Lecture 10 - Factorial ANOVA & Mixed ANOVA - 1 Slide Per Page

Announcements
Submitting the Assignment
• If you are working as a pair, you need to email Dr. Iankilevitch before submitting the
assignment with the name of your partner
• Only one person per pair will submit the assignment on behalf of both
individuals. Make sure to include the name of both students in your assignment.
• How to submit the assignment: Modules  Homework & Assignment
2
Announcements
Once the assignment is submitted, you should see the following:
100
Pro tip: take a screen shot of this in Quercus – it is your receipt showing that you
submitted the work when you did!
https://community.canvaslms.com/docs/DOC-9539-421241972 3
Last Week
What is being compared?
1 sample mean 2 sample >2 sample

to a population means to each means to each
mean other other
How many IV’s?

Are the samples
Do you know σ?
independent or paired?
1 >1
Are the samples

Yes No Indep. Paired independent or repeated? ?
Indep. Repeat.
Indep. Paired
1 sample
z-test samples samples
t-test
t-test t-test Between- Repeated-
subjects measures
ANOVA ANOVA 4
Last Week

mean other other
How many IV’s?

Are the samples
Do you know σ?
1 >1
Are the samples Are the samples in each IV

Yes No Indep. Paired independent or repeated? independent or repeated?
All
Indep. Repeat.
Indep.
Indep. Paired
1 sample
t-test
t-test t-test Between- Repeated- Between-
subjects measures subjects
ANOVA ANOVA 5
ANOVA
Last Week: Factorial ANOVA Logic
In a factorial ANOVA, we are further explaining sources of variance by including
IV2 and interaction, which come out of the error variance:
One-way ANOVA with a One-way ANOVA with a covariate Factorial ANOVA with a
between-subjects design (ANCOVA or RBD) between-subjects design
6
Last Week: Factorial ANOVA
Example Reminder: We want to examine smokers’ versus non-smokers’ dating
interest in profiles of smokers versus non-smokers. Each participant viewed
one dating profile and indicated how interested they were in going on a date
with the person in the profile.
Participants
Smokers Non-Smokers
Dating Smokers M=5 M=3
Profiles Non-Smokers M=4 M=5
DV: dating interest

Factor 1: participants’ smoking status (2 levels: smokers vs. non-smokers)
Factor 2: smoking status of profiles (2 levels: smokers vs. non-smokers)
Full description: This is a 2(participants’ smoking status: smokers vs. non-
smokers) x 2(dating profile: smokers vs. non-smokers) between-subjects
7
design.
Participants
S Non-S
Example Graph:
Dating S M=5 M=3
Figure 1 Profiles Non-S M=4 M=5
Effect of Participants’ and Dating Profiles’ Smoking Status on Dating Interest
Error bars are standard errors. 8

New example: We want to examine smokers’ versus non-smokers’ dating interest in profiles
of smokers versus non-smokers. Each participant viewed one dating profile and indicated
how interested they were in going on a date with the person in the profile.
Participants
Smokers Non-Smokers
Dating Smokers M=5 M=3
Profiles Non-Smokers M=4 M=5
There are three study/research questions we can explore here:
1. What are smokers’ versus non-smokers’ dating interest in others?
2. How much dating interest do profiles of smokers versus non-smokers create?
3. Is dating interest affected by specific combinations of participants’ smoking status and
the smoking status of the dating profiles?
Every question will have its own hypotheses to test. There are two types of hypothesis tests:
• Main effects
• Interactions 9
Factorial ANOVA – Demo
Does participants’ and profiles’ smoking status predict dating interest?
Factor B: Participants’ Smoking Status
Smokers Non-Smokers Row Means
Factor A: Profiles’ Smoking Status
3 2
6 3
Smokers 4 M=5 4 M=3 4
6 2
6 4
5 6
4 1
Non-Smokers 4 M=4 6 M=5 4.5
4 6
3 6
Column Means 4.5 4 GM = 4.25 10

Source SS df MS F F critical
Treatment 𝑛𝑛 � 𝑥𝑥̅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐

(𝑘𝑘𝑟𝑟 )(𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 ) − 1
Factor A 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 � 𝑥𝑥̅𝑟𝑟 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐

𝑘𝑘𝑟𝑟 − 1
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑟𝑟 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑟𝑟 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈:
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑟𝑟 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 , 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
Factor B 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 � 𝑥𝑥̅𝑐𝑐 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐

𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 − 1
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈:
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑐𝑐 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐵𝐵 , 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
AxB 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵 (𝑘𝑘𝑟𝑟 − 1)(𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 − 1)

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑐 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑐 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈:
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑐 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 , 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
Error � 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥̅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝟐𝟐

𝑁𝑁 − (𝑘𝑘𝑟𝑟 )(𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 )
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟
Total � 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐

𝑁𝑁 − 1
11
Last Week: Factorial ANOVA – Demo
Treatment 13.75 3
Factor A 1.25 1 1.25 1.60 4.49
Factor B 1.25 1 1.25 1.60 4.49
AxB 11.25 1 11.25 14.42 4.49
Error 12.5 16 .78
Total 26.25 19
We found no significant main effect of profile’s smoking status, F(1,16) = 1.60, p > .05 or of
participants’ smoking status, F(1,16) = 1.60, p > .05. However, there was a significant
interaction between profiles’ and participants’ smoking status, F(1,16) = 14.42, p < .05.
*Note that we also need to include the effect sizes in these sentences. 12
We Found an Interaction
Example Graph:
Figure 1
Effect of Participants’ and Dating Profiles’ Smoking Status on Dating Interest

?
? ? ?
? ?
?
Error bars are standard errors.
But where is the difference?! 13

Post Hoc Analyses
Reminder: The omnibus ANOVA tells us
• If there is a main effect of Factor A,
• If there is a main effect of Factor B,
• If there is an interaction.
What do we do if one or both main effects are significant and the interaction is not?
• Conduct multiple comparisons on the main effects (if necessary, i.e., if 3+ groups
compared). Do not conduct simple effects.
What do we do if the interaction is significant?

