Portfolio of Statistical Exercises For this portfolio of statistical exercises you will be presented with FIVE research questions and datasets which you need to conduct the relevant statistical...

In a study of reading achievement researchers compared two methods of reading: (i) allowing the children to progress at their own pace while a teacher was available to answer questions (ii) a more traditional, formal method
Running head: Psychology Statistic Report
Exercise 1

An opportunity sample of 50 undergraduate students were asked to complete a series of
personality questionnaires investigating the “Dark Triad” of personality (Lee & Ashton, 2005).
The average scores for each questionnaire and for each participant are recorded below. Each
mean score ranges from 1 to 10, where 1 is low and 10 is high. The questionnaires record
scores on “Psychopathy” (i.e., patterns of callousness, manipulation without remorse, and
exploitative behaviour of others), “Machiavellianism” (i.e., manipulativeness, insincerity,
callousness), and “Narcissism” (i.e., dominance, exhibitionism and exploitation of others).

The following data were obtained from the students:
Participant
Number Psychopathy Machiavellianism Narcissism
1 7.44 9.13 6.50
2 8.89 7.77 8.87
3 7.07 8.28 6.20
4 7.17 7.38 7.27
5 7.80 9.62 6.00
6 9.23 9.52 9.13
7 5.09 9.72 4.32
8 9.65 9.57 9.32
9 8.55 8.42 8.55
10 6.58 7.02 6.59
11 7.38 5.95 7.32
12 7.77 8.64 5.20
13 7.18 7.97 7.21
14 7.82 8.02 7.80
15 7.89 7.67 7.83
16 9.51 9.78 9.60
17 8.38 9.78 8.38
18 8.34 5.95 8.24
19 9.41 8.74 9.36
20 7.23 9.34 7.23
21 8.99 7.08 8.76
22 7.84 9.53 7.65
23 4.48 6.70 3.56
24 9.03 8.40 7.89
25 7.40 7.44 6.93
26 3.93 8.83 3.85
27 7.24 5.46 7.24
28 6.79 8.79 6.56
29 8.71 8.28 7.65
30 7.58 6.37 7.42
31 8.88 6.14 8.88
32 8.15 6.37 8.20
33 8.11 9.91 8.00
34 9.07 9.16 8.90
35 7.70 7.03 7.12
36 7.14 8.42 7.23
37 8.76 9.04 8.69
2
Participant
Number Psychopathy Machiavellianism Narcissism
38 7.74 8.38 7.74
39 7.45 8.96 7.42
40 9.27 6.88 9.21
41 7.50 6.39 7.48
42 9.80 7.67 6.56
43 7.43 8.69 7.43
44 8.36 7.09 8.32
45 8.48 6.06 8.51
46 6.97 7.13 5.30
47 8.79 9.71 8.71
48 8.38 9.10 5.36
49 8.09 7.48 7.98
50 8.50 7.35 8.23

Do Machiavellianism and Narcissism scores predict Psychopathy?
Introduction
The dark traid personality traits are three closely related yet independant
personality traits. The three traits are machiavellianism, a sub-clinical narcissism, and
sub-clinical psychopathy, a lack of empathy. This study projects the undergraduate
students to see whether they developed this type of personality traits.
Method
50 undergraduate students were asked to complete a series of personality
questionnaires investigating the “Dark Triad” of personality (Lee & Ashton, 2005).
The average scores for each questionnaire and for each participant are recorded
elow. Each mean score ranges from 1 to 10, where 1 is low and 10 is high. The
questionnaires record scores on “Psychopathy” (i.e., patterns of callousness,
manipulation without remorse, and exploitative behaviour of others),
“Machiavellianism” (i.e., manipulativeness, insincerity, callousness), and
“Narcissism” (i.e., dominance, exhibitionism and exploitation of others).
3
Hypothesis or hypotheses
The following hypotheses are developed to analyse whether Machiavellianism
and Narcissism scores predict Psychopathy.
Null Hypothesis (Ho): The Machiavellianism and Narcissism scores are not able to
predict Psychopathy. In other words, the model is not significant.
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): The Machiavellianism and Narcissism scores are able to
predict Psychopathy. In other words, the model is significant.
Results
We will use linear regression analysis to see whether Machiavellianism and
Narcissism scores predict Psychopathy. The model is significant at 5% level of
significance because the P-value of the ANOVA table is less than 0.05, so we will
eject the null hypothesis and we can conclude that the Machiavellianism and
Narcissism scores have significant linear relationship with Psychopathy. In other
words, the model is significant.
Discussion
The model is significant at 5% level of significance and this model explains the
69.5% of the variation in the Psychopathy which is explained by the
Machiavellianism and Narcissism. Narcissism is the only significant predictor of
Psychopathy at 5% level. Machiavellianism is not significant at 5% level because the
co
esponding P-value is bigger than 0.05.
4
Appendix
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method
dimension0
1 Narcissism,
Machiavellianism
a

