Analysis of Agreement on Healthy Food Statements: Psychology Report

This lab report examines the impact of source expertise on agreement with statements about healthy food habits. The study, conducted at a university, investigated whether individuals are more likely to agree with health-related statements when presented by an expert compared to a non-expert. The research involved 40 participants who responded to questionnaires based on different conditions, including one-sided and two-sided statements from both experts and non-experts. The data collected was analyzed using a Two-Way ANOVA test to assess the influence of the speaker and the arguments presented. The results indicated that statements from experts positively influenced attitudes towards health statements, while non-expert statements had the opposite effect. The study found that both the expertise of the speaker and the arguments presented are necessary for influencing agreement on health statements, rejecting the first two hypotheses and supporting the third. The report includes a detailed methodology, results, discussion, and references, providing a comprehensive analysis of the factors affecting agreement with health-related information.

Lab Report
How People Agree on Statements about Healthy Food
Student Name:
Student ID:
Course Name:
Course ID:
Faculty Name:
University Name:

Abstract
The paper was concerned with understanding the question that, how much people agree on
statements about healthy food when the same statement is expressed by an expert and a non-
expert. The three hypotheses were built that was assessed after the data collection and analysis.
The two statements were considered, one was one-sided and another was two-sided. The
questions were developed on the same and were distributed to the 40 respondents. Each question
was sent to 10 respondents. The collected data was passed through the Two-Way ANOVA test.
The result showed that the statements from expert are likely to increase the attitude towards the
health statements. On the other hand, the statements about the non-expert are likely to reduce the
attitude towards the health statements.

Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................................1
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Method.............................................................................................................................................3
Research Design..........................................................................................................................3
Participants..................................................................................................................................3
Apparatus and Materials..............................................................................................................3
Condition #1............................................................................................................................3
Condition #2............................................................................................................................4
Condition #3............................................................................................................................4
Condition #4............................................................................................................................5
Procedure.................................................................................................................................5
Results..............................................................................................................................................6
Discussion........................................................................................................................................8
References........................................................................................................................................8

Introduction
The statements relating to healthy food habits have positive, negative or mixed impacts on the
people who are encountering those statements (Sakamaki et al, 2005). The attitude towards what
being encountered depends on variety of factors. The studies have found that the statements that
cater directly to the emotional aspect of the human mind and less to the rational aspect leave
greater impression on the individual encountering the statement (Duperly et al, 2009). Some of
the researchers have conducted the research and identified that the source of statement also plays
an important part in the attitude development (Wu and Wang, 2011). The attitude refers to the
disposition, position or feeling with regard to anything, whether person or place (Fishbein and
Ajzen, 1977). There are various sources that can impact the attitude of an individual towards
something (McGuire, 1969).
The orientation of the individuals towards health statements and health aspects has always been
challenging to understand. The individuals generally orient towards the healthy habits when they
come to the realization about the deterioration in their health condition. However, this is not
always the case. The impact of surrounding plays vital role in maintaining the understanding
about the healthy living and the level of conviction. Even the attitude towards the healthy
lifestyles of the participants have been positive, their actual lifestyles have been different. The
credit to such situation can be attributed to the surrounding they live in or the culture they prefer
to spend their time into. The impact of surrounding living style impacts the way one will
consider the healthy lifestyle.
If the same aspect is considered in case of healthy food habits or attitude towards the elements
related to healthy food habits then it would be interesting to understand whether sources of

statements impacts the receiver. The two major aspects that are under consideration are the
expertise level of speakers conveying the particular message and the level of rational information
present in the statement being delivered. Given below are the three hypotheses that have been
developed from the understanding so far:
Hypothesis 1: Agreement of people on statements about healthy food depends on the speaker.
Hypothesis 2: Agreement of people on statements about healthy food depends on the arguments.
Hypothesis 3: Both, arguments and speaker is required for agreement of people on statements
about healthy food.
The purpose of this analysis is to understand “How much people agree on statements about
healthy food?” The sections ahead discuss the methods and results considered to conduct the
study.
Method
The section discusses the research method that has been adopted for the conduction of the test.
Research Design
The primary data has been collected for the fulfillment of the research objective. The research
hypotheses have been developed that will be assessed based on the results obtain from the
analyzed data. The dependent variables were influence of experts or non-experts stating the
message, and the two sided view of the statement, that is either positive or negative or both.
Likert scale was used for the study. The Given below are the four IVs developed:

