Rationale

Media Priming Theory suggests that mentally processing and consuming certain media can influence seemingly unrelated attitudes and behaviors and make you act and think in certain ways, even when you’re unaware it’s happening. Though possible, priming effects are typically short-lived, and people often can resist them.

Considering this theory, depending on what type of priming media is consumed, whether a “Violent game,” “Nonviolent game,” or “Art project,” could influence how people act afterward.

Hypothesis

The proportion of students who engage in an “aggressive act,” either verbal (taunting, threatening, etc.) or physical (pushing, grabbing, etc.) will differ depending on the type of priming media they consume.

Variable & method

A total of 135 fifth-graders were randomly assigned into three groups of 45. 30 minutes prior to recess, teachers assigned one group to complete a math assignment called “Exponent Fighter” that involved the students’ on-screen character punching their computer counterpart after every single correct answer. Every time the student answered incorrectly, the opposite occurred. The student would win the game by landing more punches than the computer.

The second group played a similar game called “Exponent Builder” in which for every correct answer, the students’ on-screen character could add a block to jump on to reach an otherwise-unreachable platform. The student would win the game by acquiring enough building blocks.

The third and final group completed an art lesson that involved using a color wheel to select a color scheme for an abstract design produced using paint and pre-cut stensils.

After the 30 minutes were up, all students were dismissed to the playground for a 30-minutes recess. A trained team of researchers watched the students play for those 30 minutes and recorded the amount of time, in minutes, each student spent engaged in “aggressive acts” whether verbal (taunting, threatening, etc.) or physical (pushing, grabbing, etc.). Behaviors severe enough to violate school policy were not allowed, and such instances were dealt with accordingly.

The dependent variable in this analysis is the continuous measure of the time spent, in minutes, students engaged in aggressive acts. The independent variable in this analysis is the categorical measure of which lesson the student has completed in the 30 minutes before recess. Possible values include “Violent game” if the student played “Exponent Fighter,” “Nonviolent game” if the student had played “Exponent Builder,” and “Art project” if the student had completed the art project.

A One-way ANOVA test was conducted to examine whether the association between the time engaging in aggressive acts and priming media consumed was statistically significant.

Results & discussion

The graph and tables below summarize the association between the dependent and the independent variables. The differences between each group are shown as well.

Descriptive Statistics by Group
IV count mean sd min max
Art project 45 4.96 1.04 2.3 7.3
Nonviolent game 45 5.86 1.06 3.6 8.4
Violent game 45 10.75 1.00 8.5 12.8
Shapiro-Wilk Normality Test by Group
IV W_statistic p_value
Art project 0.99 0.923
Nonviolent game 0.98 0.594
Violent game 0.98 0.699
Note. If any p-value figures are 0.05 or less, if one or more group distributions appear non-normal, and any group sizes are less than 40, consider using the Kruskal-Wallis and Post-hoc Dunn’s Test results instead of the ANOVA and Tukey HSD Post-hoc results.
ANOVA Test Results
Statistic df df_resid p_value
420.86 2 87.94717 < .001
Tukey HSD Post-hoc Results
Comparison diff lwr upr p adj
Nonviolent game-Art project 0.90 0.38 1.42 < .001
Violent game-Art project 5.79 5.27 6.30 < .001
Violent game-Nonviolent game 4.89 4.37 5.40 < .001

The results supported the hypothesis. The ANOVA test results showed that the results were statistically significant with a P value of less that 0.01, and the Tukey HSD Post-hoc results show all three pairs are statistically different. The biggest difference is between the Violent game and the Art project (5.79).

Code

# ============================================================
#  Setup: Install and Load Required Packages
# ============================================================
if (!require("tidyverse")) install.packages("tidyverse")
if (!require("gt")) install.packages("gt")
if (!require("gtExtras")) install.packages("gtExtras")
if (!require("FSA")) install.packages("FSA")
if (!require("plotly")) install.packages("plotly")

library(tidyverse)
library(gt)
library(gtExtras)
library(FSA)
library(plotly)

options(scipen = 999) # suppress scientific notation

# ============================================================
#  Step 1: Load Data
# ============================================================
mydata <- read.csv("Priming.csv") # <-- Edit YOURFILENAME.csv

# Specify DV and IV (edit column names here)
mydata$DV <- mydata$Value
mydata$IV <- mydata$Group

# ============================================================
#  Step 2: Visualize Group Distributions (Interactive)
# ============================================================
# Compute group means
group_means <- mydata %>%
  group_by(IV) %>%
  summarise(mean_value = mean(DV), .groups = "drop")

