Lopatka and Rachman 1995

Question 1

sample

Answer 1

volunteer sample of 30 compulsive checkers, recruited from clinics, newspapers, radio//television ads, hospitals, self-help bookstores

Question 2

procedure

Answer 2

Low responsibility condition group were told that the researcher would take full responsibility for anything that was not perfect, or if something bad were to happen, that the researcher would pay for any damage.

high responsibility condition were told that they must take responsibility for anything that goes bad

control condition were told to treat this situation as they usually would, in a real life setting and that the researchers were keen to learn their checking behaviours in everyday situations

Repeated measures design !!

The dependent variables were self-reported discomfort, urge to check, and perceived responsibility to check the manipulation of the independent variable had worked.

the checking//cleaning situations depended on the participants’ compulsions..

“we would like you to…”
lock the door and walk away from it
turn the stove on and off and go to a different room
adjust the thermostat to 20 and then leave to a different room

Question 3

repeated measures design

Answer 3

repeated measures design (counterbalancing) - Participants took part in all three levels of the independent variable: high and low perceived responsibility, and a control condition.

they all started with the control variable

Question 4

results

Answer 4

The average urge to check went down from 68.7 in the control condition to 35 in the low responsibility condition, with similar decreases in discomfort, increasing responsibility went up as expected as well, however, only by 10 points (from 69 to 79,5) and discomfort by 12 (from 60 to 72), the researchers believe it was so because the participants were already experiencing high levels of distress and urges to check as it was

Question 5

conclusions

Answer 5

repeated measures design (counterbalancing); helped minimalise participant variables and order effects

Reduced likeness of researcher bias; the researcher responsible for conducting the self reported measures was blind to the hypothesis and condition which reduces the possibility of researcher bias

conducted in the participants homes (higher ecological validity)

Question 6

weaknesses

Answer 6

Weaknesses:
Low internal validity; the participant always goes through the control variable first The repeated measures design might lead to demand characteristics and order effects (when the participants response is altered based on the order through which they go through the various conditions)

Hawthorne’s effect

Low generalisability (focuses on individuals with checking compulsions, but other people have other various compulsion)

Reliant on the participants ability to report their symptoms accurately and truthfully, they might have been aware of the demand characteristics (such as that they are meant to reduce discomfort levels when the responsibility is low) bc they rely on self reported data