Hypothesis explanation

The principal objective is to demonstrate the difference of participants expectations before solving anagrams, and their feeling after the same exercise. We are going to manipulate their expectations adding three different levels, low expectation, medium expectation, and high expectation, and they have to solve ten anagrams, which only five of them have solution and the remaining five do not have a solution. In other words We have two basic predictions. First, when they were told to imagine the average participant solved 5 out of 10 anagrams, we predicted that if participants were told that most people solved 8 out of 10 anagrams (high expectation condition), then they would expect to feel less satisfied than participants who were told that most people solved 2 out of 10 anagrams (low expectation condition), with those participants who were told that most participants solve 5 out of 10 anagrams (middle expectation condition) falling in between the high and low expectation groups. However, for our second hypothesis, we predicted that there would be no differences in participant satisfaction between the high, low, and middle expectation conditions after participants completed the anagram task.

Significant finding: “Using Expectation Condition as our independent variable (High, Middle, or Low) and recall of how many anagrams participants were told the average person solves the event as the dependent variable, we saw a significant effect, X2(4)=122.97, p<.001. Most participants in the “High” condition recalled being told that the average person solves 8 out of 10 anagrams (80,5%); most participants in the “Middle” condition recalled being told that the average person solves 5 out of 10 anagrams (74.4%); and most participants in the “Low” condition recalled being told that the average person solves 2 out of 10 anagrams (82,90%). Cramer’s V was strong for this analysis. This indicates that participants saw our manipulation as intended. “See Table2.