Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Chapter 12

Chapter 12: Answers

Task 1
I am going to extend the example from the previous chapter (advertising and different
imagery) by adding a between-group variable into the design.1 To recap, in case you havent
read the previous chapter, participants viewed a total of nine mock adverts over three
sessions. In these adverts there were three products (a brand of beer, Brain Death, a brand of
wine, Dangleberry, and a brand of water, Puritan. These could either be presented alongside
positive, negative or neutral imagery. Over the three sessions, and nine adverts each type of
product was paired with each type of imagery (read the last chapter if you need more detail).
After each advert participants rated the drinks on a scale ranging from 100 (dislike very
much) through 0 (neutral) to 100 (like very much). The design, thus far, has two independent
variables: the type of drink (beer, wine or water) and the type of imagery used (positive,
negative or neutral). These two variables completely cross over, producing nine experimental
conditions. Now imagine that I also took note of each persons gender. Subsequent to the
previous analysis it occurred to me that men and women might respond differently to the
products (because, in keeping with stereotypes, men might mostly drink lager whereas women
might drink wine). Therefore, I wanted to reanalyze the data taking this additional variable
into account. Now, gender is a between-group variable because a participant can be only male
or female: they cannot participate as a male and then change into a female and participate
again! The data are the same as in the previous chapter (Chapter 11) and can be found in the
file MixedAttitude.sav. Run a mixed ANOVA on these data.
(This answer is taken from the first edition of Discovering Statistics)
To carry out the analysis on SPSS follow the same instructions that we did before, so first of all
access the define factors dialog box by using the file path AnalyzeGeneral Linear
ModelRepeated Measures . We are using the same repeated measures variables as in
Chapter 11 of the book, so complete this dialog box exactly as shown there, and then click on
to access the main dialog box (see Figure 1). This box should be completed exactly as
before except that we must specify gender as a between-group variable by selecting it in the
to transfer it to the box labelled Between-Subjects Factors.
variables list and clicking

Previously the example contained two repeated measures variables (drink type and imagery
type), now it will include three variables (two repeated measures and one between-group).

Dr. Andy Field

Page 1

6/8/2004

Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Chapter 12

Figure 1: Completed dialog box for mixed design ANOVA

Gender has only two levels (male or female) so there is no need to specify contrasts for this
variable; however, you should select simple contrasts for both drink and imagery. The
addition of a between-group factor means that we can select post hoc tests for this variable by
. This action brings up the post hoc test dialog box, which can be used as
clicking on
previously explained. However, we need not specify any post hoc tests here because the
between-group factor has only two levels. The addition of an extra variable makes it necessary
to access the
to choose a different graph to the one in the previous example. Click on
dialog box in Figure 2. Place drink and imagery in the same slots as for the previous example
but also place gender in the slot labelled Separate Plots. When all three variables have been
to add this combination to the list of plots. By asking
specified, dont forget to click on
SPSS to plot the drink imagery gender interaction, we should get the same interaction
graph as before, except that a separate version of this graph will be produced for male and
female subjects.
As far as other options are concerned, you should select the same ones that were chosen in
Chapter 11. It is worth selecting estimated marginal means for all effects (because these
values will help you to understand any significant effects), but to save space I did not ask for
confidence intervals for these effects because we have considered this part of the output in
some detail already. When all of the appropriate options have been selected, run the analysis.

Dr. Andy Field

Page 2

6/8/2004

Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Chapter 12

Figure 2: Plots dialog box for a three-way mixed ANOVA

Main Analysis
The initial output is the same as the two-way ANOVA example: there is a table listing the
repeated measures variables from the data editor and the level of each independent variable
that they represent. The second table contains descriptive statistics (mean and standard
deviation) for each of the nine conditions split according to whether subjects were male or
female (see SPSS Output 1). The names in this table are the names I gave the variables in the
data editor (therefore, your output may differ slightly). These descriptive statistics are
interesting because they show us the pattern of means across all experimental conditions (so,
we use these means to produce the graphs of the three-way interaction). We can see that the
variability among scores was greatest when beer was used as a product, and that when a
corpse image was used the ratings given to the products were negative (as expected) for all
conditions except the men in the beer condition. Likewise, ratings of products were very
positive when a sexy person was used as the imagery irrespective of the gender of the
participant, or the product being advertised.