. Enter
a. All requested variables entered.
. Dependent Variable: Psychopathy
Model Summary

Model
R R Square Adjusted R Square
Std. E
or of the
Estimate
dimension0
1 .834
a
.695 .682 .66990
a. Predictors: (Constant), Narcissism, Machiavellianism
. Dependent Variable: Psychopathy
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 48.104 2 24.052 53.596 .000
a

Residual 21.092 47 .449
Total 69.196 49
a. Predictors: (Constant), Narcissism, Machiavellianism
. Dependent Variable: Psychopathy
Coefficients
a

Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. E
or Beta
1 (Constant) 1.931 .813 2.376 .022
Machiavellianism .084 .077 .088 1.095 .279
Narcissism .708 .069 .830 10.302 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Psychopathy

5
6
Exercise 2

A social psychologist was interested in examining the effect of being observed on sports
performance, and if competition can interact with this. He suspected that competition and
observation would both make the cyclists faster. He measured a group of professional cyclists
on how fast they rode the same distance under a series of controlled conditions. All the
cyclists did all of the conditions. They rode the same distance on their own, and being
observed by an audience of 20 people. They also rode the same distance at the same time as
another cyclist (i.e., just the two of them with no audience), and when they were both being
observed by an audience of 20 people.

The following data were recorded from the cyclists (time in seconds to complete the
distance):
Cycling on
own
Cycling on own
with an
audience
Cycling in
competition
Cycling in
competition
with an
audience
412.93 303.06 290.69 260.91
391.07 301.38 318.07 243.60
391.47 306.03 328.87 242.74
406.63 306.74 305.24 257.32
384.64 300.91 332.42 266.78
413.14 300.30 242.74 250.07
405.98 309.73 294.53 227.26
402.82 301.31 315.81 246.67
374.01 312.85 263.66 236.79
397.68 302.35 306.71 242.75
388.59 300.07 294.62 253.57
416.77 296.77 291.10 276.61
384.35 303.30 323.66 271.55
397.82 303.60 311.38 246.61
425.90 307.20 284.27 235.72
419.19 307.41 286.05 256.43
416.16 296.62 312.04 249.86
403.84 331.47 273.51 262.71
405.68 287.41 301.60 253.55
405.05 297.05 305.68 266.64


Does observation and competition pressure make cycling performance improve?
Introduction
A sports athlete is completely dedicated to perform with the technical, tactical and
physical training to reach highest possible potential. There are many factors that
influence the sport performance of an athlete. Competition and presence of audiences
can be a booster to excel the performance of an athlete.
7
Method
A social psychologist was interested in examining the effect of being observed
on sports performance, and if competition can interact with this. He suspected that
competition and observation would both make the cyclists faster. He measured a
group of professional cyclists on how fast they rode the same distance under a series
of controlled conditions. All the cyclists did all of the conditions. They rode the same
distance on their own, and being observed by an audience of 20 people. They also
ode the same distance at the same time as another cyclist (i.e., just the two of them
with no audience), and when they were both being observed by an audience of 20
people.
Hypothesis or...