Merge overleaf-2024-06-08-2256 into main

writing/inferences-from-causal-attribution.tex

@@ -105,7 +105,17 @@ \subsubsection{Participants}
 
 \subsection{Results}
 
-Figure \ref{fig:resultsStudy1} displays the results. We observed a main effect of outcome valence [...]. There was also an effect of structure for inferences in the neutral condition, but not for the other levels of outcome valence.
+Figure \ref{fig:resultsStudy1} displays the results. An analysis of variance revealed a main effect of outcome valence, F(2, 238) = 40.1, p < .001, a main effect of structure, F(1, 238) = 5.4, p = .02, as well as an interaction between structure and outcome valence, F(2, 238) = 3.34, p =. 04.
+
+Follow-up Tukey HSD tests revealed the following patterns. Participants were more likely to infer that the cause is norm-violating in the unpleasant condition compared to the neutral and pleasant condition, p < .001. Participants were also more likely to infer that the cause is norm-violating in the neutral compared to the pleasant condition, p = .001.
+
+Causal structure only had a significant effect in the neutral condition, where participants in the conjunctive condition gave higher ratings than in the disjunctive condition, p = .04 (corrected for multiple comparisons). Ratings did not differ by causal structure in the unpleasant condition, p = .98, or in the pleasant condition, p = .98.
+
+Next we tested whether ratings in a given condition were significantly different from the midpoint of the scale (4). Ratings in the unpleasant condition were significantly higher than 4, M = 5.82, t(77) = 9.6, p < .001; while ratings in the pleasant condition were significantly lower than 4, M = 3.13, t(81) = -3.86, p < .001. In the neutral valence condition, ratings in the conjunctive structure were significantly higher than 4, M = 4.82, t(38)=2.52, p =.02, while ratings in the disjunctive structure were non-significantly lower than 4, M = 3.6, t(44) = -1.49, p = .14.
+
+
+
+
 
 \begin{figure}[ht]
 \begin{center}