A psychology class will be doing an experiment to see if caffeine affects a participant’s reaction time. The results will show if the drug (caffeine) has any effects on an individual.
The hypothesis is that participants who had Caffeinated Cola will have a larger positive decrease in reaction time than the participants who drunk decaffeinated Cola and water.
Results
Table: The effect of a caffeinated drink and a decaffeinated drink in reaction time results
Drink Mean of the before reaction time (mm) Mean of the after reaction time (mm) Difference (mm) Before Range (mm) After Range (mm) Before Standard Deviation (mm) After Standard Deviation (mm)
Decaffeinated 119.9 119.9 0 117 108.7 54.7 49.4 …show more content…
The participant’s with the Caffeine had a mean of 187 mm on the first reaction time and a mean of 145.3 mm on the second reaction time which shows a decrease of 41.7 mm on their reaction. The participant’s without caffeine had a mean of 119.9 mm on both the before and after reaction time. The participants who had caffeine had a before range of 209 mm and an after range of 217 mm which shows an increase of 8 mm. The participants without caffeine had a before range of 117 mm and an after range of 108.7 mm which shows a decrease of 8.3 mm. This results in participants having their reaction times improved with intake of …show more content…
From the results you can see the change of the mean in reaction time for the caffeine users as it got smaller by quite an amount (from the mean of 187 mm to the mean of 145.3 mm which is a 41.7 mm difference) while the mean of the participants who did not have caffeine stayed the same (a mean of 119.9 mm). This shows that caffeine drinkers have a higher reaction time than the decaffeinated diet coke and water drinkers. The hypothesis “The participants who had Caffeinated Cola will have a larger positive decrease in reaction time than the participants who drunk decaffeinated Cola and water” was supported by the results. In addition if the lack of ethical issues and the fact that the experiment had more weaknesses than strengths isn’t considered, the investigation had a good