15. Brockner and colleagues (2001) studied the effect of cultural values about the appropriateness of power differentials on how employees feel about having input to managers about important decisions. Their participants were business students in China (a culture in which power differentials are considered appropriate and normal), a “high power distance” culture, and in the United States, a “low power distance” culture. The students were asked to imagine that they were working in a company and had just been put under the direction of a new manager; they were then assigned to one of three conditions: (1) the new manager discouraged input from them (the low voice condition), (2) the new manager encouraged input from them (high voice), or (3) no information was given about the manager’s style (the control condition). They then had the students answer questions about how committed they would feel to the organization.

Here is how the researchers reported the results:

A two-factor ANOVA yielded a significant main effect of voice, F12, 2452 =

26.30, p 6 .001. As expected, participants responded less favorably in the low voice condition 1M = 2.932 than in the high voice condition 1M = 3.582.

The mean rating in the control condition 1M = 3.342 fell between these two extremes. Of greater importance, the interaction between culture and voice was also significant, F12, 2452 = 4.11, p 6 .02. . . . As can be seen in Table [18] the voice effect was more pronounced in the low power distance culture (the United States) than in the high power distance culture (the People’s Republic of China).

(p. 304)

Briefly describe the meaning of these results to a person who has never had a course in statistics. (Do not go into the computational details, just the basic logic of the pattern of means, the significant results, and issues of interpreting nonsignificant results.)