__Case one, 2x2 with only main effects__

The first example acting as if there was no interaction.

A 2 x 2 between-subjects ANOVA found a main effect of menu options
such that hot items were rated spicier than mild items, __F__ (1,16)
= 90.00, __p__ < .001, __MSE__ = 0.50, a main effect of restaurant
type such that food in a dive was rated spicier than the food in a fancy
restaurant, __F__ (1,16) = 10.00, __p__ < .01, __MSE__ = 0.50,
and no interaction. Figure 1 shows the mean spiciness ratings for
each condition.

*Since there are only main effects (no interaction), and since each
IV only has two levels, you can mention the direction of the effect as
part of the ANOVA. Descriptive statistics can be given in paragraph,
table, or graph.*

__Case two, 2x2 with an interaction__

This is the first example that we have been investigating.

A 2 x 2 between-subjects ANOVA revealed a main effect of menu
options such that hot items were rated as spicier than mild items, __F__
(1,16) = 90.00, __p__ < .001, __MSE__ = 0.50, a main effect of
restaurant type such that food in a dive was rated spicier than the food
in a fancy restaurant, __F__ (1,16) = 10.00, __p__ < .01, __MSE__
= 0.50, and a significant interaction, __F__ (1,16) = 10.00, __p__
< .01, __MSE__ = 0.50. Since there was no difference between
restaurant types on ratings of mild menu items but there was a difference
for hot items, the main effect of restaurant type appears to be an artifact
of the interaction. Figure 1 shows the mean spiciness ratings for
each condition.

*Since each IV only has two levels, you can mention the direction
of the effect as part of the ANOVA. Since there was an interaction,
you need to describe how the effects of one IV depend of hte level of the
other IV. Descriptive statistics can be given in paragraph, table,
or graph.*

__Case three, 3x2 with only main effects__

This is like our example, acting as if we had no interaction.

A 3 x 2 between-subjects ANOVA found a main effect of menu options
on spiciness ratings, __F__ (2,30) = 16.875, __p__ < .001, __MSE__
= 1.60, a main effect of restaurant type on spiciness ratings, __F__
(1,30) = 40.000, __p__ < .001, __MSE__ = 1.60, and no interaction.
Tukey HSD comparisons indicated that for menu options hot items were rated
spicier than medium items, which were rated spicier than mild items (__p__
< .05). The food in dives was rated as spicier than the food in
fancy restaurants. Figure 1 shows the mean spiciness ratings for
each condition.

*Since one IV has more than two levels, you can not mention
the direction of the effects as part of the ANOVA. Thus you report
the main effects of the IV with 3 levels (menu options) from the outcome
of a follow-up comparison (in this case Tukey's HSD). Since one IV
has just 2 levels, you give the direction there without reference to follow-ups
since they were not needed. Note that I followed the order laid done
in the 3x2 statement. The first IV is the one with 3 levels, thus
it was first in the ANOVA statement, and first in the discussion of the
direction of the effects. Descriptive statistics can be given in
paragraph, table, or graph.*

__Case four, 3x2 with an interaction__

(1) A 3 x 2 between-subjects ANOVA found a main effect of menu
options on spiciness rating, __F__ (2,30) = 16.875, __p__ < .001,
__MSE__ = 1.60, a main effect of restaurant type on spiciness ratings,
__F__ (1,30) = 40.000, __p__ < .001, __MSE__ = 1.60, and a
significant interaction, __F__ (2,30) = 4.375, __p__ < .025, __MSE__
= 1.60. (2a) Tukey's pairwise comparisons for cell means showed that
in the dive restaurant the mild menu option was rated less spicy than the
medium or hot options (__p__ < .05). In the fancy restaurant
there were no differences among the menu options. (2b) In addition,
for the mild menu option there was no effect of restaurant type but for
both the medium and the hot options the food in dives was rated spicier
than the food in fancy restaurants. (3) Thus in the dive the differences
among menu options was meaningful while in the fancy restaurant menu options
had no effect, and the difference between the dive and the fancy restaurant
was only apparent for medium and hot menu options . (4) Figure 1
shows the means for each condition.

1. ANOVA Statement

ME of IV1, ME of IV2, and Interaction

2. Tukey follow-ups for simple effects

A. IV1

-- at level 1 of IV2

-- at level 2 of IV2

B. IV2

-- at level 1 of IV1

-- at level 2 of IV1

-- at level 3 of IV1

3. Simple Summary explaining interaction (optional)

4. Descriptive stats