| . | FACTOR A | ||||||
| FACTOR B (PROVOCATION) |
Low (A1) | Medium (A2) | High (A3) | NOT PROVOKED (B1) | |||
| 6 | 6 | 10 | |||||
| 4 | 5 | 10 | |||||
| 5 | 5 | 9 | |||||
| 2 | 3 | 7 | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 6 | |||||
| 1 | 0 | 5 | |||||
| PROVOKED (B2) | |||||||
| 6 | 6 | 6 | |||||
| 5 | 6 | 5 | |||||
| 5 | 5 | 4 | |||||
| 2 | 2 | 2 | |||||
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
First, code the data as if it came from a totally between subjects design using 36 participants. Second, code the the same data as totally
within-subjects design where six participants are exposed to all six conditions. Third, analyze the data from the two analyses (note that your book provides links to statistical calculators you can use to do such analyses). Finally, compare the results of the two analyses. Which design appears to be more powerful? Why?
| . | FACTOR A | ||||||
| FACTOR B (PROVOCATION) |
Low (A1) | Medium (A2) | High (A3) | NOT PROVOKED (B1) | |||
| P.1 | 6 | P.7 | 6 | P.13 | 10 | ||
| P.2 | 4 | P.8 | 5 | P.14 | 10 | ||
| P.3 | 5 | P.9 | 5 | P.15 | 9 | ||
| P.4 | 2 | P.10 | 3 | P.16 | 7 | ||
| P.5 | 1 | P.11 | 2 | P.17 | 6 | ||
| P.6 | 1 | P.12 | 0 | P.18 | 5 | ||
| PROVOKED (B2) | |||||||
| P. 19 | 6 | P.25 | 6 | P.31 | 6 | ||
| P. 20 | 5 | P.26 | 6 | P.32 | 5 | ||
| P.21 | 5 | P.27 | 5 | P.33 | 4 | ||
| P.22 | 2 | P.28 | 2 | P.34 | 2 | ||
| P. 23 | 2 | P.29 | 2 | P.35 | 2 | P. 24 | 1 | P.30 | 1 | P.36 | 1 |
| . | FACTOR A | ||||||
| FACTOR B (PROVOCATION) |
Low (A1) | Medium (A2) | High (A3) | NOT PROVOKED (B1) | |||
| P.1 | 6 | P.1 | 6 | P.1 | 10 | ||
| P.2 | 4 | P.2 | 5 | P.2 | 10 | ||
| P.3 | 5 | P.3 | 5 | P.3 | 9 | ||
| P.4 | 2 | P.4 | 3 | P.4 | 7 | ||
| P.5 | 1 | P.5 | 2 | P.5 | 6 | ||
| P.6 | 1 | P.6 | 0 | P.6 | 5 | ||
| PROVOKED (B2) | |||||||
| P. 1 | 6 | P.1 | 6 | P.1 | 6 | ||
| P. 2 | 5 | P.2 | 6 | P.2 | 5 | ||
| P.3 | 5 | P.3 | 5 | P.3 | 4 | ||
| P.4 | 2 | P.4 | 2 | P.4 | 2 | ||
| P.5 | 2 | P.5 | 2 | P.5 | 2 | P. 6 | 1 | P.6 | 1 | P.6 | 1 |