I have already added the title page and the data needed which will be attached. I will also be attaching the procedure section so you are aware of what the study is about. I will NOT be using a t test

Running head: Priming Studies 0

Priming Studies

Mariela Burgalin

Florida International University

Methods Participants

There was a total of 135 participants in our study. Out of these 135 participants, 53.4% (n= ) were male and 46.6% (n= ) were female.

Materials and Procedures

Results

Appendix A

Appendix B

Case Processing Summary
	Cases
Valid			Missing			Total
N	Percent	N		Percent	N		Percent
Condition (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E) * Manipulation Check (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E)	135	100.0%	0		0.0%	135		100.0%

*Condition (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E) Manipulation Check (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E) Crosstabulation**
				Manipulation Check (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E)						Total
Sexuality		Romance		Education
Condition (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E)	Sexuality	Count	37		4		0		41
% within Condition (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E)	90.2%		9.8%		0.0%		100.0%
Romance	Count	6		41		0		47
% within Condition (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E)	12.8%		87.2%		0.0%		100.0%
Education	Count	0		2		45		47
% within Condition (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E)	0.0%		4.3%		95.7%		100.0%
Total		Count	43		47		45		135
% within Condition (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E)	31.9%		34.8%		33.3%		100.0%

Chi-Square Tests
	Value	df	Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	205.587a	4	.000
Likelihood Ratio	217.791	4	.000
Linear-by-Linear Association	116.490	1	.000
N of Valid Cases	135
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 13.06.

Appendix C

ANOVA
Part II: Riley seems flirtatious
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	12.979	2	6.489	6.551	.002
Within Groups	130.755	132	.991
Total	143.733	134

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Part II: Riley seems flirtatious
Tukey HSD
(I) Condition (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E)	(J) Condition (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E)	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.	99.9% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Sexuality	Romance	.63985	.21269	.009	-.1417	1.4214
Education	.70368	.21269	.003	-.0779	1.4853
Romance	Sexuality	-.63985	.21269	.009	-1.4214	.1417
Education	.06383	.20531	.948	-.6906	.8183
Education	Sexuality	-.70368	.21269	.003	-1.4853	.0779
Romance	-.06383	.20531	.948	-.8183	.6906

Part II: Riley seems flirtatious
Tukey HSDa,b
Condition (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E)	N	Subset for alpha = 0.001
1
Education	47	2.8085
Romance	47	2.8723
Sexuality	41	3.5122
Sig.		.003
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 44.814.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

Appendix D

ANOVA
Part II: Riley seems seductive
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	18.033	2	9.017	11.221	.000
Within Groups	106.071	132	.804
Total	124.104	134

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Part II: Riley seems seductive
Tukey HSD
(I) Condition (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E)	(J) Condition (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E)	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.	99.9% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Sexuality	Romance	.87130*	.19156	.000	.1673	1.5753
Education	.67981	.19156	.002	-.0241	1.3838
Romance	Sexuality	-.87130*	.19156	.000	-1.5753	-.1673
Education	-.19149	.18492	.556	-.8710	.4880
Education	Sexuality	-.67981	.19156	.002	-1.3838	.0241
Romance	.19149	.18492	.556	-.4880	.8710
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.001 level.

Part II: Riley seems seductive
Tukey HSDa,b
Condition (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E)	N	Subset for alpha = 0.001
1	2
Romance	47	2.7872
Education	47	2.9787	2.9787
Sexuality	41		3.6585
Sig.		.571	.001
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 44.814.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.