pap4

Ryan J. Winter

Florida International University

1. The psychological purpose (Paper overview)

The psychological purpose behind Paper IV is to make sure you can summarize what you did in your second study, how you did it, and what you found. This is similar to Paper II, but you will include information related to your second independent variable in Paper IV.

For the Methods section in Paper IV, you will provide information about your participants, materials, and procedure. Your participant section goes first, and it includes descriptive statistics about your sample (means and standard deviations for age and percentages of gender and race/ethnicity). This is a new sample of participants, so you cannot use Paper II for this information. Make it NEW! Your materials and procedure sections include information about what you did and how you did it. You should once again write this section for an audience who is unfamiliar with your new study two variables, but you can summarize or refer back to study one variables if and when they carry over from study one to study two. In the end, just remember that you must educate your reader about your materials and procedure, giving enough detail so they could replicate study two on their own. Your Paper IV Methods section will thus look a lot like your Paper II, but in Paper IV you will describe BOTH independent variables as well as important dependent variables (especially any new ones you added). I suggest reviewing your Paper II feedback to see if you need more clarity in your methods descriptions, but make sure that your reader is clear about the mechanics of your new 2 X 2 factorial design as well.

You will also write a new Results section. Since you now have two independent variables, some new dependent variables, and a new set of participants, you will not be able to reuse ANY of your results from Paper II. Rather, you will write a brand-new results section that focuses on a 2 X 2 factorial design here.

Your Discussion section for Paper IV will be a short summary of what you found in Study Two. Similar to Paper II, you can make some educated guesses about what you found and why you found it, but keep the focus on study two only (in Paper V, you will include a more general discussion section that looks at both study one and study two, so keep the Paper IV discussion focused only on study two).

2. The APA formatting purpose

The second purpose of Paper IV is to again teach you proper American Psychological Association (APA) formatting for methods and results. In the instructions below, I will tell you how to format your paper using APA style, but this time with a focus on your 2 X 2 factorial ANOVAs. Once again, there are a lot of specific requirements in APA papers (as specific as what to italicize), so pay attention to the instructions below as well as the APA formatting powerpoint presentation.

Paper IV is intended to help you figure out how to update a Methods, Results and Discussion section using a 2 X 2 factorial design. This is more complicated than the One-Way ANOVA you used in Paper II, but you should still be able to clearly and succinctly tell you readers what you did, how you did it, and what you found. Similar to Paper III, we will give you feedback and help in this paper. You will then be able to revise it for your final paper in the course (Paper V). Thus, doing a good job on Paper IV will mean fewer revisions for the final paper.

Note #1: The plagiarism limit is higher in this paper (up to 65%) since your classmates are doing the same study two design and will have similar results. Do not go higher than that, though, as 65% is the maximum allowed! If you resubmit, note that your score might increase as it is compared to a larger number of submissions than those from your first submission. Do not get too alarmed.

Note #2: You DO NOT need to include any content from Papers I, II, and III here. You can use the same title page, but all we will look at and grade are the methods, results, discussion, and tables from Study Two.

Note #3: Like Paper II, there is no set minimum or maximum page limit for Paper IV. However, we are still looking for good detail about your study design and your study results

Note #4: The instructions below are the longest yet, and there is a lot of detail, especially for the statistics. I know this gets complicated, but take a few minutes to thoroughly read the instructions. They will help. It is better to take the time now and get it right the first time then to skim and have to redo your paper (or get low points) by rushing. You are almost done with papers! Just hang in there a bit longer.

Instructions for Paper VI: Study Two Methods, Results, Discussion (Worth 30 Points)

This paper should be fairly easy for you! It is essentially a replication of your Paper II: Study One Methods, Results and Discussion paper, except here you will extend that paper to include your second independent variable as well as any new dependent variables you may have created. You will also use a more complex data analysis process now that you have a 2 X 2 factorial design. Keep in mind that Study Two is different from Study One. You may reuse some of the same methods section materials from Study One, but your descriptions in the methods section should be specific to your Study Two idea. If you reuse some of the same variables, you can refer to study one (I encourage it! No need to repeat yourself if you are using identical materials). But if the elements are new, make sure to FULLY describe them. The results will be completely different from Study One, as Study Two has two independent variables and a new participant sample. Your discussion will similarly be new. Below are some of the points you need to cover in this paper.

Use your headers and title information from your prior Paper III: Literature review. See prior instructions for more info about the title page!

