Below is an excerpt from Bastian, Jetten, and Fasoli’s (2011) article titled “Cl

Question

Below is an excerpt from Bastian, Jetten, and Fasoli’s (2011) article titled “Cleansing the Soul by Hurting the Flesh: The Guilt-Reducing Effect of Pain” from the journal Psychological Science, 22(3), 334-335.

Read the excerpt and answer the questions below.

In return for $10, 62 undergraduates (22 men, 40 women; mean age = 22.74 years) participated in a study that they were told focused on mental acuity. They were allocated to one of three conditions. In the pain (n = 20) and no-pain (n = 19) conditions, participants wrote for 10 to 15 min about a time when they behaved unethically, that is, a time when they “rejected or socially excluded another person.” In the control condition (n = 23), participants wrote about “an everyday interaction [they] had with another person yesterday.” All participants subsequently completed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), which included an item assessing their experience of guilt. Next, participants were informed that they would participate in a different study on physical acuity. Participants in the pain and control conditions were presented with an ice bucket (0 °C–2 °C) and were instructed by the experimenter to “immerse your nondominant hand, up to your wrist, into the bucket for as long as you can.” Participants in the no-pain condition were instructed to do the same with a bucket of warm water (36 °C–38 °C) for 90 s while also moving paper clips, one at a time, between two boxes. Specifically, they were instructed to “use your dominant hand to move as many paper clips from one box to another as you can.” The ice-bucket and warm-water tasks were designed to be equivalent in length, perceived purpose (i.e., testing physical acuity), required compliance (i.e., participants were asked to exert effort), and sense of achievement. When finished, participants again completed the PANAS (Watson et al., 1988). Last, participants rated how much pain they experienced during the ice-bucket or warm-water task, using the Wong-Baker Pain Scale (Wong & Baker, 1988), which ranges from 0 (no hurt) to 5 (hurts worst). They also scored the morality of their actions in the recalled experience (three items: “I felt like what I did was very immoral,” “my actions were unethical,” “I was immoral”; = .95) on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much so). Results Three participants who left their hands submerged in the ice bath for an unusually long period of time (> 3 min, more than 2 SD above the mean) were removed from analyses, leaving 21 participants in the control condition, 19 in the pain condition, and 19 in the no-pain condition. …An ANOVA on pain ratings revealed an effect of condition, F(2, 56) = 37.83,p < .001, 2 = .58. Follow-up comparisons revealed significant differences in pain ratings between all conditions (pain condition: M = 2.79, SE = 0.22; control condition:M = 1.91, SE = 0.21; no-pain condition: M = 0.11, SE = 0.22; ps < .006), indicating that participants who wrote about an unethical behavior rated the ice-bucket task as more painful than did participants who wrote about an everyday interaction.

a) How many groups are being compared in this ANOVA?

b) Was there a significant difference in pain ratings by condition? If so, what is the p value less than?

c) Which groups are significantly different from one another in pain ratings?

Explanation / Answer

Part-a

Numerator degree of freedom of F =2

So, number of groups =2+1=3

Part-b

Yes, there was a significant difference in pain ratings by condition as p-value<0.001 of F-test

Part-c

There are significant differences in pain ratings between all conditions /groups.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse B
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.