USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
To prepare for this discussion, please read Chapter 1 of your
textbook
(Feenstra, 2013). In addition, read
Exploring the Ethics and Psychological Impact of Deception in Psychological Research
(Boynton, Portnoy, and Johnson, 2013). Finally, review Instructor Guidance and Announcements. (Not reviewing these each week can affect your performance, be mindful to include these readings in your study time.)
In this discussion, you will consider principles of scientific research, including methodology and ethical considerations. Be sure to use your own
academic voice (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
and apply
in-text citations (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
appropriately throughout your post.
- Visit https://www.socialpsychology.org/expts.htm (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Select any study from the list. (Note that some links may be broken; if you choose a study that is unavailable, simply pick another option.). Participate in the research by following the instructions. After you have completed the study, answer the following questions:
- Indicate the study you completed, including the web link.
- Briefly describe the research that was conducted. What did you do?
- Discuss the following: What type of method do you think the researcher was utilizing? Can you identify the hypothesis and/or theory?
- Review the research based on your experience. What elements of the study “worked” and what would you suggest the researchers do to improve their study?
- Identify any relevant ethical concerns. Was deception utilized?
- Summarize what you learned about research in general and social psychology in particular by completing this research. You may find it helpful to locate additional scholarly sources on the topic to further inform your thinking about the study in which you participated.
Post your initial response of 250 words or more by Day 3 (Thursday). Respond to at least two of your peers by Day 7 (Monday). You are encouraged to post one or more of your required replies early each week (e.g., by Saturday) to stimulate more meaningful and interactive discourse in the discussion forum. In addition, strive to provide a response to classmates who replied to your initial post and/or the Instructor (if applicable). Peer responses may vary in length but should be carefully crafted and insightful. Below are some suggestions to assist your thinking.
|
Assessing Attitudes and Behaviors |
UST Human Subjects Committee: Informed Consent to Participate in Research
We are asking for your participation in the research project, described below. Your participation in this study is voluntary, and you may refuse to participate, or you may decide to stop your participation at any time. Should you refuse to participate, withdraw your consent, or stop participating in the study, your decision will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you may be entitled otherwise. Please read the information below carefully, and ask questions about anything you do not understand before deciding whether to participate.
Title: Assessing Behaviors and Attitudes
Student Investigators: Kristen Becker, Paula Calero, Rosalyn deTranaltes, Kim Dinh, Samantha Georges, Robert Jolly, Danielle Mendez, Adam Mendonca, Fernando Moreno, & Alin Nguyen
Faculty Sponsor: Carl Scott, Ph.D.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: We want to assess behaviors and attitudes of UST students.
PROCEDURES: Students will complete a set of questionnaires using Survey Monkey. We will email the link to interested students.
EXPECTED DURATION: We anticipate your time commitment to be approximately 20 minutes.
RISKS OF PARTICIPATION: There are no anticipated risks associated with participation in this project.
BENEFITS TO THE SUBJECT: In the psychology department, you can earn extra credit worth one-ninth of a letter grade for a study that lasts under one hour. Otherwise, there is no direct benefit received from participating in this study, but your participation will help the investigators better understand people’s attitudes and behaviors.
ANONYMOUS RECORDS: Your research materials will be anonymous, and thus pose no risk to your privacy. The data collected from the study will be used for educational and publication purposes, and will be reported in aggregated form. Your participation in the study will be evidence of your consent.
FINANCIAL COMPENSATION: There is no financial compensation for participation in the study.
INVESTIGATOR’S RIGHT TO WITHDRAW PARTICIPANT: The investigator has the right to withdraw you from this study at any time.
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS:
If you have additional questions during the course of this study about the research or any related problem, you may contact the either of two of the student researchers, Rosalyn deTranaltes or Fernando Moreno at phone number 713-525-3182, or by email at detranr@stthom.edu or fmoreno@stthom.edu. You may contact the faculty sponsor, Carl Scott, Ph.D., at phone number 713-525-3182 or by email at scott@stthom.edu.
THIS RESEARCH STUDY HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS. For additional information concerning your rights as a human subject, please contact Dominic Aquila, Vice-President of Academic Affairs, 713-525-2164.
Next
Powered by
See how easy it is to
create a survey
.
|
Assessing Attitudes and Behaviors |
*
2.
Using the scale provided, please indicate on how many days out of the last seven that you performed each of the behaviors described in the following statements.