1. First page of the methods section (Page 2)

a. Write Method at the top of this section, make it bold, and center it.

b. For Paper IV, the methods section will come on page 2. But in Paper Five in a few weeks, the methods will come immediately after the study two literature review.

2. The participant section

a. Formatting: The participants section comes next. The word Participants is bolded and left justified. In this section …

b. Your participants: As in Paper II, tell me who your participants were (college students, family members, friends) and how many there were.

i. Numbers versus Letters

1. If a number starts a sentence, then spell out the number. That is, “Two-hundred and five participants participated in this study.”

2. If a number is mid-sentence, you can use numerals. “There were 205 participants in this study.”

3. Keep numbers consistent. If you spell out a number at the start of the sentence, carry it through and spell out all sentence numbers.

ii. For statistics:

1. Always use numbers ( M = 5.43, SD = 1.12, 67%, etc.)

2. Include a 0 before decimal places ( SD = 0.12, not SD = .12), though not for the p value ( p = .003, not p = 0.003).

3. For p, always use the exact number (e.g. p = .003 or p = .34) unless your tabled value is .000. In that case, use p < .001

iii. For scales, always use numbers (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree)

c. Frequencies and/or descriptive statistics for relevant demographics.

i. For some variables, like ethnicity and gender, you only need to provide frequency information (the number of participants who fit that category). “There were 100 men (49%) and 105 women (51%) in the study.” Or “The sample was 49% male ( n = 100) and 51% female ( n = 105).”

ii. Other variables, like age, are continuous variables (rather than categorical), so use descriptive statistics here (the range, mean, and the standard deviation). “Participants ranged from 18 to 77 ( M = 24, SD = 3.50).” or “The average age of participants was 24 ( SD = 3.50), with ages ranging from 18 to 77.”

iii. By now you should be able to find frequency and descriptive info on your own, but … hint: Run frequencies and descriptives to get demographic data

d. Tables

i. Make sure to provide a callout to your demographics table. My suggestion is to call it “Table 5” since your first study (and Papers II and III) already includes Tables 1 through 4.

1. Your actual Table 5 will come immediately after the callout in-text

2. Make sure this is for your NEW SAMPLE. This sample will differ from the participants you used for Study One, so you will have to provide all new demographic data.

a. Formatting the materials and procedure section: Include the phrase Materials and Procedure in bold font. This title should be aligned on the left of the page.

i. Here, you can refer to your methods section from Paper II rather than repeating all of the same information. (“We used the same social loafing manipulation we used in study one, but we included only the Individual Total and Group Total conditions”).

ii. There is no set minimum or maximum on the length of the methods section, but I would expect at least a page or two as you detail your materials and procedure. Missing important aspects of your IVs and DVs or presenting them in a confused manner will lower your score in this section

b. Content for the materials and procedure section: Provide information about your materials and your procedure.

i. I suggest starting with your procedure. Tell your reader what your participants did in the order participants did them. Be specific. If your study is similar to study one, I have the following recommendations (though your study may differ, so take these only as recommendations!):

1. First, talk about informed consent (this time given online via Qualtrics rather than orally like in study one).

2. Second, talk about the different versions of the study materials. Provide enough detail so your readers know how the conditions differ. Imagine I need to replicate your design – give me enough detail so I can do so. Also fully describe your new independent variable for study two.

3. Third, talk about your dependent variables (that is, your survey questions). For these DVs, once again provide enough detail so I know exactly what questions you asked. For example, “Participants provided their gender, age, and race”. For other dependent variables, tell me how the responses were recorded (yes/no, true/false, a scale of 1 to 9, etc.). If you used a scale, note the endpoints. That is, does a 1 mean it is high or is it low? “Participants were asked, ‘How surprising was the outcome?’, and they responded on a scale from 1 (unsurprising) to 10 (surprising).’”

4. Fourth, make sure to highlight which DVs you analyzed. If there are DVs participants completed but you did not analyze them, feel free to say those DVs were not analyzed.

5. Finally, mention debriefing (A brief mention is fine, as most readers will know what debriefing entails. Keep the debriefing description short). The debriefing this time is at the end of the Qualtrics survey

c. An example study two: (This is an example - Your new IV and DVs may differ)

i. My new IV: For purposes of this set of instructions, imagine my new IV manipulates the number of math problems solved by participants (which I call “Anchor”. That is, I tell some people that the average participant solves 12 math problems (low anchor) while others solve 25 math problems (high anchor)

1. I need to FULLY describe this new “Anchor” IV in the methods for this second study. That is, I need to describe what makes the anchor high versus low.

