SPSS Statistics 27 Step by Step Answers To Selected Exercises

IBM SPSS Statistics 27
Step by Step
A Simple Guide and Reference
17th Edition
Answers to Selected
Exercises
Darren George, Ph.D.

Canadian University College
Paul Mallery, Ph.D.

La Sierra University
Contents
General Notes ..............................................................................................................................................1
Chapter 3: Creating and Editing a Data File............................................................................................2
3-2 ..............................................................................................................................................................3
3-3 ..............................................................................................................................................................3
3-5 ..............................................................................................................................................................3
3-6 ..............................................................................................................................................................3
3-7 ..............................................................................................................................................................3
3-8 ..............................................................................................................................................................4
Chapter 4: Managing Data .........................................................................................................................5
4-2 ..............................................................................................................................................................7
4-3 ..............................................................................................................................................................8
4-5 ..............................................................................................................................................................9
4-6 ..............................................................................................................................................................9
4-8 ............................................................................................................................................................10
4-9 ............................................................................................................................................................10
4-11 ..........................................................................................................................................................10
4-12 ..........................................................................................................................................................10
4-14 ..........................................................................................................................................................10
4-15 ..........................................................................................................................................................11
Chapter 5: Graphs .....................................................................................................................................13
5-1 ............................................................................................................................................................14
5-2 ............................................................................................................................................................14
5-4 ............................................................................................................................................................14
5-5 ............................................................................................................................................................15
Chapter 6: Frequencies .............................................................................................................................16
6-1 ............................................................................................................................................................17
6-3 ............................................................................................................................................................17
6-4 ............................................................................................................................................................18
6-6 ............................................................................................................................................................18
6-7 ............................................................................................................................................................19
Chapter 7: Descriptive Statistics ..............................................................................................................20
ii IBM SPSS Statistics 26 Step by Step Answers to Selected Exercises
7-1 ............................................................................................................................................................21
7-2 ............................................................................................................................................................21
7-4 ............................................................................................................................................................21
Chapter 8: Crosstabulation and χ2 Analyses ........................................................................................23

8-1 ............................................................................................................................................................25
8-2 ............................................................................................................................................................26
8-3 ............................................................................................................................................................26
8-8 ............................................................................................................................................................26
Chapter 9: The Means Procedure ............................................................................................................28
9-1 ............................................................................................................................................................29
9-3 ............................................................................................................................................................30
9-5 ............................................................................................................................................................30
Chapter 10: A Priori Power Analysis .......................................................................................................32
10-1 ..........................................................................................................................................................34
10-3 ..........................................................................................................................................................34
10-5 ..........................................................................................................................................................34
10-7 ..........................................................................................................................................................34
10-9 ..........................................................................................................................................................35
Chapter 11: Bivariate Correlation............................................................................................................36
11-1 ..........................................................................................................................................................38
11-3 ..........................................................................................................................................................39
11-4 ..........................................................................................................................................................39
11-5 ..........................................................................................................................................................39
Chapter 12: The T Test Procedure ...........................................................................................................40
12-1 ..........................................................................................................................................................43
12-2 ..........................................................................................................................................................45
12-3 ..........................................................................................................................................................46
12-4 ..........................................................................................................................................................46
12-8 ..........................................................................................................................................................47
12-9 ..........................................................................................................................................................47
Chapter 13: The One-Way ANOVA Procedure .....................................................................................48
13-1 ..........................................................................................................................................................50
13-2 ..........................................................................................................................................................51
13-3 ..........................................................................................................................................................53
13-4 ..........................................................................................................................................................53
IBM SPSS Statistics 27 Step by Step Answers to Selected Exercises iii
Chapter 15: Three-Way ANOVA .............................................................................................................55

15-1 ..........................................................................................................................................................62
15-2 ..........................................................................................................................................................65
15-3 ..........................................................................................................................................................65
15-6 ..........................................................................................................................................................66
15-7 ..........................................................................................................................................................67
15-10 ........................................................................................................................................................68
Chapter 16: Simple Linear Regression ...................................................................................................71
16-1 ..........................................................................................................................................................75
16-2 ..........................................................................................................................................................76
16-3 ..........................................................................................................................................................76
16-5 ..........................................................................................................................................................76
16-8 ..........................................................................................................................................................76
16-9 ..........................................................................................................................................................77
16-11 ........................................................................................................................................................77
Chapter 17: Multiple Regression Analysis.............................................................................................78
17-1 ..........................................................................................................................................................80
17-4 ..........................................................................................................................................................80
17-5 ..........................................................................................................................................................80
Chapter 19: Reliability Analysis ..............................................................................................................81
19-1 ..........................................................................................................................................................83
19-2 ..........................................................................................................................................................84
19-14 ........................................................................................................................................................85
Chapter 24: MANOVA and MANCOVA ...............................................................................................86
24-1 ..........................................................................................................................................................88
24-2 ..........................................................................................................................................................89
24-4 ..........................................................................................................................................................89
24-6 ..........................................................................................................................................................90
Chapter 25: Repeated-Measures MANOVA ..........................................................................................93
25-1 ..........................................................................................................................................................95
25-2 ..........................................................................................................................................................95
25-4 ..........................................................................................................................................................96
25-6 ..........................................................................................................................................................98
IBM SPSS Statistics 27 Step by Step Answers to Selected Exercises 1
General Notes
The following answers are in some cases complete. In other cases, only portions of the answer are in-
cluded.
The data files used are available for download at http://www.spss-step-by-step.net.
Check with your instructor to find exactly what she or he wants you to turn in.
We list the questions from each chapter first, followed by answers to selected exercises.
Note that with this edition, there is a new Chapter 10. So if you are using a previous edition of the
book, Chapter 10 in the old edition is now Chapter 11 in the new edition (so look in one chapter num-
ber later for answers for everything in Chapter 10 or higher in the previous edition of the book).
2 IBM SPSS Statistics 27 Step by Step Answers to Selected Exercises
Chapter 3: Creating and Editing a Data File
1. Set up the variables described above for the grades.sav file, using appropriate variable names,
variable labels, and variable values. Enter the data for the first 20 students into the data file.
2. Perhaps the instructor of the classes in the grades.sav dataset teaches these classes at two differ-
ent schools. Create a new variable in this dataset named school, with values of 1 and 2. Create
variable labels, where 1 is the name of a school you like, and 2 is the name of a school you don’t
like. Save your dataset with the name gradesme.sav.
3. Which of the following variable names will SPSS accept, and which will SPSS reject? For
those that SPSS will reject, how could you change the variable name to make it “legal”?
 age
 firstname
 @edu
 sex.
 grade
 not
 anxeceu
 date
 iq
4. Using the grades.sav file, make the gpa variable values (which currently have two digits after
the decimal point) have no digits after the decimal point. You should be able to do this without
retyping any numbers. Note that this won’t actually round the numbers, but it will change the way
they are displayed.
5. Using grades.sav, search for a student with 121 total points. What is his or her name?
6. Why is each of the following variables defined with the measure listed? Is it possible for
any of these variables to be defined as a different type of measure?
ethnicity Nominal
Extrcred Ordinal
quiz4 Scale
grade Nominal
7. Ten people were given a test of balance while standing on level ground, and ten other peo-
ple were given a test of balance while standing on a 30° slope. Their scores follow. Set up
the appropriate variables, and enter the data into SPSS.
Scores of people standing on level ground: 56, 50, 41, 65, 47, 50, 64, 48, 47, 57
Scores of people standing on a slope: 30, 50, 51, 26, 37, 32, 37, 29, 52, 54
8. Ten people were given two tests of balance, first while standing on level ground and then while
standing on a 30° slope. Their scores follow. Set up the appropriate variables, and enter the da-
ta into SPSS.
Participant: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Score standing on level ground: 56 50 41 65 47 50 64 48 47 57
Score standing on a slope: 38 50 46 46 42 41 49 38 49 55
3-2
The variable view screen might look something like this once the new variable is set up:
3-3
Variable SPSS What could be changed?
Name will…
Age Accept
sex. Reject Variable names can’t include a “.” so just use “sex” without a period.
3-5
Dawne Rathbun received a score of 121 for the course. No one received a score of 121 on the final exam.
3-6
Variable Currently de- Could also be defined as
fined as
ethnicity Nominal Ethnicity will generally be defined as a nominal variable. The only excep-
tions might be if, for example, you were examining the relative size of dif-
ferent ethnicities in a certain population. In that case, where ethnicity has
other theoretical meaning, ethnicity could be defined as an ordinal varia-
ble.
3-7
The variable view should look something like this, with one variable identifying whether the person
was standing on level or sloped ground and a second variable identifying each person’s balance score:
Once the data is entered, the data view should look something like this:
3-8
Note that, because each person took the balance test both on level ground and on a slope, there are ten
rows (one for each person) rather than twenty rows (one for each time the balance test was given).
Chapter 4: Managing Data

Some of the exercises that follow change the original data file. If you wish to leave the data in their
original form, don’t save your changes.
Case Summaries
1. Using the grades.sav file, list variables (in the original order) from id to quiz5, first 30 stu-
dents consecutive, fit on one page by editing.
2. Using the helping3.sav file, list variables hclose, hseveret, hcontrot, angert, sympathi, worry,
obligat, hcopet, first 30 cases, fit on one page by editing.
3. List ID, lastname, firstname, gender for the first 30 students in the grades.sav file, with the
lower division students listed first, followed by upper division students (lowup variable).
Edit output to fit on one page.
Missing Values
4. Using the grades.sav file delete the quiz1 scores for the first 20 subjects. Replace the (now)
missing scores with the average score for all other students in the class. Print out lastname,
firstname, quiz1 for the first 30 students. Edit to fit on one page.
Computing Variables
5. Using the grades.sav file calculate total (the sum of all five quizzes and the final) and per-
cent (100 times the total divided by possible points, 125). Since total and percent are already
present, name the new variables total1 and percent1. Print out id, total, total1, percent, per-
cent1, first 30 subjects. Total and total1; percent and percent1 should be identical.
6. Using the divorce.sav file compute a variable named spirit (spirituality) that is the mean of
sp8 through sp57 (there should be 18 of them). Print out id, sex, and the new variable spirit,
first 30 cases, edit to fit on one page.
7. Using the grades.sav file, compute a variable named quizsum that is the sum of quiz1
through quiz5. Print out variables id, lastname, firstname, and the new variable quizsum,
first 30, all on one page.
Recode Variables
8. Using the grades.sav file, compute a variable named grade1 according to the instructions on
page 70. Print out variables id, lastname, firstname, grade and the new variable grade1, first
30, edit to fit all on one page. If done correctly, grade and grade1 should be identical.
9. Using the grades.sav file; recode a passfail1 variable so that D’s and F’s are failing, and A’s,
B’s, and C’s are passing. Print out variables id, grade, passfail1, first 30, edit to fit all on one
page.
10. Using the helping3.sav file, redo the coding of the ethnic variable so that Black = 1, Hispan-
ic = 2, Asian = 3, Caucasian = 4, and Other/DTS = 5. Now change the value labels to be
consistent with reality (that is the coding numbers are different but the labels are con-
sistent with the original ethnicity). Print out the variables id and ethnic, (labels, not val-
ues) first 30 cases, fit on one page.
Selecting Cases
11. Using the divorce.sav file select females (sex = 1); print out id and sex, first 30 subjects,
numbered, fit on one page.
12. Select all the students in the grades.sav file with previous GPA less than 2.00, and percent-
ages for the class greater than 85. Print id, GPA, and percent on one page.
13. Using the helping3.sav file, select females (gender = 1) who spend more than the average
amount of time helping (thelplnz > 0). Print out id, gender, thelplnz, first 30 subjects,
numbered, fit on one page.
Sorting Cases
14. Alphabetize the grades.sav file by lastname, firstname, Print out lastname, firstname, first
30 cases, edit to fit on one page.
15. Using the grades.sav file, sort by id (ascending order). Print out id, total, percent, and
grade, first 30 subjects, fit on one page.
4-2
.
.
.
4-3
Case Summaries
lastname firstname
Lower or upper division Lower 1 VILLARRUZ ALFRED
2 OSBORNE ANN
3 LIAN JENNY
4 MISCHKE ELAINE
5 WU VIDYUTH
6 TORRENCE GWEN
7 CARPIO MARY
8 SAUNDERS TAMARA
Total N 8 8
Upper 1 VALAZQUEZ SCOTT
2 GALVEZ JACKIE
3 GUADIZ VALERIE
4 RANGIFO TANIECE
5 TOMOSAWA DANIEL
6 BAKKEN KREG
7 LANGFORD DAWN
8 VALENZUELA NANCY
9 SWARM MARK
10 KHOURY DENNIS
11 AUSTIN DERRICK
12 POTTER MICKEY
13 LEE JONATHAN
14 DAYES ROBERT
15 STOLL GLENDON
16 CUSTER JAMES
17 CHANG RENE
18 CUMMINGS DAVENA
19 BRADLEY SHANNON
20 JONES ROBERT
21 UYEYAMA VICTORINE
22 LUTZ WILLIAM
Total N 22 22
Total N 30 30
a Limited to first 30 cases.
4-5
Follow sequence steps 5c and 5c’ to complete this calculation.
4-6
Case Summariesa
Id sex Spirituality
1 1 female 3.72
2 2 female 5.28
3 3 female 5.83
4 4 female 5.89
5 5 female 5.44
6 6 male 5.39
7 7 male 5.56
8 8 female 5.39
9 9 male 4.89
10 10 female 6.06
11 11 female 5.61
12 12 female 6.28
13 13 male 6.28
14 14 male 5.28
15 15 male 4.83
16 16 female 5.11
17 17 male 5.72
18 18 male 5.78
19 19 female 5.00
20 20 female 6.28
21 21 female 4.72
22 22 female 4.72
23 23 female 5.56
24 24 male 5.00
25 25 male 5.83
26 26 female 5.61
27 27 male 4.78
28 28 female 5.94
29 29 male 4.83
30 30 female 4.33
Total N 30 30 30
a. Limited to first 30 cases.

