Text Book Chapter 15 - Internet and Computer Exercise – Pgs 491/492

Problem no. 2:
(a) Does the mean preference for outdoor lifestyle exceed 3?

Null hypothesis: The mean preference for outdoor lifestyle does not exceed 3.
Alternative hypothesis: The mean preference for outdoor lifestyle exceeds 3
A one sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean preference for outdoor activities against
a test value of 3. Sample size was 30.

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Preference for Outdoors 30 4.03 1.956 .357

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Preference for Outdoors 2.893 29 .007 1.033 .30 1.76

Results showed that the mean preference for outdoor activities was significantly greater than 3
( M = 4.03, t (29) = 2.89, p < .05).
Thus, the null hypothesis can be rejected.
Note: the table titled ‘One sample statistic’ gives us the mean preference for outdoor lifestyle
activities.
The table titled one sample test gives us the t-value, the degrees of freedom (df) and the p-value.

1
 (b) Does the mean importance of enjoying nature exceed 3.5?

Null hypothesis: The mean importance of enjoying nature’ does not exceed 3.5.
Alternative hypothesis: The mean importance of enjoying nature’ exceeds 3.5.
A one sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean importance for enjoying nature against a
test value of 3.5. sample size was 30.
Results showed that the mean importance for enjoying nature was significantly greater than 3.5
( M = 4.60, t (29) = 3.22, p < .05).
Thus, the null hypothesis can be rejected.
Note: the table titled ‘One sample statistic’ gives us the mean preference for enjoying nature.
The table titled one sample test gives us the t-value, the degrees of freedom (df) and the p-value.

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Enjoying Nature 30 4.60 1.868 .341

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3.5

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Enjoying Nature 3.225 29 .003 1.100 .40 1.80

(c) Does the mean preference for outdoor lifestyle differ for male and female?

Null hypothesis: The mean preference for outdoor lifestyle does not differ for male and female.
Alternative hypothesis: The mean preference for outdoor lifestyle differs for male and female.

2
An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean preference for outdoor
lifestyle activities for male and female. The sample size was 30. There were 15 females and 15
males in the sample.
Results showed that the mean preference for outdoor lifestyle activites does not differ across
male and female (Mfemale = 4.07 vs. Mmale = 4.00, t (29) = .92, p > .05).

Group Statistics

Sex of Respondent N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Female 15 4.07 2.251 .581

Preference for Outdoors
Male 15 4.00 1.690 .436

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of
Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence

tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the
Difference

Lower Upper

Equal 2.746 .109 .092 28 .928 .067 .727 -1.422 1.555

Preference variances
for Outdoors assumed

Thus, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Note: the table titled ‘Group Statistics’ gives us the mean preference for outdoor lifestyle
activities for men and women.
The table titled Independent sample test gives us the t-value, the degrees of freedom (df) and the
p-value.

3
 (d) Does the importance attached to V2 and V6 differ for male and female?

d(i)Null hypothesis: The mean importance attached to enjoying nature (V2) does not differ for
male and female.
Alternative hypothesis: The mean importance attached to enjoying nature differs for male and
female.
An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean importance attached to
enjoying nature for male and female. The sample size was 30. There were 15 females and 15
males in the sample.
Results showed that the mean importance attached to enjoying nature differs significantly across
male and female (Mfemale = 3.07 vs. Mmale = 6.13, t (28) = -8.02, p < .05).

Group Statistics

Sex of Respondent N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Female 15 3.07 1.163 .300

Enjoying Nature
Male 15 6.13 .915 .236

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of
Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence

tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the
Difference

Lower Upper

Equal .072 .790 -8.025 28 .000 -3.067 .382 -3.849 -2.284

Enjoying variances
Nature assumed

Thus, the null hypothesis can be rejected.

4
d(ii) Null hypothesis: The mean importance attached to the weather (V3) does not differ for
male and female.
Alternative hypothesis: The mean importance attached to the weather differs for male and
female.
An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean importance attached to the
weather for male and female. The sample size was 30. There were 15 females and 15 males in
the sample.
Results showed that the mean importance attached to the weather does not differ significantly
across male and female (Mfemale = 3.53 vs. Mmale = 3.67, t (28) = -.20, p > .05).

