Article doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.01.013
For this article please focus on findings reported for Experiment 1 in Section 2.2. Specifically, you should attempt to reproduce all descriptive and inferential analyses reported in the text below and associated tables/figures:
2.2. Results and discussion
Participants were more likely to say that an agent ought to keep a promise they can’t keep in the high blame condition (M = 8.90, SD = 39.16) than in the low blame condition (M = −17.84, SD = 33.31), t(79) = −4.62, p < 0.001, d = 0.74. Importantly, the judgments in the high blame condition were significantly above the midpoint, t(79) = 2.03, p = 0.045, d = 0.65. On the whole, 31% of participants in the low blame condition and 60% of subjects in the high blame condition gave answers above the midpoint. To check for order effects, we compared the ratings of participants who read low blame first (n = 42) and high blame first. There were no significant order effects for whether participants read low blame first (M = −22.05, SD = 32.89) or second (M = −13.18, SD = 33.59; p = .24) or high blame first (M = 9.57, SD = 40.96) or second (M = 8.16, SD = 37.61; p = .87).
Note Make sure to use the original article for additional context and information about any necessary pre-processing steps. Also check for additional supplementary materials that may provide supporting documentation for analysis procedures.