| 0 days | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 days | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1. In the last week, on how many days did you watch television instead of studying? 0 days |
1. In the last week, on how many days did you watch television instead of studying? 1 |
1. In the last week, on how many days did you watch television instead of studying? 2 |
1. In the last week, on how many days did you watch television instead of studying? 3 |
1. In the last week, on how many days did you watch television instead of studying? 4 |
1. In the last week, on how many days did you watch television instead of studying? 5 |
1. In the last week, on how many days did you watch television instead of studying? 6 |
1. In the last week, on how many days did you watch television instead of studying? 7 days |
|
|
2. In the last week, on how many days did you go out with friends instead of studying? 0 days |
2. In the last week, on how many days did you go out with friends instead of studying? 1 |
2. In the last week, on how many days did you go out with friends instead of studying? 2 |
2. In the last week, on how many days did you go out with friends instead of studying? 3 |
2. In the last week, on how many days did you go out with friends instead of studying? 4 |
2. In the last week, on how many days did you go out with friends instead of studying? 5 |
2. In the last week, on how many days did you go out with friends instead of studying? 6 |
2. In the last week, on how many days did you go out with friends instead of studying? 7 days |
|
|
3. In the last week, on how many days did you eat at least five servings of fruits/vegetables? 0 days |
3. In the last week, on how many days did you eat at least five servings of fruits/vegetables? 1 |
3. In the last week, on how many days did you eat at least five servings of fruits/vegetables? 2 |
3. In the last week, on how many days did you eat at least five servings of fruits/vegetables? 3 |
3. In the last week, on how many days did you eat at least five servings of fruits/vegetables? 4 |
3. In the last week, on how many days did you eat at least five servings of fruits/vegetables? 5 |
3. In the last week, on how many days did you eat at least five servings of fruits/vegetables? 6 |
3. In the last week, on how many days did you eat at least five servings of fruits/vegetables? 7 days |
|
|
4. In the last week, on how many days did you eat at fast food restaurants? 0 days |
4. In the last week, on how many days did you eat at fast food restaurants? 1 |
4. In the last week, on how many days did you eat at fast food restaurants? 2 |
4. In the last week, on how many days did you eat at fast food restaurants? 3 |
4. In the last week, on how many days did you eat at fast food restaurants? 4 |
4. In the last week, on how many days did you eat at fast food restaurants? 5 |
4. In the last week, on how many days did you eat at fast food restaurants? 6 |
4. In the last week, on how many days did you eat at fast food restaurants? 7 days |
|
|
5. In the last week, on how many days did you eat sweets such as cookies, cakes, or ice cream? 0 days |
5. In the last week, on how many days did you eat sweets such as cookies, cakes, or ice cream? 1 |
5. In the last week, on how many days did you eat sweets such as cookies, cakes, or ice cream? 2 |
5. In the last week, on how many days did you eat sweets such as cookies, cakes, or ice cream? 3 |
5. In the last week, on how many days did you eat sweets such as cookies, cakes, or ice cream? 4 |
5. In the last week, on how many days did you eat sweets such as cookies, cakes, or ice cream? 5 |
5. In the last week, on how many days did you eat sweets such as cookies, cakes, or ice cream? 6 |
5. In the last week, on how many days did you eat sweets such as cookies, cakes, or ice cream? 7 days |
|
|
6. In the last week, on how many days did you miss an appointment? 0 days |
6. In the last week, on how many days did you miss an appointment? 1 |
6. In the last week, on how many days did you miss an appointment? 2 |
6. In the last week, on how many days did you miss an appointment? 3 |
6. In the last week, on how many days did you miss an appointment? 4 |
6. In the last week, on how many days did you miss an appointment? 5 |
6. In the last week, on how many days did you miss an appointment? 6 |
6. In the last week, on how many days did you miss an appointment? 7 days |
|
|
7. In the last week, on how many days did you put off an important task until the last minute? 0 days |
7. In the last week, on how many days did you put off an important task until the last minute? 1 |
7. In the last week, on how many days did you put off an important task until the last minute? 2 |
7. In the last week, on how many days did you put off an important task until the last minute? 3 |
7. In the last week, on how many days did you put off an important task until the last minute? 4 |
7. In the last week, on how many days did you put off an important task until the last minute? 5 |
7. In the last week, on how many days did you put off an important task until the last minute? 6 |
7. In the last week, on how many days did you put off an important task until the last minute? 7 days |
|
|
8. In the last week, on how many days did you spend money without thinking about your budget? 0 days |
8. In the last week, on how many days did you spend money without thinking about your budget? 1 |
8. In the last week, on how many days did you spend money without thinking about your budget? 2 |
8. In the last week, on how many days did you spend money without thinking about your budget? 3 |
8. In the last week, on how many days did you spend money without thinking about your budget? 4 |
8. In the last week, on how many days did you spend money without thinking about your budget? 5 |
8. In the last week, on how many days did you spend money without thinking about your budget? 6 |
8. In the last week, on how many days did you spend money without thinking about your budget? 7 days |
|
|
9. In the last week, on how many days did you overspend beyond what you should? 0 days |
9. In the last week, on how many days did you overspend beyond what you should? 1 |
9. In the last week, on how many days did you overspend beyond what you should? 2 |
9. In the last week, on how many days did you overspend beyond what you should? 3 |
9. In the last week, on how many days did you overspend beyond what you should? 4 |
9. In the last week, on how many days did you overspend beyond what you should? 5 |
9. In the last week, on how many days did you overspend beyond what you should? 6 |
9. In the last week, on how many days did you overspend beyond what you should? 7 days |
|
|
10. In the last week, on how many days did you lose your temper over something of small importance? 0 days |
10. In the last week, on how many days did you lose your temper over something of small importance? 1 |
10. In the last week, on how many days did you lose your temper over something of small importance? 2 |
10. In the last week, on how many days did you lose your temper over something of small importance? 3 |
10. In the last week, on how many days did you lose your temper over something of small importance? 4 |
10. In the last week, on how many days did you lose your temper over something of small importance? 5 |
