Introduction
In Australia, the number of blood donations is very small, so this research report is based on the Australian Red Cross (ARCBS) study on how to expand blood donors. The data set used in the report comes from an ARCBS survey. There are seven major issues in the survey, which are the basic blood donation behavior (1a-1f), the attitude towards blood donation (2a1-2a4, 2b1-2b13, 2c1-2c7) and the factors that motivate blood donation (3a1-3a8, 3b1- 3b15), factors that hinder blood donation in Australia (4a1-4a19), blood donation experience (5a-5c), cultural influence (6a, 6b1-6b16, 6c1-6c4, 6d, 6e), personal information (7a-7f) . In this regard, different test methods will be used for analysis.

1.One-sample T-test
(Nathan)

2.Independent-samples
Question:
Are there gender and racial differences in the likelihood to donate blood in the next six months?
Variables used:
Dependent: Likelihood to donate (Q1e)
Independent: Gender (Q7a), Race (Q7d)
Statistical Test(s) Conducted:
Independent-Samples T-test
Analysis & Findings:
The hypothesis to answer this research question is:
Ho: There is no gender and racial difference in the likelihood to donate.
Ha: There are gender and racial differences in the likelihood to donate.
An independent sample t-test was conducted to examine whether there was a difference between male (M = 3.51, SD = 2.63) and female (M = 3.03, SD = 2.39) in terms of likelihood to donate .The significant value assume that the data did not meet the homogeneity assumption. Therefore, we used a t-test value for unequal variances. The results indicated that there were significant differences in the likelihood to donate between male and female, t (1, 535.16) = 2.680, p = 0.008). So, we rejected the hypothesis null. There were differences in the likelihood to donate between male and females. Males were more likely to donate than females. The other independent sample t-test was conducted to examine whether there was a difference between Asian/Asia Sub-Continent (M = 3.12, SD = 2.41) and other races (M = 3.75, SD = 2.92) in terms of likelihood to donate . The significant value could assume that the data did not meet the homogeneity assumption. Therefore, we used a t-test value for unequal variances. The results indicated that there were significant differences in the likelihood to donate among races, t (1, 129) = -2.195, p = 0.030). So, we rejected the hypothesis null. There were differences in the likelihood to donate by the races. Other races (Caucasian, African, and other) were more likely to donate than Asian/Asian Sub-Continent.

Managerial implications/recommendations:
Based on the results, we can conclude that males are more likely to donate than females. There was a significant difference, so the promotional strategy to encourage people to donate could be specific to gender. Also, cultural tendency influences the likelihood to donate, so the promotional strategy to encourage people to donate could be designed for different races. A further investigation should be taken to explore more about what factor in race contributes to increasing the likelihood of donating.

3. Paired Samples T-test
   Question:
   Will the accompanying person affect the attitudes towards donating blood in Australia in the next six months?

Variables used:
Variable 1: I would donate blood more often if my friends would go with me (2c6)
Variable 2: I would prefer to donate blood alone (2c7)

Statistical Test Conducted:
Paired Samples T-test

Analysis & Findings:
Ho: There is no difference between attitude to donate alone and donate with friends
Ha: There are differences between attitude to donate alone and donate with friends
The significant (2-Tailed) value which is the p-value shows <.001is in the paired samples test box. Because it is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected. So, there is a significant difference between the two variables. Since the paired sample statistics box shows that the average of question 2c6 is 4.49 and the average of question 2c7 is 2.93, the average of question 2c6 is greater than that of question 2c7. Therefore, it can be concluded that the interviewees are more willing to donate blood with their friends than to donate blood alone.

Managerial implications/recommendations:
From the above results, it can be seen that if friends accompany them to donate blood, their willingness to donate blood will be much higher. Studies have shown that adequate social support can reduce anxiety levels and stimulate the calming response of the parasympathetic nervous system ( Mentalhelp, 2021). If accompanied by friends, they will have more courage to donate blood and reduce negative emotions, such as fear, tension, and anxiety. Also, being with people around you will motivate you to overcome fears and keep you from shrinking (Steimle, 2021). Therefore, if ARCBS can develop some activities to attract people to donate blood with friends, it will greatly increase the proportion of blood donations. For example, if two or more people donate blood together, then ARCBS will take photos of them as a souvenir after donating blood. All of them are included in this photo, and some iconic ARCBS logos are attached. This is not only a testimony of their friendship but also a symbol of honour. This is a win-win event. For blood donors, it is a meaningful prize. For ARCBS, the use of low-cost prizes has attracted twice or more people to donate blood than before.

