Statistical Significance
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:56 pm
Hello. I am doing a high school project for the Washington State Science & Engineering fair. I would like to be competitive for ISEF and therefore need to show statistical significance for my survey results.
I have been researching how to get the p-values needed and think I have found what I need. However, I think my hypothesis included too many manipulated variables.
The hypothesis is: Music that is loud or has a strong rhythmic beat playing in a store will increase customer’s frustration levels and distract them from their shopping plans when they are in a hurry or have 10+ items to purchase.
I was hoping to lump ‘loud music’ with ‘strong rhythmic beat’ since I think they have the same effect.
Also, I was hoping to lump ‘hurried’ with ‘10+ items’ since I think they have the same effect.
I wanted
(Loud and/or Strong beat) vs. ( quiet and/or soft beat) when (hurried or 10+ items)
The p-value for these results were great!
However, is that legal? Can I make group one contain two different shopping experiences? (Loud music and/or Strong beat) and group two contain two different shopping experiences ( quiet and/or soft beat)? Or are there too many variables?
Is this really four tests?
Loud music volume vs. low music volume when hurried (type of music may effect this score)
Strong rhythmic beat vs. soft beat when hurried (we believe the volume of the soft beat may effect this score)
Loud music volume vs. low music volume when buying 10+ items
Strong rhythmic beat vs. soft beat when buying 10+ items
The data from over 100 surveys showed that the strong rhythmic beat or loud music did have a strong effect on the frustration levels even when the shoppers were not in a hurry or preplaning to buy 10+ items. So that part of my hypothesis was more narrow than necessary.
Then there is the stinky part “and distract them from their shopping plans”. It can be argued that if someone is frustrated they are by definition distracted. However, only 50% said they felt they were distracted in a yes/no question. If the hypothesis said “Or distracted….” or if it said “and increase their distraction levels…” I could work with it. The p-values showed significance for the increase in the number of shoppers who said they were distracted while shopping with rock music. But the hypothesis appears to say 100% of those frustrated by rock music would be distracted (What was I thinking?). Do I say my hypothesis is partially correct? And then explain in the analysis that rock music did increase distraction in a statistically significant amount even though it did not cause the all of the shoppers to be distracted from their shopping plans.
Thanks,
Beka
I have been researching how to get the p-values needed and think I have found what I need. However, I think my hypothesis included too many manipulated variables.
The hypothesis is: Music that is loud or has a strong rhythmic beat playing in a store will increase customer’s frustration levels and distract them from their shopping plans when they are in a hurry or have 10+ items to purchase.
I was hoping to lump ‘loud music’ with ‘strong rhythmic beat’ since I think they have the same effect.
Also, I was hoping to lump ‘hurried’ with ‘10+ items’ since I think they have the same effect.
I wanted
(Loud and/or Strong beat) vs. ( quiet and/or soft beat) when (hurried or 10+ items)
The p-value for these results were great!
However, is that legal? Can I make group one contain two different shopping experiences? (Loud music and/or Strong beat) and group two contain two different shopping experiences ( quiet and/or soft beat)? Or are there too many variables?
Is this really four tests?
Loud music volume vs. low music volume when hurried (type of music may effect this score)
Strong rhythmic beat vs. soft beat when hurried (we believe the volume of the soft beat may effect this score)
Loud music volume vs. low music volume when buying 10+ items
Strong rhythmic beat vs. soft beat when buying 10+ items
The data from over 100 surveys showed that the strong rhythmic beat or loud music did have a strong effect on the frustration levels even when the shoppers were not in a hurry or preplaning to buy 10+ items. So that part of my hypothesis was more narrow than necessary.
Then there is the stinky part “and distract them from their shopping plans”. It can be argued that if someone is frustrated they are by definition distracted. However, only 50% said they felt they were distracted in a yes/no question. If the hypothesis said “Or distracted….” or if it said “and increase their distraction levels…” I could work with it. The p-values showed significance for the increase in the number of shoppers who said they were distracted while shopping with rock music. But the hypothesis appears to say 100% of those frustrated by rock music would be distracted (What was I thinking?). Do I say my hypothesis is partially correct? And then explain in the analysis that rock music did increase distraction in a statistically significant amount even though it did not cause the all of the shoppers to be distracted from their shopping plans.
Thanks,
Beka