Tải bản đầy đủ
7 Follow-Up Analysis: Tukey’s Multiple Comparisons of Means

# 7 Follow-Up Analysis: Tukey’s Multiple Comparisons of Means

Tải bản đầy đủ

672 Chapter 12 The Analysis of Variance for Designed Experiments
determine which solution will remove the greatest amount of corrosive substance
in a single application. Similarly, a production engineer might want to determine
which among six machines or which among three foremen achieves the highest mean
productivity per hour. A stockbroker might want to choose one stock, from among
four, that yields the highest mean return, and so on.
Once differences among, say, ﬁve treatment means have been detected in an
ANOVA, choosing the treatment with the largest mean might appear to be a
simple matter. We could, for example, obtain the sample means y¯1 , y¯2 , . . . , y¯5 , and
compare them by constructing a (1 − α)100% conﬁdence interval for the difference
between each pair of treatment means. However, there is a problem associated
with this procedure: A conﬁdence interval for μi − μj , with its corresponding value
of α, is valid only when the two treatments (i and j) to be compared are selected
prior to experimentation. After you have looked at the data, you cannot use a
conﬁdence interval to compare the treatments for the largest and smallest sample
means because they will always be farther apart, on the average, than any pair of
treatments selected at random. Furthermore, if you construct a series of conﬁdence
intervals, each with a chance α of indicating a difference between a pair of means if
no difference exists, then the risk of making at least one Type I error in the series of
inferences will be larger than the value of α speciﬁed for a single interval.
There are a number of procedures for comparing and ranking a group of
treatment means as part of a follow-up (or post-hoc) analysis to the ANOVA.
The one that we present in this section, known as Tukey’s method for multiple
comparisons, utilizes the Studentized range
q=

y¯max − y¯min

s/ n

(where y¯max and y¯min are the largest and smallest sample means, respectively) to
determine whether the difference in any pair of sample means implies a difference
in the corresponding treatment means. The logic behind this multiple comparisons
procedure is that if we determine a critical value for the difference between the
largest and smallest sample means, |y¯max − y¯min |, one that implies a difference in
their respective treatment means, then any other pair of sample means that differ
by as much as or more than this critical value would also imply a difference in
the corresponding treatment means. Tukey’s (1949) procedure selects this critical
distance, ω, so that the probability of making one or more Type I errors (concluding
that a difference exists between a pair of treatment means if, in fact, they are
identical) is α. Therefore, the risk of making a Type I error applies to the whole
procedure, that is, to the comparisons of all pairs of means in the experiment, rather
than to a single comparison. Consequently, the value of α selected by the researchers
is called an experimentwise error rate (in contrast to a comparisonwise error rate).
Tukey’s procedure relies on the assumption that the p sample means are based
on independent random samples, each containing an equal number nt of observations.
(When the number of observations per treatment
are equal, researchers often refer

to this as a balanced design.) Then if s = MSE is the computed standard deviation
for the analysis, the distance ω is
s
ω = qα (p, ν) √
nt
The tabulated statistic qα (p, ν) is the critical value of the Studentized range, the
value that locates α in the upper tail of the q distribution. This critical value depends
on α, the number of treatment means involved in the comparison, and ν, the number
of degrees of freedom associated with MSE, as shown in the box. Values of qα (p, ν)
for α = .05 and α = .01 are given in Tables 11 and 12, respectively, in Appendix D.

Follow-Up Analysis: Tukey’s Multiple Comparisons of Means

673

Tukey’s Multiple Comparisons Procedure: Equal Sample Sizes
1. Select the desired experimentwise error rate, α.
2. Calculate
s
ω = qα (p, ν) √
nt
where
=√
Number of sample means (i.e., number of treatments)
= MSE
= Number of degrees of freedom associated with MSE
= Number of observations in each of the p samples (i.e., number
of observations per treatment)
qα (p, ν) = Critical value of the Studentized range (Tables 11 and 12
in Appendix D)
3. Calculate and rank the p sample means.
4. For each treatment pair, calculate the difference between the treatment
means and compare the difference to ω.
5. Place a bar over those pairs of treatment means that differ by less than ω.
A pair of treatments not connected by an overbar (i.e., differing by more
than ω) implies a difference in the corresponding population means.
p
s
ν
nt

Note: The conﬁdence level associated with all inferences drawn from the analysis
is (1 − α).

