Article"Cognitive costs of exposure to racial prejudice"by Salvatore&Shelton,ConsultFig1Explain major finding reportedby author?Didresults support
Consult Fig 1 Explain major finding reported by authors?Did results support their predictions
2 Answers | Add Yours
sorry I am new to this
Yes main effects for the stroop part were significant
In fig i, good performance is a shorter time and an average performance (at a guess) was about 87mS. Poor performance is a greater time.
Black (sic) particpnats are used to scanning the social environment for racist remarks, but ambiguious ones need more cognitive resources to evaluate racist or not, this casued a worse performance for them (122 mS). Whites hardly ever experience prjudice and are unaffected by ambigious events as it 'goes over their heads'. A blatent event would be unexpected and consume more of their cogbitive resources so there performence in that condition would be worse (130mS)
The chart is a bar chart with error bars (the sticks at the top. There is always random (or even systematic) error in measurments and these sticks show the range of scores that the TRUE score lies. So for whites the score was 130mS but that is mixed in with random error the real score is between approx 120 -140 mS. It is ok in this case as the error bars dont overlap, if they do you cannot be sure that the true scores are really the same!. The name for this range of scores is called the confidence interval.
We’ve answered 317,574 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question