There were 281 participants in this experimental study. Most of the participants were family or friends of students in a research methods class at Florida International University, and they were recruited through email, personal, or telephone request. One hundred ninety one participants were female (68%) and 90 were male (32%). They range from age 13 to 92 (M= 32.33, SD= 13.58). This included 63 Caucasian participants (22.4%), 56 African American participants (19.9%), 8 Asian participants (2.8%), 138 Hispanic participants (49.1%) and 16 participants with other ethnicity (5.7%).
Material and Procedure Participants responded to an online survey through a server called Qualtrics. Participants were randomly chosen to be in one of the four conditions: …show more content…
After participants signed and read the informed consent form, they then were asked to read two study scenarios which involved a new gosling and a “virgin rat”. In the first study scenario, participants were asked to read a short summary about a study which involved a baby goose. There were four versions of this scenario. The participants, however, did not know that there were four different versions of this study. In the first version, participants were asked to read a study involving a newly hatched gosling, whose egg had placed in a box surrounded by the sound of duck quacks. The outcome of this version was not told, so the possible outcomes include the gosling approached to an adult duck or approached to an adult goose after it has hatched. The alternative explanation was not given in this version. In this second version, the participants read a similar study, but the outcome of this study was not told. The alternative explanation was given. In this third version, the outcome was told that the gosling approached to the caged duck one it had hatched, and the alternative explanation was told in this version. In this final version, the similar outcome was told, but the alternative explanation was not …show more content…
not told) and alternate explanation (given v. not given) as our independent variables. There was no significant main effect for outcome, F (1,277) = 0.89, p > 0.05. That is, participants who were told the outcome (M = 4.61, SD = 2.65) were not more surprised than those who were not told the outcome (M = 4.96, SD = 2.58). There were also no main effect for alternative explanation, F (1,277) = 0.015, p > 0.05. That is, participants who were given alternative explanation (M = 4.84, SD = 2.64) were not more surprised than those who were not given alternative explanation (M = 4.83, SD= 2.58). There was no significant interaction of outcome by alternative explanation, F (1, 277) = 0.49, p > 0.05. Thus, there were no significant differences between outcome told and alternative explanation not given (M= 4.51, SD = 2.67), outcome told and alternative explanation given (M= 4.78, SD = 2.65), outcome not told and alternative explanation not given (M = 5.06, SD = 2.51), and outcome not told and alternative explanation given (M = 4.86, SD = 2.66) (See Appendix
Material and Procedure Participants responded to an online survey through a server called Qualtrics. Participants were randomly chosen to be in one of the four conditions: …show more content…
After participants signed and read the informed consent form, they then were asked to read two study scenarios which involved a new gosling and a “virgin rat”. In the first study scenario, participants were asked to read a short summary about a study which involved a baby goose. There were four versions of this scenario. The participants, however, did not know that there were four different versions of this study. In the first version, participants were asked to read a study involving a newly hatched gosling, whose egg had placed in a box surrounded by the sound of duck quacks. The outcome of this version was not told, so the possible outcomes include the gosling approached to an adult duck or approached to an adult goose after it has hatched. The alternative explanation was not given in this version. In this second version, the participants read a similar study, but the outcome of this study was not told. The alternative explanation was given. In this third version, the outcome was told that the gosling approached to the caged duck one it had hatched, and the alternative explanation was told in this version. In this final version, the similar outcome was told, but the alternative explanation was not …show more content…
not told) and alternate explanation (given v. not given) as our independent variables. There was no significant main effect for outcome, F (1,277) = 0.89, p > 0.05. That is, participants who were told the outcome (M = 4.61, SD = 2.65) were not more surprised than those who were not told the outcome (M = 4.96, SD = 2.58). There were also no main effect for alternative explanation, F (1,277) = 0.015, p > 0.05. That is, participants who were given alternative explanation (M = 4.84, SD = 2.64) were not more surprised than those who were not given alternative explanation (M = 4.83, SD= 2.58). There was no significant interaction of outcome by alternative explanation, F (1, 277) = 0.49, p > 0.05. Thus, there were no significant differences between outcome told and alternative explanation not given (M= 4.51, SD = 2.67), outcome told and alternative explanation given (M= 4.78, SD = 2.65), outcome not told and alternative explanation not given (M = 5.06, SD = 2.51), and outcome not told and alternative explanation given (M = 4.86, SD = 2.66) (See Appendix