Group Statistics

Sex of Respondent N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Female 15 3.53 1.846 .477

Relating to Weather
Male 15 3.67 1.676 .433

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of
Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence

tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the
Difference

Lower Upper

Equal 1.067 .310 -.207 28 .837 -.133 .644 -1.452 1.186

Relating to variances
Weather assumed

Thus, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

5
d(iii)Null hypothesis: The mean importance attached to living in harmony with
environment(V4) does not differ for male and female. The sample size was 30. There were 15
females and 15 males in the sample.
Alternative hypothesis: The mean importance attached to living in harmony with environment
differs for male and female.
An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean importance attached to living
in harmony with environment for male and female.
Results showed that the mean importance attached to living in harmony with environment differs
significantly across male and female ( Mfemale = 3.73 vs. Mmale = 5.33, t (28) = -3.03, p < .05).

Group Statistics

Sex of Respondent N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Female 15 3.73 1.280 .330

Harmony with Environment
Male 15 5.33 1.589 .410

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of
Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence

tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the
Difference

Lower Upper

Equal 1.485 .233 -3.038 28 .005 -1.600 .527 -2.679 -.521

Harmony with variances
Environment assumed

Thus, the null hypothesis can be rejected.

6
d(iv) Null hypothesis: The mean importance attached to exercising regularly(V5) does not differ
for male and female. The sample size was 30. There were 15 females and 15 males in the
sample.
Alternative hypothesis: The mean importance attached to exercising regularly differs for male
and female.

Group Statistics

Sex of Respondent N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Female 15 3.27 1.710 .441

Exercising Regularly
Male 15 3.93 1.624 .419

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of
Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence

tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the
Difference

Lower Upper

Equal 1.495 .232 -1.095 28 .283 -.667 .609 -1.914 .581

Exercising variances
Regularly assumed

An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean importance attached to
exercising regularly for male and female.
Results showed that the mean importance attached to exercising regularly differs significantly
across male and female (Mfemale = 3.27 vs. Mmale = 3.93, t (28) = -.1.09, p > .05).
Thus, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

7
d(v) Null hypothesis: The mean importance attached to meeting other people(V6) does not
differ for male and female. The sample size was 30. There were 15 females and 15 males in the
sample.
Alternative hypothesis: The mean importance attached to meeting other people differs for male
and female.

Group Statistics

Sex of Respondent N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Female 15 2.93 1.624 .419

Meeting People
Male 15 4.80 1.656 .428

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of
Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence

tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the
Difference

Lower Upper

Equal .009 .925 -3.117 28 .004 -1.867 .599 -3.094 -.640

Meeting variances
People assumed

An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean importance attached to
meeting other people for male and female.
Results showed that the mean importance attached to meeting other people differs significantly
across male and female (Mfemale = 2.93 vs. Mmale = 4.80, t (28) = -3.11, p < .05)
Thus, the null hypothesis can be rejected.

8
Additional question on paired sample t-test:
Conduct a paired sample t-test with the mean ratings for importance attached to variables –
‘enjoying nature’ and ‘related to weather’.
Null hypothesis: The mean importance attached to ‘enjoying nature’ and ‘related to weather’ are
not significantly different.
Alternative hypothesis: The mean importance attached to ‘enjoying nature’ and ‘related to
weather’ are significantly different.
Results of the paired sample t-test showed that the mean importance attached to ‘enjoying
nature’ is significantly higher as compared to the mean importance attached to ‘related to
weather’ (Menjoying nature = 4.60 vs. Merelating to weather = 3.60, t (29) = 2.34, p < .05). Thus, the null
hypothesis can be rejected.

