |
|
|
|
Post Hoc Tests
|
Multiple Comparisons |
||||||
|
Dependent Variable: Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
||||||
|
Tukey HSD |
||||||
|
(I) Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) |
(J) Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) |
Mean Difference (I-J) |
Std. Error |
Sig. |
95% Confidence Interval |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Bound |
Upper Bound |
|
High |
Middle |
6.12111 |
2.67987 |
.061 |
-.2254 |
12.4676 |
|
|
Low |
12.11062* |
2.56120 |
.000 |
6.0452 |
18.1761 |
|
Middle |
High |
-6.12111 |
2.67987 |
.061 |
-12.4676 |
.2254 |
|
|
Low |
5.98951 |
2.70330 |
.072 |
-.4124 |
12.3915 |
|
Low |
High |
-12.11062* |
2.56120 |
.000 |
-18.1761 |
-6.0452 |
|
|
Middle |
-5.98951 |
2.70330 |
.072 |
-12.3915 |
.4124 |
|
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. |
Appendix D – ANOVA Donation Amount (Time)
|
Descriptive |
||||||||
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Time) |
||||||||
|
|
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error |
95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
Minimum |
Maximum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Bound |
Upper Bound |
|
|
|
High |
53 |
7.7358 |
5.05413 |
.69424 |
6.3428 |
9.1289 |
.00 |
20.00 |
|
Middle |
43 |
7.9070 |
3.65679 |
.55765 |
6.7816 |
9.0324 |
.00 |
15.00 |
|
Low |
51 |
5.4902 |
3.14562 |
.44047 |
4.6055 |
6.3749 |
.00 |
15.00 |
|
Total |
147 |
7.0068 |
4.19147 |
.34571 |
6.3236 |
7.6900 |
.00 |
20.00 |
|
ANOVA |
|||||
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Time) |
|||||
|
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
Between Groups |
180.318 |
2 |
90.159 |
5.444 |
.005 |
|
Within Groups |
2384.675 |
144 |
16.560 |
|
|
|
Total |
2564.993 |
146 |
|
|
|
Post Hoc Tests
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Time) |
|||
|
Tukey HSDa,b |
|||
|
Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) |
N |
Subset for alpha = 0.05 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
Low |
51 |
5.4902 |
|
|
High |
53 |
|
7.7358 |
|
Middle |
43 |
|
7.9070 |
|
Sig. |
|
1.000 |
.977 |
|
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. |
|||
|
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 48.597. |
|||
|
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. |
Methods Study Two
Participants
In this study 137 individuals were picked randomly to take part. Out of the 137 participants, 30.1% (n=41) were students at Florida International University students while 69.9% (n=96) were not students at the University. The sample consisted of 46 males (33.6%), 90 females (65.7%) and one person who specified gender as “other”. The age of the participants ranged between 16 and 76 years with an average of 26.87 years (SD=9.889). The participants were asked to report their relationship status and the results revealed that, 53.3% (n=74) of them were in no relationship while 46.7% (n=64) were in a relationship. The sample comprised of 62.8% (n=86) Hispanic, 19% (n=26) Caucasian, 12.4% (n=17) African American, 2.9% (n=4) Asian American while 2.9% (n=4) of the participants reported their race as ‘Others’. Donations amount were defined as High, or Low with N = 69 and 68 correspondingly.
Materials and Procedure
The researcher had no prior knowledge about the participants of this study, and an introduction to the participant was essential. The researcher informed the prospective participants what the study is about, and the time it might take to complete the study is communicated to the participant to enable them to commit until the end of the study. In accordance with the stipulated standard guidelines so as to get an informed consent, they were briefed on the potential risks and benefits of participating in the study then they were familiarized with the research documents. Upon the approval, they were eligible to move on to the next sections of the survey, which consisted of five different parts.
In the first part the questionnaire of the study, participant to look into a Facebook account of user named a “Michael Bezjian.” The page had an image header profile picture of Michael, a generic “About” section which detailed bio info about the user, false advertisements, a list “Friends” with photos of six friends, and a plea from Michael to donate to his chosen birthday charity. This plea is followed by a description of the charity and a picture with a donation link. Friends, adverts, and the nature of comments were identical except that the amount of money comments displayed differ.