Example
12.20

Refer to the ANOVA for the completely randomized design, Examples 12.4 and
12.5. Recall that we rejected the null hypothesis of no differences among the mean
GPAs for the three socioeconomic groups of college freshmen. Use Tukey’s method
to compare the three treatment means.

Solution
Step 1. For this follow-up analysis, we will select an experimentwise error rate of
α = .05.
Step 2. From
√ previous examples, we have (p = 3) treatments, ν = 18 df for error,
s = MSE = .512, and nt = 7 observations per treatment. The critical
value of the Studentized range (obtained from Table 11, Appendix D) is
q.05 (3, 18) = 3.61. Substituting these values into the formula for ω, we obtain
s
ω = q.05 (3, 18) √
nt

= 3.61

.512

7

= .698

Step 3. The sample means for the three socioeconomic groups (obtained from
Table 12.1) are, in order of magnitude,
y¯L = 2.521 y¯U = 2.543 y¯M = 3.249
Step 4. The differences between treatment means are
y¯M – y¯L = 3.249–2.521 = .728
y¯M – y¯U = 3.249–2.534 = .715
y¯U – y¯L = 2.534–2.521 = .013

674 Chapter 12 The Analysis of Variance for Designed Experiments
Step 5. Based on the critical difference ω = .70, the three treatment means are
ranked as follows:
Sample means : 2.521 2.543 3.249
Treatments :
Lower Upper Middle
From this information, we infer that the mean freshman GPA for the middle
class is signiﬁcantly larger than the means for the other two classes, since y¯M exceeds
both y¯L and y¯U by more than the critical value. However, the lower and upper classes
are connected by a horizontal line since |y¯L − y¯U | is less than ω. This indicates that
the means for these treatments are not signiﬁcantly different.
In summary, the Tukey analysis reveals that the mean GPA for the middle
class of students is signiﬁcantly larger than the mean GPAs of either the upper
or lower classes, but that the means of the upper and lower classes are not
signiﬁcantly different. These inferences are made with an overall conﬁdence level of
(1–α) = .95.
As Example 12.20 illustrates, Tukey’s multiple comparisons of means procedure
involves quite a few calculations. Most analysts utilize statistical software packages

Figure 12.25a SAS
printout of Tukey’s
multiple comparisons of
means, Example 12.20

Follow-Up Analysis: Tukey’s Multiple Comparisons of Means

675

Figure 12.25b MINITAB
printout of Tukey’s
multiple comparisons of
means, Example 12.20

Figure 12.25c SPSS
printout of Tukey’s
multiple comparisons of
means, Example 12.20

to conduct Tukey’s method. The SAS, MINITAB, and SPSS printouts of the
Tukey analysis for Example 12.20 are shown in Figures 12.25a, 12.25b, and 12.25c,
respectively. Optionally, SAS presents the results in one of two forms. In the top
printout, Figure 12.25a, SAS lists the treatment means vertically in descending order.
Treatment means connected by the same letter (A, B, C, etc.) in the left column
are not signiﬁcantly different. You can see from Figure 12.25a that the middle class
has a different letter (A) than the upper and lower classes (assigned the letter B).
In the bottom printout of Figure 12.25a, SAS lists the Tukey conﬁdence intervals
for (μi − μj ), for all possible treatment pairs, i and j . Intervals that include 0 imply
that the two treatments compared are not signiﬁcantly different. The only interval
at the bottom of Figure 12.25a that includes 0 is the one involving the upper and

676 Chapter 12 The Analysis of Variance for Designed Experiments
lower classes; hence, the GPA means for these two treatments are not signiﬁcantly
different. All the conﬁdence intervals involving the middle class indicate that the
middle class mean GPA is larger than either the upper or lower class mean.
Both MINITAB and SPSS present the Tukey comparisons in the form of
conﬁdence intervals for pairs of treatment means. Figures 12.25b and 12.25c (top)
show the lower and upper endpoints of a conﬁdence interval for (μ1 − μ2 ), (μ1 − μ3 ),
and (μ2 − μ3 ), where ‘‘1’’ represents the lower class, ‘‘2’’ represents the middle
class, and ‘‘3’’ represents the upper class. SPSS, like SAS, also produces a list of the
treatment means arranged in subsets. The bottom of Figure 12.25c shows the means
for treatments 1 and 3 (lower and upper classes) in the same subset, implying that
these two means are not signiﬁcantly different. The mean for treatment 2 (middle
class) is in a different subset; hence, its treatment mean is signiﬁcantly different than
the others.
Example
12.21

