Results

ANOVA

The main ANOVA table is below. Let’s assume we’re using 𝛼 = 0.05, because the observed significance of Welch’s F is less than 0.05 we can say that the change in hygiene scores was significantly different across the different musical subcultures, F(3, 43.19) = 3.08, p = 0.037.

Below this are the simple contrasts between subcultures.

ANOVA - Change
								95% CI for ω²
Homogeneity Correction	Cases	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	p	ω²	Lower	Upper
Welch	Subculture	4.646	3.000	1.549	3.078	0.037	0.052	0.000	0.132
	Residuals	56.358	43.190	1.305

Note. Type III Sum of Squares

Descriptives

Descriptives plots

Contrast Tables

Simple Contrast - Subculture
		95% CI for Mean Difference							95% CI for Cohen's d
Comparison	Estimate	Lower	Upper	SE	df	t	p	Cohen's d	Lower	Upper
Raver - No subculture	-0.412	-0.742	-0.081	0.167	119	-2.464	0.015	-0.598	-1.085	-0.111
Metalhead - No subculture	0.028	-0.289	0.346	0.160	119	0.177	0.860	0.041	-0.420	0.503
Hipster - No subculture	-0.410	-0.816	-0.004	0.205	119	-2.001	0.048	-0.596	-1.190	-0.001

The change in hygiene scores was significantly different across the different musical subcultures, 𝐹_Welch(3, 43.19) = 3.08, p = 0.037. This was a tiny effect 𝜔² = 0.052 [0.00, 0.132] and if we assume that this sample was one of the 95% that produces a confidence interval capturing the true effect, then the group differences in the change in hygiene scores was plausibly zero. Nevertheless, contrasts revealed significant differences in the change in hygiene scones between those with no subcultural affiliation compared to ravers, t(119) = -2.464, p = 0.015, 𝑑^= -0.598 [-1.085, -0.111], and hipsters, t(119) = -2.001, p = 0.048, 𝑑^= -0.596 [-1.19, -0.001], but not compared to metalheads, t(119) = 0.177, p = 0.860, 𝑑^= 0.041 [-0.42, 0.503]. The wide confidence intervals and borderline significance indicate that these conclusions ought to be taken with a grain of (bath) salt, though.