10. In the last week, on how many days did you lose your temper over something of small importance? 6 |
10. In the last week, on how many days did you lose your temper over something of small importance? 7 days |
|
|
11. In the last week, on how many days did you floss your teeth? 0 days |
11. In the last week, on how many days did you floss your teeth? 1 |
11. In the last week, on how many days did you floss your teeth? 2 |
11. In the last week, on how many days did you floss your teeth? 3 |
11. In the last week, on how many days did you floss your teeth? 4 |
11. In the last week, on how many days did you floss your teeth? 5 |
11. In the last week, on how many days did you floss your teeth? 6 |
11. In the last week, on how many days did you floss your teeth? 7 days |
|
|
12. In the last week, on how many days did you leave dirty dishes in the sink for more than a day? 0 days |
12. In the last week, on how many days did you leave dirty dishes in the sink for more than a day? 1 |
12. In the last week, on how many days did you leave dirty dishes in the sink for more than a day? 2 |
12. In the last week, on how many days did you leave dirty dishes in the sink for more than a day? 3 |
12. In the last week, on how many days did you leave dirty dishes in the sink for more than a day? 4 |
12. In the last week, on how many days did you leave dirty dishes in the sink for more than a day? 5 |
12. In the last week, on how many days did you leave dirty dishes in the sink for more than a day? 6 |
12. In the last week, on how many days did you leave dirty dishes in the sink for more than a day? 7 days |
|
|
13. In the last week, on how many days did you sleep in past your usual waking time? 0 days |
13. In the last week, on how many days did you sleep in past your usual waking time? 1 |
13. In the last week, on how many days did you sleep in past your usual waking time? 2 |
13. In the last week, on how many days did you sleep in past your usual waking time? 3 |
13. In the last week, on how many days did you sleep in past your usual waking time? 4 |
13. In the last week, on how many days did you sleep in past your usual waking time? 5 |
13. In the last week, on how many days did you sleep in past your usual waking time? 6 |
13. In the last week, on how many days did you sleep in past your usual waking time? 7 days |
|
|
14. On how many of the past 7 days did you get enough sleep so that you felt rested when you woke up? 0 days |
14. On how many of the past 7 days did you get enough sleep so that you felt rested when you woke up? 1 |
14. On how many of the past 7 days did you get enough sleep so that you felt rested when you woke up? 2 |
14. On how many of the past 7 days did you get enough sleep so that you felt rested when you woke up? 3 |
14. On how many of the past 7 days did you get enough sleep so that you felt rested when you woke up? 4 |
14. On how many of the past 7 days did you get enough sleep so that you felt rested when you woke up? 5 |
14. On how many of the past 7 days did you get enough sleep so that you felt rested when you woke up? 6 |
14. On how many of the past 7 days did you get enough sleep so that you felt rested when you woke up? 7 days |
Prev
Next
Powered by
See how easy it is to
create a survey
.
|
Assessing Attitudes and Behaviors |
*
5.
Describe how well each item describes you, using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
| 1 Strongly Disagree | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Strongly Agree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1. I would have a hard time sticking with a special, healthy diet. 1 Strongly Disagree |
1. I would have a hard time sticking with a special, healthy diet. 2 |
1. I would have a hard time sticking with a special, healthy diet. 3 |
1. I would have a hard time sticking with a special, healthy diet. 4 |
1. I would have a hard time sticking with a special, healthy diet. 5 Strongly Agree |
|
|
2. I try to spend my money wisely. 1 Strongly Disagree |
2. I try to spend my money wisely. 2 |
2. I try to spend my money wisely. 3 |
2. I try to spend my money wisely. 4 |
2. I try to spend my money wisely. 5 Strongly Agree |
|
|
3. I have given up physical pleasure or comfort to reach my goals. 1 Strongly Disagree |
3. I have given up physical pleasure or comfort to reach my goals. 2 |
3. I have given up physical pleasure or comfort to reach my goals. 3 |
3. I have given up physical pleasure or comfort to reach my goals. 4 |
3. I have given up physical pleasure or comfort to reach my goals. 5 Strongly Agree |
|
|
4. I try to consider how my actions will affect other people in the long-term. 1 Strongly Disagree |
4. I try to consider how my actions will affect other people in the long-term. 2 |
4. I try to consider how my actions will affect other people in the long-term. 3 |
4. I try to consider how my actions will affect other people in the long-term. 4 |
4. I try to consider how my actions will affect other people in the long-term. 5 Strongly Agree |
|
|
5. I cannot be trusted with money. 1 Strongly Disagree |
5. I cannot be trusted with money. 2 |
5. I cannot be trusted with money. 3 |
5. I cannot be trusted with money. 4 |
5. I cannot be trusted with money. 5 Strongly Agree |
|
|
6. I do not consider how my behavior affects other people. 1 Strongly Disagree |
6. I do not consider how my behavior affects other people. 2 |
6. I do not consider how my behavior affects other people. 3 |
6. I do not consider how my behavior affects other people. 4 |
6. I do not consider how my behavior affects other people. 5 Strongly Agree |
|
|
7. I cannot motivate myself to accomplish long-term goals. 1 Strongly Disagree |
7. I cannot motivate myself to accomplish long-term goals. 2 |
7. I cannot motivate myself to accomplish long-term goals. 3 |
7. I cannot motivate myself to accomplish long-term goals. 4 |
7. I cannot motivate myself to accomplish long-term goals. 5 Strongly Agree |
|
|
8. I have always tried to eat healthy because it pays off in the long run. 1 Strongly Disagree |
8. I have always tried to eat healthy because it pays off in the long run. 2 |
8. I have always tried to eat healthy because it pays off in the long run. 3 |
8. I have always tried to eat healthy because it pays off in the long run. 4 |
8. I have always tried to eat healthy because it pays off in the long run. 5 Strongly Agree |
|
|
9. When faced with a physically demanding chore, I always tried to put off doing it. 1 Strongly Disagree |
9. When faced with a physically demanding chore, I always tried to put off doing it. 2 |
9. When faced with a physically demanding chore, I always tried to put off doing it. 3 |
9. When faced with a physically demanding chore, I always tried to put off doing it. 4 |
9. When faced with a physically demanding chore, I always tried to put off doing it. 5 Strongly Agree |
|
|
10. I have always felt like my hard work would pay off in the end. 1 Strongly Disagree |
10. I have always felt like my hard work would pay off in the end. 2 |
10. I have always felt like my hard work would pay off in the end. 3 |
10. I have always felt like my hard work would pay off in the end. 4 |
10. I have always felt like my hard work would pay off in the end. 5 Strongly Agree |
Prev
Next
Powered by
See how easy it is to
create a survey
.
