Name: Bendebel, Raiza T.
Date: 04/24/25
Course & Year: BS PSYCHOLOGY - 1 Section: E4
CASE # 1:
A social psychologist is interested in understanding factors that contribute to
feelings of hopelessness. They hypothesize that individuals who possess a stronger
growth mindset and grit are less likely to experience hopelessness. To investigate this,
the social psychologist recruits a sample of 10 adults and administers three validated
questionnaires.
Growth Mindset Scale: Measures the extent to which individuals believe their
intelligence and abilities can grow.
Grit Scale: Assesses individuals' perseverance and passion for long-term goals.
Hopelessness Scale: Measures negative expectations about the future.
Grit Hopelessness Growth Mindset
26 20 111
31 16 122
32 16 97
32 16 109
35 15 129
27 11 131
33 15 135
29 19 134
36 11 111
19 27 98
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:
Linear Regression
Model Fit Measures
Overall Model Test
Model R R² Adjusted R² F df1 df2 p
1 0.801 0.642 0.540 6.29 2 7 0.027
Note. Models estimated using sample size of
N=10
The table above shows it is a good model since the p-value is significant at p-value =
0.027. The model strongly/highly explains that hopelessness is predicted by grit and
growth mindset by 64.2%. This explanation is supported by r = 0.801, which means that
the relationship between the predictors (Grit and Growth Mindset) and the outcome
variable (Hopelessness) is very strong/very high.
Model Coefficients - Hopelessness
Estimat
Predictor SE t p
e
Intercept 44.223 9.444 4.683 0.00
0 2 2
Grit - 0.220 - 0.02
0.6627 4 3.007 0
Growth - 0.076 - 0.41
Mindset 0.0658 6 0.858 9
As shown in the table above, there is a negative relationship between Grit and Hopelessness.
An increase of grit is a decrease of hopelessness at -0.6627. Furthermore, the p-value
indicates that the negative relationship between grit and hopelessness is significant at p-value
= 0.020. This means that those individuals who continue to persevere and fully commit
themselves towards their goals are less likely to experience the feeling of being hopeless.
On the other hand, the table above also shows a negative relationship between Growth
Mindset and Hopelessness. An increase of growth mindset is a decrease of hopelessness at
-0.0658. However, the p-value suggests that the negative relationship between growth mindset
and hopelessness is not statistically significant at p-value = 0.419. This means that despite the
negative relationship between the two variables, an insignificant p-value results to uncertain
conclusion that growth mindset has a reliable impact towards the experience of hopelessness
among individuals.
CASE # 2:
A researcher is interested in identifying factors that influence to financial distress. Specifically, they
believe that coping flexibility and gender differences may mitigate the impact of financial stressors. To
explore this, the researcher recruits a sample of 10 adults and administers the following
measures:
Gender: A categorical variable coded as cisgender man or cisgender woman.
Coping Flexibility Scale: Assesses the extent to which individuals can adapt their coping
strategies to different stressful situations.
Financial Distress Scale: Measures the degree to which individuals experience concern
or difficulty related to their financial situation.
Gender Financial Distress Coping Flexibility
Cisgender man 12 99
Cisgender woman 10 91
Cisgender woman 15 91
Cisgender woman 9 126
Cisgender woman 12 114
Cisgender woman 21 96
Cisgender man 19 113
Cisgender woman 18 116
Cisgender woman 12 125
Cisgender man 24 120
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:
Linear Regression
Model Fit Measures
Overall Model Test
Model R R² Adjusted R² F df1 df2 p
1 0.428 0.183 -0.0499 0.786 2 7 0.492
Note. Models estimated using sample size of N=10
The table above shows it is not a good model since the p-value is not significant at p-value
= 0.492. The model weakly explains that financial distress is predicted by gender differences
and coping flexibility by 18.3%. This explanation is supported by r=0.428, which means that
the relationship between the predictors (Gender Differences and Coping Flexibility) and the
outcome variable (Financial Distress) is moderate.
Model Coefficients - FINANCIAL
DISTRESS
Predictor Estimate SE t p
Interceptᵃ 18.88175 14.361 1.3148 0.230
COPING FLEXIBILITY -0.00496 0.127 -0.0390 0.970
GENDER:
Cisgender woman – Cisgender man -4.48728 3.583 -1.2525 0.251
Based on the table above, there is a negative relationship between Coping Flexibility and Financial
Distress. An increase in coping flexibility is a decrease in financial distress at 0.00496. However, the p-
value indicates that the negative relationship between coping flexibility and financial distress is not
significant at p-value = 0.970. This suggests that even though there is a negative relationship between
coping flexibility and financial distress, an insignificant p-value explains that the minimal impact of
coping flexibility towards financial distress is not statistically reliable.
The table above also shows a negative relationship between Gender (Cisgender woman-Cisgender
man) and Financial Distress. This indicates that cisgender women tend to experience lesser financial
distress compared to cisgender men. However, the p-value suggests that the negative relationship
between gender and financial distress is not significant at p-value = 0.251. This implies that despite the
weak impact of gender differences towards financial distress, the p-value explains it does not provide
enough evidence and is considered as statistically insignificant.
