Method Study Two
Participants
Nine hundred and twenty-six participants were recruited to participate in study two. Of these 926 subjects 34% (n= 317) were male and 66% (n= 609) were female. Ages ranged from minimum of 12 to a maximum of 91 with an average 21.81 years (SD =11.32). Our sample population consisted of 67% Hispanic Americans (n= 635), 15% Caucasians (n= 134), 13% African Americans (n= 120), 3% Asian Americans (n=27), 0.5% Native Americans (n= 5) and 0.5% Others (n= 5). See Table 5.
Table 5
Demographics – Study Two
Statistics
N | Gender | Age | Race/ethnicity | |
Valid | 926 | 926 | 926 | |
Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Mean | 1.66 | 27.81 | 2.23 | |
Std. Error of Mean | .016 | .372 | .032 | |
Median | 2.00 | 23.00 | 2.00 | |
Mode | 2 | 20 | 2 | |
Std. Deviation | .475 | 11.323 | .983 | |
Minimum | 1 | 12 | 1 | |
Maximum | 2 | 91 | 6 | |
Percentiles | 25 | 1.00 | 21.00 | 2.00 |
50 | 2.00 | 23.00 | 2.00 | |
75 | 2.00 | 30.00 | 2.00 |
Gender
Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
Valid | Male | 317 | 34.2 | 34.2 | 34.2 |
Female | 609 | 65.8 | 65.8 | 100.0 | |
Total | 926 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Ethnicity
Valid | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | |
Caucasian | 134 | 14.5 | 14.5 | 14.5 | |
Hispanic | 635 | 68.6 | 68.6 | 83.0 | |
Native Indian | 5 | .5 | .5 | 83.6 | |
African American/Black | 120 | 13.0 | 13.0 | 96.5 | |
Asian American | 27 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 99.5 | |
Others | 5 | .5 | .5 | 100.0 | |
Total | 926 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
See Also: Time Out For Problem behavior
Materials and Procedure
The potential applicant was asked to take part in an online study being conducted for research purposes. If the applicant agreed to partake, verbally, or otherwise, they were guided to the survey developed through Qualtrics software. In agreement with the consistent guideline for informed consent, the applicant was first notified of the possible risks and aids of participating in the study before being introduced to the research material. Once the applicant established their approval, they were eligible to continue with the rest of the survey, which entailed three different parts or sections.
In section one of the study, we manipulated the subject to see if the apology was intentionally assigning them to one of two possible groups. Conditional on which group the applicant was selected to present with either deliberately or unintentionally statement. After reading each report, the applicant was then questioned to rate how much they agreed with each remark on a number scale. The numbers on the scale varied from one (somewhat agree) to seven (completely agree). For example, an applicant was offered a Twitter apology statement and was asked, “Charlie’s apology acknowledged the behavior was wrong,” and then you rated your answer on the scale.
In section two of the study, the applicant read one of two brief scenarios regarding Charlie’s situation at the mall. Charles’s and his acquaintance Chris decided to meet up at the mall to hang out during the summer, but he overlooked his face cover. These scenarios were identical to the ones used in study one. However, we ignored the no apology condition since it did not differ from the insincere state. Once again, and parallel to study one, applicants prolonged to section three of the study, which asked for a response to a series of questions after reading Charlie’s tweet to see if his apology was sincere and to know if it was intentional. They were then asked to fill in their demographic, relationship status, and they were asked if they believed Charlie’s shows remorse. They were also asked if they were Florida international students. In part three, the applicant was offered a sequence of inquiries about their thoughts regarding the specific condition they read. Although we had several dependent variables, our crucial focus involved age, gender, and race.
Same as study one, section four gave applicants with demographic material, including gender, age, ethnicity, and first linguistic, whether they were students at Florida International University, and relationship status. Part five is the final question. The second independent variable of the experiment looks at whether the apology is intentional or unintentional. We provided the applicant with a survey to see if the apology’s intentionality could strengthen or weaken the apology, as mentioned above. To test this possibility, our applicants responded to a set of scaled questions that asked them to look at a fictional Twitter user’s post. Half of our applicants saw a Twitter post with a sincere apology, while the other half saw a Twitter post with an insincere apology. Further, half of our participants read the “intentionally forgot wearing a mask” scenario, while the other half read the “unintentionally forgot wearing a mask” scenario. Though we had numerous dependent variables, our main purpose is whether he was sincere or insincere.
