1. Personal Data Sets
Correlations

2. Michael Nethercutt, 2017 Subjects = Students at ECU Sex Spirituality
Receptivity to Pseudo-Profound Bullshit
Bullshit Receptivity and Politics

3. Correlations Sex Spirit PPBS 1 .168** .198** .005 .001 278 277
Sex
Spirit
PPBS
1 = Male
2 = Female
Pearson Correlation 1
.168**
.198**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.005
.001 N
278
277
Spirituality
.545**
.000
280

4. Statistics
Sex
Spirit
PPBS
Male
Variance
1.977
.729
Skewness
.122
.386
Kurtosis
-.989
.074
Female
1.792
.776
-.196
-.181
-.930
-.223

5. Group Statistics
Sex N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Spirit
Male
120
3.2437
Female
157
3.7127
PPBS
121
2.5484
.85359
156
2.9003
.88070

6. Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Cohen’s d
Spirituality
2.827
275
.005
.34
PPBS
3.343
.001
.40
Notice that the p values are identical to what they were for the point biserial correlations.

7. Jennifer Hodgson, 2015
All participants reported experiencing a workplace injury.
WORK STATUS (1 = in work; 2 = out of work).
LOST TIME (number of days missed work since reported work-related injury)

8. From a Normal Population?
LostTime
Working
Mean
48.60
Median
5.00
Variance
Std. Deviation
Skewness
5.705
Kurtosis
35.890
Not
138.71
77.00
.524
-1.408

10. Erin Ezell, 2015 IntroQ data set
Gender of Student (1 = female, 2 = male)
Eye Color (brown or not brown)
Height of ideal mate (inches)
Statophobia (11 point scale, 0 to 10)