As a research psychologist, you have been hired by Australia's Climate Council to conduct research into the factors that influence climate change action. Based on a review of the recent literature into science communication, you know that simply providing people with the facts about climate change has been ineffective in influencing acceptance of anthropogenic climate change and prompting behavioural action. Instead, you think that how the information is communicated (i.e., framed) will influence engagement with climate change. You want to investigate whether gain-framed or positive-framed messages (e.g., highlighting the benefits of behavioural change) are more (or less) effective in producing behavioural change than loss-framed or negative-framed messages (e.g., highlighting the negatives of behavioural inaction). You plan to design a study where you manipulate the different message frames for communicating climate change evidence, and the potential consequences or benefits of behavioural action or inaction. The dependent variable in this study is behavioural intention towards climate change action, measured using a 22-item likert-response style questionnaire that is summed to produce a mean score for each participant. Question Having checked that you met all the relevant assumptions of your mixed-design ANOVA, you run your analysis in SPSS and you find a significant interaction effect. For a two-way design, there will be two possible approaches to conducting the simple effects analysis. Briefly describe the two possible approaches, and then choose the one that best fits with the research question. Provide a brief justification of your choice