1.5 Practice Exercises - No Solutions (5) - Saved to this PC Layout References Mailings Review View Help Search (d) Use an applet to simulate 1,000 repetitions of this study, assuming the null hypothesis to be trur Sketch a labeled graph of the results. (Utts reported that Bem and Honorton found a total of 106 "hits" in the 329 sessions. Does this result provide very strong evidence against the null hypothesis? Use the simulation that you carried out in part (d) to find and report a p value. Based on this p value, summarize your conclusion in the context of this study and explain your reasoning for having arrived at this conclusion. Be sure that you have used the 3 strategy for assessing the strength of evidence for the research conjecture. (t)Now carry out the same analysis, only instead of simulating the null, use the theory-based (norma approximation) approach for that null distribution. How does the p-value you found using the theory-based approach compare to the one you found using simulation? Does this surprise you? Why or why not? 1.5.14 In the same research article, Utts (1995) also cites research from Morris et al. (1995) where out of 97 Ganzfeld sessions, the receiver could correctly identify the image sent 32 times. You would like to know whether these data provide evidence that in Ganzfeld studies receivers will do better than just guess when picking which image is being sent (a) Find the sample proportion of "hits" in Morris et als study. How does this compare to the sample proportion of "hits" in Bem and Honorton's study: larger, smaller, or about the same? (b) Conjecture whether the p-value for Morris et als study results will be larger, smaller, or about the same compared to that of Bem and Honortons Explain your reasoning (e) Lise simulation to find and report a p-value. Based on this p-value, summarize your conclusion in the context of this study and explain your reasoning for having arrived at this conclusion (d) Now carry out the same analysis, only instead of simulating the null use the theory-based (normal approximation) approach for that null distribution. How does the p-value you found using the theory based approach compare to the one you found using simulation? Does this surprise you? Why or why not? 1.5 Practice Exercises - No Solutions (5) - Saved to this PC Layout References Mailings Review View Help Search (d) Use an applet to simulate 1,000 repetitions of this study, assuming the null hypothesis to be trur Sketch a labeled graph of the results. (Utts reported that Bem and Honorton found a total of 106 "hits" in the 329 sessions. Does this result provide very strong evidence against the null hypothesis? Use the simulation that you carried out in part (d) to find and report a p value. Based on this p value, summarize your conclusion in the context of this study and explain your reasoning for having arrived at this conclusion. Be sure that you have used the 3 strategy for assessing the strength of evidence for the research conjecture. (t)Now carry out the same analysis, only instead of simulating the null, use the theory-based (norma approximation) approach for that null distribution. How does the p-value you found using the theory-based approach compare to the one you found using simulation? Does this surprise you? Why or why not? 1.5.14 In the same research article, Utts (1995) also cites research from Morris et al. (1995) where out of 97 Ganzfeld sessions, the receiver could correctly identify the image sent 32 times. You would like to know whether these data provide evidence that in Ganzfeld studies receivers will do better than just guess when picking which image is being sent (a) Find the sample proportion of "hits" in Morris et als study. How does this compare to the sample proportion of "hits" in Bem and Honorton's study: larger, smaller, or about the same? (b) Conjecture whether the p-value for Morris et als study results will be larger, smaller, or about the same compared to that of Bem and Honortons Explain your reasoning (e) Lise simulation to find and report a p-value. Based on this p-value, summarize your conclusion in the context of this study and explain your reasoning for having arrived at this conclusion (d) Now carry out the same analysis, only instead of simulating the null use the theory-based (normal approximation) approach for that null distribution. How does the p-value you found using the theory based approach compare to the one you found using simulation? Does this surprise you? Why or why not