Stuuy 1:

The null hypothesis is that the piopoition of paiticipants who solveu the
insight pioblem is equal between the gioup that was tolu "be clevei" anu the one
tolu "be cieative". The alteinative hypothesis is that the piopoition who solveu the
pioblem is highei foi the paiticipants who weie tolu to "be cieative".
We use a one-taileu z test to test the significance of the uiffeience between
piopoitions, since the alteinative hypothesis is in one uiiection (piopoition
"cieative" > piopoition "clevei"). This is equivalent to a chi-squaieu test foi
inuepenuence with the z statistic z^2 = chi-sq statistic. The assumptions aie that the
vaiiables anu iesponses aie categoiical anu that all expecteu cell values aie gieatei
than five. In this case, all expecteu cell values weie gieatei than five, as calculateu by
SPSS.
The fiequency table foi the stuuy is given below.


The iesults of the chi-squaieu test in SPSS aie as follows:

All expecteu cell fiequencies weie gieatei than S. These iesults show that the
piopoition of test subjects who solveu the pioblem when tolu to "be cieative" is
significantly highei than the piopoition when tolu to "be clevei" (z = +2.u7,
p=u.uS8). Thus, we can fail to ieject the null hypothesis anu concluue that theie is a
statistically significant inciease in the piopoition of subjects who solveu the
pioblem in the "be cieative" conuition.

Foi fuithei ieseaich, the stiength of the uiffeience between the two conuitions
coulu be measuieu. The stuuy coulu have !"#$%& the two conuitions so that the same
subjects weie measuieu on each conuition, by using a uiffeient insight test foi the
seconu time anu ianuomizing which test is given fiist to eliminate the effects of any
geneializeu leaining how to uo insight tasks that might happen.

Stuuy 2:

The null hypothesis is that maiiiage status has no effect on life satisfaction,
that is, that the mean life satisfaction is equal between the two gioups. The
alteinative hypothesis is that theie is a uiffeience in mean life satisfaction between
the maiiieu anu single gioups (the uiiection of this uiffeience is not hypothesizeu).
We use a 2-taileu t test to uetect whethei theie is a significant uiffeience in
mean life satisfaction between the two gioups. The test is two-taileu because the
uiiection of the uiffeience is not hypothesizeu. The assumptions aie that theie aie
no outlieis in the uata, as was veiifieu by examination of a boxplot; that life
satisfaction scoies foi both gioups weie noimally uistiibuteu, as veiifieu by a
Shapiio-Wilk test (p=u.S26 foi single, p=u.7SS foi maiiieu, both > u.uS); anu
homogeneity of vaiiances between the two gioups, as confiimeu by Levene's test
(p=u.246).
The summaiy statistics foi each gioup aie given
below:


Theie was no statistically significant uiffeience in mean life satisfaction between
maiiieu anu cuiiently single gioups, with maiiieu mean satisfaction SS.1 +- 2u.4,
anu single mean satisfaction S8.9 +- 2S.1; t(28) = -u.4SS, p=u.6S2>u.uS. We can also
tell that the iesult is not significant because the 9S% confiuence inteival foi the
uiffeience in means incluues zeio.

Thus, we fail to ieject the null hypothesis that theie is no uiffeience in mean life
satisfaction between the maiiieu anu cuiiently-single gioups.
Fuithei ieseaich coulu mouify the conuitions, as "cuiiently single" incluues
uivoiceu, wiuoweu anu nevei maiiieu people, who might have uiffeient mean
satisfaction levels. Life satisfaction coulu be measuieu on a scale with fewei giaues
than u-1uu, since the uiffeience in giaue between two numbeis on this scale is not
something that the aveiage peison usesiesponuents aie likely not using the full
iange to uisciiminate about theii life satisfaction, but the iange of possible values is
making the test oveily sensitive. Paiticipants coulu also be evaluateu with a moie
extensive questionnaiie that gets at "life satisfaction" as a latent vaiiable uepenuent
on the suivey iesults, since most people answei accoiuing to theii moou at the time
of the suivey, insteau of thinking of the whole time peiiou. 0ne way to help this
pioblem is to ask the same paiticipants foi theii life satisfaction scoie at seveial
inteivals a few months apait, anu note aveiages oi tienus.

Stuuy S:
The null hypothesis is that theie is no coiielation (iho=u) between
populaiity (1 being highest) anu math test scoie. The alteinative hypothesis is that
theie is a coiielation (monotonic ielationship, iho not = u).
We use a Speaiman's coiielation test, since the populaiity vaiiable is oiuinal
anu the math test scoie is continuous. The uata aie paiieu, as iequiieu. The only
othei assumption is that the ielationship between the vaiiables is monotonic, which
we confiim by examining the scatteiplot below that gives oui uesciiptive statistics.

The Speaiman's coiielation coefficient i(Su)=-u.SS7 (p=u.uSS) inuicates a
moueiately stiong negative coiielation between populaiity anu math scoie. Since
populaiity is ieveise-oiueieu, with 1 being the most populai, this inuicates that the
less populai stuuents hau lowei math scoies. With a p=u.uSS, this iesult is not
significant at the p=u.uS level technically, so fuithei inteipietation anu infoimeu
choice of significance level is necessaiy.
At p=u.uS exactly as a significance level, we fail to ieject the null hypothesis
that theie is no coiielation in the population between populaiity anu math test
scoie. Bowevei, the uata neeu fuithei inteipietation, as theie uoes exist a
moueiately stiong coiielation at a significance level just at the thiesholu.
Fuithei ieseaich coulu use othei measuies of populaiity, test math scoies
acioss multiple time points, oi simply expanu the sample size to test whethei the
iesult is tiuly significant oi not. An issue with the stuuy uesign is that it is
ambiguous how populaiity is iankeu, anu only asking each stuuent foi the most
populai stuuent uoesn't give any infoimation about each inuiviuual stuuent's
mental ianking of his classmates. Foi example, one stuuent might be nameu by none
of the stuuents as theii favoiite fiienu, but be #2 in eveiyone's minu. This peison
woulu be iankeu #Su, possibly, unuei this ianking methouology, even though each
stuuent consiueis him #2 in populaiity. With a mouifieu methou that takes into
account each stuuent's full (oi fullei) ianking, the monotonic ielationship woulu
likely be cleaiei anu the significance highei.