4-8
Case Summaries
ID LASTNAME FIRSTNAME GRADE GRADE2
1 106484 VILLARRUZ ALFRED D D
2 108642 VALAZQUEZ SCOTT C C
3 127285 GALVEZ JACKIE C C
4 132931 OSBORNE ANN B B
5 140219 GUADIZ VALERIE B B
4-9
Follow sequence step 5d’ but use a range of 70 to 100 for “P”, and 0 to 69.9 for “F”.
4-11
Case Summariesa
Id sex
1 1 female
2 2 female
3 3 female
4 4 female
5 5 female
4-12
Case Summaries
Id gpa percent
1 140219 1.84 86
2 417003 1.91 87
Total N 2 2 2
4-14
ID LASTNAME FIRSTNAME
1 779481 AHGHEL BRENDA
2 777683 ANDERSON ERIC
3 211239 AUSTIN DERRICK
4 420327 BADGER SUZANNA
5 157147 BAKKEN KREG
4-15
Case Summaries(a)
Id total percent grade
1 106484 80 64 D
2 108642 96 77 C
3 127285 98 78 C
4 132931 103 82 B
5 140219 108 86 B
6 142630 122 98 A
7 153964 112 90 A
8 154441 120 96 A
9 157147 123 98 A
10 164605 124 99 A
11 164842 97 78 C
12 167664 118 94 A
13 175325 111 89 B
14 192627 84 67 D
15 211239 79 63 D
16 219593 94 75 C
17 237983 92 74 C
18 245473 88 70 C
19 249586 98 78 C
20 260983 106 85 B
21 273611 78 62 D
22 280440 114 91 A
23 287617 98 78 C
24 289652 109 87 B
25 302400 65 52 F
26 307894 90 72 C
27 337908 108 86 B
28 354601 120 96 A
29 378446 81 65 D
30 380157 118 86 B
31 390203 97 78 C
32 392464 103 82 B
33 414775 96 77 C
34 417003 109 87 B
35 419891 92 74 C
36 420327 103 82 B
Id total percent grade

37 434571 98 78 C
38 436413 96 77 C
39 447659 99 79 C
40 463276 123 98 A
Total N 40 40 40 40
Chapter 5: Graphs
All of the following exercises use the grades.sav sample data file.
1. Using a bar chart, examine the number of students in each section of the class along with whether
or not students attended the review session. Does there appear to be a relation between these vari-
ables?
2. Using a line graph, examine the relationship between attending the review session and section on
the final exam score. What does this relationship look like?
3. Create a boxplot of quiz 1 scores. What does this tell you about the distribution of the quiz scores?
Create a boxplot of quiz 2 scores. How does the distribution of this quiz differ from the distribu-
tion of quiz 1? Which case number is the outlier?
4. Create an error bar graph highlighting the 95% confidence interval of the mean for each of the three
sections’ final exam scores. What does this mean?
5. Based on the examination of a histogram, does it appear that students’ previous GPA’s are normal-
ly distributed?
6. Create the scatterplot described in Step 5f (page 98). What does the relationship appear to be be-
tween gpa and academic performance (total)? Add a regression lines for both men and women to
this scatterplot. What do these regression lines tell you?
7. By following all steps on pages 88 and 89, reproduce the bar graph shown on page 89.
8. By following all steps on pages 90 and 91, reproduce the line graph shown on page 91.
9. By following all steps on pages 92, reproduce the pie chart shown on page 92.
10. By following all steps on pages 93 and 94, reproduce the Boxplot shown on page 94.
11. By following all steps on pages 95, reproduce the Error Bar Chart shown on page 95. Note that the
edits are not specified on page 95. See if you can perform the edits that produce an identical chart.
12. By following all steps on pages 96 and 97, reproduce the histogram shown on page 97.
13. By following all steps on page 98, reproduce the scatterplot shown on page 99.
5-1
There does appear to be a relationship (though we don’t know if it’s significant or not): People in Sec-
tion 3 were somewhat more likely to skip the review session than in sections 1 or 2, and most people
who attended the review sessions were from Section 2, for example. This relationship may be clearer
with stacked rather than clustered bars, as there aren’t the same number of people in each section:
5-2
Although it looks like attending the review sessions was helpful for all students, it seems to have been
particularly helpful for students in Section 1. For this graph, we have modified the Y-axis to range from
55 to 65; the default is a much more compressed graph.
5-4
This is a good example of why we need to run statistical tests. The lower error bar or section 1, for ex-
ample, overlaps the upper error bar for section 3 by more than a half of a one-sided error bar (and vice
versa). So, the population mean for section 1 is probably not statistically significantly different. Be-
cause the error bars aren’t quite the same length, though, it may still be worth running a test to see if
they are significantly different.
5-5
20
15
Frequency
10
0
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
gpa
1.
Note that the GPA’s below the median appear fairly normal, but those above the median do not.
Chapter 6: Frequencies
Notice that data files other than the grades.sav file are being used here.
1. Using the divorce.sav file display frequencies for sex, ethnic, and status. Print output to show fre-
quencies for all three; edit output so it fits on one page. On a second page, include three bar graphs of
these data and provide labels to clarify what each one means.
2. Using the graduate.sav file display frequencies for motive, stable, and hostile. Print output to show
frequencies for all three; edit output so it fits on one page. Note: this type of procedure is typically
done to check for accuracy of data. Motivation (motive), emotional stability (stable), and hostility (hos-
tile) are scored on 1- to 9-point scales. You are checking to see if you have, by mistake, entered any 0s
or 99s.
3. Using the helping3.sav file compute percentiles for thelplnz (time helping, measured in z scores),
and tqualitz (quality of help measured in z scores). Use percentile values 2, 16, 50, 84, 98. Print output
and circle values associated with percentiles for thelplnz; box percentile values for tqualitz. Edit out-
put so it fits on one page.
4. Using the helping3.sav file compute percentiles for age. Compute every 10th percentile (10, 20, 30,
etc.). Edit (if necessary) to fit on one page.
5. Using the graduate.sav file display frequencies for gpa, areagpa, grequant. Compute quartiles for
these three variables. Edit (if necessary) to fit on one page.
6. Using the grades.sav file create a histogram for final. Include the normal curve option. Create a title
for the graph that makes clear what is being measured. Perform the edits on page 97 so the borders for
each bar are clear.
7. Using the grades.sav file, use the Frequencies command to calculate how many people are in each
year in school. Report your answer in both number of people, and percentage of total people.
8. In the grades.sav file, what percentage of students did the extra credit?
9. In the grades.sav file, how many people got As, Bs, Cs, Ds, or Fs? See if you can answer so that your
sentences still make sense if you skip the numbers, and report frequencies in APA style.
6-1
sex
Cumulative Per-
Frequency Percent Valid Percent cent
Valid female 119 52.0 52.0 52.0
male 110 48.0 48.0 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
6-3
Statistics
MEAN OF
MEAN OF HELPER/
HELPER/ RECIPIE NT
RECIPIE NT ZQUALITY
LNZHELP HELP
N Valid 537 537
Missing 0 0
Percentiles 2 -2.0966 -2.1701
16 -.9894 -.8144
50 .0730 .1351
84 .9218 .9481
98 1.7643 1.4766
6-4
Statistics
AGE
N Valid 537
Missing 0
Percentiles 10 20.00
6-6
on of Final Exam Scores
20
15
10
0
40 60 80
6-7
Minimal answer provided for students.
Year in school
Cumulative Per-
Frequency Percent Valid Percent cent
Valid Frosh 3 2.9 2.9 2.9
.
.
.
There were 3 Freshmen (2.9%), …
Chapter 7: Descriptive Statistics

1. Using the grades.sav file select all variables except lastname, firstname, grade, passfail. Compute
descriptive statistics including mean, standard deviation, kurtosis, skewness. Edit so that you
eliminate Std. Error (Kurtosis) and Std. Error (Skewness) making your chart easier to interpret. Edit
the output to fit on one page.
• Draw a line through any variable for which descriptives are meaningless (either they are cate-
gorical or they are known to not be normally distributed).
• Place an “*” next to variables that are in the ideal range for both skewness and kurtosis.
• Place an X next to variables that are acceptable but not excellent.
• Place a ψ next to any variables that are not acceptable for further analysis.
2. Using the divorce.sav file select all variables except the indicators (for spirituality, sp8 – sp57, for
cognitive coping, cc1 – cc11, for behavioral coping, bc1 – bc12, for avoidant coping, ac1 – ac7, and for
physical closeness, pc1 – pc10). Compute descriptive statistics including mean, standard deviation,
kurtosis, skewness. Edit so that you eliminate Std. Error (Kurtosis) and Std. Error (Skewness) and
your chart is easier to interpret. Edit the output to fit on two pages.
• Draw a line through any variable for which descriptives are meaningless (either they are cate-
gorical or they are known to not be normally distributed).
• Place an “*” next to variables that are in the ideal range for both skewness and kurtosis.
• Place an X next to variables that are acceptable but not excellent.
• Place a ψ next to any variables that are not acceptable for further analysis.
3. Create a practice data file that contains the following variables and values:
• VAR1: 3 5 7 6 2 1 4 5 9 5
• VAR2: 9 8 7 6 2 3 3 4 3 2
• VAR3: 10 4 3 5 6 5 4 5 2 9
Compute: the mean, the standard deviation, and variance and print out on a single page.
4. What are the mean, variance, and standard deviation for the following numbers? 41, 46, 32, 35, 60,
57, 56, 50, 41. 65. Report your results using appropriate APA style.
5. For the numbers in the previous problem, what are the skewness and kurtosis? Would these values
be considered close to normal?
6. Calculate the mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis for the following numbers: 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. Would these values be considered close to normal?
7-1
Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
id 105 571366.67 277404.129 -.090 -1.299

gender 105 1.39 .490 .456 -1.828
ethnicity 105 3.35 1.056 -.451 -.554
 Year in school 105 2.94 .691 -.460 .553
Lower or upper division 105 1.79 .409 -1.448 .099
section 105 2.00 .797 .000 -1.419

 gpa 105 2.7789 .76380 -.052 -.811
Did extra credit project? 105 1.21 .409 1.448 .099
Attended review sessions? 105 1.67 .474 -.717 -1.515

 quiz1 105 7.47 2.481 -.851 .162
 quiz2 105 7.98 1.623 -.656 -.253
X quiz3 105 7.98 2.308 -1.134 .750
 quiz4 105 7.80 2.280 -.919 .024
 quiz5 105 7.87 1.765 -.713 .290
 final 105 61.48 7.943 -.335 -.332
 total 105 100.57 15.299 -.837 .943
 percent 105 80.34 12.135 -.834 .952
Valid N (listwise) 105
7-2
N Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
id 229 116.32 66.903 -.007 -1.202
sex 229 1.48 .501 .079 -2.011
* age 229 41.90 9.881 .679 .910
.
.
.
7-4
M = 48.30, SD = …
7-5
The skewness is normal (skewness = -0.01), but …
Chapter 8: Crosstabulation and χ2 Analyses

For each of the chi-square analyses computed below:
1. Circle the observed (actual) values.

2. Box the expected values.
3. Put an * next to the unstandardized residuals.
4. Underline the significance value that shows whether observed and expected values differ signif-
icantly.
5. Make a statement about independence of the variables involved.
6. State the nature of the relationship. #5 identifies whether there is a relationship, now you need
to indicate what that relationship is. Example: Men tend to help more with goal-disruptive
problems whereas women tend to help more with relational problems.
7. Is there a significant linear association?
8. Does linear association make sense for these variables?
9. Is there a problem with low-count cells?
10. If there is a problem, what would you do about it?
1. File: grades.sav. Variables: gender by ethnic. Select: observed count, expected count, un-
standarized residuals. Compute: Chi-square, Phi and Cramer’s V. Edit to fit on one page, print
out, then perform the 10 operations listed above.
2. File: grades.sav. Variables: gender by ethnic. Prior to analysis, complete the procedure shown in
Step 5c (page 129) to eliminate the “Native” category (low-count cells). Select: observed count, ex-
pected count, unstandarized residuals. Compute: Chi-square, Phi and Cramer’s V. Edit to fit on
one page, print out, then perform the 10 operations listed above.
3. File: helping3.sav. Variables: gender by problem. Select: observed count, expected count, un-
standarized residuals. Compute: Chi-square, Phi and Cramer’s V. Edit to fit on one page, print
out, then perform the 10 operations listed above.
4. File: helping3.sav. Variables: school by occupat. Prior to analysis, select cases: “school > 2 & occu-
pat < 6”. Select: observed count, expected count, unstandarized residuals. Compute: Chi-square,
Phi and Cramer’s V. Edit to fit on one page, print out, then perform the 10 operations listed above.
5. File: helping3.sav. Variables: marital by problem. Prior to analysis, eliminate the “DTS” category
(marital < 3). Select: observed count, expected count, unstandarized residuals. Compute: Chi-
square, Phi and Cramer’s V. Edit to fit on one page, print out, then perform the 10 operations
listed above.
6. Using the grades.sav file, run a crosstabulation on whether people attended the review session,
and whether they did the extra credit. How many people both attended the review session and
did extra credit, attended the review session but did not do extra credit, did not attend the re-
view session but did extra credit, or neither attended the review session nor did extra credit?
Can you confidently say that there is a relationship between attending the review session and
getting extra credit? Report your χ2 value, p value, and effect size measure (φ) in APA style.
7. The following table shows how many people in the town of Grover’s Corners are happy or
unhappy, along with whether their socioeconomic status is lower, middle, or upper class. Is
there a relationship between social class and happiness, or are they independent? If there is a
relationship, how large is this effect and what does it look like?
Happy? Socioeconomic Status Number of People
Yes Lower 3630
Yes Middle 4992
Yes Upper 5196
No Lower 5567
No Middle 5105
No Upper 5190
8. Professor Rteneggg predits that timid creativity is associated with cerebrosolution levels.
He finds that, among people with high levels of cerebrosolution, 25 have timid creativity and
55 do not have timid creativity. Among those with low levels of cerebrosolution, 46 have timid
creativity and 44 do not have timid creativity. Is Rteneggg’s prediction supported by your da-
ta? How do your results support this conclusion?
8-1
5. Ethnicity and gender are independent of each other.

