Priming Study Attitudes to Smoking - Lab Report Example

Lab Report on a Priming/Survey Study Attitudes towards Smoking al Affiliation INTRODUCTION In the world today there are different attitudes and notions that govern the way in which human beings relate with another as far as the concept and notion of smoking is concerned. This is to say and imply that there are people who are totally okay and comfortable with the concept of smoking and they do not really mind if smokers would be around them while doing their actions. On the other hand, there are others who do not like the very thought and notion of being around a person who is smoking (Banister, et al., 2001). There also exists another perspective and school of thought that in indifferent and unresponsive to the changes of whether a smoker does smoke or not. To begin with, there is a school of thought that is not adversely by the negative effects of smoking such as choking on the prospects of being around smokers. In most instances and scenarios, it would follow that these people are themselves smokers and therefore the notion of being around another smoker, doing it is not a big deal to them. In clinical terms, it is referred to as passive smoking, where person without the cigar or any other substance, inhales the secondary smoke emitted by the actual smoker. In all fairness and aspects, the person inhaling the secondary smoke from the tobacco of the smoker must be a smoker who does not mind about the negative effects involved therein. Empirical research and evidence have pointed to the direction that this kind of attitude exists because the concerned people do not mind smoking themselves, thus are less likely to complain about the effects of smoking. It is imperative and important to note and record that a person of such an attitude does not consider passive and secondary smoking as a negative externality, and instead consider it positive externality (Breakwell, Smith, & Wright, 2012). On the other hand, there is a school of thought and persons who consider smoking as wrong and are mostly affected by the negative effects of passive smoking. This is a group of people who are rubbed off in the wrong way of secondary and passive smoking. This is to imply that such people are aware and highly responsive relative to the aspect of smoking. The basic argument and line of thought and reasoning is that the people who oppose smoking consider it a negative externality because of the health risks that are associated with it. As a matter of fact and principle, the people involved in this line of thought oppose being passive smokers because of reasons such as passive smoking can cause complications. For instance heart diseases, lung cancer, pregnant women may miscarry, complications during birth, blood would become more sticky thus expose one to prospects of blood clotting which may result in stroke and heart disease (Coolican, 2014). Subsequently, there is another school of thought and reasoning in the population that is indifferent or totally unresponsive to the happenings and changes in the environment relative to smoking. This is to say that this line of thought and reasoning is not bothered by the changes that happen in the physical environment as far as smoking is concerned because they cannot enjoy or suffer from positive or negative externalities (McQueen & Knussen, 2014). It is practical and safe to assert and imply that animals such as birds are rarely affected by the happenings of smoking, such that they cannot be affected by the effects of smoking, or benefit from smoking. The result showed that withn respect to frequency distribution of the respondents to the study, 53 percent of them were female with male accounting for 47 percent. Hypothesis testing results evidenced that the Levene statistic test F(2,57) = 0.064, which is greater than the critical value (P>0.05), hence statistically insignificant. Further, there was no difference in prime attitude toward smoking between males and females. Tested under one-way ANOVA, it was established that the three priming conditions showed non-significant result with respect to the total scores, F (2, 57) = 0.56, P>0.05. RESEARCH METHODS SECTION Introduction This section outlines the research design for the study that offers an explanation on the type of data included in the study. The chapter further defines the research population and desired study sample. In addition, methods of data collection, analysis, and sampling techniques get discussed in details. Research Design This was considered as the blueprint to the study. It took into account the research questions, data collection, and analysis. This study adopted descriptive survey method as the preferred design. The choice of descriptive survey was founded on the fact that this study was both qualitative and quantitative (Banister, et al., 2001). Under this research design, data and relevant information got collected using standardized interview schedules and administered questionnaires. Descriptive survey was also preferred over other research designs because it provides an in-depth description of the phenomenon in the existing research setting (Coolican, 2014). Besides, descriptive survey research design was convenient for this study given that it is an economical method of collecting data for medium sized population. Population and Sample for the Study Population: Since this study focused on the different attitudes held by different groups about smoking, the participants got drawn from all sectors of the society, irrespective of their gender, race, ethnicity, age, and socio-economic status. