RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN APOLOGIES AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP

Methods

Participants

Nine hundred and twenty six participants from Florida International University were incorporated into the study using simple randomization technique where each participant had and equal chance of being selected. 317 of the participants were male (34.2%) and 609 were female (65.8). The sample age range of the participants was found to range from a minimum value of 12 years while the maximum age was 91 years respectively (M=27.81, SD=11.323). On the other hand 14.5 % of the participants who took the study were Caucasians (N=134), 68.6 % were Hispanic (N=635), 0.5% where Native Indians (N=5), 13.0% were African American (N=120), 2.9% were Asian American (N=27), and 0.5 % chose “Others” (N=5). See Table 5

Table 5

 Demographic Information of participants

Materials and Procedures

For the current study to go in line with study one, we followed the stipulated ethics and code of conduct for researchers. We asked to the participants to take part of an online study. The verbal consent guaranteed the participants of the confidentiality of information that we offered as well as the purpose. In this context, the participants were informed of the intention of the researcher with the information obtained during the collection phase. Every participant agreed to participated to emphasize the importance of following the stipulated research ethics and guidelines, then they were assigned randomly to take part to one of the two conditions of the study: sincere or insincere condition for each one of the new independent variable.

This time the participants were subjected to the same Twitter apology for study one.

The same scenario about Charlie who had issues with a mall employee during the COVID pandemic for not wearing the mask. While going to the mall, Charlie happened to forget his mask at home. According to Charlie, he got angry and they had a shouting incident when the mall employee asked him about the mask.In addition to Charlie acknowledging that maybe he invaded the personal space of the employee who asked him about the mask. Charlie wrote an apology tweet and ended the message with a hashtag. The sincere condition end with the hashtag #SorrySorrySorry while the insincere condition with #SorryNotSorry. For all participants, the surveys remained the same but the Twitter posts varied significantly, depending on each condition.

The study participants where divided into2 groups. A survey consisting of 7 sections was asked to each of the groups to respond. Part I included the consent form where it explained the time, purpose of the study, risks and benefits, so each person could decide if they wanted to participate in the study or not based on what they had read, this time we used the Qualtrics software, an online resource, to sign the consent form. Part II consisted of the same tweet for all groups but with different hashtags or the two different conditions.Part III, participants were asked to rate their impressions of Charlie Webb’s apology on Twitter based on agree or disagree with eight statements, on a scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Eight questions were part in the scale, which included “Charlie’s apology acknowledged the behavior was wrong”, “Charlie’s apology showed an acceptance of responsibility”, “Charlie’s apology involved a pledge not to engage in the behavior again.”, “Charlie’s apology seemed forced.” Part IV consisted of the participants rating their feelings about Charlie and Charlie’s behavior based on the tweet they read, this part included eight questions and among them were” I think Charlie’s behavior was wrong “,” Charlie seems moral. “and” Charlie seems rude “. Part V of the study asked participants about demographic information such as age and gender, part VI asked about Manipulation Check and asked them to mark what hashtag had used Charlie at the end of the tweet they had read without looking back as well as if they think that Charlie forget wearing the mask intentionally, unintentionally or unknown.Part VII was included for researchers (professor) use, related with extra credit and student referral.

INSTRUCTIONS: talk about your dependent variables (that is, your survey questions, THE ones used on ANOVA test). For these DVs, once again provide enough detail so I know exactly what questions you asked. For example, “Participants provided their gender, age, and race”. For other dependent variables, tell me how the responses were recorded (yes/no, true/false, a scale of 1 to 9, etc.). If you used a scale, note the endpoints. That is, does a 1 mean it is high or is it low? “Participants were asked, ‘How surprising was the outcome?’, and they responded on a scale from 1 (unsurprising) to 10 (surprising).’” Highlight any new DVs you created for study Two. That is, I may ask an attention check question asking if the Tweet was posted immediately (posted within a day of the incident) or delayed (posted more than a day after the incident). I still need to report that new DV in enough detail that my reader will know exactly what the new DV entails.

Fourth, make sure to highlight which DVs you analyzed. If there are DVs participants completed but you did not analyze them, feel free to say those DVs were not analyzed.

Finally, mention debriefing. (A brief mention is enough, as most readers will know what debriefing entails. Keep the debriefing description short).INSTRUCTIONS

FIX THIS PART On study two we use two new independent variables with two conditions, our primary aim of the first independent variable is to assess if individuals feel affected by the kind of apology they receive and how they feel about it depending on the condition in which they are. For example, the independent variable has two conditions, one sincere and one insincere, we can consider one conditions vs the other as two different levels of our IV.

