Lab: Comprehensive Review Correlation & Regression 1-Sample t-test Dependent t-test 1-way ANOVA 2-way ANOVA

#1 Ecological Awareness: a. Ho: ρ = 0 b. r(8) = -.758, p ≤.05 c. The hypothesis was supported. Ecological awareness correlates negatively with miles driven per week, r(8) = -.758, p ≤.05. Ecological awareness accounts for about 58% of the variance in miles driven, r 2 =.575. d1. The chance of obtaining the result by chance: p=.011 d2. You’re 57.5% more accurate in predicting miles driven.

(#1 cont.) d3. y’ = bx + a y’ = (15) = d4.

#2 Goal Setting #2 Goal setting: a. μ control = μ education = μ education + contracting = μ ed. + contract + feedback b. F(3,16) = , p≤.05 μ ed. + contract + feedback < μ ed. + contract < μ control = μ education c. The hypothesis was supported. Participants receiving feedback set their thermostats lower (M=67.6) than participants who only signed contracts (M=70.6), who in turn set their thermostats lower than participants who received only education (M=75.0) or no intervention (M=74.8), F(3,16) = , p≤.05. The intervention accounted for a large amount of variance in the thermostat setting, η 2 =.7067.

(#2 Cont.) d. Goal- setting without feedback still works, but not as well.

#3 Caffeine addiction a. Ho: μ caffeine = 50 b. t(8) = , n.s. c. The hypothesis was not supported. The average amount of caffeine (M = 37.78) did not differ significantly from the promised amount (μ =50), t(8) = , n.s. d. The level of caffeine is not terribly consistent, ŝ =

#4. Clustering freshmen courses a. μ D = 0 b. t(14) = 2.210, p≤.05 c. The hypothesis was supported. The level of social integration was significantly higher for those in clustered courses (M=27.00) than those not (M=21.67), t(14) = 2.210, p≤.05. The effect of the clustering on social integration was moderate, d =.57.

(#4 cont.) e. Yes, I think freshmen who take clustered courses might become more socially integrated. Other programs that increase familiar within a small group might also work. For example, students could be in the same group for their summer orientation and for their freshman seminar course in the Fall. d.

#5 Homework Input

#5 Homework Output

#5 (cont) a. μ low consc. = μ high consc.. μ no grading = μ spot checking = μ full grading no interaction b. F(1,18) = , p≤.05 μ low consc. < μ high consc. F(2,18) = , p≤.05 μ no grd < μ spot grd < μ full grd F(2,18) = , p≤.05

(#5 cont.) c. The hypotheses were supported. Students low in conscientiousness received lower grades (M=63.25) than those high in conscientiousness (M=83.83), F(1,18) = , p≤.05. Grading homework produced higher grades (M=79.75) than spot checking homework (M=72.62), which in turn produced higher grades than no grading (M=68.25), F(2,18) = , p≤.05. The interaction was also significant, F(2,18) = , p≤.05. Grading improves grades for low-conscientious students, but high-conscientious students do well regardless. Conscientious accounts for the most variance in grades, η 2 =.6194, though both the effects for homework, η 2 =.1313, and the interaction, η 2 =.1818, were practically significant.

(#5 cont.) e. If I were teaching, I would grade homework. d.