The Difference in Mean of Amount for the Two Stomach Levels - Assignment Example

The Difference in Mean of Amount for the Two Stomach Levels Part 2 1) Stomach Mean N Std. Deviation Empty 26.95 39 5.124 Full 16.26 39 6.303 Total 21.60 78 7.843 Weight Mean N Std. Deviation Underweight 19.46 26 6.906 Normal 21.27 26 9.606 Overweight 24.08 26 6.183 Total 21.60 78 7.843 Source Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 3335.141 5 667.028 34.267 .000 Intercept 36400.321 1 36400.321 1869.962 .000 stomach 2229.346 1 2229.346 114.526 .000 weight 281.256 2 140.628 7.224 .001 stomach * weight 824.538 2 412.269 21.179 .000 Error 1401.538 72 19.466 Total 41137.000 78 Corrected Total 4736.679 77 Note: R Squared = .704 (Adjusted R Squared = .684) 2) Main Effects 2 (stomach) = SS (Stomach)/SST (corrected) = 2229.346/4736.679 = 0.47 2 (Weight) = SS (Weight)/SST (corrected) = 281.256/4736.679 = 0.06 Interaction Effect 2 (Stomach*Weight) = SS (Stomach*Weight)/SST (corrected) = 824.538/4736.679 = 0.17 3) Empty+Underwieght vs Full+Underweight Yes Empty+ Normal vs Full+Normal No Full+Underweight vs Full+overweight Yes Empty+Overweight vs Full+Overweight Yes 4) In terms of weight, the difference in mean of amount for the two stomach levels was significantly different for underweight and normal weight and for normal weight and overweight. These are the same results as those in posthoc test. Tests of Normality Stomach Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a) Shapiro-Wilk Statistic Df Sig. Statistic Df Sig. amount Empty .145 39 .037 .943 39 .049 Full .204 39 .000 .823 39 .000 Note: Lilliefors Significance Correction (I) weight (J) weight Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound LSD Underweight normal -5.615(*) 1.785 .003 -9.23 -2.00 overweight -.462 1.785 .797 -4.08 3.16 Normal underweight 5.615(*) 1.785 .003 2.00 9.23 overweight 5.154(*) 1.785 .007 1.53 8.77 Overweight underweight .462 1.785 .797 -3.16 4.08 normal -5.154(*) 1.785 .007 -8.77 -1.53 Note: * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. F weight.empty only = 0, DF= (0, 38), p = 1.00 F weight.full only = 0, DF= (0, 38), p = 1.00 5) Background In 1968, Schachter published one of the first studies on obesity and eating behaviour. The theory that emerged from this literature was that overweight individuals do not respond to their internal, biological signals of hunger in the same way that normal weight and underweight people do. In other words, people who are overweight tend to eat regardless of whether or not they are hungry. Methodology Participants were informed that they were participating in a “taste test”. Just before the “taste test”, half the participants were given a full meal and could eat as much as they wanted, and half were not given any food at all. One hour later, a range of hors d’oeuvres were spread out on a table in front of the participant. The participant was asked to provide a rating on a scale of 0 (yucky) to 5 (extremely delicious) for each type of hors d’oeuvre. The experimenter then left the room so that the participant could “taste test” in private. After the participant finished their task, Schachter measured the amount of food (in grams) eaten by the participants. Regulations To participate, one had to fast for 12 hours; Variables The research study data had three variables namely stomach; a categorical variable with two levels (Empty and full); weight; a categorical variable with three levels (Underweight, Normal and Overweight); and amount; a continuous variable. Data Analysis The data was analyzed using the statistical software SPSS and by hand calculation. ANOVA, factorial analysis, eta-squared statistic and descriptive statistics were performed. Further, post hoc test were performed to compare the mean of amount for the different weight and stomach levels. Research Ethics According to research ethics, participants need to be fully informed of the benefits of the research and that the researcher should always aim to maximize the benefits and reduce risks, Beneficence. Further, the research should ensure that justice prevails. Research benefits should be spread-out to the entire sample. Further, the researcher should ensure confidentiality of the data collected and that it should be used for the sole purpose of the study and nothing else. All this should be made clear to the participants before the onset of the study. Another important part under research ethics is that the researcher should allow the participants to make an informed consent before participation. The consent should inform them of their right not to participate and to terminate their participation without penalties being imposed. In this research study, the participants were informed that they were about to take part in a research study. They were further, informed of their free consent participation as well as the research benefits as required in research ethics. Results Descriptive Statistics Amount has a mean. M = 21.6 and standard deviation, SD = 7.843 while the minimum and maximum amounts are, Min = 10 and Max = 36. The mean amount for stomach is higher for empty than for full [M = 26.96, SD = 5.12 and M = 16.26, SD = 6.30] respectively. Further, amount by weight is higher for overweight than for the other two categories [M = 24.08, SD = 6.18 for overweight and M = 21.27, SD = 9.61 and M = 19.46, SD = 6.91 for normal and underweight respectively]. Post Hoc Tests The post hoc test for amount for the three weight levels was done using Least Squares Difference (LSD) under ANOVA. From the results, the difference in mean of amount was significantly different for underweight and normal weight (p Read More