6. There is no difference of gender balance across different ethnic groups.
or, Across different ethnic groups there is no difference in the balance of men and women.
7. No
8. No
9. Yes, there are 30% of cells with an expected value of less than 5. Acceptable is less than 25%.
10. Delete the category which most contributes to the low cell counts, the “Native” category in this case.
8-2
Symmetric Measures
Approximate
Value Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .062 .942
Cramer's V .062 .942
N of Valid Cases 100
5. Ethnicity and gender are independent of each other.
8-3
5. Gender and problem type are dependent, that is, which problems receive the most attention is de-
pendent upon the gender of the helper.
6. While there are no significant gender differences in the likelihood of helping with illness or cata-
strophic problems, women are significantly more likely to help with relational problems whereas men
are significantly more likely to help with goal-disruptive problems.
7. No
8. No
9. No, there are no cells with an expected value of less than 5. Acceptable is less than 25%.
10. Delete the category which most contributes to the low cell counts. There are none here.
8-8
Cerebrosolution * TimidCreativity Crosstabulation
Count
TimidCreativity
Have Don't Have Total
Cerebrosolution Low 46 44 90
High 25 55 80
Total 71 99 170
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic Sig-
nificance (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-
Value df sided) sided) sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.869a 1 .009
Continuity Correctionb 6.077 1 .014
Likelihood Ratio 6.941 1 .008
Fisher's Exact Test .012 .007
Linear-by-Linear Association 6.829 1 .009
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 33.41.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Symmetric Measures
Approximate
Value Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .201 .009
Cramer's V .201 .009
Cerebrosolution levels are associated with the presence or absence of timid creativity (χ2(1) = 6.87, p
= .009, φ = .20). People with low levels of cerebrosolution are about equally likely to have (n = 46) or not
have (n = 44) timid creativity, but people with high levels of cerebrosolution are less likely to have (n =
25) than not have (n = 55) timid creativity. Or: People with timid creativity are more likely to have low
(n = 46) than high (n = 25) levels of cerebrosolution, but people without timid creativity are more likely
to have high (n = 55) than low (n = 44) levels of cerebrosolution.
Chapter 9: The Means Procedure
1. Using the grades.sav file use the Means procedure to explore the influence of ethnic and section on
total. Print output, fit on one page, in general terms describe what the value in each cell means.
2. Using the grades.sav file use the Means procedure to explore the influence of year and section on
final. Print output, fit on one page, in general terms describe what the value in each cell means.
3. Using the divorce.sav file use the Means procedure to explore the influence of gender (sex) and mar-
ital status (status) on spiritua (spirituality—high score is spiritual). Print output and, in general terms,
describe what the value in each cell means.
4. Using the grades.sav file and the Means procedure, examine the difference in total points between
students who did or did not do the extra credit (extrcredit) project. Can you confidently say that doing
the extra credit project helped student grades? Report the means (M), F, p, and η or η2 using APA style.
5. Using the grades.sav file and the Means procedure, examine the difference in total points between
students who did or did not attend review sessions. Can you confidently say attending review ses-
sions helped student grades?
6. Dr. Toob believes that people who meditate regularly are less jealous. She has ten participants medi-
tate for a week, and ten participants not meditate for a week. After she measures level of jealousy for
her participants, she uses the means procedure to determine whether her hypothesis is supported.
People who meditated scored 45, 38, 34, 40, 30, 41, 37, 32, 28, and 29. People who did not meditate
scored 27, 23, 27, 25, 27, 13, 13, 20, 37, and 23. Perform this analysis. Is her hypothesis supported? How
confident can you be?
9-1
Report
total
ethnicity section Mean N Std. Deviation
Native 2 90.25 4 15.042
3 115.00 1 .
Total 95.20 5 17.094

Asian 1 108.00 7 12.423
2 97.78 9 14.394
3 105.50 4 6.351
Total 102.90 20 12.876
Black 1 105.14 7 12.185
2 105.00 7 11.547
3 93.10 10 16.509
Total 100.08 24 14.714
White 1 105.75 16 17.628
2 100.00 18 10.123
3 100.91 11 16.736
Total 102.27 45 14.702
Hispanic 1 94.67 3 27.154
2 104.00 1 .
3 90.57 7 21.816
Total 92.91 11 21.215
Total 1 105.09 33 16.148
2 99.49 39 12.013
3 97.33 33 17.184
Total 100.57 105 15.299

The ETHNICITY column identifies the ethnic group for which data are entered.
The SECTION column identifies which of the three sections individuals of a particular ethnic group
are enrolled.
The MEAN column identifies the mean total points for the individuals in each cell of the table.
The N column identifies how many individuals are in each group.
The STD. DEVIATION column identifies the standard deviation for the values in each catego-
ry.
9-3
• The SEX column identifies the gender of the subjects.

• The STATUS column identifies the marital status (4 levels) of women (first) then men.
• The MEAN column identifies the mean total points for the individuals in each cell of the ta-
ble.
• The N column identifies how many individuals are in each group.
• The STD. DEVIATION column identifies the standard deviation for the values in each cat-
egory.
9-4
Report
total
Did extra credit project? Mean N Std. Deviation
No 98.24 83 15.414
Yes 109.36 22 11.358
Total 100.57 105 15.299
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
total * Did extra credit project? Between Groups (Combined) 2151.443 1 2151.443 9.985 .002
Within Groups 22192.272 103 215.459
Total 24343.714 104
Measures of Association
Eta Eta Squared
total * Did extra credit project? .297 .088
Students who did the extra credit did have higher total points (M = 109.36, SD = 11.36) than students
who did not do the extra credit (M = 98.24, SD = 15.41), F(1, 103) = 9.99, p = .002, η = .297.
9-5
ANOVA Table
total * Attended review sessions? Between Groups (Combined) 499.886 1 499.886 2.159 .145
Within Groups 23843.829 103 231.493
Total 24343.714 104
9-6
Report
Jealousy
Meditate Mean N Std. Deviation
Meditate 35.40 10 5.700
No Meditate 23.50 10 7.106
Total 29.45 20 8.751
ANOVA Table
Jealousy * Meditate Between Groups (Combined) 708.050 1 708.050 17.064 .001
Within Groups 746.900 18 41.494
Total 1454.950 19
Measures of Association
Eta Eta Squared
Jealousy * Meditate .698 .487
Dr. Toob’s hypothesis was not supported. People who meditated reported more jealousy (M = 35.40,
SD = 5.70) than people who did not meditate (M =23.50, SD = 7.11), p < .001.
Chapter 10: A Priori Power Analysis
When calculating sample size, assume α = .05 (the default) unless otherwise specified.
1. Paul’s Pizza Palace claims that all of their mushroom pizzas have at least 5 pieces of mushroom per
slice. You just had an 8-slice pizza, and they only averaged 3.2 mushroom pieces per slice! (The number
of mushrooms per slice had a standard deviation of 1.5.) How many slices of pizza do you have to eat
to test whether the number of mushroom pieces per slice is four or less instead of five as claimed? Aim
for a power of .80.
2. You want to test the hypothesis that your six-person women’s volleyball team is taller than the aver-
age height of women in the US (64 inches). You want to be able to detect an effect size d = .2 with a
power of .8. Is your sample large enough to test this hypothesis? Why or why not?
3. A researcher wants to examine whether a new drug, Onioneze, increases or reduces chill levels. They
want to be able to detect a difference between the placebo and control (Onioneze treatment) group with
an effect size of d = .1 or higher. How many people do they need in each group to achieve a power of
.95 with α = .01?
4. You want to determine whether Paul’s Pizza Palace has fewer mushrooms per pizza slice than Dar-
ren’s Italic Oven. Your pilot study suggested that Paul’s Pizza Palace has 4 mushrooms per slice, and
Darren’s Italic Oven has 5 mushrooms per slice. The standard deviation in your pilot study across both
groups was 1.7. How many slices of pizza do you need from each restaurant to achieve a power of .80?
5. A researcher plans a pretest-posttest design to see whether math scores increase when using comput-
er-aided instruction in class. Test scores before and after using the software will be compared; the re-
searcher wants to detect if scores rise by one point (that has a standard deviation of two), with a power
of .8. They expect that the pretests and posttests will be correlated with r = .5. How many people need
to be in the study?
6. You are conducting an experiment with five groups; based on previous studies, you think that you
will have the following pattern of means: 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 (SD = 5). You expect Group 3 to have
twice as many people as the other groups. How many people should you aim for in each group to have
a power of .95?
7. You think that neutrino accretion (NA) may be negatively correlated with base helotransmutation
(BH). To achieve a power of .95, how large a sample do you need to test whethere there is a correlation
of -.4 or smaller?
8. How many slices of pizza woud you need to examine to see whether the number of mushroom piec-
es per slice of pizza is correlated with the number of pineapple pieces per slice of pizza? You want to
be able to detect a correlation of .4 or higher with a power of .80.
9. Previous researchers found that bored contemplation predicts excited puzzlement (R2 = .16). You are
conducting a similar study with the same variables. How many participants do you need to achieve a
power of .8?
10. You are performing a multiple regression analysis, predicting customer satisfaction with your pizza
based on the number of pieces of chicken, mushrooms, green peppers, olives, tomatoes, onions, jalepe-
nos, and pepperoni per slice. You especially care about pepperoni, and want to be sure that you can de-
tect a β of .1 for that predictor. How many people do you need to ask to evaluate slices of pizza to
achieve a power of .80?
10-1
Power Analysis - One-Sample Mean
Power Analysis Table
Test Assumptions
N Actual Powerb Power Std. Dev. Effect Size Sig.
Test for Meana 16 .816 .8 1.5 -.667 .05
a. One-sided test.
b. Based on noncentral t-distribution.
You need to eat 16 more slices of mushroom pizza (or two full pizzas).
10-3
You need 3,565 people in each group.
10-5
Power Analysis - Related Sample Means
Test Assumptions
Nb Actual Powerc Power Std. Dev.d Effect Size Sig.
Test for Mean Differencea 27 .812 .8 2.000 .500 .05
a. One-sided test.
b. Number of group pairs.
c. Based on noncentral t-distribution.
d. Standard deviation of the mean difference.
Twenty-seven people need to be in the study.
10-7
A sample size of 63 is needed.
10-9
Power Analysis - Linear Regression

Predictors Test Assumptions
N Actual Powerb Total Test Power Partialc Sig.
Type III F-testa 44 .807 1 1 .8 .4 .05
a. Intercept term is included.
b. Predictors are assumed to be fixed.
c. Multiple partial correlation coefficient.
To achieve a power of .8, 44 participants are needed.

Note that this is essentially the same problem as sequence step 5e, once you have converted from R2 to
R.
Chapter 11: Bivariate Correlation
1. Using the grades.sav file create a correlation matrix of the following variables; id, ethnic, gender,
year, section, gpa, quiz1, quiz2, quiz3, quiz4, quiz5, final, total; select one-tailed significance; flag sig-
nificant correlations. Print out results on a single page.
• Draw a single line through the columns and rows where the correlations are meaningless.
• Draw a double line through cells where correlations exhibit linear dependency.
• Circle the 1 “largest” (greatest absolute value) NEGATIVE correlation (the p value will be less than
.05) and explain what it means.
• Box the 3 largest POSITIVE correlations (each p value will be less than .05) and explain what they
mean.
• Create a scatterplot of gpa by total and include the regression line. (see Chapter 5, page 97-98 for
instructions).
2. Using the divorce.sav file create a correlation matrix of the following variables; sex, age, sep, mar,
status, ethnic, school, income, avoicop, iq, close, locus, asq, socsupp, spiritua, trauma, lsatisy; select
one-tailed significance; flag significant correlations. Print results on a single page. Note: Use Data
Files descriptions (p. 389) for meaning of variables.
• Draw a single line through the columns and rows where the correlations are meaningless.
• Draw a double line through the correlations where there is linear dependency
• Circle the 3 “largest” (greatest absolute value) NEGATIVE correlations (each p value will be less
than .05) and explain what they mean.
• Box the 3 largest POSITIVE correlations (each p value will be less than .05) and explain what they
mean.
• Create a scatterplot of close by lsatisy and include the regression line. (see Chapter 5, page 97-98 for
instructions).
• Create a scatterplot of avoicop by trauma and include the regression line.
3. What is the correlation between GPA and percent in the class? Can you be confident of that this cor-
relation is different than zero? If so, how large is the correlation? Report the correlation and p value in
APA style.
4. Romantic couples take a Big 5 personality test. The extroversion scores for the individuals in each
couple are:
Person 1 Person 2
1274 1413
1319 1145
844 928
1237 1211
531 714
979 1230
983 1055
1087 885
724 678
1023 741
What is the correlation between extroversion for these couples? Can you be confident that this correla-
tion is larger than zero? If so, how large is the correlation?
5. Agreeableness scores for the same couples as the previous question are listed below. What is the cor-
relation? Can you be confident that it is different than zero? How strong is it?
Person 1 916 622 628 1279 943
Person 2 976 706 835 694 1354
Person 1 1531 1303 901 1096 778
Person 2 1489 1294 667 847 1138

11-1
• r = -.21, p = .014: Students in lower numbered sections (e.g. sections 1 and 2) tend to score higher on quiz 1 than students in lower
numbered sections.
• r = .86, p < .001: Those who score higher on quiz 1 tend to score higher on quiz 3.
11-3
Correlations
gpa percent
gpa Pearson Correlation 1 .440**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 105 105
percent Pearson Correlation .440** 1
N 105 105
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
We can be quite confident (p < .001) that GPA is somewhat positively correlated with percent in the
class (r = .44).
11-4
We can be reasonably certain (p = .012) that extroversion is …
11-5
Correlations
Person 1 Person 2
Person 1 Pearson Correlation 1 .499
N 10 10
Person 2 Pearson Correlation .499 1
N 10 10
Chapter 12: The T Test Procedure
For questions 1- 7, perform the following operations:

a) Print out results
b) Circle the two mean values that are being compared.
c) Circle the appropriate significance value (be sure to consider equal or unequal variance).
d) For statistically significant results (p < .05) write up each finding in standard APA format.
1. Using the grades.sav file, compare men with women (gender) for quiz1, quiz2, quiz3, quiz4, quiz5,
final, total.
2. Using the grades.sav file, determine whether the following pairings produce significant differences:
quiz1 with quiz2, quiz1 with quiz3, quiz1 with quiz4, quiz1 with quiz5.
3. Using the grades.sav file, compare the GPA variable (gpa) with the mean GPA of the university of
2.89.
4. Using the divorce.sav file, compare men with women (sex) for lsatisfy, trauma, age, school, cog-
cope, behcope, avoicop, iq, close, locus, asq, socsupp, spiritua.
5. Using the helping3.sav file, compare men with women (gender) for age, school, income, hclose,
hcontrot, sympathi, angert, hcopet, hseveret, empathyt, effict, thelplnz, tqualitz, tothelp. See the
Data Files section (page 368) for the meaning of each variable.
6. Using the helping3.sav file, determine whether the following pairings produce significant differ-
ences: sympathi with angert, sympathi with empathyt, empahelp with insthelp, empahelp with
infhelp, insthelp with infhelp.
7. Using the helping3.sav file, compare the age variable (age) with the mean age for North Americans
(33.0).
8. In an experiment, 10 participants were given a test of mental performance in stressful situations.

