General instructions. Please write your full name at the top of every page you hand in. Please collate and staple your pages together. Please write clearly and thoroughly explain all your computations; an unannotated series of formulas that mysteriously ends up with the correct number will not be given full credit. When doing the homework, you are encouraged to use all resources at your disposal to the extent that they help you learn the material; nevertheless, you must write your own answers in your own words.

1. p. 620, #18 (8 pts.)
   Do all parts. Use SPSS to do the analysis; include only the relevant ANOVA table, not the whole output.

2. (4 pts.)
   Using the data from pp. 620-622, #19, do the following (just like the lab activity):
   * Make a boxplot of the 15 conditions. Let the X-axis be month, and use separate panels (in columns) for the groups.
   * Are there outliers?
   * Use SPSS to do an ANOVA on the data. Also plot the average effect of month, the average effect of group, and the 15 condition means using month on the X-axis and group in separate curves. In text under each of the three plots, report the corresponding result from the ANOVA table: "F(__,__)=__, Greenhouse-Geisser corrected p=__", using the actual (not corrected) df.

3. (8 pts.)
   * Consider the example explained in lecture, Week 7, p. 10 (see overhead slides attached to Discussion of Week 7). There were three factors in that experiment, all of which were implemented as between-subject factors. Briefly discuss whether or not each factor could have been run as a within-subject factor. For those factors that could have been run within-subject, what problems or benefits might have been created by running them within-subject? In particular, would subjects' impressions of the arguments have changed if the subjects are aware of contrasting conditions?
   * Consider the example explained in lecture, Week 4, p. l3+ (see overhead slides attached to Discussion of Week 4). The conditions were run between subjects. Briefly discuss whether or not they could have been run within subjects. In particular, consider differential carry-over effects (see, e.g., Kruschke 1996 Connection Science, the point being that not only are there carry-over effects, but they can be the focus of the research!).