Paper 3
alison12
FACEBOOKCONSENSUS.updated.docxFACEBOOK CONSENSUS 2
FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 2
FACEBOOK CONSENSUS
Kaytlin De Los Santos
PSY 3215
07/27/2020
Methods Study Two
Participants
One hundred and seven subjects, 74% (n = 144) participants were recruited to participate in study two. Of these 107, 49% (n = 52) were male and 51% (n =55) were female. Participants ages ranged from 18 to a max of 70 with an average of 24.95 years (SD = 9.13). Our sample population consisted 34% Caucasian (N = 36), 49% Hispanic (N = 52), 2% Native Indian (N = 2), 8% African American (N = 17), 4% Asian American (N = 5), and 3% of participants reporting “Other” (N =3). See Table 6.
Materials and Procedure
Results Study Two
Discussion Study Two
References
Table 1
Demographics Study One
|
Statistics |
||||
|
|
Gender (1 = M, 2 = F) |
Age |
Race |
|
|
N |
Valid |
144 |
147 |
147 |
|
|
Missing |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
Mean |
1.4792 |
24.8435 |
2.3605 |
|
|
Median |
1.0000 |
22.0000 |
2.0000 |
|
|
Mode |
1.00 |
22.00 |
2.00 |
|
|
Std. Deviation |
.50131 |
8.48585 |
1.47558 |
|
|
Minimum |
1.00 |
18.00 |
1.00 |
|
|
Maximum |
2.00 |
72.00 |
6.00 |
|
Gender (1 = M, 2 = F) |
|||||
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
|
|
Valid |
Male |
75 |
51.0 |
52.1 |
52.1 |
|
|
Female |
69 |
46.9 |
47.9 |
100.0 |
|
|
Total |
144 |
98.0 |
100.0 |
|
|
Missing |
System |
3 |
2.0 |
|
|
|
Total |
147 |
100.0 |
|
|
|
Race |
|||||
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
|
|
Valid |
Caucasian |
44 |
29.9 |
29.9 |
29.9 |
|
|
Hispanic |
67 |
45.6 |
45.6 |
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 |
|
Table 2
Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study One
|
Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) * Attention Check (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) Crosstabulation |
||||||
|
|
Attention Check (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) |
Total |
||||
|
|
High |
Middle |
Low |
|
||
|
Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) |
High |
Count |
44 |
3 |
6 |
53 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) |
83.0% |
5.7% |
11.3% |
100.0% |
|
|
Middle |
Count |
0 |
36 |
4 |
40 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) |
0.0% |
90.0% |
10.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Low |
Count |
6 |
6 |
42 |
54 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) |
11.1% |
11.1% |
77.8% |
100.0% |
|
Total |
Count |
50 |
45 |
52 |
147 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) |
34.0% |
30.6% |
35.4% |
100.0% |
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||
|
|
Value |
df |
Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) |
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
166.323a |
4 |
.000 |
|
Likelihood Ratio |
162.856 |
4 |
.000 |
|
Linear-by-Linear Association |
73.251 |
1 |
.000 |
|
N of Valid Cases |
147 |
|
|
|
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12.24. |
|
|
|||
|
Symmetric Measures |
|||
|
|
Value |
Approximate Significance |
|
|
Nominal by Nominal |
Phi |
1.064 |
.000 |
|
|
Cramer's V |
.752 |
.000 |
|
N of Valid Cases |
147 |
|
Table 3
ANOVA Donation Amount – Study One
|
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 |
28.8679 |
14.53251 |
1.99619 |
24.8623 |