Dr. Andy Field

Page 3

6/8/2004

Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Chapter 12

Descriptive Statistics
Std.
Deviation

Gender

Mean

Beer + Sexy

Male
Female
Total

24.8000
17.3000
21.0500

14.0063
11.3925
13.0080

N
10
10
20

Beer + Corpse

Male
Female
Total

20.1000
-11.2000
4.4500

7.8379
5.1381
17.3037

10
10
20

Beer + Person in Armchair

Male
Female
Total

16.9000
3.1000
10.0000

8.5434
6.7074
10.2956

10
10
20

Wine + Sexy

Male
Female
Total

22.3000
28.4000
25.3500

7.6311
4.1150
6.7378

10
10
20

Wine + Corpse

Male
Female
Total

-7.8000
-16.2000
-12.0000

4.9396
4.1312
6.1815

10
10
20

Wine + Person in Armchair

Male
Female
Total

7.5000
15.8000
11.6500

4.9721
4.3919
6.2431

10
10
20

Water + Sexy

Male
Female
Total

14.5000
20.3000
17.4000

6.7864
6.3953
7.0740

10
10
20

Water + Corpse

Male
Female
Total

-9.8000
-8.6000
-9.2000

6.7791
7.1368
6.8025

10
10
20

Water + Person in Armchair

Male
Female
Total

-2.1000
6.8000
2.3500

6.2973
3.8816
6.8386

10
10
20

SPSS Output 1
SPSS Output 2 shows the results of Mauchlys sphericity test for each of the three repeated
measures effects in the model. The values of these tests are different to the previous example,
because the between-group factor is now being accounted for by the test. The main effect of
drink still significantly violates the sphericity assumption (W = 0.572, p < 0.01) but the main
effect of imagery no longer does. Therefore, the F value for the main effect of drink (and its
interaction with the between-group variable gender) needs to be corrected for this violation.
Mauchly's Test of Sphericityb
Measure: MEASURE_1

Within Subjects Effect

DRINK
IMAGERY
DRINK * IMAGERY

Mauchly's
W
.572
.965
.609

Approx.
Chi-Square
9.486
.612
8.153

df

Sig.
2
2
9

Greenhouse-Geisser

Epsilon
Huynh-Feldt

Lower-bound

.700
.966
.813

.784
1.000
1.000

.500
.500
.250

.009
.736
.521

Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an
identity matrix.
a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the layers
(by default) of the Tests of Within Subjects Effects table.
b. Design: Intercept+GENDER - Within Subjects Design: DRINK+IMAGERY+DRINK*IMAGERY

SPSS Output 2
SPSS Output 3 shows the summary table of the repeated measures effects in the ANOVA with
corrected F values. The output is split into sections for each of the effects in the model and
their associated error terms. The table format is the same as for the previous example, except
that the interactions between gender and the repeated measures effects are included also. We
would expect to still find the affects that were previously present (in a balanced design, the
inclusion of an extra variable should not effect these effects). By looking at the significance
values it is clear that this prediction is true: there are still significant effects of the type of
drink used, the type of imagery used, and the interaction of these two variables.

Dr. Andy Field

Page 4

6/8/2004

Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Chapter 12

In addition to the effects already described we find that gender interacts significantly with the
type of drink used (so, men and women respond differently to beer, wine and water regardless
of the context of the advert). There is also a significant interaction of gender and imagery (so,
men and women respond differently to positive, negative and neutral imagery regardless of
the drink being advertised). Finally, the three-way interaction between gender, imagery and
drink is significant, indicating that the way in which imagery affects responses to different
types of drinks depends on whether the subject is male or female. The effects of the repeated
measures variables have been outlined in Chapter 11 and the pattern of these responses will
not have changed, so rather than repeat myself, I will concentrate on the new effects and the
forgetful reader should look back at Chapter 11!
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1

Source

Type III
Sum of
Squares

df

Mean
Square

Sig.

DRINK

Sphericity Assumed
Greenhouse-Geisser
Huynh-Feldt
Lower-bound

2092.344
2092.344
2092.344
2092.344

2
1.401
1.567
1.000

1046.172
1493.568
1334.881
2092.344

11.708
11.708
11.708
11.708

.000
.001
.000
.003

DRINK * GENDER

Sphericity Assumed
Greenhouse-Geisser
Huynh-Feldt
Lower-bound

4569.011
4569.011
4569.011
4569.011

2
1.401
1.567
1.000

2284.506
3261.475
2914.954
4569.011

25.566
25.566
25.566
25.566

.000
.000
.000
.000

Error(DRINK)

Sphericity Assumed
Greenhouse-Geisser
Huynh-Feldt
Lower-bound

3216.867
3216.867
3216.867
3216.867

36
25.216
28.214
18.000

89.357
127.571
114.017
178.715

IMAGERY

Sphericity Assumed
Greenhouse-Geisser
Huynh-Feldt
Lower-bound

21628.678
21628.678
21628.678
21628.678

2
1.932
2.000
1.000

10814.339
11196.937
10814.339
21628.678

287.417
287.417
287.417
287.417

.000
.000
.000
.000

IMAGERY * GENDER

Sphericity Assumed
Greenhouse-Geisser
Huynh-Feldt
Lower-bound

1998.344
1998.344
1998.344
1998.344

2
1.932
2.000
1.000

999.172
1034.522
999.172
1998.344

26.555
26.555
26.555
26.555

.000
.000
.000
.000

Error(IMAGERY)

