DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Table 1 Socio-demographic Profile of Respondents (n=241)

Variable Overall Georgetown Singapore

(n=241) (n=121) (n=120)
% % %
Gender
Male 61.4 68.4 54.3
Female 38.6 31.6 45.7

Age Group
<16 5.8 8.0 3.5
17-24 16.9 23.2 10.5
25-34 40.8 45.5 36.0
35-44 25.1 12.5 37.7
45-54 8.0 6.3 9.6
55-64 3.1 3.6 2.6
65+ 0.5 0.9 0.0

Education Level
Advanced degree 9.0 5.7 12.2
University/college graduate 64.3 53.8 74.8
Graduated from high school 20.3 30.2 10.4
Did not graduate from high school 6.5 10.4 2.6

Table 9 - Residents' Perceptions Toward Hong Kong Disneyland (n=832)

Level of Agreement/ Disagreement (%)

Disagree1 Neutral Agree2 Mean 3

I support the development of Hong Kong Disneyland. 8 18 76 3.8
I believe the benefits of HK Disneyland will outweigh
the costs 15 23 62 3.5
I attach great importance to having Disneyland in HK 23 27 50 3.4
The $5.6 million low interest government loan
provided for the HK Disneyland project was a fair deal
to attract the Walt Disney Co. to HK 39 27 34 2.9
The $13.6 billion contribution by the Government for
land reclamation & infrastructure works for the HK
Disney-land project was fair deal to attract the Walt
Disney Co. to HK 38 27 35 2.9
_________________________________________________________________________________
Note: 1 – includes strongly disagree & disagree responses; 2 – includes strongly agree & agree responses; 3 - based on a 5 point scale
where 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
 INDEPENDENT SAMPLES T-TEST

However, Table 14 shows that respondents who rated the media coverage related to Hong Kong Disneyland as
positive, had significantly higher mean scores for six of the seven variables examined which include:
- support for the development;
- benefits of the project outweigh costs;
- economic impacts;
- socio-cultural impacts;
- community attitude impacts; and
- overall impacts,
than respondents who rated the media coverage as negative. This confirms that the media had influence on
respondents’ perceptions towards Hong Kong Disneyland.

Table 14. Independent Samples T-test Results: Ratings on Media Coverage as Positive Vs. Negative on
Perceptions towards Hong Kong Disneyland

Group n Mean^ t-value df p

1. Support for the development Positive 321 4.0 -3.502 161 0.001*
Negative 109 3.7

2. Benefits of the project outweigh costs Positive 317 3.9 -3.628 151 0.001*
Negative 109 3.5

3. Economic Impacts Positive 301 4.1 -4.240 141 0.001*

Negative 105 3.7

4. Socio-cultural Impacts Positive 295 3.9 -3.354 168 0.001*

Negative 102 3.6

5. Community Attitude Positive 241 3.7 -2.611 325 0.009*

Negative 86 3.5

6. Environmental Impacts Positive 252 2.0 -1.191 344 0.234

Negative 94 1.9

7. Overall Impacts Positive 313 4.0 -4.161 172 0.001*

Negative 110 3.5

^ Based on a 5-point scale where 1=Dislike to 5=Like.

* Denotes significance at the 0.05 level.
 ONE-WAY ANOVA

ANOVA Table

This is the table that shows the output of the ANOVA analysis and whether we have a statistically significant difference
between our group means. We can see that the significance level is 0.021 (p = .021), which is below 0.05. and, therefore,
there is a statistically significant difference in the mean length of time to complete the spreadsheet problem between the
different courses taken. This is great to know, but we do not know which of the specific groups differed. Luckily, we can
find this out in the Multiple Comparisons table which contains the results of post-hoc tests.

Multiple Comparisons Table

From the results so far, we know that there are significant differences between the groups as a whole. The table below,
Multiple Comparisons, shows which groups differed from each other. The Tukey post-hoc test is generally the preferred
test for conducting post-hoc tests on a one-way ANOVA, but there are many others. We can see from the table below that
there is a significant difference in time to complete the problem between the group that took the beginner course and the
intermediate course (p = 0.046), as well as between the beginner course and advanced course (p = 0.034). However, there
were no differences between the groups that took the intermediate and advanced course (p = 0.989).