• Conduct simple effects on the interaction. Do not conduct multiple comparisons for the main
effects. If simple effects are significant, conduct multiple comparisons if needed (i.e., if 3+
groups compared).
Overall:
• The interaction is more interesting than the main effects. Therefore, irrespective of whether
a main effect exists or not, if an interaction exists, we want to explore where the differences
are in the interaction, not the main effects. 14
Simple Effects
Simple effects = the effect of one factor/IV at individual levels of another
factor.
• We do a one-way ANOVA for one factor at each level of the other factor:
1. Profile of smoker vs. non-smoker @ smoker participants
2. Profile of smoker vs. non-smoker @ non-smoker participants
vs. vs.
15
Simple Effects
The set-up is simple and similar to a one-way ANOVA:
1. Write the hypotheses for each simple effect (no need for assumptions)
2. Calculations and source table:
Source SS df MS F
A @ B1
A @ B2
Error (Omnibus ANOVA)
Example:
Source SS df MS F
Profile @ smoker participants
Profile @ non-smoker participants
Error (Omnibus ANOVA)
16
Simple Effects - Calculations
The “new” computations is the SS – specifically, the GM.
Example:
𝟐𝟐
�𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑛𝑛 � 𝑥𝑥

Smokers Non-Smokers
Factor A: Profiles’
X X
Smoking Status
Smokers X Calculate
X the
X X
new GM
X usingXthese
Non- scores
X X only
Smokers 17
X X
Simple Effects - Calculations
The “new” computations is the SS – specifically, the GM.
Example:
𝟐𝟐
�𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑛𝑛 � 𝑥𝑥

Smokers Non-Smokers
Factor A: Profiles’
X X
Smoking Status
Smokers X X Calculate the

X X new GM
X X using these
Non- scores only
X X
Smokers 18
X X
Simple Effects
The rest of the source table is the same!
Source SS df MS F
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
A @ B1 𝑛𝑛 � 𝑥𝑥𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
̅ − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐
k–1 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
Example:
𝟐𝟐 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
A @ B2 𝑛𝑛 � 𝑥𝑥𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
̅ − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 k–1 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
Error (Omnibus ANOVA) -
From omnibus ANOVA 19

Simple Effects – Demo
Smokers Non-Smokers
Factor A: Profiles’ Smoking Status
3 2
6 3
Smokers 4 M=5 4 M=3
6 2
6 4
5 6
4 1
Non-
4 M=4 6 M=5
Smokers
4 6
3 6
New GM’s: 4.5 4 20

Hypotheses
Profile @ Smokers:
H0 = There is no simple main effect of profiles @ smokers
H1 = There is a simple main effect of profiles @ smokers
Profile @ Non-Smokers:
H0 = There is no simple main effect of profiles @ non-smokers
H1 = There is a simple main effect of profiles @ non-smokers
21
Profile @ Smokers: we are comparing smoker vs. non-smoker profiles for
smoker participants
2 2
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑛𝑛 � 𝑥𝑥̅𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = 5[ 5 − 4.5 + 4 − 4.5 2 ]
= 2.5
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑘𝑘 − 1 = 2 − 1 = 1
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 2.5
𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = = = 2.5
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 1
𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 2.5
𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = = ≈3.21 22
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 .78
Profile @ Non-Smokers: we are comparing smoker vs. non-smoker profiles for
non-smoker participants
2 2
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑛𝑛 � 𝑥𝑥̅𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = 5[ 3 − 4 + 5 − 4 2]
= 10
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑘𝑘 − 1 = 2 − 1 = 1
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 10
𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = = = 10
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 1
𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 10
𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = = ≈12.82 23
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 .78
Source table:
Source SS df MS F
Profile @ smoker participants 2.5 1 2.5 3.21
Profile @ non-smoker participants 10 1 10 12.82
Error (Omnibus ANOVA) 12.5 16 .78
𝐹𝐹𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 1,16 = 4.49
Findings?
24
Concluding Statement
For post hoc analyses, we conducted simple effects tests comparing

differences of smoker versus non-smoker profiles separately for smoker and
non-smoker participants. There was no significant difference in dating interest
of profiles of smokers (Mean = 5) versus of non-smokers (Mean = 4) for
smoker participants, F(1,16) = 3.21, p > .05. However, non-smoker
participants indicated significantly more dating interest in non-smoker profiles
(Mean = 5) versus smoker profiles (Mean = 3), F(1,16) = 12.82, p < .05.
25
Simple Effects
Notice that the simple effects explain the nature of the interaction.
We are calculating F again with simple effects. Therefore, simple effects tests
are still an omnibus test, meaning that, if we had 3+ groups to compare in
either Factor/IV, we would not know which means are different from which
other means.
• This could happen if we have a 3 x 2, 3 x 3, 3 x 4, 4 x 4, etc. design
When we come across this type of case, we would use all of the same
multiple comparison techniques for post hoc analyses (covered last week) as
a follow-up after conducting the simple effects tests.
• Note that we only need to do this in the case where there are 3+ groups to
compare & the simple effects test was statistically significant.
26
Decision Tree

mean other other
How many IV’s?