Sphericity Assumed
Greenhouse-Geisser
Huynh-Feldt
Lower-bound

1354.533
1354.533
1354.533
1354.533

36
34.770
36.000
18.000

37.626
38.957
37.626
75.252

DRINK * IMAGERY

Sphericity Assumed
Greenhouse-Geisser
Huynh-Feldt
Lower-bound

2624.422
2624.422
2624.422
2624.422

4
3.251
4.000
1.000

656.106
807.186
656.106
2624.422

19.593
19.593
19.593
19.593

.000
.000
.000
.000

DRINK * IMAGERY *
GENDER

Sphericity Assumed
Greenhouse-Geisser
Huynh-Feldt
Lower-bound

495.689
495.689
495.689
495.689

4
3.251
4.000
1.000

123.922
152.458
123.922
495.689

3.701
3.701
3.701
3.701

.009
.014
.009
.070

Error(DRINK*IMAGERY)

Sphericity Assumed
Greenhouse-Geisser
Huynh-Feldt
Lower-bound

2411.000
2411.000
2411.000
2411.000

72
58.524
72.000
18.000

33.486
41.197
33.486
133.944

SPSS Output 3
The Effect of Gender
The main effect of gender is listed separately from the repeated measure effects in a table
labelled Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Before looking at this table it is important to check
the assumption of homogeneity of variance using Levenes test (see Chapter 3). SPSS
produces a table listing Levenes test for each of the repeated measures variables in the data
editor, and we need to look for any variable that has a significant value. SPSS Output 4 shows
both tables. The table showing Levenes test indicates that variances are homogeneous for all
levels of the repeated measures variables (because all significance values are greater than
0.05). If any values were significant, then this would compromise the accuracy of the F-test for
gender, and we would have to consider transforming all of our data to stabilize the variances
between groups (one popular transformation is to take the square root of all values).
Fortunately, in this example a transformation is unnecessary. The second table shows the

Dr. Andy Field

Page 5

6/8/2004

Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Chapter 12

ANOVA summary table for the main effect of gender, and this reveals a significant effect
(because the significance of 0.018 is less than the standard cut-off point of 0.05).
a
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances

F
Beer + Sexy
Beer + Corpse
Beer + Person in Armchair
Wine + Sexy
Wine + Corpse
Wine + Person in Armchair
Water + Sexy
Water + Corpse
Water + Person in Armchair

df1

1.009
1.305
1.813
2.017
1.048
.071
.317
.804
1.813

df2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Sig.
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18

.328
.268
.195
.173
.320
.793
.580
.382
.195

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal
across groups.
a. Design: Intercept+GENDER - Within Subjects Design:
DRINK+IMAGERY+DRINK*IMAGERY

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed Variable: Average

Source

Type III
Sum of
Squares

Intercept
GENDER
Error

1246.445
58.178
155.167

Mean
Square

df
1
1
18

1246.445
58.178
8.620

F
144.593
6.749

Sig.
.000
.018

SPSS Output 4
We can report that there was a significant main effect of gender (F(1, 18) = 6.75, p < 0.05).
This effect tells us that if we ignore all other variables, male subjects ratings were significantly
different to females. If you requested that SPSS display means for the gender effect you
should scan through your output and find the table in a section headed Estimated Marginal
Means. SPSS Output 5 is a table of means for the main effect of gender with the associated
standard errors. This information is plotted in Figure 3. It is clear from this graph that mens
ratings were generally significantly more positive than females. Therefore, men gave more
positive ratings than women regardless of the drink being advertised and the type of imagery
used in the advert.
15.00
9.60

Estimates

10.00

Measure: MEASURE_1

Gender
Male
Female

Mean
9.600
6.189

Std. Error
.928
.928

95% Confidence Interval

Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
7.649
4.238

6.19

5.00

11.551
8.140

0.00
Male

Female

Figure 3

SPSS Output 5
The Interaction between Gender and Drink

SPSS Output 3 indicated that gender interacted in some way with the type of drink used as a
stimulus. Remembering that the effect of drink violated sphericity, we must report
Greenhouse-Geisser corrected values for this interaction with the between-group factor. From
the summary table we should report that there was a significant interaction between the type
of drink used and the gender of the subject (F(1.40, 25.22) = 25.57, p < 0.001). This effect
tells us that the type of drink being advertised had a different effect on men and women. We
can use the estimated marginal means to determine the nature of this interaction (or we could

Dr. Andy Field

Page 6

6/8/2004

Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Chapter 12

have asked SPSS for a plot of gender drink using the dialog box in Figure 2). The means and
interaction graph (Figure 4 and SPSS Output 6) show the meaning of this result. The graph
shows the average male ratings of each drink ignoring the type of imagery with which it was
presented (circles). The womens scores are shown as squares. The graph clearly shows that
male and female ratings are very similar for wine and water, but men seem to rate beer more
highly than womenregardless of the type of imagery used. We could interpret this interaction
as meaning that the type of drink being advertised influenced ratings differently in men and
women. Specifically, ratings were similar for wine and water but males rated beer higher than
women. This interaction can be clarified using the contrasts specified before the analysis.
2. Gender * DRINK

