统计专业实验期末报告.doc

重庆工商大学数学与统计学院统计专业实验课程实验报告 实验课程：城镇居民生活满意度及 其影响因素分析 指导教师： _叶 勇_ 专业班级： 09级统计一班_ 学生姓名： 宋可君 吴锦洪 舒金晶_学生学号： 2009102121 2009101111 2009101129 摘要：为了研究被调查者的收入和学历对其生活满意度评价的影响，对居民现阶段的生活满意度评价情况进行了相关调查。调查采用网络在线调查和电子邮件调查相结合的方式，考虑到分析目的和网络调查的局限性，调查对象限定为年满18周岁以上，具有个人收入的城镇居民。在确定调查内容时选择了最重要的5个项目：年龄、性别、年收入水平（2万以下/24万/46万/68万/8万以上）、文化程度（初中及以下/高中/大专/大学/研究生）、生活满意度（满意/态度中立/不满意）。本文主要采用了年收入水平、文化程度和满意度这三个项目进行分析，进行了影响因素分析，找出主要因素，然后做了相应的影响的模型。主要工具使用了SPSS做分析。关键字：生活满意度、影响因素、广义Logit模型报告分工：吴锦洪：利用SPSS、EXCEL整理分析数据，整理、编写报告;宋可君：模型建立与评价，整理、编写报告;舒金晶：总结实验成果，编写报告；1. 生活满意度的概念和研究目的：生活满意度是个人生活的综合认知判断,主要是个体生活的一个总体的概括认识和评价。作为一个认知因素,它常被看成是主观幸福感的关键指标,是对快乐的补充,是主观幸福感的一种更有效的衡量标准。目前,国内外学者对生活满意度已经形成了一个比较一致的看法:生活满意度是个人依照自己选择的标准对自己大部分时间或持续一定时期生活状况的总体性认知评估,它是衡量某一社会人们生活质量的重要参数。本文将对影响生活满意度的因素做分析并建立了模型。从客观数据的角度对生活满意度进行了一个全新的认识。2.分析过程及评价结果2.1频数分析SPSS软件基本操作过程：（1）选择菜单AnalyzeDescriptive StatisticsFrequencies；分别选择变量“性别”“年收入水平”“文化程度”“满意度”到Variable框中；单击“Charts”,分别选择BarChart；（2）选择菜单AnalyzeDescriptive StatisticsFrequencies；分别选择变量“年收入水平”“满意度”和“文化程度”“满意度”到Variable框中；单击“Charts”,分别选择BarChart；结果如下：Statistics年收入水平文化程度性别满意度NValid6400640064006400Missing0000年收入水平FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValid2.5万以下117418.318.318.32.5万-238837.337.355.75.0万-112017.517.573.27.5万及以上171826.826.8100.0Total6400100.0100.0文化程度FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValid初中及以下139021.721.721.7高中193630.230.252.0大专136021.221.273.2大学135521.221.294.4研究生3595.65.6100.0Total6400100.0100.0性别FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValid女性317949.749.749.7男性322150.350.3100.0Total6400100.0100.0满意度FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValid满意263041.141.141.1态度中立139321.821.862.9不满意237737.137.1100.0Total6400100.0100.0结果分析：本文采用的6400个样本数据进行分析，调查中年收入水平中在2.5万到5万的人数最多占37.3%，其次是7.5万以上占26.8%。文化程度中高中占比例最大，为30.2%，初中一初中以下、大专和大学所占比例大致相同大概都是21%。性别比例中男女比例大致相等，对满意度的影响较小，为了简便，我们将性别影响剔除，本文只对文化程度和年收入水平对生活满意度的影响进行分析。而在满意度调查中，接近一半的人是满意，约占41.1%，过三分之一的人不满意，约占37.1%，态度中立的占21.8%。2.2列联表分析在SPSS软件中，选择analyze Descriptive Statisticscrosstabs；分别选择年收入水平、文化程度、满意度到变量框中，得到的结果如下：年收入水平*满意度Crosstab满意度Total满意态度中立不满意年收入水平2.5万以下Count2582506661174% within 年收入水平22.0%21.3%56.7%100.0% within 满意度9.8%17.9%28.0%18.3% of Total4.0%3.9%10.4%18.3%2.5万-Count78154210652388% within 年收入水平32.7%22.7%44.6%100.0% within 满意度29.7%38.9%44.8%37.3% of Total12.2%8.5%16.6%37.3%5.0万-Count5072613521120% within 年收入水平45.3%23.3%31.4%100.0% within 满意度19.3%18.7%14.8%17.5% of Total7.9%4.1%5.5%17.5%7.5万及以上Count10843402941718% within 年收入水平63.1%19.8%17.1%100.0% within 满意度41.2%24.4%12.4%26.8% of Total16.9%5.3%4.6%26.8%TotalCount2630139323776400% within 年收入水平41.1%21.8%37.1%100.0% within 满意度100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% of Total41.1%21.8%37.1%100.0%Chi-Square TestsValuedfAsymp. Sig. (2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square7.102E2a6.000Likelihood Ratio734.3346.000Linear-by-Linear Association700.6601.000N of Valid Cases6400a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 243.78.