Research paper
AmeliaC
PaperII.docxFACEBOOK RUDENESS 10
Facebook Rudeness: Is Facebook a Platform that Unites or Separates?
Andreina E. Corral B
Florida International University
Methods
Participants
Table 1
Demographics- Study One
|
Age |
|||||
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
|
|
Valid |
16 |
1 |
.5 |
.5 |
.5 |
|
|
17 |
3 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
2.1 |
|
|
18 |
18 |
9.6 |
9.6 |
11.8 |
|
|
19 |
11 |
5.9 |
5.9 |
17.6 |
|
|
20 |
16 |
8.6 |
8.6 |
26.2 |
|
|
21 |
28 |
15.0 |
15.0 |
41.2 |
|
|
22 |
19 |
10.2 |
10.2 |
51.3 |
|
|
23 |
28 |
15.0 |
15.0 |
66.3 |
|
|
24 |
8 |
4.3 |
4.3 |
70.6 |
|
|
25 |
5 |
2.7 |
2.7 |
73.3 |
|
|
26 |
4 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
75.4 |
|
|
27 |
11 |
5.9 |
5.9 |
81.3 |
|
|
29 |
3 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
82.9 |
|
|
31 |
1 |
.5 |
.5 |
83.4 |
|
|
32 |
5 |
2.7 |
2.7 |
86.1 |
|
|
33 |
3 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
87.7 |
|
|
34 |
1 |
.5 |
.5 |
88.2 |
|
|
35 |
1 |
.5 |
.5 |
88.8 |
|
|
38 |
2 |
1.1 |
1.1 |
89.8 |
|
|
42 |
1 |
.5 |
.5 |
90.4 |
|
|
43 |
4 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
92.5 |
|
|
45 |
4 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
94.7 |
|
|
46 |
1 |
.5 |
.5 |
95.2 |
|
|
48 |
2 |
1.1 |
1.1 |
96.3 |
|
|
50 |
1 |
.5 |
.5 |
96.8 |
|
|
53 |
1 |
.5 |
.5 |
97.3 |
|
|
56 |
1 |
.5 |
.5 |
97.9 |
|
|
59 |
4 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
100.0 |
|
|
Total |
187 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Materials and Procedure
Results
Table 2
Cross-tabs and Chi Square- Study One
|
Case Processing Summary |
||||||
|
|
Cases |
|||||
|
|
Valid |
Missing |
Total |
|||
|
|
N |
Percent |
N |
Percent |
N |
Percent |
|
Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) * Attention Check (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
187 |
100.0% |
0 |
0.0% |
187 |
100.0% |
|
Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) * Attention Check (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) Crosstabulation |
|||
|
|
Attention Check (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
||
|
|
Rude Disagree (RD) |
||
|
Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
Rude Disagree (RD) |
Count |
46 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
69.7% |
|
|
Polite Disagree (PD) |
Count |
19 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
28.8% |
|
|
Polite Agree (PA) |
Count |
3 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
5.5% |
|
Total |
Count |
68 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
36.4% |
|
Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) * Attention Check (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) Crosstabulation |
|||
|
|
Attention Check (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
||
|
|
Polite Disagree (PD) |
||
|
Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
Rude Disagree (RD) |
Count |
19 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
28.8% |
|
|
Polite Disagree (PD) |
Count |
44 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
66.7% |
|
|
Polite Agree (PA) |
Count |
8 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
14.5% |
|
Total |
Count |
71 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
38.0% |
|
Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) * Attention Check (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) Crosstabulation |
||||
|
|
Attention Check (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
Total |
||
|
|
Polite Agree (PA) |
|
||
|
Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
Rude Disagree (RD) |
Count |
1 |
66 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
1.5% |
100.0% |
|
|
Polite Disagree (PD) |
Count |
3 |
66 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
4.5% |
100.0% |
|
|
Polite Agree (PA) |
Count |
44 |
55 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
80.0% |
100.0% |
|
Total |
Count |
48 |
187 |
|
|
|
% within Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
25.7% |
100.0% |
The Chi square was significant, X2(4) =149 p<.001. Most “rude disagree “participants recalled seeing Corey rudely disagree. The story was fake (70%) Most “polite disagree “participants recalled seeing Corey politely disagreeing the story was fake (67%). Finally, most polite agree participants recalled seeing Corey politely agree the story was fake (80%) Cramer’s V, which is appropriate for this 3x3 test, was strong. These findings indicate that participants saw our story manipulation as was intended.
