Student Manual for Fundamental Statistics
for the Behavioral Sciences (7th edition)
David C. Howell
The University of Vermont
, Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Basic Concepts
Chapter 3 Displaying Data
Chapter 4 Measures of Central Tendency
Chapter 5 Measures of Variability
Chapter 6 The Normal Distribution
Chapter 7 Basic Concepts of Probability
Chapter 8 Sampling Distributions and Hypothesis Testing
Chapter 9 Correlation
Chapter 10 Regression
Chapter 11 Multiple Regression
Chapter 12 Hypothesis Tests Applied to Means: One Sample
Chapter 13 Hypothesis Tests Applied to Means: Two Related Samples
Chapter 14 Hypothesis Tests Applied to Means: Two Independent Samples
Chapter 15 Power
Chapter 16 One-way Analysis of Variance
Chapter 17 Factorial Analysis of Variance
Chapter 18 Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance
Chapter 19 Chi-Square
Chapter 20 Nonparametric and Distribution-Free Statistical Tests
Chapter 21 Choosing the Appropriate Analysis
ii
, Preface
The purpose of this manual is to provide answers to students using the accompanying
text, Fundamental Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 7th ed. I have provided complete
answers to all of the odd-numbered questions. I am often asked for answers to even-
numbered exercises as well. I do not provide those because many instructors want to have
exercises without answers. I am attempting to balance the two competing needs.
You may find on occasion that you do not have the same answer that I do. Much of this
will depend on the degree to which you or I round off intermediate steps. Sometimes it
will make a surprising difference. If your answer looks close to mine, and you did it the
same way that I did, then don’t worry about small differences. It is even possible that I
made an error.
I know that there will be errors in some of these answers. There always are. Even the
most compulsive problem solver is bound to make errors, and it has been a long time
since anyone accused me of being compulsive. I do try, honest I do, but something
always slips past—sometimes they even slip past while I am correcting another error. So
I maintain a page on the web listing the errors that I and other have found. If you find an
error (minor and obvious typos don’t count unless they involve numbers), please check
there and let me know if it is a new one. Some classes even compete to see who can find
the most errors—it’s rough when you have to compete with a whole class.
The address for the main web page, is
http://www.uvm.edu/~dhowell/fundamentals/ , and the link to the Errata is there.
Important note: Due to the way hypertext links are shown by Microsoft Word, the
underlining often obscures a single underline character, as in “More_Stuff.” If you see a
space in an address, it is often really a “_.”
iii
, Chapter 1-Introduction
1.1 A good example is the development of tolerance to caffeine. People who do not
normally drink caffeinated coffee are often startled by the effect of one or two cups of
regular coffee, whereas those who normally drink regular coffee see no such effect. To
test for a context effect of caffeine, you would first need to develop a dependent variable
measuring the alerting effect of caffeine, which could be a vigilance task. You could test
for a context effect by serving a group of users of decaffeinated coffee two cups of
regular coffee every morning in their office for a month, but have them drink decaf the
rest of the time. The vigilance test would be given shortly after the coffee, and tolerance
would be seen by an increase in errors over days. At the end of the month, they would be
tested after drinking caffeinated coffee in the same and in a different setting.
The important points here are:
1. Tolerance is shown by an increase in errors on the vigilance task.
2. To see the effect of context, subjects need to be presented with caffeine in two
different contexts.
3. There needs to be a difference between the vigilance performance in the two
contexts.
1.3 Contexts affects people’s response to alcohol, to off-color jokes, or to observed
aggressive behavior.
1.5 The sample would be the addicts that we observe.
1.7 Not all people in the city are listed in the phone book. In particular, women and
children are underrepresented. A phone book is particularly out of date as a random
selection device with the increase in the use of cell phones.
Many telephone surveys really miss the general population, and instead
focus on a restricted population, dominated by male adults.
1.9 In the tolerance study discussed in the text, we really do not care what the mean
length of paw-lick latency is. No one would be excited to know that a mouse can stand on
a surface at 105 degrees for 3.2 seconds without licking its paws. But we do very much
care that the population mean of paw-lick latencies for morphine-tolerant mice is longer
in one context than in another.
