come in if you know how to use SPSS

Sample COM 304 Final Experimental Project

Rationale

Write rationale here in paragraph form based on instructions listed in the assignment.

Describe EPH/EDH strategy from Cialdini and why it might work, and state and support all

hypotheses and research questions with reasons why you made those predictions.

Methods

A total of ### participants completed the survey. Of these participants, ### (###%) were

female, ### (###%) were male, ### (###%) were transgender, and ### (###%) identified as

other. The standard request was randomly provided to ### of the ### (###%) individuals, while

### (###%) participants received the “Even a Dollar Will Help” request. The average age of the

participants was ###, and the range was ##-## years old. The race/ethnicity of the sample was

###% (n=###) White, ###% (n=###) Asian, ###% (n=###) Hispanic or Latino, ###% (n=###)

Black or African American, .###% (n=###) Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, ###% (n=###)

American Indian or Alaska Native, and ###% (n=###) other.

For this experiment, data were gathered by groups of students (4 students per group).

Each group sent emails to eight males and eight females, and groups also had the option to send

out more emails to either gender. The emails included links to a Qualtrics survey, which

randomly assigned participants to either an “Even a Dollar Will Help” (EDH) condition or a

Standard Request (SR) condition. The survey included links to the Paypal website of Natalie’s

Second Chance, giving participants the option to donate. For the SR condition, participants were

told that their decision to donate was voluntary and anonymous. Then, they were asked if they

would donate to Natalie’s Second Chance through a credit card payment. For the EDH condition,

the same question was asked about donating to Natalie’s Second Chance, but the phrase, “even a

dollar will help” was added at the end. To ensure that individuals completed the survey, the

teams requested that participants respond to the initial email, letting the person who sent the

email know that the survey was completed. Reminders for each participant to complete the

survey could be made via text, face-to-face interaction, or through other channels.

To collect our own subset of the data, our group emailed family and friends that we knew

would take the survey for us. Everyone monitored survey responses through Qualtrics during the

time period that we sent emails out. When participants did not complete the survey, they were

contacted with reminders to do so, and if they did not respond within three days it was decided to

disregard those participants and ask others to complete the survey. Our group emailed a total of

### people to complete the survey, but only ### of those completed the survey. Then our group

sent follow-up emails to # of our ## participants, reminding them to take our survey and email us

a confirmation that they took it afterwards. In the end, only three new people were contacted to

take the survey because some of the initial individuals who were contacted did not respond.

Our research questions and hypotheses included the following variables: willingness to

donate, amount of donation, amount of financial need Natalie’s Second Chance shelter is in, pet

ownership, gender, and mood of participants. Pet ownership, gender, and willingness to donate

were nominal variables, and amount of donation, amount of financial need, and mood of

participants were quantitative variables. The way a participant was asked for a donation was

referred to as “Condition,” either EDH or SR. A total of ### people were surveyed, with each

person randomly assigned to a request type (EDH or SR); ### out of the ### respondents were

asked using the SR, while ### out of the ### respondents were asked using the EDH strategy.

Willingness to donate was measured with item, “Would you be willing to securely donate

via credit card to Natalie’s Second Chance shelter today?” Out of the ### participants who

responded to this item, ### (###%) responded “yes” and ### (###%) responded “no.” Donation

amount was the amount of money donated by individual participants. The higher the score on

this item, the more money a participant donated. The range of this question among those who

donated was $# to $#. The mean donation amount was $# (SD=#). The skewness was #, and

kurtosis was #. Amount of financial need was measured using the item: “Please indicate along

the following continuum, how much in need of money do you feel Natalie’s Second Chance

Shelter is in?” Response options ranged from 1 (not at all in need) to 7 (extremely in need). The

mean was # (SD=#), skewness was #, and kurtosis was #.