Mentioned below are the questions developed based on the various conditions considered for the
test:
Condition #1
Eating vegetables has many health benefits. They may reduce the risk for stroke and other
cardiovascular diseases, as well as being high in vitamin A which keeps skin and eyes healthy
and can protect against infections. They are also low in fat and calories and contain no
cholesterol.
(Professor John Brooks, Nutritional Expert)
Please respond to the following statement:
Eating vegetables is good for your health:
Condition #2
Eating vegetables has many health benefits. They may reduce the risk for stroke and other
cardiovascular diseases, as well as being high in vitamin A which keeps skin and eyes healthy
and can protect against infections. They are also low in fat and calories and contain no
cholesterol.
(Mr Smith, IT Technician)
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
5 4 3 2 1

Please respond to the following statement:
Eating vegetables is good for your health:
Condition #3
Eating vegetables has many health benefits. They may reduce the risk for stroke and other
cardiovascular diseases, as well as being high in vitamin A which keeps skin and eyes healthy
and can protect against infections. However, eating too many starchy vegetables such as white
and sweet potatoes can lead to an increase in blood sugar levels which can increase your risk of
heart attack and stroke.
(Mr Smith, IT Technician)
Please respond to the following statement:
Eating vegetables is good for your health:
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
5 4 3 2 1
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
5 4 3 2 1

Condition #4
Eating vegetables has many health benefits. They may reduce the risk for stroke and other
cardiovascular diseases, as well as being high in vitamin A which keeps skin and eyes healthy
and can protect against infections. However, eating too many starchy vegetables such as white
and sweet potatoes can lead to an increase in blood sugar levels which can increase your risk of
heart attack and stroke.
(Professor John Brooks, Nutritional Expert)
Please respond to the following statement:
Eating vegetables is good for your health:
Participa
nts
The participants were from the University and in their early twenties. They include male and
female both. The total number of respondents was 40. Four types of questionnaire were prepared
and tested on 40 respondents (1 question type for 10 respondents). The sampling technique that
was identified was convenience sampling method. The purpose was to consume less time,
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
5 4 3 2 1

money, and effort in collecting the data. Therefore, the convenience sampling was found to be
the most suitable method (Ozdemir et al, 2011).
Apparatus and Materials
The literatures were consulted briefly and the findings were developed further to reach suitable
hypotheses. Those hypotheses led to the development of question sets which was sent to the
identified participants. The reference section in the end of this paper provides the list of the
research papers referred to build the study. The four set of questions were prepared and were
distributed to 40 individuals with one set of questions to ten of them. The statement written in the
questionnaire were either one sided or two sided with reference to experts and non-experts.
Procedure
The 10 questionnaire with one type of question was distributed to 10 respondents from the 40.
The same procedure was repeated for the other three questions. The collected data has been
passed through SPSS analysis software. The statistical tests that were conducted on the data are
Two-Way ANOVA (Field, 2013). The hypotheses have been assessed after obtaining the results
and conclusions have been made.
The research was conducted using the primary data collection. The research approval was taken
from the University’s Psychology Department. The participants were first contacted through the
phone and were briefed about the questionnaire and then the questionnaire was mailed to them.

The collected result was collated on SPSS software and appropriate tools were applied for
analysis. The whole process took place after taking the approval from the department that the
study is sound on ethics parameter.
Results
Given below are the frequencies of the data to get a clear picture of the overall available data for
analysis:
Communication_Expertise (Independent Variable):
Frequenc
y
Percen
t
Cumulative
Percent
expert 20 50 50
no-expert 20 50 100
Total 40 100
Message_Sideness/Argument (Independent Variable):
Frequenc
y
Percen
t
Cumulative
Percent
expert 20 50 50
no-
expert 20 50 100
Total 40 100
Attitude_Score (Dependent Variable):
Frequenc
y
Percen
t
Cumulative
Percent
Attitude
Score1 22 55 55
Attitude 2 18 45 100
Total 40 100