Their scores were 2, 2, 4, 1, 4, 3, 0, 2, 7, and 5. Ten other participants were given the same test
after they had been trained in stress-reducing techniques. Their scores were 4, 4, 6, 0, 6, 5, 2, 3,
6, and 4. Do the appropriate t test to determine if the group that had been trained had different
mental performance scores than the group that had not been trained in stress reduction tech-
niques. What do these results mean? Report your results using APA style.
9. In a similar experiment, ten participants who were given a test of mental performance in stress-
ful situations at the start of the study, were then trained in stress reduction techniques, and
were finally given the same test again at the end of the study. In an amazing coincidence, the
participants received the same scores as the participants in question 8: The first two people in
the study received a score of 2 on the pretest, and a score of 4 on the posttest; the third person
received a score of 4 on the pretest and 6 on the posttest; and so on. Do the appropriate t test to
determine if there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores. What do
these results mean? How was this similar and how was this different than the results in ques-
tion 1? Why?
10. You happen to know that the population mean for the test of mental performance in stressful
situations is exactly three. Do a t test to determine whether the post-test scores in #9 above (the
same numbers as the training group scores in #8) is significantly different than three. What do
these results mean? How was this similar and how was this different than the results in ques-
tion 9? Why?
11. You are studying whether high- and low-gestaltists differ in number of hours of sleep per
night; you think that high-gestaltists get more sleep than low-gestaltists. In your data, high ge-
staltists slept for the following number of hours: 6, 7.3, 7, 6.9, 4.6, 4.8, 6.9, 9.9, 7.1, and 6.9. Low
gestaltists slept for the following number of hours: 5.1, 5.9, 6, 5.5, 3.5, 4.1, 5.1, 8.8, 6.1, and 5.6.
Is the hypothesis supported? If so, how large is the effect?
12. You expose 10 participants to red and blue rooms (in a counterbalanced order), and in each
room you measure their levels of humility. You are exploring the possibility that people ex-
posed to red rooms will be more humble than people exposed to blue rooms. Data are present-
ed below; is there a relationship between humility and room color?
Person Red Room Blue Room
1 60 51
2 73 49
3 70 60
4 69 55
5 46 35
6 48 41
7 69 51
8 99 88
9 71 61
10 69 56
12-1
Group Statistics
Std. Std.
Devia- Error
gender N Mean tion Mean
quiz1 1 Female 64 7.72 2.306 .288
2 Male 41 7.07 2.715 .424
quiz2 1 Female 64 7.98 1.548 .194
2 Male 41 7.98 1.753 .274
quiz3 1 Female 64 8.19 2.130 .266
2 Male 41 7.66 2.555 .399
quiz4 1 Female 64 8.06 2.181 .273
2 Male 41 7.39 2.397 .374
quiz5 1 Female 64 7.88 1.638 .205
2 Male 41 7.85 1.969 .308
final 1 Female 64 62.36 7.490 .936
2 Male 41 60.10 8.514 1.330
total 1 Female 64 102.03 13.896 1.737
2 Male 41 98.29 17.196 2.686
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of Vari-
ances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Dif- Std. Error
F Sig. t df tailed) ference Difference Lower Upper
quiz1 Equal variances assumed 2.180 .143 1.305 103 .195 .646 .495 -.335 1.627
Equal variances not assumed 1.259 75.304 .212 .646 .513 -.376 1.667
quiz2 Equal variances assumed 1.899 .171 .027 103 .979 .009 .326 -.638 .656
Equal variances not assumed .026 77.634 .979 .009 .335 -.659 .676
quiz3 Equal variances assumed 3.436 .067 1.147 103 .254 .529 .461 -.385 1.443
quiz4 Equal variances assumed .894 .347 1.482 103 .141 .672 .454 -.227 1.572
quiz5 Equal variances assumed 4.103 .045 .060 103 .952 .021 .355 -.682 .725
Equal variances not assumed .058 74.071 .954 .021 .369 -.715 .757
final Equal variances assumed .093 .761 1.431 103 .156 2.262 1.581 -.874 5.397
Equal variances not assumed 1.391 77.417 .168 2.262 1.626 -.976 5.500
total Equal variances assumed 2.019 .158 1.224 103 .224 3.739 3.053 -2.317 9.794
Equal variances not assumed 1.011E
1.169 72.421 .246 3.739 3.198 -2.637
1
No results are statistically significant

12-2
Paired Samples Statistics
Std. Error
Mean N Std. Deviation Mean
Pair 1 quiz1 7.47 105 2.481 .242
quiz2 7.98 105 1.623 .158
Pair 2 quiz1 7.47 105 2.481 .242
quiz3 7.98 105 2.308 .225
Pair 3 quiz1 7.47 105 2.481 .242
quiz4 7.80 105 2.280 .223
Pair 4 quiz1 7.47 105 2.481 .242
quiz5 7.87 105 1.765 .172
Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Std. Error
Mean Std. Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1 quiz1 - quiz2 -.514 1.835 .179 -.869 -.159 -2.872 104 .005
Pair 2 quiz1 - quiz3 -.514 1.287 .126 -.763 -.265 -4.095 104 .000
Pair 3 quiz1 - quiz4 -.333 1.405 .137 -.605 -.061 -2.431 104 .017
Pair 4 quiz1 - quiz5 -.400 2.204 .215 -.827 .027 -1.860 104 .066
1. Students scored significantly higher on quiz 2 (M = 7.98, SD = 1.62) than on quiz 1 (M = 7.47, SD = 2.48), t(104) = -2.87, p = .005.
2. Students scored significantly higher on quiz 3 (M = 7.98, SD = 2.31) than on quiz 1 (M = 7.47, SD = 2.48), t(104) = -4.10, p < .001.
[Notice that the mean values are identical with the first comparison but quiz 1 with quiz 3 pairing produces a much stronger result. This is
due to a much narrower standard deviation for the second comparison (1.29) than for the first (1.84)]
3. Students scored significantly higher on quiz 4 (M = 7.80, SD = 2.28) than on quiz 1 (M = 7.47, SD = 2.48), t(104) = -2.43, p = .017.
12-3
The values do not differ significantly.
12-4
Women (M = 4.53, SD = .88) are significantly more likely to practice cognitive-active coping than men (M = 4.28, SD = 4.28), t(227) = 2.08, p =
.038, d = .28.
Men (M = 2.92, SD = .96) are significantly more likely to practice avoidant coping than women (M = 2.55, SD = .84), t(217.99) = -3.13, p = .002, d
= -.42.
Women (M = 3.51, SD = .94) are significantly more likely to experience non-sexual physical closeness than men (M = 3.23, SD = .93), t(227) =
2.26, p = .025, d = .30.
Women (M = 3.67, SD = .96) are significantly more likely to receive social support than men (M = 3.37, SD = .78), t(223.41) = 2.63, p = .009, d =
.35.
Women (M = 3.44, SD = 2.74) are significantly more likely to have a positive attributional style than men (M = 2.62, SD = 2.69), t(227) = 2.28, p
= .023, d = .30.
Women (M = 4.80, SD = 1.08) have significantly higher personal spirituality than men (M = 4.14, SD = 1.29), t(212.78) = 4.20, p < .001, d = .56.
12-8
Group Statistics
Std. Error
CONDITIO N Mean Std. Deviation Mean
PERFORMA Control 10 3.00 2.055 .650
Treatment (training) 10 4.00 1.944 .615
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
PERFORMA Equal variances
.134 .718 -1.118 18 .278 -1.00 .894 -2.879 .879
assumed
Equal variances
-1.118 17.945 .278 -1.00 .894 -2.880 .880
not assumed
There was not a significant difference between the mean for the treatment group (M = 4.00, SD = 1.94)
and the control group (M = 3.00, SD = 2.06), t(18) = 1.12, p = .28, d = .25).
12-9
There was not a significant difference between posttest score (M = 4.00, SD = 1.94) and the pretest score
(M = 3.00, SD = 2.06; t(9) = -2.24, p = .052, d = -.71). In this case, because the p value is so close to signifi-
cant, many people would say that the results are “marginally” significant, suggesting that there may be
a relationship that needs further study. Others would say if it’s not significant, no other interpretation
is appropriate. Note that this test comes closer to significance than Question 4 because it is a more
powerful test, as the within-subjects variance (the part of the variance that is due to a particular per-
son’s tendency to perform at a certain level) can be separated from the variance due to the manipulation
(giving the stress reduction training).
Chapter 13: The One-Way ANOVA Procedure

For Questions 1-6 below: Perform one-way ANOVAs. If there are significant findings write them up in
APA format (or in the professional format associated with your discipline).
1. File: grades.sav; dependent variable: quiz4; factor: ethnic (2,5); use LSD procedure for post hoc
comparisons, compute two planned comparisons. This problem asks you to reproduce the output on
page 73. Note that you will need to perform a select-cases procedure (see page 166) to delete the “1 =
Native” category.
2. File: divorce.sav; dependent variable: behcope (behavioral coping); factor: status (1, 5); use LSD pro-
cedure for post hoc comparisons; compute two planned comparisons. Note: status is marital status
with five levels: 1 = married, 2 = separated, 3 = divorced, 4 = widowed, 5 = cohabiting.
3. File: divorce.sav; dependent variable: spiritua (spirituality); factor: status (1, 4); use LSD procedure
for post hoc comparisons; compute two planned comparisons. Note: status is marital status with four
levels: 1 = married, 2 = separated, 3 = divorced/single, 4 = cohabiting.
4. File: divorce.sav; dependent variable: close (amount of non-sexual closeness experienced); factor:
employ (1, 2, 3, 4, 6); use LSD procedure for post hoc comparisons; compute two planned comparisons.
Note: employ refers to type of employment: 1 = management, 2 = own business, 3 = employed, 4 = self-
employed, 6 = unemployed. Important: the employ variable has 7 levels. We are deleting levels 5 and 7
due to low N. In the select-cases option, enter as the selection criteria: “employ < 5 | employ = 6”.
5. File: divorce.sav; dependent variable: socsupp (amount of social support); factor: employ (1, 2, 3, 4,
6); use LSD procedure for post hoc comparisons; compute two planned comparisons. Note: employ
refers to type of employment: 1 = management, 2 = own business, 3 = employed, 4 = self-employed, 6 =
unemployed. Important: the employ variable has 7 levels. We are deleting levels 5 and 7 due to low N.
In the select-cases option, enter the selection criteria: “employ < 5 | employ = 6”.
6. File: divorce.sav; dependent variable: lsatisy (life satisfaction); factor: employ (1, 2, 3, 4, 6); use LSD
procedure for post hoc comparisons; compute two planned comparisons. Note: employ refers to type
of employment: 1 = management, 2 = own business, 3 = employed, 4 = self-employed, 6 = unemployed.
Important: the employ variable has 7 levels. We are deleting levels 5 and 7 due to low N. In the select-
cases option, enter as the selection criteria: “employ < 5 | employ = 6”.
7. You are studying whether people who have been exposed to red, green, or blue rooms differ in hu-
mility. You expose some people to red, some to green, and some to blue rooms. After two hours of con-
templating the room, you measure their levels of humility. Is there a difference between the groups? If
so, what does it look like?
• Humility scores for red group: 46, 36, 34, 36, 47, 29, 31, 38, 29, 51
• Humility scores for green group: 30, 25, 35, 23, 13, 45, 11, 21, 41, 25
• Humility scores for blue group: 6, 19, 0, 46, 22, 0, 20, 0, 26, 55
8. You are exploring whether chromatid levels influence intrigued hesitancy. You inject participants
with either high levels of chromatids, medium levels, low levels, or a placebo. Data are presented be-
low. Do chromatid levels influence intrigued hesitancy? If so, how large is this effect and what does it
look like?
• Placebo group scores: 69, 71, 111, 107, 89, 157, 136, 112, 101
• Low chromatid group scores: 285, 297, 465, 407, 246, 429, 444, 420, 476, 415, 306
• Medium chromatid group scores: 301, 432, 444, 549, 622, 571, 438, 444, 540, 521
• High chromatid group scores: 663, 515, 674, 646, 640, 677, 577, 548, 640, 482, 519, 600
13-1
Descriptives
quiz4
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum
Asian 20 8.35 1.531 .342 7.63 9.07 6 10

Black 24 7.75 2.132 .435 6.85 8.65 4 10
White 45 8.04 2.256 .336 7.37 8.72 2 10
Hispanic 11 6.27 3.319 1.001 4.04 8.50 2 10
Total 100 7.84 2.286 .229 7.39 8.29 2 10
ANOVA
quiz4
Between Groups (Combined) 34.297 3 11.432 2.272 .085
Linear Term Unweighted 26.464 1 26.464 5.258 .024
Weighted 14.484 1 14.484 2.878 .093
Deviation 19.813 2 9.906 1.968 .145

Within Groups 483.143 96 5.033
Total 517.440 99
Contrast Coefficients
ethnicity
Contrast Asian Black White Hispanic
1 1 1 -1 -1
2 1 1 1 -3
Contrast Tests
Contrast Value of Contrast Std. Error t df Sig. (2-tailed)
quiz4 Assume equal variances 1 1.78 1.015 1.756 96 .082
2 5.33 2.166 2.459 96 .016
Does not assume equal variances 1 1.78 1.192 1.495 19.631 .151
2 5.33 3.072 1.734 10.949 .111

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: quiz4
LSD
95% Confidence Interval
(I) ethnicity (J) ethnicity Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
Asian Black .600 .679 .379 -.75 1.95
White .306 .603 .613 -.89 1.50
Hispanic 2.077* .842 .015 .41 3.75

