3. Which group (family member/race/ethnicity) had the
highest mean score for “Global self-worth?”
6. Should the null hypothesis be rejected for the
difference referred to in Question 3? If so, at what probability
level should it be rejected?
7. Were there any statistically significant
differences in adolescents’ self-esteem scores across racial and
ethnic categories for any of the measures of self-esteem? Explain
your answer.
3. Which group (family member/race/ethnicity) had the highest mean score for “Global self-worth?”...
Backgrona Nete A onc-way ANOVA was run for cach row in the table in the excert. For each, a value ol F is shown. Duncun's test was als run for cach row. In given row, entries with superscript"a" have sigaificantly different means from entrics with superscript"b". Note that, as a gcacra! rule, il tbere is no indication that a difference (or a set of ilferences) is significant, the reader should assome that it is nol significant. Excerpt fro the Research Article As perl of a latger study of family fimctiuning, a otal of 104 families (adolcscents, mothers. and fathers) participated in this study. All participating families in the curenl siudy ineluded an adi- lescrnl, the mother, and the faher. Adolescents were requircd io have at least monthly face-to-face vonlact wich their biological moher and their biological fathcr for inclusion... Participants completed he age-appropriate version of the arter Self-Peception Profiles, wbich conceptualize selsesteem as perceived competence in muhiple domains. The social acce tance domain assesses participants' perecptions of feeling accepted by peers, feeling ponalar, and feeling corafortable around others. Thc physical appearancc domain assesses participants' sci perceplions of tbeir attractivencss and their satisfaction with their appcarance. The athictie compe- ience dain assesses paiticipanls' feelings of their competence in sports and other physical activi- tcs. The glohal self-worth subscale assesses participants leelings about themselves overall (i.e, no: tied to any spccific domain..) In orücr lo iest for the racial'etlnic group differences..., a scries of ANOVAs was complcted for cach informant (adolescents, mothcrs, and fathers). Significunt ANOVAs wore followed up by post hoc Dutican's tcsts. self-aom Soure: Phares. V, Fields, S. Warkins-Clay, M. M., uk , &H in fumiliesof adolescenms. Chid &Forily Sehavior haray. 27,3-26 05) ace eticjry Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations Esteem Racelet Caucasian African American His ic/Latino/Latina F-Value Social acceptance Mothers Fathers 3.15 (.76) 3.23 (67) 2.98 (.71) 3.13 (.74) 3.44 (55) 3.36 (62) 3.38 (51) 3.25 (.60) 3.20 (66) 1.21 2.81 Physical appearance Mothers Fathers 2.82 (.85) 2.49 (84) 2.79 (51)3.14 (82) 3.06 (.77) 2.82 (84) 2.92 (.75) 2.70 (.70) 3.13 (65)b 0.81 1.56 3.16 Athletic competence Adolescents Mothers Fathers 2.79 (.87) 2.04(.79). 2.79 (58) 2.96 (80) 2.49 (78)b 2.90 (.68) 3.18 (.66) 2.07 (.64) 2.88 (.75) 1.96 3.95* 0.27 Global self-worth Adolescents Mothers Fathers 3.34 (.60) 3.17 (.76) 3.35 (66) 3.32 (67) 62)" 3.33 (72) 3.25 (.65) 3.24 (.71) 338 (53)b 0.23 0.39 4.59 Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. Different superscripts signify significant mean differences. p<.05
Backgrona Nete A onc-way ANOVA was run for cach row in the table in the excert. For each, a value ol F is shown. Duncun's test was als run for cach row. In given row, entries with superscript"a" have sigaificantly different means from entrics with superscript"b". Note that, as a gcacra! rule, il tbere is no indication that a difference (or a set of ilferences) is significant, the reader should assome that it is nol significant. Excerpt fro the Research Article As perl of a latger study of family fimctiuning, a otal of 104 families (adolcscents, mothers. and fathers) participated in this study. All participating families in the curenl siudy ineluded an adi- lescrnl, the mother, and the faher. Adolescents were requircd io have at least monthly face-to-face vonlact wich their biological moher and their biological fathcr for inclusion... Participants completed he age-appropriate version of the arter Self-Peception Profiles, wbich conceptualize selsesteem as perceived competence in muhiple domains. The social acce tance domain assesses participants' perecptions of feeling accepted by peers, feeling ponalar, and feeling corafortable around others. Thc physical appearancc domain assesses participants' sci perceplions of tbeir attractivencss and their satisfaction with their appcarance. The athictie compe- ience dain assesses paiticipanls' feelings of their competence in sports and other physical activi- tcs. The glohal self-worth subscale assesses participants leelings about themselves overall (i.e, no: tied to any spccific domain..) In orücr lo iest for the racial'etlnic group differences..., a scries of ANOVAs was complcted for cach informant (adolescents, mothcrs, and fathers). Significunt ANOVAs wore followed up by post hoc Dutican's tcsts. self-aom Soure: Phares. V, Fields, S. Warkins-Clay, M. M., uk , &H in fumiliesof adolescenms. Chid &Forily Sehavior haray. 27,3-26 05) ace eticjry Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations Esteem Racelet Caucasian African American His ic/Latino/Latina F-Value Social acceptance Mothers Fathers 3.15 (.76) 3.23 (67) 2.98 (.71) 3.13 (.74) 3.44 (55) 3.36 (62) 3.38 (51) 3.25 (.60) 3.20 (66) 1.21 2.81 Physical appearance Mothers Fathers 2.82 (.85) 2.49 (84) 2.79 (51)3.14 (82) 3.06 (.77) 2.82 (84) 2.92 (.75) 2.70 (.70) 3.13 (65)b 0.81 1.56 3.16 Athletic competence Adolescents Mothers Fathers 2.79 (.87) 2.04(.79). 2.79 (58) 2.96 (80) 2.49 (78)b 2.90 (.68) 3.18 (.66) 2.07 (.64) 2.88 (.75) 1.96 3.95* 0.27 Global self-worth Adolescents Mothers Fathers 3.34 (.60) 3.17 (.76) 3.35 (66) 3.32 (67) 62)" 3.33 (72) 3.25 (.65) 3.24 (.71) 338 (53)b 0.23 0.39 4.59 Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. Different superscripts signify significant mean differences. p