Download - 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
1/21
12/6/2
Three-Way Factorial ANOVA
(2 2 2 Factorial)
Example
A researcher is interested in determining the
effects of the two types of learning strategies
(A and B) on the memorization of easy-vs.-
difficult list as well as in determining the
effects of high vs. low intensity shock on
learning. The researcher records the totalnumber of errors made by each subject.
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
2/21
12/6/2
The three-way factorial combination of the three
independent variables yields the following eight
experimental groups, with six subjects per group
Enter data using the following:
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
3/21
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
4/21
12/6/2
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
5/21
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
6/21
12/6/2
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
7/21
12/6/2
6. To plot the three-way STRATEGY*LIST*SHOCKinteraction, some data transformation must
be carried out. Suppose the researcherdecides to plot the variables of STRATEGYand LIST (i.e., STRATEGY*LIST interaction)against the variable of SHOCK. The first stepis to create a new grouping variable calledGROUP that contains the four levelsgenerated by the STRATEGY*LIST interaction(Strategy AEasy List, Strategy AHard List,
Strategy B
Easy List, and Strategy B
HardList).
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
8/21
12/6/2
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
9/21
12/6/2
SPSS OUTPUT
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
10/21
12/6/2
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
11/21
12/6/2
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
12/21
12/6/2
Results and Interpretation
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
13/21
12/6/2
Main Effects The main effect of STRATEGY is significant, F(1,40) = 95.16,
p < .001. From the estimated marginal means, subjectsmade significantly more errors under strategy B (M =25.71) than under strategy A (M = 14.00) (collapsing acrossthe LIST and SHOCK factors).
The main effect of LIST is significant, F(1,40) = 121.10,p .05. The difference in the number of errors made under
the low-shock condition (M = 19.21) is not significantlydifferent from the number of errors made under the high-shock condition (M = 20.50) (collapsing across the LIST andSTRATEGY factors).
Two-Way Interactions
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
14/21
12/6/2
Strategy*List Interaction
The STRATEGY*LIST interaction is significant,F(1,40) = 14.32,p < .01.
The significant interaction effect indicates thatthe effect of learning strategy on the numberof errors made is dependent on the difficultyof the list learned. Although the number oferrors made increased from Strategy A toStrategy B when learning either hard or easylist, the increase is more pronounced when
learning the hard list than the easy list.
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
15/21
12/6/2
Post Hoc Comparisons
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
16/21
12/6/2
Results and Interpretation
Post Hoc Comparisons
Results from the post hoc comparisons indicatethat the significant STRATEGY*LIST interaction isdue primarily to subjects making significantlyless errors in the Strategy AEasy List conditionthan in the other three experimental conditions(AHard, BEasy, and BHard), and to subjects
making significantly more errors in the StrategyBHard List condition than in the other threeexperimental conditions (BEasy, AEasy, and AHard).
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
17/21
12/6/2
STRATEGY*SHOCK Interaction
STRATEGY*SHOCK Interaction
The STRATEGY*SHOCK interaction is notsignificant, F(1,40) = 3.13,p > .05.
As the interaction is not significant, the result canbe interpreted in terms of the significant maineffect for STRATEGY. That is, the effect ofSTRATEGY on the number of errors made is not
dependent on the levels of SHOCK, such thatregardless of SHOCK level, subjects madesignificantly more errors under Strategy B (M =25.71) than under Strategy A (M = 14.00).
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
18/21
12/6/2
LIST*SHOCK Interaction
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
19/21
12/6/2
LIST*SHOCK Interaction
The LIST*SHOCK interaction is not significant,
F(1,40) = 1.47,p > .05.
The effect of LIST on the number of errors
made is not dependent on the levels of
SHOCK, such that regardless of SHOCK level,
subjects made more errors on the hard list (M
= 26.45) than on the easy list (M = 13.25).
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
20/21
12/6/2
Three-Way Interaction
STRATEGY*LIST*SHOCK Interaction
The three-way interaction between STRATEGY,LIST, and SHOCK is not significant, F(1,40) = 0.27,
p > .05.
As the three-way interaction is not significant, it islegitimate to interpret the significant main effectsof LIST and STRATEGY. For example, the results
indicate that more errors were made on the hardlist (M = 26.45) than on the easy list (M = 13.25),and under Strategy B (M = 25.71) than underStrategy A (M = 14.00), regardless of shock level.
-
8/13/2019 4 Three Way Factorial Anova
21/21
12/6/2