Introductory Statistics Using SPSS 2nd Edition Knapp Solutions Manual Download

1
6.5B..................38
Introductory Statistics
Using SPSS 2nd Edition
Knapp Solutions Manual
Full download at link:
https://testbankpack.com/p/solution-manual-
for-introductory-statistics-using-spss-2nd-
edition-knapp-1506341004-9781506341002/
Chapter 6
ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis Test
Solutions to All Exercises
Exercise Page
6.1A....................2
6.1B....................6
6.2A..................10
6.2B..................14
6.3A..................18
6.3B..................22
6.4A..................26
6.4B..................30
6.5A..................34
Knapp, Introductory Statistics Using SPSS, Second Edition. © 2017, SAGE Publications.
2
Exercise Page
6.6A ................. 42
6.6B ................. 46
6.7A ................. 50
6.7B ................. 54
6.8A ................. 58
6.8B ................. 62
6.9A ................. 66
6.9B ................. 71
6.10A ............... 76
6.10B ............... 81
3
Exercise 6.1, Data Set A
(a)
H0: Practicing meditation has no effect on resting pulse rate.
H1: Practicing meditation reduces resting pulse rate.
(b) Histograms with normal curve plots show a normal distribution of pulse for the
groups as shown in the three figures below, hence, the pretest criteria of normality is
satisfied.
Normal distribution for pulse in Group 1 (No meditation)
4
Normal distribution for pulse in Group 2 (meditated 30 minutes a day, 3 days per week)
5
Test of Homogeneity of Variances

pulse
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

.083 2 102 .920
The homogeneity of variance score shows a significance (p) of .920; since this is
greater than the  level of .05, this suggests that there is no statistically significant
difference among the variances of the three groups, hence, this pretest criterion passes.
The n for each group, as shown in the Descriptives table below is 35 for each group;
since the ns are greater than 30, this criterion passes also.
(c)
The ANOVA revealed the following:
Descriptives
pulse
Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum
No meditation 35 97.40 6.826 1.154 95.06 99.74 84 109
Meditates 3 days 35 92.20 7.287 1.232 89.70 94.70 78 105
Meditates 6 days 35 91.40 6.779 1.146 89.07 93.73 77 106
Total 105 93.67 7.400 .722 92.23 95.10 77 109
ANOVA
pulse
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 742.933 2 371.467 7.651 .001
Within Groups 4952.400 102 48.553
Total 5695.333 104
Multiple Comparisons
pulse
Tukey HSD
(I) group (J) group Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
No meditation Meditates 3 days 5.200* 1.666 .007 1.24 9.16
Meditates 6 days 6.000* 1.666 .001 2.04 9.96
Meditates 3 days No meditation -5.200* 1.666 .007 -9.16 -1.24
Meditates 6 days .800 1.666 .881 -3.16 4.76
Meditates 6 days No meditation -6.000* 1.666 .001 -9.96 -2.04
Meditates 3 days -.800 1.666 .881 -4.76 3.16
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
The Tukey post hoc test was used since the ns for each group were the same (35
each).
6
NOTE: Since the ANOVA test renders results involving multiple comparisons, it
may be helpful to organize the findings as shown in the table below. SPSS does
not generate this table directly, but you can construct it manually. You can copy
the group names and means from the Descriptives table, and the p values from
the Sig. column in the Multiple Comparisons table.
Groups (μ = resting pulse rate after 2 weeks) p

No meditation (μ = 97.40) : Meditation 3x / wk. (μ = 92.20) *.007
No meditation (μ = 97.40) : Meditation 6x / wk. (μ = 91.40) *.001
Meditation 3x / wk. (μ = 92.20) : Meditation 6x / wk. (μ = 91.40) .881
*Statistically significant difference ( = .05).
Practicing meditation for 2 weeks was effective in statistically significantly reducing

resting pulse rate, however there was no statistically significant difference in resting
pulse rate when comparing those who meditated for 30 minutes three times a week to
those who meditated for 30 minutes six times a week. Based on these findings, we
reject H0, and we do not reject H1.
(d)
This study analyzed the effects that meditation had on resting pulse rates. The subjects
were randomly assigned to one of three groups; members of the control group did not
meditate, those in the second group meditated for 30 minutes on Monday, Wednesday
and Friday, and members of the third group meditated for 30 minutes Monday through
Saturday. After 2 weeks, those who meditated (3x / wk., μ = 92.20; 6x / wk. μ = 91.40)
showed a statistically significant reduction (p = .007 and p = .001, respectively) in
resting pulse rate compared to those who did not meditate (μ = 97.40) using a .05 
level. We found no statistically significant difference in the resting pulse rates between
those who meditated 3 days per week, compared to those who meditated 6 days per
week (p = .881).
7
Exercise 6.1, Data Set B
(a)
H0: Practicing meditation has no effect on resting pulse rate.
H1: Practicing meditation reduces resting pulse rate.
(b)
Histograms with normal curve plots show a normal distribution of pulse for the three
satisfied.
Normal distribution for pulse in Group 1 (No meditation)
8
9

pluse

.241 2 96 .786
difference among the variances of the three groups, hence, this pretest criterion passes.
The n for each group, as shown in the Descriptives table below are 33, 35, and 31;
since the ns are greater than 30, this criterion passes also.
(c)
The ANOVA revealed the following:
Descriptives
pluse

No meditation 33 95.15 5.901 1.027 93.06 97.24 80 105
Meditates 3 days 35 93.54 6.797 1.149 91.21 95.88 79 107
Meditates 6 days 31 92.68 6.700 1.203 90.22 95.14 79 104
Total 99 93.81 6.494 .653 92.51 95.10 79 107
ANOVA
pluse

Between Groups 101.651 2 50.826 1.210 .303
Within Groups 4031.702 96 41.997
Total 4133.354 98
pluse
Sidak
(I) group (J) group Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval

(I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
No meditation Meditates 3 days 1.609 1.572 .670 -2.21 5.43
Meditates 6 days 2.474 1.621 .342 -1.46 6.41
Meditates 3 days No meditation -1.609 1.572 .670 -5.43 2.21
Meditates 6 days .865 1.598 .931 -3.02 4.75
Meditates 6 days No meditation -2.474 1.621 .342 -6.41 1.46
Meditates 3 days -.865 1.598 .931 -4.75 3.02
The Sidak post hoc test was used since the ns for each group were not the same (ns =
33, 35, 31).
10
Groups (μ = resting pulse rate after 2 weeks) p

No meditation (μ = 95.15) : Meditation 3x / wk. (μ = 93.54) .670
No meditation (μ = 95.15) : Meditation 6x / wk. (μ = 92.68) .342
Meditation 3x / wk. (μ = 93.54) : Meditation 6x / wk. (μ = 92.68) .931
Per the table above, practicing meditation for 2 weeks produced no statistically
significant reduction in resting pulse rate using a .05  level. Based on these findings,
we would not reject H0, and we would reject H1.
(d)
This study analyzed the effects that meditation had on resting pulse rates. The subjects
were randomly assigned to one of three groups; members of the control group did not
meditate, those in the second group meditated for 30 minutes on Monday, Wednesday
and Friday, and members of the third group meditated for 30 minutes Monday through
Saturday. After 2 weeks, resting pulse rates were recorded for each participant. Those
who did not meditate had a mean resting pulse rate of 95.15, which was slightly higher
than those who meditated (3 days per week: μ = 93.54, 6 days per week: μ = 92.68);
however, we detected no statistically significant differences among any of the three
groups using a .05  level, suggesting that the meditation schedules tested were not
effective in reducing resting pulse rates.
11
(a)
H0: Mentorship has no effect on freshman’s term grades.
H1: Mentorship enhances freshman’s term grades.
(b)
Histograms with normal curve plots show a normal distribution of term scores for all
groups as shown in the three figures below; hence, the pretest criterion of normality is
satisfied.
Group 1—No mentor
12
Group 2—With in-person mentor
Group 3—With e-mentor
13

grade

2.234 2 72 .114
difference between the variances of the groups; hence, this pretest criterion passes.
The n for each group, as shown in the Descriptives table below, is 25 for each group;
although the ANOVA becomes more robust with an n of at least 30 per group, we’ll
proceed with the results given.
(c)
The ANOVA test revealed the following:
Descriptives
grade
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Minimum Maximum
No mentor 25 68.84 7.565 1.513 65.72 71.96 53 79
In-person mentor 25 69.12 7.322 1.464 66.10 72.14 57 85
E-mentor 25 75.28 10.616 2.123 70.90 79.66 50 90
Total 75 71.08 9.025 1.042 69.00 73.16 50 90
ANOVA
grade