Pet ownership was indicated by the item: “Do you have/own a pet (other than a dog or

cat)?” The response options were either “yes” or “no.” Out of the ### people who responded to

this item, ### (#%) had pets and # (#%) did not have pets. Gender of participants was indicated

with the survey item, “I identify primarily as” with answer options of “male”, “female”,

“transgender”, or “other”. Out of the ### participants, ### (###%) were male, ### (###%) were

female, # (##%) were transgender, and # (#%) classified themselves as other. Mood of

participants was indicated by the survey item “What is your current mood?”, in which

participants were asked to rate their current emotional state on a scale ranging from 1 (extremely

unhappy) to 7 (extremely happy). A higher score on this scale indicated a better mood. The mean

mood score was # (SD=#), skewness was #, and kurtosis was #.

Results

Hypothesis 1 predicted that a larger percentage of individuals who receive an “Even a

Dollar Will Help” (EDH) request for a charitable donation will donate than participants who

receive only a standard request for a charitable donation. To test H1, a chi square test was

conducted crossing the variables condition (EDH, SR) and donation (yes, no). Results revealed a

statistically significant difference, 2(1) = ####, p = ####, Φ = ####, reflecting that a larger

percentage of those who received the “Even a Dollar Will Help” (EDH) strategy (# out of ###,

###%) actually donated to Natalie’s compared to those who received the standard request (# out

of ###, ##%). These findings support Hypothesis 1 in that the request type has a statistically

significant, small to medium impact or effect on whether participants actually donate or not.

Research question 1 asked if the average amount of donation would differ in the EDH

versus the standard request condition. An ________________ test was conducted to compare

request type in terms of average donation. Although the average amount donated was higher for

Standard Request (M=###, SD=###) than for EDH (M=###, SD=###) the difference between the

two groups was not statistically significant, (test results here). In response to RQ1, the data

indicate that the average amount of donation does not differ more than would be expected due to

chance in the EDH versus the Standard Request condition.

Research question 2 asked if the condition to which participants are exposed (EDH vs.

SR) will have an effect on the level of financial need they feel Natalie’s shelter is in. An

________________ was conducted to compare request type in terms of perceived financial need.

The average perceived financial need for Standard Request (M=###, SD=###) was equivalent to

EDH (M=###, SD=##), and the difference between the two groups was not statistically

significant, (test results here). In response to RQ2, the data indicates that the average amount of

perceived financial need does not differ more than would be expected due to chance in the Even

a Dollar Will Help versus the Standard Request condition.

Hypothesis 2 results.

Hypothesis 3 results.

Hypothesis 4 results.

Discussion

Our results indicated that Hypothesis 1 was supported. Individuals who were asked for a

charitable donation with the statement, “Even a Dollar Will Help,” were shown to be more likely

to donate than those who received only a standard request for donation. Research Question 1

asked whether the way an individual was approached for a donation, either with an Even a Dollar

Will Help or standard request, would affect the amount of money participants donated.

Ultimately, RQ1 indicated that the way an individual is asked, or the method for requesting

donations, did not have a significant effect on the amount that was donated. Our results were

comparable to results from the Cialdini and Schroeder study in that we found statistical

significance between the willingness to donate and the request type. Similar to the Cialdini and

Schroeder study, we also found that the request type did not have an effect on donation amount.

Research Question 2 inquired whether the way individuals were asked to donate, EDH or

standard request, would affect the perceived level of financial need Natalie’s shelter is in.

According to RQ2, there was no significant effect on the perceived level of financial need of

Natalie’s based on the request type. This means that people did not think that Natalie’s shelter

was in a greater financial need based on one request type or the other.

For hypothesis 2, 3, and 4… discuss results and put them into perspective.

Reflecting back on this study, there were a few limitations that could have had an effect

on our findings. Discus what limitations you think the study had.

In conclusion, …. wrap it all up.

Appendix A

Put your SPSS output for the frequencies/descriptives you reported in the methods section for

each variable here. Be sure each variable is in order as reported in the text and clearly labeled in

the output.

Starting on a separate page, type “Appendix B”, and include your SPSS output for each

hypothesis and research question. Be sure to list each hypothesis/research question in order as

reported in text and label each one in the output.