pap 5

SOCIAL LOAFING AND ANCHORING 2

Social Loafing and Anchoring: Solving Math Problems

Method Study 2

Participants

Five hundred and two participants were selected to aid in the collection of the necessary data for this study. From the sample, 34.2% ( n = 171) were students from Florida International University. The youngest participant was 10 years old while the oldest was 79 years and the average was 26 years ( M = 25.95, n = 496, SD = 10.14). Based on gender, 42.1% ( n = 211) were males, 55.7% ( n = 279) were females, 1.6% ( n = 8) were non-binary and 0.6% ( n = 3) preferred to indicate their gender. The sample consisted of different races where 61% ( n = 306) were Latino, 21.1% ( n = 106) were White, 10.8% ( n = 54) were Blacks, 4% ( n = 20) were Asian, 2% ( n = 10) were MENA, 0.2% ( n = 1) indigenous and 1% ( n = 5) did not specify their race as shown in Table 5.

Table 5

Descriptive for demography- study 2

Statistics
What is your age?
N	Valid	496
	Missing	6
Mean	25.95
Std. Deviation	10.139
Minimum	10
Maximum	79

What is your gender?
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Male	211	42.0	42.1	42.1
	Female	279	55.6	55.7	97.8
	Non-binary	8	1.6	1.6	99.4
	Prefer not to disclose	3	.6	.6	100.0
	Total	501	99.8	100.0
Missing	System	1	.2
Total	502	100.0

What is your race/ethnicity?
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	White	106	21.1	21.1	21.1
	Latino/a	306	61.0	61.0	82.1
	Indigenous	1	.2	.2	82.3
	Black	54	10.8	10.8	93.0
	Asian	20	4.0	4.0	97.0
	Middle East and North Africa (MENA)	10	2.0	2.0	99.0
	Others--Please specify	5	1.0	1.0	100.0
	Total	502	100.0	100.0

Materials and Procedures

Participants were first asked whether they were comfortable to be part of the sample that will undertake the study. When the potential participants give consent to participate on the study, they were directed to the online Qualtrics survey which had the necessary questions that were required to complete the study. Participants were given instructions accordingly which includes the advantages and disadvantages of undertaking the study. The potential risk of taking the study was that participants may experience discomfort when answering personal questions regarding their feelings on solving math problems. The benefit highlighted was that the information they provide can be used in advanced studies on psychology.

This study uses the same social loafing manipulation used in study one, but only Individual Total and Group Total conditions were included. The Individual Total Condition informed participants that the number of math problems they solved individually will be compared to the number solved by other participants. The Group Total condition comprised of participants who were told that the number of math problems they will solve will be combined with the number of problems solved by other four participants and the result was to be divided by five in order to get the average score.

The second study involves anchor manipulation where two conditions (High anchor and Low anchor) were considered. In the High anchor condition, participants were told that in the pilot study conducted, participants solved 40 math problems on average. In the Low anchor condition, participants were told that average number of math problem solved by participant was 20 math problems. This results to four conditions (Group Total and Low Anchor, Group Total and High Anchor, Individual Total and Low Anchor and Individual Total and High Anchor). The two independent variables in this case will be loafing condition (1 = Individual, 2 = Group) and Anchoring condition (1 = Low, 2 = High).

All the participant of the study were presented with math problems they were supposed to complete. The math problems involved simple multiplication of numbers by itself, for example, 1 X 1 = 1. The first section contains problems running from 1 X 1 to 42 X 42. Further instructions inform the participant to continue with the multiplication from 43 X 43 up to the number they feel will be enough.

Part Three contained six statements that asks the participants to rate their thoughts about their performance on solving the math problems. The responses where Likert scale ratings running from 1 to 7. In this study, the score of 1 “strongly disagree” while a score of 7 indicates “strongly agree”. The statements included; “I believe that I completed more math problems than the average participant (1= Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree)”, “I believe that I could have completed more math problems than I did (1= Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree)”, “I feel like my performance will be individually examined by the researchers (1= Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree)”, “I feel like the goal of the study (to help get bonus points for the student researcher who recruited me) is important (1= Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree)”, “I found solving math problems in this experiment enjoyable. (Q5 (Enjoyable)) (1= Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree)” and finally “I believe that participants may “slack off” or “take a free ride” if they know that other participants are contributing to the average score (1= Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree)”.

Part Four asked the participants to provide their demographic information which included age, gender, ethnicity, English as the first language, whether the participant is a student at Florida International University, relationship status, whether participant took any college level math classes and whether the participant majored or minored in a mathematic field.

Part Five contained study recall measures where participants were asked to recall the note given at the beginning of the survey on how to determine “Best performance” (1 = We said the "Best Performance" would be based on the highest individual math score and 2 = We said the "Best Performance" would be based on the highest group average math score). The second recall question asks the participants to recall the number of math problems they were told prior participants solved (1 = We said pilot participants completed 20 math problems on average and 2 = We said pilot participants completed 40 math problems on average).

The study will utilize the Total Math Score Final (Part2TotalMathScore) as the dependent variable. This is the total number of math problems solved by each participant in the study. The main objective will be to determine the total number of problems solved given the highlighted conditions.

The participants were finally debriefed about the study. They were thanked for participating in the study and briefed about the main objectives of the study. Participants were told how manipulation was done in order to determine the impact of the conditions on the number of problems one can solve.