|
Assessing Attitudes and Behaviors |
*
3.
Using the scale provided, please indicate how much each of the following statements reflects how you typically are.
| 1 Not at all | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Very much | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1. I am good at resisting temptation. 1 Not at all |
1. I am good at resisting temptation. 2 |
1. I am good at resisting temptation. 3 |
1. I am good at resisting temptation. 4 |
1. I am good at resisting temptation. 5 Very much |
|
|
2. I have a hard time breaking bad habits. 1 Not at all |
2. I have a hard time breaking bad habits. 2 |
2. I have a hard time breaking bad habits. 3 |
2. I have a hard time breaking bad habits. 4 |
2. I have a hard time breaking bad habits. 5 Very much |
|
|
3. I am lazy. 1 Not at all |
3. I am lazy. 2 |
3. I am lazy. 3 |
3. I am lazy. 4 |
3. I am lazy. 5 Very much |
|
|
4. I say inappropriate things. 1 Not at all |
4. I say inappropriate things. 2 |
4. I say inappropriate things. 3 |
4. I say inappropriate things. 4 |
4. I say inappropriate things. 5 Very much |
|
|
5. I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun. 1 Not at all |
5. I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun. 2 |
5. I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun. 3 |
5. I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun. 4 |
5. I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun. 5 Very much |
|
|
6. I refuse things that are bad for me. 1 Not at all |
6. I refuse things that are bad for me. 2 |
6. I refuse things that are bad for me. 3 |
6. I refuse things that are bad for me. 4 |
6. I refuse things that are bad for me. 5 Very much |
|
|
7. I wish I had more self-discipline. 1 Not at all |
7. I wish I had more self-discipline. 2 |
7. I wish I had more self-discipline. 3 |
7. I wish I had more self-discipline. 4 |
7. I wish I had more self-discipline. 5 Very much |
|
|
8. People would say that I have iron self- discipline. 1 Not at all |
8. People would say that I have iron self- discipline. 2 |
8. People would say that I have iron self- discipline. 3 |
8. People would say that I have iron self- discipline. 4 |
8. People would say that I have iron self- discipline. 5 Very much |
|
|
9. Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done. 1 Not at all |
9. Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done. 2 |
9. Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done. 3 |
9. Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done. 4 |
9. Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done. 5 Very much |
|
|
10. I have trouble concentrating. 1 Not at all |
10. I have trouble concentrating. 2 |
10. I have trouble concentrating. 3 |
10. I have trouble concentrating. 4 |
10. I have trouble concentrating. 5 Very much |
|
|
11. I am able to work effectively toward long-term goals. 1 Not at all |
11. I am able to work effectively toward long-term goals. 2 |
11. I am able to work effectively toward long-term goals. 3 |
11. I am able to work effectively toward long-term goals. 4 |
11. I am able to work effectively toward long-term goals. 5 Very much |
|
|
12. Sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I know it is wrong. 1 Not at all |
12. Sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I know it is wrong. 2 |
12. Sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I know it is wrong. 3 |
12. Sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I know it is wrong. 4 |
12. Sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I know it is wrong. 5 Very much |
|
|
13. I often act without thinking through all the alternatives. 1 Not at all |
13. I often act without thinking through all the alternatives. 2 |
13. I often act without thinking through all the alternatives. 3 |
13. I often act without thinking through all the alternatives. 4 |
13. I often act without thinking through all the alternatives. 5 Very much |
Prev
Next
Powered by
See how easy it is to
create a survey
.
Assessing Attitudes and Behaviors
*
1.
Instructions: Thank you for volunteering to complete this survey. Please make no answers that could identify you individually.
Using the scale provided, please indicate how much each of the following statements reflects how you were during the last seven days.