Black Asian -.600 .679 .379 -1.95 .75
White -.294 .567 .605 -1.42 .83
Hispanic 1.477 .817 .074 -.14 3.10
White Asian -.306 .603 .613 -1.50 .89
Black .294 .567 .605 -.83 1.42
Hispanic 1.772* .755 .021 .27 3.27
Hispanic Asian -2.077* .842 .015 -3.75 -.41
Black -1.477 .817 .074 -3.10 .14
White -1.772* .755 .021 -3.27 -.27
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
A one-way ANOVA revealed marginally significant ethnic differences for scores on Quiz 4,
F(3, 96) = 2.27, p = .085. Post hoc comparisons using the LSD procedure with an alpha value of .05
found that Whites (M = 8.04) and Asians (M = 8.35) scored significantly higher than Hispanics (M
= 6.27).
13-2
ANOVA
behcope
Between Groups 11.438 4 2.859 2.571 .039
Within Groups 249.178 224 1.112
Total 260.616 228
Contrast Coefficients
current marital status
Contrast marred separated divorced or DTS widowed cohabit
1 4 -1 -1 -1 -1
2 1.5 -1 -1 -1 1.5
Contrast Tests
Value of Con-
Contrast trast Std. Error t df Sig. (2-tailed)
behcope Assume equal variances 1 -1.5050 .88406 -1.702 224 .090
2 -1.6262 .74771 -2.175 224 .031
Does not assume equal 1 -1.5050 .78172 -1.925 19.858 .069
variances 2 -1.6262 .62944 -2.584 9.054 .029
Dependent Variable: behcope
LSD
Mean Differ- 95% Confidence Interval
(I) current marital status (J) current marital status ence (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
marred separated -.46589* .23009 .044 -.9193 -.0125
divorced or DTS -.43981* .17366 .012 -.7820 -.0976
widowed -.64781 .62532 .301 -1.8801 .5845
cohabit .04848 .25440 .849 -.4528 .5498
separated marred .46589* .23009 .044 .0125 .9193
divorced or DTS .02609 .20652 .900 -.3809 .4331
widowed -.18192 .63523 .775 -1.4337 1.0699
cohabit .51438 .27787 .065 -.0332 1.0620
divorced or DTS marred .43981* .17366 .012 .0976 .7820
separated -.02609 .20652 .900 -.4331 .3809
widowed -.20800 .61704 .736 -1.4239 1.0079
cohabit .48829* .23330 .037 .0286 .9480
widowed marred .64781 .62532 .301 -.5845 1.8801
separated .18192 .63523 .775 -1.0699 1.4337
divorced or DTS .20800 .61704 .736 -1.0079 1.4239
cohabit .69630 .64444 .281 -.5736 1.9662
cohabit marred -.04848 .25440 .849 -.5498 .4528
separated -.51438 .27787 .065 -1.0620 .0332
divorced or DTS -.48829* .23330 .037 -.9480 -.0286
widowed -.69630 .64444 .281 -1.9662 .5736
A one-way ANOVA revealed significant effect of marital status on behavioral coping (F(4, 224) = 2.57, p
= .039). Post hoc comparisons using the LSD procedure found that married people had lower levels of
behavioral coping (M = 4.09, SD = 1.06) than separated people (M = 4.56, SD = 1.23; p = .044), and lower
levels of behavioral coping than divorced people (M = 5.53, SD = 1.01; p = .012). Similarly, cohabiting
people had lower levels of behavioral coping (M = 4.04, SD = 1.16) than divorced people (p = .037).
13-3
A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of marital status on spirituality, F(4, 224) = 3.63, p
= .007, η = .25. Post hoc comparisons using the LSD procedure found that cohabiting people were lower
in spirituality (M = 3.72, SD = .96) than married (M = 4.70, SD = 1.16; p = .001), separated (M = 4.50, SD
= 1.21; p = .015), or divorced (M = 4.57, SD = 1.26; p = .002) people.
13-4
A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of employment status on the amount of physical close-
ness, F(4, 205) = 2.62, p = .036, η2 = .049. Post hoc comparisons using the LSD procedure found…
13-8
Descriptives
Intrigued Hesitancy
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum
Placebo 9 105.89 28.440 9.480 84.03 127.75 69 157
Low 11 380.91 81.135 24.463 326.40 435.42 246 476
Medium 10 486.20 92.378 29.213 420.12 552.28 301 622
High 12 598.42 68.492 19.772 554.90 641.93 482 677
Total 42 409.19 192.950 29.773 349.06 469.32 69 677
ANOVA
Intrigued Hesitancy
Between Groups 1325708.162 3 441902.721 83.666 .000
Within Groups 200706.315 38 5281.745
Total 1526414.476 41
Dependent Variable: Intrigued Hesitancy
LSD
Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval
(I) Chromatid Level (J) Chromatid Level (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
Placebo Low -275.020* 32.665 .000 -341.15 -208.89
Medium -380.311* 33.392 .000 -447.91 -312.71
High -492.528* 32.047 .000 -557.40 -427.65
Low Placebo 275.020* 32.665 .000 208.89 341.15

Medium -105.291* 31.754 .002 -169.57 -41.01
High -217.508* 30.337 .000 -278.92 -156.09
Medium Placebo 380.311* 33.392 .000 312.71 447.91
Low 105.291* 31.754 .002 41.01 169.57
High -112.217* 31.118 .001 -175.21 -49.22
High Placebo 492.528* 32.047 .000 427.65 557.40
Low 217.508* 30.337 .000 156.09 278.92
Medium 112.217* 31.118 .001 49.22 175.21
Chromatid levels strongly influenced intrigued hesitancy (F(3, 38) = 83.67, p < .001, η2 = .87). Higher
levels of chromatids were consistently associated with higher levels of intrigued hesitancy. [If all means
and SDs should be reported, this would be a good place for a table.] [If post hoc tests are desired: Post
hoc LSD tests indicated that every condition was significantly different than every other condition, all
ps < .002.]
Chapter 15: Three-Way ANOVA

For the first five problems below, perform the following:
• Print out the cell means portion of the output.
• Print out the ANOVA results (main effects, interactions, and so forth).
• Interpret and write up correctly (APA format) all main effects and interactions.
• Create multiple-line graphs (or clustered bar charts) for all significant interactions.
1. File: helping3.sav; dependent variable: tothelp; independent variables: gender, problem.
2. File: helping3.sav; dependent variable: tothelp; independent variables: gender, income.
3. File: helping3.sav; dependent variable: hseveret; independent variables: ethnic, problem.
4. File: helping3.sav; dependent variable: thelplnz; independent variables: gender, problem; covari-
ate: tqualitz.
5. File: helping3.sav; dependent variable: thelplnz; independent variables: gender, income, marital.
6. In an experiment, participants were given a test of mental performance in stressful situations. Some
participants were given no stress-reduction training, some were given a short stress-reduction train-
ing session, and some were given a long stress-reduction training session. In addition, some partici-
pants who were tested had a low level of stress in their lives, and others had a high level of stress in
their lives. Perform an ANOVA on these data (listed below). What do the results mean?
Training: None Short
Life Stress: High Low High
Performance Score: 5 4 2 5 4 4 4 6 6 2 6 4 5 4 3
Training: Short Long
Life Stress: Low High Low
Performance Score: 7 6 6 5 7 5 5 5 3 5 7 7 9 9 8
7. In an experiment, participants were given a test of mental performance in stressful situations. Some
participants were given no stress-reduction training, and some were given a stress-reduction train-
ing session. In addition, some participants who were tested had a low level of stress in their lives,
and others had a high level of stress in their lives. Finally, some participants were tested after a full
night's sleep, and some were tested after an all-night study session on three-way ANOVA. Perform
an ANOVA on these data (listed below question 8; ignore the "caffeine" column for now). What do
these results mean?
8. In the experiment described in problem 7, data were also collected for caffeine levels. Perform an
ANOVA on these data (listed below). What do these results mean? What is similar to and different
than the results in question 7?
Training? Stress Level Sleep/Study Performance Caffeine
No Low Sleep 8 12
No Low Sleep 9 13
No Low Sleep 8 15
No Low Study 15 10
No Low Study 14 10
No Low Study 15 11
No High Sleep 10 14
No High Sleep 11 15
No High Sleep 11 16
No High Study 18 11
No High Study 19 10
No High Study 19 11
Yes Low Sleep 18 11
Yes Low Sleep 17 10
Yes Low Sleep 18 11
Yes Low Study 10 4
Yes Low Study 10 4
Yes Low Study 11 4
Yes High Sleep 22 14
Yes High Study 13 5
Yes High Study 13 5
Yes High Study 12 4
9. Dr. Toob believes that people who meditate regularly are less jealous, but that this effect is larger for
people who are religious than people who are not. She has 20 participants meditate for a week, and 20
participants not meditate for a week. After she measures level of jealousy for her participants, she hires
you to determine whether her hypothesis is supported. Is it? What do the results mean?
Meditate? Religious? Jealousy
Yes Yes 2
Yes Yes 3
Yes Yes 4
Yes Yes 1
Yes Yes 4
Yes Yes 3
Yes Yes 7
Yes Yes 5
Yes Yes -1
Yes Yes 2
Yes No 1
Yes No 2
Yes No 2
Yes No 4
Yes No 4
Yes No 3
Yes No 3
Yes No 4
Yes No 1
Yes No 2
No Yes 5
No Yes 4
No Yes 7
No Yes 4
No Yes 4
No Yes 6
No Yes 3
No Yes 5
No Yes 8
No Yes 5
No No 9
No No 6
No No 7
No No 6
No No 7
No No 5
No No 8
No No 6
No No 9
No No 5
10. You are exploring whether the effect of chromatid levels on intrigued hesitancy is moderated by
electrolyte levels. You inject participants with either high levels of chromatids, medium levels, low lev-
els, or a placebo; you either have them drink lots of sports drink (high electrolyte group) or a diuretic
(low electrolyte group). Data are presented below Question 12. Is the effect of chromatid levels on in-
trigued hesitancy moderated by electrolyte levels? If so, describe this interaction along with the main
effect(s) if present.
11. In a follow-up study to the previous question, you measure saltiness (that you think may also be
correlated with intrigued hesitancy). Data are presented below Question 12. If you include saltiness as a
covariate, do the effects that you found in question 10 get larger or smaller? Does power get larger or
smaller? Describe the effect of the covariate, along with the interaction and main effect(s) if present.
12. It occurs to you that you also recorded participants’ gender in the study described in Question 10.
You think that the two-way interaction you found in Question 10 may differ between men and women.
Perform a three-way ANOVA on these data. For each main effect, two-way interaction, and three-way
interaction, a) describe whether the effect is significant, b) how large the effect is, and c) describe the
effect (i.e., differences between the means).
Dataset for Questions 10, 11, and 12:
Chromatid Electrolytes Gender Intrigued Hesitancy Saltiness
Placebo High Female 71 13
Placebo High Male 72 5
Low High Female 328 37
Low High Male 369 38
Medium High Female 396 38
Medium High Male 372 42
High High Female 517 53

High High Male 565 61
Placebo Low Female 128 17
Placebo Low Male -20 9
Placebo Low Male -16 10
Placebo Low Male 31 13
Low Low Female 303 35
Low Low Male 199 29
Low Low Male 214 32
Low Low Male 297 40
Medium Low Female 400 40
Medium Low Male 451 42

High Low Female 547 57
High Low Male 582 53

15-1
Between-Subjects Factors
Value Label N
Gender 1 FEMALE 294
2 MALE 199
TYPE OF PROBLEM EXPERI- 1 GOAL DISRUP-
207
ENCED TIVE
2 RELATIONAL
189
BREAK
3 ILLNESS 84
4 CATASTROPHIC 13
Dependent Variable: COMBINED HELP MEASURE--QUANTITY & QUALITY
TYPE OF PROBLEM EXPERI-

gender ENCED Mean Std. Deviation N
FEMALE GOAL DISRUPTIVE -.0299 .68184 105
RELATIONAL BREAK .1516 .72524 132
ILLNESS .2901 .71572 50
CATASTROPHIC .3449 .62825 7
Total .1149 .71313 294

MALE GOAL DISRUPTIVE -.2752 .77680 102
RELATIONAL BREAK -.0802 .68315 57
ILLNESS -.1298 .82601 34
Total -.1807 .75724 199
Total GOAL DISRUPTIVE -.1507 .73870 207
RELATIONAL BREAK .0817 .71895 189
ILLNESS .1201 .78529 84
Total -.0044 .74478 493

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared
Corrected Model 17.019a 7 2.431 4.608 .000 .062

Intercept .510 1 .510 .966 .326 .002
gender 2.785 1 2.785 5.278 .022 .011
problem 5.879 3 1.960 3.714 .012 .022
gender * problem .581 3 .194 .367 .777 .002
Error 255.894 485 .528
Total 272.923 493
Corrected Total 272.913 492
a. R Squared = .062 (Adjusted R Squared = .049)
Estimated Marginal Means

1. Grand Mean
Dependent Variable: COMBINED HELP MEASURE--QUANTITY &
QUALITY
Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
.057 .058 -.057 .170
2. gender
gender Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
FEMALE .189 .077 .038 .341

MALE -.076 .086 -.244 .093
3. TYPE OF PROBLEM EXPERIENCED

TYPE OF PROBLEM EXPERI- 95% Confidence Interval
ENCED Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
GOAL DISRUPTIVE -.153 .050 -.252 -.053

RELATIONAL BREAK .036 .058 -.077 .149
ILLNESS .080 .081 -.078 .239
CATASTROPHIC .263 .202 -.134 .660
4. gender * TYPE OF PROBLEM EXPERIENCED

TYPE OF PROBLEM EXPERI- 95% Confidence Interval
gender ENCED Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
FEMALE GOAL DISRUPTIVE -.030 .071 -.169 .109
RELATIONAL BREAK .152 .063 .027 .276
ILLNESS .290 .103 .088 .492
CATASTROPHIC .345 .275 -.195 .884