25

Measure: MEASURE_1

Mean

Std. Error

20

95% Confidence Interval

Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound

15

Gender

DRINK

Male

1
2
3

20.600
7.333
.867

2.441
.765
1.414

15.471
5.726
-2.103

25.729
8.940
3.836

10

Female

1
2
3

3.067
9.333
6.167

2.441
.765
1.414

-2.062
7.726
3.197

8.196
10.940
9.136

Beer

SPSS Output 6

Wine

Water

Figure 4

The Interaction between Gender and Imagery

SPSS Output 3 indicated that gender interacted in some way with the type of imagery used as
a stimulus. The effect of imagery did not violate sphericity, so we can report the uncorrected F
value. From the summary table we should report that there was a significant interaction
between the type of imagery used and the gender of the subject (F(2, 36) = 26.55, p <
0.001). This effect tells us that the type of imagery used in the advert had a different effect on
men and women. We can use the estimated marginal means to determine the nature of this
interaction (or we could have asked SPSS for a plot of imagery gender using the dialog box
in Figure 2). The means and interaction graph (Figure 5 and SPSS Output 7) show the
meaning of this result. The graph shows the average male in each imagery condition ignoring
the type of drink that was rated (circles). The womens scores are shown as squares. The
graph clearly shows that male and female ratings are very similar for positive and neutral
imagery, but men seem to be less affected by negative imagery than womenregardless of
the drink in the advert. To interpret this finding more fully, we should consult the contrasts for
this interaction.
30

3. Gender * IMAGERY
Measure: MEASURE_1

Mean

Std. Error

Gender

IMAGERY

Male

1
2
3

20.533
.833
7.433

1.399
1.092
1.395

17.595
-1.460
4.502

23.471
3.127
10.365

Female

1
2
3

22.000
-12.000
8.567

1.399
1.092
1.395

19.062
-14.293
5.635

24.938
-9.707
11.498

SPSS Output 7

20

95% Confidence Interval

Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound

10
0
-10

Pos

Neg

Neut

-20

Figure 5

The Interaction between Drink and Imagery

The interpretation of this interaction is the same as for the two-way ANOVA (see Chapter 11).
You may remember that the interaction reflected the fact that negative imagery has a different
effect to both positive and neutral imagery (because it decreased ratings rather than
increasing them).

Dr. Andy Field

Page 7

6/8/2004

Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Chapter 12

The Interaction between Gender, Drink and Imagery
The three-way interaction tells us whether the drink by imagery interaction is the same for
men and women (i.e. whether the combined effect of the type of drink and the imagery used is
the same for male subjects as for female subjects). We can conclude that there is a significant
three-way drink imagery gender interaction (F(4, 72) = 3.70, p < 0.01). The nature of this
interaction is shown up in Figure 6, which shows the imagery by drink interaction for men and
women separately. The male graph shows that when positive imagery is used, men generally
rated all three drinks positively (the line with circles is higher than the other lines for all
drinks). This pattern is true of women also (the line representing positive imagery is above the
other two lines). When neutral imagery is used, men rate beer very highly, but rate wine and
water fairly neutrally. Women, on the other hand rate beer and water neutrally, but rate wine
more positively (in fact, the pattern of the positive and neutral imagery lines show that women
generally rate wine slightly more positively than water and beer). So, for neutral imagery men
still rate beer positively, and women still rate wine positively. For the negative imagery, the
men still rate beer very highly, but give low ratings to the other two types of drink. So,
regardless of the type of imagery used, men rate beer very positively (if you look at the graph
youll note that ratings for beer are virtually identical for the three types of imagery). Women,
however, rate all three drinks very negatively when negative imagery is used. The three-way
interaction is, therefore, likely to reflect these sex differences in the interaction between drink
and imagery. Specifically, men seem fairly immune to the effects of imagery when beer is
being used as a stimulus, whereas women are not. The contrasts will show up exactly what
this interaction represents.
4. Gender * DRINK * IMAGERY
Measure: MEASURE_1