1 Not at all
2
3
4
5
6
7 Very much
1. Within the last seven days, I have been good at resisting temptation.
1. Within the last seven days, I have been good at resisting temptation. 1 Not at all
1. Within the last seven days, I have been good at resisting temptation. 2
1. Within the last seven days, I have been good at resisting temptation. 3
1. Within the last seven days, I have been good at resisting temptation. 4
1. Within the last seven days, I have been good at resisting temptation. 5
1. Within the last seven days, I have been good at resisting temptation. 6
1. Within the last seven days, I have been good at resisting temptation. 7 Very much
2. Within the last seven days, I have had a hard time breaking bad habits.
2. Within the last seven days, I have had a hard time breaking bad habits. 1 Not at all
2. Within the last seven days, I have had a hard time breaking bad habits. 2
2. Within the last seven days, I have had a hard time breaking bad habits. 3
2. Within the last seven days, I have had a hard time breaking bad habits. 4
2. Within the last seven days, I have had a hard time breaking bad habits. 5
2. Within the last seven days, I have had a hard time breaking bad habits. 6
2. Within the last seven days, I have had a hard time breaking bad habits. 7 Very much
3. Within the last seven days, I have felt lazy.
3. Within the last seven days, I have felt lazy. 1 Not at all
3. Within the last seven days, I have felt lazy. 2
3. Within the last seven days, I have felt lazy. 3
3. Within the last seven days, I have felt lazy. 4
3. Within the last seven days, I have felt lazy. 5
3. Within the last seven days, I have felt lazy. 6
3. Within the last seven days, I have felt lazy. 7 Very much
4. Within the last seven days, I have said the wrong thing at the wrong time.
4. Within the last seven days, I have said the wrong thing at the wrong time. 1 Not at all
4. Within the last seven days, I have said the wrong thing at the wrong time. 2
4. Within the last seven days, I have said the wrong thing at the wrong time. 3
4. Within the last seven days, I have said the wrong thing at the wrong time. 4
4. Within the last seven days, I have said the wrong thing at the wrong time. 5
4. Within the last seven days, I have said the wrong thing at the wrong time. 6
4. Within the last seven days, I have said the wrong thing at the wrong time. 7 Very much
5. In the past seven days, I have not let myself lose control.
5. In the past seven days, I have not let myself lose control. 1 Not at all
5. In the past seven days, I have not let myself lose control. 2
5. In the past seven days, I have not let myself lose control. 3
5. In the past seven days, I have not let myself lose control. 4
5. In the past seven days, I have not let myself lose control. 5
5. In the past seven days, I have not let myself lose control. 6
5. In the past seven days, I have not let myself lose control. 7 Very much
6. During the past week, I have done things that were bad for me because they are fun.
6. During the past week, I have done things that were bad for me because they are fun. 1 Not at all
6. During the past week, I have done things that were bad for me because they are fun. 2
6. During the past week, I have done things that were bad for me because they are fun. 3
6. During the past week, I have done things that were bad for me because they are fun. 4
6. During the past week, I have done things that were bad for me because they are fun. 5
6. During the past week, I have done things that were bad for me because they are fun. 6
6. During the past week, I have done things that were bad for me because they are fun. 7 Very much
7. In the past week, people have been able to count on me to keep on schedule.
7. In the past week, people have been able to count on me to keep on schedule. 1 Not at all
7. In the past week, people have been able to count on me to keep on schedule. 2
7. In the past week, people have been able to count on me to keep on schedule. 3
7. In the past week, people have been able to count on me to keep on schedule. 4
7. In the past week, people have been able to count on me to keep on schedule. 5
7. In the past week, people have been able to count on me to keep on schedule. 6
7. In the past week, people have been able to count on me to keep on schedule. 7 Very much
8. For the past week, it has been hard to get up in the mornings.
8. For the past week, it has been hard to get up in the mornings. 1 Not at all
8. For the past week, it has been hard to get up in the mornings. 2
8. For the past week, it has been hard to get up in the mornings. 3
8. For the past week, it has been hard to get up in the mornings. 4
8. For the past week, it has been hard to get up in the mornings. 5
8. For the past week, it has been hard to get up in the mornings. 6
8. For the past week, it has been hard to get up in the mornings. 7 Very much
9. During the past week, I have had trouble saying no.
9. During the past week, I have had trouble saying no. 1 Not at all
9. During the past week, I have had trouble saying no. 2
9. During the past week, I have had trouble saying no. 3
9. During the past week, I have had trouble saying no. 4
9. During the past week, I have had trouble saying no. 5
9. During the past week, I have had trouble saying no. 6
9. During the past week, I have had trouble saying no. 7 Very much
10. During the past seven days, I have changed my mind often.
10. During the past seven days, I have changed my mind often. 1 Not at all
10. During the past seven days, I have changed my mind often. 2
10. During the past seven days, I have changed my mind often. 3
10. During the past seven days, I have changed my mind often. 4
10. During the past seven days, I have changed my mind often. 5
10. During the past seven days, I have changed my mind often. 6
10. During the past seven days, I have changed my mind often. 7 Very much
11. In the past seven days, I have blurted out whatever was on my mind.
11. In the past seven days, I have blurted out whatever was on my mind. 1 Not at all
11. In the past seven days, I have blurted out whatever was on my mind. 2
11. In the past seven days, I have blurted out whatever was on my mind. 3
