Variables Mean SD Honesty Profanity self report Profanity used Honesty 7.63 3.00 (0.79) Profanity self report 6.51 2.56 0.34*** (0.84) Profanity used 4.09 2.61 0.20** 0.46*** (-) Profanity liked 1.60 1.62 0.13** 0.41*** 0.45*** * p < .05. ** p < .01 *** p < .001. Based on the results of this table, is there evidence to reject the null hypothesis that there is no correlation between using profanity, as assessed by any of the three profanity measures, and honesty? a. Yes, because all 3 correlations between honesty and the measures of profanity have asteriks that indicate p values less than (at least) 0.05. b. Yes, because all 3 correlations between honesty and the measures of profanity are greater than 0.10. c. No, because none of the p values associated with the correlations between honesty and the measures of profanity is less than the typical alpha level of 0.05. d. No, because none of the p values associated with correlations between honesty and the measures of profanity is larger than 0.50, what Cohen defines as a large effect.
Variables Mean SD Honesty Profanity self report Profanity used
Honesty 7.63 3.00 (0.79)
Profanity self report 6.51 2.56 0.34*** (0.84)
Profanity used 4.09 2.61 0.20** 0.46*** (-)
Profanity liked 1.60 1.62 0.13** 0.41*** 0.45***
* p < .05. ** p < .01 *** p < .001.
Based on the results of this table, is there evidence to reject the null hypothesis that there is no correlation between using profanity, as assessed by any of the three profanity measures, and honesty?
a. Yes, because all 3
b. Yes, because all 3 correlations between honesty and the measures of profanity are greater than 0.10.
c. No, because none of the p values associated with the correlations between honesty and the measures of profanity is less than the typical alpha level of 0.05.
d. No, because none of the p values associated with correlations between honesty and the measures of profanity is larger than 0.50, what Cohen defines as a large effect.
Solution:
In terms of its relation, the Pearson correlation coefficient for profanity self report has the lowest p value. *p indicates that the p-value is less than 0.05
Decision rule:
Reject the null hypothesis if p-value is less than 0.05.
** p indicates that the p-value is less than 0.01.
Decision rule:
Reject the null hypothesis if p-value is less than 0.01.
p indicates that the p-value is less than 0.001.
a. The relationship between honesty and self-reported profanity is the most likely to be a Type 2 error.
Reason:
option(b) is false
The lowest p-value exists for the variables self-reported profanity and honesty. This means that we are rejecting the null hypothesis. Hence, there exists correlation between honesty and self-reported profanity but we cannot say that the self reported profanity is the most likely to represent the parameter
c)
Among the three profanity measures the researchers found the strongest evidence against the null hypothesis (of no correlation) for the correlation between. self-reported use of profanity and honesty.
Reason:
Variables Mean SD Honesty
Honesty 7.63 3.00 (0.79)
Pro S-R 6.51 2.56 0.34***
Pro used 4.09 2.61 0.20**
Pro liked 1.60 1.62 0.13*
option(c) is true.
Observe the three measures of profanity, the variable self reported profanity is lowest p-value when compared to profanity used and profanity liked because * indicates p-value less than 0.001.
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