Gender

DRINK

IMAGERY

Male

1
2
3

24.800
20.100
16.900

4.037
2.096
2.429

16.318
15.697
11.797

33.282
24.503
22.003

1
2
3

22.300
-7.800
7.500

1.939
1.440
1.483

18.227
-10.825
4.383

26.373
-4.775
10.617

1
2
3

14.500
-9.800
-2.100

2.085
2.201
1.654

10.119
-14.424
-5.575

18.881
-5.176
1.375

1
2
3

17.300
-11.200
3.100

4.037
2.096
2.429

8.818
-15.603
-2.003

25.782
-6.797
8.203

1
2
3

28.400
-16.200
15.800

1.939
1.440
1.483

24.327
-19.225
12.683

32.473
-13.175
18.917

1
2
3

20.300
-8.600
6.800

2.085
2.201
1.654

15.919
-13.224
3.325

24.681
-3.976
10.275

Female

Mean

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval

Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound

SPSS Output 8

Dr. Andy Field

Page 8

6/8/2004

Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Chapter 12

Female

30

30

20

20

10
0
Beer

Wine

Water

Rating of Drink

Rating of Drink

Male

10
0
Beer

-10

-10

-20

-20

Wine

Water

Figure 6: Graphs showing the drink by imagery interaction for

men and women. Lines represent positive imagery (circles),
negative imagery (squares) and neutral imagery (triangles)
Contrasts for Repeated Measures Variables
We requested simple contrasts for the drink variable (for which water was used as the control
category) and for the imagery category (for which neutral imagery was used as the control
category). SPSS Output 9 shows the summary results for these contrasts. The table is the
same as for the previous example except that the added effects of gender and its interaction
with other variables are now included. So, for the main effect of drink, the first contrast
compares level 1 (beer) against the base category (in this case, the last category: water). This
result is significant (F(1, 18) = 15.37, p < 0.01), and the next contrast compares level 2
(wine) with the base category (water) and confirms the significant difference found when
gender was not included as a variable in the analysis (F(1, 18) = 19.92, p < 0.001). For the
imagery main effect, the first contrast compares level 1 (positive) to the base category
(neutral) and verifies the significant effect found by the post hoc tests (F(1, 18) = 134.87, p <
0.001). The second contrast confirms the significant difference found for the negative imagery
condition compared to the neutral (F(1, 18) = 129.18, p < 0.001). No contrast was specified
for gender.
Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts
Measure: MEASURE_1
Mean
Square

DRINK

DRINK

Level 1 vs. Level 3

1383.339

1383.339

15.371

.001

Level 2 vs. Level 3

464.006

464.006

19.923

.000

Level 1 vs. Level 3

2606.806

2606.806

28.965

.000

Level 2 vs. Level 3

54.450

54.450

2.338

.144

Level 1 vs. Level 3

1619.967

18

89.998

DRINK * GENDER
Error(DRINK)

IMAGERY

Type III
Sum of
Squares

Source

Level 2 vs. Level 3

df

Sig.

419.211

18

23.290

IMAGERY

Level 1 vs. Level 3

Level 2 vs. Level 3

3520.089
3690.139

1
1

3520.089
3690.139

134.869
129.179

.000
.000

IMAGERY * GENDER

Level 1 vs. Level 3

Level 2 vs. Level 3

.556
975.339

1
1

.556
975.339

.021
34.143

.886
.000

Error(IMAGERY)

Level 1 vs. Level 3

Level 2 vs. Level 3

469.800

18

26.100

514.189

18

28.566

Level 1 vs. Level 3

Level 1 vs. Level 3

Level 2 vs. Level 3

320.000
720.000

1
1

320.000
720.000

1.686
8.384

.211
.010

Level 2 vs. Level 3

Level 1 vs. Level 3

Level 2 vs. Level 3

36.450

36.450

.223

.642

2928.200

2928.200

31.698

.000

Level 1 vs. Level 3

Level 1 vs. Level 3

Level 2 vs. Level 3

441.800
480.200

1
1

441.800
480.200

2.328
5.592

.144
.029

Level 2 vs. Level 3

Level 1 vs. Level 3

Level 2 vs. Level 3

4.050
405.000

1
1

4.050
405.000

.025
4.384

.877
.051

Level 1 vs. Level 3

Level 1 vs. Level 3

Level 2 vs. Level 3

3416.200
3416.200

18
18

189.789
189.789

Level 2 vs. Level 3

Level 1 vs. Level 3

Level 2 vs. Level 3

1545.800
1662.800

18
18

85.878
92.378

DRINK * IMAGERY

DRINK * IMAGERY *
GENDER

Error(DRINK*IMAGERY)