Given below is the ANOVA result for the data:
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (Dependent Variable: Attitude_score)
Source Type III Sum
of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 2.100a 3 0.7 3.231 0.03
Intercept 84.1 1 84.1 388.15 0
Communication_Expertise 0.1 1 0.1 0.462 0.5
Message_Sidness 0.4 1 0.4 1.846 0.18
Communication_Expertise *
Message_Sidness 1.6 1 1.6 7.385 0.01
Error 7.8 36 0.217
Total 94 40
Corrected Total 9.9 39
The graph given below shows the descriptive plot.

Discussion
If the plot is viewed, then it can be stated that the attitude towards the health statements fall
significantly if the statements have been given by the non-expert. On the other hand, the attitude
can be seen on rising if the statement has been given by the expert.
Moreover, the F value from Two Way ANOVA table for Communication_Expertise
Messages_Sideness, Communication Expertise*Message_Sideness are 0.462, p=0.501; 1.846, p
= 0.183; 7.385, p = 0.010 respectively. Therefore, from here it can be sated that that both,
Communication_Expertise and Message_Sideness are needed together to explain the attitude
towards the health statements. Both the aspects, alone, have no significance.
As per the hypotheses are concerned, it can be stated that both the hypotheses – Hypothesis 1 and
Hypothesis 2 got rejected. The third hypothesis stands correct. Therefore, one can say that the
presence of arguments and expert speaker together is required for the agreement of people on
health statements.
The attitude towards the statements concerning healthy food habits change depending on the
source of the information and the rationale behind the statement. The presence of logic or
suitable argument in the statement increases the chances of its impact on the listener. Moreover,
if the statement has been delivered by the speaker who has the right background, then the chance
of impact increases.

References
Neuman, L. W. (2002). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Özdemir, R. S., Louis, K. O. S., & Topbaş, S. (2011). Public attitudes toward stuttering in
Turkey: Probability versus convenience sampling. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 36(4), 262-267.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
Sakamaki, R., Toyama, K., Amamoto, R., Liu, C. J., & Shinfuku, N. (2005). Nutritional
knowledge, food habits and health attitude of Chinese university students–a cross sectional
study–. Nutrition Journal, 4(1), 1.
Duperly, J., Lobelo, F., Segura, C., Sarmiento, F., Herrera, D., Sarmiento, O. L., & Frank, E.
(2009). The association between Colombian medical students' healthy personal habits and a
positive attitude toward preventive counseling: cross-sectional analyses. BMC public Health,
9(1), 1.
Wu, P. C., & Wang, Y. C. (2011). The influences of electronic word-of-mouth message appeal
and message source credibility on brand attitude. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, 23(4), 448-472.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research.
McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. The handbook of social
psychology, 3(2), 136-314.

Appendix
The charts present the analysis that has been conducted on the data:
Between-Subjects Factors
Value Label N
Communication_Experti
se
1 expert 20
2 no-expert 20
Message_Sidness 1 expert 20
2 no-expert 20
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable:Attitude_score
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 2.100a 3 .700 3.231 .034
Intercept 84.100 1 84.100 388.154 .000
Communication_Experti
se .100 1 .100 .462 .501
Message_Sidness .400 1 .400 1.846 .183
Communication_Experti
se * Message_Sidness 1.600 1 1.600 7.385 .010
Error 7.800 36 .217
Total 94.000 40
Corrected Total 9.900 39
a. R Squared = .212 (Adjusted R Squared = .146)

1. Communication_Expertise
Dependent Variable:Attitude_score
Communi
cation_Ex
pertise Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
expert 1.400 .104 1.189 1.611
no-expert 1.500 .104 1.289 1.711
2. Message_Sidness
Dependent Variable:Attitude_score
Message_
Sidness Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
expert 1.350 .104 1.139 1.561
no-expert 1.550 .104 1.339 1.761
3. Communication_Expertise * Message_Sidness
Dependent Variable:Attitude_score
Communi
cation_Ex
pertise
Message_
Sidness Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
expert expert 1.100 .147 .801 1.399
no-expert 1.700 .147 1.401 1.999
no-expert expert 1.600 .147 1.301 1.899
no-expert 1.400 .147 1.101 1.699