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques: A total of sixty participants got involved in the study (N=60), of which 28 and 32 were males and females respectively. The respondents to the study were randomly selected. The sample selection process was dependent on the population size, cost, degree of precision, sample media, and homogeneity (McQueen & Knussen, 2014). Random sampling technique was preferred because it gave equal opportunities to all the participants to form the final sample to the study (Willig, 2013). Secondly, it was preferred on the ground that it is economical. Data Collection Methods This study relied on both primary and secondary data. Secondary data that entails already made available information pertaining to different attitudes towards smoking got collected from secondary journals, books, company websites, the internet, newspapers, among other secondary sources of data that are perceived reliable and credible (Heiman, 2002). On the other hand, primary data was collected through questionnaires and interview schedules. This method of data collection was preferred over the other approaches because it provides data that are more effective and reliable for the study (Coolican, 2014). Measures/Material Independent Variables: Gender and priming Metrial conditions Dependent Variables: Smoking Material/ Apparatus of the Survey The administered questionnaires had a total of 17 questions that focused on the subject of investigation; attitude held by the public about smoking. In addition, three priming pictorial arts got included in the survey in order to aid in understanding the differences in perception and attitude about smoking ranging from negative, neutral, to positive. Other key apparatus to the study included computers that were used in data recording, analysis, and presentation. Procedure The first procedure involved administering of questionnaires. Demographically, the participant got divided into three categories including age, occupation, and sex based on whether they are smokers or non-smokers. The degree of agreement or disagreement with the sample questions were measured in a five-scale rating. Data Analysis Since this study is qualitative and quantitative, inferential and descriptive statistics was used to analyze the collective data. Qualitative data collected in the study was specifically analyzed using grounded theory methods. Open coding was used to categorize and name the data, while selective coding was used to develop a more generalized framework to the study (Foster & Parker, 2007). On the other hand, quantitative data got analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 21. The relationship was presented using regression, correlation, measures of central tendency, and a two-way ANOVA. Besides, the data collected through questionnaires was classified on the basis of common attributes and then tallied to obtain statistical frequencies. The data was presented using tables, graphs, and chats. The research hypotheses got tested using analysis of variance model using t-statistics to determine the acceptance or rejection rule (Field, 2013). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Sex 1.00 Male 28 2.00 Female 32 PrimingMetrial 1.00 Positive 20 2.00 Netural 20 3.00 Negative 20 Frequency Distribution for Gender Sex/Gender Number of Respondents Male 28 Female 32 Withn respect to frequency distribution of the respondents to the study, 53 percent of them were female with male accounting for 47 percent. In terms of priming metrial, the distribution was even at 20 for each of the three categories. The percentage of positive, neutral, and negative stood at 33.333% each, an indication of a normal distribution. Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA A mean counter score for the attitude ranks got computed for all categories of participants and the outcome analysed with the helpe of a 3 x 2 ANOVA table. With respect to counter stereotyped attitude towards smoking, discriptive statistics revealed that all groups involved in the surevy showed similar mean scores. This was an indication that irrespective of prime conditions (negative, neutral, or positive), the variations in the average scores showed a statistically insignificant variations. Apart from the case of positive priming, women’s scores were relatively higher than that of men with posivity having the highest deviation from the central values (as tabulated below). Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Smoking Sex PrimingMetrial Mean Std. Deviation N Male Positive 59.6000 5.64112 10 Netural 54.6667 4.44410 9 Negative 59.2222 11.08803 9 Total 57.8929 7.61742 28 Female Positive 51.7000 13.67114 10 Netural 60.2727 10.46987 11 Negative 64.2727 9.77845 11 Total 58.9687 12.16946 32 Total Positive 55.6500 10.95577 20 Netural 57.7500 8.61379 20 Negative 62.0000 10.42770 20 Total 58.4667 10.23034 60 Notably, when considering these results, it is important to factor in Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variance which was statistically significant in this case. However, the differences in the prime conditions ranging from negative, neutral, to positive. This is statistically supported by the fact that F-statistics (2, 54) = 0.49 at 95% level of confidence. However, compared against men, females’ average scored were better than those of men at F (1, 54) = 5.2 with p0.05), hence statistically insignificant. Further, the result indicates that there was no difference in prime attitude toward smoking between males and females. Tested under one-way ANOVA, it was established that the three priming conditions showed non-significant result with respect to the total scores, F (2, 57) = 0.56, P>0.05. Profile Plots From this profile plots, it can be observed that generally, negative priming and attitude towards smoking had the highest mean scores both in males and females at 59.2222 and 64.2727 scores respectively. On the other hand, mean value for men with positive prime about smoking was higher than that of women at 59.6000 and 51.7000 respectively. With respect to neutrality on smoking, the scores stood at 60.2727 and 54.6667 for females and males respectively. References Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M. & Tindall, C. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods in Psychology: A Research Guide. Buckingham: Open University Press. Breakwell, G. M., Smith, J.A., & Wright, D.B. (2012). Research Methods in Psychology. London: Sage. Coolican, H. (2014). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology (6th edition). Oxford: Hodder Education. Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th edition). London: Sage. Foster, J., & Parker, I. (2007). Carrying out Investigations in Psychology: Methods and Statistics. Leicester: BPS Books. Heiman, G.W. (2002). Research Methods in Psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Howell, D.C. (1998). Fundamental Statistics for Behavioural Sciences. Cincinnati: South Western College Publishing. McQueen, R.A. & Knussen, C. (2014). Introduction to Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. London: Pearson Education. Smith, J. A. (2003). Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods. London: Sage. Willig, C. (2013). Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology. Berkshire: Open University Press. Read More