Even thought we have more than one dependent variable, we want focus our attention on if Charlie apology showed an acceptance of responsibility and if people there is any difference between the participants of different ages.

Results Study Two

For our nominal manipulation check question, which pointed out the different levels of our independent variable: sincere and insincere apology and whether the participantsbelieve that the mask was intentionally or unintentionally forgottenwe ran a chi-square test. The chi-square value was X²(1) =0.205, p >.05. that mean that the manipulation check was not significant. On the other hand in the sincere (49.4%) of the participants expressed that Charlie forget the face mask intentionally and on the insincere condition (49.1%) said was unintentionally. This shows once again that the participants responded to the study support our hypothesis that people who see the apology sincerely will have a favorable response according to Charlie’s attitude than those who saw the apology using the insincere apology. See Table 6.

Table 6

Chi-Square Tests

INSTRUCTIONS – Second, run two 2 X 2 ANOVAs (or factorial ANOVAs). Recall that these involve univariate analysis of variance, but rather than focusing on one independent variable (like the One Way ANOVA), a 2 X 2 ANOVA looks at two different independent variables within the same test. Each 2 X 2 ANOVA will focus on a dependent variable of your choice. You will report at least three F tests for each ANOVA (an F for the main effect of IV #1, an F for the main effect of IV #2, and an F for the interaction). However, if the interaction is significant, you will report four additional F tests (called simple effects tests), or 7 F tests total for the ANOVA. I know this is complex, so let’s break it down and focus on an example 2 X 2 ANOVA.INSTRUCTIONS

We ran a 2 X 2 ANOVA (age vs. manipulation check for apology)  to test our first dependent variable (Charlie’s apology showed an acceptance of responsibility.) and scenario conditions (sincere vs insincere) as our independent variable. Results show that there is not significant differenceforIVageon the perceived scenario apology. F(1,922) =0.118 , p = 0.731. So there is was no significant difference on the situation of Charlies showed acceptance of responsibility between younger (M=4.1, SD = 1.46 ) and older people (M= 4.06, SD = 1.55). There was a significant main effect for the apology condition F(1,922) =100.399 , p = .000Participants in the sincere condition (M=4.59, SD = 1.319) perceived Charlie to be more acceptance of the responsibility that participants on the insincere condition (M=3.65, SD = 1.516) But there was statistically significant interaction of IVage and the apology condition, F(1,922) =0.970 , p = 0.325. This mean that there was not a statisticantinteraction at p value level from the younger people on the sincere condition (M=4.56, SD = 1.341) from the older people on the same sincere condition (M=4.62, SD = 1.297) See Table 7.

Table 7

ANOVA

Using (age vs. manipulation check for apology) we ran another 2 X 2 ANOVA to test our second dependent variable (I would accept Charlie’s apology) with condition (sincere vs insincere) as our independent variable. The results show that there was a significant main effect for age and the acceptance of Charlie’s apology, F(1,922) =6.943 , p =.0009.We can seethat there was a statistically significant difference in mean interest in accepting Charlie’s apology in IVAge between younger and older.  (M=4.31, SD = 1.395) than in the insincere condition (M=3.21, SD = 1.633).  There was also a significant difference in mean interest in accepting Charlie’s apology in Age between younger and olderF(1,922) =119,670 , p <.001. Younger participants on the insincere condition (M=3.11, SD = 1.542) are more able to accept Charlie apology that the older people (M=3.33, SD = 1.721).  For the interaction between IV age and apology, F(1,922) =.157 , p =.692.Since our P value is greater than the level of significance, interaction between IV age and MCIV apology is not significant. See Table 8.

Table 8

ANOVA

INSTRUCTIONSIn a short paragraph or two, write a brief discussion of your results. Tell me if you did or did not support your hypotheses. In this section, do NOT provide statistical information. I just want a plain English summary of what you found, such as: “Overall, these results indicate that delaying an apology decreases ratings of the apology sincerity. This happens when the apology starts out as insincere, but a delay also makes a genuinely sincere apology look more insincere. Thus to increase ratings of sincerity, have a sincere apology occur immediately!INSTRUCTIONS

Discussion

FIX THIS PART. Our study supports the hypothesis that we predicted before starting the research with the participants. We assumed that participants in the sincere apology condition would respond to the survey more favorably than those in the insincere or insincere condition. Therefore we can say that the results obtained in ANOVA regarding whether the apology seemed sincere and whether her behavior was incorrect support our hypothesis. Another of our predictions was that participants in the sincere condition would be more likely to accept Charlie’s apology and our ANOVA test supports our hypothesis that more participants in the sincere condition are more likely to accept Charlie’s apology.