分析：根据SPSS输出的表格和图形，可以明显看出，年收入在7.5万及以上的满意度最高，不满意的比例最低；其次是收入在2.5-5万之间的满意度较高，但同时态度中立，不满意的比例也最高；5-7.5万之间的居民满意度超过不满意人数，而收入在2.5万及以下的居民不满意远超过满意人数。所以我们认为，收入较高，其生活满意度也比较高。再通过卡方检验得出的检验结果，概率p值小于0.05，应拒绝零假设，则认为年收入水平和满意度之间具有线性相关性。文化程度*满意度Crosstab满意度Total满意态度中立不满意文化程度初中及以下Count6842914151390% within 文化程度49.2%20.9%29.9%100.0% within 满意度26.0%20.9%17.5%21.7% of Total10.7%4.5%6.5%21.7%高中Count8314266791936% within 文化程度42.9%22.0%35.1%100.0% within 满意度31.6%30.6%28.6%30.2% of Total13.0%6.7%10.6%30.2%大专Count5103125381360% within 文化程度37.5%22.9%39.6%100.0% within 满意度19.4%22.4%22.6%21.2% of Total8.0%4.9%8.4%21.2%大学Count4772835951355% within 文化程度35.2%20.9%43.9%100.0% within 满意度18.1%20.3%25.0%21.2% of Total7.5%4.4%9.3%21.2%研究生Count12881150359% within 文化程度35.7%22.6%41.8%100.0% within 满意度4.9%5.8%6.3%5.6% of Total2.0%1.3%2.3%5.6%TotalCount2630139323776400% within 文化程度41.1%21.8%37.1%100.0% within 满意度100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% of Total41.1%21.8%37.1%100.0%Chi-Square TestsValuedfAsymp. Sig. (2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square87.133a8.000Likelihood Ratio87.0378.000Linear-by-Linear Association77.8161.000N of Valid Cases6400a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 78.14.分析：从表格和图形中可以看到，文化程度为高中的居民满意度最高，其次是初中文化，大专，大学，最少的是研究生文化的居民满意度最低；尤其是初中以及下文化的居民满意度远超过不满意人数；由此，可以认为文化程度越高，其生活满意度却更低。由SPSS做出来的线性相关卡方检验结果可知，概率p值小于0.05，应拒绝零假设，则认为文化程度与满意度之间具有线性相关性。2.2交叉分组下的频数分析（3变量）（1）选择菜单AnalyzeDescriptive StatisticsCrosstabs（2）选择变量“文化程度”“年收入水平”“满意度”到对应的框中；（3）在“Cells”“Format”“Statistics”框中，选择需要的基本描述变量；结果如下：年收入水平 * 满意度 * 文化程度 Crosstabulation文化程度满意度Total满意态度中立不满意初中及以下年收入水平2.5万以下Count8874160322% within 年收入水平27.3%23.0%49.7%100.0% within 满意度12.9%25.4%38.6%23.2% of Total6.3%5.3%11.5%23.2%2.5万-Count229124184537% within 年收入水平42.6%23.1%34.3%100.0% within 满意度33.5%42.6%44.3%38.6% of Total16.5%8.9%13.2%38.6%5.0万-Count1424141224% within 年收入水平63.4%18.3%18.3%100.0% within 满意度20.8%14.1%9.9%16.1% of Total10.2%2.9%2.9%16.1%7.5万及以上Count2255230307% within 年收入水平73.3%16.9%9.8%100.0% within 满意度32.9%17.9%7.2%22.1% of Total16.2%3.7%2.2%22.1%TotalCount6842914151390% within 年收入水平49.2%20.9%29.9%100.0% within 满意度100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% of Total49.2%20.9%29.9%100.0%高中年收入水平2.5万以下Count9574209378% within 年收入水平25.1%19.6%55.3%100.0% within 满意度11.4%17.4%30.8%19.5% of Total4.9%3.8%10.8%19.5%2.5万-Count251170309730% within 年收入水平34.4%23.3%42.3%100.0% within 满意度30.2%39.9%45.5%37.7% of Total13.0%8.8%16.0%37.7%5.0万-Count1498790326% within 年收入水平45.7%26.7%27.6%100.0% within 满意度17.9%20.4%13.3%16.8% of Total7.7%4.5%4.6%16.8%7.5万及以上Count3369571502% within 年收入水平66.9%18.9%14.1%100.0% within 满意度40.4%22.3%10.5%25.9% of Total17.4%4.9%3.7%25.9%TotalCount8314266791936% within 年收入水平42.9%22.0%35.1%100.0% within 满意度100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% of Total42.9%22.0%35.1%100.0%大专年收入水平2.5万以下Count4155145241% within 年收入水平17.0%22.8%60.2%100.0% within 满意度8.0%17.6%27.0%17.7% of