Result Study Two

A Chi-square test was conducted to determine whether anchoring attention check (1 = We said pilot participants completed 20 math problems on average and 2 = We said pilot participants completed 40 math problems on average) was dependent on Anchoring condition (Low or High). According to the analysis, most participants (83.7%) in the Low condition reported that they were told prior participants solved 20 math problems on average. Most of the participants (93.2%) in the High condition reported that they recall being told prior participants solved 40 math problems on average. The relationship was statistically significant where X2(1) = 292.01, p < .001 and Phi (.76) showed a strong effect. The analysis was as shown in Table 6.

Table 6

Chi Square – Study Two

A 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA was conducted order to test the first dependent variable (Total math score final) and the independent variables were social loafing condition (Individual and Group) and anchoring condition (High anchor and Low anchor). Results showed that the main effect of loafing condition on total math score was statistically significant F (1, 498) = 23.95, p < .001. This implies that participants in the Individual condition ( M = 30.06, SD = 11.34) solved more math problems than participants in the Group condition ( M = 25.13, SD = 11.74). The main effect for Anchor condition was also significant F (1, 498) = 15.42, p < .001. This implies that participants in the High condition ( M = 29.57, SD = 11.84) solved more math problems than participants in the Low condition ( M = 25.62, SD = 11.43). The interaction effect Loafing condition X Anchoring condition was also significant F (1, 498) = 7.84, p = .005. First, participants in the Individual Total condition, the simple effect showed that participants solved more problems in the Individual Total and High condition ( M = 30.64, SD = 11.22) than in the Individual Total and Low condition ( M = 29.50, SD = 11.47). Secondly, participants in the Group Total condition, the simple effect showed that participants solved more problems in the Individual Total and High condition ( M = 28.52, SD = 12.38) than in the Group Total and Low condition ( M = 21.74, SD = 10.02). Third, for participants in the Low Anchor condition, the simple effect showed that participants solved more math problems in Low Anchor and Individual Total condition ( M = 29.50, SD = 11.47) than Low Anchor and Group Total condition ( M = 21.74, SD = 10.02). Third, for participants in the High Anchor condition, the simple effect showed that participants solved more math problems in High Anchor and Individual Total condition ( M = 30.64, SD = 11.22) than High Anchor and Group Total condition ( M = 28.52, SD = 12.38). The results were as shown in Table 7

Table 7

ANOVA Math Total Final – Study Two

A second 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA was conducted where the dependent variable was Part 3 Q4: The goal of the study is important to me, and the independent variables were social loafing condition (Individual and Group) and anchoring condition (High anchor and Low anchor). The results showed no significant main effect of social loafing condition on the importance of the goal of the study to the participant F (1, 498) = 1.51, p = .22. This implies that participants in the Individual Total condition ( M = 5.72, SD = 1.47) and participants in the Group Total condition ( M = 5.5, SD = 1.52) did not differ. The main effect of Anchoring (High and Low) was also not significant F (1, 498) = 0.62, p = .43. This implies that participants in the High condition ( M = 5.58, SD = 1.50) and participants in the Low condition ( M = 5.69, SD = 1.49) did not differ. The interaction effect between social Loafing X Anchoring was also not significant since F (1, 498) = 0.33, p = .57 which implies that participants in the Individual and Low condition ( M = 5.73, SD = 1.53), Individual and High condition ( M = 5.70, SD = 1.41), Group and Low condition ( M = 5.64, SD = 1.46) and Group and High condition ( M = 5.46, SD = 1.58) did not differ. Results were as shown in Table 8.

Table 8

ANOVA Importance of Goal of Study- Study Two

A final 2X2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with social loafing condition (Individual and Group) and anchoring condition (High anchor and Low anchor) as the independent variables and Part 3 Q4: I found the math problems enjoyable, as the dependent variable. The main effect of loafing condition on enjoyable math problems was statistically significant F (1, 498) = 5.71, p = .02. This implies that participants in the Individual condition ( M = 4.31, SD = 1.93) agree to enjoy math problems more than participants in the Group condition ( M = 3.90, SD = 1.88). The main effect of Anchoring (High and Low) was not significant F (1, 498) = 0.18, p = .66. This implies that participants in the High condition ( M = 4.14, SD = 1.84) and participants in the Low condition ( M = 4.07, SD = 1.99) did not differ. The interaction effect between social Loafing X Anchoring was also not significant since F (1, 498) = 2.79, p = .96 which implies that participants in the Individual and Low condition ( M = 4.41, SD = 2.02), Individual and High condition ( M = 4.20, SD = 1.84), Group and Low condition ( M = 3.72, SD = 1.91) and Group and High condition ( M = 4.08, SD = 1.85) did not differ. The results were given in Table 9.

Table 9

ANOVA Enjoy Math Problems – Study Two

Discussion Study Two

The study’s main objectives were to determine the effects of social loafing and anchoring on mathematics problem solving. It was expected that participants in the Individual condition, will solve more problems compared to participants in the Group condition as a result of social loafing. It was also expected that participants in the High anchor condition will solve more problems compared to the participants in the Low anchor condition. The study confirms that participants in the Individual and High/Low Conditions solved more math problems compared to participants in the Group and High/Low condition based on the significance of the interaction effect between Loafing X Anchoring.