Question

A study was to be undertaken to investigate risk-taking behaviour and the effect on this behaviour of three different methods (treatments) of risk-taking instruction. The subjects selected for the study were first randomly divided into 3 groups. Each group was instructed using a different method of risk-taking instruction. All subjects were then put in a risk taking situation (through simulation) at two separate times. At the first instance the subjects faced a high penalty for an incorrect decision and at the second instance the subjects faced a low penalty for an incorrect decision. In each instant several physiological measurements were taken both prior to and immediately following the risk taking situation. In addition a psychological questionnaire with several subtests was administered after the experiment to assess the subject's psychological state at each time he was faced with a decision.

Discuss the appropriate methods of analyzing the data from this experiment and discuss any flaws in the design of this study stating how they can be corrected？

Answer 1

Answer:

• In these sort of issues the initial step is to recognize the aggregate arrangement of variables which are influencing the result.
• Noe obviously the factor of intrigue i.e The hazard guidance shapes the central point with impact say a(i) for the ith level. i=1,2,3. Additionally since punishment has been changed from time1 to time 2 so this will affect the hazard producing behaviour.Let the results of punishment be b(i) for i=1,2. So this is an instance of two way anova.
• Anyway the main multifaceted nature concocts the plan of the examination. To complete a 2way anova the perceptions in various gatherings must be free.
• Anyway here similar subjects were exposed to low and high punishment circumstances. Consequently the perceptions from penalty1 and penalty2 bunches are not free. Thus regular 2way anova can't be completed.
• Furthermore, there is no other method for deciding if hazard guidance has a critical impact other than utilizing 2way anova. Be that as it may if the structure is so adjusted.
• The aggregate gathering of subjects are separated arbitrarily into 6 a balance of and each gathering is exposed to one extraordinary blend of (a(i),b(j)). At that point every one of the perceptions end up free.
• The fundamental model at that point progresses toward becoming: Y(ij) = c + a(i) + b(j) +e(ij) where e(ij) is the mistake part and c is the addiive constant.It is expected that there is no association impact among a(i) and b(j) in the model in light of the fact that the hazard guidance level and punishment charges can not communicate to give blended outcomes.
• Presently we are to test the theories H0: a(1) = a(2) = a(3) versus H1: not H0. The rest of the piece of the investigation is in the connected jpeg. document. In any case if the plan can't be changed and we need to continue with the current structure then a straightforward method for handling the circumstance is to average the 2 perceptions originating from each subject for two diff time focuses and accept the normal as a solitary perception under impact of hazard guidance
• a(i). The averaging out will invalidate the impact due to penaly impact. Presently with a lot of perceptions in every one of three classes of hazard guidance we complete a simpe one way anova. (Punishment factor gets found the middle value of out and subsequently never again influences the perceptions in every one of the three classifications of hazard instruction).
• However the averaging out is an extremely rough strategy and the better route is to change the plan first and ythen complete the examination.