# Chapter 1. Choosing and Reporting Statistics

## 1.1Choosing and Reporting Statistics

CHOOSING AND REPORTING STATISTICS
Is There Power in Passion?
true
true
true
You must read each slide, and complete any questions on the slide, in sequence.

Welcome

Is There Power in Passion?

Authors:

Kelly M. Goedert, Seton Hall University

Susan A. Nolan, Seton Hall University

Kaylise D. Algrim, Seton Hall University

Plenty of politicians, businesspeople, and debate captains will say that stories and feelings are more effective than facts and figures in winning an audience. But is going for the audience’s emotions always the right tactic? A series of studies looked at whether people would try to go for the gut (attempt emotional persuasion), even when talking to a crowd less likely to be moved by emotion (Rocklage, Rucker, & Nordgren, 2018). In one study, researchers had participants make arguments to one of three groups: an invented group called “the Emotionalists” made up of artists, dancers, and musicians; an invented group of rational thinkers (e.g., scientists, mathematicians) called “the Society for Applied Rationality and Mathematics”; or a group without a descriptor. In a fourth condition, the participants were not told to persuade any group. The researchers then calculated the strength and number of emotion words that participants used.

Ableimages/Iconica/Getty Images

## 1.2

The researchers conducted a pretest to confirm that participants would respond differently to the emotional and rational groups. Participants in the pretest were asked to rate both groups (emotional, rational) on a scale ranging from 1 (“cognitive, rational appeals would be more persuasive”) to 5 (“emotional, feeling-based appeals would be most persuasive”). A statistical analysis “indicated that participants believed that the group of scientists, mathematicians, and economic analysts would be more likely to be persuaded by cognitive appeals (M = 1.26, 95% CI = [1.16, 1.36]), whereas the group of artists, dancers, and musicians were thought to be more likely to be persuaded by emotional appeals (M = 4.46, 95% CI = [4.31, 4.61]); t(49) = 15.24, p < .001, d = 2.16” (p. 755).

### Question 1.2

dD/yzFSn/2PYax8bdt2mM2ZrVdL2dObM/dYAje25u1zsuXBLh0mA6UdBFzTTjmJdK0yLiYpk0vEYRxaswpFDQKrrCnFVA5CZUb0SSLHJgjcqkJfnvC5io8wLWAxUsIpm3TS/PVBjiyGQP5LEQYH4q1dMmyNiwm3zVfkH6R4r2/Xk30FT5qiUkhUk9K0IJ4zevP/WuBoyEC9VuZDxXO880tIXyj09UiTvkhTT2jZLkZC73bsURAOVEHX1EA6Zzt8EJEzAQUjCqoOjy09zi96gWLQWEBNTYssEonp655WqKrNrSd2+323JZBw0axQjRTYCmoPOc72jZjUAHnE0w43KXa7EnhDIcFXlP9hjD4R8B4+69GnJLFJaxSnfggA=
Correct! They used a paired-samples t test because the study includes a nominal independent variable, type of group, with two levels: emotional and rational. There is a scale dependent variable, and all participants are in both levels of the independent variable.
Actually, they used a paired-samples t test because the study includes a nominal independent variable, type of group, with two levels: emotional and rational. There is a scale dependent variable, and all participants are in both levels of the independent variable.

## 1.3

The researchers wrote: “[W]e preregistered our experiment and analysis plan (https://osf.io/vbuqn/).” In addition, they reported: “As detailed in the preregistration, a previous pilot test demonstrated a small to moderate effect size. . . . A power analysis indicated that based on this effect size, we required approximately 800 participants across the conditions” (p. 755).

### Question 1.3

B0wW6jgu64kw8V2/kOa7F50qBagTlO/gFJkDkVnT4MeVIqtaFtZkY0AMEjzzw+InO7hydrgbGx4DBCOc/Bge5qOw2apfm79PRP59B8LgkBViERFig7PZ3wCheTYh2tDch8Xsj1PFISSp1baATd7Dcp4PEjLQPkTYfwSwsz9T+l1CrBpkDA5PtOzXep4CDBNi8yFU52TkU4tq+xVAXug0ub4P8mPkgtQ9orxScayfzMUi9r3CLxsKpJ/rPcecakXSzgjGaO92w2/ORPhE
Correct! Preregistration is a good open-science practice because it prevents researchers from p-hacking and HARKing after their data are collected.
Actually, preregistration is a good open-science practice because it prevents researchers from p-hacking and HARKing after their data are collected.

## 1.4

As we noted on the previous screen, the researchers wrote: “[W]e preregistered our experiment and analysis plan (https://osf.io/vbuqn/).” In addition, they reported: “As detailed in the preregistration, a previous pilot test demonstrated a small to moderate effect size. . . . A power analysis indicated that based on this effect size, we required approximately 800 participants across the conditions” (p. 755).