SPSS Output 9

Dr. Andy Field

Page 9

6/8/2004

Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Chapter 12

Drink Gender Interaction 1: Beer vs. Water, Male vs. Female
The first interaction term looks at level 1 of drink (beer) compared to level 3 (water),
comparing male and female scores. This contrast is highly significant (F(1, 18) = 28.97, p <
0.001). This result tells us that the increased ratings of beer compared to water found for men
are not found for women. So, in Figure 4 the squares representing female ratings of beer and
water are roughly level; however, the circle representing male ratings of beer is much higher
than the circle representing water. The positive contrast represents this difference and so we
can conclude that male ratings of beer (compared to water) were significantly greater than
womens ratings of beer (compared to water).
Drink Gender Interaction 2: Wine vs. Water, Male vs. Female
The second interaction term compares level 2 of drink (wine) to level 3 (water), contrasting
male and female scores. There is no significant difference for this contrast (F(1, 18) = 2.34, p
= 0.14), which tells us that the difference between ratings of wine compared to water in males
is roughly the same as in females. Therefore, overall, the drink gender interaction has shown
up a difference between males and females in how they rate beer (regardless of the type of
imagery used).
Imagery Gender Interaction 1: Positive vs. Neutral, Male vs. Female
The first interaction term looks at level 1 of imagery (positive) compared to level 3 (neutral),
comparing male and female scores. This contrast is not significant (F < 1). This result tells us
that ratings of drinks presented with positive imagery (relative to those presented with neutral
imagery) were equivalent for males and females. This finding represents the fact that in Figure
5 the squares and circles for both the positive and neutral conditions overlap (therefore male
and female responses were the same.
Imagery Gender Interaction 2: Negative vs. Neutral, Male vs. Female
The second interaction term looks at level 2 of imagery (negative) compared to level 3
(neutral), comparing male and female scores. This contrast is highly significant (F(1, 18) =
34.13, p < 0.001). This result tells us that the difference between ratings of drinks paired with
negative imagery compared to neutral was different for men and women. Looking at Figure 5
this finding represents the fact that for men, ratings of drinks paired with negative imagery
were relatively similar to ratings of drinks paired with neutral imagery (the circles have a fairly
similar vertical position). However, if you look at the female ratings, then drinks were rated
much less favourably when presented with negative imagery than when presented with neutral
imagery (the square in the negative condition is much lower than the neutral condition).
Therefore, overall, the imagery gender interaction has shown up a difference between males
and females in terms of their ratings to drinks presented with negative imagery compared to
neutral; specifically, men seem less affected by negative imagery.
Drink Imagery Gender Interaction 1: Beer vs. Water, Positive vs. Neutral Imagery, Male vs.
Female
The first interaction term compares level 1 of drink (beer) to level 3 (water), when positive
imagery (level 1) is used compared to neutral (level 3) in males compared to females (F(1, 18)
= 2.33, p = 0.144). The non-significance of this contrast tells us that the difference in ratings
when positive imagery is used compared to neutral imagery is roughly equal when beer is used
as a stimulus as when water is used, and these differences are equivalent in male and female
subjects. In terms of the interaction graph (Figure 6) it means that the distance between the
circle and the triangle in the beer condition is the same as the distance between the circle and
the triangle in the water condition and that these distances are equivalent in men and women.
Drink Imagery Gender Interaction 2: Beer vs. Water, Negative vs. Neutral Imagery, Male
vs. Female

Dr. Andy Field

Page 10

6/8/2004

Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Chapter 12

The second interaction term looks at level 1 of drink (beer) compared to level 3 (water), when
negative imagery (level 2) is used compared to neutral (level 3). This contrast is significant
(F(1, 18) = 5.59, p < 0.05). This result tells us that the difference in ratings between beer and
water when negative imagery is used (compared to neutral imagery) is different between men
and women. If we plot ratings of beer and water
across the negative and neutral conditions, for males
30
(circles) and females (squares) separately, we see
Wate
Beer
that ratings after negative imagery are always lower
20
than ratings for neutral imagery except for mens
ratings of beer, which are actually higher after
10
negative imagery. As such, this contrast tells us that
0
the interaction effect reflects a difference in the way
Negative
Neutral
Negative
Neutral
in which males rate beer compared to females when
-10
negative imagery is used compared to neutral. Males
and females are similar in their pattern of ratings for
-20
water but different in the way in which they rate
beer.
Drink Imagery Gender Interaction 3: Wine vs. Water, Positive vs. Neutral Imagery, Male
vs. Female.
The third interaction term looks at level 2 of drink (wine) compared to level 3 (water), when
positive imagery (level 1) is used compared to neutral (level 3) in males compared to females.
This contrast is non-significant (F (1, 18) < 1). This result tells us that the difference in ratings
when positive imagery is used compared to neutral imagery is roughly equal when wine is used
as a stimulus as when water is used, and these differences are equivalent in male and female
subjects. In terms of the interaction graph (Figure 6) it means that the distance between the
circle and the triangle in the wine condition is the same as the distance between the circle and
the triangle in the water condition and that these distances are equivalent in men and women.
Drink Imagery Gender Interaction 4: Wine vs. Water, Negative vs. Neutral Imagery, Male
vs. Female.
The final interaction term looks at level 2 of drink (wine) compared to level 3 (water), when
negative imagery (level 2) is used compared to neutral (level 3). This contrast is very close to
significance (F(1, 18) = 4.38, p = 0.051). This result
tells us that the difference in ratings between wine
30
and water when negative imagery is used (compared
to neutral imagery) is different between men and
20
Wine
Wate
women (although this difference has not quite
reached significance). If we plot ratings of wine and
10
water across the negative and neutral conditions, for
0
males (circles) and females (squares), we see that
Negative
Neutral
Negative
Neutral
ratings after negative imagery are always lower than
-10
ratings for neutral imagery, but for women rating
wine the change is much more dramatic (the line is
-20
steeper). As such, this contrast tells us that the
interaction effect reflects a difference in the way in
which females rate wine differently to males when
neutral imagery is used compared to when negative imagery is used. Males and females are
similar in their pattern of ratings for water but different in the way in which they rate wine. It
is noteworthy that this contrast was not significant using the usual 0.05 level; however, it is
worth remembering that this cut-off point was set in a fairly arbitrary way, and so it is worth
reporting these close effects and letting your reader decide whether they are meaningful or
not. There is also a growing trend towards reporting effect sizes in preference to using
significance levels.