Between Groups 662.480 2 331.240 4.445 .015
Within Groups 5365.040 72 74.514
Total 6027.520 74
grade
Tukey HSD

No mentor In-person mentor -.280 2.442 .993 -6.12 5.56
E-mentor -6.440* 2.442 .027 -12.28 -.60
In-person mentor No mentor .280 2.442 .993 -5.56 6.12
E-mentor -6.160* 2.442 .036 -12.00 -.32
E-mentor No mentor 6.440* 2.442 .027 .60 12.28
In-person mentor 6.160* 2.442 .036 .32 12.00
each).
14
Groups (μ = Freshman score) p

μ(No mentor) = 68.84 : μ(In-person mentor) = 69.12 .993
μ(No mentor) = 68.84 : μ(E-mentor) = 75.28 .027*
μ(In-person mentor) = 69.12 : μ(E-mentor) = 75.28 .036*
There was no statistically significant difference in GPA between those who had no
mentor, and those who had in-person mentoring. Students in the E-mentoring had
GPAs statistically significantly higher than the other two groups. These findings lead us
to reject H0 and not reject H1.
(d)
This study assessed the impact that providing a sophomore to provide mentorship to a
freshman has on freshman grades. Freshmen were randomly assigned to one of three
groups: Group 1 received no mentor, Group 2 received in-person mentorship, and
Group 3 received e-mentorship (used digital communication). There was no statistically
significant difference between the GPAs for students who had no mentoring (μ = 68.84)
compared to those assigned to an in-person mentor (μ = 69.12) (p = .993), however,
students assigned to the e-mentoring group (μ = 75.28) statistically significantly
outperformed the No-mentor group (p = .027) and the In-person mentor group (p = .036)
using an  level of .05).
15
(a)
H0: Mentorship has no effect on freshman’s term grades.
H1: Mentorship enhances freshman’s term grades.
(b)
Histograms with normal curve plots show a normal distribution of term scores for all
satisfied.
Group 1—No mentor
16
Group 2—With in-person mentor
Group 3—With e-mentor
17

grade

.090 2 72 .914
although the ANOVA becomes more robust with an n of at least 30 per group, we’ll
proceed with the results given.
(c)
Descriptives
grade
95% Confidence Interval

for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper

N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Minimum Maximum
No mentor 25 63.56 7.042 1.408 60.65 66.47 48 77
In-person mentor 25 69.40 7.539 1.508 66.29 72.51 54 83
E-mentor 25 69.88 7.468 1.494 66.80 72.96 55 83
Total 75 67.61 7.808 .902 65.82 69.41 48 83
ANOVA
grade

Between Groups 618.987 2 309.493 5.724 .005
Within Groups 3892.800 72 54.067
Total 4511.787 74
grade
Tukey HSD

No mentor In-person mentor -5.840* 2.080 .017 -10.82 -.86
E-mentor -6.320* 2.080 .009 -11.30 -1.34
In-person mentor No mentor 5.840* 2.080 .017 .86 10.82
E-mentor -.480 2.080 .971 -5.46 4.50
E-mentor No mentor 6.320* 2.080 .009 1.34 11.30
In-person mentor .480 2.080 .971 -4.50 5.46
18
each).
Groups (μ = Freshman score) p

μ(No mentor) = 63.56 : μ(In-person mentor) = 69.40 .017*
μ(No mentor) = 63.56 : μ(E-mentor) = 69.88 .009*
μ(In-person mentor) = 69.40 : μ(E-mentor) = 69.88 .971
The mean GPAs for each of the two mentoring groups statistically significantly
outperformed those in the control group, who received no mentoring. Also, even though
the e-mentoring group had a slightly higher term grade than the in-person mentoring
group, this was not a statistically significant difference. These findings lead us to reject
H0 and not reject H1.
(d)
This study assessed the impact that providing a sophomore to provide mentorship to a
freshman has on freshman grades. Freshmen were randomly assigned to one of three
groups: Group 1 received no mentor, Group 2 received in-person mentorship, and
Group 3 received e-mentorship (used digital communication). The GPA for those who
had in-person mentoring (μ = 69.40) statistically significantly outperformed those who
had no mentoring (μ = 63.56; p = .017,  = .05); similarly, those who had e-mentoring (μ
= 69.88) statistically significantly outperformed the no-mentoring control group (p =
.009). Although those in the e-mentor group earned a slightly higher GPA than those in
the in-person mentoring group, the difference is not statistically significant (p = .971),
hence, either form of mentoring seems to help enhance freshman GPAs.
19
(a)
H0: Tending to a plant has no effect on depressive mood.
H1: Tending to a plant reduces depressive mood.
(b)
Despite the few low score outliers shown in the histogram for Group 2, the Histograms
with normal curve plots exhibit a normal distribution of the depress variable for all
satisfied.
Normal distribution for depress in Group 1 (No plant)
20
Normal distribution for depress in Group 2 (Bamboo)
Normal distribution for depress in Group 3 (Cactus)
21

depress

2.037 2 177 .133
The homogeneity of variance score for mood shows a significance (p) of .133; since this
is greater than the  level of .05, this suggests that there is no statistically significant
difference between the variances among the three groups, hence, this pretest criterion
passes.
The n for each group is 60 (see Descriptives table below), which satisfies the 30 per
group minimum criterion.
(c)
Descriptives
depress

No plant 60 19.60 2.701 .349 18.90 20.30 15 25
Bamboo 60 18.05 2.500 .323 17.40 18.70 8 24
Cactus 60 19.63 2.490 .322 18.99 20.28 14 25
Total 180 19.09 2.657 .198 18.70 19.49 8 25
ANOVA
depress

Between Groups 98.211 2 49.106 7.459 .001
Within Groups 1165.183 177 6.583
Total 1263.394 179
depress
Tukey HSD

Difference
(I-J)Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
No plant Bamboo 1.550* .468 .003 .44 2.66
Cactus -.033 .468 .997 -1.14 1.07
Bamboo No plant -1.550* .468 .003 -2.66 -.44
Cactus -1.583* .468 .003 -2.69 -.48
Cactus No plant .033 .468 .997 -1.07 1.14
Bamboo 1.583* .468 .003 .48 2.69
Groups (μ = depression) p
No plant (μ = 19.60) : Bamboo (μ = 18.05) *.003
No plant (μ = 19.60) : Cactus (μ = 19.63) .997
Bamboo (μ = 18.05) : Cactus (μ = 19.63) *.003
22
There is no statistically significant difference in the average scores between those who
received no plant (μ = 19.60) and those who received a cactus (μ = 19.63) (p = .997, 
= .05). The mean depression score for those who received a bamboo plant (μ = 18.05)
was statistically significant lower than those who received no plant (p = .003) and those
who received a cactus (p = .003).
Since those in the Bamboo group had a statistically significantly lower depression score
than those who received no plant, we would reject H0. By that same reasoning, we
would not reject H1.
(d)
We hypothesized that empowering nursing home residents with an opportunity to
provide nurturance would help reduce depression. To test this hypothesis, 180 residents
were randomly assigned to one of three groups: Those in Group 1 constituted the
control group, and were given no plant. Those in Group 2 were given a small bamboo
plant to tend to along with a card providing care instructions. Participants in Group 3
were given a cactus plant along with a card providing care instructions. After 90 days,
we administered the Acme Depression Scale (1 = Low depression, 100 = High
depression) to members of all three groups. We found that those who were given the
bamboo plant scored an average of 18.05; using a .05  level, we found that their
depression level was statistically significantly lower than those who were given no plant
(μ = 19.60, p = .003), and those who were given a cactus (μ = 19.63, p = .003). We
found that those who received a cactus had a slightly higher average depression level
(μ = 19.63) than those who were given no plant (μ = 19.60), however, there was no
statistically significant difference in depression scores when comparing those who were
given no plant to those who were given a cactus (p = .997). These findings suggest that
tending to a small plant has the potential to reduce depression in nursing home
residents, but the cactus, which essentially requires no tending, did not provide the
desired effect, whereas the bamboo, which required monitoring and watering, did.
23
(a)
H0: Tending to a plant has no effect on depressive mood.
H1: Tending to a plant reduces depressive mood.
(b)
The Histograms with normal curve plot exhibits a normal distribution of the depress
variable for all groups as shown in the three figures below, hence, the pretest criteria of
normality is satisfied.
Normal distribution for depress in Group 1 (No plant)
24
Normal distribution for depress in Group 2 (Bamboo)
Normal distribution for depress in Group 3 (Cactus)
25

depress

1.108 2 171 .333
difference between the variances of among the three groups, hence, this pretest
criterion passes.
The ns for the groups are 58, 51, and 65 (see Descriptives table below), which satisfies
the 30 per group minimum criterion.
(c)
Descriptives
depress

