Table 1
Results as a function of the presence versus absence of a manipulation check.
| Questionsa | Without MC (n = 49) | With MC (n = 51) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M (SD) | M (SD) | |||||||
| 1. | With which degree of certainty would you say that the sample’s size is sufficient to test the researcher’s hypothesis? | 5.84 (2.37) | 6.92 (2.02) | |||||
| 2. | With which degree of certainty would you say that the source’s sympathy created a more favorable evaluation of the message’s content? | 4.53 (2.06) | 5.12 (2.03) | |||||
| Without: MC (n = 49) | With: MC (n = 51) | |||||||
| Yes/No questions | Answer Yes | Answer No | Answer Yes | Answer No | ||||
| % | % | % | % | |||||
| 3. | Does this study contain all the methodological precautions to conclude that the source’s sympathy created a more favorable evaluation of the message content? | 14.29 | 83.67 | 21.15 | 76.92 | |||
| 4. | Would you accept this communication in a congress’ program? | 85.71 | 14.29 | 80.77 | 17.31 | |||
| 5. | Does the addition/presence of a MC allow concluding that the source’s sympathy created a more favorable evaluation of the message content? | 71.43 | 26.53 | 40.38 | 53.85 | |||
| 6. | In your opinion, is a MC necessary in a well-designed social psychology lab experiment? | 79.59 | 18.37 | 76.92 | 17.31 | |||
| 7. | In your opinion, would the absence of the MC constitute a flaw? | 61.22 | 38.78 | 50.00 | 48.08 | |||
| 8. | In your opinion, is a MC necessary for the causality relation between an IV and a DV? | 51.02 | 48.98 | 40.38 | 59.62 | |||
| 9. | In your opinion, if a researcher wants to test a mediation hypothesis, is a measure of the mediator between the IV and the DV necessary? | 77.55 | 16.33 | 75.00 | 21.15 | |||
[i] a Ratings on 10-point scales (1: not at all certain; 10: completely certain). Items appear in the order of presentation. Here we report estimations per condition for filler items (1, 3, and 4) and items assessing general view of MC (6–9).