Assume that student volunteers were assigned arbitrarily (according to a coin
toss) either to be trained to meditate or to behave as usual. To determine
whether meditation training (the independent variable) influences GPAs (the
dependent variable), GPAs were calculated for each student at the end of the
one-year experiment, yielding these results for the two groups:
\begin{tabular}{|cccccc|}
\hline \multicolumn{3}{|c} { MEDITATORS } & \multicolumn{3}{c|} {
NONMEDITATORS } \\
3.25 & 2.25 & 2.75 & 3.67 & 3.79 & 3.00 \\
3.56 & 3.33 & 2.25 & 2.50 & 2.75 & 1.90 \\
3.57 & 2.45 & 3.75 & 3.50 & 2.67 & 2.90 \\
2.95 & 3.30 & 3.56 & 2.80 & 2.65 & 2.58 \\
3.56 & 3.78 & 3.75 & 2.83 & 3.10 & 3.37 \\
3.45 & 3.00 & 3.35 & 3.25 & 2.76 & 2.86 \\
3.10 & 2.75 & 3.09 & 2.90 & 2.10 & 2.66 \\
2.58 & 2.95 & 3.56 & 2.34 & 3.20 & 2.67 \\
3.30 & 3.43 & 3.47 & 3.59 & 3.00 & 3.08 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
(a) What is the unit of measurement for these data?
(b) Construct separate frequency distributions for meditators and for
nonmeditators. (First, construct the frequency distribution for the group
having the larger range. Then, to facilitate comparisons, use the same set of
classes for the other frequency distribution.)
(c) Do the two groups tend to differ? (Eventually, tools from inferential
statistics, as described in Part \(2,\) will help you decide whether any
apparent difference between the two groups probably is real or merely
transitory, that is, attributable to variability or chance. See Review
Question 14.15 on page 271 .)