TABLE 11-1
Psychologists have found that people are generally reluctant to transmit bad news to their peers. This phenomenon has been termed the "MUM effect." To investigate the cause of the MUM effect, 40 undergraduates at Duke University participated in an experiment. Each subject was asked to administer an IQ test to another student and then provide the test taker with his or her percentile score. Unknown to the subject, the test taker was a bogus student who was working with the researchers. The experimenters manipulated two factors: subject visibility and success of test taker, each at two levels. Subject visibility was either visible or not visible to the test taker. Success of the test taker was either top 20% or bottom 20%. Ten subjects were randomly assigned to each of the 2 x 2 = 4 experimental conditions, then the time (in seconds) between the end of the test and the delivery of the percentile score from the subject to the test taker was measured. (This variable is called the latency to feedback.) The data were subjected to appropriate analyses with the following results.

-Referring to Table 11-1, in the context of this study, interpret the statement: "Subject visibility and test taker success interact."
A) The difference between the mean feedback time for visible and nonvisible subjects depends on the success of the test taker.
B) The difference between the mean feedback time for test takers scoring in the top 20% and bottom 20% depends on the visibility of the subject.
C) The relationship between feedback time and subject visibility depends on the success of the test taker.
D) All of the above are correct interpretations.

Question

TABLE 11-1
Psychologists have found that people are generally reluctant to transmit bad news to their peers. This phenomenon has been termed the "MUM effect." To investigate the cause of the MUM effect, 40 undergraduates at Duke University participated in an experiment. Each subject was asked to administer an IQ test to another student and then provide the test taker with his or her percentile score. Unknown to the subject, the test taker was a bogus student who was working with the researchers. The experimenters manipulated two factors: subject visibility and success of test taker, each at two levels. Subject visibility was either visible or not visible to the test taker. Success of the test taker was either top 20% or bottom 20%. Ten subjects were randomly assigned to each of the 2 x 2 = 4 experimental conditions, then the time (in seconds) between the end of the test and the delivery of the percentile score from the subject to the test taker was measured. (This variable is called the latency to feedback.) The data were subjected to appropriate analyses with the following results.
 
-Referring to Table 11-1, in the context of this study, interpret the statement: "Subject visibility and test taker success interact."
A) The difference between the mean feedback time for visible and nonvisible subjects depends on the success of the test taker. 
B) The difference between the mean feedback time for test takers scoring in the top 20% and bottom 20% depends on the visibility of the subject. 
C) The relationship between feedback time and subject visibility depends on the success of the test taker. 
D) All of the above are correct interpretations.

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The statement suggests that there is an interaction effect, meaning that the relationship between two variables (subject visibility and feedback time) is influenced by a third variable (test taker success). All options describe scenarios where the interaction between these variables is considered.

TABLE 11-1 Psychologists Have Found That People Are Generally Reluctant to Transmit