Chapter 7/9 Flashcards
demand characteristics
- anything that might inform participants of the purpose of the study
- Threat to internal validity -> participants may try to help or hurt you
Hawthorne effect
when people act differently because they know they’re being observed (either to help researcher or sabotage them)
evaluation apprehension
people get anxious when they know they’re being evaluated (ex. Test anxiety, public speaking, etc.)
how to avoid demand characteristics
- Single-blind study: keep the participant blind to the hypothesis of the study
- Distractor/Filler items: questions/items in a study that have little to do with the actual purpose
experimenter expectancy effects
- when a researcher knows what condition participants are in and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment in order to find the expected effect
- Threat to internal validity
- Ex. Clever Hans, police lineup
how to avoid experimenter expectancy effects
- Double-blind study: keep the researcher/experimenter and participant blind to the hypothesis of the study
- Computer study: have a computer run the study, minimizing interactions between researcher and participant
interaction effects
- various social components of the researcher/participant interaction may affect the results
- ex. biosocial effect, psychosocial effect
biosocial effect
- when perceived biological characteristics of researcher can affect behaviour of participant
- Ex. Race, gender
psychosocial effect
- when attitudes of the researcher affect participant behaviour
- Ex. Having some researchers who are super-happy vs. Some that look angry
ceiling effects
- too easy, everybody does well, very little variability, hard to see effect of DV
- Ex. Getting people to drink coffee (or not) and then getting them to do basic 1+2 math -> won’t indicate much about the coffee because the math is too easy
floor effects
too difficult, everybody does poorly, very little variability, hard to see effect of IV
appropriately pairing IV and DV (strong vs. weak IVs/DVs)
- Want to pair strong IV’s with weak DV’s
- Strong IV: good shot at creating a big change in DV (ex. “you’re going to die alone”)
- Weak IV: good at making fine distinctions in DV, but don’t create big effects (ex. “think of a time when you felt excluded”)
- Strong DV: resistant to change (ex. Thoughts of suicide, personality characteristics)
- Weak DV: changes easily (ex. Mood)
straightforward manipulation
- Simple and easy
- Present participants with something that will influence DV (ex. Using music to affect mood, watching movies to affect heart rate)
- Pros: cheap, easy, common
- Cons: Can be too artificial (ex. having someone watch a clip where someone gets excluded is different than actually being excluded), demand characteristics
staged manipulation
- Try to indirectly elicit a state
- Make participants feel like they’re in the situation (ex. Using confederates to make participants feel excluded, diffusion of responsibility studies)
- Pros: better simulation, can avoid demand characteristics
- Cons: may arouse suspicion, can be difficult to proceed as planned
manipulation check
a method by which researchers can quantify the effectiveness of a manipulation (ex. Ensuring that the participants in your study actually did perceive the violent video game as violent and the non-violent video game as non-violent)
OD of outcome variable (3 ways of measuring DV)
- Self-report: participant’s explicit attitudes, judgements, thoughts, or characteristics
- Behavioural: observing and coding participant’s behaviours
- Physiological: biological factors (eg. Heart rate)