Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(A) Does The Mean Preference For Outdoor Lifestyle Exceed 3?
(A) Does The Mean Preference For Outdoor Lifestyle Exceed 3?
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
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
Lower Upper
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
One-Sample Test
Lower Upper
(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
Lower Upper
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
Lower Upper
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
Lower Upper
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
Lower Upper
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
Lower Upper
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
Lower Upper
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.
N Correlation Sig.
Lower Upper
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.
N Correlation Sig.
Lower Upper
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