Results
In reference to the hypothesis that people who received a manipulation letter suggesting their neighborhood had high political interest would leave their winning candidate’s yard sign up longer than those in any of the other three populations( low interest manipulation or losing candidates), a one – way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare four neighborhoods in Frostburg, MD. The test consist of four independent levels. Population 1: Winners with high interest neighborhoods. Population 2: Winners with low interest neighborhoods. Population 3: Losers with high interest neighborhoods. Population 4: Losers with low interest neighborhoods. All of the calculations for this test were done by hand. I started by identify the populations that would be compared. I calculated the mean and standard deviation of each population and then calculated the degree of freedom between groups and within groups, and the total. Next, I determined the critical value according to the F Distribution chart, then calculated the grand mean, total sum of squares, within groups sum of squares, and between groups sum of squares. Lastly, I calculated the mean square between groups and within groups followed by calculation the Statistic.
Descriptive Statistics Population 1 (M = 4.2) while …show more content…
The data supports the idea that people feel that they need to guard their self-esteem by taking down the signs of a losing candidate, but those with winning candidates left their signs up the longest to bask in reflected glory of their candidate. The data collected may provide support for Leary’s (1999) sociometer theory but does not show direct correlation. However, the data did confirm Bernhardt et al.’s (2014) quasi – experiment stating that BIRG occurs when people display their winning candidate’s yard sign, in high political interest
In reference to the hypothesis that people who received a manipulation letter suggesting their neighborhood had high political interest would leave their winning candidate’s yard sign up longer than those in any of the other three populations( low interest manipulation or losing candidates), a one – way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare four neighborhoods in Frostburg, MD. The test consist of four independent levels. Population 1: Winners with high interest neighborhoods. Population 2: Winners with low interest neighborhoods. Population 3: Losers with high interest neighborhoods. Population 4: Losers with low interest neighborhoods. All of the calculations for this test were done by hand. I started by identify the populations that would be compared. I calculated the mean and standard deviation of each population and then calculated the degree of freedom between groups and within groups, and the total. Next, I determined the critical value according to the F Distribution chart, then calculated the grand mean, total sum of squares, within groups sum of squares, and between groups sum of squares. Lastly, I calculated the mean square between groups and within groups followed by calculation the Statistic.
Descriptive Statistics Population 1 (M = 4.2) while …show more content…
The data supports the idea that people feel that they need to guard their self-esteem by taking down the signs of a losing candidate, but those with winning candidates left their signs up the longest to bask in reflected glory of their candidate. The data collected may provide support for Leary’s (1999) sociometer theory but does not show direct correlation. However, the data did confirm Bernhardt et al.’s (2014) quasi – experiment stating that BIRG occurs when people display their winning candidate’s yard sign, in high political interest