Solutions to Healey 2/3e

#13.1 (1e #15.1)

Turnout by Unemployment
and by Negative Campaigning
Data from Problem: Turnout x
Unemployment Rate
City X Y • The scores on each
A 5 55 variable are displayed
in table format:
B 8 60 – Y = % Turnout
– X = Unemployment
C 9 65
Rate
D 9 68

E 10 70
 1. Draw and Interpret the Scattergram:

• The relationship between X and Y is linear and homoscedastic.

• Estimate regression line: Relationship is positive and strong.
 2. Make a Computational Table:

X Y X2 Y2 XY

5 55
8 60
9 65
9 68
10 70
∑X = 41 ∑Y = 318 ∑X2 =351 ∑Y2 = 20374 ∑XY = 2652

X  X / n  41 / 5  8.2
Y  Y / n  318 / 5  63.6
 3. Next, calculate b and a….
• Calculate slope:

nXY  (X )(Y ) 5(2652)  (41)(318)

b 2 2
 2
 3.0
nX  (X ) 5(351)  (41)

• Calculate y-intercept:

a  Y  b X  63.6  3(8.2)  39.0

Find the Regression Line*:

Prediction equation:

Y '  a  bX  39  3( X )

*Note: you can now substitute two values for X

to solve for Y to find points to plot the actual
regression line on your scattergram and to use
for prediction.
Calculate and Interpret Pearson’s r
nXY  (X )(Y )
r  .945
2 2 2 2
[nX  (X ) ][nY  (Y )

An r of 0.945 indicates a strong

relationship between unemployment rate
and voter turnout for these five cities (use
the table given for gamma to estimate
strength)
5. Find the Coefficient of Determination (r2) and
Interpret:

2 2 2
r  (r )  (.945)  .893

The coefficient of determination is r2 = .

893. Unemployment rate, by itself,
explains 89.3% of the variation in voter
turnout.
 6. Testing r for significance:
• Use the 5 step model from powerpoint
• df = n - 2 = 3, α = .05, tcr = +/-3.182

n2 52
t obtained  r  .945  4.997
1 r 2 1  .893
• Decision: Reject H0
• Interpretation: The association between voter
turnout and unemployment rate is significant
(t=4.997, df=3, α = .05
 Always include a brief summary of
your results:

• There is a very strong, positive relationship

between % voter turnout and unemployment
rate for the five cities. As years of schooling
increase, the % of voter turnout goes up.
The relationship is significant (t=4.997, df=3,
α = .05). Unemployment rate explains
89.3% of the variation in voter turnout.
Data from Problem: Turnout x
Negative Campaigning
City X Y • The scores on each
A 60 55 variable are displayed
in table format:
B 63 60 – Y = % Turnout
– X = Negative
C 55 65
campaigning
D 53 68

E 48 70
 1. Draw and Interpret the Scattergram:

• The relationship between X and Y is linear.

• Estimate regression line: Relationship is negative and moderately
strong.
 2. Make a Computational Table:

X Y X2 Y2 XY

60 55
63 60
55 65
53 68
48 70
∑X = 279 ∑Y = 318 ∑X2 =15707 ∑Y2 = 20374 ∑XY = 17619

X  X / n  279 / 5  55.8
Y  Y / n  318 / 5  63.6
 3. Next, calculate b and a….
• Calculate slope:

nXY  (X )(Y ) 5(17619)  (279)(318)

b 2 2
 2
 .903
nX  (X ) 5(15707)  (279)

• Calculate y-intercept:

a  Y  b X  63.6  (.903)(55.8)  113.99

Find the Regression Line*:

Prediction equation:

Y '  a  bX  113 .99  .903( X )

*Note: you can now substitute two values for X

to solve for Y to find points to plot the actual
regression line on your scattergram and to use
for prediction.
Calculate and Interpret Pearson’s r
nXY  (X )(Y )
r  .871
2 2 2 2
[nX  (X ) ][nY  (Y ) ]

An r of -.871 indicates a strong negative

relationship between negative
campaigning and voter turnout for these
five cities (use the table given for gamma
to estimate strength)
5. Find the Coefficient of Determination (r2) and
Interpret:

2 2 2
r  (r )  (.871)  .759

The coefficient of determination is r2 = .

759. Negative campaigning, by itself,
explains 75.9% of the variation in voter
turnout.
 6. Testing r for significance:
• Use the 5 step model from powerpoint
• df = n - 2 = 3, α = .05, tcr = +/-3.182

n2 52
t obtained  r 2
 .871 2
 3.077
1 r 1  (.871 )

• Decision: Fail to reject H0

• Interpretation: The association between voter
turnout and neg. campaigning is not significant.
 Include a brief summary of your
results:

• There is a strong, negative relationship

between % voter turnout and negative
campaigning for the five cities. As the % of
negative ads increase, the % of voter turnout
goes down. However, the relationship is not
significant. Negative campaigning explains
75.9% of the variation in voter turnout.