Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Psychologists often use experiments because they are a way to establish a cause and effect
relationship. This is done by manipulating an independent variable and measuring the
effect on a dependent variable while attempting to control other variables that could
influence the outcome.
One of the limitations of an experiment could be that a variable was not controlled. A
variable that influences the results of an experiment is called an extraneous variable.
An example of an extraneous variable could be a trait of a participant that was not
controlled for. If I am testing to see if music has an effect on one's ability to recall a list of
20 words, but I didn't check to see if all were native English speakers, then the fact that in
one group I had significantly more non-native speakers could be a confounding variable.
Extraneous variables can also be with the materials in the study. For example, it may be
that the words were all one-syllable, which may have made them more easily recallable.
This could then be seen as an extraneous variable that may have affected the results, rather
than the IV that I was manipulating - that is, listening to music.
Failure to control for extraneous (confounding) variables means that the internal
validity of a study is compromised - that is, we cannot be sure that the study actually
tested what it claims to test and the results may not actually demonstrate a link between
the independent and dependent variable.
Methodological considerations
Methodological considerations have to do with the design and procedure of the
experiment. Discussing methodological considerations is one of the key evaluative
strategies when discussing research.
One concern that researchers have is what is called participant biases - or demand
characteristics. This is when participants form an interpretation of the aim of the
researcher's study and either subconsciously or consciously change their behavior to fit
that interpretation. This is more common in a repeated measures design where the
participants are asked to take part in more than one condition of the independent variable.
However, it may also occur in an independent samples design. Participant biases are also a
problem in observations and interviews.
There are at least four different types of participant biases. Expectancy effect is when a
participant acts a certain way because he wants to do what the researcher asks. This is a
form of compliance - the participant is doing what he or she is expected to do. Often,
simply knowing that you are in an experiment makes you more likely to do something that
you would never do in normal life. And this is where experiments can be problematic.
Orne (1962) carried out a simple study to test the effect of demand characteristics.
Participants were asked to write solve addition problems of random numbers. There were
224 numbers per page. Each time they completed a page, they were asked to tear up the
sheet into at least 32 pieces and then move on to the next page in the pile. There were
2000 sheets of paper in the pile. The researcher told them to keep working until they were
told to stop. In spite of how boring the task was - as well as how useless the task obviously
was - the participants continued for several hours because they were "doing an
experiment."
Not everyone who "figures out" an experiment will try to please a researcher. The screw
you effect occurs when a participant attempts to figure out the researcher's hypotheses,
but only in order to destroy the credibility of the study. Although this is not so common,
there are certain types of sampling techniques that are more likely to lead to this demand
characteristic. For example, if you are using an opportunity sample made up of students
who give consent, but feel that there was undue pressure on them to take part, then the
screw you effect is more likely. This may be the case when professors at university require
students to take part in studies to meet course requirements - or even in your internal
assessment... The screw you effect may also happen when the researcher comes across as
arrogant or condescending in some way and the participants then decide to mess up the
results. Hopefully, this will never happen to you....
Participants usually act in a way that protects their sense of self-esteem. This may lead to
the social desirability effect. This is when participants react in a certain way because
they feel that this is the "socially acceptable" thing to do - and they know that they are
being observed. This may make helping behaviour more likely; or in an interview to
determine levels of prejudice and stereotyping, participants may give "ideal" answers to
look good, rather than express their actual opinion. Finally, sometimes participants simply
act differently because they are being observed. This is a phenomenon known as
reactivity. The change may be positive or negative depending on the situation. In an
experiment on problem solving, a participant may be very anxious, knowing that he is
being watched and then make more mistakes than he usually would under normal
situations. You can probably imagine that reactivity plays a significant role in interviews -
especially clinical interviews - where the interviewee may demonstrate anxiety,
overconfidence or paranoia as a result of being observed.
Another limitation of experiments is what is called order effects. Order effects are
changes in participants' responses that result from the order (e.g., first, second, third) in
which the experimental conditions are presented to them. This is a limitation of a repeated
measures design; for example, testing to see if music affects one's ability to memorize a list
of words and the participants are exposed to a series of different types of music.
There are three common order effects that affect the results of a study.
First, there are fatigue effects. This is simply the fact that when asked to take part in
several conditions of the same experiment, participants may get tired or they may get
bored. In either case, they may lose motivation to try their best or their concentration may
be impaired, influencing the results.
One of the limitations of the proposed "effects of different types of music on learning a list
of words" study is called interference effects. This is when the fact that you have taken
part in one condition affects your ability to take part in the next condition. For example, in
an experiment you are asked to memorize a list of twenty words in silence. Now, with
music playing, you are asked to memorize a different list of words. The researcher may find
that some of the words on the list may be the same as those on the first list. This is an
example of an interference effect influencing your final results. Finally, when we ask
participants to do a task repeatedly, we may see that they improve as a result of practice
effect. For example, if I want to see how long it takes participants to solve a SUDUKO
puzzle under different conditions, it is possible that they are faster in later conditions
because they are simply getting better at doing the puzzles because of the practice effect.
Another question which should be asked is - who funded the study? It is possible that study
you are reading demonstrates funding bias. There is also the problem in psychology that
often only studies with results are published. This leads to what is referred to as
publication bias.
Finally, there are other ways that the validity of a study may be compromised, besides the
effect of confounding variables.
Internal validity may also be affected by the construct validity of a study - that is,
investigating if the measure really is measuring the theoretical construct it is supposed to
be. This has to do with the operationalization of the variables. If you are doing a study of
attitudes of Europeans about Americans, asking them if they watch US films, own an
iPhone, watch CNN or wear American designer clothes would not be a good measure of
"pro-American attitudes." There are several problematic constructs in psychology -
including intelligence, communication, love and aggression.
It is also important to discuss the external validity of a study. External validity is the
extent to which the results of a study can be generalized to other situations and to other
people. There are two key ways of assessing external validity. One is to determine whether
the sample is biased. If the sample is not representative of the population that it is drawn
from, then the results are not generalizable to that population and the study lacks external
validity. This is also known as population validity.
The second way in which external validity can be assessed is to consider the ecological
validity of a study. The basic question that ecological validity asks is: can the results of
this study be generalized beyond this situation? Often in laboratories the situation is so
highly controlled, it does not reflect what happens in real life - so, we cannot say that it
would predict what would happen under normal circumstances and lacks ecological
validity. It can also be that the situation was so artificial that it does not represent what
usually happens in real life – for example, being asked to shock a stranger in a lab situation
or watching a video of a car crash rather than actually observing one in real life.
Finally, whenever we discuss research we should always consider the ethics of the
experiment. When researchers do not follow ethical protocols, the research cannot be (or
should not be) replicated. This means that the results cannot be shown to be reliable.
ATL: Thinking critically
Please read the following study. Do you think that we can trust the results of this study?
Use the vocabulary above (as well as that from the book) when discussing the limitations of
the study.