TABLE 11-6
Psychologists have found that people are generally reluctant to transmit bad news to their peers.This phenomenon has been termed the "MUM effect." To investigate the cause of the MUM effect,40 undergraduates at Duke University participated in an experiment.Each subject was asked to administer an IQ test to another student and then provide the test taker with his or her percentile score.Unknown to the subject,the test taker was a bogus student who was working with the researchers.The experimenters manipulated two factors: subject visibility and success of test taker,each at two levels.Subject visibility was either visible or not visible to the test taker.Success of the test taker was either top 20% or bottom 20%.Ten subjects were randomly assigned to each of the 2 × 2 = 4 experimental conditions,then the time (in seconds)between the end of the test and the delivery of the percentile score from the subject to the test taker was measured.(This variable is called the latency to feedback.)The data were subjected to appropriate analyses with the following results.
-Referring to Table 11-6,at the 0.01 level,what conclusions can you reach from the analysis?
A)At the 0.01 level,subject visibility and test taker success are significant predictors of latency feedback.
B)At the 0.01 level,the model is not useful for predicting latency to feedback.
C)At the 0.01 level,there is evidence to indicate that subject visibility and test taker success interact.
D)At the 0.01 level,there is no evidence of interaction between subject visibility and test taker success.

Question

TABLE 11-6
Psychologists have found that people are generally reluctant to transmit bad news to their peers.This phenomenon has been termed the "MUM effect." To investigate the cause of the MUM effect,40 undergraduates at Duke University participated in an experiment.Each subject was asked to administer an IQ test to another student and then provide the test taker with his or her percentile score.Unknown to the subject,the test taker was a bogus student who was working with the researchers.The experimenters manipulated two factors: subject visibility and success of test taker,each at two levels.Subject visibility was either visible or not visible to the test taker.Success of the test taker was either top 20% or bottom 20%.Ten subjects were randomly assigned to each of the 2 × 2 = 4 experimental conditions,then the time (in seconds)between the end of the test and the delivery of the percentile score from the subject to the test taker was measured.(This variable is called the latency to feedback.)The data were subjected to appropriate analyses with the following results. 
-Referring to Table 11-6,at the 0.01 level,what conclusions can you reach from the analysis?
A)At the 0.01 level,subject visibility and test taker success are significant predictors of latency feedback. 
B)At the 0.01 level,the model is not useful for predicting latency to feedback. 
C)At the 0.01 level,there is evidence to indicate that subject visibility and test taker success interact. 
D)At the 0.01 level,there is no evidence of interaction between subject visibility and test taker success.

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The ANOVA table shows that both subject visibility and test taker success have a significant main effect on latency to feedback at the 0.01 level. However, the interaction term is also significant at the 0.01 level, indicating that the effect of subject visibility on latency to feedback depends on the level of test taker success and vice versa. Therefore, we can conclude that there is evidence to indicate that subject visibility and test taker success interact at the 0.01 level.

TABLE 11-6 Psychologists Have Found That People Are Generally Reluctant to Transmit