Reporting the output of the one-way ANOVA

Based on the results above, we could report the results of the study as follows (N.B., this does not include the results from
your assumptions tests or effect size calculations):
 General

There was a statistically significant difference between groups as determined by one-way ANOVA (F(2,27) =
4.467, p = .021). A Tukey post-hoc test revealed that the time to complete the problem was statistically
significantly lower after taking the intermediate (23.6 ± 3.3 min, p = .046) and advanced (23.4 ± 3.2 min, p
= .034) course compared to the beginners course (27.2 ± 3.0 min). There were no statistically significant
differences between the intermediate and advanced groups (p = .989).

Source: https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/one-way-anova-using-spss-statistics-2.php

PEARSON’S CORRELATION ANALYSIS

Relationship Between Influence of Frequent Flyer Programme (FFP) Membership with Influence of
Satisfaction with FFP and Importance

A number of hypotheses were postulated to examine the relationship between influence of FFP membership
with importance and influence of FFP satisfaction. Pearson's correlation analysis was employed to test the
hypotheses and the results are presented in Table 14.

It was hypothesised there is a positive correlation between the influence of FFP membership, and the
importance of FFP in promoting loyalty (H1) and influence on satisfaction with a FFP (H2). Support for both
hypotheses was found with moderate levels of association obtained. The influence of FFP membership and
importance of the FFP in promoting customer loyalty were positively related to each other (r = .45 p < .001).
Likewise, the influence of FFP membership and influence of satisfaction with a FFP were positively related (r
= .57, p < .001).

Table 14: Pearson Correlation Coefficients Results for Frequent Flyer Membership with Importance and Satisfaction
(n=122)
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Variable Co-efficient p

Influence of Frequent Flyer Membership

H1 Importance of Frequent Flyer Programme

in Promoting Customer Loyalty .45 .001

H2 Influence of Satisfaction with a Frequent

Flyer Programme on Airline Selection .57 .001
_________________________________________________________________________________________
 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

The first thing to do when reporting results is to describe the test you carried out and why you did it. You need to
make sure you mention the various variables included in your analysis. Something like this:

A multiple regression was conducted to see if intelligence level and extroversion level predicted the total
value of sales made by sales persons per week.

Next you want to have a look at the various descriptive statistics you have. Now to be honest it is up to you where
and how you report these. They can go in a table or in text and can be mentioned before or during your main analysis.
How you do it generally depends on how many variables you have. One or two, just stick it in the text, more than
that and you should make a table. Now you can just report the means and standard deviation values, as seen in the
table below. However, if you really want your data to be complete you will need to include the bivariate correlation
values, and that means running some extra tests. Now I am not going to show you how to do that here, I may in a
future post, as for now I want to focus on the main findings. I will say that if you do want to include these values
then you need to run individual correlations on all your predictor variables against your dependent variable
individually. Then you report the R value and the significance value for each one.

Right, so once you have reported the various descriptive statistics the next thing you want to do is look and see if
your results are statistically significant. When you run a multiple regression, it automatically includes an ANOVA
(ANalysis Of VAriance) test in the mix. This is the first thing you want to look for.

If the significance value is less than .05 then you have yourself a finding that is statistically significant. When it
comes to reporting it you will want to include the F value and the relevant degrees of freedom. You need to report
the degrees of freedom for both the regression and the residual error. Next you want to look and see how much of
the variance in the results your analysis explains. For this you want to turn to the Model Summary table.

The R Square value tells you how much of the variance in your analysis is explained by the various predictor
variables. In this case it is .353, or to put it another way 35.3%. You also need to look at the Adjusted R Square
value as well. This value takes into account the number of variables involved in your analysis. If you add additional
variables to the analysis the R Square value will tend to increase, however it will never decrease. The Adjusted R
Square value on the other hand can go down if the new variable doesn’t add to the explanatory power of the model.
It is now standard practice to include this value when reporting your results. So let’s do that:

NOTE: In part one we used the Enter method to add the variables to the analysis. You should mention this when
reporting your findings.

