1.

a.
BEFORE, AFTER 4 WEEKS
Step 1
Null hypothesis (Ho): The new brands of margarine are not effective in reducing cholesterol level after 4
weeks.
Alternative hypothesis (Ha): The new brands of margarine are effective in reducing cholesterol level after 4
weeks.

Step 2

Hypothesis Test Summary

Null Hypothesis Test Sig.a,b Decision

1 The median of differences between Related-Samples Wilcoxon .000 Reject the null hypothesis.
Before and After 4 weeks equals 0. Signed Rank Test
a. The significance level is .050.
b. Asymptotic significance is displayed.

Related-Samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test

Before, After 4 weeks

Related-Samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test

Summary
Step 3 (Decision)
Total N 18
Reject the null hypothesis.
Test Statistic .000
Standard Error 22.956
Standardized Test Statistic -3.724 Step 4 (Conclusion)
Asymptotic Sig.(2-sided test) .000
Since the p-value (.000) is less than .05, we reject the
null hypothesis. The new brands of margarine (A and B) are effective in reducing cholesterol level after 4
weeks.
BEFORE, AFTER 8 WEEKS
Step 1
Null hypothesis (Ho): The new brands of margarine are not effective in reducing cholesterol level after 8
weeks.
Alternative hypothesis (Ha): The new brands of margarine are effective in reducing cholesterol level after 8
weeks.

Step 2

Hypothesis Test Summary

Null Hypothesis Test Sig.a,b Decision

1 The median of differences between Related-Samples Wilcoxon .000 Reject the null hypothesis.
Before and After 8 weeks equals 0. Signed Rank Test
a. The significance level is .050.

b. Asymptotic significance is displayed.

Related-Samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test

Before, After 8 weeks

Related-Samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test

Summary

Total N 18
Test Statistic .000
Standard Error 22.956
Standardized Test Statistic -3.724
Asymptotic Sig.(2-sided test) .000

Step 3 (Decision)
Reject the null hypothesis.

Step 4 (Conclusion)
Since the p-value (.000) is less than .05, we reject the null hypothesis. The new brands of margarine (A and B)
are effective in reducing cholesterol level after 8 weeks.
b.
Step 1
Null hypothesis (Ho): The 2 brands (A and B) of margarine are both effective in reducing cholesterol level.
Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Brand A is more effective in reducing cholesterol level than Brand B, or vice versa.

Step 2

Hypothesis Test Summary

Null Hypothesis Test Sig.a,b Decision

1 The distribution of Difference is the same Independent-Samples Mann- .050 Retain the null hypothesis.
c

across categories of Margarine. Whitney U Test

a. The significance level is .050.
b. Asymptotic significance is displayed.
c. Exact significance is displayed for this test.

Independent-Samples Mann-Whitney U Test

Difference across Margarine

Independent-Samples Mann-Whitney U Test

Summary

Total N 18
Mann-Whitney U 62.500
Wilcoxon W 107.500
Test Statistic 62.500
Standard Error 11.313
Standardized Test Statistic 1.945
Asymptotic Sig.(2-sided test) .052
Exact Sig.(2-sided test) .050

Step 3 (Decision)
Fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Step 4 (Conclusion)
Since the p-value (.050) is not less than .05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. The 2 brands of margarine are
both effective in reducing cholesterol level. There is no significant difference between the effectivity of Brand A
and Brand B.
2.
PRICE SATISFACTION
Step 1
Null hypothesis (Ho): The level of price satisfaction among the 4 grocery stores are the same.
Alternative hypothesis (Ha): The level of price satisfaction among the 4 grocery stores are not the same.

Step 2

Hypothesis Test Summary

Null Hypothesis Test Sig.a,b Decision

1 The distribution of Store is the same Independent-Samples .992 Retain the null hypothesis.
across categories of Price satisfaction. Kruskal-Wallis Test
a. The significance level is .050.
b. Asymptotic significance is displayed.

Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test

Store across Price satisfaction

Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test

Summary

Total N 582
Test Statistic .263a,b
Degree Of Freedom 4
Asymptotic Sig.(2-sided test) .992
a. The test statistic is adjusted for ties.
b. Multiple comparisons are not performed because the overall
test does not show significant differences across samples.

Step 3 (Decision)
Fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Step 4 (Conclusion)
Since the p-value (.992) is not less than .05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. The level of price satisfaction
among the 4 grocery stores are the same or has no significant difference.
SERVICE SATISFACTION
Step 1
Null hypothesis (Ho): The level of service satisfaction among the 4 grocery stores are the same.
Alternative hypothesis (Ha): The level of service satisfaction among the 4 grocery stores are not the same.

Step 2

Hypothesis Test Summary

Null Hypothesis Test Sig.a,b Decision

1 The distribution of Store is the same Independent-Samples .536 Retain the null hypothesis.
across categories of Service satisfaction. Kruskal-Wallis Test
a. The significance level is .050.
b. Asymptotic significance is displayed.

Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test

Store across Service satisfaction

Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test

Summary

Total N 582
Test Statistic 3.131a,b
Degree Of Freedom 4
Asymptotic Sig.(2-sided test) .536
a. The test statistic is adjusted for ties.
b. Multiple comparisons are not performed because the overall
test does not show significant differences across samples.

Step 3 (Decision)
Fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Step 4 (Conclusion)
Since the p-value (.536) is not less than .05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. There is no significant
difference on the level of service satisfaction among the 4 grocery stores.
ITEM QUALITY SATISFACTION
Step 1
Null hypothesis (Ho): The level of item quality satisfaction among the 4 grocery stores are the same.
Alternative hypothesis (Ha): The level of item quality satisfaction among the 4 grocery stores are not the same.

Step 2

Hypothesis Test Summary

Null Hypothesis Test Sig.a,b Decision

1 The distribution of Store is the same Independent-Samples .775 Retain the null hypothesis.
across categories of Item quality Kruskal-Wallis Test
satisfaction.
a. The significance level is .050.
b. Asymptotic significance is displayed.

Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test

Store across Item quality satisfaction

Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test

Summary

Total N 582
Test Statistic 1.787a,b
Degree Of Freedom 4
Asymptotic Sig.(2-sided test) .775
a. The test statistic is adjusted for ties.
b. Multiple comparisons are not performed because the overall
test does not show significant differences across samples.

Step 3 (Decision)
Fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Step 4 (Conclusion)
Since the p-value (.775) is not less than .05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. The level of item quality
satisfaction among the 4 grocery stores are the same.
3.
Step 1
Null hypothesis (Ho): The customer’s mode of payment is independent on the price of meal they have ordered.
Alternative hypothesis (Ha): The customer’s mode of payment is dependent on the price of meal they have
ordered.

Step 2

Price of meal * Mode of payment Crosstabulation

Count
Mode of payment
Cash Credit Card Club Card Total
Price of meal Less than 1000 200 130 70 400
1000 - < 2000 220 180 100 500
2000 - < 3000 190 130 80 400
More than 3000 120 30 20 170
Total 730 470 270 1470

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 37.627a 6 .000
Likelihood Ratio 38.609 6 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 6.634 1 .010
N of Valid Cases 1470
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 31.22.

Step 3 (Decision)
Reject the null hypothesis.

Step 4 (Conclusion)
Since the p-value (.000) is less than .05, we reject the null hypothesis. The customer’s mode of payment is
dependent on the price of meal they have ordered.
4.
a. MODE OF PAYMENT
Step 1
Null hypothesis (Ho): The consumer’s price satisfaction is independent on the mode of payment.
Alternative hypothesis (Ha): The consumer’s price satisfaction is dependent on the mode of payment.

Step 2
Method of payment * Price satisfaction

Crosstab
Count
Price satisfaction
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Negative Negative Neutral Positive Positive Total
Method of Cash 7 13 17 11 5 53
payment Check 12 6 13 19 7 57
Credit card 33 58 58 57 37 243
Debit card 9 30 28 32 13 112
Store card 11 28 24 26 28 117
Total 72 135 140 145 90 582

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 24.386a 16 .081
Likelihood Ratio 24.375 16 .082
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.730 1 .053
N of Valid Cases 582
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.56.

Step 3 (Decision)
Fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Step 4 (Conclusion)
Since the p-value (.081) is not less than .05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. The consumer’s price
satisfaction is independent on the mode of payment.
Step 1
Null hypothesis (Ho): The consumer’s service satisfaction is independent on the mode of payment.
Alternative hypothesis (Ha): The consumer’s service satisfaction is dependent on the mode of payment.

Step 2
Method of payment * Service satisfaction

Crosstab
Count
Service satisfaction
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Negative Negative Neutral Positive Positive Total
Method of Cash 9 5 19 9 11 53
payment Check 11 15 12 10 9 57
Credit card 36 49 71 45 42 243
Debit card 20 17 27 21 27 112
Store card 17 19 28 27 26 117
Total 93 105 157 112 115 582

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 14.050 a
16 .595
Likelihood Ratio 14.102 16 .591
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.550 1 .213
N of Valid Cases 582
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.47.

Step 3 (Decision)
Fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Step 4 (Conclusion)
Since the p-value (.595) is not less than .05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. The consumer’s service
satisfaction is independent on the mode of payment.
Step 1
Null hypothesis (Ho): The consumer’s item quality satisfaction is independent on the mode of payment.
Alternative hypothesis (Ha): The consumer’s item quality satisfaction is dependent on the mode of payment.

