Paper IV
Running Head: SORRY. NOT SORRY. 2
SORRY. NOT SORRY. 2
Sorry. Not Sorry.
Methods
Participants
One hundred and fifty-three students have been selected randomly from the International University Florida and were treated as the participants for this research. There were 71 (46.4%) male participants and 82 (53.6%) were female. The age of the participants falls somewhere between the ranges of 17 to 59. As the maximum age of the participant were, 59 and the minimum age of the participants were 17 observed. The average age of the participants was 24.86 years with the Standard deviation 7.86. the participants belong to different background and ethnicity as 78 participants (51%) are Hispanic American, 43 participants (28.1%) are Caucasian, 16 participants (10.5%) are African American, and 6 participants (3.9%) are Asian American and only 2 participants (1.3%) Native Indian. The brief descriptive analysis is highlighted in Appendix A.
Material and Procedure
The standard guidelines about the informed consent are provided to the participants as informed consent is the brief process which helps and educate the participants about the risk, benefits and the security of the data provided by the participants about their personal life. Firstly, the participant is verbally asked to fill the questionnaire and provide the data if the participants agreed verbally, then the participant is provided with the documents containing different sections. In the first section of the questionnaire, the image/picture is provided to the participant who is followed by the twitter page and asked to see each and everything mentioned in this page as latter on various questions will be asked about your impression regarding the content available in the twitter page about the importance of sincere, insincere and apology in web pages. Every section of the questionnaire has a similar situation with the different conditions included sincere, insincere and apology.
In the second section of the questionnaire, the impression of Charlie Webb's apology on twitter is rated by asking various questions from the participant. All the questions were on the 6-points Likert scale, which starts from strongly disagree and ends at strongly agree. The first question was that the Charlie apology acknowledges that the behaviour was wrong, second was the acceptance of responsibility, third based on the expression of remorse; fourth was based on the compensation, fifth was based on the not to engage in such behaviour again, sixth was based on analyzing the perception of the participant that either the apology seems to be forced or not and the last two questions of the second section try to analyses that either the apology was sincere or would be accepted.
The third part of the questionnaire tries to rate the feeling of the participant about the behaviour of Charlie. All the questions were on the 6-points Likert scale, which starts from strongly disagree and ends at strongly agree. The first question was that the Charlie behaviour was wrong, second was Charlie behaviour was understandable, third based on the Charlie behaviour was forgivable, fourth was Charlie seems regretful, fifth was Charlie seems selfish, sixth was Charlie seems moral seventh was Charlie seems rude and the last question analyses the perception of the participants that people should not be forced to put mask if they don’t want to put it.
The fourth section of documents consists of some demographic questions, which includes some basic questions like the gender of the respondents, age of the participants, the race of the participant, and others. The scale of these questions is mostly nominal or interval. As gender is nominal, age is an interval; the race is nominal having some categories including Caucasian, Hispanic American, Native Indian, African American, and Asian American. In the fifth part of the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to tell the last hashtag of Charlie (#SorrySorrySorry, #SorryNotSorry, #WhatsDoneIsDone)
There were several dependent and independent variables in this research. The primary focus was on the conditions like sincere, insincere and the apology, last hashtag of Charlie and behaviour of Charlie. The Chi-square test checks the manipulation of the conditions (sincere, insincere and apology), descriptive statistics of demographic variables are checked in the analysis. Moreover, the hypothesis is calculated that the participants find Charlie sincere, insincere and apologized by ANOVA.
Results
The survey conditions, including (sincere, insincere and apology) as the independent variables and English is your first language or not is picked up as the dependent variable. The chi-square test checks the manipulation, and it was observed that the chi-square value is 0.093, and the value of P is 0.95, which is greater than 0.05. The results suggest the insignificant effect as the participants in the sincere, insincere and apology condition correctly specify that English is their first language about 82.4 % insincere condition, 82.4% insincere condition and 84.3% in apology condition. The complete results of the chi-square test are highlighted in Appendix B.
For the main analysis, the one way ANOVA test highlighted that the significant difference exists among the independent variable the scenery conditions (sincere, insincere and apology) and the dependent variable the last hashtag statement of Charlie F(2, 150) = 59.59, p = .000. A subsequent Tukey post hoc test supported our hypothesis by demonstrating that participants were more likely to support the last hashtag of Charlie in the sincere condition (M=1.16, SD= 0.464), for the insincere condition (M= 1.86, SD= 0.491), for apology condition (M= 2.47, SD= 0.809). These results indicate that where the results are perceived as the sincere, the participants are more likely to favour the last hashtag SorrySorry. The complete results of the ANOVA are displayed in appendix D.