Using the enter method it was found that intelligence and extroversion level explain a significant
amount of the variance in the value of sales made per week (F(2, 17) = 4.63, p < .05, R2 = .59, R2Adjusted
= .28).

So is that it then? I mean we know that we have significant results, surely we can call it a day? Well not quite. We
know that overall our results were significant but we don’t know whether one or both of our predictor variables is
contributing to this result. To find out we need to look to the Coefficients table.

Here we will see that SPSS has kindly carried out a couple of t tests for us, one for intelligence/IQ score and one for
extroversion level. Again we look to see which, if any, of these are significant, and we see that intelligence is not but
extroversion level is. You also need to look at the Beta value. This will tell you if your regression is positive or
negative for this variable. No whether you say which direction the regression is heading here is up to you, I generally
leave this detail until the discussion section, but either way stick that Beta value in there. Ok, so let’s report this.

NOTE: I believe that the degrees of freedom for the t tests in this analysis is n-1, but I am not completely sure. Make
sure you check with someone who does this sort of thing for a living before handing anything in. Also you should
use the symbol for Beta rather than the word if possible.

The analysis shows that intelligence level did not significantly predict value of sales per week (Beta = .23,
t(19) = 1.17, ns), however extroversion level did significantly predict value of sales per week (Beta = .50,
t(19) = 2.53, p < .05).

Good luck and may all your results be significant.

Source: http://www.adart.myzen.co.uk/reporting-multiple-regressions-in-apa-format-part-two/
 EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS

Respondents’ Perceptions towards the Impacts of Hong Kong Disneyland

Ten impact items were originally examined in the study and these were further grouped into four factors. One
cultural item, concerning influence of American culture was deleted from the analysis as part of the scale
purification process. The Cronbach’s alpha co-efficient for the sub-scale increased from 0.64 to 0.76 if this item
were deleted from this sub-scale. The impact factors were labeled economic, socio-cultural, environmental, and
community attitude (see Table 7). All four factors that emerged from the factor analysis had Eigenvalues, which
ranged from 0.83 to 3.15 with 71% of the variance explained. In terms of reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha co-
efficients for the factors ranged from 0.68 to 0.76. It might be noted that two factors had Eigenvalues below the
usually accepted 1.0 cut-off. However, as all the items loaded cleanly onto each factor, made theoretical sense,
and with the cumulated variance increasing 19% from 52% to 71% with inclusion of these factors, they were
retained for subsequent analysis. Jolliffe (1972, 1986) also argues that 1.0 is too strict and suggests retaining
factors that exceed an Eigenvalue more than 0.70. Given the above, it was decided to retain all four factors for
subsequent analysis.

Table 7. Results of Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation and Reliability Analysis of Respondents' General
Perceptions towards Tourism Impacts of Hong Kong Disneyland (n=1060)
Factor Loadings
Statement Communality
F1 F2 F3 F4

Factor 1: Economic Impacts

1. Number of jobs in the community. .87 .77
2. Revenue generated in the local economy. .74 .68

Factor 2: Socio-cultural Impacts

3. Opportunities to learn about other people
.85 .79
and cultures.
4. Understanding of different people and
.82 .77
cultures by local residents.

Factor 3: Community Attitude

5. Community spirit among local residents. .79 .65
6. Positive attitudes of local residents
.73 .62
towards tourists.
7. Vitality of Hong Kong. .62 .59

Factor 4: Environmental Impacts

8. Water quality at Penny’s Bay. .87 .76
9. Natural habitat of the Chinese white
.87 .76
dolphins in the Lantau Island area.

F1 F2 F3 F4
Eigenvalue 3.15 1.52 .91 .83
Variance (%) 35.0 16.9 10.1 9.2
Cumulative variance (%) 35.0 51.9 62.0 71.1
Cronbach’s alpha .68 .76 .69 .74
Number of items (Σ=9) 2 2 3 2