4.Correlation Analysis
Question:
Is there any different factor towards the likelihood to donate blood in the next 6 months?
Variables used:
Dependent: Q1e Likelihood to donate.
Independent: Q6a (1) I often participate in my heritage cultural traditions.
Q6b (2) I often participate in mainstream Australian cultural traditions.
Q6b (6) I enjoy social activities with typical Australian people.
Q6b (7) comfortable working with people of the same heritage culture.
Q6b (8) comfortable working with Australian people.
Q6b (9) I enjoy entertainment from my heritage culture.
Q6a (10) I enjoy Australian entertainment.
Statistical Test(s) Conducted:
Correlation Analysis
Analysis & Findings:
Through the output of SPSS, the following two matrices can be obtained
The Sig value represents whether the two variables have a significant effect. When Sig<0.001/0.01/0.05, it represents a significant relationship between the two variables. The correlation coefficient is a real number between [-1, +1]. When the correlation coefficient is a negative number, it means that the two variables have a negative correlation. When the correlation coefficient is a positive number, it means that the correlation coefficient is a positive correlation. When the correlation coefficient is 0, it means that these two variables are irrelevant. In the first matrix, the Sig value of Q6b1 (I often participate in my heritage cultural traditions) is 0.796>0.05, which means that the correlation between Q6b1 and Q1e is not significant, which means I often participate in my heritage cultural traditions and likelihood to donate. There is no significant relationship between. Similarly, the Sig values of Q6b7 (I feel comfortable working with people of the same heritage culture as myself.) in the first matrix and Q6b9 (I enjoy entertainment from my heritage culture.) in the second matrix are 0.776, respectively and 0.225, 0.776>0.05 means I feel comfortable working with people of the same heritage culture as myself and likelihood to donate has no significant relationship, 0.225>0.05 means I enjoy entertainment from my heritage culture and likelihood to donate has no significant relationship. In the matrix Q6B2, Q6b6, Q6b8, Q6b10, the Sig value <0.001, which means that these four variables have a significant relationship with Q2e. In the output of SPSS, the correlation coefficient of Q6b2 (I often participate in mainstream Australian cultural traditions.) is 0.193<0.3, which means that I often participate in mainstream Australian cultural traditions and likelihood to donate have only a very weak positive correlation. Similarly, Q6b6( I enjoy The correlation coefficient of social activities with typical Australian people) is 0.143<0.3, which means that I enjoy social activities with typical Australian people and likelihood to donate only have a weak correlation. In the second matrix, the correlation coefficients of Q6b8 (comfortable working with Australian people) and Q6a10 (I enjoy Australian entertainment) are 0.196 and 0.143. Both correlation coefficients are less than 0.3, so they are weakly correlated with likelihood to donate.
According to the SPSS output, it can be seen that the correlation between the identity of Australian culture and donating blood in the next 6 months is significant, but it is a very weak relationship. The recognition of Australian culture does not allow more people to donate blood in the next six months.
Managerial implications/recommendations:
According to SPSS data analysis, most people will not increase the possibility of donating blood because they are interested in or identify with Australian culture. This means that people living in Australia from other parts of the world, although they are not interested in Australia and like the traditional culture of their own country, they should also be the target of ARCBS promotion. ARCBS should increase the scope of blood donation knowledge and popularize blood donation knowledge in different cultural communities. In addition, there are many students from different cultural countries in the school. ARCBS can strengthen the promotion of blood donation knowledge among students and increase the number of blood donors from different cultures.
5.Regression Analysis
Variables used:
Dependent: Q1e Likelihood to donate.
Independent: Q2a (3) Giving blood pleasant or unpleasant.
Q2b (1) rarely even think about donating blood.
Q2b (4) Blood donation is an important part of who I am.
Q2b (5) The importance of blood donation for me.
Q2b (10) I feel completely capable of giving blood.
Q2b (11) I believe I have the ability to donate blood in the future.
Q3a (1) Being personally asked to donate blood.
Statistical Test(s) Conducted:
Regression Analysis
Analysis & Findings:
Through the output of SPSS, we can get this formula:

This formula is a formulaic representation of regression analysis, from which seven results can be obtained. (1) X1 indicates that the likelihood of people donating blood in the next 6 months will increase by 0.15 with the increase of one unit of the pleasure of donating blood. People who choose extent 4 will be 0.15 more likely to donate blood in the next 6 months than those who choose extent 3. (2)X2 indicates that the likelihood of blood donation in the next 6 months will decrease by 0. 094 with a higher degree of consideration. (3)X3 illustrates that the likelihood of people donating blood in the next 6 months will increase by 0.236 with the increase to one unit of the recognition that blood is an important part of me. (4)X4 illustrates that the likelihood of donating blood in the next 6 months will increase by 0.232 as the recognition of the importance of donating blood increases by one unit. (5)X5 illustrates that the likelihood of donating blood in the next 6 months will increase by 0.144 with the increase of one unit of people’s awareness of their donating ability. (6) X6 illustrates that the likelihood of donating blood in the next 6 months will increase by 0.16 as the likelihood of donating blood in the future increases by 1 unit. (7) X7 illustrates that the likelihood of people donating blood in the next 6 months will increase by 0.204 as the effectiveness of people being asked to donate blood personally increases by 1 unit.

Then, according to the analysis of SPSS results, the Sig. of X1 to X7 were 0.004, 0.026, <0.001, <0.001, 0.039, 0.030 and <0.01, respectively. These Sig. were all less than 0. 05, indicating the reliability and accuracy of this result.

Managerial implications/recommendations:
According to the results of the questionnaire, the probability of being willing to donate blood in the next 6 months is only 3.18. Most people choose 1 (rarely donate blood). Based on the data analysis of SPSS, people’s willingness to donate blood, the service level of blood donation, the popularization of blood donation knowledge and the popularization of the necessity of blood donation show a positive trend. Firstly, the regression analysis suggested that ARCBS boost blood center service level, improve service attitude of nurses, and relevant experience of some comfort, and give enough spiritual encouragement, the last to give certain material compensation, blood donors to donate blood donors recognize that the process is not only comfortable, or access to certain benefits. Secondly, the regression analysis suggested that ARCBS strengthen the popularization of blood donation knowledge among the public, from school curriculum arrangement to social public welfare activities, and gradually deepen people’s cognition and recognition of blood donation knowledge. Promote the necessity of blood donation in Australia, publicize the real situation of blood banks to the public, let them know that the loss of blood occurs in real life, and enhance the public awareness of the necessity of blood donation.

Conclusion.(joy)

Recommendation (Ann)

Limitatoins. (Nathan)

Further Research, (!!me!!)