Question

Section 5. Describing and Interpreting Results in APA Style 79. Interpreting Results Exercise: Sproesser, Schupp, and Renner (2014) 107 The researchers in this study were interested in how social situations can influence stress- induced eating. They grouped subjects according to self-reported stress-induced eating habits: consistently eating more (hyperphagics) or less (hypophagics) when stressed. Each subject was then exposed to one of three social situations: (1) a social inclusion condition in which subjects were told that a confederate partner had approved of a video they had made answering some questions and was looking forward to meeting them, (2) a neutral condition in which they were told their partner could not meet them because they had to cancel their participation, or (3) a social exclusion condition in which they were told that their partner had them after viewi of ice cream consumed was measured. decided not to meet ng their video. Subjects were then given an ice cream taste test and the amount A portion of the results section from this article appears below. Using the study summary above, describe what the results for this study mean in your own wo rds. We conducted an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with condition (social inclusion, social exclusion, neutral) and eating style (stress hyperphagia, stress hypophagia) as independent variables and food consumption in grams as the dependent variable. The main effects were not significant, which indicates that neither condition (exclusion: M-108 g,SE-9.6; neutral: M 112 g, SE -7.9; inclusion: M 120 g, SE-8.5), F(2, 135)- 0.11, p .893, nor eating style (stress hyperphagics: M-119 g, SE 9.1; stress hypophagics: M 110 g, SE 5.9), F(1, 135)-0.47,p- .493, affected food intake during the taste test. However, as predicted, a significant Condition x Eating Style interaction emerged, F(2, 135)- 7.71, p-.001. In the neutral condition, both stress hyper- and hypophagics consumed a compa- rable amount of ice cream; hyperphagics consumed a mean of 111 g (SE 14.1), and hypophagics consumed a mean of 112 g (SE-9.6), F(1, 135)-0.01, p-928. As expected, in the social-exclusion condition, stress hyperphagics ate significantly more ice cream (M- 147 g, SE 13.7) than did stress hypophagics (M-86 g, SE 10.5), FI1, 135) -12.40 p .001. The mean difference of 61 g between the two types of eaters corresponds to a difference of 120 kcal. Conversely, in the social-inclusion condition, a reversed pattern emerged: Stress hyperphagies ate significantly less ice cream (M-92 g, SE 16.3) than did stress hypophagics (M -130g, SE 10.0), F1, 135) - 3.95, p - 049, a difference of approximately 74 kcal.

Answer 1

7 Iterbvetina Resuits, Tatertrebin Ktalts' It iven that the main effects pare net The udependort variasle-condition s not signii cant which means hat the 3 lifferent neutral) are wralle to plain a aignificant amount of varialatlitn fovel onaumption ie ' utile a tand alone the 3 wel. erpha2- A, streed h popragia) exuut "utatiati

atatiati tidl OMM comlition, the 2 welh of eating tyle a he 2 Revel did not diffur AoA mme Under Atreu似Conditima) perb, ag M , are experted to cewaume a lot wore ford than and this s indied he case here otin ewels the uuteraction teim anbcariner

Please give a thumb up if you are satisfied.