Dear Habermas Logo A Jeanne Site

Interpreting Fequency Distributions

Statistics Class Online Resources
Statistics Class Page

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Latest update: February 25, 2000
E-Mail Faculty on the Site.

Look again at Table 2, which is on p. 85 of DLBH.

Table 2: Respondents' Religious Preference

Respondents' Religious Preference
. . . . . . Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid Protestant 812 54.1 54.2 54.2
. . . Catholic 393 26.2 26.3 80.5
. . . Jewish 46 3.1 3.1 83.6
. . . None 179 11.9 12.0 95.5
. . . Other 67 4.5 4.5 100.0
. . . Total 1497 99.8 100.0 . . .
Missing DK 1 .1 . . . . . .
. . . NA 2 0.1 . . . . . .
. . . Total 3 0.2 . . . . . .
Total . . . 1500 100.0 . . . . . .

Now be sure that you understand the following interpretation of Table 2.

Table 2 shows that 54.2 % (812) respondents in our sample identified their religious preference as Protestant. 26.3% (393) respondents identify their religious preference as Catholic, and 3.1% (46) respondents as Jewish. Although 80.5% of the sample identifies with a Christian religious preference, a startling 12.0% (179) of respondents identify no religious preference. This is impressive, given the heavy emphasis of the religious right on a return to family values, which traditionally includes identification with a formal religious group. There is no corresponding media campaign against formal religious identification, so that it is surprising that such a relatively large percentage of respondents perceives no such identification.

Now look again at Table 1. Use the interpretation for Table 2 to help you write an interpretation for Table 1:

Table 1: Perceptions of How One Gets Ahead

OPINION OF HOW PEOPLE GET AHEAD
. . . . . . Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid Hard Work 689 45.9 70.6 70.6
. . . Both Equally 165 11.0 16.9 87.5
. . . Luck or Help 116 7.7 11.9 99.4
. . . 9 6 0.4 0.6 100.0
. . . Total 976 65.1 100.0 . . .
Missing NAP 513 34.2 . . . . . .
. . . DK 11 0.7 . . . . . .
. . . Total 524 34.9 . . . . . .
Total . . . 1500 100.0 . . . . . .

You can get this table by choosing Analyze->Descriptive Statistics->Frequencies. Choose the variable, Opinion of How to Get Ahead. Click OK, and wait patiently. The output screen will give you the above table.

One Plausible Interpretation

by Araceli Mark, Statistics, CSUDH

On Friday, February 25, Araceli Mark wrote the following interpretation for Table 1:

Table 1 shows that 70.6%(689) [of the] respondents in the GSS survey believe that hard work is how one gets ahead. 16.9%(165) [of the respondents believe that hard work [supplemented by] luck or help is how one gets ahead, and 11.9%(116) [of the] respondents believe that [it takes] luck or help for a person can get ahead. The[se] results show that many people

Give percent. It's more impressive. Was it 87.5% (give the actual number).
When you have numbers that will impress, give them! Don't hesitate.

. . .believe that hard work is really important in getting ahead. This is not surprising, considering we live in a competitive country where luck or help won't get a person very far.

Using jeanne's comments and Araceli's interpretation, edit the interpretation above for Table 1. Good job, Araceli.

Now I'd like you to consider Araceli's last sentence. Do we really have any data that show that luck and help won't get you very far? What were affirmative action programs designed to do? Try editing that last sentence. Be sure not to conclude more than your data show.