What Does It Take to Win The Voice Australia? The Effects of Singing Ability and Appearance on the Likelihood of Receiving Votes

contain the full syntax from the SPSS analyses on the manipulation check and focal DV ONLY

— In the appendix

Use pairwise comparisons

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY AND HYPOTHESES

The past decade has seen an explosion of “unscripted” reality shows on television stations around the world. Talent competitions, in particular, have become very popular, covering various skills such as singing (The Voice – Australia), cooking (MasterChef Australia), modeling (Australia’s Next Top Model), and business (The Apprentice – Australia). Each show features a panel of expert judges who assess the contestants’ performances. However, many shows also rely on viewers to determine which contestants should advance in the competition and which ones should go home.

The Australian public’s votes can shape the outcome of these talent competitions in powerful ways. However, little is known about the process by which viewers decide to vote for a particular contestant. In this study we consider what it takes to win a show such as The Voice, focusing on two contestant characteristics that determine the likelihood of receiving votes. This question is of great interest to the producers of such shows (who want to verify the validity of the voting process), as well as to the contestants (who want to improve their chances of winning the competition).

One factor that is likely to determine people’s votes is their assessment of the skills relevant to the competition. Research indicates that people who are asked to judge others on a particular dimension (e.g., public speaking ability) systematically assess the positive and negative aspects of the individual’s performance in order to form this judgment (Ohbuchi, Kameda, & Agarie, 2001). In addition, game theory proposes that evaluations made in a competitive context are based on an assessment of the relevant skill-set (Miller, 1993). This suggests that viewers will be more likely to vote for a contestant on The Voice if they believe that s/he has great talent as a singer.

Another factor that is likely to determine people’s votes is their assessment of contestants’ appearance. A long line of research has demonstrated that individuals form more positive attitudes towards an attractive person compared to an unattractive person (Rafferty, 2005). However, another feature that could be important is the extent to which a person’s appearance is normal or quirky (i.e., distinctive). People who have a normal appearance may not receive as much attention as those who have a quirky appearance. Thus, it is possible that viewers will be more likely to vote for a contestant on The Voice if s/he has a quirky appearance, rather than a normal one.

In addition, there may be an interplay between these two factors. Specifically, when a contestant has a quirky appearance, viewers’ judgments of the contestant’s singing ability may be less important in determining their voting decisions. On the other hand, when a contestant has a normal appearance, viewers may base their voting decisions on judgments of relevant skills such as singing ability. Although these propositions seem plausible, they have not been tested empirically.

In this experiment we examined how a female contestant’s singing ability and appearance operate together to affect viewers’ likelihood of voting for her. By using standardised videos of a hypothetical contestant, we were able to independently manipulate the two factors of interest (contestant appearance and singing ability), while controlling all other aspects of the performance. We predicted that, overall, individuals would be more likely to vote for a contestant who had a quirky appearance, compared to a contestant who had a normal appearance. We also predicted that, overall, individuals would be more likely to vote for a contestant with better singing ability. Finally, we expected that the hypothesised effect of singing ability would be limited to cases in which the contestant’s appearance was normal.

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT

The aim of this assignment is to consolidate your understanding of factorial designs and their analysis, and to give you practice in writing up the results in the appropriate format. Using the information provided about the methodology (see Pages 5-6) and the data sets (see Pages 7-8), your task is to complete this research report by writing the Method, Results, and Discussion.

See Pages 3-4 for more information about writing up the report. Note that you are not expected to read the references cited in the background to this study (on Pages 1-2), or any other references on singing ability/ skill, appearance, game theory or voting behaviour in competitions. Furthermore, you will not need to provide a title page, Abstract, Introduction or References section. Your report should be written as it would be for publication in an APA psychology journal, just without references.

To fulfill the requirements of the assignment you must do the following:

Preliminary Tasks  Conduct appropriate statistical analyses to test the effectiveness of the experimental manipulation of singing ability (see Table 1, Results for the Manipulation Check).

 You should conduct all the relevant analyses using SPSS, and append the SPSS syntax to your report.

 You are required to report appropriate follow-up tests and effect sizes for the manipulation check. However, for this variable you should report the partial eta squared (η2P) and pairwise comparisons from the SPSS output (so that you do not have to do hand calculations). Note: ideally, manipulating singing ability would produce an effect of singing ability (at all levels of appearance).

 Conduct appropriate statistical analyses to test the focal predictions about the effects of singing ability and appearance on the dependent measure (see Table 2, Results for the Dependent Measure).

 Use SPSS to test the omnibus effects and any appropriate follow-up tests. For follow-up tests involving the comparison of groups, if the hypotheses permit you can report pairwise comparisons from the SPSS output rather than using linear contrasts. Do not forget to append the SPSS syntax.

 Report an effect size for every F test. We will imagine that you have a statistically-savvy advisor or journal editor who rejects partial effect size measures, so you must use either η2 or ω2. N.B. You are not required to append these hand calculations.

 NOTE 1: For the purpose of this assignment, if there is a significant interaction it should be followed up by conducting the simple effect tests that are specified by the hypotheses.

 NOTE 2: Pairwise comparisons should make use of no correction or a Bonferroni correction to the α-level as appropriate. Penalties for incorrect use/ non-use of an α correction will apply.

Write Up the Report

Write up the Method, Results, and Discussion sections (see Pages 3-4 for more information).