In the “High-High” condition, Michael’s plea to his friends to make high donations towards his chosen birthday charity. For instance, the friends make comments like, “Count me in for $45, Mike. Sounds like a good cause”, or “Hi Michael. I just donated $50. Make sure you provide more pics of the kids!” Michael's friends indicated they would donate either 45 or 50 dollars. In the “High Low” condition, Michael’s makes an appeal to his friends to donate $50 towards his chosen birthday charity. The friends indicated they would donate either 5 or 10 dollars in their comments noted. In the “Low High” condition, a request to donate $10 is done by the user, however in the eight comments from Michael’s friends, the dollar amounts indicated is either $45 or $50. In the “Low- Low” condition, Michael is appealing to his friends to donate $10 towards his birthday charity gift, there are eight comments from his friends’ dollar amounts being either $5 or $10. The aim here is to examine whether the participant’s contribution is determined by the contributions indicated in the comments of the Facebook user. We expected that those who get a plea with low contributions would contribute less and those who got a high appeal will contribute more money for charity.
In the second part of the study, participants read a brief set of guidelines informing them to picture that they are paid $100 to complete the study and that they can donate none, part or all the cash to the charity. Participants then proceeded to fill out three open-ended questions: 1. How much would you donate? 2. How much do you think others would donate? 3. If you could donate time instead, how much time would you donate? Note that in all three questions, participants will provide a number ranging from 0 to 100 (in either dollars or hours).
In part three, Participants were requested to rate their perception of Michael Bezjian on a scale of 1 to 6 where 1 represents (Strongly Disagree), and 6 represent (Strongly Agree). The statements that they used to rate include; “Michael seems like a warm person”, “Michael seems like a generous person”, “Michael seems like a stingy person”, “Michael seems to care about others”, and “Michael seems like a selfish person”. The next five statements are similar to the above, however they emphasize on Michael’s friends and ask the respondent if they agree that they are as well warm, generous, stingy, caring, or selfish. The last statement is, “In my everyday life, I feel that I am generally more charitable than other people.
In section four, participants were requested to complete questions regarding their demographic profile including gender, age, race, their first language, whether they were a student at Florida International University or not and their relationship status; they were informed it could leave them blank. Lastly, in the last part of the of the questionnaire, contained two manipulation check questions. Like in section one of the study, the participant was asked to give their responses. For instance, the statement “Without looking back, about how much did Michael’s friends decide to donate to his Birthday charity, “Unlikely Heroes”? and Without looking back, about how much did Michael suggest to donate to his Birthday charity, “Unlikely Heroes”. The expected responses were; $5 to $10, $45 to $50 and Unknown. To conclude the study, the participant was debriefed about their contribution to the study as well as our insights about normative social influence and our main hypothesis.
Even though there were several dependent variables in the study, The study's dependent variable is the number of participants willing to contribute some amount of money or time to the charity grouped as low, medium, or high. After reading the comments on Facebook, they were asked how much they could contribute grouping the amount into three categories low ($5 to $10) or high ($45 to $50). The independent variables are the amount of time and money indicated by comments grouped as low, medium or high depending on whether the amount in the comment is between low ($5 to $10), middle ($25 to $30), or high ($45 to $50). Other variables were the ages of participants and races, are not used in the study. The primary focus is on comments, and the number of participants was willing to contribute. We predicted that participants in the high dollar condition are more likely to be more generous with their own donations and look more positively on the donations of other people than participants who fall in the low dollar condition. Secondly, we predicted that respondents under the high dollar condition are willing to donate more money and time to a charity and think that their fellow participants would do the same by contributing more dollars or time than participants in the low dollar condition. Lastly, we predicted that the participants under the high dollar condition are more likely to rate other donors as being more warm, generous, and caring as well as less mean and selfish than participants in the low dollar condition.
Results
Using donation amount (money) as our dependent variable and Donation Amount (High or Low) as our independent variable, a chi-square was computed which revealed a significant effect, X2(17) = 36.451, p < .004. More similar high (N=69) or low (N=68) amounts of were the participants willing to donate to the charity. These findings indicate that the amounts of money that the participants are willing to donate depends on the condition that they fall in.
The main analysis included a 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA with Donation Amount (Money in $) and Donation Amount (Time in hours) as our independent variables and Donation Amount as our dependent variable. Results indicated that no significant main effect of the donation amount on the donation amount condition F (78, 57) = 0.710, p =1.439. The results further indicated that there was no interaction effect of donation time and amount on the condition F (37, 57) = 1.071, p =.401 These results indicate that the amount of money or time that Facebook friends are willing to donate to a charity impacts the amount of money or time that the other participants are willing to contribute towards a similar cause.