Are the samples
Do you know σ?
1 >1
Are the samples Are the samples in each IV

Yes No Indep. Paired independent or repeated? independent or repeated?
All Some Indep. All

Indep. Repeat.
Indep. Some Repeat. Repeat.
Indep. Paired
1 sample
t-test
t-test t-test Between- Repeated- Between- Repeated-
subjects measures Mixed
subjects measures
ANOVA ANOVA ANOVA
ANOVA ANOVA
Example Study Design 1
We compared three treatment options for moderate levels of depression.
Specifically, we examined the degree to which CBT, meditation, and physical
exercise decrease symptoms of depression in patients that scored 21-30 (moderate
depression) on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) at the start of the study. We
measured patients’ scores on the BDI at four time points: 1) before the treatment, 2)
one week after beginning treatment, 3) 6 weeks after beginning treatment, and 4) 6
months after the end of treatment. Each participant completed one of the three
treatment options.
What type of study design is this?
What is the DV?

28
Example Study Design 2
We tested the effects of two treatment options to reduce chronic backpain: massage
therapy and acupuncture. 100 participants with chronic backpain completed both
treatment options. Half of the participants received massage therapy for four weeks
and then acupuncture for four weeks. The other half of participants received
acupuncture for four weeks and then massage therapy for four weeks. We
measured participants’ level of backpain three times: 1) at baseline, 2) after the first
treatment, and 3) after the second treatment.
What type of study design is this?
What is the DV?
29
Mixed Design ANOVA
A mixed-design ANOVA means that some of the variables are between-
subjects and others are within-subjects (i.e., repeated measures).
A two-way mixed-design ANOVA means that we have one of each type of

variable.
Due to this, we need to adjust our calculations slightly. Basically, we are

combining what we already know about repeated-measures ANOVA (i.e., first
half of the semester) and factorial ANOVA (i.e., last week).
30
Mixed Design Hypotheses &
Descriptives
Just like in a factorial ANOVA (from last week), we have three sets of
hypotheses: main effect of IV1, main effect of IV2, interaction
The descriptive statistics are the same: n, means, 𝑠𝑠 2 , SEM

• Calculate them for each cell.
31
Mixed Design Assumptions
The assumptions are a combinations of repeated-measures ANOVA and
factorial ANOVA:
 The dependent variable is on a ratio or interval scale of measurement and

the independent variables are categorical.
 The observations within a sample are independent for the between-
subjects factor only.
 The population sampled must be normally distributed.
 The populations from which the samples are selected must have equal
variances.
• Need to check with the F-Max test using all cell variances
 Sphericity for the within-subjects factor only.
32
Mixed ANOVA Logic
The Structural Model
BS = Between-Subjects (subscript g)
WS = Within-Subjects (subscript j)
𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = μ + 𝜏𝜏𝑔𝑔 + 𝜏𝜏𝑗𝑗 + 𝜏𝜏𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 + π𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + ℇ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
μ = population 𝜏𝜏𝑗𝑗 = treatment π𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = subject’s

mean effect for the “j” baseline for group “g”
condition (WS) (BS Error)
“i”th score in 𝜏𝜏𝑔𝑔 = treatment 𝜏𝜏𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 = treatment effect ℇ = error associated
the “g”th group effect for the “g” with the score
for the interaction
& “j”th condition group (BS) (WS Error) 33
(BS x WS)
Mixed ANOVA Logic
To estimate the structural model for each score:
𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = μ + 𝜏𝜏𝑔𝑔 + 𝜏𝜏𝑗𝑗 + 𝜏𝜏𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 + π𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + ℇ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = GM + 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 + 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗̅ − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 + 𝑥𝑥𝑔𝑔𝑗𝑗

̅ − 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗̅ + 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 + 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 − 𝑥𝑥𝑔𝑔𝑗𝑗
̅ − 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑔𝑔
34
Mixed ANOVA Logic
Rearrange the model by subtracting GM on both sides to remove its effect:
(𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺) = 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 + 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗̅ − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 + 𝑥𝑥𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔

̅ − 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗̅ + 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 + 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
̅ − 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
Total Group Effect Condition Interaction Effect Subject Effect Error

(BS) Effect (BS x WS) (BS Error) (WS Error)
(WS)
Apply the structural model to all participants across all cells and summate.
35
Mixed ANOVA Logic
Sum of Squares Summary
TOTAL
BETWEEN WITHIN
BS IV BS Error WS IV BS x WS WS Error
36
Mixed ANOVA Source Table
BETWEEN
BS IV
BS Error
WITHIN
WS IV
BS x WS
WS Error
TOTAL
37
BETWEEN
BS IV
BS Error
WITHIN
WS IV
BS x WS
WS Error
TOTAL
BETWEEN + WITHIN = TOTAL 38

BETWEEN
BS IV
BS Error
WITHIN
WS IV
BS x WS
WS Error
TOTAL
(BS IV) + (BS Error) = BETWEEN 39

BETWEEN
BS IV
BS Error
WITHIN
WS IV
BS x WS
WS Error
TOTAL
(WS IV) + (BS x WS) + (WS Error) = WITHIN 40

BETWEEN
BS IV
BS Error
WITHIN
WS IV
BS x WS
WS Error
TOTAL
(BS IV) + (WS IV) + (BS x WS) = CELLS (or TREATMENT) 41

Mixed ANOVA Calculations
Source SS The “overall” effect of between-groups.
All variability related to the between-
BETWEEN 𝑘𝑘𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 � 𝑥𝑥̅𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐
subjects IV including the effect of the
BS IV 𝑛𝑛𝑘𝑘𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 � 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺
𝟐𝟐
treatment (or groups) and the error.
BS Error 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
WITHIN 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
WS IV
𝟐𝟐
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 � 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗̅ − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺
BS x WS 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
WS Error 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
TOTAL � 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺

𝟐𝟐
Note: BS IV in the rows & WS IV in the columns 42

Source SS
This is the same as:
𝟐𝟐
BS IV 𝑛𝑛𝑘𝑘𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 � 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 � 𝑥𝑥̅𝑟𝑟 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐
BS Error 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 This is the same as the factorial ANOVA.
WS IV
𝟐𝟐

𝟐𝟐

Source SS
𝟐𝟐
Remember:
(BS IV) + (BS Error) = BETWEEN
WS IV
𝟐𝟐

𝟐𝟐

Source SS
𝟐𝟐
The “overall” effect of within-groups. All
BS Error 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 variability related to the within-subjects
(i.e., repeated measures) IV including
WITHIN 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 the effect of the condition and the error.
WS IV
𝟐𝟐
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 � 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗̅ − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 Remember:
BETWEEN + WITHIN = TOTAL

𝟐𝟐

Source SS
𝟐𝟐
WITHIN 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 This is the same as:

𝟐𝟐
WS IV
𝟐𝟐
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 � 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗̅ − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 � 𝑥𝑥̅𝑐𝑐 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺
BS x WS 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 This is the same as factorial ANOVA.

𝟐𝟐

Source SS
𝟐𝟐
We need two steps for this.
WITHIN 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 Step 1: Calculate 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 + 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 + 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 :
WS IV
𝟐𝟐
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 � 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗̅ − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐 𝟐𝟐
𝑛𝑛 � 𝑥𝑥̅𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑛𝑛 � 𝑥𝑥̅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺
This is the same as 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 for the
WS Error 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 factorial ANOVA.

𝟐𝟐
Step 2: Calculate 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
Same steps as in the factorial ANOVA.
Source SS
𝟐𝟐
WS IV
𝟐𝟐

Remember:
(WS IV) + (BS x WS) + (WS Error) = WITHIN
𝟐𝟐

Source SS
𝟐𝟐
WS IV
𝟐𝟐
WS Error 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 This is the same as:

𝟐𝟐
𝟐𝟐 � 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺
This is the same as factorial ANOVA.

Source df
BETWEEN 𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 − 1
BS IV 𝑘𝑘𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 1
BS Error 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 − 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
WITHIN 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 − 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
WS IV 𝑘𝑘𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 1
BS x WS (𝑘𝑘𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 1)(𝑘𝑘𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 1)
WS Error 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 − 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
TOTAL 𝑁𝑁 − 1
50
Source MS
BETWEEN -
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
BS IV
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
BS Error
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
WITHIN -
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
WS IV
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
BS x WS
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
WS Error
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
TOTAL - 51
Source F F critical
BETWEEN - -
𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
BS IV 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈:
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 , 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
BS Error - -
WITHIN - -
𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
WS IV 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈:
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 , 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
BS x WS 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈:
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 , 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
WS Error - -
TOTAL - - 52
Mixed ANOVA – Demo
We have devised a new treatment for people who are afraid of public speaking. We recruit 8
subjects (all of whom have this phobia) to see whether the treatment works. Four subjects
get the treatment; the other four are in a control group. We measure the degree of each
subject’s phobia repeatedly (i.e., 3 times): 1) before the treatment, 2) after the treatment,
and 3) in a follow-up test 6 months later. The subjects’ scores are provided below (higher
scores mean more phobic). Use the appropriate ANOVA to analyze these data.
Subject Group Before After Follow-Up
1 Treatment 8 4 6
2 Treatment 9 4 7
3 Treatment 6 3 5
4 Treatment 7 4 7
5 Control 9 8 7
6 Control 7 7 8
7 Control 7 6 7
8 Control 6 7 7 53
Descriptive information (means):
Subject Group Group Means Before After Follow-Up Subject Means
1 6
2 6.67
Treatment 5.83 7.5 3.75 6.25
4 4.67
4 6
5 8
6 7.33
Control 7.17 7.25 7 7.25
7 6.67
8 6.67
Column Means: 7.38 5.38 6.75 GM: 6.5
54
Step 1: Hypotheses
1. Null hypothesis: H0: There is no main effect of treatment

Alternative hypothesis: H1: There is a main effect of treatment
2. Null hypothesis: H0: There is no main effect of time

Alternative hypothesis: H1: There is a main effect of time
3. Null hypothesis: H0: There is no interaction between treatment x time

Alternative hypothesis: H1: There is an interaction between treatment x time
55
Step 2: Assumptions
 The dependent variable is on a ratio or interval scale of measurement and

the independent variables are categorical.
 The observations within a sample are independent for treatment (between-
subjects factor only).
 The population sampled must be normally distributed.
 The populations from which the samples are selected must have equal
variances.
• Need to check with the F-Max test using all cell variances – not
demonstrating here, check slides from the first half of the semester for a
refresher on how to conduct the F-Max test
 Sphericity for time (within-subjects factor only).
56
Step 3: Calculations
Reminder of descriptive information (means):

Subject Group Group Means Before After Follow-Up Subject Means
1 6
2 6.67
Treatment 5.83 7.5 3.75 6.25
4 4.67
4 6
5 8
6 7.33
Control 7.17 7.25 7 7.25
7 6.67
8 6.67
Column Means: 7.38 5.38 6.75 GM: 6.5
57
First, let’s compute all the effects of the IV’s (BS IV, WS IV, & Interaction)
BS IV: 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 ∑ 𝑥𝑥̅ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐 = 4 3 5.83 − 6.5 2 + 7.17 − 6.5 2 =
𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔
WS IV: 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 ∑ 𝑥𝑥̅ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐 = 4 2 [ 7.38 − 6.5 2 + 5.38 − 6.5 2 +
6.75 − 6.5 2 ] = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕
Cells: 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 = 𝑛𝑛 ∑ 𝑥𝑥̅𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐 =

