H 4 (P 1 >P 2 ): There is a meaningful difference between the degree of persistence for ostensible and genuine invitations. Graph A.3.: Hesitation strategies 24
3
385
618
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
A doesn't persist
A does persist
Strategy Fr e qu e nc y Ostensible
Genuine
Here, again, the result of the comparison of ratios supports the hypothesis.
Z
0.05
=1.645
Z
observed
=16.39 16.39>>1.645 therefore
P
1
>P
2
(5) A is vague about the arrangements. Unless they are established by the situation
and the shared knowledge of the interactants, A must specify the time and place of
the E for B (cf. 2. 15.). A common feature of ostensible invitations is the
vagueness of such logistics. In the sample, in 36 (5.33%) of the ostensible
invitations A is vague about the arrangements. However, in 8 (1.18%) of genuine
invitations A is vague about the arrangements.
H 5 (P 1 >P 2 ): There is a meaningful difference between the way inviters make arrangements in ostensible as opposed to genuine invitations.
