Zoe Scholes

SW 4810
Dr. Barragan
November 18th, 2015

Chi-Square
A. The variables used in this chi-square analysis are nominal and ordinal.
B. Descriptive statistics for the chi-square analysis can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1: Descriptive: Chi-Square
n(%)
If food is organized in kitchen
Yes
No

34 (69.4%)
15 (30.6%)

What is the most wasted item in the home:

Meat
Vegetables
Fruit
Meals not eaten
Bread
Milk
Yogurt and other dairy items
Condiments

2 (4.1%)
6 (12.2%)
8 (16.3%)
15 (30.6%)
4 (8.2%)
3 (6.1%)
7 (14.3%)
4 (8.2%)

C. The total sample for the chi-square analysis is N=49. Of this sample, more than
two-thirds (69.4%) keep their food in an organized manner in their home. Meals
not eaten were the most common reason food was wasted in the home (30.6%),
followed by fruit (16.3%), and then Yogurt and other dairy items (14.3%).
D. This sample could be representative of English speaking adults 18 and over living
in South East Michigan.
This sample was generalized by households in South East Michigan, in the
counties of Oakland, Wayne, and Macomb.
E. This sample is not generalized to people living outside of Michigan or the United
States, because it was not held for people who do not live in Michigan.
This sample is not generalized by, homeless or those needing food assistance from
the government.

This sample is no generalized by those who have disabilities in their household,

because the survey did not ask or pertain to this data.
2. Bivariate Analysis: Chi-Square
A. The research question for this analysis is: Is there an association between where
food is stored in the home and what is most often thrown out?
The null hypothesis is: There is not an association between where food is stored in
the home and what is most often thrown out.
The alternative hypothesis is: There is an association between where food is
stored in the home and what is most thrown out.
B. In order to answer the research question, a crosstabs was run to determine the chisquare statistic.
C. A chi-square was performed to assess the association between if food is stored in
an organized manner and what items are most often thrown out. There was no
relationship between two variables x2 (7, N=49) = 8.25, p = .32. Therefore, we
will accept the null hypothesis because there is no association between where
food is stored and what is wasted most. Therefore I cannot draw a conclusion
from this chi-square test.
3. Implications
These findings are irrelevant because there is no association between if food is stored in
an organized manner and what is thrown away most. The findings do not suggest
anything so we cannot conclude anything from this data.

Correlation
A. Both variables in this correlation analysis are measured at the interval and ratio
level.
B. Descriptive statistics for the correlation analysis can be seen in Table 2
Table 2: Descriptive: Correlation
n

Mean

SD

Income
The amount that
food waste
bothers
participant

49

48.98

23.82

49

3.18

.81

C. The mean of the participants income was 48.98, which indicates the average
participants income fell between $41,000 and $50,000. The mean of the amount
that food waste bothered the participant was 3.18, which indicates that food waste
bothers the average participant a fair amount.
D. This sample could be representative of English speaking adults 18 and over living
in South East Michigan.
This sample was generalized by households in South East Michigan, in the
counties of Oakland, Wayne, and Macomb.
E. This sample is not generalized to people living outside of Michigan or the United
States, because it was not held for people who do not live in Michigan.
This sample is not generalized by, homeless or those needing food assistance from
the government.
This sample is no generalized by those who have disabilities in their household,
because the survey did not ask or pertain to this data.
Bivariate Analysis: Correlation
A. The research question for this analysis is: Is there a relationship between income
and being bothered by food waste?
The null hypothesis is: There is no relationship between income and being
bothered by food waste.
The alternative hypothesis: There is a relationship between income and being
bothered by food waste.
B. In order to answer the research question, a descriptive was run to determine the
income and how much respondents were bothered by food waste.
C. There was a negative between the two variables, r=-.228, n=49, p=.115.Therefore,
because there was no significant relationship, we will accept the null hypothesis.

Overall, there is a negative correlation between respondents income and whether

or not respondents were bothered by food waste. Therefore we cannot reach a
solid conclusion from this data.
3. Implications
These findings are not relevant because there is no relationship between peoples income
and the amount they are bothered by food waste. The findings do not suggest anything so
we cannot conclude anything from this data.
ANOVA
A. The variables used in this ANOVA analysis are measured at the nominal and ratio
level.
B. Descriptive statistics for the ANOVA analysis can be seen in tables 3 and 4.
Table 3 Descriptive: ANOVA
n(%)
Twice a week or more

12%

Once a week
Every two weeks or less

50%
36%

Table 4
Descriptive:
ANOVA:
N

Mean

SD
Amount Thrown
Away

49

18.37

12.39

C. This data shows that the average respondent throws away 18.4% (18.37) of food
each week. The data also describes that half of all respondents shop once a
week(50%) , and over a third shop less often: every two weeks or more (36%).
D. This sample could be representative of English speaking adults 18 and over living
in South East Michigan.

This sample was generalized by households in South East Michigan, in the

counties of Oakland, Wayne, and Macomb.
E. This sample is not generalized to people living outside of Michigan or the United
States, because it was not held for people who do not live in Michigan.
This sample is not generalized by, homeless or those needing food assistance from
the government.
This sample is no generalized by those who have disabilities in their household,
because the survey did not ask or pertain to this data.
Bivariate Analysis
A. What is the difference between how often someone shops and how much is
thrown away?
Null hypothesis: There is no difference between how often someone shops and
how much is thrown away.
Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between how often someone shops
and how much is thrown away.
B. In order to answer the research question, an analysis of variance was run to
determine the difference between how often someone shops and how much they
throw away each week.
C. A tukey post-hoc test revealed that how often someone shops does not make a
difference in how much food is thrown away at the end of each week. There is no
statistical significance between the groups F (4, 44) =1.123, p = .358. Therefore, I
can accept the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no significant difference
between how often someone shops and how much food they throw away at the
end of the week.
Implications
These findings are not relevant because there is not a difference between how often
someone groceries shops and what amount of food they throw away at the end of each
week. These findings are not relevant because there is no relationship between peoples
income and the amount they are bothered by food waste. The findings do not suggest
anything so we cannot conclude anything from this data.