1.11 I would expect that your mother would continue to wander around in a daze,
wondering what happened.
for the Behavioral Sciences (7th edition)
David C. Howell
The University of Vermont
, Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Basic Concepts
Chapter 3 Displaying Data
Chapter 4 Measures of Central Tendency
Chapter 5 Measures of Variability
Chapter 6 The Normal Distribution
Chapter 7 Basic Concepts of Probability
Chapter 8 Sampling Distributions and Hypothesis Testing
Chapter 9 Correlation
Chapter 10 Regression
Chapter 11 Multiple Regression
Chapter 12 Hypothesis Tests Applied to Means: One Sample
Chapter 13 Hypothesis Tests Applied to Means: Two Related Samples
Chapter 14 Hypothesis Tests Applied to Means: Two Independent Samples
Chapter 15 Power
Chapter 16 One-way Analysis of Variance
Chapter 17 Factorial Analysis of Variance
Chapter 18 Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance
Chapter 19 Chi-Square
Chapter 20 Nonparametric and Distribution-Free Statistical Tests
Chapter 21 Choosing the Appropriate Analysis
ii
, Preface
The purpose of this manual is to provide answers to students using the accompanying
text, Fundamental Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 7th ed. I have provided complete
answers to all of the odd-numbered questions. I am often asked for answers to even-
numbered exercises as well. I do not provide those because many instructors want to have
exercises without answers. I am attempting to balance the two competing needs.
You may find on occasion that you do not have the same answer that I do. Much of this
will depend on the degree to which you or I round off intermediate steps. Sometimes it
will make a surprising difference. If your answer looks close to mine, and you did it the
same way that I did, then don’t worry about small differences. It is even possible that I
made an error.
I know that there will be errors in some of these answers. There always are. Even the
most compulsive problem solver is bound to make errors, and it has been a long time
since anyone accused me of being compulsive. I do try, honest I do, but something
always slips past—sometimes they even slip past while I am correcting another error. So
I maintain a page on the web listing the errors that I and other have found. If you find an
error (minor and obvious typos don’t count unless they involve numbers), please check
there and let me know if it is a new one. Some classes even compete to see who can find
the most errors—it’s rough when you have to compete with a whole class.
The address for the main web page, is
http://www.uvm.edu/~dhowell/fundamentals/ , and the link to the Errata is there.
Important note: Due to the way hypertext links are shown by Microsoft Word, the
underlining often obscures a single underline character, as in “More_Stuff.” If you see a
space in an address, it is often really a “_.”
iii
, Chapter 1-Introduction
1.1 A good example is the development of tolerance to caffeine. People who do not
normally drink caffeinated coffee are often startled by the effect of one or two cups of
regular coffee, whereas those who normally drink regular coffee see no such effect. To
test for a context effect of caffeine, you would first need to develop a dependent variable
measuring the alerting effect of caffeine, which could be a vigilance task. You could test
for a context effect by serving a group of users of decaffeinated coffee two cups of
regular coffee every morning in their office for a month, but have them drink decaf the
rest of the time. The vigilance test would be given shortly after the coffee, and tolerance
would be seen by an increase in errors over days. At the end of the month, they would be
tested after drinking caffeinated coffee in the same and in a different setting.
The important points here are:
1. Tolerance is shown by an increase in errors on the vigilance task.
2. To see the effect of context, subjects need to be presented with caffeine in two
different contexts.
3. There needs to be a difference between the vigilance performance in the two
contexts.
1.3 Contexts affects people’s response to alcohol, to off-color jokes, or to observed
aggressive behavior.
1.5 The sample would be the addicts that we observe.
1.7 Not all people in the city are listed in the phone book. In particular, women and
children are underrepresented. A phone book is particularly out of date as a random
selection device with the increase in the use of cell phones.
Many telephone surveys really miss the general population, and instead
focus on a restricted population, dominated by male adults.
1.9 In the tolerance study discussed in the text, we really do not care what the mean
length of paw-lick latency is. No one would be excited to know that a mouse can stand on
a surface at 105 degrees for 3.2 seconds without licking its paws. But we do very much
care that the population mean of paw-lick latencies for morphine-tolerant mice is longer
in one context than in another.
1.11 I would expect that your mother would continue to wander around in a daze,
wondering what happened.
