-- 1

Shahriar, Mohammed

ONEWAY Shocking_Score BY Performer

/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES HOMOGENEITY WELCH
/MISSING ANALYSIS The descriptive
/POSTHOC=TUKEY FREGW QREGW ALPHA(0.05). statistics shows the
Oneway mean and std . div
[DataSet0] H:\psy2030l\AssignmentLab8.sav of the shocking
Descriptives score.
Shocking_Score

95% Confidence
Interval for
Mean

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound

Elvis Presley (1957) 5 3.8000 .83666 .37417 2.7611
The Rolling Stone (1967) 5 4.0000 1.00000 .44721 2.7583
Madonna (1992) 5 6.8000 1.09545 .48990 5.4398
Lady Gaga (2010) 5 7.2000 .83666 .37417 6.1611
Miley Cyrus (2013) 5 8.4000 .89443 .40000 7.2894
Total 25 6.0400 2.05102 .41020 5.1934
Descriptives
Shocking_Score

95% Confidence Interval

for Mean

Upper Bound Minimum Maximum

Elvis Presley (1957) 4.8389 3.00 5.00

The Rolling Stone (1967) 5.2417 3.00 5.00
Madonna (1992) 8.1602 6.00 8.00
Lady Gaga (2010) 8.2389 6.00 8.00
Miley Cyrus (2013) 9.5106 7.00 9.00
Total 6.8866 3.00 9.00
Test of Homogeneity of Variances shocking score for
Shocking_Score each performer
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. within 95 %
confidence level.
.577 4 20 .682
ANOVA Levene statistics for
Shocking_Score
the shocking
score .682, does not
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
show sig within 95%
Between Groups 83.360 4 20.840 23.682 .000
Within Groups 17.600 20 .880 in the anova, the F
Total 100.960 24 test Statistics show
~23.7 thus showing
a high significance
@ .000 between
groups and within
groups.
 -- 2
Shahriar, Mohammed

the robust test for

Robust Tests of Equality of Means the shocking,
Shocking_Score under welch show
Statistica df1 df2 Sig.
significance within
95%.
Welch 21.549 4 9.975 .000
The post hoc test further
a. Asymptotically F distributed. defines the mean
Post Hoc Tests difference for each
Multiple Comparisons performer vs the other 4
Dependent Variable: Shocking_Score

Mean Difference
(I) Performer (J) Performer (I-J) Std. Error

Tukey HSD Elvis Presley (1957) The Rolling Stone (1967) -.20000 .59330
*
Madonna (1992) -3.00000 .59330

Lady Gaga (2010) -3.40000* .59330

*
Miley Cyrus (2013) -4.60000 .59330

The Rolling Stone (1967) Elvis Presley (1957) .20000 .59330

*
Madonna (1992) -2.80000 .59330

Lady Gaga (2010) -3.20000* .59330

*
Miley Cyrus (2013) -4.40000 .59330

Madonna (1992) Elvis Presley (1957) 3.00000* .59330

*
The Rolling Stone (1967) 2.80000 .59330

Lady Gaga (2010) -.40000 .59330

Miley Cyrus (2013) -1.60000 .59330

Lady Gaga (2010) Elvis Presley (1957) 3.40000* .59330
*
The Rolling Stone (1967) 3.20000 .59330
Madonna (1992) .40000 .59330

