SPSS OUTPUT AND ANSWERS TO LAB QUESTIONS
INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT SAMPLE t-tests
FIRST RESEARCH SCENARIO
Ho: μClinton = μBush There was no difference in how much TV was watched between Clinton and Bush voters during the 1992 election.
Ha: μClinton ≠ μBush There was a difference in how much TV was watched between Clinton and Bush voters during the 1992 election.
1. Do you have homogeneity of variance? Why or why not? (6 points)
No, we do not have homogeneity of variance in this study. The Levene’s Test for Homogeneity of Variance yields a significance of p <
.001, indicating that we must reject the hypothesis of homogeneity of variance.
2. What is your decision regarding the null hypothesis? Why? (7 points)
Using the “Equal variances not assumed,” we would reject the null hypothesis (as the level of significance for t = 4.967 is < .001). This tells
us that there probably is a difference in the amount of TV watched by those who voted for Bush vs. Clinton in 1992.
3. Write a two sentence conclusion/interpretation about this study as it would appear in the Results section of an APA paper. In your
interpretation be sure to include the results of your t-test using the format t(df) = #.##, p < = > .## (7 points)
The number of hours of TV watched daily by those who voted for either Bill Clinton or George Bush was analyzed using an independent
samples t-test. There was a significant difference reported, t(3130) = 4.97, p < .001, indicating that those voting for Clinton probably
watched more TV than those voting for Bush.
4. Cut and paste the SPSS output into your document (5 points)
Group Statistics
Presidential candidate Std. Error
voted for N Mean Std. Deviation Mean
Hours of TV per day Clinton 1785 2.6734 2.11186 .04999
Bush 1372 2.3294 1.77491 .04792
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. 95% Confidence Interval of
(2- Mean Std. Error the Difference
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Hours Equal variances assumed 32.487 .000 4.856 3155 .000 .34394 .07082 .20508 .48280
of TV Equal variances not 4.967 3129.954 .000 .34394 .06924 .20817 .47971
per day assumed
SECOND RESEARCH SCENARIO
Ho: μPA = μNJ There was no difference in the number of hours restaurants were open in Pennsylvania and New Jersey after the
minimum wage was raised.
Ha: μPA > μNJ Following the minimum wage hike, restaurants in Pennsylvania stayed open for more hours than those in New Jersey.
1. Do you have homogeneity of variance? Why or why not? (6 points)
Yes, we do have homogeneity of variance in this study. The Levene’s Test for Homogeneity of Variance yields a significance of p = .189
which is > .05, indicating that we retain the hypothesis of homogeneity of variance.
2. What is your decision regarding the null hypothesis? Why? (7 points)
Using the “Equal variances assumed,” we would fail to reject the null hypothesis (as the one-tailed level of significance for t = 0.673 is .25,
which exceeds .05). This tells us that there probably is no difference in the number of hours restaurants stayed open in New Jersey and
Pennsylvania after the minimum wage hike.
3. Write a two sentence conclusion/interpretation about this study as it would appear in the Results section of an APA paper. In your
interpretation be sure to include the results of your t-test using the format t(df) = #.##, p < = > .## (7 points)
The number of hours NJ and PA restaurants were open following the minimum wage increase was analyzed using an independent samples t-
test. No significant difference was found, t(397) = 0.67, p > .05, indicating that the two states were open for about the same number of hours
[means of 14.65 hours (PA) and 14.42 hours (NJ)].
4. Cut and paste the SPSS output into your document (5 points)
Group Statistics
State N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
HrsOpen2 Pennsylvania 78 14.654 2.8878 .3270
New Jersey 321 14.420 2.7213 .1519
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Uppe
HrsOpen2 Equal variances assumed 1.734 .189 .673 397 .501 .2341 .3477 -.4495
Equal variances not .649 112.553 .518 .2341 .3605 -.4803
assumed
THIRD RESEARCH SCENARIO
Ho: μD = 0 There was no change in full-time employees after the minimum wage was raised.
Ha: μD < 0 Following the minimum wage hike, the number of full-time employees decreased.
1. What was the change in full-time employees after the minimum wage was raised? Is this a large or small change? Why? (6 points)
The change in full-time employees was very small (8.219 before vs. 8.251 after). Both showed similarly large standard deviations (see
highlights below). As we are measuring the number of full-time employees, this is a miniscule difference (.0319 of one employee!).
2. What is your decision regarding the null hypothesis? Why? (7 points)
We would fail to reject the null hypothesis as the one-tailed level of significance for t = -0.061 is .47, which exceeds .05). This tells us that
there probably is no decrease in the number of full-time employees following the minimum wage hike.
3. Write a two sentence conclusion/interpretation about this study as it would appear in the Results section of an APA paper. In your
interpretation be sure to include the results of your t-test using the format t(df) = #.##, p < = > .## (7 points)
A dependent samples t-test was used to analyze the changes in full-time employees before and after the minimum wage increase, t(391) = -
.06, p > .05. This suggests that there was probably no decrease in the number of full-time employees following the increase in minimum
wage.
4. Cut and paste the SPSS output into your document (5 points)
Paired Samples Statistics
Std. Error
Mean N Std. Deviation Mean
Pair 1 Fulltime1 8.219 392 8.6759 .4382
Fulltime2 8.251 392 8.0021 .4042
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Fulltime1 & 392 .228 .000
Fulltime2
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval of
Std. Std. Error the Difference Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair 1 Fulltime1 - -.0319 10.3734 .5239 -1.0620 .9982 -.061 391 .952
Fulltime2
FOURTH RESEARCH SCENARIO
Ho: μD = 0 There was no change in the price of an order of fries after the minimum wage was raised.
Ha: μD > 0 Following the minimum wage hike, the price of an order of fries increased.
1. What is the Pearson correlation between the price of fries before and after the minimum wage increase? Is it a significant correlation? How
do you know this? (6 points)
The Pearson correlation is + .795. It is significant (see highlights below) as the level of significance is < .001. This tells us that higher cost
of fries before the minimum was increase were associated with higher priced fries following the minimum wage increase.
2. What is your decision regarding the null hypothesis? Why? (7 points)
For the dependent samples t-test we will reject the null hypothesis. For a one tailed test the level of significance is < .001, suggesting that
the cost of fries likely increased following the minimum wage hike.
3. Write a two sentence conclusion/interpretation about this study as it would appear in the Results section of an APA paper. In your
interpretation be sure to include the results of your t-test using the format t(df) = #.##, p < = > .## (7 points)
Data were analyzed for the price of fries using a dependent samples t-test, t(365) = -4.83, p < .001. Although the price of fires increased by
less than two cents before vs. after the minimum wage increase, this difference was significant.
4. Cut and paste the SPSS output into your document (5 points)
Paired Samples Statistics
Std. Std. Error
Mean N Deviation Mean
Pair 1 Pfry1 .9211 366 .10542 .00551
Pfry2 .9384 366 .10860 .00568
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Pfry1 & 366 .795 .000
Pfry2
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval of
Std. Std. Error the Difference Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair 1 Pfry1 - -.01730 .06850 .00358 -.02434 -.01025 -4.830 365 .000
Pfry2