Dr. Andy Field

Page 11

6/8/2004

Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Chapter 12

Summary
These contrasts again tell us nothing about the differences between the beer and wine
conditions (or the positive and negative conditions) and different contrasts would have to be
run to find out more. However, what is clear so far is that differences exist between men and
women in terms of their ratings towards beer and wine. It seems as though men are relatively
unaffected by negative imagery when it comes to beer. Likewise, women seem more willing to
rate wine positively when neutral imagery is used than men do. What should be clear from this
is that complex ANOVA in which several independent variables are used results in complex
interaction effects that require a great deal of concentration to interpret (imagine interpreting
a four-way interaction!). Therefore, it is essential to take a systematic approach to
interpretation and plotting graphs is a particularly useful way to proceed. It is also advisable to
think carefully about the appropriate contrasts to use to answer the questions you have about
your data. It is these contrasts that will help you to interpret interactions, so make sure you
select sensible ones!

Task 2
Text messaging is very popular amongst mobile phone owners, to the point that books have
been published on how to write in text speak (BTW, hope u kno wat I mean by txt spk). One
concern is that children may use this form of communication so much that it will hinder their
ability to learn correct written English. One concerned researcher conducted an experiment in
which one group of children were encouraged to send text messages on their mobile phones
over a six month period. A second group was forbidden from sending text messages for the
same period. To ensure that kids in this later group didnt use their phones, this group were
given armbands that administered painful shocks in the presence of microwaves (like those
emitted from phones)2. There were 50 different participants: 25 were encouraged to send
text messages, and 25 were forbidden. The outcome was a score on a grammatical test (as a
percentage) that was measured both before and after the experiment. The first independent
variable was, therefore, text message use (text messagers versus controls) and the second
independent variable was the time at which grammatical ability was assessed (before or after
the experiment). The data are in the file TextMessages.sav.
SPSS Output
Figure 7 shows a line chart (with error bars) of the grammar data. The dots show the mean
grammar score before and after the experiment for the text message group and the controls.
The means before and after are connected by a line for the two groups separately. Its clear
from this chart that in the text message group grammar scores went down dramatically over
the 6 month period in which they used their mobile phone. For the controls, their grammar
scores also fell but much less dramatically.

2 Although this punished them for any attempts to use a mobile phone, an unfortunate side effect was
that 10 of the sample developed conditioned phobias of porridge after repeatedly trying to heat some up
in the microwave!

Dr. Andy Field

Page 12

6/8/2004

Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Chapter 12

80
Text Messagers
Controls

75

Mean Grammar Score

70
65
60
55
50
45
40
10
0
Before

After

Time

Figure 7: Line chart (with error bars showing the standard error of the mean) of the mean
grammar scores before and after the experiment for text messagers and controls
Descriptive Statistics
Grammer at Time 1

Grammar at Time 2

Group
Text Messagers
Controls
Total
Text Messagers
Controls
Total

Mean
64.8400
65.6000
65.2200
52.9600
61.8400
57.4000

Std. Deviation
10.67973
10.83590
10.65467
16.33116
9.41046
13.93278

N
25
25
50
25
25
50

The output above shows the table of descriptive statistics from the two-way mixed ANOVA; the
table has means at time one split according to whether the people were in the text messaging
group or the control group, then below we have the means for the two groups at time 2. These
means correspond to those plotted in Figure 7.
Mauchly's Test of Sphericityb
Measure: MEASURE_1
Epsilon
Within Subjects Effect
TIME

Mauchly's W
1.000

Approx.
Chi-Square
.000

df

Sig.
0

GreenhouseGeisser
1.000

Huynh-Feldt
1.000

Lower-bound
1.000

Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional
to an identity matrix.
a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
b.
Design: Intercept+GROUP
Within Subjects Design: TIME

a
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances

Grammer at Time 1
Grammar at Time 2

F
.089
3.458

df1

df2
1
1

48
48

Sig.
.767
.069

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent
variable is equal across groups.
a.
Design: Intercept+GROUP
Within Subjects Design: TIME

We know that when we use repeated measures we have to check the assumption of sphericity.
We also know that for independent designs we need to check the homogeneity of variance
assumption. If the design is a mixed design then we have both repeated and independent
measures, so we have to check both assumptions. In this case, we have only two levels of the
repeated measure so the assumption of sphericity does not apply in this case. Levenes test,
produces a different test for each level of the repeated measures variable. In mixed designs,

Dr. Andy Field

Page 13

6/8/2004

Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Chapter 12

the homogeneity assumption has to hold for every level of the repeated measures variable. At
both levels of time, Levenes test is nonsignificant (p = 0.77 before the experiment and p =
0.069 after the experiment). This means the assumption has not been broken at all (but it was
quite close to being a problem after the experiment).
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source
TIME