Miley Cyrus (2013) -1.20000 .59330

Miley Cyrus (2013) Elvis Presley (1957) 4.60000* .59330

*
The Rolling Stone (1967) 4.40000 .59330

Madonna (1992) 1.60000 .59330

Lady Gaga (2010) 1.20000 .59330

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Shocking_Score

95% Confidence
Interval

(I) Performer (J) Performer Sig. Lower Bound

 -- 3
Shahriar, Mohammed

Tukey HSD Elvis Presley (1957) The Rolling Stone (1967) .997 -1.9754

Madonna (1992) .001 -4.7754

Lady Gaga (2010) .000 -5.1754

Miley Cyrus (2013) .000 -6.3754

The Rolling Stone (1967) Elvis Presley (1957) .997 -1.5754

Madonna (1992) .001 -4.5754

Lady Gaga (2010) .000 -4.9754

Miley Cyrus (2013) .000 -6.1754

Madonna (1992) Elvis Presley (1957) .001 1.2246

The Rolling Stone (1967) .001 1.0246

Lady Gaga (2010) .960 -2.1754

Miley Cyrus (2013) .090 -3.3754

Lady Gaga (2010) Elvis Presley (1957) .000 1.6246

The Rolling Stone (1967) .000 1.4246

Madonna (1992) .960 -1.3754

Miley Cyrus (2013) .291 -2.9754

Miley Cyrus (2013) Elvis Presley (1957) .000 2.8246

The Rolling Stone (1967) .000 2.6246

Madonna (1992) .090 -.1754

Lady Gaga (2010) .291 -.5754

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Shocking_Score

95% Confidence
Interval

(I) Performer (J) Performer Upper Bound

Tukey HSD Elvis Presley (1957) The Rolling Stone (1967) 1.5754

Madonna (1992) -1.2246

Lady Gaga (2010) -1.6246

Miley Cyrus (2013) -2.8246

The Rolling Stone (1967) Elvis Presley (1957) 1.9754

Madonna (1992) -1.0246

Lady Gaga (2010) -1.4246

Miley Cyrus (2013) -2.6246

Madonna (1992) Elvis Presley (1957) 4.7754

The Rolling Stone (1967) 4.5754

Lady Gaga (2010) 1.3754

multiple comparison showing tukey HSD

for upper and lower bound within 95%
 multiple comparison showing tukey HSD
for upper and lower bound within 95% -- 4
Shahriar, Mohammed

Miley Cyrus (2013) .1754

Lady Gaga (2010) Elvis Presley (1957) 5.1754

The Rolling Stone (1967) 4.9754

Madonna (1992) 2.1754

Miley Cyrus (2013) .5754

Miley Cyrus (2013) Elvis Presley (1957) 6.3754

The Rolling Stone (1967) 6.1754

Madonna (1992) 3.3754

Lady Gaga (2010) 2.9754

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Homogeneous Subsets
Shocking_Score

Subset for alpha = 0.05

Performer N 1 2 3

Tukey HSD a
Elvis Presley (1957) 5 3.8000
further looking
at tukey
The Rolling Stone (1967) 5 4.0000
significance
Madonna (1992) 5 6.8000 score @ 0.997
Lady Gaga (2010) 5 7.2000 Not very useful.
Miley Cyrus (2013) 5 8.4000
Basically reflects
the same
Sig. .997 .090
information as in
Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch Elvis Presley (1957) 5 3.8000 the previous
F The Rolling Stone (1967) 5 4.0000 table. Here
Madonna (1992) 5 6.8000 Groups 1 and 2
Lady Gaga (2010) 5 7.2000 are grouped
Miley Cyrus (2013) 5 8.4000 together because
Sig. .965 .059 they do not differ
Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch Elvis Presley (1957) 5 3.8000
from each other.
b Groups 3, 4, and
Range The Rolling Stone (1967) 5 4.0000
5 are also
Madonna (1992) 5 6.8000 grouped together
Lady Gaga (2010) 5 7.2000 7.2000 because they do
Miley Cyrus (2013) 5 8.4000
not differ from
each other, but
Sig. .965 .830 .136
are different to
Groups 1 and 2.
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
So, looking at
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 5.000. REGWF and
b. Critical values are not monotonic for these data. Substitutions have been made to ensure monotonicity. REGWQ, a
Type I error is therefore smaller. maximum
difference is not
noted, between
groups 1 and 2 vs
groups 3,4,5.
 -- 5
Shahriar, Mohammed

PSY 2030 L 7:30 am

Mohammed Shahriar
Assignment 8
Dr. Nussbaum

The descriptive statistics shows the mean and std . div of the shocking score for each performer within 95 %
confidence level. Levene statistics for the shocking score .682, does not show sig within 95% and In the
ANOVA, the F test Statistics show ~23.7 thus showing a high significance @ .000 between groups and within
groups. The robust test for the shocking, under welch show significance within 95%. The post hoc test further
show the mean difference for each performer vs the other 4. Multiple comparison showing TUKEY HSD for
upper and lower bound within 95%. Further looking at TUKEY significance score @ 0.997 was not very useful.
Basically reflects the same information as in the previous table. Here Groups 1 and 2 are grouped together
because they do not differ from each other. Groups 3, 4, and 5 are also grouped together because they do not
differ from each other, but are different to Groups 1 and 2. So, looking at REGWF and REGWQ, a maximum
difference is not noted, between groups 1 and 2 vs groups 3,4,5. THUS, the significance of Group 1 and Group
2 between REGWF and REGWF and TUKEY show less shocking score, and between Group 3,4,5 REGWQ show
no significance within 95% confidence interval for shocking score of Group 1 and Group 2.
Similarly, REGWQ show no significance within 95% confidence interval for shocking score of Group 3 and
Group 4 and REGWQ show no significance within 95% confidence interval for shocking score of Group 4 and
Group 5. REGWQ is much more powerful than REGWF in determining the significance within 95% confidence
interval for displaying the shocking score of Group 1, Group 2, Group 3, Group 4, Group 5. However, in this
study, it does not show that comparison.