Assignment 2

Q1

Table 1 : The age of repondents

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Age (year) 300 20 59 38.62 10.293

Valid N (listwise) 300

Table 1 shows that respondent in the age of population of margarine customers have mean
age of 38.21 years with a standard deviation of 10.293 years.
The 95% confidence interval for mean age is calculated as below:
𝑆 𝑁−𝑛
Ȳ±1.96 √
√𝑛 𝑁−1
10.293 3000−300
= 38.62 ± 1.96 √
√300 3000−1

= 38.62 ± 1.96 (0.564)

= 38.62 ± 1.10544
= (37.515, 39.735)
Conclusion:
We can be 95 percent confidence interval that the population mean of margarine’s customers
lies between 37.515 years to 39.735 years.
Q2

Table 2a: Income of male respondents

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Income ($) 140 180 580 360.07 118.057

Valid N (listwise) 140

Table 2b : Income of female respondents

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Income ($) 160 180 580 370.44 119.329

Valid N (listwise) 160

Table 2a and 2b show that the mean and the standard deviation of the income for male are
$360.07 and $188.057 respectively. For the female, the mean and standard deviation of their
income are $370.44 and $119.329 respectively.
1) The sample mean is calculated as below:
∑ N1 Ȳ1
ȲST = 𝑁
1600 (360.07)+ 1400 (370.44)
= 3000
1094728
=
3000

= 364.91
2) The standard error is calculated as below
𝑆2
𝜎̂ȲST = 𝑁1 √∑ 𝑁𝑖2 [𝑁𝑁1−1
𝑖 − 𝑛1
] 𝑖
𝑛 𝑖
2
1 119.3292
= √(1600)2 [1600−140] [118.057 ] + (1400)2 [
1400−160
][ ]
3000 1599 140 1399 160
1
= 3000 √232701835 + 154608035
1
= (19680.19)
3000

= 6.56
 3) The 95% confidence interval is calculated as below:
ȲST ±1.96𝜎̂ȲST
= 364.91 ± 1.96 (6.56)
= 364.91 ± (12.8576)

= (352.052, 377.768)

Conclusion:
We are 95 % confident that the mean income for the male respondents and female respondents within the

population is between 352.052 and 377.768

Q3

Table 3 : Positive response of Male respondents

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

POSITIVE 140 .00 1.00 .3429 .47637

Valid N (listwise) 140

Table 3 shows the proportion of Male respondents has a positive respond 0.343 with a
standard deviation of 0.476.
The 95% confidence interval for proportion positive response to attitude is calculated as
below:

𝑝̂𝑞̂ 𝑁−𝑛
𝑝̂ ± 1.96 √ 𝑛 √ 𝑁−1

0.343 x 0.657 1400−140

= 0.343 ± 1.96 √ 140
√
1399

= 0.343 ± 1.96 (0.04) (0.949)

= 0.343 ± 1.96 (0.038)
= 0.343 ± 0.0744
= (0.267, 0.417)
Conclusion
We are 95% confident that the proportion of male customers in the population with positive response
is between 0.267 and 0.417.
Q4.
H0: The distributions of purchase in the month before being exposed to the advertising campaign are
the same as for Full-time workers and Part-time workers in the population of customers
H1: The distributions of purchase in the month before being exposed to the advertising campaign are
not the same as for Full-time workers and Part-time workers in the population of customers

Table 4a: Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test Ranks–Mann Whitney U

Job N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Part-time 138 177.04 24431.00

Before ($) Full-time 162 127.90 20719.00

Total 300

Table 4b: Test Statisticsa

Before ($)

Mann-Whitney U 7516.000
Wilcoxon W 20719.000
Z -4.895
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000

a. Grouping Variable: Job

p-value= 0.000
£ = 0.05

Can reject the null H0 that full-time workers and part-time workers have the same distribution
of purchase because Sig < 0.05.

Conclusion:
At 5% significance level, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the distributions of purchase in
the month before being exposed to the advertising campaign are not the same as for Full-time workers
and Part-time workers in the population of customers.
Q5.
H0: The purchase in the month before the advertising exposure is the same as in the month after the
population of customers
H1: The purchase in the month before the advertising exposure is not the same as in the month after
the population of customers

Table 5a: Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test Ranks

N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Negative Ranks 181a 114.11 20654.00

Positive Ranks 113b 200.98 22711.00

After ($) - Before ($)
Ties 6c

Total 300

a. After ($) < Before ($)

b. After ($) > Before ($)
c. After ($) = Before ($)

Test statistic:

Table 5b: Test Statisticsa

After ($) - Before ($)

Z -.706b
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .480

a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

b. Based on negative ranks.

