1. Study 1b
1.1. Hypotheses
1.1.1. H0: Participants will not show a difference in status, confidence, and competence ratings between speakers that use a humorous testimonial versus a serious testimonial.
1.1.2. H1: Speakers that use a humorous testimonial will be rated higher in status, confidence, and competence by participants.
1.2. Method
1.2.1. Same as Study 1a, except the participants were asked to write a testimonial about a travel service instead of a waste removal service and different joke was used in the humorous testimonial.
1.3. Variables
1.3.1. IV: Humor
1.3.2. DVs: Ratings of status, confidence, and competence
1.4. Results
1.4.1. Test-statistic
1.4.1.1. The researchers used the t-statistic because they didn't have a standard deviation for their population but wanted to compare the population mean to the sample mean.
1.4.1.2. A t-statistic measures how different two means (M) are. In this case we are looking at the difference between the means of status, competence, and confidence ratings for the humor and serious IV levels.
1.4.2. Status
1.4.2.1. Mean and Standard Deviation
1.4.2.1.1. The means (M) show that, on average, status was higher for the presenter who used humor (M = 5.49) and that scores varied by 1.19 around the mean (SD = 1.19) compared to the presenter who didn't use humor (M = 4.94) with scores that varied by 1.27 around the mean (SD = 1.27).
1.4.2.2. T-statistic and Significance
1.4.2.2.1. These findings were significant with below a 0.1% chance that the results were due to chance or error and not due to the IV humor, t(15) 5.67, p < .001.
1.4.3. Confidence
1.4.3.1. Mean and Standard Deviation
1.4.3.1.1. The means (M) show that, on average, confidence was rated higher for the presenter who used humor (M = 6.66) and that scores varied by 6.32 around the mean (SD = 6.32) compared to the presenter who didn't use humor (M = 4.85) with scores that varied by 4.84 around the mean (SD = 4.84).
1.4.3.2. T-statistic and Significance
1.4.3.2.1. These findings were significant with below a 1% chance that the results were due to chance or error and not due to the IV humor, t(15) 3.13, p < .01.
1.4.4. Competence
1.4.4.1. Mean and Standard Deviation
1.4.4.1.1. The means (M) show that, on average, competence was rated higher for the presenter who used humor (M = 5.14) and that scores varied by 1.17 around the mean (SD = 1.17) compared to the presenter who didn't use humor (M = 4.90) with scores that varied by 1.05 around the mean (SD = 1.05).
1.4.4.2. T-statistic and Significance
1.4.4.2.1. These findings were significant with below a 5% chance that the results were due to chance or error and not due to the IV humor, t(15) 2.70, p < .05.
1.5. Conclusion
1.5.1. The researchers found that using humor does significantly increase ratings of status, confidence, and competence.
2. Created by: Katrina Dean
3. Bitterly, T. B., Brooks, A. W., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2017). Risky business: When humor increases and decreases status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), 431–455. https://doi-org.ezproxy.capilanou.ca/10.1037/pspi0000079
4. Student No: 100152154
5. Study 1a
5.1. Hypotheses
5.1.1. H0: Participants will not show a difference in status, confidence, and competence ratings between speakers that use a humorous testimonial versus a serious testimonial.
5.1.2. H1: Speakers that use a humorous testimonial will be rated higher in status, confidence, and competence by participants.
5.2. Method
5.2.1. Participants were randomly assigned to different groups that ranged in size, but each contained 2 confederates. Participants were asked to write testimonials for an imaginary pet waste removal service. The participants were then told they would present their testimonials to the group in a random order. The researchers then called up the confederates to give their testimonials first. For every group, one of the confederates gave a serious testimonial and the other confederate alternated giving a serious testimonial or a humorous testimonial. After both the confederates read their testimonials, participants were asked to evaluate them on two different 7-point scales. The researchers used the ratings of attributes in the second scale to measure how participants perceived the status, competence, and confidence of the two confederates.
5.3. Variables
5.3.1. IV: Humor
5.3.2. DVs: Ratings of status, confidence, and competence
5.4. Results
5.4.1. Status
5.4.1.1. Mean and Standard Deviation
5.4.1.1.1. The means (M) show that, on average, the status was rated higher for the presenter who used humor (M = 5.03) and that scores varied by 1.36 around the mean (SD = 1.36) compared to the presenter who didn't use humor (M = 2.31) with scores that varied by 1.41 around the mean (SD = 1.41).
5.4.1.2. T-statistic and Significance
5.4.1.2.1. These findings were significant with below a 0.01% chance that the results were due to chance or error and not due to the IV humor, t(15) 4.00, p < .01.
5.4.2. Confidence
5.4.2.1. Mean and Standard Deviation
5.4.2.1.1. The means (M) show that, on average, confidence was rated higher for the presenter who used humor (M = 5.64) and that scores varied by 1.07 around the mean (SD = 1.07) compared to the presenter who didn't use humor (M = 4.70) with scores that varied by 1.23 around the mean (SD = 1.23).
5.4.2.2. T-statistic and Significance
5.4.2.2.1. These findings were significant with below a 0.01% chance that the results were due to chance or error and not due to the IV humor, t(15) 6.46, p < .0001.
5.4.3. Competence
5.4.3.1. Mean and Standard Deviation
5.4.3.1.1. The means (M) show that, on average, the competence was rated higher for the presenter who used humor (M = 5.32) and that scores varied by 0.93 around the mean (SD = 0.93) compared to the presenter who didn't use humor (M = 4.90) with scores that varied by 0.99 around the mean (SD = 0.99).
5.4.3.2. T-statistic and Significance
5.4.3.2.1. These findings were significant with below a 1% chance that the results were due to chance or error and not due to the IV humor, t(15) 4.00, p < .01.
5.4.4. Test-statistic
5.4.4.1. The researchers used the t-statistic because they didn't have a population SD but wanted to compare the population mean to the sample mean.
5.4.4.2. A t-statistic measures how different two means (M) are. In this case we are looking at the difference between the means on ratings of status, competence, and confidence for the humor and serious IV levels.
5.5. Conclusion
5.5.1. The researchers found that using humor does significantly increase ratings of status, confidence, and competence.