psychology research paper

NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION

Normative Social Influence: Charity Donation

Name

Florida International University

Methods

Participants

A total of 147 persons were picked randomly to participate in charity donation study. From these 147 individuals, 90.5% (n=133) were Florida International University students whereas 9.5% (n=14) were non students of the university. Out of the 147 respondents the males were 51.7% (n=76) while females were 48.3% (n=71). The age range of respondents were between of 3 years being the youngest and 72 years being the oldest with a mean of 24.59 years (SD=8.72). The sample of the study comprised of; Hispanic 47.6% (n=70), Caucasian 27.9% (n=41), African American 11.6% (n=17), Asian American 4.8% (n=7), Native Indians being 1.4% (n=2) and individuals from other ethnic origins being 6.8% (n=10).

Materials and Procedure

As per the standard procedures the likely respondents were picked in a random manner and they were informed of the benefits and possible risks of taking part in the study process. The likely individuals that agreed to be part of the study were in a random way a given one of three questionnaires which had five different sections.

In section one, partakers viewed the “About” page of a Facebook user called Michael Bezjian. The account page had an image header profile picture of Michael, a general “About” segment which encompasses basic data about the user called Michael), fake promotions, a list of “Friends” with selfies of six friends as well as an appeal from Michael to contribute towards his birthday charity he had picked. This appeal is trailed by a short description of the charity and an image accompanied by a link to the contribution. Individually, the three questionnaires showed the same initial plea for charity donation with alternative conditions (high, medium and low) that led to the various outputs.

In the “High” condition, the comments from the account user friends reveal that they were willing to contribute a high sum of cash to the “Unlikely Heroes”, that is Michael’s selected charity for his birthday. For instance, Michael’s friends made remarks such as, “Count me in for $45, Mike. Sounds like a good cause”, and “Hi Michael. I just donated $50. Make sure you provide more pics of the kids!” all the eight comments from friends we noted they included pledged donations which ranged between 45 and 50 dollars.

In the “Middle” condition, the comments from friends were noted and they pledged to contribute average amount of money to Michael’s “Unlikely Heroes” , the amounts indicated ranged between 25 and 30 dollars. For instance, Michael’s friends made remarks such as, “Count me in for $25, Mike. Sounds like a good cause”, “Hi Michael. I just donated $30. Make sure you provide more pics of the kids!” The phrasing is similar to the high condition, the difference being the dollar amounts pledged are lower. In the “Low” condition, eight different comments similar to the ones in the high and middle conditions from Michael’s friends were again noted, however the dollar amounts were between $5 and $10.

In section two, partakers went through a brief set of guidelines notifying them to imagine that they were requested to donate to the charity as well. Respondents then continued to fill three open-ended questions: how much they would donate, secondly, how much they think other people would contribute and the last one asked that if they can contribute time instead of money, then how much of their time they were willing to donate. In all the three questions, partakers were expected to answer the questions with amounts that ranged between 0 and 100 dollars or hours.

In section three, the participants rated their impression of the Facebook account user called Michael Bezjian, they were asked to rate by either agreeing or disagreeing with five statements about the Facebook account user in an interval scale which range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). The statements about the account user that were presented to be rated included: “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 were similar to the ones about the account user, but emphasizes on Michael’s friends and enquired if the participant agrees or disagrees that they were also warm, generous, stingy, caring, or selfish. The next two questions in the section, focused on the participants’ impressions of the charity, “Unlikely Heroes”. The last part asked the participants’ that, “In my everyday life, I feel that I am generally more charitable than other people.

In section four, participants were requested complete queries about their demographic data which included; gender, age, ethnicity, first language and whether they were a student at Florida International University or not. Finally, in the last section of the questionnaire, partakers were asked whether the amounts of money that Michael’s facebook friends pledged in their comments for donation to the charity was; low ($5 to $10), middle ($25 to $30), or high ($45 to $50). To summarize the study, the participants was debriefed about their valued contribution to the study and the insights into normative social influence and its relation to the main hypothesis of the study.