Standard error for mean:

1 𝑁 − 𝑛1 𝑆12 𝑁2 − 𝑛2 𝑆22
𝑆𝐸 = √𝑁12 ( 1 ) + 𝑁22 ( )
𝑁 𝑛1 − 1 𝑛1 𝑛2 − 1 𝑛2

1 𝑁 −𝑛 𝑆2 𝑁2 − 𝑛2 𝑆2
= 300 √1812 ( 𝑛1 −11 ) 𝑛1 + 𝑁22 ( 𝑛2
) 2
−1 𝑛
1 1 2

Conclusion:
At the 5 % significant level, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that
Q6
H0: Positive, neutral and negative responses are equally likely amongst the population of
female workers.
H1: At least one of the responses is not equally likely amongst the population of female
workers.

Table 6a: Chi-square Goodness of Fit Test for NEWATT

Observed N Expected N Residual
Positive 49 53.3 -4.3
Neutral 37 53.3 -16.3
Negative 74 53.3 20.7
Total 160

Table 6b: Test Statistics

NEWATT
Chi-Square 13.363a
df 2
Asymp. Sig. .001
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less
than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is
53.3.

It can be observed that:

 The significance level of the Chi-square of fit test is 0.01 which is smaller than 0.05,
the level of significant for the test. Therefore, we reject the null hypotheses
 The significant value of 0.01 shows that there is relatively strong evidence from the
sample to reject the null hypothesis.
Conclusion:
Based on the sample of 160 female workers, at the 5 % significance level there is sufficient
evidence to the null hypothesis that positive, neutral and negative responses are equally likely
amongst the population of female workers. Therefore, we can conclude that at least one of the
responses is not equally likely amongst the population of female workers.
Q7
H0: Attitude and promotion are independent
H1: Attitude and promotion are dependent

Table 7a: Chi-square Test of Independence Promotion * NEWATT and

PROMOTION

NEWATT Total
Positive Neutral Negative
Tv& Radio 25 8 39 72
Newspaper 26 26 23 75
Promotion
Internet 17 24 34 75
Magazine 29 7 42 78
Total 97 65 138 300

Table 7b: Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 27.964 6 .000
Likelihood Ratio 29.676 6 .000
Linear-by-Linear .184 1 .668
Association
N of Valid Cases 300
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 15.60.

Calculated value of Chi-square: 27.964a

P-value (2-sided): 0.000

Reject the null that all attitude and promotion are independent because Sig = 0.000 < 0.05.

Conclusion:

At 5 % significance level, there is sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis that
attitude and promotion are interdependent. Therefore, we can conclude that attitude and
promotion are dependent in the population are exposed to.
Q8.
H0: The means sales are the same in all three display positions.
H1: At least one difference in means sales according to three display positions.
ANOVA
Table 8: one Way ANOVA Test of SALES ($) by POSITION
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1638945736.160 2 819472868.080 108.283 .000

Between Groups

961118203.071 127 7567859.867

Within Groups

2600063939.231 129
Total

Sig value = 0.000 < 0.05, therefore reject the null hypothesis.

Conclusions:
At 5% significance level, we have sufficient evidence to conclude that at least one in the
means sales according to the three display locations.
Q9
H0: The mean difference between pair of display positions is not significant.
H1: The mean difference pair of display positions is significant.
Dependent Variable: SALES($)

