Part 1: Correlated t-Test

In the first correlated t-test, Johnson's and Aveeno, the results were not statistically significant. The second correlated t-test was performed between Aveeno and Vaseline. With a t-ratio of 1.92, results were found to be significant with a preference for Aveeno. The final t-test was performed on Johnson's and Vaseline. With a t-ratio of 1.60, results were found to be significant with a preference for Johnson's. From this we can conclude that out of a sample of 100 from the original sample population, 85 of those samples will prefer Aveeno and Johnson's to Vaseline when presented with those three options.

Overall, Vaseline was the brand that was preferred the least. This sample also displayed equal preference for Johnson's and Aveeno.

Part 2: Between Groups t-Test

Using a sample of 61 respondents 2 between groups t-tests were conducted to determine the whether or not pre- and post-test scores had any significance. What was learned is that in 85 or more samples of every 100 samples chosen from the same population as this sample, we would expect up-movers (people who have a more favorable perception of the brand Vaseline after seeing the Vaseline advertisement than before) to have a more favorable perception of the Vaseline advertisement.

Part 3: Chi-Squared Significance Test

More respondents with above-median brand perceptions (57.1%) had improved brand perceptions after ad exposure than respondents with below-median brand perceptions (42.9%). Also notable is the finding that the majority of down-movers (71.4%) had above-median brand perceptions.

In 85 or more out of every 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample, we would expect to find a cross tabulation distribution with the same proportions as this sample.

Part 4: Frequency Test for Changed Scores

The most favorable pre-to-post scores are for Johnson's body lotion. 39.3% of respondents felt more favorably towards Johnson's body lotion after viewing the advertisements. Another notable change is the number of respondents (24) that felt more negatively towards Aveeno body lotion after viewing the advertisements.

Part 5: Frequencey Test for Brand Preference

In order to establish respondent preference for Aveeno or Johnson's body lotion, a frequency test was run on the difference between brand index scores for each brand. The results found that of the 61 respondents, 33 people preferred Aveeno to Johnson's.

Part 6: Simple Correlation Coefficient

A simple correlation coefficient test was conducted between the brand index scores for Johnson's and Aveeno body lotion to determine if a relationship between preferences for the two products exists. It was found that a very week positive correlation exists for the brands. It is also important to note that this correlation was found to be significant. As a result, if this study was conducted again on the same population from which this sample was taken, we would expect to see the same results.

Part 7: Subset Correlation Coefficient (females)

A simple correlation coefficient test was conducted between the brand index scores for Johnson's and Aveeno body lotion to determine if a relationship between preferences for the two products exists. It was found that a very weak positive correlation exists for the brands. What's interesting about this sample, is that once the males were eliminated from the sample, the correlation decreased and is also no longer significant.

Johnson's, Vaseline, and Aveeno all reveal a low coefficient of multiple determinants, indicating that there is little to no relationship between how respondents rated the brands on the ten Likert items regarding brand attributes and their favorability of the brands as indicated by their pre-post ad exposure change score. The Likert items account for a low percentage of the Explained Variance in the pre-post ad exposure change scores. The result were not found to be significant for any of the brands, therefore, in 85 or more samples of every 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample, we would not expect to find a multiple regression coefficient of the same magnitude for all three brands.

A discriminant analysis was conducted for one brand of body lotion, Vaseline, to determine if a relationship exists between how respondents rated ten brand attributes and their change in preference for the brand post after advertisement exposure. The respondents were split into three groups: up-movers if their perception of the brand improved after exposure to the advertisement, non-movers if their opinion of the brand stayed the same after exposure to the ad, and down-movers if their perception of the brand decreased after exposure to the ad. For the purposes of this analysis, only up-movers and down-movers were analyzed. This move score was used as the dependent variable and 10 different brand attributes (ten likert items) were used as independent variables.

Neither the Wilks’ Lambda nor Chi-Squared were found to be significant in this analysis. This indicates that there is little relationship between how respondents perceived the brand and whether or not they liked the ad or not.  Therefore, the results indicate that in 85 or more samples out of every 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample, we would not expect to find the same results.  Because Wilks’ Lambda is not significant we can also conclude that the Group Centroids, or the mean of the discriminant function scores, are also not significant and cannot be projected to the population.

The Factor Analysis revealed which Likert items are evaluative in nature and related to the most unambiguous Likert item of each group: the “good” item. These items were then taken to compute an attitude score for each respective test brand. These attitude scores did reveal that in this sample, Johnson's is the brand liked most followed by Aveeno and Vaseline. Based on the results from a paired t-test to test for the significance of the mean attitude scores, we can make the statement that in 85 or more out of 100 samples drawn from the same population as this one, we would expect to find the same magnitude of difference between all 3 brands' mean attitude scores.