11. In the past seven days, I have blurted out whatever was on my mind. 4
11. In the past seven days, I have blurted out whatever was on my mind. 5
11. In the past seven days, I have blurted out whatever was on my mind. 6
11. In the past seven days, I have blurted out whatever was on my mind. 7 Very much
12. During the past week, people would say that my behavior has been impulsive.
12. During the past week, people would say that my behavior has been impulsive. 1 Not at all
12. During the past week, people would say that my behavior has been impulsive. 2
12. During the past week, people would say that my behavior has been impulsive. 3
12. During the past week, people would say that my behavior has been impulsive. 4
12. During the past week, people would say that my behavior has been impulsive. 5
12. During the past week, people would say that my behavior has been impulsive. 6
12. During the past week, people would say that my behavior has been impulsive. 7 Very much
13. In the past seven days, I have refused things that were bad for me.
13. In the past seven days, I have refused things that were bad for me. 1 Not at all
13. In the past seven days, I have refused things that were bad for me. 2
13. In the past seven days, I have refused things that were bad for me. 3
13. In the past seven days, I have refused things that were bad for me. 4
13. In the past seven days, I have refused things that were bad for me. 5
13. In the past seven days, I have refused things that were bad for me. 6
13. In the past seven days, I have refused things that were bad for me. 7 Very much
14. In the past seven days, I have spent too much money needlessly.
14. In the past seven days, I have spent too much money needlessly. 1 Not at all
14. In the past seven days, I have spent too much money needlessly. 2
14. In the past seven days, I have spent too much money needlessly. 3
14. In the past seven days, I have spent too much money needlessly. 4
14. In the past seven days, I have spent too much money needlessly. 5
14. In the past seven days, I have spent too much money needlessly. 6
14. In the past seven days, I have spent too much money needlessly. 7 Very much
15. In the past seven days, I have kept everything neat.
15. In the past seven days, I have kept everything neat. 1 Not at all
15. In the past seven days, I have kept everything neat. 2
15. In the past seven days, I have kept everything neat. 3
15. In the past seven days, I have kept everything neat. 4
15. In the past seven days, I have kept everything neat. 5
15. In the past seven days, I have kept everything neat. 6
15. In the past seven days, I have kept everything neat. 7 Very much
16. In the past seven days, I have gone to extremes.
16. In the past seven days, I have gone to extremes. 1 Not at all
16. In the past seven days, I have gone to extremes. 2
16. In the past seven days, I have gone to extremes. 3
16. In the past seven days, I have gone to extremes. 4
16. In the past seven days, I have gone to extremes. 5
16. In the past seven days, I have gone to extremes. 6
16. In the past seven days, I have gone to extremes. 7 Very much
17. In the past seven days, I have felt like I needed to be more self-disciplined.
17. In the past seven days, I have felt like I needed to be more self-disciplined. 1 Not at all
17. In the past seven days, I have felt like I needed to be more self-disciplined. 2
17. In the past seven days, I have felt like I needed to be more self-disciplined. 3
17. In the past seven days, I have felt like I needed to be more self-disciplined. 4
17. In the past seven days, I have felt like I needed to be more self-disciplined. 5
17. In the past seven days, I have felt like I needed to be more self-disciplined. 6
17. In the past seven days, I have felt like I needed to be more self-disciplined. 7 Very much
18. In the past week, I have been dependable.
18. In the past week, I have been dependable. 1 Not at all
18. In the past week, I have been dependable. 2
18. In the past week, I have been dependable. 3
18. In the past week, I have been dependable. 4
18. In the past week, I have been dependable. 5
18. In the past week, I have been dependable. 6
18. In the past week, I have been dependable. 7 Very much
19. In the past week, I have been carried away by my feelings.
19. In the past week, I have been carried away by my feelings. 1 Not at all
19. In the past week, I have been carried away by my feelings. 2
19. In the past week, I have been carried away by my feelings. 3
19. In the past week, I have been carried away by my feelings. 4
19. In the past week, I have been carried away by my feelings. 5
19. In the past week, I have been carried away by my feelings. 6
19. In the past week, I have been carried away by my feelings. 7 Very much
20. In the past week, I have done many things on the spur of the moment.
20. In the past week, I have done many things on the spur of the moment. 1 Not at all
20. In the past week, I have done many things on the spur of the moment. 2
20. In the past week, I have done many things on the spur of the moment. 3
20. In the past week, I have done many things on the spur of the moment. 4
20. In the past week, I have done many things on the spur of the moment. 5
20. In the past week, I have done many things on the spur of the moment. 6
20. In the past week, I have done many things on the spur of the moment. 7 Very much
21. In the past seven days, I have not kept secrets very well.
21. In the past seven days, I have not kept secrets very well. 1 Not at all
21. In the past seven days, I have not kept secrets very well. 2
21. In the past seven days, I have not kept secrets very well. 3
21. In the past seven days, I have not kept secrets very well. 4
21. In the past seven days, I have not kept secrets very well. 5
21. In the past seven days, I have not kept secrets very well. 6
21. In the past seven days, I have not kept secrets very well. 7 Very much
22. In the past week, people would say that I have had strong self-discipline.
22. In the past week, people would say that I have had strong self-discipline. 1 Not at all
22. In the past week, people would say that I have had strong self-discipline. 2