MALE GOAL DISRUPTIVE -.275 .072 -.416 -.134
RELATIONAL BREAK -.080 .096 -.269 .109
ILLNESS -.130 .125 -.375 .115
CATASTROPHIC .182 .297 -.401 .765
(The chart (left) is included for demon-

stration only. There is no significant in-
teraction in the present results.)
A 2-way ANOVA was conducted to de-

termine the influence of gender and type
of problem on the total amount of help
given. Results showed a significant main
effect for gender in which women (M
= .12) gave slightly more help than men
(M = -.18), F(1, 529) = 5.54, p = .019, η2 =
.01. There was also a significant (but
small) main effect for problem type,
F(3, 529) = 1.65, p = .023, η2 = .02. There
was no significant gender by problem
type interaction.
15-2
A two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine the influence of gender and level of income on the
total amount of help given. Results showed a significant main effect for gender in which….There was
also a significant main effect for level of income, F(4, 527) = 3.15, p = .014, η2 = .02. Post hoc comparisons
using the LSD procedure revealed that… There was also a significant gender by income interaction,
F(4, 527) = 2.60, p = .035, η2 = .02. While for all income levels, women helped more than men, for partic-
ipants making less than 25,000, the gender discrepancy was large, but for participants making more
than 25,000, the gender discrepancy was small.
15-3
A two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine the influence of ethnicity and problem type on the
severity rating of problems. Problem type had a significant effect on the severity ratings,
F(3, 518) = 4.96, p = .002, η2 = .03. Post hoc comparisons using the least significant differences procedure
with an alpha value of .05 revealed that the severity rating for goal-disruptive problems (M = 4.58, SD =
1.66) was significantly less than for relational problems (M = 5.15, SD = 1.42), illness problems (M = 5.70,
SD = 1.44), or catastrophic problems (M = 6.00, SD = 1.26). Also illness problems were rated more se-
vere than relational problems. There was no significant ethnic by problem type interaction.
15-6
Dependent Variable: PERFORMA

TRAINING LIFESTRE Mean Std. Deviation N
None High 4.00 1.225 5
Low 4.40 1.673 5
Total 4.20 1.398 10
Short High 4.40 1.140 5
Low 6.20 .837 5
Total 5.30 1.337 10
Long High 4.60 .894 5
Low 8.00 1.000 5
Total 6.30 2.003 10
Total High 4.33 1.047 15
Low 6.20 1.897 15
Total 5.27 1.780 30
Dependent Variable: PERFORMA

Type III Sum Partial Eta Noncent. Observed
a
Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared Parameter Power
Corrected Model 59.467b 5 11.893 8.810 .000 .647 44.049 .999
Intercept 832.133 1 832.133 616.395 .000 .963 616.395 1.000
TRAINING 22.067 2 11.033 8.173 .002 .405 16.346 .934
LIFESTRE 26.133 1 26.133 19.358 .000 .446 19.358 .988
TRAINING * LIFESTRE 11.267 2 5.633 4.173 .028 .258 8.346 .678
Error 32.400 24 1.350
Total 924.000 30
a. Computed using alpha = .05
b. R Squared = .647 (Adjusted R Squared = .574)
There was a main effect of training: People who had a long training session (M = 6.30, SD = 2.00) per-
formed better than people who had a short training session (M = 5.30, SD = 1.34), who in turn did bet-
ter than those who had no training session (M = 4.20, SD = 1.40; F(2,24) = 8.17, p = .002, η2 = .41).
There was a main effect of level of life stress: People with low levels of life stress (M = 6.20, SD = 1.90)
performed better than people with high levels of life stress (M = 4.33, SD = 1.05; F(1,24) = 19.36, p < .001,
η2 = .45).
There was an interaction between training and level of life stress, as displayed in this graph
(F(2, 24) = 4.17, p = .028, η2 = .26):
s of Performance Score
Note that for those

Estimated Marginal Means
7
with low life stress, the
amount of training
seems to make a big
6
difference. For those
with high life stress,
the impact of training
5
is minimal.
None Short Long

Training
15-7
• There was a main effect for training: Participants who received training performed better
(M = 15.75, SD = 4.86) than participants who did not receive training (M = 13.08, SD = 4.14),
F(1, 16) = 128.00, p < .001, η2 = .89).
• There was a main effect of stress level: Participants with high stress levels performed better
(M = 16.08, SD = 4.89) than those with low stress levels (M = 12.75, SD = 3.85),
F(1, 16) = 200.00, p < .001, η2 = .93).
• There was main effect on sleeping versus studying all night: People who slept performed
somewhat better (M = 14.75, SD = 5.83) than those who didn’t sleep (M = 14.08, SD = 3.23),
F(1, 16) = 8.00, p = .012, η2 = .33).
• There was no significant interaction effect between training and stress level (F(1, 16) = .50, p
> .05, η2 = .03).
• There was a significant interaction between training and sleeping versus studying
(F(1, 16) = 1104.50, p < .001, η2 = .99): For those with no training, people who slept performed
worse (M = 9.50, SD = 1.38) than those who studied (M = 16.67, SD = 2.25). For those with
training, however, people who slept performed better (M = 20.00, SD = 2.61) than people
who studied (M = 11.50, SD = 1.38).
• There was no significant interaction between stress level and sleeping versus studying
(F(1, 16) = .50, p > .05, η2 = .03).
• There was a significant three-way interaction between training, stress level, and sleeping
versus studying (F(1, 16) = 18.00, p = .001, η2 = .53).
• For those who slept, they performed better with high stress levels, and better with training.
A post hoc test could determine whether the difference between high and low stress levels
was greater in the training condition than in the no training condition.
• For those who didn’t sleep, they performed better with high stress levels and better without
training. A post hoc test could determine whether the performance gain for the high stress
level participants was greater in the no training condition than in the training condition.
15-10
Dependent Variable: IntriguedHesitancy
Type III Sum of Partial Eta
Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared
Corrected Model 1380330.979a 7 197190.140 82.103 .000 .935
Intercept 5362038.521 1 5362038.521 2232.566 .000 .982
Chromatid 1352379.562 3 450793.187 187.695 .000 .934
Electrolytes 1291.687 1 1291.687 .538 .468 .013
Chromatid * Electrolytes 26659.729 3 8886.576 3.700 .019 .217
Error 96069.500 40 2401.738
Total 6838439.000 48
1. Grand Mean
Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
334.229 7.074 319.933 348.525
2. Chromatid
Chromatid Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Placebo 80.667 14.147 52.074 109.259
Low 303.333 14.147 274.741 331.926
Medium 417.333 14.147 388.741 445.926
High 535.583 14.147 506.991 564.176
3. Electrolytes

Electrolytes Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Low 329.042 10.004 308.824 349.260
High 339.417 10.004 319.199 359.635
4. Chromatid * Electrolytes
Chromatid Electrolytes Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Placebo Low 67.500 20.007 27.064 107.936
High 93.833 20.007 53.397 134.269
Low Low 269.333 20.007 228.897 309.769
High 337.333 20.007 296.897 377.769
Medium Low 412.500 20.007 372.064 452.936
High 422.167 20.007 381.731 462.603
High Low 566.833 20.007 526.397 607.269
High 504.333 20.007 463.897 544.769
Electrolyte levels do moderate the effect of chromatid levels on intrigued hesitancy (F(3, 40) = 3.70, p
= .019, η2 = .22). In the placebo and low chromatid conditions, higher levels of electrolytes were associ-
ated with higher levels of intrigued hesitancy; for the medium chromatid level condition, there was lit-
tle difference between levels of electrolytes on intrigued hesitancy. For people in the high chromatid
level, however people with high electrolytes had lower levels of intrigued hesitancy than people with
low electrolytes. See the figure above.
There was also a main effect of chromatid levels on intrigued hesitancy (F(3, 40) = 187.70, p < .001,
η2 = .93), such that people in the high chromatid level had the highest levels of intrigued hesitancy (M
= 535.58, SE = 14.15), followed by the medium chromatid condition (M =417.33, SE = 14.15) , the low
chromatid condition (M = 303.33, SE = 14.15), and the placebo condition (M = 80.67, SE = 14.15).
There was no main effect of electrolyte levels on intrigued hesitancy (F(1, 40) = .59, p = .47, η2 = .01).
Chapter 16: Simple Linear Regression

1. Use the anxiety.sav file for exercises that follow.
Perform the 4a - 5a sequences on pages 216 and 217.

 Include output in as compact a form as is reasonable
 Write the linear equation for the predicted exam score
 Write the quadratic equation for the predicted exam score
For subjects numbered 5, 13, 42, and 45

 Substitute values into the two equations and solve. Show work on a separate page.
 Then compare in a small table (shown below and similar to that on page 214)
 The anxiety score for each subject
 Linear equation results,
 Quadratic equation results, and
 Actual exam scores for sake of comparison.
actual exam
subject # anxiety score predicted linear score predicted quadratic score
score
5
13
42
45
2. Now using the divorce.sav file, test for linear and curvilinear relations between:
 physical closeness (close) and life satisfaction (lsatisy)

 attributional style (asq) and life satisfaction (lsatisy)
Attributional style, by the way, is a measure of optimism—a low score is “pessimistic” and a high
score is “optimistic”.
Print graphs and write linear and quadratic equations for both.
For each of the three analyses in problems 3 and 4:
 Print out the results
 Box the Multiple R,
 Circle the R Square,
 Underline the three (3) B values, and
 Double underline the three (3) Sig of T values.
In a single sentence (just once, not for each of the 3 problems) identify the meaning of each of the
final four (4) bulleted items above.
3. First, perform step 5b (p. 202) demonstrating the influence of anxiety and anxiety squared (anxie-
ty2) on the exam score (exam).
4. Now, complete similar procedures for the two relationships shown in problem 2 (from the di-
vorce.sav file) and perform the 5 steps bulleted above: Specifically,
• the influence of closeness (close) and closeness squared (close2) on life satisfaction (lsatisy),
and
• the influence of attributional style (asq) and the square of attributional style (asq2) on life
satisfaction (lsatisy).
5. A researcher is examining the relationship between stress levels and performance on a test of
cognitive performance. She hypothesizes that stress levels lead to an increase in performance to a
point, and then increased stress decreases performance. She tests ten participants, who have the
following levels of stress: 10.94, 12.76, 7.62, 8.17, 7.83, 12.22, 9.23, 11.17, 11.88, and 8.18. When she
tests their levels of mental performance, she finds the following cognitive performance scores
(listed in the same participant order as above): 5.24, 4.64, 4.68, 5.04, 4.17, 6.20, 4.54, 6.55, 5.79, and
3.17. Perform a linear regression to examine the relationship between these variables. What do
these results mean?
6. The same researcher tests ten more participants, who have the following levels of stress: 16, 20,
14, 21, 23, 19, 14, 20, 17, and 10. Their cognitive performance scores are (listed in the same partici-
pant order): 5.24, 4.64, 4.68, 5.04, 4.17, 6.20, 4.54, 6.55, 5.79, and 3.17. (Note that in an amazing coinci-
dence, these participants have the same cognitive performance scores as the participants in
Question 5; this coincidence may save you some typing.) Perform a linear regression to examine
the relationship between these variables. What do these results mean?
7. Create a scatterplot (see Chapter 5) of the variables in Question 6. How do results suggest that
linear regression might not be the best analysis to perform?
8. Perform curve estimation on the data from Question 6. What does this tell you about the data
that you could not determine from the analysis in Question 6?
9. What is different about the data in Questions 5 and 6 that leads to different results?
10. You believe that milk is good for you, and good for creativity. To test your hypothesis, you
examine the number of gallons of 2% milk consumed per person in the US from 2000-2009; you
think that this will be a good predictor of the number of visual art works copyrighted in those
years. Data are listed below; perform a regression to test your hypothesis. Is your hypothesis cor-
rect? Report your results including R and R2, B or b (beta), and significance values.
Works of visual art copyrighted (US, thou- Per capita consumption of 2% milk (US; gal-
Year sands) lons)
2000 85.8 7.1
2001 99.9 7
2002 79.9 7
Works of visual art copyrighted (US, thou- Per capita consumption of 2% milk (US; gal-
Year sands) lons)
2003 93.4 6.9
2004 107.8 6.9
2005 82.5 6.9
2006 90.7 6.9
2007 89.2 6.9
2008 42.1 7.3
2009 75.2 7.3
11. Emmanuel Lance is trying to predict the cost of potato chips. She collects data for
several years on the amount of precipitation in Idaho (the largest potato producer in the US) and
the cost of potato chips in the US. Does precipitation in Idaho predict the cost of potato chips? Data
is presented on the next page.
Data for Question 11 and Chapter 16 Question 5
Cost for 1 pound of po- Average Precipitation in Number of Number of

Year tato chips Idaho (mm) Farms Lawyers
1985 $2.75 1.43 2,293
1986 $2.67 1.80 2,250
1987 $2.70 1.33 2,213

1988 $2.85 1.44 2,201
1989 $2.97 1.50 2,175 725,579

1990 $3.03 1.63 2,146 755,694
1991 $3.12 1.60 2,117 777,119
1992 $3.17 1.27 2,108 799,760
1993 $3.18 1.61 2,202 846,036
1994 $3.33 1.34 2,198 865,614
1995 $3.44 2.16 2,196 896,140
1996 $3.48 2.23 2,191 953,260
1997 $3.47 1.74 2,191 953,260
Cost for 1 pound of po- Average Precipitation in Number of Number of

Year tato chips Idaho (mm) Farms Lawyers
1998 $3.58 2.00 2,192 985,921
1999 $3.35 1.42 2,187 1,000,440
2000 $3.46 1.43 2,167 1,022,462
2001 $3.41 1.33 2,149 1,048,903
2002 $3.65 1.34 2,135 1,049,751
2003 $4.48 1.62 2,127 1,058,662
2004 $4.65 1.66 2,113 1,084,504
2005 $4.74 1.79 2,099 1,104,766
16-1
Dependent Variable: exam
Model Summary Parameter Estimates
Equation R Square F df1 df2 Sig. Constant b1 b2
Linear .238 22.186 1 71 .000 64.247 2.818

Quadratic .641 62.525 2 70 .000 30.377 18.926 -1.521
The independent variable is anxiety.
exam
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
anxiety
Linear: EXAM(pred) = 64.247 + 2.818(ANXIETY)

Quadratic: EXAM(pred) = 30.377 + 18.926(ANXIETY) – 1.521(ANXIETY)2
subject # Anxiety score predicted linear score predicted quadratic score actual score
5 3.0 72.7 73.5 70
13 4.0 75.5 81.7 82
42 6.5 82.6 89.1 98
45 9.0 89.6 77.6 79
16-2
Linear: LSATISFY(pred) = 4.571 + .08(ASQ)
Quadratic: LSATISFY(pred) = 4.587 + .051(ASQ) + .004(ASQ)2
16-3
Model Summary
Model Adjusted R Std. Error of
R R Square Square the Estimate
d1 .801a .641 .631 8.443
a. Predictors: (Constant), square of anxiety, anxiety
Multiple R: The multiple correlation between the dependent variable and (in this case) the two inde-
pendent variables.
16-5
Model Summary
Adjusted Std. Error of