No plant 58 15.69 4.210 .553 14.58 16.80 8 26
Bamboo 51 16.37 3.521 .493 15.38 17.36 10 25
Cactus 65 17.03 4.224 .524 15.98 18.08 8 26
Total 174 16.39 4.043 .306 15.79 17.00 8 26
ANOVA
depress

Between Groups 55.151 2 27.576 1.701 .186
Within Groups 2772.274 171 16.212
Total 2827.425 173
depress
Sidak

No plant Bamboo -.683 .773 .760 -2.55 1.18
Cactus -1.341 .727 .188 -3.09 .41
Bamboo No plant .683 .773 .760 -1.18 2.55
Cactus -.658 .753 .766 -2.47 1.16
Cactus No plant 1.341 .727 .188 -.41 3.09
Bamboo .658 .753 .766 -1.16 2.47
Groups (μ = depression) p
No plant (μ = 15.69) : Bamboo (μ = 16.37) .760
No plant (μ = 15.69) : Cactus (μ = 17.03) .188
Bamboo (μ = 16.37) : Cactus (μ = 17.03) .766
26
Inspection of the Sig. (p) figure in the ANOVA table (p = .186, which is greater than the
.05  level) tells us that there is no statistically significant difference(s) detected in the
depression scores among any of the groups.
Upon reviewing the comparisons presented in the Multiple Comparisons table, we see
that this finding is confirmed; we see that the p level for each pair of depression scores
is greater than the specified .05  level, hence there are no statistically significant
differences between any of the groups as shown in the table above.
(d)
We hypothesized that empowering nursing home residents with an opportunity to
provide nurturance would help reduce depression. To test this hypothesis, 174 residents
were randomly assigned to one of three groups: Those in Group 1 constituted the
control group and were given no plant. Those in Group 2 were given a small bamboo
plant to tend to along with a card providing care instructions. Participants in Group 3
were given a cactus plant along with a card providing care instructions. After 90 days,
we administered the Acme Depression Scale (1 = Low depression, 100 = High
depression) to members of both groups. We found that those who were given the
cactus scored an average of 17.03, those who were given a bamboo plant had an
average score of 16.37, and those who were given no plant scored an average of
15.69.; using a .05  level, we found no statistically significant differences among any of
these groups (p ranged from .188 to .766). We found that these plants were not helpful
in reducing depression among these nursing home residents.
27
(a)
H0: Eating chocolate does not enhance mood.
H1: Eating chocolate enhances mood.
(b)
Histograms with normal curve plots show a normal distribution of mood for all groups as
shown in the three figures below; hence, the pretest criterion of normality is satisfied.
Group 1—No chocolate
28
Group 2—One chocolate with breakfast, lunch and dinner
Group 3—Two chocolates with breakfast, lunch and dinner
29

mood

.922 2 72 .403
the ANOVA test becomes more robust when the ns are at least 30, but we’ll proceed
with the figures as is.
(c)
Descriptives
mood
95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum
No chocolate 25 73.00 5.148 1.030 70.88 75.12 60 82
Chocolate (1 per meal) 25 76.68 4.488 .898 74.83 78.53 67 83
Chocolate (2 per meal) 25 74.72 3.348 .670 73.34 76.10 69 82
Total 75 74.80 4.588 .530 73.74 75.86 60 83
ANOVA
mood

Between Groups 169.520 2 84.760 4.395 .016
Within Groups 1388.480 72 19.284
Total 1558.000 74
mood
Tukey HSD

No chocolate Chocolate (1 per meal) -3.680* 1.242 .011 -6.65 -.71
Chocolate (2 per meal) -1.720 1.242 .354 -4.69 1.25
Chocolate (1 per meal) No chocolate 3.680* 1.242 .011 .71 6.65
Chocolate (2 per meal) 1.960 1.242 .262 -1.01 4.93
Chocolate (2 per meal) No chocolate 1.720 1.242 .354 -1.25 4.69
Groups (μ = Mood) p
μ(No chocolate) = 73.00 : μ(Chocolate 1 per meal) = 76.68 .011*
μ(No chocolate) = 73.00 : μ(Chocolate 2 per meal) = 74.72 .354
μ(Chocolate 1 per meal) = 76.68 : μ(Chocolate 2 per meal) = 74.72 .262
30
The mean mood for Group 1 (No chocolate) is 73.00, whereas the mean mood for
Group 2 (1 per meal) is 76.68. This 3.68-point difference is statistically significant since
the significance (p) is .011 (which is less than the .05  level), so I would reject H0 and
not reject H1. No statistically significant difference (p = .354) in mood was detected
between Group 1 (No chocolate;  = 73.00) and Group 3 (2 chocolates with each meal;
 = 74.72).
(d)
This study analyzed the effects that chocolate with each meal has on mood. The
participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a group that ate their
regular meals (with no chocolate), a group that ate one piece of chocolate after
breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and a group that ate two pieces of chocolate with their
three daily meals. Results revealed a mean mood score of 73.00 on the Acme Mood
Scale for those who did not have chocolate and 76.68 for those who had one piece of
chocolate with their meals. Using a .05  level, the p value of .011 suggests that eating
one piece of chocolate with meals facilitates a significant increase in mood; hence, we
reject H0 and do not reject H1. The group that ate two pieces of chocolate with each
meal had a mean score of 74.72, however, compared to the control group, this more
modest difference is not statistically significant (p = .354). It seems that mood is
enhanced by a moderate level of chocolate in the diet administered at breakfast, lunch
and dinner among these participants.
31
(a)
H0: Eating chocolate does not enhance mood.
H1: Eating chocolate enhances mood.
(b)
shown in the three figures below; hence, the pretest criterion of normality is satisfied.
Group 1—No chocolate
32
Group 2—One chocolate with breakfast, lunch and dinner
Group 3—Two chocolates with breakfast, lunch and dinner
33

mood

2.917 2 75 .060
The n for each group, as shown in the Descriptives table below, is under 30 for each
group; the ANOVA test becomes more robust when the ns are at least 30, but we’ll
proceed with the figures as is.
(c) The ANOVA test revealed the following:
Descriptives
mood

No chocolate 28 78.82 8.667 1.638 75.46 82.18 63 98
Chocolate (1 per meal) 23 79.17 7.075 1.475 76.11 82.23 67 96
Chocolate (2 per meal) 27 82.22 5.308 1.022 80.12 84.32 67 93
Total 78 80.10 7.252 .821 78.47 81.74 63 98
ANOVA
mood

Between Groups 187.101 2 93.551 1.817 .170
Within Groups 3862.078 75 51.494
Total 4049.179 77
mood
Sidak