TIME * GROUP

Error(TIME)

Sphericity Assumed
Greenhouse-Geisser
Huynh-Feldt
Lower-bound
Sphericity Assumed
Greenhouse-Geisser
Huynh-Feldt
Lower-bound
Sphericity Assumed
Greenhouse-Geisser
Huynh-Feldt
Lower-bound

Type III Sum

of Squares
1528.810
1528.810
1528.810
1528.810
412.090
412.090
412.090
412.090
4747.600
4747.600
4747.600
4747.600

df
1
1.000
1.000
1.000
1
1.000
1.000
1.000
48
48.000
48.000
48.000

Mean Square
1528.810
1528.810
1528.810
1528.810
412.090
412.090
412.090
412.090
98.908
98.908
98.908
98.908

F
15.457
15.457
15.457
15.457
4.166
4.166
4.166
4.166

Sig.
.000
.000
.000
.000
.047
.047
.047
.047

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed Variable: Average
Source
Intercept
GROUP
Error

Type III Sum

of Squares
375891.610
580.810
9334.080

df
1
1
48

Mean Square
375891.610
580.810
194.460

F
1933.002
2.987

Sig.
.000
.090

The output above shows the main ANOVA summary tables. Like any two-way ANOVA, we still
have three effects to find: two main effects (one for each independent variable) and one
interaction term. The main effect of time is significant so we
can conclude that grammar scores were significantly
affected by the time at which they were measured. The
exact nature of this effect is easily determined because
there were only two points in time (and so this main effect is
comparing only two means). The graph shows that grammar
scores were higher before the experiment than after. So,
before the experimental manipulation scores were higher
than after, meaning that the manipulation had the net effect
of significantly reducing grammar scores. This main effect
seems rather interesting until you consider that these
Group
means include both text messagers and controls. There are
three possible reasons for the drop in grammar scores: (1) the text messagers got worse and
are dragging down the mean after the experiment, (2) the controls somehow got worse, or (3)
the whole group just got worse and it had nothing to do with whether the children text
messaged or not. Until we examine the interaction, we wont see which of these is true.
Mean Grammar Score (%)

70

60

50

40
10

Before

After

The main effect of group is shown by the F-ratio in the second table above. The probability
associated with this F-ratio is 0.09, which is just above the
critical value of 0.05. Therefore, we must conclude that
there was no significant main effect on grammar scores of
whether children text-messaged or not. Again, this effect
seems interesting enough and mobile phone companies
might certainly chose to cite it as evidence that text
messaging does not affect your grammar ability. However,
remember that this main effect ignores the time at which
grammar ability is measured. It just means that if we took
the average grammar score for text messagers (thats
including their score both before and after they started
Group
using their phone), and compared this to the mean of the
controls (again including scores before and after) then these means would not be significantly
Mean Grammar Score (%)

70

60

50

40
10

Text Messagers

Dr. Andy Field

Page 14

Controls

6/8/2004

Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Chapter 12

different. The graph shows that when you ignore the time at which grammar was measured,
the controls have slightly better grammar than the text messagersbut not significantly so.
Main effects are not always that interesting and should certainly be viewed in the context of
any interaction effects. The interaction effect in this example is shown by the F-ratio in the row
labeled Time*Group, and because the probability of obtaining a value this big by chance is
0.047, which is just less than the criterion of 0.05, we can say that there is a significant
interaction between the time at which grammar was measured and whether or not children
were allowed to text message within that time. The mean ratings in all conditions (see Figure
7) help us to interpret this effect. The significant interaction tells us that the change in
grammar scores was significantly different in text messagers compared to controls. Looking at
Figure 7 we can see that although grammar scores fell in controls, the drop was much more
marked in the text messagers; so, text messaging does seem to ruin your ability at grammar
compared to controls3.
Writing the Result
We can report the three effects from this analysis as follows:

The results show that the grammar ratings at the end of the experiment were
significantly lower than those at the beginning of the experiment, F(1, 48) = 15.46, p <
.001, r = .61.

The main effect of group on the grammar scores was nonsignificant, F(1, 48) = 2.99,
ns, r = .27. This indicated that when the time at which grammar was measured is
ignored, the grammar ability in the text message group was not significantly different
to the controls.

The time group interaction was significant, F(1, 48) = 4.17, p < .05, r = .34,
indicating that the change in grammar ability in the text message group was
significantly different to the change in the control groups. These findings indicate that
although there was a natural decay of grammatical ability over time (as shown by the
controls) there was a much stronger effect when participants were encouraged to use
text messages. This shows that using text messages accelerates the inevitable decline
in grammatical ability.

Its interesting that the control group means dropped too. This could be because the control
group were undisciplined and still used their mobile phones, or it could just be that the
education system in this country is so under funded that there is no-one to teach English
anymore!

Dr. Andy Field

Page 15

6/8/2004