The previous paper is attached below Previously, your group designed an experim

The previous paper is attached below
Previously, your group designed an experiment that assessed McCloud Links to an external site.’s hypothesis that increased artistic detail has an inverse relationship with personal identifiability with a character or avatar. For your next assignment, we will build on that basis.
Part 1: Take Part 2 of the first assignment (writing out the method), and revise your group experiment to make it as good as possible at testing the identification hypothesis, based on the feedback you got from the first assignment. Please highlight those sections you have changed. Or make a comment about what has changed.
Part 2: You will explore the possibility of alternative hypotheses. As a reminder, The Identification Hypothesis is McCloud’s hypothesis and holds that people are more likely to IDENTIFY with images that are more abstract/cartoonish, and because they identify with those images, they are more likely to behave towards them in affiliative (e.g., friendly, supportive) ways. “Oh, it’s similar to me, so I like it!”
The Attractiveness Hypothesis as discussed in class holds that people have an innate, biological/perceptual preference for attractive images (or people), and abstract/cartoonish items are more likely to be perceived as attractive. This causes people to behave in affiliative ways towards attractive people/animals/avatars. “Oh, it’s sweet and cute, so I like it!”
In Part 2, you should answer the following questions. For the sake of this assignment, assume that you ran the experiment, and got results that were consistent with McCloud’s Identification Hypothesis.
1) Think about your predicted results from group project. Can those results be explained by the Attractiveness hypothesis? Why, or why not?
1A) If you believe your results CAN be explained by the attractiveness hypothesis, think about another pattern of results that you might have gotten (e.g., no difference as a function of amount of detail). Would this alternative set of results be explained by the Attractiveness hypothesis?
1B) If you do NOT believe that your results could be explained by the Attractiveness hypothesis, change your experiment (from Part 1) by either changing the dependent variable or independent variable in such a way that you would get results that could be explained by both hypotheses. Describe it here, and then use the Part 1B experiment to answer the subsequent questions.
2) Imagine that you wanted to determine which was correct: the “Identification” hypothesis, or the “Attractiveness” hypothesis. How could you do so using your study design from the previous group assignment, and changing the PARTICIPANTS whom you work with (e.g., working with different groups of people, like children and adults)? Describe how you would do so well enough to explain the data you collect, and how that data would be different based on which hypothesis is correct.
3) Imagine that you wanted to determine which was correct: the “Identification” hypothesis, or the “Attractiveness” hypothesis. How could you do so by modifying the GAME you used in your previous group assignment? Describe how you would do so well enough to explain the data you collect, and how that data would be different based on which hypothesis is correct.
4) Which method (manipulating participants, or manipulating the game) do you believe would do a better job of determining which hypothesis (Identification, or Attractiveness) is the more accurate idea? Why?
5) Based on the method you chose in Part 4, develop a QALMRI analysis of the experiment you propose to do, that is: the experiment that would tell you which hypothesis is the better one.