No chocolate Chocolate (1 per meal) -.352 2.019 .997 -5.28 4.58
Chocolate (1 per meal) No chocolate .352 2.019 .997 -4.58 5.28
Chocolate (2 per meal) No chocolate 3.401 1.936 .229 -1.33 8.13
Chocolate (1 per meal) 3.048 2.036 .361 -1.92 8.02
Groups (μ = mood) p
μ(Chocolate 1 per meal) = 79.17 : μ(Chocolate 2 per meal) = 82.22 .361
34
The Sidak post hoc test was run since the groups had different ns. The Sig(nificance),
or p level, rendered on the ANOVA table is .170, which is greater than the .05  level,
indicating that there are no statistically significant differences among these (three)
groups. This is confirmed by inspecting the Multiple Comparisons table; the Sig. (p
levels) range from .229 to .997—all of which are greater than .05. While the means
varied among the groups, they are not different enough from each other to say that any
group outperformed any of the other groups. Hence, I would not reject H0 and I would
reject H1.
(d)
This study analyzed the effects that chocolate with each meal has on mood. The
participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a group that ate their
regular meals (with no chocolate), a group that ate one piece of chocolate after
breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and a group that ate two pieces of chocolate with their
three daily meals. Results revealed a mean mood score of 78.82 on the Acme Mood
Scale for those who did not have chocolate, 79.17 for those who ate one piece of
chocolate with their three meals per day, and 82.22 among those who ate two pieces
with each of their three meals. The mood scores of these three groups were processed
using ANOVA, which revealed a p value of .170; since this is greater than the .05 
level, this indicates that despite the moderate variability in mood detected among these
groups, these differences are not considered to be statistically significant using an 
level of .05. It seems that chocolate, at these levels, does not serve to enhance mood
among these participants.
35
(a)
H0: Providing flu shot informational media has no impact on flu shot receptivity.
H1: Providing flu shot informational pamphlet has a positive impact on flu shot
receptivity.
(b)
The histograms (below) for all groups show normal distributions of flu shots, hence the
pretest criterion of normality is satisfied.
Group 1—No flu shot informational media
36
Group 2—Flu shot informational pamphlet
Group 3—Flu shot informational video
37

shots

.855 2 117 .428
The n for each group, as shown in the Descriptives table below, is over 30 for each
group, which satisfies that criterion.
(c)
Descriptives
shots
Nothing 40 16.52 4.151 .656 15.20 17.85 7 25
Flu shot pamphlet 40 16.55 3.651 .577 15.38 17.72 9 23
Flu shot video 40 19.60 4.634 .733 18.12 21.08 10 29
Total 120 17.56 4.377 .400 16.77 18.35 7 29
ANOVA
shots

Between Groups 250.117 2 125.058 7.210 .001
Within Groups 2029.475 117 17.346
Total 2279.592 119
shots
Tukey HSD

Nothing Flu shot pamphlet -.025 .931 1.000 -2.24 2.19
Flu shot video -3.075* .931 .004 -5.29 -.86
Flu shot pamphlet Nothing .025 .931 1.000 -2.19 2.24
Flu shot video -3.050* .931 .004 -5.26 -.84
Flu shot video Nothing 3.075* .931 .004 .86 5.29
Flu shot pamphlet 3.050* .931 .004 .84 5.26
38
Groups (μ = Flu Shots) p

μ(Nothing) = 16.52 : μ(Flu shot pamphlet) = 16.55 1.000
μ(Nothing) = 16.52 : μ(Flu shot video) = 19.60 .004*
μ(Flu shot pamphlet) = 16.55 : μ(Flu shot video) = 19.60 .004*
The Tukey post hoc test was run since the groups all had the same ns (n = 40). The
Sig(nificance), or p level, rendered on the ANOVA table is .001, which is less than the
.05  level, indicating that there are statistically significant differences among these
(three) groups. This is confirmed by inspecting the Multiple Comparisons table; upon
reviewing the mean number of flu shots given per day for each group, the flu shot video
(μ = 19.60) statistically significantly outperformed no media (μ = 16.52) and the flu shot
informational pamphlet (μ = 16.55) with p = .004 ( = .05) for both comparisons. Hence,
I would reject H0 and not reject H1.
(d)
In an effort to discover if the media was effective in promoting flu shot receptivity among
patients, individuals at a walk-in health clinic were randomly assigned to one of three
groups: Group1 constituted the control group, and received no media or messaging
promoting the utility of the flu shot (which is available to all who request it at this clinic),
members of Group 2 were issued a flu shot informational pamphlet, and members of
Group 3 were shown a brief flu shot informational video, containing the same
educational points as the pamphlet. Group 1 (No information) and Group 2 (Pamphlet)
rendered an average of 16.52 and 16.55 flu shots per day respectively, whereas Group
3 (Video) statistically significantly outperformed both other groups with an average of
19.60 flu shots per day (p = .004 for both comparisons;  = .05). These findings suggest
that giving a pamphlet is essentially equivalent to giving nothing (Group 1 : Group 2
rendered p = 1.00), whereas this cohort seemed most receptive to a brief informational
video promoting the flu shot. Our future studies will focus on assessing the
effectiveness of such videos by varying parameters such as duration, content, graphics,
and complexity of message.
39
(a)
H0: Providing flu shot informational media has no impact on flu shot receptivity.
H1: Providing flu shot informational pamphlet has a positive impact on flu shot
receptivity.
(b)
The histograms (below) for the groups show normal distributions of flu shots, hence the
pretest criterion of normality is satisfied.
Group 1—No flu shot informational media
40
Group 2—Flu shot informational pamphlet
Group 3—Flu shot informational video
41

shots

1.177 2 177 .310
(c)
Descriptives
shots
Nothing 60 29.70 10.179 1.314 27.07 32.33 9 48
Flu shot pamphlet 60 33.97 8.326 1.075 31.82 36.12 16 53
Flu shot video 60 35.23 8.996 1.161 32.91 37.56 14 55
Total 180 32.97 9.450 .704 31.58 34.36 9 55
ANOVA
shots

Between Groups 1008.533 2 504.267 5.959 .003
Within Groups 14977.267 177 84.617
Total 15985.800 179
shots
Tukey HSD

Nothing Flu shot pamphlet -4.267* 1.679 .032 -8.24 -.30
Flu shot video -5.533* 1.679 .003 -9.50 -1.56
Flu shot pamphlet Nothing 4.267* 1.679 .032 .30 8.24
Flu shot video -1.267 1.679 .731 -5.24 2.70
Flu shot video Nothing 5.533* 1.679 .003 1.56 9.50
Flu shot pamphlet 1.267 1.679 .731 -2.70 5.24
42
Groups (μ = Flu Shots) p

μ(Nothing) = 29.70 : μ(Flu shot pamphlet) = 33.97 .032*
μ(Nothing) = 29.70 : μ(Flu shot video) = 35.23 .003*
μ(Flu shot pamphlet) = 33.97 : μ(Flu shot video) = 35.23 .731
The Tukey post hoc test was run since the groups all had the same ns (n = 60). The
Sig(nificance), or p level, rendered on the ANOVA table is .003, which is less than the
.05  level, indicating that there are statistically significant differences among these
(three) groups. This is confirmed by inspecting the Multiple Comparisons table; upon
reviewing the mean number of flu shots given per day for each group, we find that the
pamphlet group (μ = 33.97) and the video group (μ = 35.23) statistically significantly
outperformed the group that got no media (μ = 29.70) with p = .032 and p = .003
respectively ( = .05). Hence, I would reject H0 and not reject H1.
(d)
In an effort to discover if educational media was effective in promoting flu shot
receptivity among patients, individuals at a walk-in health clinic were randomly assigned
to one of three groups: Group1 constituted the control group, and received no media or
messaging promoting the utility of the flu shot (which is available to all who request it at
this clinic), members of Group 2 were issued a flu shot informational pamphlet, and
members of Group 3 were shown a brief flu shot informational video, containing the
same educational points as the pamphlet. Group 1 (No information) (μ = 29.70 flu shots
per day) was outperformed by Group 2 (Pamphlet) (μ = 29.70, p = .032) and Group 3
(Video) (μ = 35.23, p = .003). Although the video faired best, we detected no statistically
significant difference (1.26 tests daily) between the pamphlet and the video when it
came to average daily testing. This suggests that paper or video messaging perform
essentially equivalently, and both are more effective than providing no such media. Our
future research will focus on variations on this media to assemble optimal and cost
effective messaging most suitable to our patient population.
43
(a)
H0: A laugh track on a comedy video does not enhance viewer enjoyment.
H1: A laugh track on a comedy video enhances viewer enjoyment.
(b)
Histograms with normal curve plots show a normal distribution of enjoyment for all
satisfied.
Group 1—No laugh track
44
Group 2—Laugh track with 50-person audience
45

enjoy

2.120 2 95 .126
(c)
Descriptives
enjoy

No laugh track 32 3.47 1.646 .291 2.88 4.06 1 8
Laugh track 50 33 4.21 1.364 .237 3.73 4.70 2 7
Laugh track 100 33 4.48 1.034 .180 4.12 4.85 2 6
Total 98 4.06 1.420 .143 3.78 4.35 1 8
ANOVA
enjoy