4 [(7.5 − 6.5)2 +(3.75 − 6.5)2 +(6.25 − 6.5)2 + 7.25 − 6.5 2
+
(7 − 6.5)2 +(7.25 − 6.5)2 ] = 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒
Interaction:𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 − 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 − 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 − 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 − 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓
58
Next, let’s compute the 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 and 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩
𝟐𝟐
Total: 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = ∑ 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = [ 8 − 6.5 2 + 4 − 6.5 2 + 6 − 6.5 2 + 9 − 6.5 2 +
4 − 6.5 2 + 7 − 6.5 2 + 6 − 6.5 2 + 3 − 6.5 2 + 5 − 6.5 2 + 7 − 6.5 2 + (4 −
6.5)2 + 7 − 6.5 2 + 9 − 6.5 2 + 8 − 6.5 2 + 7 − 6.5 2 + 7 − 6.5 2 + 7 − 6.5 2 +
8 − 6.5 2 + 7 − 6.5 2 + 6 − 6.5 2 + 7 − 6.5 2 + 6 − 6.5 2 + 7 − 6.5 2 + (7 −
6.5)2 ] = 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓
Between: 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 = 𝑘𝑘 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 ∑ 𝑥𝑥�𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐 = 3 [ 6 − 6.5 2 + 6.67 − 6.5 2 +

4.67 − 6.5 2 + 6 − 6.5 2 + 8 − 6.5 2 + 7.33 − 6.5 2 + 6.67 − 6.5 2 + (6.67 −
6.5)2 ] = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔
59
We can find the rest of the SS using subtraction!
Within: 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾 = 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 − 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 = 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 − 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑
WS Error: 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾 𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾 − 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 − 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 − 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕 − 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 = 𝟔𝟔
BS Error: 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 − 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 − 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
60
Now, let’s calculate df.
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝑁𝑁 − 1 = 24 − 1 = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 = 𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 − 1 = 8 − 1 = 𝟕𝟕
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝑘𝑘𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 1 = 2 − 1 = 𝟏𝟏
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = 𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 − 𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝟕𝟕 − 𝟏𝟏 = 𝟔𝟔
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾 = 𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 − 𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 − 𝟕𝟕 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝑘𝑘𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 1 = 3 − 1 = 𝟐𝟐
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝑘𝑘𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 1 𝑘𝑘𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 1 = 2 − 1 3 − 1 = 𝟐𝟐
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾 𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = 𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾 − 𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 − 𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 − 𝟐𝟐 − 𝟐𝟐 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
61
BETWEEN 20.67 7
Treatment 10.67 1
BS Error 10 6
WITHIN 35.33 16
Time 16.75 2
Treat x Time 12.58 2
WS Error 6 12
TOTAL 56 23
62
Now let’s divide SS by df to find MS Finally, let’s calculate F
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 10.67
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = = = 10.67 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 10.67
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 1 𝑭𝑭𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = = = 6.39
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 10 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 1.67
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = = = 1.67
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 6
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 16.75 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 8.38
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = = = 8.38 𝑭𝑭𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = = = 16.76
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 2 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 .5
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 12.58 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 6.29
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = = = 6.29 𝑭𝑭𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = = = 12.58
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 2 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 .5
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 6
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾 𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = = = .5
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 12
63
BETWEEN 20.67 7
Treatment 10.67 1 10.67 6.39
BS Error 10 6 1.67
WITHIN 35.33 16
Time 16.75 2 8.38 16.76
Treat x Time 12.58 2 6.29 12.58
WS Error 6 12 .5
TOTAL 56 23
64
Step 4: Find the cut-off value
BETWEEN 20.67 7
Treatment 10.67 1 10.67 6.39 Use: 1,6
BS Error 10 6 1.67
WITHIN 35.33 16
Time 16.75 2 8.38 16.76 Use: 2,12
Treat x Time 12.58 2 6.29 12.58 Use: 2,12
WS Error 6 12 .5
TOTAL 56 23
65
BETWEEN 20.67 7
Treatment 10.67 1 10.67 6.39 5.99
BS Error 10 6 1.67
WITHIN 35.33 16
Time 16.75 2 8.38 16.76 3.89
Treat x Time 12.58 2 6.29 12.58 3.89
WS Error 6 12 .5
TOTAL 56 23
66
Step 5: Make a decision about each main effect and interaction
BETWEEN 20.67 7
Treatment 10.67 1 10.67 6.39 5.99
BS Error 10 6 1.67
WITHIN 35.33 16
Time 16.75 2 8.38 16.76 3.89
Treat x Time 12.58 2 6.29 12.58 3.89
WS Error 6 12 .5
TOTAL 56 23
67
Step 6: Calculate effect size (and write the complete concluding sentences).
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
Reminder: η2𝑝𝑝 =
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 +𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 10.67
Treatment: η2𝑝𝑝 = = . 52
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 +𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 10.67+10
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 16.75
Time: η2𝑝𝑝 = = = .74
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 +𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑆𝑆 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 16.75+6
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 12.58
Interaction: η2𝑝𝑝 = = . 68
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 +𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑆𝑆 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 12.58+6
68
Step 6: Calculate effect size (and write the complete concluding sentences).
There was a significant main effect of Treatment, F(1,6) = 6.39, p < .05,
η2𝑝𝑝 =.52. Participants in the treatment condition have significantly lower phobia
levels (Mean = 5.83) relative to participants in the control condition (Mean =
7.17). There was a significant main effect of Time, F(2,12) = 16.76, p < .05,
η2𝑝𝑝 =.74. We will not conduct multiple comparisons for this main effect because
it is qualified by a significant interaction between Treatment and Time, F(2,12) =
12.58, p < .05, η2𝑝𝑝 =.68.
69
Mixed ANOVA Simple Effects – Demo
There are two ways that we can run these simple effects analyses. In this
demo, I will show you both ways for the sake of demonstration. However, when
we conduct simple effects analyses in reality, we only choose ONE set and
never conduct both.
1st way: we will be testing the simple effect of treatment at different times:
1. Treatment vs. control @ BEFORE
2. Treatment vs. controls @ AFTER
3. Treatment vs. control @ FOLLOW-UP
70
Step 1: Hypotheses
Treatment @ BEFORE:
H0 = There is no simple main effect of treatment @ BEFORE
H1 = There is a simple main effect of treatment @ BEFORE
Treatment @ AFTER:
H0 = There is no simple main effect of treatment @ AFTER
H1 = There is a simple main effect of treatment @ AFTER
Treatment @ FOLLOW-UP:
H0 = There is no simple main effect of treatment @ FOLLOW-UP
H1 = There is a simple main effect of treatment @ FOLLOW-UP
71
First, we need to understand whether the variable being tested, i.e., “treatment”
in this case, is a between-subjects or within-subjects variable.
“Treatment” is a between-subjects variable, therefore, we will conduct a one-