32.8736 |
.00 |
50.00 |
|
Middle |
40 |
23.2500 |
10.03519 |
1.58670 |
20.0406 |
26.4594 |
.00 |
50.00 |
|
Low |
54 |
16.4815 |
13.41042 |
1.82493 |
12.8211 |
20.1418 |
.00 |
50.00 |
|
Total |
147 |
22.7891 |
13.98543 |
1.15350 |
20.5094 |
25.0688 |
.00 |
50.00 |
|
ANOVA |
|||||
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
|||||
|
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
Between Groups |
4115.406 |
2 |
2057.703 |
12.123 |
.000 |
|
Within Groups |
24441.057 |
144 |
169.730 |
|
|
|
Total |
28556.463 |
146 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
5.61792 |
2.72868 |
.102 |
-.8441 |
12.0800 |
|
|
Low |
12.38644* |
2.51904 |
.000 |
6.4208 |
18.3520 |
|
Middle |
High |
-5.61792 |
2.72868 |
.102 |
-12.0800 |
.8441 |
|
|
Low |
6.76852* |
2.71779 |
.037 |
.3323 |
13.2048 |
|
Low |
High |
-12.38644* |
2.51904 |
.000 |
-18.3520 |
-6.4208 |
|
|
Middle |
-6.76852* |
2.71779 |
.037 |
-13.2048 |
-.3323 |
|
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. |
Table 4
ANOVA Friends Stingy – Study One
|
Descriptives |
||||||||
|
Part III: Michael's friends seem like stingy people |
||||||||
|
|
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error |
95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
Minimum |
Maximum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Bound |
Upper Bound |
|
|
|
High |
53 |
2.2264 |
1.03108 |
.14163 |
1.9422 |
2.5106 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
|
Middle |
40 |
2.6750 |
.85896 |
.13581 |
2.4003 |
2.9497 |
1.00 |
4.00 |
|
Low |
54 |
2.9074 |
1.27780 |
.17389 |
2.5586 |
3.2562 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
|
Total |
147 |
2.5986 |
1.12054 |
.09242 |
2.4160 |
2.7813 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
|
ANOVA |
|||||
|
Part III: Michael's friends seem like stingy people |
|||||
|
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
Between Groups |
12.725 |
2 |
6.362 |
5.370 |
.006 |
|
Within Groups |
170.595 |
144 |
1.185 |
|
|
|
Total |
183.320 |
146 |
|
|
|
|
Multiple Comparisons |
||||||
|
Dependent Variable: Part III: Michael's friends seem like stingy people |
||||||
|
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 |
-.44858 |
.22797 |
.124 |
-.9885 |
.0913 |
|
|
Low |
-.68099* |
.21045 |
.004 |
-1.1794 |
-.1826 |
|
Middle |
High |
.44858 |
.22797 |
.124 |
-.0913 |
.9885 |
|
|
Low |
-.23241 |
.22706 |
.563 |
-.7701 |
.3053 |
|
Low |
High |
.68099* |
.21045 |
.004 |
.1826 |
1.1794 |
|
|
Middle |
.23241 |
.22706 |
.563 |
-.3053 |
.7701 |
|
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. |
Table 5
ANOVA Friends Care – Study One
|
Descriptives |
||||||||
|
Part III: Michael's friends seem like caring people |
||||||||
|
|
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error |
95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
Minimum |
Maximum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Bound |
Upper Bound |
|
|
|
High |
53 |
4.6038 |
.74265 |
.10201 |
4.3991 |
4.8085 |
2.00 |
6.00 |
|
Middle |
40 |
4.5250 |
.78406 |
.12397 |
4.2742 |
4.7758 |
3.00 |
6.00 |
|
Low |
54 |
4.1667 |
.90596 |
.12328 |
3.9194 |
4.4139 |
2.00 |
6.00 |
|
Total |
147 |
4.4218 |
.83523 |
.06889 |
4.2856 |
4.5579 |
2.00 |
6.00 |
|
ANOVA |
|||||
|
Part III: Michael's friends seem like caring people |
|||||
|
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