Table 3
Anova - Study One
Table 4
Anova Corey’s Post Made Me Angry – Study One
Table 5
t-Test
|
Notes |
||
|
Input |
Data |
C:\Users\owner\Downloads\SPSS Study One Facebook Rudeness Study – live.sav |
|
|
Active Dataset |
DataSet1 |
|
|
Filter |
<none> |
|
|
Weight |
<none> |
|
|
Split File |
<none> |
|
|
N of Rows in Working Data File |
187 |
|
Missing Value Handling |
Definition of Missing |
User defined missing values are treated as missing. |
|
|
Cases Used |
Statistics for each analysis are based on the cases with no missing or out-of-range data for any variable in the analysis. |
|
Syntax |
T-TEST GROUPS=IVCondition(2 3) /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=PartIIRude /ES DISPLAY(TRUE) /CRITERIA=CI(.95). |
|
|
Resources |
Processor Time |
00:00:00.08 |
|
|
Elapsed Time |
00:00:00.30 |
|
Group Statistics |
||||
|
|
Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
|
Part II: Corey seems like a rude person |
Polite Disagree (PD) |
66 |
2.98 |
.920 |
|
|
Polite Agree (PA) |
55 |
2.71 |
.786 |
|
Group Statistics |
||
|
|
Condition (1 = RD, 2 = PD, 3 = PA) |
Std. Error Mean |
|
Part II: Corey seems like a rude person |
Polite Disagree (PD) |
.113 |
|
|
Polite Agree (PA) |
.106 |
|
Independent Samples Test |
||||
|
|
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances |
t-test for Equality of Means |
||
|
|
F |
Sig. |
t |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part II: Corey seems like a rude person |
Equal variances assumed |
.006 |
.938 |
1.753 |
|
|
Equal variances not assumed |
|
|
1.778 |
|
Independent Samples Test |
||||
|
|
t-test for Equality of Means |
|||
|
|
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
Mean Difference |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part II: Corey seems like a rude person |
Equal variances assumed |
119 |
.082 |
.276 |
|
|
Equal variances not assumed |
118.917 |
.078 |
.276 |
|
Independent Samples Test |
||||
|
|
t-test for Equality of Means |
|||
|
|
Std. Error Difference |
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference |
||
|
|
|
Lower |
Upper |
|
|
Part II: Corey seems like a rude person |
Equal variances assumed |
.157 |
-.036 |
.587 |
|
|
Equal variances not assumed |
.155 |
-.031 |
.583 |
|
Independent Samples Effect Sizes |
||||
|
|
Standardizera |
Point Estimate |
95% Confidence Interval |
|
|
|
|
|
Lower |
|
|
Part II: Corey seems like a rude person |
Cohen's d |
.862 |
.320 |
-.041 |
|
|
Hedges' correction |
.867 |
.318 |
-.040 |
|
|
Glass's delta |
.786 |
.351 |
-.015 |
|
Independent Samples Effect Sizes |
||
|
|
95% Confidence Intervala |
|
|
|
Upper |
|
|
Part II: Corey seems like a rude person |
Cohen's d |
.680 |
|
|
Hedges' correction |
.675 |
|
|
Glass's delta |
.713 |
|
a. The denominator used in estimating the effect sizes. Cohen's d uses the pooled standard deviation. Hedges' correction uses the pooled standard deviation, plus a correction factor. Glass's delta uses the sample standard deviation of the control group. |
We ran an independent sample t-test with condition as our independent variable (RD v PD) and “Corey seems like a rude person” as our dependent variable. It was significant, t (130) =2.13, p<.05. Participants thought Corey was more rude in the rude disagree condition (M= 3.40, SD =1.19) than in the polite disagree condition (M=3.00, SD=.92).