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Enjoying Nature 4.60 30 1.868 .341

Pair 1
Relating to Weather 3.60 30 1.734 .317

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Enjoying Nature & Relating to 30 .162 .393

Pair 1
Weather

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence

Deviation Mean Interval of the
Difference

Lower Upper

Enjoying Nature - 1.000 2.334 .426 .128 1.872 2.347 29 .026

Pair
Relating to
1
Weather

9
Additional question on paired sample t-test:
Conduct a paired sample t-test with the mean ratings for importance attached to variables –
‘harmony with environment’ and ‘exercising regularly’.
Null hypothesis: The mean importance attached to ‘harmony with environment’ and ‘exercising
regularly’ are not significantly different.
Alternative hypothesis: The mean importance attached to ‘harmony with environment and
‘exercising regularly are significantly different.
Results of the paired sample t-test showed that the mean importance attached to ‘harmony with
environment’ is significantly higher as compared to the mean importance attached to ‘exercising
regularly’ (Menjoying nature = 4.53 vs. Merelating to weather = 3.60, t (29) = 2.62, p < .05). Thus, the null
hypothesis can be rejected.

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Harmony with Environment 4.53 30 1.634 .298

Pair 1
Exercising Regularly 3.60 30 1.673 .306

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Harmony with Environment & 30 .308 .098

Pair 1
Exercising Regularly

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence

Deviation Mean Interval of the
Difference

Lower Upper

Harmony with .933 1.946 .355 .207 1.660 2.626 29 .014

Pair Environment -
1 Exercising
Regularly

10
One Way ANOVA – Chapter 16- Intent and Computer Exercises
Problem no. 1: Do the three usage groups differ in terms of awareness, attitude, preference,
intention and loyalty towards Nike:

Null hypothesis (i): The three usage groups do not differ in terms of awareness of Nike shoes.
Alternative hypothesis (i): The three usage groups differ in terms of awareness of Nike shoes.
A one-way ANOVA is run to test the hypothesis.
It is observed that the overall ANOVA result is significant [F (2, 41) = 49.23, p < .05).
This indicates that the usage groups differ in terms of awareness for Nike shoes.
Post hoc comparisons using Tukey method suggests that the mean awareness of Nike shoes for
light users is significantly lower as compared to that for medium users [(Mlight = 2.44, SD = 1.14
vs. Mmedium = 4.40, SD = 1.26), p < .05).
Post hoc comparisons further indicate that the mean awareness of Nike shoes for light users is
significantly lower as compared to that for heavy users[(Mlight = 2.44, SD = 1.14 vs. Mheavy = 6.00,
SD = .73), p < .05).
Post hoc comparisons also indicate that the mean awareness of Nike shoes for medium users is
significantly lower as compared to that for heavy users[(Mmediumt = 4.40, SD = 1.26 vs. Mheavy =
6.00, SD = .73), p < .05)].
Thus, the overall significance of the ANOVA results can be attributed to differences between
light-medium users, medium-heavy users and light-heavy users in terms of their awareness for
Nike shoes.

Null hypothesis (iii): The three usage groups do not differ in terms of preference for Nike shoes.
Alternative hypothesis (iii): The three usage groups differ in terms of preference for Nike
shoes.
A one-way ANOVA is run to test the hypothesis.
It is observed that the overall ANOVA result is significant [F (2, 41) = 19.20, p < .05).
This indicates that the usage groups differ in terms of preference for Nike shoes.

11
Post hoc comparisons using Tukey method suggests that the mean preference for Nike shoes for
light users is not significantly lower as compared to that for medium users [(Mlight = 3.39, SD =
1.09 vs. Mmedium = 3.50, SD = 1.26), p > .05).
Post hoc comparisons further indicate that the mean preference for Nike shoes for light users is
significantly lower as compared to that for heavy users[(Mlight = 3.39, SD = 1.09 vs. Mheavy = 5.63,
SD = 1.08), p < .05).
Post hoc comparisons also indicate that the mean preference of Nike shoes for medium users is
significantly lower as compared to that for heavy users[(Mmedium = 3.50, SD = 1.26 vs. Mheavy =
5.63, SD = 1.08), p < .05)].
Thus, the overall significance of the ANOVA results can be attributed only to the differences
between light-heavy users and medium-heavy users in terms of their preference for Nike shoes.

12