Refer to Example 12.18. In a simpler experiment, the transistor manufacturer
investigated the effects of just two factors on productivity (measured in thousands
of dollars of items produced) per 40-hour week. The factors were:
Length of work week (two levels): ﬁve consecutive 8-hour days or
four consecutive 10-hour days
Number of coffee breaks (three levels): 0, 1, or 2
The experiment was conducted over a 12-week period with the 2 × 3 = 6 treatments
assigned in a random manner to the 12 weeks. The data for this two-factor factorial
experiment are shown in Table 12.11.
(a) Perform an analysis of variance for the data.
(b) Compare the six population means using Tukey’s multiple comparisons procedure. Use α = .05.
TRANSISTOR2

Table 12.11 Data for Example 12.21
Coffee Breaks

Length
of
Work
Week

4 days

5 days

0

1

2

101

104

95

102

107

92

95

109

83

93

110

87

Solution
(a) The SAS printout of the ANOVA for the 2 × 3 factorial is shown in
Figure 12.26. Note that the test for interaction between the two factors,
length (L) and breaks (B), is signiﬁcant at α = .01. (The p-value, .0051, is
shaded on the printout.) Since interaction implies that the level of length (L)
that yields the highest mean productivity may differ across different levels of
breaks (B), we ignore the tests for main effects and focus our investigation on
the individual treatment means.

Follow-Up Analysis: Tukey’s Multiple Comparisons of Means

677

Figure 12.26 SAS ANOVA printout for Example 12.21
(b) The sample means for the six factor level combinations are highlighted in the
middle of the SAS printout, Figure 12.26. Since the sample means represent
measures of productivity in the manufacture of transistors, we want to ﬁnd the
length of work week and number of coffee breaks that yield the highest mean
productivity.
In the presence of interaction, SAS displays the results of the Tukey multiple comparisons by listing the p-values for comparing all possible treatment
mean pairs. These p-values are shown at the bottom of Figure 12.26. First, we
demonstrate how to conduct the multiple comparisons using the formulas in
the box. Then we explain (in notes) how to use p-values reported in the SAS
to rank the means.
The ﬁrst step in the ranking procedure is to calculate ω for p = 6 (we are
ranking
means), nt = 2 (two observations per treatment), α = .05, and

√ six treatment
s = MSE = 3.33 = 1.83 (where MSE is shaded in Figure 12.26). Since MSE is
based on ν = 6 degrees of freedom, we have
q.05 (6, 6) = 5.63

678 Chapter 12 The Analysis of Variance for Designed Experiments
and
s
ω = q.05 (6, 6) √
nt
= (5.63)

1.83

2

= 7.27
Therefore, population means corresponding to pairs of sample means that differ
by more than ω = 7.27 will be judged to be different. The six sample means are
ranked as follows:
Sample means
Treatments (Length, Breaks)
Number on SAS printout:

85.0
(5, 2)
6

93.5
(4, 2)
3

94.0
(5, 0)
4

101.5
(4, 0)
1

105.5
(4, 1)
2

109.5
(5, 1)
5

Using ω = 7.27 as a yardstick to determine differences between pairs of treatments, we have placed connecting bars over those means that do not signiﬁcantly
differ. The following conclusions can be drawn:
1. There is evidence of a difference between the population mean of the treatment
corresponding to a 5-day work week with two coffee breaks (with the smallest
sample mean of 85.0) and every other treatment mean. Therefore, we can conclude that the 5-day, two-break work week yields the lowest mean productivity
among all length–break combinations.
[Note: This inference can also be derived from the p-values shown under the
mean 6 column at the bottom of the SAS printout, Figure 12.26. Each p-value
(obtained using Tukey’s adjustment) is used to compare the (5,2) treatment
mean with each of the other treatment means. Since all the p-values are less
than our selected experimentwise error rate of α = .05, the (5,2) treatment mean
is signiﬁcantly different than each of the other means.]
2. The population mean of the treatment corresponding to a 5-day, one-break
work week (with the largest sample mean of 109.5) is signiﬁcantly larger than
the treatments corresponding to the four smallest sample means. However, there
is no evidence of a difference between the 5-day, one-break treatment mean and
the 4-day, one-break treatment mean (with a sample mean of 105.5).
[Note: This inference is supported by the Tukey-adjusted p-values shown under
the mean 5 column—the column for the (5,1) treatment—in Figure 12.26. The
only p-value that is not smaller than .05 is the one comparing mean 5 to mean 2,
where mean 2 represents the (4,1) treatment.]
3. There is no evidence of a difference between the 4-day, one-break treatment
mean (with a sample mean of 105.5) and the 4-day, zero-break treatment mean (with a sample mean of 101.5). Both of these treatments, though,
have signiﬁcantly larger means than the treatments corresponding to the three
smallest sample means.
[Note: This inference is supported by the Tukey-adjusted p-values shown under
the mean 2 column—the column for the (4,1) treatment—in Figure 12.26.
The p-value comparing mean 2 to mean 1, where mean 1 represents the (4,0)
treatment, exceeds α = .05.]
4. There is no evidence of a difference between the treatments corresponding to
the sample means 93.5 and 94.0, i.e., between the (4,2) and (5,0) treatment
means.

Follow-Up Analysis: Tukey’s Multiple Comparisons of Means

679

[Note: This inference can also be obtained by observing that the Tukey-adjusted
p-value shown in Figure 12.26 under the mean 4 column—the column for the
(5,0) treatment—and in the mean 3 row—the row for the (4,2) treatment—is
greater than α = .05. ]
In summary, the treatment means appear to fall into four groups, as follows:
TREATMENTS
(LENGTH, BREAKS)
Group 1 (lowest mean productivity)
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4 (highest mean productivity)

(5, 2)
(4, 2) and (5, 0)
(4, 0) and (4, 1)
(4, 1) and (5, 1)

Notice that it is unclear where we should place the treatment corresponding to
a 4-day, one-break work week because of the overlapping bars above its sample
mean, 105.5. That is, although there is sufﬁcient evidence to indicate that treatments
(4, 0) and (5, 1) differ, neither has been shown to differ signiﬁcantly from treatment
(4, 1). Tukey’s method guarantees that the probability of making one or more Type
I errors in these pairwise comparisons is only α = .05.
Remember that Tukey’s multiple comparisons procedure requires the sample
sizes associated with the treatments to be equal. This, of course, will be satisﬁed for
the randomized block designs and factorial experiments described in Sections 12.4
and 12.5, respectively. The sample sizes, however, may not be equal in a completely
randomized design (Section 12.3). In this case a modiﬁcation of Tukey’s method
(sometimes called the Tukey–Kramer method) is necessary, as described in the box
(p. 680). The technique requires that the critical difference ωij be calculated for each
pair of treatments (i, j) in the experiment and pairwise comparisons made based on
the appropriate value of ωij . However, when Tukey’s method is used with unequal
sample sizes, the value of α selected a priori by the researcher only approximates
the true experimentwise error rate. In fact, when applied to unequal sample sizes,
the procedure has been found to be more conservative (i.e., less likely to detect
differences between pairs of treatment means when they exist) than in the case
of equal sample sizes. For this reason, researchers sometimes look to alternative
methods of multiple comparisons when the sample sizes are unequal. Two of these
methods are presented in optional Section 12.8.
In general, multiple comparisons of treatment means should be performed only
as a follow-up analysis to the ANOVA, that is, only after we have conducted the
appropriate analysis of variance F -test(s) and determined that sufﬁcient evidence
exists of differences among the treatment means. Be wary of conducting multiple
comparisons when the ANOVA F -test indicates no evidence of a difference among
a small number of treatment means—this may lead to confusing and contradictory
results.∗

Warning

In practice, it is advisable to avoid conducting multiple comparisons of a
small number of treatment means when the corresponding ANOVA F -test is
nonsigniﬁcant; otherwise, confusing and contradictory results may occur.
∗ When a large number of treatments are to be compared, a borderline, nonsigniﬁcant F -value (e.g., .05 <

p-value < .10) may mask differences between some of the means. In this situation, it is better to ignore the
F -test and proceed directly to a multiple comparisons procedure.

