The Pain Was Greater If It Will Happen Again:

The Effect of Anticipated Continuation

on Retrospective Discomforton

Jeff Galak
Carnegie Mellon University

Tom Meyvis
New York University

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

Source of research ideas;Gibbs experiment

We can ask ourselvs to what extent the condition by repetition of bad experiences
influencing the way we percive it

Gibbss experiment, 1992:

Was masured

Perception which consumers have a cup of bitter liquid( first experimental condition ,
lack of expectancy whithout repeating the negative experience)

Compared with

Perception for those who had consumed 20 cups at fixed time intervals sufficiently large
and predictable(second experimental condition;the expectancy for repeating the negative
experiences).

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

Source of research ideas;Gibbs experiment

Gibbs experiment results:

It was found that the subjects from the experimental condition tow reported that the liquid
consumed as less bitter than those from the experimental conditon one.

It was concluded that expectancy repetition of bad experience induce changing

perception of the experience itself , meaning that makes it seem less aversive.

It was felt that this would be the pshihological mechanism that protects us in case we
have to fulfill for a long time unpleasant tasks.

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

Source of research ideas;Gibbs experiment

Discution on the edge of Gibbs experiment:

In the situation where , concreatly, in order to esure their survival, people are often placed
in a position to take on unpleasant tasks, we conclude that such a pshihological
mechanism has an important adaptative value < and this study is, without doubt ,
justifed>.

On the other side , sensing ability and avoidance unpleasant situation , potentially
dangerous , has a significant importance for the welfare and survival of the individ- or it
just seems to be inconsistent whit those stated in the above studies( implying that as you
repeat negative experience our ability to perceive correctly decreases).

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

Wording research ideas

Starting from here , researchers have formulated the following research qestion:

Expectation of an unpleasant event repeated induces distortion of his memory in

the sense that remembrence is perceived as unpleasant or on the contrary, less bad
than it was in the reality?

Found that it is a good research problem as it :

It mention the idea of the research and argues the previous studies have not fully cleared
the problem.

The research shows the importance of this issue.

The problem is formulated intrrrogatively;

Can be tested;

It is specifically formulated.

The hypothesis

If an individ who has suffered an unpleasant experience expected the experience to be

repeated, then the individ remaind it to be that the most unpleasant then it actually
was.

Conditions:

It is a synthetic statement it is formulated in the form ifthan

It is a testable statement-it is conceivable an empirical experiment which

validate/invalidate it.

Its a simple explanation number of assumption ( hypotheses) is minimized.

It is productive. Based on this hypothesis we can consider that generally we have

expectation of the various fields can influence the way we remembre certain life
experiences thus formulate any research hypotheses.

The variables of the study

VI: Expect the repetition of the unpleasant experience*

VD: Perception which the subject has on the unpleasant experience, retrospectively.

Method
Subjects& Tools

Subjects: remunerated students by awarding bonus points

9 men

21 women
Tools:

Computer, audio peel, records disturbing noise ( by vacuum).

First questionnaire : evaluate how unpleasantly the noise is disturbing on a scale from 1 to
101.

Second questionnaire: evaluate how irritating was the experience on a scale form 1 to 9.

Third questionnaire: evaluate how hard it was to hear the sound on a scale from 1 to 9.

Fourth questionnaire: evaluated how would be willing to pay the subjects(hypothetically

open questions) to avoid repeating the experience.

Method
Procedure

Subjects (students,9 males and 21 females) have agreed to participate in the experiment
in exchange for bonus points.

Were asked to listen for 5 sec. the disturbing sound.

Immediately afterwards were asked to judge on a scale from 1 to 101 how irritating the
sound was due to them; Purpose of this measurement was to determine how irritating is
the stimulus for each subject separately in the condition in which still not had intervened
experimental to have a reference to which further measurment to relate the
experimental intervention

Method
Procedure

4.

Subjects were asked to listen for 40 sec the disturbing noise.

5.

Subjects were put in random places in this two exprimental conditions, such:

Half of the subjects were told that they fulfill at this stage of the experiment ( condition
tasks performed)

The other half was told that after compliting other task they are going to listen to the
annoying sound again (condition repeat task)

6.

Subjects are asked to perform a task for 5 minutes affectively neutral ,and those dont have
any connection with the first task.

7.

Both groups of subjects were applied three questionnaires ,which they are askes how
irritating was the experience on a scale from 1 to 9 , how hard it was to listen to that noise
on the same scale, and how the subjects would be willing to pay ( hypothetical open
question ) to avoid repeating the experience.

The type of the study

Experiment

The independent variable is controled by researchers.

The process of distribution the subjects into groups IS controlled by researchers .

The research plan

The research plan1x2, with intergroup comparisons

Results

The results from the questionnaires 2 and 3 (how irritating was the experience
respectively how hard it was to hear the noise) were highly corelated and thus were
combined into a single measurement of reamembering the aversive task . For a
measurement use a scale from 1 to 9.

Subject averages were compared from the those two groups remebering the aversive
task

Was obtained M(fulfill)=4,56 and M(repeat)=4,92

These results confirm the hypothesis.

We compared the average of the two experimental groups to the questionaire four how
you were willing to pay to avoid repeating the task

Was obtainedM(fulfill) = 0.94$ and M(repeat) = 3.62 $

These results confirm the hypothesis.

Internal validity and control strategies

Control strategy: considering that we are talking about a laboratory experiment, the
experimenters were able to eliminate any stray variables (the experiment conditions were
identical for all participants).

Control strategy: intra-individual differences were measured (by the first questionnaire)
and taken into account when the dependent variable was measured.

Control strategy: when the measurements obtained by questionnaires 2 and 3 were

combined into a single measurement, was measured their level of correlation (r = .81, p =
.001)

Control strategy: comparing average of the scores reported by both experimental groups
and found that they differ significantly.

Therefore we can conclude that the experiment has a high internal validity.

On the other hand, the size of the experimental groups were low (N = 15). This could call
into question the reality of the effects observed after statistical processing and could
compromise the internal validity of the experiment. As a control strategy would be
desirable N to have at least 30.

External validity

The validity of the samples is low; is limited to the male and female students from U.S.
universities similar to that in which the study was conducted.

Low ecological validity (laboratory experiment can not reproduce all the situations that
are found in the real world);

Uncertain temporal validity, can not be specific in this regard,we mention that the
Gibbs experiment was in 1992 , held in the past 17 years from this experiment, which
provided different results.

Discutions

We used a single type of unpleasant stimulus. It is possible to link the results of the type
of stimulus expectancy and not repetition it. Therefore, researchers have devised other six
laboratory experiments that have been used in various stimulus,a field experiment. And
these experiments have validated the hypothesis.

Ethical issues

Considering the fact that after completing the questionnaire 4 to all participants,
experimenters have available all the necessary validation or invalidation of the
experiment, subjects placed in condition "task repeats" have been verified again the
disturbing stimulus.