# Interpreting signficantly different means?

#### Parsley

##### New Member
I would really appreciate it if someone could give me a bit of advice on this - I left school 24 years ago and was in remedial maths classes! (I did have to study maths at uni though).

I am in the final stage of a analysing research for a discriptive study about bullying in a school - I have taken 248 samples and would like to draw conclusions about the differences bullied and non-bullied students on areas such as happiness at school and levels of self-harm for example. The questions gave students options such as I am usually happy at school, I am somtimes happy at school and I am never happy at school - converted to responses of 1, 2 and 3.

To date I have worked out the spearman rank correlations between levels of bullying in victims and these issues - the correlations are all fairly weak and insignficant for a 1 tailed t-test at 95% with small to medium effect size using Cohen. The only one that is different is levels of happiness which is weak but signficant on a 1 tailed t test at 95% and has a medium effect size. (Bear with me - there is a point to all this! )

HOWEVER when I work out the means of the variables like happiness, feelings of exclusion, number of friends etc for victims and non-bullied students the difference between them is strongly significant at 95% using a 2 tailed t-test.

How much can I infer from this? Does it mean that on average bullied students have fewer friends etc and does the fact that levels of bullying generally has no significant effect on these factors matter here?

#### toxikhan

##### New Member
I read your post several times, but I don't understand what you are asking. You say that levels of bullying have no significant effect on some factors, yet the differences in these factors are highly significant between bullied and non-bullied students. This sounds like a contradiction.