2. For my original IV, I can refer readers back to study one. That is:

a. “We used the same social loafing manipulation as study one, where participants were told that the “Best Performance” is based on either the Individual Total or the Group Average. Like study one, we manipulated this in the instructions for Part One”.

3. Thus, my study two would look at social loafing (Individual Total vs Group Average) as the first IV and anchor (High versus Low) as the second IV. This study has four conditions: 1) Individual Total and High Anchor, 2) Individual Total and Low Anchor, 3) Group Average and High Anchor, and 4) Group Average and Low Anchor.

a. Make sure you have a clear idea about what your four conditions look like, too. Go into detail about the new IV.

ii. My new DVs:

1. Highlight any new DVs you created for Study Two. That is, I may ask an attention check question asking if we told them the average score was 12 or 25. I still need to discuss that new DV in enough detail so my reader will know exactly what the new DV entails (Did I use an interval scale where 0 = no problems solved while 25 = 25 solved, or did I use multiple-choice scale with categories (like “12 or 25”? Be specific).

d. Copying survey materials:

i. Guess what! You can copy and paste materials that participants saw in your survey directly into your materials and procedure section. These are not direct quotes since they are your materials, but you can copy instructions from the survey, specific questions you asked, or independent variable information. That gives the reader great insight into the materials that participants saw, so feel free to copy and paste!

ii. Alternatively, you can refer the reader to an appendix with the actual surveys (though I prefer that you discuss the questions in the text, since going to an appendix disrupts the flow of information and forces the reader to flip through pages to find information).

iii. Regardless of what approach you take, make the new information in study two VERY specific so that someone unfamiliar with your study could recreate your survey. If they cannot, you will not do well!

1. Formatting the results section: The results are the hardest part of this paper, so again pay close attention to your lab presentation and book

a. Write Results in bold at the top of this section and center it. This section comes at the end of the methods section; it DOES NOT start on its own page.

2. The results section content requirements

a. For this assignment, include statistics about the most important variables in your study. For Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results, and Discussion, your study design will be more complex than study one. You are dealing with a factorial design now (that is, you have more than one IV), such as a 2 X 2 or even a 2 X 3 study. Let me walk you through the guidelines for a 2 X 2 design

b. You must run at least three different analyses on three different dependent variables. One analysis must be a manipulation check for at least one of your IVs. The other two analyses must be 2 X 2 factorial ANOVAs, with each 2 X 2 ANOVA focusing on different dependent variables.

a. Make sure to run a manipulation (or attention check) for at least one independent variable (though I recommend running a manipulation check for both independent variables). The type of analysis you run will depend on whether the dependent variable you analyze is nominal or interval / ratio

i. Nominal (categorical) dependent variables: IF you have a nominal DV (“How did we define Best Performance?”: Highest Individual score or Highest average group score”, or “Did we tell you the average score was 12 problems solved or 25 problems solved?: 12 or 25”), you can run a chi square test much like you did in Paper II for Study One.

1. I suspect you will use a nominal manipulation check question, so the chi square is most likely.

2. Your manipulation check may be very specific to an independent variable and have nothing to do with the other IV.

a. For example, my “Anchor” manipulation check question will ONLY look at participant recall of being told the average problems solved was 25 or 12

b. Conversely, my “Social Loafing” manipulation check question will ONLY look at how we defined Best Performance (highest individual total vs group average)

3. Want an example chi square write-up for both a significant and non-significant outcome? Go back to the results description for the chi square in the Paper II Instructions (for Study One). Those write-ups will be similar to the ones you will provide for Study Two.

ii. Interval / ratio dependent variable: IF you have an interval or ratio dependent variable (it has a scale format, such as 0 = low to 10 = high), you can run a t-Test (if you only have two levels to the IV) or an ANOVA (if you have three or more levels).

