Manipulation check Sample Clauses

Manipulation check. We checked the effectiveness of the information source manipulation in the same way as in Study 4.1.
View SourceView Similar (3)
Manipulation check. Confirming that the manipulation was successful, participants in the scarcity condition reported a stronger experience of financial scarcity (n = 31, M = 5.98, SD = 0.89) compared to participants in the abundance condition (n = 31, M = 2.82, SD = 1.07, t[57.9] = 12.63, p < .001, g = 3.21).
View SourceView Similar (3)
Manipulation check. To check the effectiveness of the manipulation and to test the implication of the motivational information, we used two subscales (one for the intrinsic and one for the extrinsic information condition). Both subscales consisted of four items with a 7-point Likert scale (‘is very unlike me’ versus ‘is very like me’). A principal component analysis (PCA) on the intrinsic motivation manipulation check (‘I believe this task will be useful when I work on other school assignments and when reading leisure texts’: = .81) for the data in experiment one showed a good fit for
View SourceView Similar (2)
Manipulation check the manipulation check consists of 3 questions included in the medical decision-making task that talk about the complexity of the medical scenario, participant’s comfort level interacting with the patient, and severity of symptoms (see Appendix B). Participants are asked to rate each question on a 5 point scale. An example question includes “how complex is the medical scenario?” with a 5 point scale of 1 not at all to 5 very complex. Pro-social Rating Scale. Confederates (rated verbal and non-verbal pro-social behavior) and coders (rated verbal pro-social behavior) were given a rating sheet and were asked to rate on a 5-point scale ranging from not at all (1) to very much (5) how warm and supportive the participant’s reactions are (see Appendix C1 and Appendix C2). Example statements include “the participant attended to the upset confederate” and “the participant verbally expressed that the confederate was cared for.” Coders and confederates were also given descriptions of certain behaviors to look for in each statement. For example, in the “the participant attended to the upset confederate” statement sample descriptions included “showing a look of concern” and “patted the confederate on the back.” If the participant showed one of the reaction descriptions listed underneath each statement they would get a 2 rating. If participants showed 2 reactions they received a 3 rating, and so forth. Participants received a 1 if no response listed was exhibited according to the coder and confederate. An additional item that stated, “the participant judges the confederate for his/her emotional reaction” was also removed from the study as it had no variability. Coders rated the participants on 5-items as the first item consisted of non-verbal behavior. Confederates were given a 6-item rating sheet. The coders and confederates were unaware of the participant’s attachment style, empathic levels and whether the participant received the empathy prime or not. As soon as the study ended, confederates rated the participant in the room by themselves to avoid influence by the co-investigator. Coders had the lab room with the audio recordings to
View Source
Manipulation check. Accountability Auditor Incentive
View Source

Related to Manipulation check

  • Market Manipulation Until the termination of this Agreement, the Company will not take, directly or indirectly, any action designed to or that would constitute or that might reasonably be expected to cause or result in, under the Exchange Act or otherwise, stabilization or manipulation in violation of the Act, Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder of the price of any security of the Company to facilitate the sale or resale of the Shares or otherwise violate any provision of Regulation M under the Exchange Act.

  • Manipulation of Price The Company has not, and to its knowledge no one acting on its behalf has: (i) taken, directly or indirectly, any action designed to cause or to result, or that could reasonably be expected to cause or result, in the stabilization or manipulation of the price of any security of the Company to facilitate the sale or resale of any of the Securities, (ii) sold, bid for, purchased, or paid any compensation for soliciting purchases of, any of the Securities, or (iii) paid or agreed to pay to any person any compensation for soliciting another to purchase any other securities of the Company.

  • No Stabilization or Manipulation The Company will not take, directly or indirectly, any action designed to or that would constitute or that might reasonably be expected to cause or result in, under the Exchange Act or otherwise, stabilization or manipulation of the price of any security of the Company to facilitate the sale or resale of the Securities.

  • Stabilization and Manipulation Neither the Adviser, the Administrator nor any of their respective partners, officers, affiliates or controlling persons has taken, directly or indirectly, any action designed, under the 1934 Act, to result in the stabilization or manipulation of the price of any security of the Company to facilitate the sale of the Securities in violation of any law, statute, regulation or rule applicable to the Adviser, the Administrator or any of their respective partners, officers, affiliates or controlling persons.

  • No Price Stabilization or Manipulation The Company has not taken and will not take, directly or indirectly, any action designed to, or that might be reasonably expected to cause or result in, stabilization or manipulation of the price of any securities of the Company to facilitate the sale or resale of the Offered Securities.