way between-subjects ANOVA comparing different levels of treatment (i.e.,
treatment vs. control) at each level of time (i.e., @ BEFORE, @ AFTER, and @
FOLLOW-UP).
To find the error term, we need to ADD the between-subjects and the within-
subjects error terms together (both SS and df) and re-calculate MS Error.
72
Descriptive statistics for the simple effects:

Subject Group Group Means Before After Follow-Up
1
2
Treatment 5.83 7.5 3.75 6.25
4
4
5
6
Control 7.17 7.25 7 7.25
7
8
New GM’s: 7.38 5.38 6.75
73
𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = n � 𝑥𝑥̅ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐 = 4 (7.5 − 7.38)2 +(7.25 − 7.38)2 =. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
𝟐𝟐
𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = n � 𝑥𝑥̅ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = 4 (3.75 − 5.38)2 +(7 − 5.38)2 = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
𝟐𝟐
𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻−𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 = n � 𝑥𝑥̅ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇−𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = 4 (6.25 − 6.75)2 +(7.25 − 6.75)2
= 𝟐𝟐
𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 10 + 6 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
74
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝑘𝑘 − 1 = 2 − 1 = 𝟏𝟏
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝑘𝑘 − 1 = 2 − 1 = 𝟏𝟏
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻−𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 = 𝑘𝑘 − 1 = 2 − 1 = 𝟏𝟏
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 6 + 12 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
75
Now let’s divide SS by df to find MS Next, we calculate F
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 .13 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 .13

𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = = = .13 𝑭𝑭𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = = = .14
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 1 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 .89
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 21.13 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 21.13

𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = = = 21.13 𝑭𝑭𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = = = 23.77
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 1 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 .89
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻−𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 2
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻−𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 = = = 2 𝑭𝑭𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻−𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻−𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 = 2
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻−𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 1 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 .89
= 2.25
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 16
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = = = .89
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 18 76
Source table:
Treatment @ BEFORE .13 1 .13 .14 4.41
Treatment @ AFTER 21.13 1 21.13 23.77 4.41
Treatment @ FOLLOW-UP 2 1 2 2.25 4.41
Error 16 18 .89
By conducting simple effects analyses in this manner, we do not need to run

post-hoc comparison tests because there are only two treatment groups:
treatment vs. control.
77
Source table:
Treatment @ AFTER 21.13 1 21.13 23.77 4.41
Error 16 18 .89
Conclusion 1: There is no significant simple main effect of treatment before the

experiment started, F(1,18) = .14, p > .05. Therefore, there was no significant
difference in phobia scores between participants in the treatment group (Mean
= 7.50) versus the control group (Mean = 7.25). 78
Source table:
Treatment @ AFTER 21.13 1 21.13 23.77 4.41
Error 16 18 .89
Conclusion 2: There is a significant simple main effect of treatment after the

experiment, F(1,18) = 23.77, p < .05. Participants in the treatment group had
significantly lower phobia scores (Mean = 3.75) than participants in the control
group (Mean = 7.00). 79
Source table:
Treatment @ AFTER 21.13 1 21.13 23.77 4.41
Error 16 18 .89
Conclusion 3: There is no significant simple main effect of treatment at the six-

month follow-up, F(1,18) = 2.25, p > .05. Therefore, there was no significant
difference in phobia scores between participants in the treatment group (Mean
= 6.25) versus the control group (Mean = 7.25). 80
There are two ways that we can run these simple effects analyses. In this
demo, I will show you both ways for the sake of demonstration. However, when
we conduct simple effects analyses in reality, we only choose ONE set and
never conduct both.
2nd way: we will be testing the simple effect of times at treatment and at control:
1. Before vs. after vs. follow-up @ TREATMENT
2. Before vs. after vs. follow-up @ CONTROL
81
Step 1: Hypotheses
Time @ TREATMENT:
H0 = There is no simple main effect of time @ TREATMENT
H1 = There is a simple main effect of time @ TREATMENT
Time @ CONTROL:
H0 = There is no simple main effect of time @ CONTROL
H1 = There is a simple main effect of time @ CONTROL
82
First, we need to understand whether the variable being tested, i.e., “time” in
this case, is a between-subjects or within-subjects variable.
“Time” is a within-subjects variable, therefore, we will conduct a one-way within-

subjects (i.e., repeated-measures) ANOVA comparing different levels of time
(i.e., before vs. after vs. follow-up) at each level of treatment (i.e., @
TREATMENT AND @ CONTROL).
For these analyses, we will need to calculate NEW error terms – we cannot get
them out of the omnibus ANOVA. To do this, we will treat each simple effect
analysis as its own repeated-measures ANOVA, and calculate the error term
from scratch each time (i.e., we do not borrow anything from the omnibus
83
table).
Let’s begin with Time @ TREATMENT:
H0 = There is no simple main effect of time @ TREATMENT
H1 = There is a simple main effect of time @ TREATMENT
If it helps, you can break down the dataset into two separate analyses:
1 Treatment 8 4 6
2 Treatment 9 4 7
3 Treatment 6 3 5
4 Treatment 7 4 7
Subject Group New GM Before After Follow-Up Subject Means

