Results

Figure 1 shows the table of results I’ve got for participants in the both conditions. The maximum score for evaluation of each characteristics was eight, the minimum was one (A – physical appearance, M – mannerism, IC – intellectual competence).

Figure 2 is a column graph showing the mean, median and standard deviation for the participants in the both conditions. It can be seen from the Figure 2 that the mean number of points which were given in overall to the teacher in Condition A was 6,5 and in Condition B it the mean number was only 4,1 points. This means that participants evaluated the same target higher in overall its characteristics when he showed attractive behavior rather than a less-attractive one. The standard deviation for Condition A was 0.5864 and for Condition B it was 0.3502. This means that there was a greater dispersal in Condition A than in Condition B.

Figure 1: Table of results from the Answer Sheets

Figure 2: Descriptive statistics for conditions A and B

Blue – Condition A

Red – Condition B

To test the significance of the results, a Mann-Whitney U test was used because it was an independent measures design and was a non-parametric test. It was one tailed because a direction for the results was predicted. The number of participants was 12 and the critical value at 0.01% is 3. Therefore, as U=0, U<3 is true and the results were highly significant (Appendix 7). The probability of getting these results by chance or random error was 0.01%. This means that the null hypothesis can be rejected and the research hypothesis accepted.

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 908