T o t e s t g e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e s o c i a b i l i t y o f t e e n a g e r s . To \ test \ gender \ differences \ in \ the \ sociability \ of \ teenagers.\\ T o t es t g e n d er d i ff ere n ces in t h e soc iabi l i t y o f t ee na g ers . U s i n g t h e n u m b e r o f g o o d f r i e n d s a s a n i n d i c a t o r o f s o c i a b i l i t y . Using \ the \ number \ of \ good \ friends \ as \ an \ indicator \ of \ sociability.\\ U s in g t h e n u mb er o f g oo d f r i e n d s a s an in d i c a t or o f soc iabi l i t y .
F e m a l e s h a d o n a v e r a g e 5.9 c l o s e f r i e n d s ( s = 3.1 ; n = 44 ) Females \ had \ on \ average \ 5.9 \ close \ f riends \ (s=3.1; n=44) F e ma l es ha d o n a v er a g e 5.9 c l ose f r i e n d s ( s = 3.1 ; n = 44 )
M a l e s h a d o n a v e r a g e 4.8 c l o s e f r i e n d s ( s = 2.6 ; n = 35 ) ⇒ L e t x ˉ 1 = 5.9 , s 1 = 3.1 & n 1 = 44 x ˉ 2 = 4.8 , s 2 = 2.6 & n 2 = 35 L e t t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s b e H 0 : T h e r e i s n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e o f s o c i a b i l t y i n m a l e & f e m a l e ⇒ μ 1 = μ 2 T h e a l t e r n a t i v e h y p o t h e s i s b e H 1 : μ 1 ≠ μ 2 T h e t e s t s t a t i s t i c f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e o f m e a n s i s z = x ˉ 1 − x ˉ 2 s 1 2 n 1 + s 2 2 n 2 = 5.9 − 4.8 ( 3.1 ) 2 44 + ( 2.6 ) 2 35 = 1.1 0.2184090909 + 0.1931428571 = 1.1 0.411551948 = 0.64152 ⇒ z = 0.64 ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y ) F o r t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e α = 0.02 t h e c r i t i c a l v a l u e i s z α 2 = z 0.01 = 2.33 ( f o r t w o t a i l e d t e s t ) T h e t e s t s t a t i s t i c z < 2.33 T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e i s n o r e a s o n t o r e j e c t t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s . H e n c e , w e c a n c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e i s n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n s o c i a b i l i t y o f m a l e a n d f e m a l e a t 0.02 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l , b y t w o t a i l e d t e s t . Males \ had \ on \ average \ 4.8 \ close \ friends \ (s=2.6; n=35)\\
\Rightarrow Let \ \bar x_1 =5.9, \ s_1 =3.1 \ \& \ n_1 = 44\\
\bar x_2 =4.8, \ s_2 =2.6 \ \& \ n_2 = 35\\
Let \ the \ null \ hypothesis \ be \ H_0 \ : \ There \ is \ no \ significant \ difference \\
of \ sociabilty \ in \ male \ \& \ female\ \Rightarrow \mu_1 =\mu_2 \\
The \ alternative \ hypothesis \ be\ H_1: \mu_1 \ne \ \mu_2 \\
The \ test \ statistic \ for \ the \ difference \ of \ means \ is \\
z=\frac{\bar x_1-\bar x_2}{\sqrt{\frac{s_1^2}{n_1}+\frac{s_2^2}{n_2}}}\\
=\frac{5.9-4.8}{\sqrt{\frac{(3.1)^2}{44}+\frac{(2.6)^2}{35}}}\\
=\frac{1.1}{\sqrt{0.2184090909+0.1931428571}}\\
=\frac{1.1}{\sqrt{0.411551948}}\\
=0.64152\\
\Rightarrow z=0.64 (approximately)\\
For \ the \ significance \ leve \ \alpha = 0.02 \\
the \ critical \ value \ is \ z_{\frac{\alpha}{2}}=z_{0.01}=2.33 \\
(for \ two \ tailed \ test )\\
The \ test\ statistic \ z \lt \ 2.33\\
Therefore, there \ is \ no \ reason \ to \ reject \ the \ null \ hypothesis.\\
Hence, we \ can \ conclude \ that \ there \ is \ no\ significant \\
difference \ in \ sociability \ of \ male \ and \ female\ at \ 0.02 \\
significance \ level, \ by \ two \ tailed \ test. M a l es ha d o n a v er a g e 4.8 c l ose f r i e n d s ( s = 2.6 ; n = 35 ) ⇒ L e t x ˉ 1 = 5.9 , s 1 = 3.1 & n 1 = 44 x ˉ 2 = 4.8 , s 2 = 2.6 & n 2 = 35 L e t t h e n u ll h y p o t h es i s b e H 0 : T h ere i s n o s i g ni f i c an t d i ff ere n ce o f soc iabi lt y in ma l e & f e ma l e ⇒ μ 1 = μ 2 T h e a lt er na t i v e h y p o t h es i s b e H 1 : μ 1 = μ 2 T h e t es t s t a t i s t i c f or t h e d i ff ere n ce o f m e an s i s z = n 1 s 1 2 + n 2 s 2 2 x ˉ 1 − x ˉ 2 = 44 ( 3.1 ) 2 + 35 ( 2.6 ) 2 5.9 − 4.8 = 0.2184090909 + 0.1931428571 1.1 = 0.411551948 1.1 = 0.64152 ⇒ z = 0.64 ( a pp ro x ima t e l y ) F or t h e s i g ni f i c an ce l e v e α = 0.02 t h e cr i t i c a l v a l u e i s z 2 α = z 0.01 = 2.33 ( f or tw o t ai l e d t es t ) T h e t es t s t a t i s t i c z < 2.33 T h ere f ore , t h ere i s n o re a so n t o re j ec t t h e n u ll h y p o t h es i s . He n ce , w e c an co n c l u d e t ha t t h ere i s n o s i g ni f i c an t d i ff ere n ce in soc iabi l i t y o f ma l e an d f e ma l e a t 0.02 s i g ni f i c an ce l e v e l , b y tw o t ai l e d t es t .
Comments