1 6
2 6.67
Treatment 5.83 7.5 3.75 6.25
3 4.67
4 6 84
𝟐𝟐
𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = � x − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = (8 − 5.83)2 +(9 − 5.83)2 +(6 − 5.83)2 +(7 − 5.83)2 +(4 − 5.83)2
+(4 − 5.83)2 +(3 − 5.83)2 +(4 − 5.83)2 +(6 − 5.83)2 +(7 − 5.83)2 +(5 − 5.83)2 +(7 − 5.83)2
= 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔
𝟐𝟐
𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 = k � 𝑥𝑥𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
̅ − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺
= 3 (6 − 5.83)2 +(6.67 − 5.83)2 +(4.67 − 5.83)2 +(6 − 5.83)2 = 𝟔𝟔. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑

𝟐𝟐
𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = n � 𝑥𝑥̅ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺
= 4 (7.5 − 5.83)2 +(3.75 − 5.83)2 +(6.25 − 5.83)2 = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 − 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 − 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 37.67 − 6.33 − 29.17 = 𝟐𝟐. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
85
Degrees of freedom:
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝑁𝑁 − 1 = 12 − 1 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 = 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 − 1 = 4 − 1 = 𝟑𝟑
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝑘𝑘 − 1 = 3 − 1 = 𝟐𝟐
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = 𝑁𝑁 − 𝑘𝑘 − 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + 12 − 4 − 3 + 1 = 𝟔𝟔
MS:
𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 29.17
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = = 14.58
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 2
𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = 2.17
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = = .36
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = 6
F:
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 14.58
𝑭𝑭 = = = 40.38 86
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 .36
Source table:
Subject 6.33 3
Time @ TREATMENT 29.17 2 14.58 40.38 5.14
Error 2.17 6 .36
Total 37.67 11
Conclusion: There is a simple main effect of time for people in the treatment
group, F(2,6) = 40.51, p < .05. Multiple comparisons are necessary to
determine which of the time points (i.e., before, after, and follow-up) are
significantly different. 87
Multiple Comparisons
Given that no a priori hypotheses were stated, we will run post-hoc tests.
However, the issue is that given that the time variable is within-subjects in
nature, we will need to re-calculate the error term again for each of the three t-
tests we will run. The reason for this is because the MS error term calculated in
the simple effects ANOVA source table (i.e., .36) contains all three groups.
What we will do: post-hoc t-tests (we will use paired-samples t-tests with
Bonferroni correction, i.e., Dunn’s t table).
Also: we need to calculate difference scores first, then calculate t. calculating

the difference scores will not be demonstrated here – for a refresher, please
refer to the B07 slides.
88
1. Before vs. After (@ Treatment)
𝐷𝐷 − 0 3.75 − 0
𝑡𝑡 = 𝑠𝑠 = = 7.83
𝐷𝐷 .9574
𝑁𝑁𝐷𝐷 4
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐷𝐷 − 1 = 4 − 1 = 3
Given that 3 does not appear in Dunn’s table, we use the closest value (df = 5)
& we have 3 comparisons. Therefore, t critical = 3.53
Therefore, reject H0
89
1. Before vs. Follow-up (@ Treatment)
𝐷𝐷 − 0 1.25 − 0
𝑡𝑡 = 𝑠𝑠 = = 2.61
𝐷𝐷 .9574
𝑁𝑁𝐷𝐷 4
Therefore, fail to reject H0

90
1. After vs. Follow-up (@ Treatment)
𝐷𝐷 − 0 2.50 − 0
𝑡𝑡 = 𝑠𝑠 = = 8.66
𝐷𝐷 .9574
𝑁𝑁𝐷𝐷 4
Therefore, reject H0
91
Conclusion
Phobia scores were significantly lower immediately after receiving treatment

(Mean = 3.75) than scores before the treatment (Mean = 7.5) and at the follow-
up (Mean = 6.25). There was, however, no significant difference between the
phobia scores before the treatment and at the follow-up, suggesting that the
treatment loses its effectiveness at lowering phobia scores over time.
But wait! We’re still not done! This was only time @ TREATMENT! We still
have to analyze the simple effect of time @ CONTROL!
92
Now we are calculating Time @ CONTROL:
H0 = There is no simple main effect of time @ CONTROL
H1 = There is a simple main effect of time @ CONTROL
If it helps, you can break down the dataset into two separate analyses:
5 Control 9 8 7
6 Control 7 7 8
7 Control 7 6 7
8 Control 6 7 7
Subject Group New GM Before After Follow-Up Subject Means