Step 2
Method of payment * Item quality satisfaction

Crosstab
Count
Item quality satisfaction
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Negative Negative Neutral Positive Positive Total
Method of Cash 11 11 11 7 13 53
payment Check 11 9 12 7 18 57
Credit card 42 61 44 49 47 243
Debit card 15 19 26 33 19 112
Store card 10 21 21 30 35 117
Total 89 121 114 126 132 582

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 27.295 a
16 .038
Likelihood Ratio 27.867 16 .033
Linear-by-Linear Association 6.493 1 .011
N of Valid Cases 582
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.10.

Step 3 (Decision)
Reject the null hypothesis.

Step 4 (Conclusion)
Since the p-value (.038) is less than .05, we reject the null hypothesis. The consumer’s item quality satisfaction
is dependent on the mode of payment.
b. SHOPPING FREQUENCY
Step 1
Null hypothesis (Ho): The consumer’s price satisfaction is independent on the shopping frequency.
Alternative hypothesis (Ha): The consumer’s price satisfaction is dependent on the shopping frequency.

Step 2
Shopping frequency * Price satisfaction

Crosstab
Count
Price satisfaction
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Negative Negative Neutral Positive Positive Total
Shopping First time 13 11 14 7 7 52
frequency < 1/month 24 38 41 39 11 153
1/month 22 55 42 51 31 201
1/week 10 25 36 40 31 142
> 1/week 3 6 7 8 10 34
Total 72 135 140 145 90 582

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 36.212 a
16 .003
Likelihood Ratio 36.274 16 .003
Linear-by-Linear Association 22.179 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 582
a. 1 cells (4.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.21.

Step 3 (Decision)
Reject the null hypothesis.

Step 4 (Conclusion)
Since the p-value (.003) is less than .05, we reject the null hypothesis. The consumer’s price satisfaction is
dependent on the shopping frequency.
Step 1
Null hypothesis (Ho): The consumer’s service satisfaction is independent on the shopping frequency.
Alternative hypothesis (Ha): The consumer’s service satisfaction is dependent on the shopping frequency.

Step 2
Shopping frequency * Service satisfaction

Crosstab
Count
Service satisfaction
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Negative Negative Neutral Positive Positive Total
Shopping First time 10 15 13 6 8 52
frequency < 1/month 26 34 38 27 28 153
1/month 37 28 61 40 35 201
1/week 15 24 38 31 34 142
> 1/week 5 4 7 8 10 34
Total 93 105 157 112 115 582

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 19.860 a
16 .227
Likelihood Ratio 19.838 16 .228
Linear-by-Linear Association 9.861 1 .002
N of Valid Cases 582
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.43.

Step 3 (Decision)
Fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Step 4 (Conclusion)
Since the p-value (.227) is not less than .05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. The consumer’s service
satisfaction is independent on the shopping frequency.
Step 1
Null hypothesis (Ho): The consumer’s item quality satisfaction is independent on the shopping frequency.
Alternative hypothesis (Ha): The consumer’s item quality satisfaction is dependent on the shopping frequency.

Step 2
Shopping frequency * Item quality satisfaction

Crosstab
Count
Item quality satisfaction
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Negative Negative Neutral Positive Positive Total
Shopping First time 10 15 9 10 8 52
frequency < 1/month 32 36 25 31 29 153
1/month 33 40 40 40 48 201
1/week 12 25 28 43 34 142
> 1/week 2 5 12 2 13 34
Total 89 121 114 126 132 582

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 34.342 a
16 .005
Likelihood Ratio 35.221 16 .004
Linear-by-Linear Association 15.227 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 582
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.20.

Step 3 (Decision)
Reject the null hypothesis.

Step 4 (Conclusion)
Since the p-value (.005) is less than .05, we reject the null hypothesis. The consumer’s item quality satisfaction
is dependent on the shopping frequency.
5.
a. PRICE SATISFACTION AND SERVICE SATISFACTION

Correlations
Price Service
satisfaction satisfaction
Spearman's rho Price satisfaction Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .583**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000
N 582 582
Service satisfaction Correlation Coefficient .583 **
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .
N 582 582
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The computed spearman rho correlation coefficient is .583. This indicates that there is a moderate positive
correlation between the price satisfaction and service satisfaction.

b. SERVICE SATISFACTION AND ITEM QUALITY SATISFACTION

Correlations
Service Item quality
satisfaction satisfaction
Spearman's rho Service satisfaction Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .425**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000
N 582 582
Item quality satisfaction Correlation Coefficient .425 **
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .
N 582 582
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The computed spearman rho correlation coefficient is .425. This indicates that there is a moderate positive
correlation between the service satisfaction and item quality satisfaction.
c. PRICE SATISFACTION AND ITEM QUALITY SATISFACTION

Correlations
Price Item quality
satisfaction satisfaction
Spearman's rho Price satisfaction Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .503**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000
N 582 582
Item quality satisfaction Correlation Coefficient .503** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .
N 582 582
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The computed spearman rho correlation coefficient is .503. This indicates that there is a moderate positive
correlation between the price satisfaction and item quality satisfaction.