depressed?) 7 2. Sigall and Ostrove (1975) did an experiment to assess whether the physical attractiveness of a defendant on trial for a crime had an effect on the severity of the sentence given in mock jury trials. Each of the participants in this study was randomly assigned to one of the following three treatment groups; every participant received a packet that described a burglary and gave background information about the accused person. The three treatment groups differed in the type of information they were given about the accused person's appear- ance. Members of Group 1 were shown a photograph of an attractive person; members of Group 2 were shown a photograph of an unattractive person; members of Group 3 saw no photograph. Some of their results are described here. Each participant was asked to assign a sentence (in years) to the accused person; the researchers predicted that more attractive persons would receive shorter sentences. 0.7a Prior to assessment of the outcome, the researchers did a manipulation check. Members of Groups 1 and 2 rated the attractiveness (on a 1 to 9 scale, with 9 being the most attractive) of the person in the photo. They reported that for the attractive photo, M =7.53; for the unattractive photo, M= 3,20, F(1, 108), = 184.29. Was this difference statistically significant (using a= .05)? %3D (o18b. What was the effect size for the difference in (2a)? Atado Was their attempt to manipulate perceived attractiveness successful? o d. Why does the F ratio in (2a) have just df=1 in the numerator? 46.10e. The mean length of sentence given in the three groups was as follows: Group 1: Attractive photo, M= 2.80 Group 2: Unattractive photo, M= 5.20 Group 3: No photo, M= 5.10 %3D %3D

Holt Mcdougal Larson Pre-algebra: Student Edition 2012
1st Edition
ISBN:9780547587776
Author:HOLT MCDOUGAL
Publisher:HOLT MCDOUGAL
Chapter11: Data Analysis And Probability
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 8CR
icon
Related questions
icon
Concept explainers
Topic Video
Question

Prior to assessment of the outcome, the researchers did a manipulation check. Members 1 and 2 rated the attractiveness of the person in the photo. They reported that for the attractive photo, M=7.53, for the unattractive photo, M=3.20,F(1, 108) =184.29.

 

depressed?)
7 2. Sigall and Ostrove (1975) did an experiment to assess whether the physical
attractiveness of a defendant on trial for a crime had an effect on the severity
of the sentence given in mock jury trials. Each of the participants in this study
was randomly assigned to one of the following three treatment groups; every
participant received a packet that described a burglary and gave background
information about the accused person. The three treatment groups differed in
the type of information they were given about the accused person's appear-
ance. Members of Group 1 were shown a photograph of an attractive person;
members of Group 2 were shown a photograph of an unattractive person;
members of Group 3 saw no photograph. Some of their results are described
here. Each participant was asked to assign a sentence (in years) to the accused
person; the researchers predicted that more attractive persons would receive
shorter sentences.
0.7a Prior to assessment of the outcome, the researchers did a manipulation
check. Members of Groups 1 and 2 rated the attractiveness (on a 1 to 9
scale, with 9 being the most attractive) of the person in the photo. They
reported that for the attractive photo, M =7.53; for the unattractive photo,
M= 3,20, F(1, 108), = 184.29. Was this difference statistically significant
(using a= .05)?
%3D
(o18b. What was the effect size for the difference in (2a)?
Atado Was their attempt to manipulate perceived attractiveness successful?
o d. Why does the F ratio in (2a) have just df=1 in the numerator?
46.10e. The mean length of sentence given in the three groups was as follows:
Group 1: Attractive photo, M= 2.80
Group 2: Unattractive photo, M= 5.20
Group 3: No photo, M= 5.10
%3D
%3D
Transcribed Image Text:depressed?) 7 2. Sigall and Ostrove (1975) did an experiment to assess whether the physical attractiveness of a defendant on trial for a crime had an effect on the severity of the sentence given in mock jury trials. Each of the participants in this study was randomly assigned to one of the following three treatment groups; every participant received a packet that described a burglary and gave background information about the accused person. The three treatment groups differed in the type of information they were given about the accused person's appear- ance. Members of Group 1 were shown a photograph of an attractive person; members of Group 2 were shown a photograph of an unattractive person; members of Group 3 saw no photograph. Some of their results are described here. Each participant was asked to assign a sentence (in years) to the accused person; the researchers predicted that more attractive persons would receive shorter sentences. 0.7a Prior to assessment of the outcome, the researchers did a manipulation check. Members of Groups 1 and 2 rated the attractiveness (on a 1 to 9 scale, with 9 being the most attractive) of the person in the photo. They reported that for the attractive photo, M =7.53; for the unattractive photo, M= 3,20, F(1, 108), = 184.29. Was this difference statistically significant (using a= .05)? %3D (o18b. What was the effect size for the difference in (2a)? Atado Was their attempt to manipulate perceived attractiveness successful? o d. Why does the F ratio in (2a) have just df=1 in the numerator? 46.10e. The mean length of sentence given in the three groups was as follows: Group 1: Attractive photo, M= 2.80 Group 2: Unattractive photo, M= 5.20 Group 3: No photo, M= 5.10 %3D %3D
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps with 1 images

Blurred answer
Knowledge Booster
Sample space, Events, and Basic Rules of Probability
Learn more about
Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, statistics and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.
Recommended textbooks for you
Holt Mcdougal Larson Pre-algebra: Student Edition…
Holt Mcdougal Larson Pre-algebra: Student Edition…
Algebra
ISBN:
9780547587776
Author:
HOLT MCDOUGAL
Publisher:
HOLT MCDOUGAL
Glencoe Algebra 1, Student Edition, 9780079039897…
Glencoe Algebra 1, Student Edition, 9780079039897…
Algebra
ISBN:
9780079039897
Author:
Carter
Publisher:
McGraw Hill