# Interactive plot (boxplot + group means)
box_plot <- plot_ly() %>%
  # Boxplot trace
  add_trace(
    data = mydata,
    x = ~IV, y = ~DV,
    type = "box",
    boxpoints = "outliers",   # only applies here
    marker = list(color = "red", size = 4),  # outlier style
    line = list(color = "black"),
    fillcolor = "royalblue",
    name = ""
  ) %>%
  # Group means (diamonds)
  add_trace(
    data = group_means,
    x = ~IV, y = ~mean_value,
    type = "scatter", mode = "markers",
    marker = list(
      symbol = "diamond", size = 9,
      color = "black", line = list(color = "white", width = 1)
    ),
    text = ~paste0("Mean = ", round(mean_value, 2)),
    hoverinfo = "text",
    name = "Group Mean"
  ) %>%
  layout(
    title = "Interactive Group Distributions with Means",
    xaxis = list(title = "Independent Variable (IV)"),
    yaxis = list(title = "Dependent Variable (DV)"),
    showlegend = FALSE
  )

# ============================================================
#  Step 3: Descriptive Statistics by Group
# ============================================================
desc_stats <- mydata %>%
  group_by(IV) %>%
  summarise(
    count = n(),
    mean = mean(DV, na.rm = TRUE),
    sd   = sd(DV, na.rm = TRUE),
    min  = min(DV, na.rm = TRUE),
    max  = max(DV, na.rm = TRUE)
  )

desc_table <- desc_stats %>%
  mutate(across(where(is.numeric), ~round(.x, 2))) %>%
  gt() %>%
  gt_theme_538() %>%
  tab_header(title = "Descriptive Statistics by Group")

# ============================================================
#  Step 4: Test Normality (Shapiro-Wilk)
# ============================================================
shapiro_results <- mydata %>%
  group_by(IV) %>%
  summarise(
    W_statistic = shapiro.test(DV)$statistic,
    p_value = shapiro.test(DV)$p.value
  )

shapiro_table <- shapiro_results %>%
  mutate(
    W_statistic = round(W_statistic, 2),
    p_value = ifelse(p_value < .001, "< .001", sprintf("%.3f", p_value))
  ) %>%
  gt() %>%
  gt_theme_538() %>%
  tab_header(title = "Shapiro-Wilk Normality Test by Group") %>%
  tab_source_note(
    source_note = "Note. If any p-value figures are 0.05 or less, if one or more group distributions appear non-normal, and any group sizes are less than 40, consider using the Kruskal-Wallis and Post-hoc Dunn’s Test results instead of the ANOVA and Tukey HSD Post-hoc results."
  )

# ============================================================
#  Step 5a: Non-Parametric Test (Kruskal-Wallis + Dunn)
# ============================================================
kruskal_res <- kruskal.test(DV ~ IV, data = mydata)

kruskal_table <- data.frame(
  Statistic = round(kruskal_res$statistic, 2),
  df = kruskal_res$parameter,
  p_value = ifelse(kruskal_res$p.value < .001, "< .001",
                   sprintf("%.3f", kruskal_res$p.value))
) %>%
  gt() %>%
  gt_theme_538() %>%
  tab_header(title = "Kruskal-Wallis Test Results")

dunn_res <- dunnTest(DV ~ IV, data = mydata, method = "bonferroni")$res

dunn_table <- dunn_res %>%
  mutate(
    Z = round(Z, 2),
    P.unadj = ifelse(P.unadj < .001, "< .001", sprintf("%.3f", P.unadj)),
    P.adj   = ifelse(P.adj < .001, "< .001", sprintf("%.3f", P.adj))
  ) %>%
  gt() %>%
  gt_theme_538() %>%
  tab_header(title = "Post-hoc Dunn’s Test Results")

# ============================================================
#  Step 5b: Parametric Test (ANOVA + Tukey)
# ============================================================
anova_res <- oneway.test(DV ~ IV, data = mydata, var.equal = FALSE)

anova_table <- data.frame(
  Statistic = round(anova_res$statistic, 2),
  df = anova_res$parameter[1],
  df_resid = anova_res$parameter[2],
  p_value = ifelse(anova_res$p.value < .001, "< .001",
                   sprintf("%.3f", anova_res$p.value))
) %>%
  gt() %>%
  gt_theme_538() %>%
  tab_header(title = "ANOVA Test Results")

anova_model <- aov(DV ~ IV, data = mydata)
tukey_res <- TukeyHSD(anova_model)$IV %>% as.data.frame()

tukey_table <- tukey_res %>%
  rownames_to_column("Comparison") %>%
  mutate(
    diff = round(diff, 2),
    lwr = round(lwr, 2),
    upr = round(upr, 2),
    `p adj` = ifelse(`p adj` < .001, "< .001", sprintf("%.3f", `p adj`))
  ) %>%
  gt() %>%
  gt_theme_538() %>%
  tab_header(title = "Tukey HSD Post-hoc Results")

# ============================================================
#  Step 6: Display Key Results
# ============================================================
# Interactive box plot
box_plot

# Tables
desc_table
shapiro_table
anova_table
tukey_table
kruskal_table
dunn_table