DOC PREVIEW
USC HP 340L - Stats HW EC

This preview shows page 1 out of 3 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 3 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 3 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

HP 340Lewinger23 April 2015Homework Extra Credit Assignment1. A two-sample binomial test compares qualitative variables between two populations. One is given N1 observations of variable X, and N2 observations of Y.The proportion between X and Y can then be calculated using a two sample binomial test. The test is appropriate when samples are randomly sampled and independent. Samples must also include at least ten successes and ten failures. Finally, populations are at least ten times the size of the sample.  The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between the two populations proportions: H1: p1=p2 The alternative hypothesis states that there is a difference between the two populations proportions: H0: p1≠p2Test statistic: Z Critical value: for two-tailed, 5% significance level, critical value= 1.96 p-value: α=0.052. The Classical Obedience to Authority study by Stanley Milgram was a series of social experiments that measured how willing participants were to obey authority when it was against their conscience. The goal of the study was to determine how much people would obey authority when it came to harming others, as people did during the holocaust. The study was executed by having the participant be the ‘teacher’ and one of Milgram’s associates was the ‘learner’. The ‘learner’ had electrodes attached to his arms, to which the participant could elicit shocks.3. Criticisms for the study revolve around how unethical and not statistical. It was unethical for leaving volunteers psychologically damaged thinking they had caused harm to humans, because Milgram did not completely debrief his participants when they competed the experiment. Also, Gina Perry criticizes that the male participants could not properly represent humanity. She also discovered that 60% of the participants disobeyed, when Milgram reported the opposite that 65% obeyed. Perry believes the method was inconclusive and statistically incorrect.4. Remote Feedback Voice FeedbackN1=40 N2=40X=26 Y=25pp1=26/40=0.65 pp2=25/40=0.625pp=X+Y/(N1+N2)=0.6375Z =(^p 1−^p 2)−0√^p(1−^p)(1N 1+1N 2)=(0.65−0.625)−0√0.6375(1−^0.6375)(140+140)=0.025√0.23109(0.05)=0.025√0.0115546=0.2325Zcrit=1.96Zobs does not fall into rejection region (-1.96<Zobs<1.96)We do not reject the null hypothesis, and do not accept the alternative hypothesis. There is no evidence (at the 5% rejection level) of differences in the proportions of obedient subjects between the remote setup and the voice feedback setup. Both setups had similar proportions of obedient subject wiling to give the maximum shock of 450 Volts.Proximity Touch ProximityN1=40 N2=40X=16 Y=12pp1=16/40=0.4pp2=12/40=0.3pp=0.35Z =(^p 1−^p 2)−0√^p(1−^p)(1N 1+1N 2)=(0.4−0.3)−0√0.35(1−0.35)(140+140)=0.1√0.2275 (0.05)=0.1√0.011375=0.93765Zobs does not fall into rejection region (-1.96<Zobs<1.96)We do not reject the null hypothesis, and do not accept the alternative hypothesis. There is no evidence (at the 5% rejection level) of differences in the proportions of obedient subjects between the proximity setup and the touch proximity setup. Both setups had similar proportions of obedient subject wiling togive the maximum shock of 450 Volts.SourcesHypothesis Test: Difference Between Proportions. (n.d.). Retrieved April 19, 2015, from http://stattrek.com/hypothesis-test/difference-in-proportions.aspxBook Review: 'Behind the Shock Machine' by Gina Perry. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2015, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323324904579040672110673420 BINOMIAL PROPORTION TEST. (n.d.). Retrieved April 19, 2015, from http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/software/dataplot/refman1/auxillar/binotest.htm Test for Comparing Two Proportions. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2015, from http://www.cliffsnotes.com/math/statistics/univariate-inferential-tests/test-for-comparing-two-proportions Comparing Two Proportions. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2015, from https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat414/node/268 Behind the Shock Machine. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2015, from http://scribepublications.com.au/books-authors/title/behind-the-shock-machine/ Z-Test for Proportions, Two Samples. (n.d.). Retrieved April 19, 2015, from


View Full Document

USC HP 340L - Stats HW EC

Download Stats HW EC
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Stats HW EC and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Stats HW EC 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?