- BYU Home
- FHSS
- Psychology
- Psychology 301
- Chapter 14
Chapter 14 Questions
Complete the following questions. The questions may include pictures or graphics to illustrate or aid in solving the problem. You can check your answer by clicking View Answer. If the question is unclear, confusing, or if you need further clarification, send me an email.
1. Imagine that we wanted to compare men and women on a scale of extroversion. Given the following data, does gender make a difference to measures of extroversion?
Answer
The actual t obtained is 5.656854249. Looking the critical t value up on the t-table under two tails, 10 degrees of freedom, .05 level, critical t = 2.228. We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that gender does make a difference.
2. Imagine that we thought that women would score higher than men on an empathy scale. Given the following data, are we correct?
Answer
The actual t-obtained is 4.2426. Looking the critical t value on the t-table under one tail, 10 degrees of freedom, .05 level, critical t = 1.812. We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that women score higher on the empathy scale
3. Imagine I am teaching two sections of 301 and I wonder whether one class is learning the material better than the other. Given the following test scores, are they performing differently?
Answer
Looking the critical t value up on the t-table under two tails, 12 degrees of freedom, .05 level, critical t = 2.179. We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the classes are performing differently.
4. Imagine that we are comparing two methods for high jumping. We think that our new method will result in higher jumps. Given the data below, are we correct?
Answer
Looking the critical t value on the t-table under one tail, 12 degrees of freedom, .05 level, critical t = 1.782. Please consider that we predicted originally that our new method would result in higher jumps. However, the new method actually resulted in lower jumps. In addition to not being significant, the direction is opposite of that which we predicted. We fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that our new method does not improve high jumping performance.