Furthermore, to test our second dependent variable we ran a 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA with Donation Amount (Money in $) and Donation Amount (Time in hours) as our independent variables and Donation Suggestion (High versus Low) as our dependent variable. There was no main effect for charitability and the donation amount in dollars F (78, 57) = 0.849, p =.751. This means that there was no difference in the number of counterfactual thoughts generated between high (M = 1.51, SD = 0.522) and lows (M = 1.47, SD = 0.516). Similarly, there was no interaction effect between subjects of donation time and amount on the condition, F (78, 57) = 0.890, p = .642.
Discussion
This study focuses mainly on the psychological concept of normative social influence (Deutsch M. & Gerard H., 1955). We examined willingness to contribute to a charity by showing contribution samples grouped as low, medium, and high, to participants selected to fill the questionnaires. Analysis reports the three conditions (Low, medium, and high). The amount of time and money participants are willing to contribute according to the researcher's Facebook comments that belong to the three conditions provided to them. The analysis shows that the differences in the means for the amount of time and money participants are willing to contribute significantly different. Participants in the “High category” reported a more considerable mean than the participants categorized in the low condition. The medium condition contributes on average compared to both high and low conditions implying that medium participants remain in the middle condition. The study shows we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the amount of money donated by Facebook friends to charity influences the amount of money that participants are willing to donate to the same cause hypothetically.
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY STUDY
Appendix E – Demographics – Study Two
|
Statistics |
||||
|
|
Gender (1 = M, 2 = F) |
Age |
Race |
|
|
N |
Valid |
137 |
134 |
137 |
|
|
Missing |
0 |
3 |
0 |
|
Mean |
1.67 |
26.87 |
2.26 |
|
|
Median |
2.00 |
24.00 |
2.00 |
|
|
Mode |
2 |
20a |
2 |
|
|
Std. Deviation |
0.487 |
9.889 |
1.165 |
|
|
Minimum |
1 |
16 |
1 |
|
|
Maximum |
3 |
76 |
6 |
|
Gender (1 = M, 2 = F) |
||||
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
|
Male |
46 |
33.6 |
33.6 |
33.6 |
|
Female |
90 |
65.7 |
65.7 |
99.3 |
|
Other |
1 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
100.0 |
|
Total |
137 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
|
Race |
||||
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
|
Caucasian |
26 |
19.0 |
19.0 |
19.0 |
|
Hispanic |
86 |
62.8 |
62.8 |
81.8 |
|
African American |
17 |
12.4 |
12.4 |
94.2 |
|
Asian American |
4 |
2.9 |
2.9 |
97.1 |
|
Others--Please specify |
4 |
2.9 |
2.9 |
100.0 |
|
Total |
137 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY STUDY
Appendix F – Crosstabs and Chi Square
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Money in $) * IV Donation Amount Crosstabulation |
||||
|
Count |
|
|
|
|
|
|
IV Donation Amount |
Total |
||
|
|
High |
Low |
|
|
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Money in $) |
0 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
|
|
5 |
1 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
10 |
2 |
15 |
17 |
|
|
15 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
|
|
20 |
7 |
11 |
18 |
|
|
25 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
|
|
30 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|
|
35 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
38 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
40 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
|
|
45 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|
|
50 |
25 |
14 |
39 |
|
|
60 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
65 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
75 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
90 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
95 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
100 |
15 |
6 |
21 |
|
Total |
69 |
68 |
137 |
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||
|
|
Value |
df |
Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) |
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
36.451a |
17 |
0.004 |
|
Likelihood Ratio |
44.260 |
17 |
0.000 |
|
Linear-by-Linear Association |
13.666 |
1 |
0.000 |
|
N of Valid Cases |
137 |
|
|
|
a. 28 cells (77.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .50. |
