In study 1, subjects took more page turns and a longer time to identify the critical words
In study 2. Subjects were alerted to the presence of threat. Prior to the page turning task Es and participants read aloud a list of 50 words, 10 of which were the stimuli used later. This (hopefully) made the words of similar familiarity to all subjects (adjusting for word frequency problems) and made it all right to say the words out loud (adjusting for response suppression). The results of study 2 were not significant by t-test; but were significant by other statistics that will be explained in class.
A comparison of studies 1 and 2 showed that when subjects were alerted to expect threat the threshold differences between recognition of threat and non-threat decreased significantly. The data (Mean and variance of total number of page turns) were:
Threat--alerted, M=30.8, Var=3.5
Neutral--alerted, M=27.3, Var=1.98
Threat--not alerted, M=36.5, Var=.56
Neutral--not alerted, M=24.9, Var=1.8
The variance of the Threat--alerted (3.5) was significantly larger than the variance of Threat--not alerted (.56), leading the authors to conclude that alerting subjects to threat made them super vigilant and perhaps identifying critical threatening words on the first page. This super vigilance presumably increased the variance in the Threat--alerted condition. However, there is the possibility of a problem in the data. And as detectives, it is you job to discover a reason why the means and variances above look funny.
Hints: Each mean was calculated from the total number of page turns in recognizing 5 words in booklets that contained 8 pages. Hence possible scores could range from 5 (recognizing all words on the first page) to 40 (recognizing all words on the last page). The funny group is the Threat--not alerted group. What could be going on? Happy sleuthing!!!