Total3.0%4.0%10.7%17.7%2.5万-Count140124247511% within 年收入水平27.4%24.3%48.3%100.0% within 满意度27.5%39.7%45.9%37.6% of Total10.3%9.1%18.2%37.6%5.0万-Count986090248% within 年收入水平39.5%24.2%36.3%100.0% within 满意度19.2%19.2%16.7%18.2% of Total7.2%4.4%6.6%18.2%7.5万及以上Count2317356360% within 年收入水平64.2%20.3%15.6%100.0% within 满意度45.3%23.4%10.4%26.5% of Total17.0%5.4%4.1%26.5%TotalCount5103125381360% within 年收入水平37.5%22.9%39.6%100.0% within 满意度100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% of Total37.5%22.9%39.6%100.0%大学年收入水平2.5万以下Count2542129196% within 年收入水平12.8%21.4%65.8%100.0% within 满意度5.2%14.8%21.7%14.5% of Total1.8%3.1%9.5%14.5%2.5万-Coun within 年收入水平26.9%19.8%53.3%100.0% within 满意度27.7%34.3%43.9%36.2% of Total9.7%7.2%19.3%36.2%5.0万-Count9660103259% within 年收入水平37.1%23.2%39.8%100.0% within 满意度20.1%21.2%17.3%19.1% of Total7.1%4.4%7.6%19.1%7.5万及以上Count22484102410% within 年收入水平54.6%20.5%24.9%100.0% within 满意度47.0%29.7%17.1%30.3% of Total16.5%6.2%7.5%30.3%TotalCount4772835951355% within 年收入水平35.2%20.9%43.9%100.0% within 满意度100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% of Total35.2%20.9%43.9%100.0%研究生年收入水平2.5万以下Count952337% within 年收入水平24.3%13.5%62.2%100.0% within 满意度7.0%6.2%15.3%10.3% of Total2.5%1.4%6.4%10.3%2.5万-Count292764120% within 年收入水平24.2%22.5%53.3%100.0% within 满意度22.7%33.3%42.7%33.4% of Total8.1%7.5%17.8%33.4%5.0万-Count22132863% within 年收入水平34.9%20.6%44.4%100.0% within 满意度17.2%16.0%18.7%17.5% of Total6.1%3.6%7.8%17.5%7.5万及以上Count683635139% within 年收入水平48.9%25.9%25.2%100.0% within 满意度53.1%44.4%23.3%38.7% of Total18.9%10.0%9.7%38.7%TotalCount12881150359% within 年收入水平35.7%22.6%41.8%100.0% within 满意度100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% of Total35.7%22.6%41.8%100.0%分组计算：（1）将年收入水平和学历转化为间距型数据：年收入水平根据各组的组中值，将“2.5万以下”“2.55万”“57.5万”“7.5万以上”转化为“1.25万”“3.75万”“6.25万”“8.75万”；文化程度根据受教育年限，分别转化为“9年”“12年”“15年”“16年”“18年”；（2）根据3.1.2中的列联表，结合上述的收入，学历转化结果，分成了20个组；（3） 分别计算每个组的满意，不满意，态度中立人数的比例，为p1,p2,p3；数据处理结果如下：序号年收入（万元）受教育年限（年）满意中立不满意总人数P1P2P3logp1/p3Logp2/p311.25988741603220.2730.230.4970.5492960.46277723.7592291241845370.4260.230.3431.2419830.67346936.25914241412240.6340.180.1833.464481148.75922552303070.7330.170.0987.4795921.7244951.251295742093780.2510.20.5530.4538880.3544363.75122511703097300.3440.230.4230.8132390.55082776.251214987903260.4570.270.2761.6557970.96739188.751233695715020.6690.190.1414.7446811.34042691.251541551452410.170.230.6020.2823920.378738103.75151401242475110.2740.240.4830.5672880.503106116.25159860902480.3950.240.3631.0881540.666667128.751523173563600.6420.20.1564.1153851.301282131.251625421291960.1280.210.6580.1945290.325228143.7516132972614900.2690.20.5330.504690.371482156.251696601032590.3710.230.3980.9321610.582915168.7516224841024100.5460.210.2492.1927710.823293171.25189523370.2430.140.6220.3906750.217042183.75182927641200.2420.230.5330.4540340.422139196.2518221328630.3490.210.4440.7860360.463964208.75186836351390.4890.260.2521.9404761.0277783.1模型建立及分析（1）设居民对生活满意度评价为满意、态度中立、不满意的概率分别为p1,p2,p3，以对生活不满意P3为参照水平，计算logP1/P3，logp2/p3；（2）选择菜单AnalyzeRegressionLinear；（2）分别选择被解释变量（logP1/P3）（logp2/p3）和解释变量（年收入，受教育年限）到对应框中；（3）在Method框中，选择Enter方法；在Statistics框中，选择Estimates、Model