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY STUDY
Appendix G – ANOVA Donation Amount – Study Two
|
Descriptive Statistics |
||||
|
Dependent Variable: |
IV Donation Amount |
|
|
|
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Money in $) |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
N |
|
|
Total |
0 |
1.47 |
0.516 |
15 |
|
|
1 |
1.50 |
0.527 |
10 |
|
|
2 |
1.69 |
0.479 |
16 |
|
|
3 |
1.00 |
0.000 |
2 |
|
|
4 |
2.00 |
0.000 |
5 |
|
|
5 |
1.69 |
0.480 |
13 |
|
|
6 |
1.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
8 |
1.60 |
0.548 |
5 |
|
|
10 |
1.45 |
0.522 |
11 |
|
|
12 |
2.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
15 |
1.67 |
0.577 |
3 |
|
|
16 |
1.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
20 |
1.25 |
0.463 |
8 |
|
|
24 |
1.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
25 |
1.67 |
0.577 |
3 |
|
|
27 |
1.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
30 |
2.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
36 |
1.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
40 |
1.33 |
0.577 |
3 |
|
|
48 |
1.33 |
0.577 |
3 |
|
|
50 |
1.57 |
0.514 |
14 |
|
|
60 |
1.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
65 |
2.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
70 |
1.00 |
0.000 |
3 |
|
|
85 |
2.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
100 |
1.25 |
0.452 |
12 |
|
|
Total |
1.50 |
0.502 |
136 |
|
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects |
|||||
|
Dependent Variable: |
IV Donation Amount |
|
|
|
|
|
Source |
Type III Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
Corrected Model |
22.550a |
78 |
0.289 |
1.439 |
0.075 |
|
Intercept |
107.843 |
1 |
107.843 |
536.863 |
0.000 |
|
PartIIDonation |
6.743 |
16 |
0.421 |
2.098 |
0.021 |
|
PartIITimeDonation |
5.334 |
24 |
0.222 |
1.106 |
0.367 |
|
PartIIDonation * PartIITimeDonation |
7.962 |
37 |
0.215 |
1.071 |
0.401 |
|
Error |
11.450 |
57 |
0.201 |
|
|
|
Total |
340.000 |
136 |
|
|
|
|
Corrected Total |
34.000 |
135 |
|
|
|
|
a. R Squared = .663 (Adjusted R Squared = .202) |
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY STUDY
Appendix H – ANOVA Donation Suggestion (High versus Low) – Study Two
|
Descriptive Statistics |
||||
|
Dependent Variable: |
IV Donation Suggestion (High versus Low) |
|||
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Money in $) |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
N |
|
|
Total |
0 |
1.47 |
0.516 |
15 |
|
|
1 |
1.50 |
0.527 |
10 |
|
|
2 |
1.56 |
0.512 |
16 |
|
|
3 |
2.00 |
0.000 |
2 |
|
|
4 |
1.00 |
0.000 |
5 |
|
|
5 |
1.38 |
0.506 |
13 |
|
|
6 |
1.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
8 |
1.40 |
0.548 |
5 |
|
|
10 |
1.73 |
0.467 |
11 |
|
|
12 |
2.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
15 |
1.00 |
0.000 |
3 |
|
|
16 |
1.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
20 |
1.75 |
0.463 |
8 |
|
|
24 |
1.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
25 |
1.67 |
0.577 |
3 |
|
|
27 |
2.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
30 |
1.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
36 |
2.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
40 |
1.33 |
0.577 |
3 |
|
|
48 |
1.67 |
0.577 |
3 |
|
|
50 |
1.50 |
0.519 |
14 |
|
|
60 |
2.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
65 |
2.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
70 |
1.67 |
0.577 |
3 |
|
|
85 |
2.00 |
|
1 |
|
|
100 |
1.50 |
0.522 |
12 |
|
|
Total |
1.51 |
0.502 |
136 |
|
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects |
|||||
|
Dependent Variable: |
IV Donation Suggestion (HIgh versus Low) |
||||
|
Source |
Type III Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
Corrected Model |
18.254a |
78 |
0.234 |
0.849 |
0.751 |
|
Intercept |
118.827 |
1 |
118.827 |
430.952 |
0.000 |
|
PartIIDonation |
2.734 |
16 |
0.171 |
0.620 |
0.855 |
|
PartIITimeDonation |
5.508 |
24 |
0.230 |
0.832 |
0.683 |
|
PartIIDonation * PartIITimeDonation |
9.082 |
37 |
0.245 |
0.890 |
0.642 |
|
Error |
15.717 |
57 |
0.276 |
|
|
|
Total |
346.000 |
136 |
|
|
|
|
Corrected Total |
33.971 |
135 |
|
|
|
|
a. R Squared = .537 (Adjusted R Squared = -.096) |
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The journal of abnormal and social psychology, 51(3), 629.
Li, S. (2017, December). Nonparametric variance control charts based on siegel-tukey test. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) (pp. 2371-2374). IEEE.
Warner, R. M. (2008). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques. sage