Analysis of Hypothesis Testing
Analysis of Hypothesis Testing
This paper will analyze hypothesis testing in the article titled “A Test of Learned Industriousness in the Physical Activity Domain” which appears in the International Journal of Psychological Studies. This article explores the relationship between the level of industriousness in an individual and the degree to which the individual was rewarded for intense effort before the activity (Bustamante et al. 2014). The key research question for this study is as follows: What is the relationship between reward of intense effort and persistence at a subsequent physical or mental task? Based on this research question, the hypotheses for the study are as follows:
Alternative hypothesis: There is a positive relationship between reward of intense effort and persistence at a subsequent physical or mental task.
These hypotheses serve to separate relevant observations from those which are not pertinent to the research. In this case, the hypotheses mentioned above focus on determining how reward interacts with perseverance. Additional comments made during the research only serve to embellish the findings of the study. Besides, the hypotheses listed above influence the development of research techniques. Various statistical tests are used to analyze data. Descriptive analyses are conducted using averages and standard deviations of participants. In addition, ANOVA or one-way analysis of variance is used to test group differences in continuous baseline data such as BMI, age, and education (Bustamante et al. 2014). ANOVA is also used to test group differences in heart rate, effort training duration, and points accrued. Moreover, χ2 tests are used to evaluate the difference between groups on ordinal (i.e., education) and nominal (i.e., race, gender, and ethnicity) baseline characteristics (Bustamante et al. 2014). The level of significance is set at p < .05.
Results from the study revealed negligible differences between groups regarding participant characteristics (ps > .05). In addition, all participants in groups involving physical activity managed to complete their exercises successfully without exception. However, the one-way ANOVA revealed significant group differences in points earned (F [3, 76] = 30.4, p < .05), duration of effort training, (F [3, 76] = 204.9, p < .05), and effort training heart rate (F [3, 75] = 322.1, p < .05) (Bustamante et al. 2014). The investigation of simple effects revealed a significant advantage of low physical effort over high physical effort. Previous research in this area indicates that individuals rewarded for high effort tend to show greater perseverance in subsequent tasks compared to those rewarded for low effort. On the contrary, this study reveals a significant advantage of low physical effort over high physical effort with regard to persistence at a subsequent task.
Based on the statistical conclusion mentioned above, this study concluded that reward for intense effort does not necessarily result in perseverance in a subsequent mental or physical task. A number of issues need to be considered when evaluating this relationship. For instance, the nature of the reward may be incompatible with that of the subsequent task. This incompatibility means that the individual may not persevere in subsequent tasks regardless of the extent of the preceding reward. Moreover, physiologic effects of vigorous physical activity may limit the level of perseverance despite the previous reward (Bustamante et al. 2014). Regarding future research, the study suggested that more comprehensive research should be conducted to analyze the connection between physical and mental activities. The purpose of this future research should be to gain a deeper understanding regarding how these two domains relate as pertains to reward, effort, and perseverance.
References
Bustamante, E., Davis, C., & Marquez, D. (2014). A Test of Learned Industriousness in the Physical Activity Domain. Int J Psychol Stud, 6(4), 12–25.
