/n collective_efficacy punitiveness 1.333255887 3.841360807 2.81778264 2.75338912 1.843444943 1.848545909 1.341444731 2.065723896 3.657845497 1.629728198 2.982000113 1.498682857 2.843961239 2.396447897 2.790726662 1.717732787 1.619872093 2.947984219 2.304697752 3.646073103 2.153009176 1.569896579 2.613511324 2.712970495 3.579788446 2.718465805 1.079171896 2.96315527

1.193508625 3.976508379 1.950628281 3.310344696 1.573178649 3.558977127 1.105786324 3.937344551 1.363484025 1.682451963 1.709320664 1.614470005 3.94071579 2.641096354 3.524244547 2.517956257 2.648793936 3.096044302 3.927428722 2.182617188 1.341046691 1.980771899 3.824162245 3.667945862 1.208176136 1.150792599 1.668160439 3.238552809 3.479876041 3.567532539 1.589430451 3.750486612 1.567864299 1.61555028 2.373256922 3.717535734 2.105895281 1.612153888 2.82738018 3.252717733 3.116099834 1.422777653 3.48306489 1.594265223 2.248568296 3.86125946 1.87931025 3.764187574 3.234582663 3.800332308 2.73434329 2.721946239 2.205566406 3.799867868 1.775756598 3.698415279 1.798564672 2.834188223 PUNITIVENESS 3.088351965 1.994250059 2.308962345 1.186883926 2.948550463 1.649141788 1.240551353 3.960311413 1.56605804 2.75984621 2.735659838 2.764545679 2.848798037 1.701640129/n person 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 sex 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 race age 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 crime 52 43 22 47 63 31 76 70 37 49 54 68 23 47 61 33 45 34 54 29 56 29 30 21 51 55 78 72 46 42 recidivism custody 1 Minimum 0 Close 0 Close O Close 0 Minimum 1 Medium 1 Medium 0 Close 1 Medium 1 Medium 0 Minimum 0 Minimum 1 Medium 0 Close 0 Medium 0 Close 0 Minimum 0 Minimum 1 Minimum 0 Medium 0 Medium 1 Medium 1 Minimum 0 Medium 0 Medium 1 Medium 1 Medium 0 Medium 0 Medium 0 Medium 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 RECID IVISM/n Gray (2010)- I want you to answer the questions using Table III which is located on page 547. Here is a screenshot Download screenshot of the table. Please do not use any other chi-square tables to answer questions 1-3. Problem behavior Low Marijuana use (lifetime) Recent excessive drinking Medium Arrest Drugs other than marijuana (lifetime) High Recent marijuana use Misdemeanor conviction Theft in previous 12 months Burglary in previous 12 months Sold drugs in previous 12 months Recent other drug use Felony conviction Notes: *p<0.05; **p < 0.01 Policing (n = 171) % 51.5 33.9 11.7 14.0 15.2 9.4 5.3 4.1 4.1 1.2 0.6 Others (n = 703) % 53.3 26 15.1 22.5 15.9 13.7 5.4 2.6 6.5 4.6 1.7 Chi-square 0.20 4.30* 1.30 5.96** 0.05 2.30 0.01 1.16 1.45 4.20* 1.19 Problem behaviors of students 547 Table III. Problem behaviors Dearing et al. (2005)- I want you to answer the questions using Table 3 which is located on page 1399. Here is a screenshot. Please do not use any other correlation tables to answer the questions. If you notice in the screenshot, I put a big red X through part of the table. This is because I only want you to interpret the bivariate correlations. Do not discuss/interpret part correlations in your responses. Table 3 Study 3 relations of shame-proneness and guilt-proneness to alcohol and drug use and problems Problems/use Mean SD Bivariate correlations Rart correlations Shame Guilt Shame Alcohol PAI alcohol problems TCU-CRTF-frequency of use TCU-CRTF-dependence Drug PAI drug problems TCU-CRTF-frequency of use Cocaine Marijuana Polydrug TCU-CRTF-Dependence Cocaine Marijuana 11.40 3.41 .80 14.63 1.78 2.36 1.95 .91 .63 10.02 2.45 1.05 9.91 2.57 2.78 1.99 1.43 1.05 .12* -.02 .17** .21*** .17** -.08 .11* .21*** .14** -.04 -.03 -.06 -.04 .04 -.19*** -.13* .04 -.14** .13 -.01 .18** .22*** .16** -.04 4** .20*** .18*** Guilt -.07 -.03 -.10t -.09 -.00 -.18*** .16** -.01 -.18*** N=307-332. PAI=Personality Assessment Inventory; TCU-CRTF=Texas Christian University Correctional: Residential Treatment Form, Initial Assessment. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001; †=.06. Be sure you are reading the footnote carefully. * is significant at p<.05; ** is significant at p<.01; and *** is significant at p<0.001. Logically, if something is significant at the .01 level then it is also significant at the .05 level. Therefore, make sure you are interpreting all significant correlations, not just those that only significant at .05. 1. Use the Recidivism.xls data, conduct a Chi-Square independence test (alpha= .05) in Excel to determine whether there is a significant relationship between RACE (1=Black, 2=White) and RECIDIVSM (1=the ex-offender recidivated, 0=the ex-offender did not recidivate). Copy and paste the Excel output here. In your summary, please discuss the null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis, the result of this hypothesis test, and interpret the result. 2. Use the Punitiveness.xls data, correlate collective_efficacy (respondents' perceived collective efficacy in their neighborhood) and punitiveness (respondents' support for punitive criminal justice policies) in Excel. Copy and paste the Excel output here. Summarize your results and make sure that you briefly explain what this correlation means to you in terms of the impact of collective efficacy on respondents' support for punitive criminal justice policies (direction of the correlation, correlation coefficient, and test of significance result).