5 8
6 7.33
Control 7.17 7.25 7 7.25
7 6.67
8 6.67 93
𝟐𝟐
𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = � x − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = (9 − 7.17)2 +(8 − 7.17)2 +(7 − 7.17)2 +(7 − 7.17)2 +(7 − 7.17)2
+(8 − 7.17)2 +(7 − 7.17)2 +(6 − 7.17)2 +(7 − 7.17)2 +(6 − 7.17)2 +(7 − 7.17)2 +(7 − 7.17)2
= 𝟕𝟕. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔
𝟐𝟐
𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 = k � 𝑥𝑥𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
̅ − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺
= 3 (8 − 7.17)2 +(7.33 − 7.17)2 +(6.67 − 7.17)2 +(6 − 7.17)2 = 𝟑𝟑. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔

𝟐𝟐
𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = n � 𝑥𝑥̅ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺
= 4 (7.25 − 7.17)2 +(7 − 7.17)2 +(7.25 − 7.17)2 =. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 − 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 − 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 = 7.67 − 3.67 − .17 = 𝟑𝟑. 𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖
94
Degrees of freedom:
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝑁𝑁 − 1 = 12 − 1 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 = 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 − 1 = 4 − 1 = 𝟑𝟑 Same as the 1st way
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝑘𝑘 − 1 = 3 − 1 = 𝟐𝟐
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = 𝑁𝑁 − 𝑘𝑘 − 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + 12 − 4 − 3 + 1 = 𝟔𝟔
MS:
𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 = .17
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = = .08
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 = 2
𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = 3.83
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = = .64
𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = 6
F:
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 .08
𝑭𝑭 = = = .13 95
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 .64
Source table:
Subject 3.67 3
Time @ CONTROL .17 2 .08 .13 5.14
Error 3.83 6 .64
Total 7.67 11
Conclusion: There is no a simple main effect of time for people in the control
group, F(2,6) = .13, p < .05. Multiple comparisons are not necessary to
determine which of the time points (i.e., before, after, and follow-up) are
significantly different because there are no significant differences. 96
Thank You!
Note about Distribution of Course
Materials
Lectures and lecture materials are the intellectual
property of the professor for PSYC08 at the University
of Toronto. You may not share these materials with anyone
not enrolled in this course or post them on the Internet.

Lecture 10 - Factorial ANOVA &amp; Mixed ANOVA - 1 Slide Per Page

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Lecture 10 - Factorial ANOVA &amp; Mixed ANOVA - 1 Slide Per Page

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture 10 - Factorial ANOVA &amp; Mixed ANOVA - 1 Slide Per Page

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Announcements

Submitting the Assignment

• How to submit the assignment: Modules  Homework & Assignment

1 sample mean 2 sample >2 sample

How many IV’s?

Are the samples

1 sample mean 2 sample >2 sample

How many IV’s?

Are the samples Are the samples in each IV

DV: dating interest

Effect of Participants’ and Dating Profiles’ Smoking Status on Dating Interest

Error bars are standard errors. 8

Column Means 4.5 4 GM = 4.25 10

Treatment 𝑛𝑛 � 𝑥𝑥̅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐

Factor A 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 � 𝑥𝑥̅𝑟𝑟 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐

Factor B 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 � 𝑥𝑥̅𝑐𝑐 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐

AxB 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵 (𝑘𝑘𝑟𝑟 − 1)(𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 − 1)

Error � 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥̅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝟐𝟐

Total � 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝟐𝟐

Effect of Participants’ and Dating Profiles’ Smoking Status on Dating Interest

Error bars are standard errors.

But where is the difference?! 13

What do we do if the interaction is significant?

Factor B: Participants’ Smoking Status

Factor B: Participants’ Smoking Status

Smokers X X Calculate the

Error (Omnibus ANOVA) -

From omnibus ANOVA 19

New GM’s: 4.5 4 20

Profile @ smoker participants 2.5 1 2.5 3.21

Profile @ non-smoker participants 10 1 10 12.82

Error (Omnibus ANOVA) 12.5 16 .78

𝐹𝐹𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 1,16 = 4.49

For post hoc analyses, we conducted simple effects tests comparing

1 sample mean 2 sample >2 sample

How many IV’s?

Are the samples Are the samples in each IV

All Some Indep. All

What type of study design is this?

What is the DV?

What type of study design is this?

What is the DV?

A two-way mixed-design ANOVA means that we have one of each type of

Due to this, we need to adjust our calculations slightly. Basically, we are

The descriptive statistics are the same: n, means, 𝑠𝑠 2 , SEM

 The dependent variable is on a ratio or interval scale of measurement and

𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = μ + 𝜏𝜏𝑔𝑔 + 𝜏𝜏𝑗𝑗 + 𝜏𝜏𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 + π𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + ℇ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖

μ = population 𝜏𝜏𝑗𝑗 = treatment π𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = subject’s

To estimate the structural model for each score:

𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = μ + 𝜏𝜏𝑔𝑔 + 𝜏𝜏𝑗𝑗 + 𝜏𝜏𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 + π𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + ℇ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖

𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = GM + 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 + 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗̅ − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 + 𝑥𝑥𝑔𝑔𝑗𝑗

Rearrange the model by subtracting GM on both sides to remove its effect:

(𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺) = 𝑥𝑥̅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 + 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗̅ − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 + 𝑥𝑥𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔

Total Group Effect Condition Interaction Effect Subject Effect Error

BETWEEN + WITHIN = TOTAL 38

(BS IV) + (BS Error) = BETWEEN 39

(WS IV) + (BS x WS) + (WS Error) = WITHIN 40

(BS IV) + (WS IV) + (BS x WS) = CELLS (or TREATMENT) 41

Lecture 10 - Factorial ANOVA & Mixed ANOVA - 1 Slide Per Page

Lecture 10 - Factorial ANOVA & Mixed ANOVA - 1 Slide Per Page

Lecture 10 - Factorial ANOVA & Mixed ANOVA - 1 Slide Per Page