Intentional Behavior Affect the Apology Outcome: Depending on the Person

posted in: Research Paper | 0

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