Another experiment in the report by Meyers-Levy and Peracchio involved the evaluation of bicycle pictures taken with various camera angles, as evaluated by two groups of individuals with different levels of motivation. (The high-motivation group believed they had a reasonable chance to win a bicycle.) Evaluation scores, on average, were higher when the camera angle was upward or at eye level, and lower when the bicycle was viewed looking down. These differences were larger for the low-motivation group. The ANOVA results of the evaluation scores included an examination of the main effect for camera angle (F2,106 = 7.00, p < 0.001), the main effect for motivation (F1,106 = 3.78, p < 0.05), and their interaction (F2,106 = 3.83, p < 0.03).
a. Are there significant differences in the average evaluation scores of the low-motivation and the high-motivation groups? Justify your answer.
b. Does the information provided here from the analysis of variance tell you whether it was the low-motivation group or the high-motivation group that gave higher evaluations, on average?
c. Is there a significant interaction between camera angle and motivation? Justify your answer.
d. Can you conclude that the camera angle makes more of a difference when marketing to the low-motivation group than to the high-motivation group, or are the effects of camera angle basically similar for the two groups, except for randomness? Explain your answer.

  • CreatedNovember 11, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question