Between-Subjects Factors
Value Label N
Communication_Experti
se
1 expert 20
2 no-expert 20
Message_Sidness 1 expert 20
2 no-expert 20
Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable:Attitude_score
Communi
cation_Ex
pertise
Message_
Sidness Mean
Std.
Deviation N
expert expert 1.1000 .31623 10
no-expert 1.7000 .48305 10
Total 1.4000 .50262 20
no-expert expert 1.6000 .51640 10
no-expert 1.4000 .51640 10
Total 1.5000 .51299 20
Total expert 1.3500 .48936 20
no-expert 1.5500 .51042 20
Total 1.4500 .50383 40

Levene's Test of Equality of Error
Variancesa
Dependent Variable:Attitude_score
F df1 df2 Sig.
6.652 3 36 .001
Tests the null hypothesis that the error
variance of the dependent variable is
equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept +
Communication_Expertise +
Message_Sidness +
Communication_Expertise *
Message_Sidness
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable:Attitude_score
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Partial Eta
Squared
Corrected Model 2.100a 3 .700 3.231 .034 .212
Intercept 84.100 1 84.100 388.154 .000 .915
Communication_Expert
ise .100 1 .100 .462 .501 .013
Message_Sidness .400 1 .400 1.846 .183 .049
Communication_Expert
ise * Message_Sidness 1.600 1 1.600 7.385 .010 .170
Error 7.800 36 .217
Total 94.000 40
Corrected Total 9.900 39
a. R Squared = .212 (Adjusted R Squared = .146)

3. Communication_Expertise * Message_Sidness
Dependent Variable:Attitude_score
Communi
cation_Ex
pertise
Message_
Sidness Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
expert expert 1.100 .147 .801 1.399
no-expert 1.700 .147 1.401 1.999
no-expert expert 1.600 .147 1.301 1.899
no-expert 1.400 .147 1.101 1.699
Estimates
Dependent Variable:Attitude_score
Message_
Sidness Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
expert 1.350 .104 1.139 1.561
no-expert 1.550 .104 1.339 1.761
Pairwise Comparisons
Dependent Variable:Attitude_score
(I)
Message_
Sidness
(J)
Message_
Sidness
Mean
Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.a
95% Confidence Interval for
Differencea
Lower Bound Upper Bound
expert no-expert -.200 .147 .183 -.499 .099
no-expert expert .200 .147 .183 -.099 .499
Based on estimated marginal means
a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no
adjustments).

Univariate Tests
Dependent Variable:Attitude_score
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Partial Eta
Squared
Contrast .400 1 .400 1.846 .183 .049
Error 7.800 36 .217
The F tests the effect of Message_Sidness. This test is based on the linearly
independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
Estimates
Dependent Variable:Attitude_score
Communi
cation_Ex
pertise Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
expert 1.400 .104 1.189 1.611
no-expert 1.500 .104 1.289 1.711
Pairwise Comparisons
Dependent Variable:Attitude_score
(I)
Communi
cation_Ex
pertise
(J)
Communi
cation_Ex
pertise
Mean
Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.a
95% Confidence Interval for
Differencea
Lower Bound Upper Bound
expert no-expert -.100 .147 .501 -.399 .199
no-expert expert .100 .147 .501 -.199 .399
Based on estimated marginal means
a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no
adjustments).

Univariate Tests
Dependent Variable:Attitude_score
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Partial Eta
Squared
Contrast .100 1 .100 .462 .501 .013
Error 7.800 36 .217
The F tests the effect of Communication_Expertise. This test is based on the linearly
independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
Communication_Expertise
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid expert 20 50.0 50.0 50.0
no-expert 20 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
Message_Sidness
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid expert 20 50.0 50.0 50.0
no-expert 20 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
Attitude_score
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 22 55.0 55.0 55.0
2 18 45.0 45.0 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0