22. In the past week, people would say that I have had strong self-discipline. 3
22. In the past week, people would say that I have had strong self-discipline. 4
22. In the past week, people would say that I have had strong self-discipline. 5
22. In the past week, people would say that I have had strong self-discipline. 6
22. In the past week, people would say that I have had strong self-discipline. 7 Very much
23. In the past week, I have worked or studied all night at the last minute.
23. In the past week, I have worked or studied all night at the last minute. 1 Not at all
23. In the past week, I have worked or studied all night at the last minute. 2
23. In the past week, I have worked or studied all night at the last minute. 3
23. In the past week, I have worked or studied all night at the last minute. 4
23. In the past week, I have worked or studied all night at the last minute. 5
23. In the past week, I have worked or studied all night at the last minute. 6
23. In the past week, I have worked or studied all night at the last minute. 7 Very much
24. In the past seven days, I have not been easily discouraged.
24. In the past seven days, I have not been easily discouraged. 1 Not at all
24. In the past seven days, I have not been easily discouraged. 2
24. In the past seven days, I have not been easily discouraged. 3
24. In the past seven days, I have not been easily discouraged. 4
24. In the past seven days, I have not been easily discouraged. 5
24. In the past seven days, I have not been easily discouraged. 6
24. In the past seven days, I have not been easily discouraged. 7 Very much
25. In the past seven days, I should have stopped to think before acting.
25. In the past seven days, I should have stopped to think before acting. 1 Not at all
25. In the past seven days, I should have stopped to think before acting. 2
25. In the past seven days, I should have stopped to think before acting. 3
25. In the past seven days, I should have stopped to think before acting. 4
25. In the past seven days, I should have stopped to think before acting. 5
25. In the past seven days, I should have stopped to think before acting. 6
25. In the past seven days, I should have stopped to think before acting. 7 Very much
26. In the past seven days, I have engaged in healthy practices.
26. In the past seven days, I have engaged in healthy practices. 1 Not at all
26. In the past seven days, I have engaged in healthy practices. 2
26. In the past seven days, I have engaged in healthy practices. 3
26. In the past seven days, I have engaged in healthy practices. 4
26. In the past seven days, I have engaged in healthy practices. 5
26. In the past seven days, I have engaged in healthy practices. 6
26. In the past seven days, I have engaged in healthy practices. 7 Very much
27. In the past seven days, I have eaten healthy food mostly.
27. In the past seven days, I have eaten healthy food mostly. 1 Not at all
27. In the past seven days, I have eaten healthy food mostly. 2
27. In the past seven days, I have eaten healthy food mostly. 3
27. In the past seven days, I have eaten healthy food mostly. 4
27. In the past seven days, I have eaten healthy food mostly. 5
27. In the past seven days, I have eaten healthy food mostly. 6
27. In the past seven days, I have eaten healthy food mostly. 7 Very much
28. In the past seven days, pleasure and fun sometimes have kept me from getting work done.
28. In the past seven days, pleasure and fun sometimes have kept me from getting work done. 1 Not at all
28. In the past seven days, pleasure and fun sometimes have kept me from getting work done. 2
28. In the past seven days, pleasure and fun sometimes have kept me from getting work done. 3
28. In the past seven days, pleasure and fun sometimes have kept me from getting work done. 4
28. In the past seven days, pleasure and fun sometimes have kept me from getting work done. 5
28. In the past seven days, pleasure and fun sometimes have kept me from getting work done. 6
28. In the past seven days, pleasure and fun sometimes have kept me from getting work done. 7 Very much
29. In the past week, I have had trouble concentrating.
29. In the past week, I have had trouble concentrating. 1 Not at all
29. In the past week, I have had trouble concentrating. 2
29. In the past week, I have had trouble concentrating. 3
29. In the past week, I have had trouble concentrating. 4
29. In the past week, I have had trouble concentrating. 5
29. In the past week, I have had trouble concentrating. 6
29. In the past week, I have had trouble concentrating. 7 Very much
30. In the past seven days, I have worked effectively toward long-term goals.
30. In the past seven days, I have worked effectively toward long-term goals. 1 Not at all
30. In the past seven days, I have worked effectively toward long-term goals. 2
30. In the past seven days, I have worked effectively toward long-term goals. 3
30. In the past seven days, I have worked effectively toward long-term goals. 4
30. In the past seven days, I have worked effectively toward long-term goals. 5
30. In the past seven days, I have worked effectively toward long-term goals. 6
30. In the past seven days, I have worked effectively toward long-term goals. 7 Very much
31. In the past seven days, sometimes I could not stop myself from doing something, even if I knew it was wrong.
31. In the past seven days, sometimes I could not stop myself from doing something, even if I knew it was wrong. 1 Not at all
31. In the past seven days, sometimes I could not stop myself from doing something, even if I knew it was wrong. 2
31. In the past seven days, sometimes I could not stop myself from doing something, even if I knew it was wrong. 3
31. In the past seven days, sometimes I could not stop myself from doing something, even if I knew it was wrong. 4
31. In the past seven days, sometimes I could not stop myself from doing something, even if I knew it was wrong. 5
31. In the past seven days, sometimes I could not stop myself from doing something, even if I knew it was wrong. 6
31. In the past seven days, sometimes I could not stop myself from doing something, even if I knew it was wrong. 7 Very much