fit、Covariancematrix、Collinearity diagnostics选项；在Plots框中，选择ZRESED到Y框，ZPRED到X框，再选择Histogram和Normal plot； 在save框中，选择Unstandardized;结果如下：logP1/P3和年收入，受教育年限结果：Model SummaryModelRR SquareAdjusted R SquareStd. Error of the Estimate1.852.725.6931.047385394711085a Predictors: (Constant), b Dependent Variable: logp1/p3ANOVAModel Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.1Regression49.200224.60022.425.000 Residual18.649171.097 Total67.85019 a Predictors: (Constant), b Dependent Variable: logp1/p3Coefficients Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized CoefficientstSig.Collinearity Statistics Model BStd. ErrorBeta ToleranceVIF1(Constant)2.8581.143 2.502.023 年收入（万元）.481.084.7305.743.0001.0001.000 受教育年限（年）-.255.074-.438-3.445.0031.0001.000a Dependent Variable: logp1/p3Residuals Statistics MinimumMaximumMeanStd. DeviationNPredicted Value-1.132486939430244.772769451141361.692577336555131.60919058496664920Residual-1.148553490638732.70682239532471.00000000000000.99072739906541820Std. Predicted Value-1.7561.914.0001.00020Std. Residual-1.0972.584.000.94620a Dependent Variable: logp1/p3分析：图一：被解释变量和解释变量的壳决性系数为0.725，修正过的可决性系数为0.693，回归方程的估计标准误差为1.0473853。该方程有2个解释变量，调整的判定系数为0.693，所以拟合优度一般，被解释变量可以被变量解释的部分也一般。图二：被解释变量的总离差平方TSS和为67.850，回归平方和ESS以及均方分别为49.200和24.600，剩余平方和RSS及均方分别为18.649和1.097，F检验统计量的观测值为22.425，对应的p值近似为0。假设显著性水平a为0.05，由于p值小于0.05,所以拒绝回归方程显著性检验的零假设，认为各回归系数不同时为0，因变量和变量全体的线性关系是显著的，可建立线性模型。从F值来看，认为整个模型在显著性水平为0.05的情况下，也是显著的。图三：年收入水平和文化程度的偏回归系数分别为.481、-.255，回归系数显著性检验中t统计量的观测值分别为5.743、-3.445，在显著性条件为0.05的情况下，|t|1.729,所以这两个变量系数都是显著的。解释变量的容忍度和方差膨胀因子都是分别为1，都是在允许范围内。图四：是被解释变量的预测值，残差等等。由上可以看出，如果显著性水平a为0.05，几乎所有变量的回归系数显著性t检验的概率p值都小于显著性水平，因此拒绝零假设，认为这些偏回归系数与0有显著差异，它们与被解释变量的线性关系是显著的，应该保留在方程中。同时，从容忍度和方差膨胀因子来看，VIF值为1，小于10。说明解释变量间不存在多重共线性，可以建模。Model SummaryModelRR SquareAdjusted R SquareStd. Error of the Estimate1.928.861.844.15871640896434a Predictors: (Constant), b Dependent Variable: logp2/p3ANOVAModel Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.1Regression2.64621.32352.517.000 Residual.42817.025 Total3.07419 a Predictors: (Constant), b Dependent Variable: logp2/p3Coefficients Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized CoefficientstSig.Collinearity Statistics Model BStd. ErrorBeta ToleranceVIF1(Constant).835.173 4.820.000 年收入（万元）.117.013.8339.197.0001.0001.000 受教育年限（年）-5.075E-02.011-.409-4.522.0001.0001.000a Dependent Variable: logp2/p3Residuals Statistics MinimumMaximumMeanStd. DeviationNPredicted Value.06694965064531.3995472192764.7078721298474.3731734747834020Residual-.2209860980511.3249426186085.0000000000000.1501306929008820Std. Predicted Value-1.7171.853.0001.00020Std. Residual-1.3922.047.000.94620a Dependent Variable: logp2/p3分析：图一：被解释变量和解释变量的壳决性系数为.861，修正过的可决性系