Question

) With Toal 1. Studies of the degree of residential segregation between blacks and whites use the segregation index, defined as the percentage of nonwhites who would have to change the block on which they live in order to produce a fully nonsegregated city one in which the percentage of nonwhites living in each block is the same for all blocks in the city. This index can assume values ranging from to 100, with higher values indicating greater segregation (the national average was 65 in 1990 and 59 in 2000). The table below shows Census 2000 data for a random sample of states. (NOTE: I could give you data for all of the states, but then you would only need descriptive statistics. I used a random sample to give you an opportunity to use inferential statistics.) Is racial segregation the same across regions of the county or is it different? If it is different, where is the difference and how meaningful is the difference? Use an ANOVA, follow-up procedures (if necessary), and effect size to answer these research questions. (Make sure to check the assumptions.) Use a significance level of 0.05. Use SPSS for the analysis. New Jersey:10 Al Nurth Dakota New Mexico Pennsylvani: 75 Tence : 9 Mich : 80 All Rhode : West Virgin 59 Naska: 70 M 2 Main 43 Virgin 53 Mine Wings New York Cher: 59 K W 5 mer: 5 North Carolina Sim b a Manche: 648 Win 81 46 (Bonus: up to 3 points) Researchers hypothesized that boys' aggressive behavior might be the consequence of their misattributing the intent of others ("actors) in ambiguous situations. If the researchers were right, teaching these boys to interpret actors' intent as something other than negative in ambiguous situations should ultimately lessen their aggressive behavior. To test this hypothesis, the researchers randomly assigned boys to one of three groups: (1) experimental (attribution retraining), (2) attention (simply paying attention to boys with no special training), and (3) control (no special attention given). After treatment, the boys were asked to rate actors' intents in ambiguous situations. The hypothesis was that the average negative intent rating would be different among the groups. Data bearing on this hypothesis are presented in the table below. Analyze these data to test the researcher's hypothesis. (From Shavelson, R. J., 1996). Use an ANOVA, follow-up procedures (if necessary), and effect size. (Make sure to check the assumptions.) Use a significance level of 0.05. Use SPSS for the analysis. Cap Native Initating Cup Negative Intima
answer for question number 3

Answer 1

ANOVA one way with Post Hoc Test by using SPSS

Step 1: Enter the data in SPSS

"Untitled1 [DataSetO] - IBM SPSS Statistics Data Edit File Edit View Data Transform Analyze Index va Region Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast South South South South South South South Midwest Midwest Midwest Midwest Midwest Midwest Midwest West West

Step: 2 Inspecting the data Post Hoc Tests

Go to Analyse --> General Linear Model --> Univariate ,

A table will open and Dependent variable --> Index and in Fixed Factors --> Region

Now select post hoc in right side and select Region , then slect TUKEY for analysis

Again select options button and select Estimates of Effect size and Homogenity tests. The default value will 5% level of significance

PRESS continue the following shows the output.

Univariate Analysis of Variance Dataset Between-Subjects Factors Region Midwest Northeast South West Levene's Test of Equality of Error Dependent Variable: Index df1 d r2 si Tests the null hypothesis that the error Varance of the dependent variable is equal across groups a. Design Intercept Region Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable Index Type Sum Sen of Sowe Corrected Model 1564 280 mot 100320571 Mean Square 59 100320.571 873.821 000 012 114708 2756.143 Total 104640.000 Corrected Total 4310 429 a. RSquared - 382 (Adjusted R Squared - 282) Post Hoc Tests Region Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Index ke HD Mean Difference ( Sid Error Resin Midwest 8.43 5.721 5727 an Northeast South West Midwest South West 460 373 .000 Northeast 00% Confidence interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -7.37 24 23 -0.37 28 29 38.00 -2423 737 - 14.80 16.80 28.27 -25.23 6.37 -18.30 4.23 27.37 1.00 12.57 8.722 South Midwest 4.43 6727 Northeast West 11.57 -21.00 Northeast 5.727 -28 37 South Based on observed means Theorems Mean SwedError) =114799 The mean s that at the level Homogeneous Subsets Tukey HSO ) Subset Bein West South Northeast 00.14 60.14 61.14 69.57 Midwest .373 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Based on observed means The error term is Mean Square Error) = 114,700 a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size - 7.000 b. Alpha .00

Conclusions based on ANOVA table

In Levene's test the p-value = 0.024 < 0.05 which means we reject the hypothesis of equal variances. The assumption of population variances are equal doesn't meet.

In ANOVA table the p-value for region is 0.012 < 0.05 , which means the value is highly significant. So reject the hypothesis and conclude that the population means are not all equal.

Using Tukey HSD method

(MidWest , West) are significantly different as its p-value is 0.008 < alpha