Model R R Square R Square the Estimate
1 .632a .399 .324 .82256
a. Predictors: (Constant), STRESS
ANOVAb
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3.594 1 3.594 5.312 .050a
Residual 5.413 8 .677
Total 9.007 9
a. Predictors: (Constant), STRESS
b. Dependent Variable: PERFORMA
These results suggest that there is a significant relationship between stress and performance (R2 = .399,
F(1,8) = 5.31, p = .05). Note, though, that we have tested for a linear relationship—which is not what the
research hypothesized.
16-8
Notice that the linear regression information has (within rounding error) the same information as cal-
culated by the linear regression procedure in exercise 5, above. That model doesn’t fit the data well.
The quadratic equation, however, fits the data much better (R2 = .69, F(1, 7) = 7.68, p = .017). This tells us
that the data is predicted much better from a quadratic equation (which will form an upside-down “U”
shape) than a linear one.
16-9
The data in question 4 is (roughly) linear; the data in question 5 is curvilinear.
16-11
The average precipitation in Idaho does not predict the average cost for potato chips in the United
States (R2 = .06, F(1, 19) = …).
Chapter 17: Multiple Regression Analysis
Use the helping3.sav file for the exercises that follow.
Conduct the following THREE regression analyses:
Criterion variables:
1. thelplnz: Time spent helping
2. tqualitz: Quality of the help given
3. tothelp: A composite help measure that includes both time and quality
Predictors: (use the same predictors for each of the three dependent variables)
age: range from 17 to 89
angert: Amount of anger felt by the helper toward the needy friend
effict: Helper’s feeling of self-efficacy (competence) in relation to the friend’s problem
empathyt: Helper’s empathic tendency as rated by a personality test
gender: 1 = female, 2 = male
hclose: Helper’s rating of how close the relationship was
hcontrot: helper’s rating of how controllable the cause of the problem was
hcopet: helper’s rating of how well the friend was coping with his or her problem
hseveret: helper’s rating of the severity of the problem
obligat: the feeling of obligation the helper felt toward the friend in need
school: coded from 1 to 7 with 1 being the lowest education, and 7 the highest (> 19 years)
sympathi: The extent to which the helper felt sympathy toward the friend
worry: amount the helper worried about the friend in need
• Use entry value of .06 and removal value of .11.

• Use stepwise method of entry.
Create a table (example below) showing for each of the three analyses Multiple R, R2, then each of the
variables that significantly influence the dependent variables. Following the R2, List the name of each
variable and then (in parentheses) list its β value. Rank order them from the most influential to least
influential from left to right. Include only significant predictors.
Dependent
Multiple R R2 1st var (β) 2nd var (β 3rd var (β) 4th var (β) 5th var (β) 6th var (β)
Variable
Time helping
Help quality
Total help
4. A researcher is examining the relationship between stress levels, self-esteem, coping skills, and per-
formance on a test of cognitive performance (the dependent measure). His data are shown below.
Perform multiple regression on these data, entering variables using the stepwise procedure. Inter-
pret the results.
Stress Self-esteem Coping skills Performance

6 10 19 21
5 10 14 21
5 8 14 22
3 7 13 15
7 14 16 22
4 9 11 17
6 9 15 28
5 9 10 19
5 11 20 16
5 10 17 18
5. Emmanuel Lance is trying to predict the cost of potato chips. She collects data for several years on
the amount of precipitation in Idaho (the largest potato producer in the US), the number of farms in the
US, and the number of lawyers in the US (because she has anecdotally observed that the three lawyers
she knows eat a lot of potato chips). Do these three predictors work to predict the cost of potato chips?
How well do they do this? The data for this problem is listed at the end of the previous chapter, page
223. In your answer, be sure to state whether there is causal evidence or if there are possible third vari-
ables that explain these relationships.
17-1
Dependent Multiple 6th var
R2 1st var (β) 2nd var (β) 3rd var (β) 4th var (β) 5th var (β)
Variable R (β)
1. Time help- Efficacy Severity Worry Closeness Anger Gender
.576 .332
ing (.330) (.214) (.153) (.113) (.110) (-.096)
17-4
Two different models were examined. The first model, Performance = 7.688 + 2.394 x Stress + Residual,
fit the data fairly well (R2 = .49, F(1, 8) = 7.53, p = .025). Adding self-esteem significantly improved the
model, so the second model, Performance = 12.999 + 4.710 x Stress – 1.765 x Self-Esteem + Residual, fit
the data even better (R2 = .90, F(2, 7) = 14.65, p = .003). So, when stress goes up, performance goes up;
but when self-esteem goes up, performance goes down. Coping skills didn’t contribute to improve the
model.
17-5
Note: Because the question is worded “…do these three predictors work to predict…” using the “En-
ter” method of multiple regression most closely matches the question. The same pattern of results
would be found if using “Stepwise” multiple regression, but the write-up would be slightly different as
would the statistics supporting the results.
Precipitation in Idaho, the number of farms, and the number of lawyers strongly predict the cost of po-
tato chips in the United States (R2 = .81, F(3, 13) = 18.05, p < .001). Examining the standardized coeffi-
cients indicates that …
Chapter 19: Reliability Analysis

Use the helping3.sav file for the exercises that follow (downloadable at the address shown above).
Measure the internal consistency (coefficient alpha) of the following sets of variables. An “h” in
front of a variable name, refers to assessment by the help giver; an “r” in front of a variable name
refers to assessment by the help recipient.
Compute Coefficient alpha for the following sets of variables, then delete variables until you
achieve the highest possible alpha value. Print out relevant results.
1. hsevere1, hsevere2, rsevere1, rsevere2 measure of problem severity

2. sympath1, sympath2, sympath3, sympath4 measure of helper’s sympathy
3. anger1, anger2, anger3, anger4 measure of helper’s anger
4. hcope1, hcope2, hcope3, rcope1, rcope2, rcope3 how well the recipient is coping
5. hhelp1-hhelp15 helper rating of time spent helping
6. rhelp1-rhelp15 recipient’s rating of time helping
7. empathy1-empath14 helper’s rating of empathy
8. hqualit1, hqualit2, hqualit3, rqualit1, rqualit2, rqualit3 quality of help
9. effic1-effic15 helper’s belief of self efficacy
10. hcontro1, hcontro2, rcontro1, rcontro2 controllability of the cause of the problem
From the divorce.sav file:
11. drelat-dadjust (16 items) factors disruptive to divorce recovery

12. arelat-amain2 (13 items) factors assisting recovery from divorce
13. sp8-sp57 (18 items) spirituality measures
14. You are developing a scale to measure focused anger. You draft a five-item scale, with each item an-
swered on a 1-9 scale. Data are listed below; calculate Chronbach’s alpha. How reliable is this scale?
Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5
6 7 7 3 5
6 5 8 6 5
7 7 6 7 7
3 4 4 5 3
Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5
4 4 4 4 6
7 6 6 5 7
5 4 4 5 5
5 5 5 4 4
4 5 4 7 5
4 4 3 4 4
19-1
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.889 .890 4
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

HELPER HELPER RECIPIENT RECIPIENT
RATING OF RATING OF RATING OF RATING OF
DISRUPTION TRAUMA DISRUPTION TRAUMA
HELPER RATING
1.000 .789 .610 .603
OF DISRUPTION
HELPER RATING
.789 1.000 .588 .647
OF TRAUMA
RECIPIENT RATING
.610 .588 1.000 .774
OF DISRUPTION
RECIPIENT RATING
.603 .647 .774 1.000
OF TRAUMA
The covariance matrix is calculated and used in the analysis.
Summary Item Statistics
Maximum /
Mean Minimum Maximum Range Minimum Variance N of Items
Item Means 5.082 4.886 5.199 .313 1.064 .019 4
Item Variances 2.782 2.638 2.944 .306 1.116 .016 4
Inter-Item Correlations .668 .588 .789 .201 1.342 .007 4
The covariance matrix is calculated and used in the analysis.
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
HELPER RATING
15.44 19.157 .754 .655 .859
OF DISRUPTION
HELPER RATING
15.18 19.718 .768 .668 .854
OF TRAUMA
RECIPIENT RATING
15.23 19.662 .741 .631 .864
OF DISRUPTION
RECIPIENT RATING
15.13 19.459 .766 .655 .855
OF TRAUMA
Scale Statistics
Std.
Mean Variance Deviation N of Items
20.33 33.433 5.782 4
19-2
There is a special data file available on the course website for those using the student version of SPSS.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Al-
pha Based on
Cronbach's Al- Standardized
pha Items N of Items
.817 .820 3
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

HELPER RAT- HELPER RAT-
ING OF COM- ING OF SYM- HELPER RAT-
PASSION PATHY ING OF MOVED
HELPER RATING OF COM- 1.000 .591 .590
PASSION
HELPER RATING OF SYM- .591 1.000 .626
PATHY
HELPER RATING OF .590 .626 1.000
MOVED
Summary Item Statistics

Maximum / Min-
Mean Minimum Maximum Range imum Variance N of Items
Item Means 5.138 4.732 5.458 .726 1.153 .138 3
Item Variances 2.321 1.857 2.790 .933 1.502 .218 3
Inter-Item Correlations .602 .590 .626 .036 1.061 .000 3
Item-Total Statistics
Cronbach's Al-
Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Squared Multiple pha if Item De-
Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Correlation leted
HELPER RATING OF COM- 9.96 8.291 .655 .429 .768
PASSION
HELPER RATING OF SYM- 10.19 7.333 .683 .467 .733
PATHY
HELPER RATING OF 10.68 6.623 .683 .467 .740
MOVED
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
15.42 15.284 3.910 3
19-14
The focused anger scale is reliable (Chronbach’s α = …).
Chapter 24: MANOVA and MANCOVA

1. Using the grade.sav file, compute and interpret a MANOVA examining the effect of whether or
not students completed the extra credit project on the total points for the class and the previous
GPA.
2. Using the grades.sav file, compute and interpret a MANOVA examining the effects of section
and lowup on total and GPA.
3. Why would it be a bad idea to compute a MANOVA examining the effects of section and
lowup on total and percent?
4. A researcher wishes to examine the effects of high- or low-stress situations on a test of cognitive
performance and self-esteem levels. Participants are also divided into those with high- or low-
coping skills. The data are shown after question 5 (ignore the last column for now). Perform
and interpret a MANOVA examining the effects of stress level and coping skills on both cogni-
tive performance and self-esteem level.
5. Coping skills may be correlated with immune response. Include immune response levels (listed
below) in the MANOVA performed for Question 4. What do these results mean? In what way
are they different than the results in Question 4? Why?
Stress Level Coping Skills Cognitive Performance Self-Esteem Immune Response

High High 6 19 21
Low High 5 18 21
High High 5 14 22
High Low 3 8 15
Low High 7 20 22
High Low 4 8 17
High High 6 15 28
High Low 5 7 19
Low Low 5 20 16
Low Low 5 17 18
6. You want to examine the effect of sleep deprivation on state self-esteem and state self-efficacy. You
deprive half of your participants of sleep, and measure all of your participants’ self-esteem and self-
efficacy. Data are presented below. Perform a MANOVA and describe your results. Are they significant?
Describe your results. How large is this (or are these) effect(s)? Does it appear that sleep deprivation
causes a change in self-esteem and self-efficacy?
Sleep Depri- State Self- State Self-

vation Esteem Efficacy
Low 29 37
Low 31 30
Sleep Depri- State Self- State Self-

vation Esteem Efficacy
Low 24 35
Low 39 35
Low 30 36
High 12 34
High 15 31
High 18 27
High 23 35
High 22 30
24-1
Multivariate Testsc
Partial Eta Noncent. Observed

a
Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Squared Parameter Power
Intercept Pillai's Trace .971 1733.479b 2.000 102.000 .000 .971 3466.959 1.000
Wilks' Lambda .029 1733.479b 2.000 102.000 .000 .971 3466.959 1.000
Hotelling's Trace 33.990 1733.479b 2.000 102.000 .000 .971 3466.959 1.000
Roy's Largest Root 33.990 1733.479b 2.000 102.000 .000 .971 3466.959 1.000
EXTRCRED Pillai's Trace .100 5.686b 2.000 102.000 .005 .100 11.372 .854
Wilks' Lambda .900 5.686b 2.000 102.000 .005 .100 11.372 .854
Hotelling's Trace .111 5.686b 2.000 102.000 .005 .100 11.372 .854
Roy's Largest Root .111 5.686b 2.000 102.000 .005 .100 11.372 .854
b. Exact statistic
c. Design: Intercept+EXTRCRED
There is a significant effect of whether or not students did the extra credit project and their previous
GPA’s/class points (F(2,102) = 5.69, p = .005, η2 = .10).
Type III Sum Partial Eta Noncent. Observed

