Presenting the Results of a
Contingency Table Analysis
Verdict x Defendant Physical
Attractiveness
• Mock jurors were significantly more likely to
find the defendant guilty when he was
unattractive (75.7%) than when he was
attractive (65.0%), 2(1, N = 145) = 6.229, p =
.013,  = .207, odds ratio = 2.45, 95% CI [1.20,
4.99].
• Please note that with significant results one
should emphasize the direction of effect.
Nonsignificant Results
• One should NOT mention direction of effect,
unless having tested directional hypotheses.
Direction x Device
• People were significantly more likely to take
the stairs when going down (24.3%) than
when going up (6.1%), 2(1, N = 3,217) =
217.22, p < .001,  = .26, odds ratio = 4.90,
95% CI [3.91, 6.13].
• SPSS gave me an odds ratio of .204 and a CI of
[.163, .256]. I inverted these numbers to get
ratios greater than one.
Figure 1. Device x Weight
18
16
14
Obese
12
10
Overweight
8
Normal
6
4
2
0
% Stairs
• Choice of device was significantly associated
with weight of patron, 2(2, N = 3,217) =
11.752, p = .003,  = .06. As shown in Table 1,
obese individuals used the stairs considerably
less often than did others.
Pairwise Comparisons
• Use of the stairs did not differ significantly
between overweight and normal individuals,
2(1, N = 2,907) = 1.034, p = .31, ,  = .02,
odds ratio = 1.12, 95% CI [0.90, 1.38].
• Individuals of normal weight used the stairs
significantly more often than did obese
individuals, 2(1, N = 2,142) = 9.062, p = .003, ,
 = .065, odds ratio = 1.94, 95% CI [1.25, 3.00].
• SPSS will mess up if you use a dichotomous
predictor that is coded with numbers other than
consecutive integers, such as Weight = 1 (obese)
and 3 (normal). If you declare Weight to be
categorical, SPSS works fine.
• Overweight individuals used the stairs
significantly more often than did obese
individuals, 2(1, N = 1,385) = 11.815, p = .001, 
= .092, odds ratio = 2.16, 95% CI [1.38, 3.38].