### Question 1.4

Correct! Researchers justify their study, including the sample size, in the Methods section of the report.
Actually, researchers justify their study, including the sample size, in the Methods section of the report.

## 1.5

The researchers described their study as follows: “Each participant was assigned to one of four conditions. In all four conditions, participants were asked to recall the last sit-down restaurant they ate at and were then informed they would describe their restaurant to future participants using three to five positive adjectives” (p. 755). In the first three conditions, “participants were incentivized to persuade by being told they would be paid \$1.00 each time a future participant selected their restaurant and were also given explicit instructions to persuade future participants to select their restaurant. We then provided individuals with information (or not) about whom they would be persuading” (p. 755)—that is, emotionalists, rationalists, or no particular group. For the fourth group, participants were told simply to describe the restaurant, but were not asked to persuade anyone. The researchers assessed how many emotion words the participants used.

### Question 1.5

/4YdEXivs43+9cDAmfilHzPO1j+oKVbr1uqwG2mHM6CY/1oSv/nLGWZR+XzxnkCIuTaq06lxgKjUUNRLKiNCFZMGxsb9BjQLMJ4mKJCvm8ylwDZ7DoZipMLvLuAimNnx1X1V1cYuQLgm2++hJfd3BFFqPlLvqxY9NlxNOkR44mBfs95AM6gdBC3J9UQxvicWcP1LFedwnrPSjOCweG5yXA1ioqsBYczmcgovUkF8vP16NkhMRxD4mmdvACKn3zCfmS5SCYhQJtlRxpyXl32sYKy5z4IIzotBJ+Bd3uvc4g/Hi2zT1qyYTw==
Correct! The researchers would use a one-way between-groups ANOVA because there is one nominal independent variable, type of group, with four levels: emotionalists, rationalists, no particular group, and no persuasion. There is a scale dependent variable (number of emotion words used), and no participant is in more than one level of the independent variable.
Actually, the researchers would use a one-way between-groups ANOVA because there is one nominal independent variable, type of group, with four levels: emotionalists, rationalists, no particular group, and no persuasion. There is a scale dependent variable (number of emotion words used), and no participant is in more than one level of the independent variable.

## 1.6

The researchers reported: “We then used an ANOVA to assess the differences in the emotionality of participants’ appeals across all conditions. A significant effect of condition emerged, F(3, 777) = 3.33, p = .019, ηp2 = .013 (see Fig. 2).” [Recall from Chapter 14 that ηp2 (partial eta squared) can be interpreted like R2.] Figure 2 is a graph like the one shown here. As part of their post hoc tests, the researchers indicated that those participants in the three persuade conditions (emotionalists, rationalists, no particular group) all used more emotion words, on average, than did the participants in the no-persuasion group, and they noted that “the persuade conditions did not differ from each other in their use of emotional appeals (ps > .33).”

image description
The bar graphs shows the means for the number of emotion words used in four different conditions. The vertical y-axis is labeled “Number of emotion words” and the tick marks range from 0.0 at the bottom to 4.5 at the top, at intervals of 0.5. The horizontal x-axis is labeled “Condition” and shows four vertical bars, one for emotionalists (with an average score of about 4.3), one for rationalists (with an average score of about 4.2), one for no group (with an average score of about 4.2), and one for no persuasion (with an average score of about 4.0).

### Question 1.6

Correct! We know that the three persuade groups are significantly different from the no-persuasion group, and that they are not significantly different from each other. The graph depicts this visually.
Actually, we know that the three persuade groups are significantly different from the no-persuasion group, and that they are not significantly different from each other. The graph depicts this visually.

## 1.7

As we noted previously, the researchers reported: “We then used an ANOVA to assess the differences in the emotionality of participants’ appeals across all conditions. A significant effect of condition emerged, F(3, 777) = 3.33, p = .019, ηp2 = .013.” [Recall from the chapter on two-way between-groups ANOVA that ηp2 (partial eta squared) can be interpreted like R2.]

### Question 1.7

Correct! The results of the ANOVA, as indicated by the F statistic and p value, are traditional statistics, and the partial eta squared (ηp2 ) is an effect size, which is a new statistic.
Actually, the results of the ANOVA, as indicated by the F statistic and p value, are traditional statistics, and the partial eta squared (ηp2 ) is an effect size, which is a new statistic.

## 1.8

The researchers summarized the findings of this study by noting that “individuals continued to infuse their language with emotionality even when they were told that their goal was to persuade individuals who would be more likely to be persuaded by cognitive information” (pp. 756–757). They later went on to place these findings in the context of the overall research literature: “The current findings build on the social-functional perspective of emotion as a natural tool for communication and social influence (e.g., Frijda & Mesquita, 1994; Keltner & Haidt, 1999; Van Kleef, 2009).”