The study had several dependent variables but the main focus was to evaluate whether the amount of money or time that Michael’s Facebook friends were willing to the charity affects the amount of money or time that participants are prepared to practically contribute towards a similar cause. The participants ranked in the high dollar condition were hypothesized that they will be more generous with their individual contributions and would be keen on the contributions of other donors than participants in the low dollar condition, the participants in the middle dollar condition falling in the average values. Initially, we predicted that participants’ in the high dollar condition were willing to contribute more amount of money and time to the charity and they would consider that other participants would do the same by contributing more amounts of money or time than participants in the low dollar condition, with middle dollar condition participants willing to donate an average amount of both money and time. A prediction that individuals in the high dollar condition were more likely to perceive the other contributors to be more warm, generous, and caring as well as less mean and selfish than the participants in the low dollar condition, the middle dollar condition contributors were likely to offer average amounts for donation.

Results

Taking the donated amount (money) as our dependent variable and condition (high, medium and low) as the independent variable, a chi-square test was done and its results confirmed that the effect was significant, X2(20) = 65.178, p < .000. Majority of the participants (100%) in the high condition made in their remarks they were willing to donate 35 dollars. Most participants (75%) in the middle condition made in their remarks they were willing to donate 25 dollars while majority of the participants (75%), in the low condition made in their remarks they were willing to donate 15 dollars. The findings further revealed that the amounts of money that the participants are willing to donate depends on the set condition that they fall into.

The main analysis consisted of a One-Way ANOVA test which indicated a significant differences among the independent variable, the condition (high, middle, or low) and the dependent variable, donation amount (money), the statistics for the test were F(2, 144) = 11.82, p =.000. Tukey post hoc test supported our hypothesis at five percent level of significance that participants in the high dollar condition will be more generous in their individual donations and are keen on the donations of other donors than the participants in the low dollar condition, with participants in the middle dollar condition being likely to donate average amounts of money to the charity the test results were: high condition (Mean = 28.68, SD = 14.55), middle condition (Mean= 22.56, SD= 10.08) and low condition (Mean = 16.57, SD = 13.62). These results further revealed that the amount of money that Michael’s Facebook friends were willing to contribute to the charity influences the amount of money that the other partakers were willing to contribute towards the same cause.

Furthermore, the second objective was to determine the amount of time that the participants were willing to donate under each condition. One-Way ANOVA test was evaluated using the three conditions (high, middle or low) as the independent variable, and the donation amount (time) as the dependent variable. The results indicated that the association exist between condition category of the participant and donation amount (time) was significant supported by the statistics, F (2, 144) = 5.44, p = .005. The prediction that participants in the high dollar condition are willing to donate more time to the charity (Mean = 7.74, SD = 5.05), and the assumption that the other participants would in a similar way contribute more money than participants in the low dollar condition (Mean = 5.49, SD = 3.15), the middle dollar condition participants willing to donate average amount of time (Mean = 7.90, SD = 3.66). Since the p-value for the ANOVA test was significant, subsequent Tukey post hoc test confirmed the results.

Discussion

The initial prediction that individuals who are in the high dollar condition were willing to donate more money and time to the charity and that they will presume that their counterparts will in a similar way donate more money than participants in the low dollar condition category, the middle dollar condition participants were prepared to donate average amount of money and time. Furthermore, a prediction that the participants in the high dollar condition were more probable to rate the other contributors to be more warm, generous, and caring and less mean and self-interested than the participants’ in the low dollar condition, with the middle dollar condition participants willing to donate more average amounts of money and time towards the charity.

The outcomes from the examination discloses that the amounts of money or time that the contributors are willing to donate depends on the condition category that they fall in. The results furthermore established that individuals’ in the high dollar condition were willing to donate more money and time towards the charity, and the other participants will in a similar manner donate less amount of money and time in the low dollar condition with the middle dollar condition participants deliberated to donate average amount of money and time towards the same charity. In conclusion, the outcomes of the analysis portrayed that indeed the social psychology concept of normative social impacts on the expected amount of money and time donated by facebook friends thus setting a norm with regards the amounts that is deemed to be appropriate for other individuals to contribute.

NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION

Appendix A – Demographics

Statistics
	Gender	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
	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) Crosstabulation
	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
	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.

NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION

Appendix C – ANOVA Donation Amount (Money)

Descriptives
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.

NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION

Appendix D – ANOVA Donation Amount (Time)

Descriptives
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

A total of 137 individuals were selected in a random manner to participate in a charity study. From the 137 participants, 30.1% (n=41) were studying at Florida International University during the time of study whereas 69.9% (n=96) reported that they were not students at the University. The sample was comprised of 46 males (33.6%), 90 females (65.7%) and a single individual reported gender “other”. The age range of the participants were between 16 and 76 years with a mean of 26.87 years (SD=9.889). The participants were requested to indicate their relationship status and the outcome revealed that, 53.3% (n=74) of them were single whereas 46.7% (n=64) reported being in a relationship. The sample consisted of 62.8% (n=86) Hispanic, 19% (n=26) Caucasian, 12.4% (n=17) African American and 2.9% (n=4) Asian American while 2.9% (n=4) of the participants reported their race as ‘Others’. Contributions amount were defined as High, or Low with counts N = 69 and 68 respectively.

Materials and Procedure

The researcher had no preceding information about the participants of the study, and an introduction to the participant was important. The researcher informed the potential participants the objective of the study, and the approximate amount of time it may take for them to complete the study questionnaire was communicated to the participants to facilitate them to oblige till the completion of the research. As per the specified standard guidelines so as to get an informed consent, they were briefed on the probable risks and benefits of participating in the study then they were familiarized with the research documents. Upon their contentment, they were eligible to move on to the subsequent parts of the study.

In section one of the questionnaire, participants were asked to look into a Facebook account of user called “Michael Bezjian.” The page had an image header profile picture of Michael, a generic “About” section which detailed data 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. His friends made 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 were willing to 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. However, the friends’ comments and indicated they would donate either 5 or 10 dollars towards the same cause. In the “Low High” condition, a plea to contribute $10 is done by the Michael, 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 section, participants read a brief set of guidelines informing them to imagine that they are paid $100 to undertake the study and that they are free to donate part, all or none, of the money towards the charity. Participants then proceeded to fill out three open-ended questions: How much would you donate? How much do you think others would donate? And lastly, if you could donate time instead, how much time would you donate? We noted that in all three questions, participants are to provide a number answer ranging between 0 and 100 dollars or hours.

In section three, the participants rated their impression of the Facebook account user called 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 that they are free leave them blank as well. 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 valued contribution to the study as well as our insights about normative social influence and the relationship with the main hypothesis of the study.

There are 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

By taking 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 there was an insignificant main effect of the donation amount on the donation amount condition F (78, 57) = 0.710, p =1.439. The results further revealed interaction effect did not exist for 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. Main effect of charitability and the donation amount in dollars was non-existent F (78, 57) = 0.849, p =.751. This implied that there was no difference in the number of cases generated between high (M = 1.51, SD = 0.522) and lows (M = 1.47, SD = 0.516). In the same way, there was no interaction effect between subjects of donation time and amount on the condition, F (78, 57) = 0.890, p = .642.

Discussion

The initial prediction that individuals who are in the high dollar condition were willing to donate more money and time to the charity and that they will presume that their counterparts will in a similar way donate more money than participants in the low dollar condition category, the middle dollar condition participants were prepared to donate average amount of money and time. Furthermore, a prediction that the participants in the high dollar condition were more probable to rate the other contributors to be more warm, generous, and caring and less mean and self-interested than the participants’ in the low dollar condition, with the middle dollar condition participants willing to donate more average amounts of money and time towards the charity.

The outcomes from the examination discloses that the amounts of money or time that the contributors are willing to donate depends on the condition category that they fall in. The results furthermore established that individuals’ in the high dollar condition were willing to donate more money and time towards the charity, and the other participants will in a similar manner donate less amount of money and time in the low dollar condition with the middle dollar condition participants deliberated to donate average amount of money and time towards the same charity. In conclusion, the outcomes of the analysis portrayed that indeed the social psychology concept of normative social impacts on the expected amount of money and time donated by Facebook friends thus setting a norm with regards the amounts that is deemed to be appropriate for other individuals to contribute.

NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION 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 DONATION STUDY

Appendix F – Crosstabs and Chi Square

Part II: Donation Amount (Money in $) * IV Donation Amount Cross tabulation
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 DONATION 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 DONATION 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)