MUST SHOW EACH STEP!!
—-

Prepare a written response to the following assignments located in the text:

Ch. 1, Practice Problems: 12, 15, 19, 20, 21, & 22

Note. Methods of computation may include the usage of Microsoft® Excel®, SPSS™, Lotus®, SAS®, Minitab®, or by-hand computation.

Questions:

Explain and give an example for each of the following types of variables: (a) equal-interval, (b) rank-order, (c) nominal, (d) ratio scale, (e) continuous.

Following are the speeds of 40 cars clocked by radar on a particular road in a 35-mph zone on a particular afternoon:
30, 36, 42, 36, 30, 52, 36, 34, 36, 33, 30, 32, 35, 32, 37, 34, 36, 31, 35, 20, 24, 46, 23, 31, 32, 45, 34, 37, 28, 40, 34, 38, 40, 52, 31, 33, 15, 27, 36, 40

Make (a) a frequency table and (b) a histogram. Then (c) describe the general shape of the distribution

Give an example of something having these distribution shapes: (a) bimodal, (b) approximately rectangular, and (c) positively skewed. Do not use an example given in this book or in class.

Find an example in a newspaper or magazine of a graph that misleads by failing to use equal interval sizes or by exaggerating proportions.

Nownes (2000) surveyed representatives of interest groups who were registered as lobbyists of three U.S. state legislatures. One of the issues he studied was whether interest groups are in competition with each other. Table 1–10 shows the results for one such question. (a) Using this table as an example, explain the idea of a frequency table to a person who has never had a course in statistics. (b) Explain the general meaning of the pattern of results.

Table 1–10 Competition for Members and Other Resources
Question: How much competition does this group face from other groups with similar goals for members and other resources?
No competition
20
118
Some competition
58
342
A lot of competition
22
131
Total
100
591
Note: There were no statistically significant differences between states. For full results of significance tests, contact the author.

Source: Nownes, A. J. (2001). Policy conflict and the structure of interest communities. American Politics Quarterly, 28, 316. Copyright © 2001 by Sage Publications, Ltd. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, London, and New Delhi.

Mouradian (2001) surveyed college students selected from a screening session to include two groups: (a) “Perpetrators”—students who reported at least one violent act (hitting, shoving, etc.) against their partner in their current or most recent relationship—and (b) “Comparisons”—students who did not report any such uses of violence in any of their last three relationships. At the actual testing session, the students first read a description of an aggressive behavior such as, “Throw something at his or her partner” or “Say something to upset his or her partner.” They then were asked to write “as many examples of circumstances of situations as [they could] in which a person might engage in behaviors or acts of this sort with or towards their significant other.” Table 1–11 shows the “Dominant Category of Explanation” (the category a participant used most) for females and males, broken down by comparisons and perpetrators. (a) Using this table as an example, explain the idea of a frequency table to a person who has never had a course in statistics. (b) Explain the general meaning of the pattern of results.

Table 1–11 Dominant Category of Explanation for Intimate Aggression by Gender and Perpetrator Status
Group
Female                                  Male
Comparisons (n= 36)  Perpetrators (n = 33)    Comparisons (n= 32)  Perpetrators (n = 25)
Category                             f                                              %                                            f                                              %                                            f                                              %                                            f                                              %
Self-defense
2
6
3
9
3
9
1
4
Control motives
8
22
9
27
9
28
3
12
Expressive aggression
4
11
3
9
3
9
8
32
Face/self-esteem preservation
1
3
2
~6
2
6
3
12
Exculpatory explanations
5
14
3
9
3
9
3
12
Rejection of perpetrator or act
12
33
6
18
10
31
7
28
Prosocial/acceptable explanations
Tied categories
4
11
7
21
2
6
Note: f = frequency. % = percentage of respondents in a given group who provided a particular category of explanation.

Source: Mouradian, V. E. (2001). Applying schema theory to intimate aggression: Individual and gender differences in representation of contexts and goals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 376–408. Copyright © 2001 by Blackwell Publishing. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishers Journals