When working with individuals with phobias, we often have them rate their fear o

Question

When working with individuals with phobias, we often have them rate their fear on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high). We take 15 random samples across the US of non-phobic individuals and measure their level of fear to snakes. Results show that, when taking the average of these 15 samples, these individuals expressed a mean fear level of “30” with a standard deviation of 22. However, when we look at 15 individuals with an actual snake phobia, they reported a mean fear level of “50”. Is this meaningfully different from what non-phobic samples reported? 1)Formulate a null hypothesis and explain it. What would be the alternative hypothesis?

2)Test your hypothesis using a significance level of .05 and a two-tailed test. Show your work.

3)Based on the results you obtained, what do you conclude statistically? Do these groups seem different?

Explanation / Answer

1) H0: The actual snake phobia, the mean fear level of 50

H1: The actual snake phobia, the mean fear level of 50 not

Let the los be alpha = 5%

2) Yes, it is two tail test

Test Statistic

t = (xbar - mu ) / (s / sqrt(n)) = (30 - 50 ) / (22/sqrt(15)) = -3.5209

t - critical value =  ±2.1448

Here t value is not in critical value so we reject H0

P-value 0.0034 < alpha 0.05, we reject H0

3) Thus we conclude that the actual snake phobia, the mean fear level of 50 not

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.