1. For example, if I manipulated anger by giving half of the participants a hard time about their intelligence before they looked at the survey page, I might ask “On a scale of 1 to 9, how angry were you?” and then run a t-Test on the anger-based dependent variable to see if my manipulation did in fact work. That is, given two levels for my independent variable (angry versus control), they should rate themselves as angrier in the condition where I ridiculed their intelligence compared to a control condition

a. For your main analyses, you will run two 2 X 2 ANOVAs (or factorial ANOVAs). Recall that these involve univariate analysis of variance, but rather than focusing on one independent variable (like the One-Way ANOVA), a 2 X 2 ANOVA looks at two different independent variables within the same test. Each 2 X 2 ANOVA will focus on a dependent variable of your choice. You will report at least three F tests for each ANOVA (an F for the main effect of IV #1, an F for the main effect of IV #2, and an F for the interaction of IV #1 X IV #2). If significant, you will report four additional F tests (called simple effects tests), or 7 F tests total for each ANOVA. I know this is complex, so let’s break it down and focus on an example 2 X 2 ANOVA. This test will yield two main effects and one interaction…

i. Non-significant main effect: For example (and ONLY as an example), imagine my first IV is “Anchor”. The main effect write-up looks like …

ii. Significant main effect: For example (and again, ONLY as an example), imagine my second IV is “Social Loafing”. This write-up looks like …

iii. Note that the first part of each main effect sentence includes descriptions of both IVs. Since both are in the same 2 X 2 ANOVA, both are described in the initial write-up. The main effects simply tease them apart into separate sub-analyses. Usually, you will include both main effects analysis in the same paragraph, like the following:

1. “Using Anchor (High vs Low) and Social Loafing (Individual Total vs Group Average) as our IVs and number of math problems solved as our DV, there was no main effect for anchor, F(1, 189) = 1.97, p = .254. Participants did not differ in the number of math problems they solved regardless of whether they were given a high anchor ( M = 12.35, SD = 0.21) or a low anchor ( M = 12.21, SD = 0.87).” However, there was there was a significant main effect for Social Loafing, F(1, 189) = 3.42, p = .033. Participants solved more math problems in the Individual Total condition ( M = 24.56, SD = 1.21) than in the Group Average condition ( M = 12.24, SD = 0.89).”

i. Non-significant interaction: IF the interaction is not significant (e.g. p > .05), then provide the F, df, p values, and list the means and SDs (telling me that the conditions do not differ).

1. “The Anchor X Social Loafing interaction was not significant, F(1, 187) = 1.22, p = .34. This implies that participants in the Individual Total and High Anchor condition ( M = 2.76, SD = 0.27), Individual Total and Low Anchor condition ( M = 2.21, SD = 0.90), the Group Average and High Anchor condition ( M = 2.72, SD = 0.87), and the Group Average and Low Anchor conditions ( M = 2.78, SD = 0.45) did not differ.”

ii. Significant interaction: However, IF the interaction is significant, there are four additional F tests you need to run (“simple effects” tests). This gets complicated, but I will show you an example write-up below (normally, this all goes in the same paragraph):

a. First, for participants in the Individual Total (IT) condition, simple effects showed that participants completed more math problems in the IT and High condition ( M = 27.21, SD = 1.90) than in the IT and High condition ( M = 23.67, SD = 0.27), F(1, 95) = 3.24, p = .009.

i. (Notice that ALL participants here are in the IT condition. You are simply comparing High versus Low anchors for these IT condition participants)

b. Second, for participant in the Group Average (GA) condition, simple effects showed that participants did not differ in their ratings of satisfaction in the GA and low condition ( M = 13.78, SD = 0.45) and the GA and high condition ( M = 13.72, SD = 1.87), F(1, 93) = 1.13, p = .153.

i. (Here, all participants are in the GA condition. You then compare participants with high v low anchors.)

c. Third, for participants in the Low Anchor condition, simple effect tests showed that participants solved more problems in the Low Anchor and IT condition ( M = 23.67, SD = 0.27) than in the Low Anchor and GA condition ( M = 13.78, SD = 0.45), F(1, 95) = 5.31, p = .042.

i. (Here, all participants see a low anchor, but you compare IT and GA conditions.)

d. Fourth, for participants in the High Anchor condition, simple effect tests showed that participants solved more math problems in the High Anchor and IT condition ( M = 27.31, SD = 1.90) than in the High Anchor and GA condition ( M = 13.72, SD = 0.87), F(1, 95) = 5.11, p = .002.

