- Published: September 13, 2022
- Updated: September 13, 2022
- University / College: Emory University
- Language: English
- Downloads: 46
Reliability
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Explore
Reliability
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
COMPUTE PUNITIVE= q2asentences +q2crepeat + q2dpolice + q2eprivilege + q2flocking + q2gchain + q2icastrate+ q2kmandatory.
EXECUTE.
Frequencies
For skewness , the following variables would be considered non-normal : EMPLOYED
Explore
there are outliers for both dependent and independent variable as shown in the table above as the highest and lowest points.
Explore
T-Test
Because the p value is <. 05 , we reject the null hyothesis and conclude that the variable is NOT representative of the population .
NPar Tests
Chi-Square Test
Frequencies
Because the p value of 0. 011 is <. 05 , we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the variable is not representative of the population .
Crosstabs
EMPLOYED * PUNITIVE
Ever been victim of crime * PUNITIVE
Criminology Criminal Justice Major * PUNITIVE
Concern about crime * PUNITIVE
The Pearson’s r is 0. 29. This is a moderately weak positive association. It is statistically significant in the model since 0. 00 <0. 05. Interpretation is . 290x . 290 = 0. 0781 0. 0781x100 = 7. 81%. 7. 81 % of the variation in punitive attitudes is explained by variation in concern about crime .
T-Test
Religious fundamentalists are significantly different (p value for t test is <. 05 . The mean for religious fundamentalists was 44. 34 and the mean for non-fundamentalists was 39. 55 , indicated that religious fundamentalists are more punitive .
Regression
We cannot conclude that religious fundamentalism is causally related topunitiveness .
The variable is not statistically significant in the theoretical model hence it cannot be causally related to punitiveness in this sample .
Regression
R squared of 0. 308 indicates a weak model since only 30. 8% can be accounted for by fear and political ideology and 69. 2% is due to other variables not in the model