SECTIONS OF THE REPORT

Method  Describe succinctly the participants, design, materials and measures, and procedure (remember, the Method section should provide sufficient detail to allow the study to be replicated).

Results  Report all the analyses (i.e., manipulation check and tests of predictions about the dependent measure) clearly and appropriately using APA 6th format. Include a figure to illustrate the findings on the dependent measure. Either a bar or line graph will be acceptable for the figure, which is to include either standard error or standard deviation bars. In the text, standard deviations should be reported with the means (not standard errors).

 Tutorial slides, the Format Expectations Workbook and the APA Publication Manual (6th Edition) provide guidelines for your writing. There is also a highly useful checklist on the course Blackboard website.

 N.B. The use of subheadings for the manipulation check and likelihood of voting for the contestant (focal DV) may help you write this section by breaking it up (and also aid reader understanding).

Discussion  Discuss and interpret your results. Restate the study aim/ purpose and hypotheses, along with the rationale. Summarise the main findings, and (without going beyond the literature reported in the introduction) highlight any important theoretical and practical/ applied implications. Discuss one key strength and limitation of the study; and make recommendations for future research.

Appendix  Your appendix should contain the full syntax from the SPSS analyses on the manipulation check and focal DV ONLY. You should not be appending any of the study scenarios or measures. These should be adequately described in the text of the assignment (i.e., do not cut-and-paste these items into the text either). Further, you should not be appending any hand calculations or SPSS output.

 The syntax itself should be copy-and-pasted from the SPSS Syntax window. There is no need to re-format this into the appropriate APA-suitable font. Leave it as is.

 Be sure to clearly label/ title each lot of syntax.

GUIDELINES FOR ASSIGNMENT

General Advice: • Keep to an overall limit of 1500 words of text maximum (excludes appendices, but includes intext citations).

Use the Format Expectations Workbook (on Blackboard) and the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th Ed.) for advice on writing up statistical results and presenting figures. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT YOU ARE GUIDED BY APA 6th FORMAT. Marks will be deducted for violations of this format.
You might also benefit from looking at the Design and Results sections of other papers that report on factorial designs. Keep in mind that what you are taught in tutorials is the final say on how the write up should be.

Submission: • There will be a link to click on under the Assessment section of Blackboard to Turnitin submission. You need to upload your ‘doc.’ or ‘docx.’ file and then it creates a PDF. You have to double-check that the PDF is ok and submit. Be aware, the version you view before final submission often reformats your work on the screen, but has not actually changed your original document formatting (so don’t freak out!). If it doesn’t seem to be working, e-mail a copy to your tutor. You need to keep a copy of your Turnitin submission receipt as proof of both submission and time of submission. This is your responsibility!

→ Information about the method, as well as the data tables, are presented on the following pages.

MATERIALS USED IN THE STUDY

Participants

N = 60; 3rd year Psychology students; mean age = 20.98 years (SD = 4.61); 57% female and 43% male. Students were enrolled in Psychological Research Methodology III (PSYC3010) at the University of Queensland. They voluntarily took part in individual sessions where they watched a video and completed an anonymous questionnaire. Each participant was randomly allocated to one of the six experimental conditions.

Instructions and Materials

At the beginning of the study, participants received the following instructions:

This study investigates how people evaluate contestants featured on televised talent competitions. You will first watch a videotaped performance by a hypothetical contestant on The Voice. You will then be asked to provide your reactions to this contestant on an anonymous questionnaire.

Participants then watched a video of a hypothetical female contestant singing her version of the song “Call Me Maybe.” The performance included the manipulation of singing ability (see below for details). The appearance of the contestant was also independently manipulated (see below for details). In order to minimise any other differences between the experimental conditions, the same actress was featured in the video for every condition.

Manipulation of Singing Ability

Good: The hypothetical contestant sang the song without any major errors, though she did make one or two minor mistakes.

Excellent: The hypothetical contestant sang the song without any major or minor errors.

Outstanding: The hypothetical contestant sang the song without any major or minor errors. She also used her voice to communicate the emotion of the song in a compelling way.

Manipulation of Appearance

Normal: The hypothetical contestant’s appearance (e.g., clothes, accessories, hair, make-up) was attractive, but clearly mainstream. She looked as if she would easily blend in with the crowd if she were walking down the Queen Street Mall.

Quirky: The hypothetical contestant’s appearance (e.g., clothes, accessories, hair, make-up) was attractive, but clearly unusual. She looked like she would stand out from the crowd if she were walking down the Queen Street Mall.

Manipulation Check and Focal Dependent Variable Measures

After watching the video, participants were asked to respond to the two questions below. The first question is the manipulation check of singing ability, and the second question is the key dependent variable.

Your first task is to assess the singing ability of this contestant. On the response scale below, please circle the number that best describes your evaluation of the contestant’s singing ability.

extremely negative extremely positive

1 2 3 4 5 6

Your second task is to consider whether you would vote for this contestant on a show such as The Voice. On the response scale below, please circle the number that best indicates the likelihood that you would vote for this contestant.

extremely unlikely extremely likely

1 2 3 4 5 6

Results for the MANIPULATION CHECK

Table 1 Evaluation of Singing According to Appearance and Singing Ability

Results for the DEPENDENT MEASURE

Table 2 Likelihood of Voting for a Contestant According to Appearance and Singing Ability