2. In general, this shows that participants solved more math problems in the Individual Total conditions than in the Group Average conditions, though participants in the Individual Total and High Anchor condition solved the most problems, even when compared to the Individual and Low Anchor conditions. It seems that the “Individual” score conditions does lessen the likelihood of social loafing, with setting a high anchor score spurring participants to solve even more problems.

iii. Again, the Social Loafing X Anchor interaction above is an EXAMPLE. Your second independent variable may not involve “Anchors”, and your numbers will differ even if you use Anchors.

iv. If you want to see the full write-up for this interaction, see page 13

d. Please note that you might run a lot of statistical tests for one DV (like the original F test followed-up with simple effects tests). This still only counts as one DV. You need to look at three DVs total (one for the manipulation check and then two additional rating-scale DVs), so you might have as many as 15 or so statistical tests in this section.

e. Like the methods section, there is no page minimum or maximum for the results section, though I would expect it to be at least a paragraph or two for each dependent variable

f. Make sure to provide both a callout to the table for each analysis as well as the tables themselves immediately following the callout.

1. Tables overview: I want to make sure you are including the correct numbers in your results section, so please include all relevant SPSS tables for each of your analyses after each callout in-text. For Study Two, you can title them Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4, but I recommend naming them 5, 6, 7, and 8 since you already have 1, 2, 3, and 4 from study one.

a. Table 5: Demographic Information Study Two (comes after the participant section callout)

b. Table 6: Chi Square (or other Manipulation Check). Make sure to include all needed tables for your manipulation check.

i. If you do a chi square for a nominal variable, include a). the crosstabulation table, b). the chi square table, and c). the symmetric measures table.

ii. If you do a t -Test or ANOVA, include a). the descriptive statistics as well as b). the t-Test table itself (or the ANOVA table with post hocs, if needed)

iii. This table comes directly after the manipulation check table callout in the results section

c. Table 7: First dependent variable (First 2 X 2 ANOVA)

i. Make sure to include your a). descriptive statistics table and your b). Tests of Between Subject Effects table. If your interaction is not significant, you are done. If it is significant, you need to run simple effects follow up tests. For purposes of this paper, you do not need to include the simple effects tables in your write-up (though you do need to run and interpret them) all I need to see is the original ANOVA table and the original descriptive table.

ii. The 2 X 2 ANOVA tables comes directly after the 2 X 2 ANOVA table callout

d. Table 8: Second dependent variable (Second 2 X 2 ANOVA)

i. This is similar to Table 7 above, but for a different dependent variable

ii. This table comes directly after the 2 X 2 ANOVA table callout

2. Appendices ( not your tables) will come at the end of the paper (only if applicable)

a. Since your tables are in-text, you probably will not have an appendix, though you might choose to reproduce some of your study stimulus materials in an appendix (but this is not required)

1. Discussion overview

a. In this section, tell me about your results and if they did or did not support your hypotheses. It might help to refer back to your hypotheses “We expected to find A, but instead we found B” or “We predicted A, and results supported this hypothesis.” Explain using plain English why you think your study turned out the way it did. Avoid just copying and pasting the hypotheses from your literature review. Give me the gist of your predictions to avoid being overly repetitive

b. IMPORTANT – Do NOT give me statistics here. I can find those in your results section. Here, all I want is a plain English summary of your findings.

c. Also, do not give me results for a DV if you did not run an analysis on that DV. Only tell me about the results you actually looked at in the results section.

d. There is no length requirement for this section, but I recommend at least four or five sentences

1. Writing quality overview

a. Make sure you check your paper for proper spelling and grammar. The FIU writing center is available if you want someone to look over your paper (an extra eye is always good!) and give you advice. I highly recommend them, as writing quality will become even more important on future papers. I also recommend visiting the FIU Research Methods Help Center if you need additional guidance with writing or statistical analyses. Also, remember to upload this paper through the Pearson writer before uploading to Canvas!

i. Use a spell checker and the grammar checker to prevent errors. Proofread everything you write. I actually recommend reading some sentences aloud to see if they flow well, or getting family or friends to read your work.

b. Make sure to use the past tense throughout your paper. You already did the study, so do not tell me what participants are going to do. Tell me what they already did!

1. Page size is 8 1/2 X 11” with all 4 margins should be one inch. You must use a 12-point font in Times New Roman.

2. Use the Paper II Checklist before you turn in your paper to make sure it is the best paper you can write!

3. Finally, go look at the supporting documents for this paper. Like Paper I, there is a checklist, a grade rubric, and an example paper for Paper II. All will give you more information about what we are specifically looking for as well as a visual example of how to put it all together in your paper. Good luck!

Below is a write up for the significant interaction for the 2 X 2 ANOVA from above. Here, I just put it all in one paragraph, as it would appear in a results section. Notice there are 7 F tests for this significant 2 X 2 interaction.