Between Groups |
5.696 |
2 |
2.848 |
4.265 |
.016 |
|
Within Groups |
96.154 |
144 |
.668 |
|
|
|
Total |
101.850 |
146 |
|
|
|
|
Multiple Comparisons |
||||||
|
Dependent Variable: Part III: Michael's friends seem like caring people |
||||||
|
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 |
.07877 |
.17115 |
.890 |
-.3265 |
.4841 |
|
|
Low |
.43711* |
.15800 |
.018 |
.0629 |
.8113 |
|
Middle |
High |
-.07877 |
.17115 |
.890 |
-.4841 |
.3265 |
|
|
Low |
.35833 |
.17047 |
.093 |
-.0454 |
.7620 |
|
Low |
High |
-.43711* |
.15800 |
.018 |
-.8113 |
-.0629 |
|
|
Middle |
-.35833 |
.17047 |
.093 |
-.7620 |
.0454 |
|
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. |
Table 6
Demographics – Study Two
|
Statistics |
||||
|
|
Age |
Race |
Gender (1 = M, 2 = F) |
|
|
N |
Valid |
107 |
107 |
107 |
|
|
Missing |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Mean |
24.9533 |
2.1028 |
1.5140 |
|
|
Median |
22.0000 |
2.0000 |
2.0000 |
|
|
Mode |
22.00 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
|
|
Std. Deviation |
9.12945 |
1.25092 |
.50216 |
|
|
Minimum |
18.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
|
|
Maximum |
70.00 |
6.00 |
2.00 |
|
Gender (1 = M, 2 = F) |
|||||
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
|
|
Valid |
Male |
52 |
48.6 |
48.6 |
48.6 |
|
|
Female |
55 |
51.4 |
51.4 |
100.0 |
|
|
Total |
107 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
|
Race |
|||||
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
|
|
Valid |
Caucasian |
36 |
33.6 |
33.6 |
33.6 |
|
|
Hispanic |
52 |
48.6 |
48.6 |
82.2 |
|
|
Native Indian |
2 |
1.9 |
1.9 |
84.1 |
|
|
African American |
9 |
8.4 |
8.4 |
92.5 |
|
|
Asian American |
5 |
4.7 |
4.7 |
97.2 |
|
|
Other |
3 |
2.8 |
2.8 |
100.0 |
|
|
Total |
107 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Table 7
2 X 2 ANOVA – Study Two
|
Descriptive Statistics |
||||
|
Dependent Variable: Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
||||
|
Condition (1 = H, 3 = L) |
New IV - Participant Charitableness (1 = H, 2 = L) |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
N |
|
High |
Participant High Charitableness |
31.0938 |
11.75930 |
32 |
|
|
Participant Low Charitableness |
25.4762 |
17.74153 |
21 |
|
|
Total |
28.8679 |
14.53251 |
53 |
|
Low |
Participant High Charitableness |
16.3333 |
10.60099 |
15 |
|
|
Participant Low Charitableness |
16.5385 |
14.47111 |
39 |
|
|
Total |
16.4815 |
13.41042 |
54 |
|
Total |
Participant High Charitableness |
26.3830 |
13.25757 |
47 |
|
|
Participant Low Charitableness |
19.6667 |
16.12627 |
60 |
|
|
Total |
22.6168 |
15.23938 |
107 |
|
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects |
|||||
|
Dependent Variable: Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
|||||
|
Source |
Type III Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
Corrected Model |
4504.307a |
3 |
1501.436 |
7.689 |
.000 |
|
Intercept |
46734.294 |
1 |
46734.294 |
239.330 |
.000 |
|
IVCondition |
3280.832 |
1 |
3280.832 |
16.801 |
.000 |
|
NewIVCharitable |
171.135 |
1 |
171.135 |
.876 |
.351 |
|
IVCondition * NewIVCharitable |
198.062 |
1 |
198.062 |
1.014 |
.316 |
|
Error |
20112.982 |
103 |
195.272 |
|
|
|
Total |
79350.000 |
107 |
|
|
|
|
Corrected Total |
24617.290 |
106 |
|
|
|
|
a. R Squared = .183 (Adjusted R Squared = .159) |