Between Groups 17.906 2 8.953 4.786 .010
Within Groups 177.726 95 1.871
Total 195.633 97
enjoy
Sidak

No laugh track Laugh track 50 -.743 .339 .090 -1.57 .08
Laugh track 100 -1.016* .339 .010 -1.84 -.19
Laugh track 50 No laugh track .743 .339 .090 -.08 1.57
Laugh track 100 -.273 .337 .805 -1.09 .55
Laugh track 100 No laugh track 1.016* .339 .010 .19 1.84
Laugh track 50 .273 .337 .805 -.55 1.09
Groups (μ = enjoyment) p
μ(No laugh track) = 3.47 : μ(Laugh track 50) = 4.21 .090
μ(No laugh track) = 3.47 : μ(Laugh track 100) = 4.48 .010*
μ(Laugh track 50) = 4.21 : μ(Laugh track 100) = 4.48 .805
46
or p level, rendered on the ANOVA table is .010, which is less than the .05  level,
indicating that there are statistically significant differences among these (three) groups.
This is confirmed by inspecting the Multiple Comparisons table; the Sig. (p levels); the
only pair that produced a statistically significant difference (p = .010) is the comparison
between Group 1 (No laugh track) and Group 3 (Laugh track with a 100-person
audience). Hence, I would reject H0 and not reject H1.
(d)
This study analyzed the effects that a laugh track has on viewer enjoyment of a comedy
video. The participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a group that
watched a comedy video with no laugh track, a group that watched the same video with
the laughter of a 50-member audience, and a group that watched the same video with
the laughter of a 100-member audience. Results revealed an enjoyment level of 3.47
(on a 5-point scale) for those who watched without the laugh track, 4.21 for those who
watch with the 50-person laugh track, and 4.48 for those who watch with the 100-person
laugh track. Although participants reported higher levels of enjoyment when exposed to
the 50-person laugh track, the 100-person laugh track was found most enjoyable of the
three groups. Comparing the control group to the group that watched with the 100-
person audience laugh track produced a statistically significant difference in enjoyment
(p = .010,  = .05). This suggests that the laugh track significantly enhances enjoyment,
but only if there the (recorded) audience is of a sufficient size.
47
(a)
H0: A laugh track on a comedy video does not enhance viewer enjoyment.
H1: A laugh track on a comedy video enhances viewer enjoyment.
(b)
Histograms with normal curve plots show a normal distribution of enjoyment for all
satisfied.
Group 1—No laugh track
48
49

enjoy

.366 2 85 .694
Only one of the groups has an n of at least 30; the findings would be considered more
robust if the n for each group was at least 30.
(c)
Descriptives
enjoy
No laugh track 35 2.49 .853 .144 2.19 2.78 1 4
Laugh track 50 26 2.62 1.098 .215 2.17 3.06 1 6
Laugh track 100 27 2.52 .975 .188 2.13 2.90 1 4
Total 88 2.53 .958 .102 2.33 2.74 1 6
ANOVA
enjoy

Between Groups .260 2 .130 .139 .871
Within Groups 79.637 85 .937
Total 79.898 87
enjoy
Sidak

No laugh track Laugh track 50 -.130 .251 .939 -.74 .48
Laugh track 100 -.033 .248 .999 -.64 .57
Laugh track 50 No laugh track .130 .251 .939 -.48 .74
Laugh track 100 .097 .266 .977 -.55 .74
Laugh track 100 No laugh track .033 .248 .999 -.57 .64
Laugh track 50 -.097 .266 .977 -.74 .55
Groups (μ = Enjoyment) p
μ(Laugh track 50) = 2.62 : μ(Laugh track 100) = 2.52 .977
50
or p level, rendered on the ANOVA table is .871, which is greater than the .05  level,
indicating that there are no statistically significant differences among these (three)
groups. This is confirmed by inspecting the Multiple Comparisons table; the Sig. (p
levels), which are all greater than .05. Based on these findings, I would not reject H0
and reject H1.
(d)
This study analyzed the effects that a laugh track has on viewer enjoyment of a comedy
video. The participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a group that
watched a comedy video with no laugh track, a group that watched the same video with
the laughter of a 50-member audience, and a group that watched the same video with
the laughter of a 100-member audience. Results revealed an enjoyment level of 2.49
(on a 5-point scale) for those who watched without the laugh track, 2.62 for those who
watch with the 50-person laugh track, and 2.52 for those who watch with the 100-person
laugh track. Comparing these three groups to each other revealed no statistically
significant differences (p > .93 for all three groups;  = .05). These findings suggest that
the laugh track does not significantly enhance enjoyment among these participants,
hence, we do not reject our null hypothesis (H0), and reject H1, which states that
including a laugh track will enhance audience enjoyment.
51
Exercise 6.7, Dataset A
(a)
H0: Light therapy has no effect on depression.
H1: Light therapy is effective in reducing depression.
(b)
shown in the three figures below, hence, the pretest criteria of normality is satisfied.
Group 1 (No light therapy)
52
Group 2 (Light therapy: even days)
Group 3 (Light therapy: every day)
53

mood

1.409 2 237 .246
difference between the variances of the three groups, hence, this pretest criterion
passes.
The n for each group is 80 in each group, which satisfies the 30 per group minimum
criterion (see Descriptives table below).
(c)
Descriptives
mood
Std. Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Deviation Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum
No light therapy 80 59.13 8.299 .928 57.28 60.97 42 77
Light therapy: even days 80 61.88 7.077 .791 60.30 63.45 46 79
Light therapy: every day 80 62.69 6.929 .775 61.15 64.23 48 78
Total 240 61.23 7.585 .490 60.26 62.19 42 79
ANOVA
mood

Between Groups 557.708 2 278.854 5.010 .007
Within Groups 13190.688 237 55.657
Total 13748.396 239
mood
Tukey HSD

Difference
No light therapy Light therapy: even days -2.750 1.180 .053 -5.53 .03
Light therapy: every day -3.563* 1.180 .008 -6.34 -.78
Light therapy: even days No light therapy 2.750 1.180 .053 -.03 5.53
Light therapy: every day -.813 1.180 .770 -3.59 1.97
Light therapy: every day No light therapy 3.563* 1.180 .008 .78 6.34
Light therapy: even days .813 1.180 .770 -1.97 3.59
54
μ(No light th.) = 59.1 : μ(Light th. even days) = 61.9 .053
μ(No light th.) = 59.1 : μ(Light th. every day) = 62.7 .008*
μ(Light th. even days) = 61.9 : μ(Light th. every day) = 62.7 .770
Means rounded to one decimal digit.
After 1 month of treatment, participants who received light therapy for 1 hour a day
scored an average of 62.7 on a mood test, compared to 59.1 among those who had no
light therapy; this 3.6 difference in their scores is statistically significant (p = .008,  =
.05). Those who received 1 hour of light therapy every other day showed a better mood
score (61.9) than those who received no light therapy, however, the improvement is not
considered to be statistically significant (p = .053) using the .05  level. Incidentally,
comparing the mean mood score of those who received light therapy (61.9) for every-
other-day, and for daily use (62.7) revealed no statistically significant difference
between those two groups (p = .770,  = .05).
(d)
In order to determine if light therapy is a viable supplement to treating depression, 240
subjects diagnosed with depression were randomly assigned to one of three groups:
The control group received no light therapy; the second group received 1 hour of light
therapy every other day for a month; the third group received light therapy for 1 hour
every day for a month. After 30 days, all participants completed the Acme Mood Scale,
a 10 question survey that renders a score from 1 to 100 (1 = Extremely bad mood, 100
= Extremely good mood). The group average scores on the mood test were similar
among the two light therapy groups—61.9 for the every-other day group, and 62.7 for
the daily group. Although these differences were not statistically significantly different
from each other (p = .770,  = .05), only the group that received light therapy on a daily
basis (μ = 62.7) showed a statistically significant improvement in mood, when compared
to those who received no light therapy (μ = 59.1) (p = .008,  = .05).
55
(a)
H0: Light therapy has no effect on depression.
H1: Light therapy has is effective in reducing depression.
(b)
Histograms with normal curve plots show a normal distribution of mood for all groups
per the three figures below, hence, the pretest criterion of normality is satisfied.
Group 1 (No light therapy)
56
Group 2 (Light therapy: even days)
Group 3 (Light therapy: every day)
57

mood

1.352 2 138 .262
difference between the variances among the three groups, hence, this pretest criterion
passes.
The ns for these groups are 48, 56, and 37, which satisfies the 30 per group minimum
criterion (see Descriptives table below).
(c)
Descriptives
mood
Std. Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Deviation Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Min. Max.
No light therapy 48 45.44 3.631 .524 44.38 46.49 38 53
Light therapy: even days 56 44.86 3.806 .509 43.84 45.88 37 53
Light therapy: every day 37 45.54 4.652 .765 43.99 47.09 37 53
Total 141 45.23 3.972 .335 44.57 45.90 37 53
ANOVA
mood