“Using Anchor (High vs Low) and Social Loafing (Individual Total vs Group Average) as our IVs and number of math problems solved as our DV, there was no main effect for anchor, F(1, 189) = 1.97, p = .254. Participants did not differ in the number of math problems they solved regardless of whether they were given a high anchor ( M = 12.35, SD = 0.21) or a low anchor ( M = 12.21, SD = 0.87).” However, there was there was a significant main effect for Social Loafing, F(1, 189) = 3.42, p = .033. Participants solved more math problems in the Individual Total condition ( M = 24.56, SD = 1.21) than in the Group Average condition ( M = 12.24, SD = 0.89). The main effects were qualified by a significant Anchor X Social Loafing interaction, F(1, 187) = 6.61, p = .012, necessitating four follow-up simple-effects tests.

First, for participants in the Individual Total (IT) condition, simple effects showed that participants completed more math problems in the IT and High condition ( M = 27.21, SD = 1.90) than in the IT and High condition ( M = 23.67, SD = 0.27), F(1, 95) = 3.24, p = .009. Second, for participant in the Group Average (GA) condition, simple effects showed that participants did not differ in their ratings of satisfaction in the GA and low condition ( M = 13.78, SD = 0.45) and the GA and high condition ( M = 13.72, SD = 1.87), F(1, 93) = 1.13, p = .153. Third, for participants in the Low Anchor condition, simple effect tests showed that participants solved more problems in the Low Anchor and IT condition ( M = 23.67, SD = 0.27) than in the Low Anchor and GA condition ( M = 13.78, SD = 0.45), F(1, 95) = 5.31, p = .042. Fourth, for participants in the High Anchor condition, simple effect tests showed that participants solved more math problems in the High Anchor and IT condition ( M = 27.31, SD = 1.90) than in the High Anchor and GA condition ( M = 13.72, SD = 0.87), F(1, 95) = 5.11, p = .002.

In general, this shows that participants solved more math problems in the Individual Total conditions than in the Group Average conditions, though participants in the Individual Total and High Anchor condition solved the most problems, even when compared to the Individual and Low Anchor conditions. It seems that the “Individual” score conditions does lessen the likelihood of social loafing, with setting a high anchor score spurring participants to solve even more problems.”

Ok, I will show you one more write-up from a prior semester. Once again, there are significant simple effects in this paragraph, so you will see seven F tests.

Using apology (apology versus no apology) and post (rude versus polite) as our IVs and the rating of “Corey seems like a rude person” as our DV, there was no main effect for apology, F(1, 189) = 1.97, p = .25. Participants did not differ in their ratings regardless of whether there was an apology ( M = 2.35, SD = 0.21) versus no apology ( M = 2.21, SD = 0.87). There was, however, a significant rudeness condition main effect, F( 1, 189) = 3.42, p = .021. Participants thought Corey was more rude in the rude condition ( M = 4.56, SD = 1.21) than in the polite condition ( M = 2.24, SD = 0.89). The main effects were qualified by a significant post X apology condition interaction, F(1, 187) = 6.61, p = .009, necessitating four simple-effects tests.

First, for participant in the rude condition, simple effects showed that participants rated Corey as more rude in the rude no apology condition ( M = 2.67, SD = 0.27) than in the rude with apology condition ( M = 5.21, SD = 1.90), F(1, 95) = 6.24, p = .022. Second, for participant in the polite condition, simple effects showed that participants did not differ in their Corey rudeness ratings in the polite with apology condition ( M = 2.78, SD = 0.45) and the polite without apology condition ( M = 2.72, SD = 1.87), F(1, 93) = 1.13, p = .245. Third, for participants in the apology condition, simple effect tests showed that participants did not differ in their rudeness ratings between the rude apology condition ( M = 2.67, SD = 0.27) and the polite apology condition ( M = 2.72, SD = 0.45), F(1, 95) = 1.31, p = .263. Fourth, for participants in the no apology condition, simple effect tests showed that participants rated Corey as more rude in the rude no apology condition ( M = 5.21, SD = 1.90) than in the polite no apology condition ( M = 2.78, SD = 0.87), F(1, 95) = 5.11, p = .029. In general, this shows that participants thought Corey was most rude in the rude condition without an apology than in all other conditions. However, when an apology was present or Corey was already polite, participants saw Corey as low in rudeness.