Discussion
It was observed that there were more female participants in the survey and the average age of the participants is about 24.86 years. The manipulation is checked in between the research scenario, having conditions sincere, insincere and apology with the English is the first language of the participant or not. The manipulation is checked by the chi-square test, and it was observed that the chi-square value is 0.093, and the value of P is 0.95, which is greater than 0.05. The results suggest the insignificant effect as the participants. The sincere, insincere and apology condition correctly specify that English is their first language about 82.4 % insincere condition, 82.4% insincere condition and 84.3% in apology condition. Similarly, the results of one way ANOVA test highlighted that the significant difference exists among the independent variable the scenery conditions (sincere, insincere and apology) and the dependent variable the last hashtag statement of Charlie F(2, 150) = 59.59, p = .000.
Appendix A
|
Statistics |
|||||||
|
|
Gender (1=Male, 2=Female) |
Age |
Race |
Race other |
English (1=Yes, 2=No) |
English Others |
|
|
N |
Valid |
153 |
153 |
153 |
153 |
153 |
0 |
|
|
Missing |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
153 |
|
Mean |
1.54 |
24.8627 |
2.27 |
|
1.17 |
|
|
|
Median |
2.00 |
22.0000 |
2.00 |
|
1.00 |
|
|
|
Mode |
2 |
21.00 |
2 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
Std. Deviation |
.500 |
7.86319 |
1.357 |
|
.377 |
|
|
|
Minimum |
1 |
17.00 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
Maximum |
2 |
59.00 |
6 |
|
2 |
|
|
Gender (1= Male, 2= Female) |
|||||
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
|
|
Valid |
Male |
71 |
46.4 |
46.4 |
46.4 |
|
|
Female |
82 |
53.6 |
53.6 |
100.0 |
|
|
Total |
153 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
|
Age |
|||||
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
|
|
Valid |
17.00 |
5 |
3.3 |
3.3 |
3.3 |
|
|
18.00 |
13 |
8.5 |
8.5 |
11.8 |
|
|
19.00 |
9 |
5.9 |
5.9 |
17.6 |
|
|
20.00 |
9 |
5.9 |
5.9 |
23.5 |
|
|
21.00 |
26 |
17.0 |
17.0 |
40.5 |
|
|
22.00 |
16 |
10.5 |
10.5 |
51.0 |
|
|
23.00 |
18 |
11.8 |
11.8 |
62.7 |
|
|
24.00 |
6 |
3.9 |
3.9 |
66.7 |
|
|
25.00 |
9 |
5.9 |
5.9 |
72.5 |
|
|
26.00 |
3 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
74.5 |
|
|
27.00 |
9 |
5.9 |
5.9 |
80.4 |
|
|
28.00 |
1 |
.7 |
.7 |
81.0 |
|
|
29.00 |
2 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
82.4 |
|
|
30.00 |
1 |
.7 |
.7 |
83.0 |
|
|
31.00 |
4 |
2.6 |
2.6 |
85.6 |
|
|
32.00 |
5 |
3.3 |
3.3 |
88.9 |
|
|
33.00 |
2 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
90.2 |
|
|
34.00 |
1 |
.7 |
.7 |
90.8 |
|
|
35.00 |
1 |
.7 |
.7 |
91.5 |
|
|
36.00 |
1 |
.7 |
.7 |
92.2 |
|
|
37.00 |
1 |
.7 |
.7 |
92.8 |
|
|
40.00 |
1 |
.7 |
.7 |
93.5 |
|
|
43.00 |
4 |
2.6 |
2.6 |
96.1 |
|
|
45.00 |
3 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
98.0 |
|
|
59.00 |
3 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
100.0 |
|
|
Total |
153 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
|
Race |
|||||
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
|
|
Valid |
Caucasian |
43 |
28.1 |
28.1 |
28.1 |
|
|
Hispanic American |
78 |
51.0 |
51.0 |
79.1 |
|
|
Native Indian |
2 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
80.4 |
|
|
African American |
16 |
10.5 |
10.5 |
90.8 |
|
|
Asian American |
6 |
3.9 |
3.9 |
94.8 |
|
|
6 |
8 |
5.2 |
5.2 |
100.0 |
|
|
Total |
153 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Appendix B
|
Case Processing Summary |
||||||
|
|
Cases |