680 Chapter 12 The Analysis of Variance for Designed Experiments

Tukey’s Approximate Multiple Comparisons Procedure for Unequal
Sample Sizes
1. Calculate for each treatment pair (i, j)
s
ωij = qα (p, ν) √
2

1
1
+
ni
nj

where
p = Number of sample means

s = MSE
ν = Number of degrees of freedom associated with MSE
ni = Number of observations in sample for treatment i
nj = Number of observations in sample for treatment j
qα (p, ν) = Critical value of the Studentized range
(Tables 11 and 12 of Appendix D)
2. Rank the p sample means and place a bar over any treatment pair (i, j)
that differs by less than ωij . Any pair of sample means not connected
by an overbar (i.e., differing by more than ω) implies a difference in the
corresponding population means.
Note: This procedure is approximate, that is, the value of α selected by the
researcher approximates the true probability of making at least one Type I
error.

12.7 Exercises
12.49 Robots trained to behave like ants. Refer to
the Nature (August 2000) study of robots trained
to behave like ants, Exercise 12.7 (p. 621). Multiple comparisons of mean energy expended for
the four colony sizes were conducted using an
experimentwise error rate of .05. The results are
summarized below.
Sample mean:
Group size:

.97
3

.95
6

.93
9

.80
12

one week before training, two days after training, and two months after training. A multiple
comparisons of means for the three time periods
(using Tukey’s method and an experimentwise
error rate of .10) is summarized below. Fully
interpret the results.
Sample mean:
Time period:

3.65
Before

4.14
2 months after

4.17
2 days after

12.51 Mussel settlement patterns on algae.
(a) How many pairwise comparisons are conducted in this analysis?
(b) Interpret the results shown in the table.

12.50 Peer mentor training at a ﬁrm. Refer to the
Journal of Managerial Issues (Spring 2008) study
of the impact of peer mentor training at a large
software company, Exercise 12.20 (p. 637). A randomized block design (with trainees as blocks)
was set up to compare the mean competence levels of trainees measured at three different times:

Refer
to the Malacologia (February 8, 2002) study
of the impact of algae type on the abundance of mussel larvae in drift material,
Exercise 12.30 (p. 658). Recall that algae was
categorized into four strata—coarse-branching,
medium-branching, ﬁne-branching, and hydroid
algae—and the average mussel density (percent
per square centimeter) was determined for each.
Tukey multiple comparisons of the four algae
strata means (at α = .05) are summarized on
p. 681. Which means are signiﬁcantly different?

Follow-Up Analysis: Tukey’s Multiple Comparisons of Means

Multiple comparisons for Exercise 12.51
Mean abundance
(%/cm2 ):
Algae stratum:

9

10

27

55

Coarse

Medium

Fine

Hydroid

12.52 Learning from picture book reading. Refer to
the Developmental Psychology (November,2006)
study of toddlers’ ability to learn from reading
picture books, Exercise 12.31 (p. 658). Recall that
a 3 × 3 factorial experiment was employed, with
age at three levels and reading book condition at
three levels. At each age level, the researchers
performed Tukey multiple comparisons of the
reading book condition mean scores at α = .05.
The results are summarized in the table below.
What can you conclude from this analysis? Support your answer with a plot of the means.
.40
.75
1.20
AGE = 18 months: Control Drawings Photos
.60
1.61
1.63
AGE = 24 months: Control Drawings Photos
.50
2.20
2.21
AGE = 30 months: Control Drawings Photos

12.53 End-user computing study.

The Journal of
Computer Information Systems (Spring 1993)
published the results of a study of end-user
computing. Data on the ratings of 18 speciﬁc enduser computing (EUC) policies were obtained

EUC POLICY

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

Organizational value
Training
Goals
Justify applications
Relation with MIS
Hardware movement
Accountability
Justify data
Ownership of ﬁles
In-house software
Compatibility
Document ﬁles
Role of networking
Data conﬁdentiality
Data security
Hardware standards
Software purchases

MEAN RATING

2.439
2.683
2.854
3.098
3.293
3.366
3.390
3.561
3.756
3.854
3.878
4.000
4.000
4.049
4.073
4.219
4.293
4.317

Source: Mitchell, R. B., and Neal, R. ‘‘Status of planning
and control systems in the end-user computing environment,’’ Journal of Computer Information Systems,
Vol. 33, No. 3, Spring 1993, p. 29 (Table 4).