Results Study Two
Using condition (intentionally versus unintentionally) as the independent variables and whether Charlie’s left his mask home as the dependent variable, the manipulation was significant. A few applicants in both the intentional (53.8%) and unintentional (52.3%) conditions said that the apology was manipulated, X^2(1) = .21, p > 0.5. Phi, which is the most appropriate for a 2 X 2 chi-square, shows a common effect. This is not surprising as we eliminate neutral conditions. See table 6.
Table 6
Crosstabs and Chi-square – Study Two
Manipulation Check for Apology | |||||
#SorrySorrySorry | #SorryNotSorry | Total | |||
IV intentionality | intentional | Count | 215 | 250 | 465 |
% within IV intentionality | 46.2% | 53.8% | 100.0% | ||
unintentional | Count | 220 | 241 | 461 | |
% within IV intentionality | 47.7% | 52.3% | 100.0% | ||
Total | Count | 435 | 491 | 926 | |
% within IV intentionality | 47.0% | 53.0% | 100.0% |
Chi-Square Tests
Value | df | Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) | Exact Sig. (2-sided) | Exact Sig. (1-sided) | |
Pearson Chi-Square | .205a | 1 | .651 | ||
Continuity Correction | .150 | 1 | .699 | ||
Likelihood Ratio | .205 | 1 | .651 | ||
Fisher’s Exact Test | .693 | .349 | |||
Linear-by-Linear Association | .205 | 1 | .651 | ||
N of Valid Cases | 926 | ||||
· 0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 216.56.
· Computed only for a 2×2 table |
Symmetric Measures
Value | Approximate Significance | ||
Nominal by Nominal | Phi | -.015 | .651 |
Cramer’s V | .015 | .651 | |
N of Valid Cases | 926 |
To test our first dependent variable, we ran a 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA with independent variables (sincere vs. insincere) and scenario (intentional vs. unintentional) and “acknowledging Charlie’s behavior was wrong” as our dependent variable. Results verified a significant main result for the acknowledge behavior apology, F (1, 922) = 3.93, p = .048. This means a significant difference in the task of responsibility between sincerity (M = 4.59, SD=1.31) and insincere (M= 3.86, SD =1.57). Applicants in the intentional condition (M= 4.13, SD=1.47) believes that Charlie’s plan his behavior and did it on purpose than applicants in the unintentional condition (M= 4.32, SD=1.50). Unluckily, there was a collaboration between sincerity and the scenario, F (1,922) = .442 p =.506, meaning that perceived result is not significantly different among different cere intentional (M= 4.53, SD=1.24) and insincere intentional (M=3.74, SD=1.57). The sincere unintentional applicants (M=4.65, SD=1.38) and insincere unintentional condition (M=3.99, SD=1.57). See table 7
Table 7
ANOVA Acknowledge the behavior was wrong -Study Two
Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: Charlie’s apology acknowledged that his behavior was wrong.
IV twitter apology | IV intentionality | Mean | Std. Deviation | N |
Sincere | intentional | 4.53 | 1.239 | 230 |
unintentional | 4.65 | 1.375 | 232 | |
Total | 4.59 | 1.309 | 462 | |
Insincere | intentional | 3.74 | 1.568 | 235 |
unintentional | 3.99 | 1.555 | 229 | |
Total | 3.86 | 1.565 | 464 | |
Total | intentional | 4.13 | 1.468 | 465 |
unintentional | 4.32 | 1.503 | 461 | |
Total | 4.22 | 1.488 | 926 |
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Charlie’s apology ack that acknowledged the behavior was wrong.