|||||
|
|
Valid |
Missing |
Total |
|||
|
|
N |
Percent |
N |
Percent |
N |
Percent |
|
Condition (1= Sincere, 2= Insincere, 3 = apology) * English (1= Yes, 2 = No) |
153 |
100.0% |
0 |
0.0% |
153 |
100.0% |
|
Condition (1= Sincere, 2= Insincere, 3 = apology) * English (1= Yes, 2 = No) Crosstabulation |
|||||
|
|
English (1= Yes, 2 = No) |
Total |
|||
|
|
Yes |
No |
|
||
|
Condition (1= Sincere, 2= Insincere, 3 = apology) |
Sincere |
Count |
42 |
9 |
51 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1= Sincere, 2= Insincere, 3 = apology) |
82.4% |
17.6% |
100.0% |
|
|
Insincere |
Count |
42 |
9 |
51 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1= Sincere, 2= Insincere, 3 = apology) |
82.4% |
17.6% |
100.0% |
|
|
Apology |
Count |
43 |
8 |
51 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1= Sincere, 2= Insincere, 3 = apology) |
84.3% |
15.7% |
100.0% |
|
Total |
Count |
127 |
26 |
153 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1= Sincere, 2= Insincere, 3 = apology) |
83.0% |
17.0% |
100.0% |
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||
|
|
Value |
df |
Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) |
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
.093a |
2 |
.955 |
|
Likelihood Ratio |
.094 |
2 |
.954 |
|
Linear-by-Linear Association |
.069 |
1 |
.793 |
|
N of Valid Cases |
153 |
|
|
|
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.67. |
Appendix C:
|
Descriptives |
||||||||
|
Hashtag (1 = #SorrySorrySorry, 2= #SorryNotSorry, 3 = # WhatIsDoneIsDone) |
||||||||
|
|
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error |
95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
Minimum |
Maximum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Bound |
Upper Bound |
|
|
|
Sincere |
51 |
1.16 |
.464 |
.065 |
1.03 |
1.29 |
1 |
3 |
|
Insincere |
51 |
1.86 |
.491 |
.069 |
1.72 |
2.00 |
1 |
3 |
|
Apology |
51 |
2.47 |
.809 |
.113 |
2.24 |
2.70 |
1 |
3 |
|
Total |
153 |
1.83 |
.809 |
.065 |
1.70 |
1.96 |
1 |
3 |
|
ANOVA |
|||||
|
Hashtag (1 = #SorrySorrySorry, 2= #SorryNotSorry, 3 = # WhatIsDoneIsDone) |
|||||
|
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
Between Groups |
44.092 |
2 |
22.046 |
59.594 |
.000 |
|
Within Groups |
55.490 |
150 |
.370 |
|
|
|
Total |
99.582 |
152 |
|
|
|
|
Multiple Comparisons |
||||||
|
Dependent Variable: Hashtag (1 = #SorrySorrySorry, 2= #SorryNotSorry, 3 = # WhatIsDoneIsDone |
||||||
|
Tukey HSD |
||||||
|
(I) Condition (1= Sincere, 2=Insincere, 3=Apology) |
(J) Condition (1= Sincere, 2=Insincere, 3=Apology) |
Mean Difference (I-J) |
Std. Error |
Sig. |
95% Confidence Interval |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Bound |
Upper Bound |
|
Sincere |
Insincere |
-.706* |
.120 |
.000 |
-.99 |
-.42 |
|
|
Apology |
-1.314* |
.120 |
.000 |
-1.60 |
-1.03 |
|
Insincere |
Sincere |
.706* |
.120 |
.000 |
.42 |
.99 |
|
|
Apology |
-.608* |
.120 |
.000 |
-.89 |
-.32 |
|
Apology |
Sincere |
1.314* |
.120 |
.000 |
1.03 |
1.60 |
|
|
Insincere |
.608* |
.120 |
.000 |
.32 |
.89 |
|
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. |
|
Hashtag (1 = #SorrySorrySorry, 2= #SorryNotSorry, 3 = # WhatIsDoneIsDone |
||||
|
Tukey HSDa |
||||
|
Condition (1= Sincere, 2=Insincere, 3=Apology) |
N |
Subset for alpha = 0.05 |
||
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
Sincere |
51 |
1.16 |
|
|
|
Insincere |
51 |
|
1.86 |
|
|
Apology |
51 |
|
|
2.47 |
|
Sig. |
|
1.000 |
1.000 |
1.000 |
|
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. |
||||
|
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 51.000. |