Research Paper Continuation: Follow Paper 2 Instructions and write according to instructions (I have attached a sample paper and structured out the format for Paper 2). - I have attached Paper 1 inst

DATA OUTPUT 9

Data Output

Demographic Frequencies

Statistics
		Part C: Gender (1 = M, 2 = F, 3 = NB, 4 = O)	Part C: Age	Part C: Race
N	Valid	140	136	141
Missing	3	7	2
Mean		1.54	26.35	2.33
Std. Deviation		.592	9.646	1.543
Minimum		1	16	1
Maximum		4	59	7

Part C: Gender (1 = M, 2 = F, 3 = NB, 4 = O)
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Male	69	48.3	49.3	49.3
Female	68	47.6	48.6	97.9
Non-Binary	1	.7	.7	98.6
Other	2	1.4	1.4	100.0
Total	140	97.9	100.0
Missing	System	3	2.1
Total		143	100.0

Part C: Race
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	White	45	31.5	31.9	31.9
Latino/a	62	43.4	44.0	75.9
Indigenous	4	2.8	2.8	78.7
Black	16	11.2	11.3	90.1
Asian	6	4.2	4.3	94.3
MENA	2	1.4	1.4	95.7
Other	6	4.2	4.3	100.0
Total	141	98.6	100.0
Missing	System	2	1.4
Total		143	100.0

Chi-Square Output

Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater) * Part D: Attention Check (1 = Eager, 2 = Hesitant, 3 = Refused) Crosstabulation
					Part D: Attention Check (1 = Eager, 2 = Hesitant, 3 = Refused)							Total
User was eager		User was hesitant		User refused
Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater)	Eager-Cheater	Count		39		7		0		46
% within Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater)		84.8%		15.2%		0.0%		100.0%
Hesitant-Cheater	Count		10		36		3		49
% within Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater)		20.4%		73.5%		6.1%		100.0%
Non-Cheater	Count		4		2		42		48
% within Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater)		8.3%		4.2%		87.5%		100.0%
Total			Count		53		45		45		143
% within Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater)		37.1%		31.5%		31.5%		100.0%

Chi-Square Tests
	Value	df	Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	157.685a	4	.000
Likelihood Ratio	159.539	4	.000
Linear-by-Linear Association	92.107	1	.000
N of Valid Cases	143
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 14.48.

Symmetric Measures
		Value	Approximate Significance
Nominal by Nominal	Phi	1.050	.000
Cramer's V	.743	.000
N of Valid Cases		143

One Way ANOVA 1

Descriptives
Part A1: Using an answer key is cheating
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Eager-Cheater	46	3.43	1.241	.183	3.07	3.80	1	6
Hesitant-Cheater	49	3.65	1.032	.147	3.36	3.95	2	6
Non-Cheater	48	4.60	1.621	.234	4.13	5.07	1	7
Total	143	3.90	1.406	.118	3.67	4.13	1	7

ANOVA
Part A1: Using an answer key is cheating
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	36.744	2	18.372	10.546	.000
Within Groups	243.886	140	1.742
Total	280.629	142

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Part A1: Using an answer key is cheating
Tukey HSD
(I) Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater)	(J) Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater)	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.	95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Eager-Cheater	Hesitant-Cheater	-.218	.271	.700	-.86	.42
Non-Cheater	-1.169*	.272	.000	-1.81	-.52
Hesitant-Cheater	Eager-Cheater	.218	.271	.700	-.42	.86
Non-Cheater	-.951*	.268	.002	-1.59	-.32
Non-Cheater	Eager-Cheater	1.169*	.272	.000	.52	1.81
Hesitant-Cheater	.951*	.268	.002	.32	1.59
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Part A1: Using an answer key is cheating
Tukey HSDa,b
Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater)	N	Subset for alpha = 0.05
1	2
Eager-Cheater	46	3.43
Hesitant-Cheater	49	3.65
Non-Cheater	48		4.60
Sig.		.699	1.000
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 47.634.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

One Way ANOVA 2

Descriptives
Part B3: Easy to imagine being the WhatsApp user
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Eager-Cheater	46	3.72	1.587	.234	3.25	4.19	2	7
Hesitant-Cheater	49	4.59	1.153	.165	4.26	4.92	2	7
Non-Cheater	48	5.06	.727	.105	4.85	5.27	4	6
Total	143	4.47	1.315	.110	4.25	4.69	2	7

ANOVA
Part B3: Easy to imagine being the WhatsApp user
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	43.633	2	21.817	15.122	.000
Within Groups	201.975	140	1.443
Total	245.608	142

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Part B3: Easy to imagine being the WhatsApp user
Tukey HSD
(I) Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater)	(J) Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater)	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.	95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Eager-Cheater	Hesitant-Cheater	-.874*	.247	.002	-1.46	-.29
Non-Cheater	-1.345*	.248	.000	-1.93	-.76
Hesitant-Cheater	Eager-Cheater	.874*	.247	.002	.29	1.46
Non-Cheater	-.471	.244	.134	-1.05	.11
Non-Cheater	Eager-Cheater	1.345*	.248	.000	.76	1.93
Hesitant-Cheater	.471	.244	.134	-.11	1.05
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Part B3: Easy to imagine being the WhatsApp user
Tukey HSDa,b
Condition (1 = Eager Cheater, 2 = Hesitant Cheater, 3 = Non-Cheater)	N	Subset for alpha = 0.05
1	2
Eager-Cheater	46	3.72
Hesitant-Cheater	49		4.59
Non-Cheater	48		5.06
Sig.		1.000	.139
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 47.634.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

Write Up

There were 143 participants within the study, between the ages of 16 and 59 years old representing the age scope of the university, with the average age being M=26.35 and a standard deviation (SD = 9.65). Out of the 143 participants, 48.3% (n=69) were male, 47.6% (n= 68) were female, 0.7% (n = 1) were nonbinary, 1.4% (n = 2) identified as other. In terms of racial/ethnic diversity, the participants were somewhat diverse as 31.5% ((n=45) were white, 43.4% (n = 62) we Latino/a, 2.8% (n= 4) were Indigenous, 11.2% (n =18) were Black, 4.2% (n = 6) were Asian, 1.4% (n = 2) were MENA, 4.2% (n = 6) were from Other races.

The Chi-square was significant χ2(2) = 157.67, P < 0.001. The results indicate that most participants in the Eager-Cheater category 84.8% (n = 39) identified their correct condition. In the Hesitant-Cheater category, 73.4% (n = 36) recalled their assigned condition. Finally, in the Non-cheater condition, 87.5% (n = 42) identified their condition correctly. This indicates that most participants were found attentive.

We ran a One-Way ANOVA with perspective condition as our IV (Eager vs. Hesitant vs. Non-Cheater) and “Using an answer key is cheating” as our DV, which was significant, F (2, 140) = 10.55, p <.01. The Turkey post hoc test showed that participants provided different views on whether using answer key is cheating where eager-cheater group (M = 3.43, SD = 1.24) differed from hesitant-cheater (M = 3.65, SD = 1.03) and the non-cheater (M = 4.60, SD = 1.62) conditions.

We ran a One-Way ANOVA with perspective condition as our IV (Eager vs. Hesitant vs. Non-Cheater) and “I found it easy to imagine being the WhatsApp user” as our DV, which was significant, F (2, 140) = 15.12, p <.01. The Turkey post hoc test revealed that participants provided different agreement with taking the user’s perspective and that the eager-cheater group (M = 3.72, SD = 1.58) significantly differed from the hesitant-cheater (M = 4.59, SD = 1.15) and the non-cheater (M = 5.06, SD = 0.73) conditions.