681

for each of 82 managers. (Managers rated policies on a 5-point scale, where 1 = no value and
5 = necessity.) The goal was to compare the mean
ratings of the 18 EUC policies; thus, a randomized
block design with 18 treatments (policies) and 82
blocks (managers) was used. Since the ANOVA
F -test for treatments was signiﬁcant at α = .01,
a follow-up analysis was conducted. The mean
ratings for the 18 EUC policies are reported in
the table. Using an overall signiﬁcance level of
α = .05, the Tukey critical difference for comparing the 18 means was determined to be ω = .32.
(a) Determine the pairs of EUC policy means
that are signiﬁcantly different.
(b) According to the researchers, the group of
policies receiving the highest rated values
have mean ratings of 4.0 and above. Do you
agree with this assessment?

12.54 Insomnia and education. Refer to the Journal of Abnormal Psychology (February 2005)
study relating daytime functioning to insomnia
and education status, Exercise 12.33 (p. 658).
In a 2 × 4 factorial experiment, with insomnia
status at two levels (normal sleeper or chronic
insomnia) and education at four levels (college
and high school dropout), only the main effect
for education was statistically signiﬁcant. Recall
that the dependent variable was measured on
the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS). In a follow-up
analysis, the sample mean FSS values for the four
education levels were compared using Tukey’s
method (α = .05), with the results shown below.
What do you conclude?
Mean:
3.3
3.6
3.7
4.2
Education: College Some
HS
HS

12.55 Strengthening tin-lead solder joints. Refer to
Exercise 12.35 (p. 659). Use Tukey’s multiple
comparisons procedure to compare the mean
shear strengths for the four antimony amounts.
Identify the means that appear to differ. Use
α = .01.
EGGS2

12.56 Commercial eggs produced from different housing systems. Refer to the Food Chemistry (Vol.
106, 2008) study of four different types of egg
housing systems, Exercise 12.36 (p. 659). Recall
that you discovered that the mean whipping
capacity (percent overﬂow) differed for cage,
barn, free range, and organic egg housing systems.
A multiple comparisons of means was conducted
using Tukey’s method with an experimentwise

682 Chapter 12 The Analysis of Variance for Designed Experiments
SPSS Output for Exercise 12.56

error rate of .05. The results are displayed in the
SPSS printout above.
(a) Locate the conﬁdence interval for (μCAGE −
μBARN ) on the printout and interpret the
result.
(b) Locate the conﬁdence interval for (μCAGE −
μFREE ) on the printout and interpret the
result.
(c) Locate the conﬁdence interval for (μCAGE −
μORGANIC ) on the printout and interpret the
result.
(d) Locate the conﬁdence interval for (μBARN −
μFREE ) on the printout and interpret the
result.
(e) Locate the conﬁdence interval for (μBARN −
μORGANIC ) on the printout and interpret the
result.
(f) Locate the conﬁdence interval for (μFREE −
μORGANIC ) on the printout and interpret the
result.
(g) Based on the results, parts a–f, provide a
ranking of the housing system means. Include
the experimentwise error rate as a statement
of reliability.

12.57 Studies on treating Alzheimer’s disease. Refer
to the eCAM (November 2006) study of the
quality of the research methodology used in
journal articles that investigate the effectiveness of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) treatments,

Exercise 12.22 (p. 638). Using 13 research papers
as blocks, a randomized block design was
employed to compare the mean quality scores
of the nine research methodology dimensions,
What-A, What-B, What-C, Who-A, Who-B,
Who-C, How-A, How-B, and How-C.
(a) The SAS printout on p. 683 reports the results
of a Tukey multiple comparisons of the nine
Dimension means. Which pairs of means are
signiﬁcantly different?
(b) Refer to part a. The experimentwise error
rate used in the analysis is .05. Interpret this
value.
DRINKERS

12.58 Restoring self-control when intoxicated. Refer
to the Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology (February 2005) study of restoring
self-control while intoxicated, Exercise 12.12
(p. 623). The researchers theorized that if caffeine can really restore self-control, then students
in Group AC (alcohol plus caffeine group) will
perform the same as students in Group P (placebo
group) on the word completion task. Similarly,
if an incentive can restore self-control, then students in Group AR (alcohol plus reward group)
will perform the same as students in Group P.
Finally, the researchers theorized that students
in Group A (alcohol only group) will perform