***Dr. Pruitt wanted to study the effect of scientific explanations on jury decisions. She randomly assigned participants to one of two samples. Everything the two samples experienced was identical except the testimony they heard explaining one aspect of the case. One group (sample) heard a basic explanation using language anyone could understand, whereas the other group heard an explanation that used scientific jargon that many of the jurors were not likely to understand fully, if at all.

Dr. Pruitt then asked participants to recommend a jail sentence for the defendant in the case. She wanted to determine whether the scientific explanation would cause jurors to recommend a different jail sentence than the basic explanation. Each participant's sentencing recommendation is listed in years in a chart below.***

1. Which is/are being used in this study?

a) One sample is being compared to a population whose mean in known, so a one-sample t test will be used to compare the conditions

b) Two independent samples are being compared, so an independent-samples t test will be used to compare the conditions

c) Two matched samples are being compared, so a dependent-samples t test will be used to compare the conditions

d) The same participants are experiencing both conditions, so a dependent-samples t test will be used to compare the conditions

2) State your ALTERNATIVE research hypothesis (this is a TWO-tailed test)

3) State your NULL research hypothesis

4) The first part of the alternative statistical hypothesis (H_A) for this experiment (before the comparator) is

a) _scientific - _basic

b) _{recommended sentence}

c) _basic

d) _scientific

e) _{recommended sentence}- _{recommended sentence}

5) The rest of the alternative statistical hypothesis should consist of

1. 0
2. = 0
3. 0
4. > 0
5. < 0
6. 0