Table 9: Tukey HSD of SALES - Multiple Comparisons by POSITION

(I) (J) Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
POSITION POSITION Difference Error Lower Upper
(I-J) Bound Bound
Middle 7628.792* 594.643 .000 6218.59 9038.99
Lower
Upper 7993.898* 612.496 .000 6541.36 9446.44
Lower -7628.792* 594.643 .000 -9038.99 -6218.59
Middle
Upper 365.107 574.842 .801 -998.14 1728.35
Lower -7993.898* 612.496 .000 -9446.44 -6541.36
Upper
Middle -365.107 574.842 .801 -1728.35 998.14
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
The results show that:
 From significance of the test, there is mean difference for sales between pair of
display positions in Lower and Middle (p = 0.000), Lower and Upper (p = 0.000).
 The significance value in Lower and Middle is 0.000, which is smaller than 0.005 the
significance level. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis
 The significance value in Lower and Upper is 0.000, which is smaller than 0.005 the
significance level. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis
 We are 95% certain that the mean sales different between Lower and Middle is lie
between 6218.59 and 9038.99 unit per week.
 We are 95% certain that the mean sales different between Lower and Upper is lie
between 6541.36 and 9446.44 unit per week.
Conclusion:
At the 0.05 level of significance, we can conclude that the mean sales for Lower position
is significantly higher than Middle and Upper.
Q10
1st Hypothesis:
Ho: There is no interaction effect between flavours and display position.
H1: There are interaction effects between flavours and display position.
2nd Hypothesis:
Ho: The mean sales are the same for all flavours
H1: At least one difference in the means sales according to different flavours
3rd Hypothesis:
Ho: The means sales are the same for all display position
H1: At least one difference in the means for sales according for display position method.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Table 10: Two way ANOVA Test of SALES ($) by POSITION and FLAVOUR
Source Type III Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Corrected Model 1873328109.957a 11 170302555.451 27.652 .000
Intercept 5529798804.773 1 5529798804.773 897.873 .000
Flavors 70675286.054 3 23558428.685 3.825 .012
Position 829081588.462 2 414540794.231 67.309 .000
Flavors * Position 163439625.453 6 27239937.575 4.423 .000
Error 726735829.274 118 6158778.214
Total 10480741700.000 130
Corrected Total 2600063939.231 129
a. R Squared = .720 (Adjusted R Squared = .694)
Test of interaction effect:
 The significance of the two-way ANOVA test between flavours and display position
is 0.000, which is smaller than the 0.05, the level of significance for the test.
Therefore, we do reject the 1st null hypothesis.
 The significance value is 0.000 indicates that there is no sufficient evidence to reject
the null hypothesis.
Conclusion:
Based on the sample of 130 observations, at the 0.05 level of significance, we conclude that
there is interaction effect between all flavours and display positions that effect sales.
Test of effect of all flavours:
 The significance level of the two-way ANOVA test between all flavours and display
positions is 0.012, which is larger than 0.05, the level of significance for the test.
Therefore, we do not reject 2nd null hypothesis.
 The significance value of 0.012 indicates that there is no sufficient evidence to reject
2nd null hypothesis.
Conclusion:
Based on the sample of 130 observations, at the 0.05 level of significance, we conclude that
the mean sales are the same for all flavours.
Test of effect of display positions:
 The significance of the two-way ANOVE test between all flavours and display
positions is 0.000 which is smaller than 0.05, the level of significance for the test.
Therefore, we reject the 3rd null hypothesis.
 The significance value is 0.000 indicates that there is sufficient evidence to reject the
null hypothesis.
Conclusion:
Based on the sample of 130 observations, at the 0.05 level of significance, we conclude that
that there is at least one difference in the means for sales according for display position
method.
Q11

H0: The mean difference between pair of display positions is not significant.
H1: The mean difference pair of display positions is significant.
This table 11a shows the 95% Tukey confidence interval for the means of difference between
flavours.
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: SALES($)
Table 11a: Tukey HSD of SALES - Multiple Comparisons by FLAVOUR
(I) (J) Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
FLAVOUR FLAVOUR Difference Error Lower Upper
(I-J) Bound Bound
White 3803.50* 632.709 .000 2154.65 5452.35
Mint 3228.97* 677.291 .000 1463.93 4994.00
Dark
Fruits & -276.39 646.087 .974 -1960.10 1407.33
Nuts
Dark -3803.50* 632.709 .000 -5452.35 -2154.65
Mint -574.53 605.261 .778 -2151.86 1002.79
White
Fruits & -4079.89* 570.129 .000 -5565.66 -2594.12
Nuts
Dark -3228.97* 677.291 .000 -4994.00 -1463.93
White 574.53 605.261 .778 -1002.79 2151.86
Mint
Fruits & -3505.35* 619.232 .000 -5119.09 -1891.62
Nuts
Dark 276.39 646.087 .974 -1407.33 1960.10
Fruits &
White 4079.89* 570.129 .000 2594.12 5565.66
Nuts
Mint 3505.35* 619.232 .000 1891.62 5119.09
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 6158778.214.
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
The results show that:

 Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: SALES($)
Table 11b : Tukey HSD of SALES - Multiple Comparisons by POSITION
(I) (J) Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
POSITION POSITION Difference Error Lower Upper
(I-J) Bound Bound
Middle 7628.79* 536.435 .000 6355.48 8902.10
Lower
Upper 7993.90* 552.540 .000 6682.36 9305.44
Lower -7628.79* 536.435 .000 -8902.10 -6355.48
Middle
Upper 365.11 518.572 .762 -865.80 1596.02
Lower -7993.90* 552.540 .000 -9305.44 -6682.36
Upper
Middle -365.11 518.572 .762 -1596.02 865.80
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 6158778.214.
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Q12
H0: The distributions of sales are the same for all three-display positions.
H1: At least one display positions had different distributions of sales.

Ranks
POSITION N Mean Rank

Lower 38 106.47

Middle 49 52.03
SALES($)
Upper 43 44.64

Total 130

Test Statisticsa,b
SALES($)

Chi-Square 64.448
df 2
Asymp. Sig. .000

a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable:
POSITION

1. Hypothesis
2. Decision
3. Conclusion
 Q13.

Statistics
SALES($)

Valid 130
N
Missing 0
Mean 7785.92
Median 6055.00
Skewness 1.284
Std. Error of Skewness .212
Kurtosis .452
Std. Error of Kurtosis .422

Justify what to use KW or anova?