ArticleCritique: Factorial ANOVA
ArticleCritique: Factorial ANOVA
Thearticle aimed to outline the findings of a study carried out toascertain the various assumptions that normally push leaders toexaggerate more on the goals of their groups compared to non-leaders(Hoyt, Price, & Emrick, 2010). The study also aimed to provewhether leaders use the exaggeration as a means of going against thesocially accepted ways of doing things that are based on morality soas to ensure that the goals that they have set are achievable.
Thestudy was based upon the following research questions Whether peoplehave a view that the goals of their groups are more vital thanaverage, whether the biases that exist in the formulation of groupgoals are more pronounced among the leaders compared to other groupmembers and lastly, whether there is any form of connection betweenthe beliefs on justification for using unethical behavior in thegroup goals and the biases that exist
Hypothesis1: Participantswill show more-important-than-average results with respect to thegoals of the group. This involves whether the participants willdepict the effects that are way above the normal in terms ofachieving the goals of the group. An ANOVA test was used. (Hoytet al., 2010)
Hypothesis2: Participants will show more-important-than-average results andleaders will depict a stronger MITA effect. This involves whether theparticipants will overshadow the leaders in terms of theirperformance. The hypothesis was tested using ANOVA
Hypothesis3: Participants will believe they are more justified than others inincluding unethical behavior so as to achieve group goals. Someparticipants could be more geared towards having unethical practicescompared to others. AnANOVA test was used to test the hypothesis.
Method The study applies the use of various methods. One of themis the descriptive study where a sample size of 56 students from theUniversity of Richmond was chosen to participate. The fixed variablesfor the study includes sex while the dependent variables were theimportanceof the goals of each organization and the scale of goal importance.The second study was also descriptive where 170 students from theUniversity of North Carolina were chosen to form part of the samplesize. The fixed variable was sex while the dependent variablesincluded the importance of the goals. The third study included 91undergraduate students from the University of Richmond who formed thesample size. Sex was also the fixed variable while the importance ofthe goal and justification assessment formed the dependent variables.In all the three studies, data was collected using structured andsemi-structured questionnaires.DataAnalysis
Inthe first hypothesis, an ANOVA test was conducted, and the p-value of0.00 was less than 0.44 which showed that participants felt that thegoals of their groups were more significant to those of others. Thesecond hypothesis also applied to use of ANOVA, where the P-valueobtained (0.01) was less than 0.06 showing that leaders felt that thegoals of their groups were significantly important. The thirdhypothesis was tested by the use of ANOVA. A p-value of 0.019 wasless than 0.03 showing that there was no significant differencebetween the ratings of leaders and non-leaders regarding theimportance of the group goals.Critiquethe results of the study,
Inregards to the statistical tests that were applied, the results wereappropriate in establishing the conclusions (Ryan,Coughlan, & Cronin, 2007).However, a bias was used in that only university students werepreferred for the study. Future studies need to include people fromdifferent backgrounds so as to provide a more reliable outcome.
Thefindings clearly show that group leaders felt that they were morejustified to engage in unethical behavior so as to attain the goalsof the group. The findings also showed that the higher the groupgoals were, as evaluated by the group leaders, the higher the chanceof bias.
Hoyt,C. L., Price, T. L., & Emrick, A. E. (2010). Leadership and themore-important-than-average effect: Overestimation of group goals andthe justification of unethical behavior. Leadership, 6, 391-407. doi:10.1177/1742715010379309
Ryan,F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2007). Step-by-step guide tocritiquing research. Part 2: qualitative research. Britishjournal of nursing, 16(12),738-745.