Between Groups 13.418 2 6.709 .422 .657
Within Groups 2195.859 138 15.912
Total 2209.277 140
mood
Sidak

Difference (I- Std.
J) Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
No light therapy Light therapy: even days .580 .785 .843 -1.32 2.48
Light therapy: every day -.103 .873 .999 -2.21 2.01
Light therapy: even days No light therapy -.580 .785 .843 -2.48 1.32
Light therapy: every day -.683 .845 .805 -2.73 1.36
Light therapy: every day No light therapy .103 .873 .999 -2.01 2.21
Light therapy: even days .683 .845 .805 -1.36 2.73
μ(No light th.) = 45.44 : μ(Light th. even days) = 44.86 .843
μ(No light th.) = 45.44 : μ(Light th. every day) = 45.54 .999
μ(Light th. even days) = 44.86 : μ(Light th. every day) = 45.54 .805
58
After 1 month of treatment, participants who received light therapy for 1 hour a
day scored an average of 45.54 on a mood test; those who had light therapy every
other day scored an average of 44.86, and those who had no light therapy had an
average score of 45.44. The ANOVA table reports a Sig. (p) value of .657 which is
greater than the .05  level, indicating that there are no statistically significant
differences among the groups. This is confirmed by the Sig. column on the Multiple
Comparisons table, wherein the p values range from .805 to .999, which is well above
the .05  level. Hence, we can conclude that for this sample, the light therapy protocol
produced no statistically significant improvement in mood.
(d)
In order to determine if light therapy is a viable supplement to treating depression, 141
subjects diagnosed with depression were randomly assigned to one of three groups:
The control group received no light therapy; the second group received 1 hour of light
therapy every other day for a month; the third group received light therapy for 1 hour
every day for a month. After 30 days, all participants completed the Acme Mood Scale,
a 10 question survey that renders a score from 1 to 100 (1 = Extremely bad mood, 100
= Extremely good mood). The group average scores on the mood test were similar;
45.44 for those who received no light therapy, 44.86 for those who had light therapy
every other day, and 45.54 for those who had light therapy daily. The p values among
these three groups ranged from .805 to .999; using an  level of .05, we conclude that
this schedule of light therapy did not produce a statistically significant improvement in
mood for these participants.
59
(a)
H0: Walking in the morning will have no effect on energy.
H1: Walking in the morning enhances energy.
(b)
Although the histogram for Group 1 (below) shows some low outliers, the majority of the
data forms a normal curve for energy. The histograms for the other groups appears
normally distributed. I’d say the pretest criterion of normality is sufficiently satisfied.
Group 1—No walking
60
Group 2—Walked 30 minutes each morning
61

energy

2.019 2 348 .134
The n for each group, as shown in the Descriptives table below are greater than 30; the
n quotas are satisfied.
(c)
Descriptives
energy
No walking 132 81.23 4.328 .377 80.49 81.98 61 88
Walking: 30 min. 124 82.60 4.320 .388 81.84 83.37 73 93
Walking: 60 min. 95 82.77 4.716 .484 81.81 83.73 73 93
Total 351 82.13 4.476 .239 81.66 82.60 61 93
ANOVA
energy

Between Groups 172.444 2 86.222 4.387 .013
Within Groups 6840.262 348 19.656
Total 7012.707 350
energy
Sidak

No walking Walking: 30 min. -1.370* .554 .041 -2.70 -.04
Walking: 60 min. -1.534* .597 .031 -2.96 -.10
Walking: 30 min. No walking 1.370* .554 .041 .04 2.70
Walking: 60 min. -.164 .604 .990 -1.61 1.29
Walking: 60 min. No walking 1.534* .597 .031 .10 2.96
Walking: 30 min. .164 .604 .990 -1.29 1.61
The Sidak post hoc test was used since the ns for each group differed from each other.
Groups (μ = energy) p
μ(No walking) = 81.23 : μ(Walking 30 minutes) = 82.60 .041*
μ(Walking 30 minutes) = 82.60 : μ(Walking 60 minutes) = 82.77 .990
62
End-of-the-day energy was statistically significantly higher for the groups that walked
compared to the group that did not walk. These findings lead us to reject H0 and not
reject H1.
(d)
This study measured the end-of-day energy of individuals assigned to one of three
groups; Group 1 served as the control group and did no walking; the other groups took
a morning walk—Group 2 walked for 30 minutes, and Group 3 walked for 1 hour. At the
conclusion of this study, participants answered the Acme End-of-the-Day Energy Scale.
This instrument produces a score between 1 and 100 (1 = Extremely low energy, 100 =
Extremely high energy). Our analysis showed that those who did not walk scored 81.23;
those who walked had statistically significantly higher levels of energy using an  level
of .05—Group 2 scored 82.60 (p = .041), and those in Group 3 scored 82.77 (p = .031).
Although Group 3 scored slightly higher than Group 2, this is not considered to be a
statistically significant difference (p = .990). Based on these findings, we reject H0 which
asserts that that walking made no difference in one’s energy, and we do not reject H1.
63
(a)
H0: Walking in the morning will have no effect on energy.
H1: Walking in the morning enhances energy.
(b)
The histogram for the three groups (below) appear to be normally distributed for energy;
the pretest criterion of normality is satisfied.
Group 1—No walking
64
65

energy

.787 2 267 .456
The n for each group, as shown in the Descriptives table below are greater than 30; the
n quotas are satisfied.
(c)
Descriptives
energy
No walking 90 54.22 10.994 1.159 51.92 56.52 32 77
Walking: 30 min. 90 55.43 9.971 1.051 53.34 57.52 35 77
Walking: 60 min. 90 58.33 10.349 1.091 56.17 60.50 35 79
Total 270 56.00 10.550 .642 54.73 57.26 32 79
ANOVA
energy

Between Groups 803.341 2 401.670 3.681 .026
Within Groups 29137.656 267 109.130
Total 29940.996 269
energy
Tukey HSD

No walking Walking: 30 min. -1.211 1.557 .717 -4.88 2.46
Walking: 60 min. -4.111* 1.557 .024 -7.78 -.44
Walking: 30 min. No walking 1.211 1.557 .717 -2.46 4.88
Walking: 60 min. -2.900 1.557 .152 -6.57 .77
Walking: 60 min. No walking 4.111* 1.557 .024 .44 7.78
Walking: 30 min. 2.900 1.557 .152 -.77 6.57
The Tukey post hoc test was used since the ns for each group were 90.
Groups (μ = Energy) p
μ(No walking) = 54.22 : μ(Walking 30 minutes) = 55.43 .717
μ(Walking 30 minutes) = 55.43 : μ(Walking 60 minutes) = 58.33 .152
66
Those in the walking groups (Groups 2 and 3) had higher levels of energy than those
who did not walk (Group 1); although those who walked for 60 minutes had higher
energy than those who walked for only 30 minutes, the energy difference between these
two groups is not statistically significant. The only significant difference was detected
between Group 1 and Group 3. These findings lead us to reject H0 and not reject H1.
(d)
This study measured the end-of-day energy of individuals assigned to one of three
groups; Group 1 served as the control group and did no walking; the other groups took
a morning walk—Group 2 walked for 30 minutes, and Group 3 walked for 1 hour. At the
conclusion of this study, participants answered the Acme End-of-the-Day Energy Scale.
This instrument produces a score between 1 and 100 (1 = Extremely low energy, 100 =
Extremely high energy). Our analysis showed that those who walked had more energy
than those who did not walk—in fact, the more walking, the more energy participants
reported, however, only those in Group 3, who walked for an hour each morning ( =
58.33) had energy scores that were statistically significantly higher than those who did
not walk ( = 54.22); this comparison produced a p value of .024 ( = .05). Based on
these findings, we reject H0, which stated that walking made no difference in one’s
energy and we would fail to reject H1.
67
(a)
H0: Lighting source has no effect on reading rate.
H1: Lighting source has an effect on reading rate.
(b) Histograms with normal curve plots show a normal distribution of seconds for all
groups as shown in the four figures below, hence, the pretest criterion of normality is
satisfied.
Normal distribution for seconds in Group 1 (Room lighting)
68
Normal distribution for seconds in Group 2 (Acme reading lamp)
Normal distribution for seconds in Group 3 (Generic reading lamp)
69
Normal distribution for seconds in Group 4 (Flashlight)

seconds

1.499 3 103 .219
The homogeneity of variance score for seconds shows a significance (p) of .219; since
this is greater than the  level of .05, this suggests that there is no statistically
significant difference between the variances among the four groups, hence, this pretest
criterion passes.
The Generic lamp group was the only group that had the minimal n of 30. The Room
lighting, Acme lighting, and Flashlight groups had ns of 25, 28 and 24 respectively (see
Descriptives table below). The findings of the ANOVA test would be more robust if the
ns were slightly higher for these three groups.
70
(c) The ANOVA test revealed the following:

Descriptives
seconds
Room lighting 25 435.88 38.511 7.702 419.98 451.78 374 509
Acme lamp 28 405.93 31.184 5.893 393.84 418.02 357 455
Generic lamp 30 409.67 42.174 7.700 393.92 425.41 328 470
Flashlight 24 441.25 40.623 8.292 424.10 458.40 368 512
Total 107 421.90 40.851 3.949 414.07 429.73 328 512
ANOVA
seconds

Between Groups 25504.205 3 8501.402 5.784 .001
Within Groups 151385.664 103 1469.764
Total 176889.869 106
seconds
Sidak

Room lighting Acme lamp 29.951* 10.549 .032 1.65 58.25
Generic lamp 26.213 10.382 .076 -1.64 54.06
Flashlight -5.370 10.956 .997 -34.76 24.02
Acme lamp Room lighting -29.951* 10.549 .032 -58.25 -1.65
Generic lamp -3.738 10.074 .999 -30.76 23.29
Flashlight -35.321* 10.665 .008 -63.93 -6.71
Generic lamp Room lighting -26.213 10.382 .076 -54.06 1.64
Acme lamp 3.738 10.074 .999 -23.29 30.76
Flashlight -31.583* 10.499 .020 -59.75 -3.42
Flashlight Room lighting 5.370 10.956 .997 -24.02 34.76
Acme lamp 35.321* 10.665 .008 6.71 63.93
Generic lamp 31.583* 10.499 .020 3.42 59.75
Groups (μ = reading time in seconds) p

Room lighting (μ = 436) : Acme Lamp (μ = 406) .032*
Room lighting (μ = 436) : Generic lamp (μ = 410) .076
Room lighting (μ = 436) : Flashlight (μ = 441) .997
Acme lamp (μ = 406) : Generic lamp (μ = 410) .999
Acme lamp (μ = 406) : Flashlight (μ = 441) .008*
Generic lamp (μ = 410) : Flashlight (μ = 441) .020*
Means rounded to nearest second.
71
Per the table above, since the mean reading time in the Acme reading lamp group is
statistically significantly lower than scores of those who read using Room lighting and by
Flashlight, we reject H0. For the same reason, we would not reject H1.
(d)
This study analyzed the effects that the Acme reading lamp had on reading speed. The
107 participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups; one group read a 1,000-
word essay using regular room lighting, the second group read the same essay using
the new Acme reading lamp, the third group read using a generic reading lamp, and the
fourth group read using a flashlight. Results revealed that on the average, those who
read using the Acme reading lamp read significantly faster (μ = 406) than those who
read using a flashlight (μ = 441, p = .008), or regular room lighting (μ = 436, p = .032)
using an  level of .05. Incidentally, those who used a generic reading lamp (μ = 410)
finished reading the essay significantly faster than those who read by flashlight (μ =
441, p = .020). We also discovered that those who read using a Acme reading lamp (μ =
406) completed the essay faster than those who used the generic reading lamp (μ =
410), however this difference was not found to be statistically significant (p = .999).
72
(a)
H0: Lighting source has no effect on reading rate.
H1: Lighting source has an effect on reading rate.
(b)
Histograms with normal curve plots show a normal distribution of seconds for all groups
as shown in the four figures below, hence, the pretest criterion of normality is satisfied.
Normal distribution for seconds in Group 1 (Room lighting)
73
Normal distribution for seconds in Group 2 (Acme reading lamp)
Normal distribution for seconds in Group 3 (Generic reading lamp)
74
Normal distribution for seconds in Group 4 (Flashlight)

seconds

1.163 3 96 .328
criterion passes.
The groups each had an n of 25 (see Descriptives table below). The findings of the
ANOVA test would be more robust if the ns were at least 30 per group.
(c)
Descriptives
seconds

Room lighting 25 416.44 33.904 6.781 402.44 430.44 331 489
Acme lamp 25 415.60 38.045 7.609 399.90 431.30 344 481
Generic lamp 25 413.68 39.161 7.832 397.52 429.84 338 470
Flashlight 25 448.68 47.434 9.487 429.10 468.26 361 525
Total 100 423.60 41.947 4.195 415.28 431.92 331 525
75
ANOVA
seconds

Between Groups 21066.960 3 7022.320 4.402 .006
Within Groups 153131.040 96 1595.115
Total 174198.000 99
seconds
Tukey HSD

Room lighting Acme lamp .840 11.296 1.000 -28.70 30.38
Generic lamp 2.760 11.296 .995 -26.78 32.30
Flashlight -32.240* 11.296 .027 -61.78 -2.70
Acme lamp Room lighting -.840 11.296 1.000 -30.38 28.70
Generic lamp 1.920 11.296 .998 -27.62 31.46
Flashlight -33.080* 11.296 .022 -62.62 -3.54
Generic lamp Room lighting -2.760 11.296 .995 -32.30 26.78
Acme lamp -1.920 11.296 .998 -31.46 27.62
Flashlight -35.000* 11.296 .013 -64.54 -5.46
Flashlight Room lighting 32.240* 11.296 .027 2.70 61.78
Acme lamp 33.080* 11.296 .022 3.54 62.62
Generic lamp 35.000* 11.296 .013 5.46 64.54
Groups (μ = reading time in seconds) p

Room lighting (μ = 416) : Acme Lamp (μ = 416) 1.000
Room lighting (μ = 416) : Generic lamp (μ = 414) .995
Room lighting (μ = 416) : Flashlight (μ = 449) .027*
Acme lamp (μ = 416) : Generic lamp (μ = 414) .998
Acme lamp (μ = 416) : Flashlight (μ = 449) .022*
Generic lamp (μ = 414) : Flashlight (μ = 449) .013*
Per the table above, since the mean reading time in the Acme lamp group (μ = 416) is
statistically significantly lower than those who read using a Flashlight (μ = 449, p =
.022), based on the .05  level, we reject H0 and not reject H1. Additionally, Room
lighting (μ = 416) statistically significantly outperformed the reading rate of the Flashlight
(μ = 449, p = .027), and finally, the reading rate for the generic lamp (μ = 416)
outperformed the Flashlight (p = .013).
76
(d)
This study analyzed the effects that the Acme reading lamp had on reading speed. The
100 participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups; one group read a 1,000-
word essay using regular room lighting, the second group read the same essay using
the new Acme reading lamp, the third group read using a generic reading lamp, and the
fourth group read using a flashlight. There was no statistically significant difference in
reading times among those who used the Acme reading lamp (μ = 416), Room lighting
(μ = 416) or the Generic lamp (μ = 414) using an  level of .05. All three of those groups
read statistically significantly faster than the fourth group, who read using a flashlight (μ
= 449); p values ranged from .013 to .027.
77
(a)
H0: Classical music has no effect on problem-solving skills.
H1: Classical music enhances problem-solving skills.
(b)
Histograms with normal curve plots show a normal distribution of seconds for all of the
satisfied.
Normal distribution for seconds in Group 1 (No music)
78
Normal distribution for seconds in Group 2 (Music at 30 dB)
79

seconds

1.180 3 156 .319
criterion passes.
The n for each group is 40 (see Descriptives table below), which satisfies the 30 per
group minimum criterion.
(c)
Descriptives
seconds