a
Source Dependent Variable of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared Parameter Power
Corrected Model GPA .055b 1 .055 .093 .761 .001 .093 .061
TOTAL 2151.443c 1 2151.443 9.985 .002 .088 9.985 .879
Intercept GPA 543.476 1 543.476 923.452 .000 .900 923.452 1.000
TOTAL 749523.786 1 749523.786 3478.731 .000 .971 3478.731 1.000
EXTRCRED GPA .055 1 .055 .093 .761 .001 .093 .061
TOTAL 2151.443 1 2151.443 9.985 .002 .088 9.985 .879
Error GPA 60.618 103 .589
TOTAL 22192.272 103 215.459
Total GPA 871.488 105
TOTAL 1086378.000 105
Corrected Total GPA 60.673 104
TOTAL 24343.714 104
b. R Squared = .001 (Adjusted R Squared = -.009)
c. R Squared = .088 (Adjusted R Squared = .080)
One-way ANOVA suggest that this effect seems to primarily be related to the total class points
(F(1,103) = 9.99, p = .002, η2 = .09) rather than the previous GPA (F(1,103) = .093, p > .05, η2 = .00).
Students who completed the extra
credit project had more points (M
EXTRCRED Mean Std. Deviation N = 109.36, SD = 11.36) than those who
GPA No 2.7671 .78466 83
did not complete the extra credit pro-
Yes 2.8232 .69460 22
ject (M = 98.24, SD = 15.41).
Total 2.7789 .76380 105
TOTAL No 98.24 15.414 83
Yes 109.36 11.358 22
Total 100.57 15.299 105
24-2
• There is not a significant main effect of lower/upper division status on total class points and
previous gpa (F(2, 98) = 1.14, p = .323, η2 = .02).
• There is not a significant main effect of class section on total class points and previous GPA
(F(4, 198) = 1.98, p = .10, η2 = .04).
• There is a significant interaction between class section and lower/upper division status, on
total class points and previous GPA (F(4, 198) = 4.23, p = .003, η2 = .08).
• One-way ANOVA suggest that this interaction takes place primarily in the total class points
(F(2, 99) = 4.60, p = .012, η2 = .09), though the interaction of lower/upper division status and
class section on GPA was only somewhat weaker (F(2, 99) = 3.00, p = .055, η2 = .06).
• An examination of means suggests that lower division students had more total points than
upper division students in sections 1 (M = 109.86, SD = 9.51 vs. M = 103.81, SD = 17.44) and 3
(M = 107.50, SD = 9.47 vs. M = 95.93, SD = 17.64), but upper division students had more total
points (M = 103.18, SD = 9.44) than lower division students (M = 90.09, SD = 13.13) in section
2. Lower division students had higher GPA’s than upper division students is sections 2 (M =
2.84, SD = .99 vs. M = 2.67, SD = .68) and 3 (M = 3.53, SD = .50 vs. M = 2.57, SD = .77), but
lower GPA’s (M = 2.72, SD = .99) than upper division students (M = 3.00, SD = .71) in section
1.
24-4
• MANOVA suggests that there is a main effect of stress on cognitive performance and self-
esteem (F(2, 5) = 13.70, p = .009, η2 = .85). One-way ANOVA suggest that this effect is primar-
ily centered on the relation between stress and self-esteem (F(1,6) = 32.55, p = .001, η2 = .84)
rather than stress and cognitive performance (F(1,6) = 1.37, p > .05, η2 = .19). Those in the
low-stress condition had higher self-esteem (M = 18.75, SD = 1.50) than those in the high-
stress condition (M = 11.83, SD = 4.88).
• MANOVA also revealed a significant main effect of coping on cognitive performance and
self-esteem (F(2,5) = 6.24, p = .044, η2 = .71). One-way ANOVA suggest that this effect is
clearly present in the relation between coping and self-esteem (F(1,6) = 13.27, p = .011,
η2 = .70), though the relation between coping and cognitive performance was marginally
significant as well (F(1,6) = 5.49, p = .058, η2 = .48). Those with high coping skills had higher
self-esteem (M = 17.20, SD = 2.59) than those with low coping skills (M = 12.00, SD = 6.04).
Those high coping skills may have also had higher cognitive performance (M = 5.80, SD
= .84) than those with low coping skills (M = 4.40, SD = .89).
• The interaction effect between coping and stress levels was not significant (F(2,5) = 4.42, p
= .079, η2 = .64).
24-6
Multivariate Testsa
Hypothesis Error Partial Eta Noncent. Observed
Effect Value F df df Sig. Squared Parameter Powerc
Intercept Pillai's Trace .995 676.599b 2.000 7.000 .000 .995 1353.198 1.000
Wilks' Lambda .005 676.599b 2.000 7.000 .000 .995 1353.198 1.000
Hotelling's 193.314 676.599b 2.000 7.000 .000 .995 1353.198 1.000
Trace
Roy's Largest 193.314 676.599b 2.000 7.000 .000 .995 1353.198 1.000
Root
SleepDeprivation Pillai's Trace .709 8.530b 2.000 7.000 .013 .709 17.060 .843
Wilks' Lambda .291 8.530b 2.000 7.000 .013 .709 17.060 .843
Hotelling's 2.437 8.530b 2.000 7.000 .013 .709 17.060 .843
Trace
Roy's Largest 2.437 8.530b 2.000 7.000 .013 .709 17.060 .843
Root
a. Design: Intercept + SleepDeprivation
b. Exact statistic
c. Computed using alpha = .05
A MANOVA revealed that sleep deprivation condition did affect self-esteem and self-efficacy
(F(2, 7) = 8.53, p = .013, η2 = .71).

Type III
Dependent Sum of Mean Partial Eta Noncent. Observed
Source Variable Squares df Square F Sig. Squared Parameter Powerc
Corrected Model State Self- 396.900a 1 396.900 15.626 .004 .661 15.626 .932
Esteem
State Self- 25.600b 1 25.600 2.909 .126 .267 2.909 .324
Efficacy
Intercept State Self- 5904.900 1 5904.900 232.476 .000 .967 232.476 1.000
Esteem
State Self- 10890.000 1 10890.000 1237.500 .000 .994 1237.500 1.000
Efficacy
SleepDeprivation State Self- 396.900 1 396.900 15.626 .004 .661 15.626 .932
Esteem
State Self- 25.600 1 25.600 2.909 .126 .267 2.909 .324
Efficacy
Error State Self- 203.200 8 25.400
Esteem
State Self- 70.400 8 8.800
Efficacy
Total State Self- 6505.000 10
Esteem
State Self- 10986.000 10
Efficacy
Corrected Total State Self- 600.100 9
Esteem
State Self- 96.000 9
Efficacy
b. R Squared = .267 (Adjusted R Squared = .175)
c. Computed using alpha = .05
Univariate ANOVA revealed that this effect was fairly large and significant for state self-esteem
(F(1, 8) = 15.62, p = .004, η2 = .66), but moderately small and not significant for state self-efficacy
(F(1, 8) = 2.91, p = .126, η2 = .27).
Sleep Deprivation Mean Std. Deviation N
State Self-Esteem Low 30.60 5.413 5
High 18.00 4.637 5
Total 24.30 8.166 10
State Self-Efficacy Low 34.60 2.702 5
High 31.40 3.209 5
Total 33.00 3.266 10
Participants with high sleep deprivation exhibited lower levels of state self-esteem (M = 18.00, SD
= 4.64) than people with low sleep deprivation (M = 30.60, SD = 5.41).
Chapter 25: Repeated-Measures MANOVA

1. Imagine that in the grades.sav file, the five quiz scores are actually the same quiz taken under
different circumstances. Perform repeated-measures ANOVA on the five quiz scores. What do
these results mean?
2. To the analysis in exercise 1, add whether or not students completed the extra credit project (ex-
trcred) as a between-subjects variable. What do these results mean?
3. A researcher puts participants in a highly stressful situation (say, performing repeated-
measures MANCOVA) and measures their cognitive performance. He then puts them in a low-
stress situation (say, lying on the beach on a pleasant day). Participant scores on the test of cog-
nitive performance are reported below. Perform and interpret a within-subjects ANOVA on
these data.
Case Number: 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 10
High Stress: 76 89 86 85 62 63 85 115 87 85
Low Stress: 91 92 127 92 75 56 82 150 118 114
4. The researcher also collects data from the same participants on their coping ability. They scored
(in case number order) 25, 9, 59, 16, 23, 10, 6, 43, 44, and 34. Perform and interpret a within-
subjects ANCOVA on these data.
5. The researcher just discovered some more data…in this case, physical dexterity performance in
the high-stress and low-stress situations (listed below, in the same case number order as in the
previous two exercises). Perform and interpret a 2 (stress level: high, low) by 2 (kind of perfor-
mance: cognitive, dexterity) ANCOVA on these data.
Physical dexterity values:
Case Number: 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 10
High Stress: 91 109 94 99 73 76 94 136 109 94
Low Stress: 79 68 135 103 79 46 77 173 111 109
6. You want to examine the effects of sleep deprivation on state self-efficacy. One week you de-
prive your participants of sleep, add another week you do not deprive them of sleep. Each
week, you measure their self-efficacy. Data are presented below. Perform an ANOVA and de-
scribe your results. How large is this effect?
Sleep Deprived Enough Sleep
13 20
22 33
26 34
20 22
Sleep Deprived Enough Sleep
19 34
20 35
16 22
23 34
20 27
26 38
25-1
Mean Std. Deviation N

QUIZ1 7.47 2.481 105
QUIZ2 7.98 1.623 105
QUIZ3 7.98 2.308 105
QUIZ4 7.80 2.280 105
QUIZ5 7.87 1.765 105
Multivariate Testsc
Partial Eta Noncent. Observed

a
Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Squared Parameter Power
CONDITIO Pillai's Trace .152 4.539b 4.000 101.000 .002 .152 18.156 .934
Wilks' Lambda .848 4.539b 4.000 101.000 .002 .152 18.156 .934
Hotelling's Trace .180 4.539b 4.000 101.000 .002 .152 18.156 .934
Roy's Largest Root .180 4.539b 4.000 101.000 .002 .152 18.156 .934
b. Exact statistic
c.
Design: Intercept
Within Subjects Design: CONDITIO
These results suggest that there is a significant difference between the five conditions under which the
quiz was taken (F(4,101) = 4.54, p = .002, η2 = .15). We can examine the means to determine what that
pattern of quiz scores looks like.
25-2
When the condition in which the quiz was taken is examined at the same time that extra credit partici-
pation is examined, there is no difference between the conditions on their own (F(4, 412) = .51, p > .05,
η2 = .01). There is, however, an interaction effect between the quiz condition and extra credit participa-
tion (F(4, 412) = 7.60, p < .001, η2 = .07).
An examination of the means suggests that doing the extra credit helped more for the quiz in condi-
tions 1 and 4 (or, not doing the extra credit hurt more in conditions 1 and 4) than in the other condi-
tions, with the extra credit affecting the quiz score least in conditions 2 and 5.
There was also a significant main effect of doing the extra credit (F(1, 103) = 10.16, p = .002, η2 = .09) such
that people who did the extra credit assignment had higher scores overall (M = 8.86, SE = .37) that those
who didn’t do the extra credit assignment (M = 7.54, SE = .19).
25-4
There is a significant difference in cognitive performance between individuals in the high stress (M
= 83.30, SD = 14.86) and low stress (M = 99.70, SD = 27.57) conditions, F(1,8) = 10.50, p = .012, η2 = .57.
There is also a significant interaction between stress and coping skills in their effect on cognitive per-
formance, F(1,8) = 128.28, p < .001, η2 = .94. Note that to interpret this interaction, we would need to ex-
amine scatterplots and/or regressions for the relation between coping and cognitive performance for
the high and low stress conditions. An example of this graph is shown here:
A
Linear Regression
110.00
100.00
highst
highst = 74.15 + 0.34 * coping

90.00 A
R-Square = 0.16 A
A
A A A
80.00
A
70.00
A
A
60.00
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
coping
A
Linear Regression
140.00
lowst = 65.81 + 1.26 * coping
R-Square = 0.65 A
120.00 A
A
lowst
100.00
A A A
A
80.00
A
60.00
A
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
coping
There is also a significant relationship between coping and cognitive performance overall (F(1,8) = 7.26,
p = .027, η2 = .48). From the graphs above, it is clear that as coping skills increase, so does performance
on the cognitive task.
25-6
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Type III
Sum of Mean Partial Eta Noncent. Observed
Source Squares df Square F Sig. Squared Parameter Powera
SleepCondition Sphericity As- 441.800 1 441.800 51.505 .000 .851 51.505 1.000
sumed
Greenhouse- 441.800 1.000 441.800 51.505 .000 .851 51.505 1.000
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 441.800 1.000 441.800 51.505 .000 .851 51.505 1.000
Lower-bound 441.800 1.000 441.800 51.505 .000 .851 51.505 1.000
Error(SleepCondition) Sphericity As- 77.200 9 8.578
sumed
Greenhouse- 77.200 9.000 8.578
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 77.200 9.000 8.578
Lower-bound 77.200 9.000 8.578
Sleep condition does strongly affect the level of state self-efficacy (F(1, 9) = 51.51, p < .001, η2 = .85).
Mean Std. Deviation N
Sleep Deprived 20.5000 4.06202 10
Enough Sleep 29.9000 6.52261 10
People had higher levels of state self-efficacy when they had enough sleep (M = 29.90, SD = 6.52) than
when they were sleep deprived (M = 20.50, SD = 4.06).

SPSS Statistics 27 Step by Step Answers To Selected Exercises

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPSS Statistics 27 Step by Step Answers To Selected Exercises

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IBM SPSS Statistics 27

A Simple Guide and Reference

Darren George, Ph.D.

Paul Mallery, Ph.D.

Chapter 8: Crosstabulation and χ2 Analyses ........................................................................................23

Chapter 15: Three-Way ANOVA .............................................................................................................55

Chapter 3: Creating and Editing a Data File

Chapter 4: Managing Data

a. Limited to first 30 cases.

Id total percent grade

Valid female 119 52.0 52.0 52.0

male 110 48.0 48.0 100.0

Total 229 100.0 100.0

Chapter 7: Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic

id 105 571366.67 277404.129 -.090 -1.299

section 105 2.00 .797 .000 -1.419

Attended review sessions? 105 1.67 .474 -.717 -1.515

Chapter 8: Crosstabulation and χ2 Analyses

1. Circle the observed (actual) values.

Happy? Socioeconomic Status Number of People

Yes Lower 3630

Yes Middle 4992

Yes Upper 5196

5. Ethnicity and gender are independent of each other.

5. Ethnicity and gender are independent of each other.

Chapter 9: The Means Procedure

ethnicity section Mean N Std. Deviation

Native 2 90.25 4 15.042

Total 95.20 5 17.094

Total 100.57 105 15.299

• The SEX column identifies the gender of the subjects.

Chapter 10: A Priori Power Analysis

Twenty-seven people need to be in the study.

Power Analysis - Linear Regression

To achieve a power of .8, 44 participants are needed.

Chapter 11: Bivariate Correlation

Person 1 916 622 628 1279 943

Person 2 976 706 835 694 1354

Person 1 1531 1303 901 1096 778

Person 2 1489 1294 667 847 1138

Chapter 12: The T Test Procedure

For questions 1- 7, perform the following operations:

8. In an experiment, 10 participants were given a test of mental performance in stressful situations.

Person Red Room Blue Room

Independent Samples Test

No results are statistically significant

Paired Samples Test

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Chapter 13: The One-Way ANOVA Procedure

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Asian 20 8.35 1.531 .342 7.63 9.07 6 10

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups (Combined) 34.297 3 11.432 2.272 .085

Linear Term Unweighted 26.464 1 26.464 5.258 .024

Weighted 14.484 1 14.484 2.878 .093

Deviation 19.813 2 9.906 1.968 .145

Contrast Asian Black White Hispanic

Contrast Value of Contrast Std. Error t df Sig. (2-tailed)

quiz4 Assume equal variances 1 1.78 1.015 1.756 96 .082

2 5.33 2.166 2.459 96 .016