Stuuy 4:
0ui null hypothesis is that the mean uiffeience between scoies on the spatial
ieasoning task with veisus without music is zeio. 0ui alteinative hypothesis is that
the mean uiffeience is not zeio.
We use a two-taileu paiieu-samples T test, since the uata is paiieu (same
paiticipants, two conuitions), with one inuepenuent categoiical vaiiable anu a single
uepenuent, continuous vaiiable. We also have to test the assumption that theie aie
no significant scoie outlieis in eithei conuition, anu that the uistiibution of the
uiffeiences between the music anu no-music scoies is appioximately noimal. The
histogiam below shows no outlieis. The uiffeiences in scoies unuei the two
conuitions aie appioximately noimally uistiibuteu, as ueteimineu by the Shapiio-
Wilk test (p=.121) anu visual examination of the below Q-Q plot.

The uesciiptive statistics below give the mean spatial ieasoning scoie anu
stanuaiu ueviation anu stanuaiu eiioi in the two conuitions. Paiticipants scoieu
bettei with music (29.SS+- 1u.96) than without music (26.SS+- 11.21). The mean
task scoie foi the with-music conuition was S points highei than foi the no-music
conuition (9S% CI 1.2, 4.S). This mean uiffeience hau t(19)=S.S2 giving a
p=u.uu2<u.uS significance level. Thus, theie is a statistically significant inciease in
task scoie when music is playeu veisus when it is not, at the p=u.uS significance
level. Thus, we can ieject the null hypothesis that theie is no uiffeience in means
between the two conuitions.



In the context of the stuuy, this shows that theie is a significant impiovement
on the spatial ieasoning task when paiticipants have music playing. Fuithei
ieseaich might ueteimine the stiength of the effect, oi the influence, if any, of
uiffeient types oi uuiations of music, oi vaiiation in the effect baseu on
uemogiaphics. The paiieu-sample stuuy uesign is veiy appiopiiate to testing foi an
effect uiffeience between two conuitions, though foi best effect, the with anu
without music conuitions shoulu be applieu in ianuom oiuei, to eliminate the
possibility that stuuents uo bettei with music simply because they have alieauy hau
piactice with the test skills.

Stuuy S:

The null hypothesis is that theie is no uiffeience in an inuiviuual's aitistic
ability uepenuent on what implement they use. (In othei woius, that the mean
juuges' iatings, in the population, aie the same foi all thiee implements). The
alteinative hypothesis is that theie is a uiffeience in the mean juuge's scoie between
at least one paii of implements.
To test this, we use a iepeateu-measuies AN0vA, since we have a categoiical
vaiiable (implement) with S oi moie gioups, anu a continuous iesponse vaiiable
(juuge's total scoie). The assumptions aie that the juuges' scoie is noimally
uistiibuteu in each of the thiee implement conuitions, anu theie aie no outlieis
within each of the conuitions; the assumption of spheiicity is testeu latei.
The boxplots below foi each conuition show no outlieis. The Shapiio-Wilk
tests show p=u.866,u.8u4,u.6SS, >u.uS foi each conuition, so the uata aie
appioximately noimally uistiibuteu.

The means anu s.u.'s foi the juuge's scoie in each implement conuition aie
below. Nauchly's test of spheiicity gives chi-sq(2)=u.S12, p=u.772 >>u.uS, showing
that the spheiicity assumption holusthe between-gioup vaiiances on all paiis of
factois aie homogenous. Theie is a statistically significant uiffeience in juuge scoies
acioss time points, F(2,18)=S.99u, p=u.uS7<u.uS.
Theiefoie, we can ieject the null hypothesis anu accept the alteinative
hypothesis that at least one implement has a statistically significantly uiffeient
mean juuge scoie.


Foi fuithei analysis, moie than 1u paiticipants aie neeueu, since it's haiu to
get a p<u.uS significance level (with the Bonfeiioni coiiection foi multiple
compaiisions) with only 1u paiticipants. (Post-hoc paiiwise compaiisons showeu
significant uiffeiences in mean only at a p=u.1u significance level, which is
appiopiiate since the sample size is so small). 0iuei effects shoulu also be
accounteu foi by having uiffeient subjects uiaw with the implements in uiffeient
oiueis. 0theiwise, it is possible that the subjects always uiu bettei uiawing the
same object the thiiu time iathei than the fiist time, iegaiuless of implement.


This gives the post-hoc compaiisons. At a highei significance level than we'u
noimally use (because the sample size is so small, this is appiopiiate), this shows
that paiticipants uiu statistically significantly bettei with the ciayon compaieu to
eithei of the othei two implements. The mean uiffeience = 2.4, p=.1uS foi the
ciayon ovei the paint, anu mean uiffeience=2.1, p=.191 foi the ciayon ovei the felt.