No music 40 619.55 35.380 5.594 608.23 630.86 541 690
Music at 30 dB 40 593.95 47.862 7.568 578.64 609.26 497 707
Music at 60 dB 40 595.90 46.115 7.291 581.15 610.65 505 696
Music at 90 dB 40 625.67 44.422 7.024 611.46 639.88 525 727
Total 160 608.77 45.525 3.599 601.66 615.87 497 727
80
ANOVA
seconds

Between Groups 31480.092 3 10493.364 5.492 .001
Within Groups 298058.137 156 1910.629
Total 329538.229 159
seconds
Tukey HSD

No music Music at 30 dB 25.598* 9.774 .047 .22 50.98
Music at 60 dB 23.648 9.774 .078 -1.73 49.03
Music at 90 dB -6.121 9.774 .924 -31.50 19.26
Music at 30 dB No music -25.598* 9.774 .047 -50.98 -.22
Music at 60 dB -1.950 9.774 .997 -27.33 23.43
Music at 90 dB -31.719* 9.774 .008 -57.10 -6.34
Music at 60 dB No music -23.648 9.774 .078 -49.03 1.73
Music at 30 dB 1.950 9.774 .997 -23.43 27.33
Music at 90 dB -29.769* 9.774 .014 -55.15 -4.39
Music at 90 dB No music 6.121 9.774 .924 -19.26 31.50
Music at 30 dB 31.719* 9.774 .008 6.34 57.10
Music at 60 dB 29.769* 9.774 .014 4.39 55.15
Groups (μ = seconds to complete puzzle) p

No music (μ = 620) : Music at 30 dB (μ = 594) .047*
No music (μ = 620) : Music at 60 dB (μ = 596) .078
Music at 30 dB (μ = 594) : Music at 60 dB (μ = 596) .997
Music at 30 dB (μ = 594) : Music at 90 dB (μ = 626) .008*
81
Participants who assembled the puzzle with classical music at 30 dB (μ = 594)

completed the puzzle statistically significantly prompter than those who had no music (μ
= 620) (p = .047,  = .05), hence I would reject H0 and not reject H1.
(d)
This experiment was designed to determine if classical music facilitates problem
solving. We recruited 160 people, and randomly assigned 40 participants to one of four
groups: Members of each group were given a 100-piece jigsaw puzzle to solve; those in
Group 1 worked in silence, those in Groups 2, 3, and 4 solved the puzzle with classical
music playing at different volumes in each group—soft (30 dB), medium (60 dB), and
loud (90 dB) respectively. We found that those who listened to the soft classical music
(at 30 dB) completed the puzzle significantly faster (μ = 594) than those who worked in
silence (μ = 620) (p = .047;  = .05), however, it seems that as the music was played
louder, the beneficial effect was lost: Those who listened at a medium volume
completed the puzzle in 596 seconds, and those who were exposed to the loud volume
took 626 seconds. It seems that while the soft classical music helped facilitate the
problem solving, louder volumes may have been distracting.
82
(a)
H0: Classical music has no effect on problem-solving skills.
H1: Classical music enhances problem-solving skills.
(b)
Histograms with normal curve plots show a normal distribution of seconds for all of the
satisfied.
Normal distribution for seconds in Group 1 (No music)
83
84

seconds

1.279 3 149 .284
criterion passes.
The n for each group is over 30 (see Descriptives table below), which satisfies the 30
per group minimum criterion.
(c)
Descriptives
seconds

No music 43 608.93 11.194 1.707 605.49 612.38 588 635
Music at 30 dB 39 606.33 12.461 1.995 602.29 610.37 585 637
Music at 60 dB 37 608.49 10.189 1.675 605.09 611.88 588 630
Music at 90 dB 34 617.09 12.505 2.145 612.72 621.45 599 644
Total 153 609.97 12.147 .982 608.03 611.91 585 644
85
ANOVA
seconds

Between Groups 2366.460 3 788.820 5.859 .001
Within Groups 20061.436 149 134.641
Total 22427.895 152
seconds
Sidak

No music Music at 30 dB 2.597 2.566 .895 -4.24 9.44
Music at 60 dB .444 2.602 1.000 -6.49 7.38
Music at 90 dB -8.158* 2.663 .015 -15.26 -1.06
Music at 30 dB No music -2.597 2.566 .895 -9.44 4.24
Music at 60 dB -2.153 2.663 .962 -9.25 4.95
Music at 90 dB -10.755* 2.723 .001 -18.01 -3.50
Music at 60 dB No music -.444 2.602 1.000 -7.38 6.49
Music at 30 dB 2.153 2.663 .962 -4.95 9.25
Music at 90 dB -8.602* 2.757 .013 -15.95 -1.25
Music at 90 dB No music 8.158* 2.663 .015 1.06 15.26
Music at 30 dB 10.755* 2.723 .001 3.50 18.01
Music at 60 dB 8.602* 2.757 .013 1.25 15.95
Groups (μ = seconds to complete puzzle) p

No music (μ = 609) : Music at 60 dB (μ = 608) 1.000
No music (μ = 609) : Music at 90 dB (μ = 617) .015*
Music at 30 dB (μ = 606) : Music at 60 dB (μ = 608) .962
86
There was no statistically significant difference in the participants’ time to complete the
puzzle among those who worked in silence (μ = 609), those who listened to classical
music at a soft volume (μ = 606), and those who listened at a medium volume (μ = 608)
using an  of .05; however, those who solved the puzzle with the classical music
playing loud (90 dB) took significantly longer (μ = 671) compared to those who worked
with no music (p = .015), music at a soft volume (p = .001), or moderate volume (p =
.013). It seems that classical music does not aid in such problem solving, in fact, if
played too loud, it can serve as a distraction.
(d)
This experiment was designed to determine if classical music facilitates problem
solving. We recruited 153 subjects, and randomly assigned them to one of four groups:
those in Group 1 worked on a 100-piece jigsaw puzzle in silence; those in Groups 2, 3,
and 4 solved the same puzzle with classical music playing at different volumes in each
group—soft (30 dB), medium (60 dB), and loud (90 dB), respectively. We found no
statistically significant difference in puzzle solving time among those who worked in
silence (μ = 609), or with classical music played at a soft volume (μ = 606) or moderate
volume (μ = 609) (p > .05). However, participants who worked on the puzzle while
listening to loud classical music (90 dB) took significantly longer (μ = 617) to solve the
puzzle compared to those who worked in silence (μ = 509) (p = .015,  = .05),
suggesting that classical music has no effect on this sort of problem solving, unless it is
played loud, in which case, the music appears to act as a distracter.

Introductory Statistics Using SPSS 2nd Edition Knapp Solutions Manual Download

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Introductory Statistics Using SPSS 2nd Edition Knapp Solutions Manual Download

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Exercise 6.1, Data Set A

Normal distribution for pulse in Group 1 (No meditation)

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

(I) group (J) group Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Groups (μ = resting pulse rate after 2 weeks) p

Practicing meditation for 2 weeks was effective in statistically significantly reducing

Exercise 6.1, Data Set B

Normal distribution for pulse in Group 1 (No meditation)

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

(I) group (J) group Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval

Groups (μ = resting pulse rate after 2 weeks) p

Exercise 6.2, Data Set A

Group 1—No mentor

Group 2—With in-person mentor

Group 3—With e-mentor

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

(I) group (J) group Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Groups (μ = Freshman score) p

Exercise 6.2, Data Set B

Group 1—No mentor

Group 2—With in-person mentor

Group 3—With e-mentor

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Std. Std. Lower Upper

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

(I) group (J) group Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Groups (μ = Freshman score) p

Exercise 6.3, Data Set A

Normal distribution for depress in Group 1 (No plant)

Normal distribution for depress in Group 2 (Bamboo)

Normal distribution for depress in Group 3 (Cactus)

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

(I) group (J) group Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Exercise 6.3, Data Set B

Normal distribution for depress in Group 1 (No plant)

Normal distribution for depress in Group 2 (Bamboo)

Normal distribution for depress in Group 3 (Cactus)

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

(I) group (J) group Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Exercise 6.4, Data Set A

Group 1—No chocolate

Group 2—One chocolate with breakfast, lunch and dinner

Group 3—Two chocolates with breakfast, lunch and dinner

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.