Source | Type III Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. |
Corrected Model | 132.060a | 3 | 44.020 | 21.198 | .000 |
Intercept | 16528.104 | 1 | 16528.104 | 7959.042 | .000 |
IVapology | 122.322 | 1 | 122.322 | 58.904 | .000 |
IVintention | 8.160 | 1 | 8.160 | 3.929 | .048 |
IVapology * IVintention | .918 | 1 | .918 | .442 | .506 |
Error | 1914.667 | 922 | 2.077 | ||
Total | 18565.000 | 926 | |||
Corrected Total | 2046.727 | 925 | |||
a R Squared = .065 (Adjusted R Squared = .061) |
To test our second dependent variable, we ran another 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA with sincere and insincerity and scenario condition (intentional vs. unintentional) as our independent variables and accepting responsibility as our dependent variable. There was a main effect for the “acceptance of responsibility” thought generated, F (1, 922) = 2.48, p=.116. This means a significant difference in the number of result thoughts generated between insincere (M= 3.68, SD=1.54) and sincere (M=4.50, SD=1.34). Similarly, there was no main effect between scenario F (1, 922) = 11.00, p=.001. That is, there was a significant difference in the number of “apology that showed acceptance of responsibility” statements generated between the intentional condition (M=3.93, SD=1.46) and the unintentional condition (M=4.25, SD=1.52). We also studied the general interaction between the two independent variables (sincere vs. insincere and unintentional vs. intentional scenario) and the dependent variable. Correspondingly, there was a key effect between for scenario, F (1, 922) = 74.25, p=.000, which mean the responsibility of the apology vary between insincere unintentional conditions (M= 3.92, SD=1.56) and insincere intentional condition (M= 3.46, SD=1.50), sincere unintentional (M=4.58, SD= 1.41) or intentional conditions ( M=4.42, SD=1.26). See Table 8.
Table 8
ANOVA Acceptance of Responsibility -Study Two
Descriptive Statistics
IV twitter apology | IV intentionality | Mean | Std. Deviation | N |
Sincere | intentional | 4.42 | 1.257 | 230 |
unintentional | 4.58 | 1.412 | 232 | |
Total | 4.50 | 1.338 | 462 | |
Insincere | intentional | 3.46 | 1.497 | 235 |
unintentional | 3.92 | 1.561 | 229 | |
Total | 3.68 | 1.544 | 464 | |
Total | intentional | 3.93 | 1.463 | 465 |
unintentional | 4.25 | 1.523 | 461 | |
Total | 4.09 | 1.501 | 926 |
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Charlie’s apology showed an acceptance of responsibility.
Source | Type III Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. |
Corrected Model | 182.301a | 3 | 60.767 | 29.456 | .000 |
Intercept | 15510.754 | 1 | 15510.754 | 7518.571 | .000 |
IVapology | 153.176 | 1 | 153.176 | 74.249 | .000 |
IVintention | 22.693 | 1 | 22.693 | 11.000 | .001 |
IVapology * IVintention | 5.112 | 1 | 5.112 | 2.478 | .116 |
Error | 1902.079 | 922 | 2.063 | ||
Total | 17580.000 | 926 | |||
Corrected Total | 2084.380 | 925 | |||
a R Squared = .087 (Adjusted R Squared = .084) |
Discussion Study Two
Although study two posited that an apology’s sincerity would impact participants and their initiation of intentional behavior and their calculation of remorse, results supported this argument. For both dependent variables, sincerity did not express the main effects. Despite estimates to the opposing, those sincere did not produce any more results than those insincere, and those sincere believe Charlies shows remorse. The scenario, despite our calculation that that insincerity would generate the most impact and find the less remorseful when given the intentional compared to other situations. However, the scenario did show a significant main effect such that participants found more remorse in the unintentional situation than the intentional case.
Our experiment contained two independent variables we were observing. The first independent variable’s purpose is to determine if the type of apology influences how people feel. There are two conditions: in one situation, Charlie gave a sincere apology, while in another condition, Charlie seemed to provide a sincere apology, but at the end provided the sarcastic hashtag #SorryNotSorry. We expect that people will view sincere apology more favorably than the second independent variable of the experiment looks at whether the apology is intentional or unintentional. We were interested in seeing if intentionality of apology could strengthen or weaken the apology as mentioned earlier effect.
In general, participants in the sincere apology condition will view apology more favorably than participants in the insincere apology condition. We predict that participants in the intentional condition will view apology less favorably than those in unintentional situations. We also indicate an interaction between two variables, with participants in unintentional sincere condition, will view apology the most favorably than other conditions.
Last Updated on December 2, 2020 by EssayPro