EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 5
1. A two-way factorial graph can be plotted in two complementary ways: With levels of the column stimuli on the horizontal or with levels of the row stimuli on the horizontal. Although both ways are equivalent, one may be more intuitive than the other.
|a. ||Plot the complementary form of the factorial graph of Figure 5.2. Which do you consider more useful?|
|b. ||Plot the complementary form of the factorial graph in the left panel of Figure 5.4. Which way do you consider more useful?|
|c. ||Do the same as in (b) for the center panel of Figure 5.4.|
|d. ||Compare both forms of the two-way, AB data table of Figure 5.5.|
2. Piaget claimed that young children are unable to integrate two informers. Instead, they center
, that is, they judge using only one of two given informers. Piaget considered centration to be a pervasive characteristic of cognition up to age 6 or even older. For the Intent × Damage design described in relation to Figure 1.3
, draw factorial graphs, labeled appropriately, that show the following patterns of behavior:
|a. ||Centration on Damage.|
|b. ||Centration on Intent.|
|c. ||Blame = Intent + Damage.|
|d. ||Blame = Intent × Damage.|
|e. ||Accident-configural integration: Blame independent of amount of damage if damage is accidental; otherwise, Blame = Intent + Damage.|
|f. ||* Centration on the larger of Intent and Damage.|
3. Plot the two-way factorial graph for the following means.
|a. ||Relying on visual inspection, guess which sources in the Anova will be substantial, which will not.|
|b. ||What features of your graph are clues to the variability of the data?|
|c. ||What can Anova add to this visual inspection?|
4. In the left panel of Figure 5.4, the two levels of A have quite different effects. Yet the text says “The null hypothesis for A is true in this case.” What's going on?