32. In the past seven days, I often acted without thinking through all the alternatives.
32. In the past seven days, I often acted without thinking through all the alternatives. 1 Not at all
32. In the past seven days, I often acted without thinking through all the alternatives. 2
32. In the past seven days, I often acted without thinking through all the alternatives. 3
32. In the past seven days, I often acted without thinking through all the alternatives. 4
32. In the past seven days, I often acted without thinking through all the alternatives. 5
32. In the past seven days, I often acted without thinking through all the alternatives. 6
32. In the past seven days, I often acted without thinking through all the alternatives. 7 Very much
33. In the past week, I have lost my temper too easily.
33. In the past week, I have lost my temper too easily. 1 Not at all
33. In the past week, I have lost my temper too easily. 2
33. In the past week, I have lost my temper too easily. 3
33. In the past week, I have lost my temper too easily. 4
33. In the past week, I have lost my temper too easily. 5
33. In the past week, I have lost my temper too easily. 6
33. In the past week, I have lost my temper too easily. 7 Very much
34. In the past week, I often interrupted people.
34. In the past week, I often interrupted people. 1 Not at all
34. In the past week, I often interrupted people. 2
34. In the past week, I often interrupted people. 3
34. In the past week, I often interrupted people. 4
34. In the past week, I often interrupted people. 5
34. In the past week, I often interrupted people. 6
34. In the past week, I often interrupted people. 7 Very much
35. In the past seven days, I sometimes have used drugs or alcohol excessively.
35. In the past seven days, I sometimes have used drugs or alcohol excessively. 1 Not at all
35. In the past seven days, I sometimes have used drugs or alcohol excessively. 2
35. In the past seven days, I sometimes have used drugs or alcohol excessively. 3
35. In the past seven days, I sometimes have used drugs or alcohol excessively. 4
35. In the past seven days, I sometimes have used drugs or alcohol excessively. 5
35. In the past seven days, I sometimes have used drugs or alcohol excessively. 6
35. In the past seven days, I sometimes have used drugs or alcohol excessively. 7 Very much
36. In the past seven days, I always have been on time.
36. In the past seven days, I always have been on time. 1 Not at all
36. In the past seven days, I always have been on time. 2
36. In the past seven days, I always have been on time. 3
36. In the past seven days, I always have been on time. 4
36. In the past seven days, I always have been on time. 5
36. In the past seven days, I always have been on time. 6
36. In the past seven days, I always have been on time. 7 Very much
Prev
Next
Powered by
See how easy it is to create a survey.
|
Assessing Attitudes and Behaviors |
*
4.
Please respond to the following 12 items. Be honest – there are no right or wrong answers!
| Very much like me | Mostly like me | Somewhat like me | Not much like me | Not like me at all | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1. I have overcome setbacks to conquer an important challenge. Very much like me |
1. I have overcome setbacks to conquer an important challenge. Mostly like me |
1. I have overcome setbacks to conquer an important challenge. Somewhat like me |
1. I have overcome setbacks to conquer an important challenge. Not much like me |
1. I have overcome setbacks to conquer an important challenge. Not like me at all |
|
|
2. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones. Very much like me |
2. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones. Mostly like me |
2. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones. Somewhat like me |
2. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones. Not much like me |
2. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones. Not like me at all |
|
|
3. My interests change from year to year. Very much like me |
3. My interests change from year to year. Mostly like me |
3. My interests change from year to year. Somewhat like me |
3. My interests change from year to year. Not much like me |
3. My interests change from year to year. Not like me at all |
|
|
4. Setbacks don’t discourage me. Very much like me |
4. Setbacks don’t discourage me. Mostly like me |
4. Setbacks don’t discourage me. Somewhat like me |
4. Setbacks don’t discourage me. Not much like me |
4. Setbacks don’t discourage me. Not like me at all |
|
|
5. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest. Very much like me |
5. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest. Mostly like me |
5. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest. Somewhat like me |
5. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest. Not much like me |
5. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest. Not like me at all |
|
|
6. I am a hard worker. Very much like me |
6. I am a hard worker. Mostly like me |
6. I am a hard worker. Somewhat like me |
6. I am a hard worker. Not much like me |
6. I am a hard worker. Not like me at all |
|
|
7. I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one. Very much like me |
7. I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one. Mostly like me |
7. I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one. Somewhat like me |
7. I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one. Not much like me |
7. I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one. Not like me at all |
|
|
8. I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more than a few months to complete. Very much like me |
8. I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more than a few months to complete. Mostly like me |
8. I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more than a few months to complete. Somewhat like me |
8. I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more than a few months to complete. Not much like me |
8. I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more than a few months to complete. Not like me at all |
|
|
9. I finish whatever I begin. Very much like me |
9. I finish whatever I begin. Mostly like me |
9. I finish whatever I begin. Somewhat like me |
9. I finish whatever I begin. Not much like me |
9. I finish whatever I begin. Not like me at all |
|
|
10. I have achieved a goal that took years of work. Very much like me |
10. I have achieved a goal that took years of work. Mostly like me |
10. I have achieved a goal that took years of work. Somewhat like me |
10. I have achieved a goal that took years of work. Not much like me |
10. I have achieved a goal that took years of work. Not like me at all |
|
|
11. I become interested in new pursuits every few months. Very much like me |
11. I become interested in new pursuits every few months. Mostly like me |
11. I become interested in new pursuits every few months. Somewhat like me |
11. I become interested in new pursuits every few months. Not much like me |
11. I become interested in new pursuits every few months. Not like me at all |
|
|
12. I am diligent. Very much like me |
12. I am diligent. Mostly like me |
12. I am diligent. Somewhat like me |
12. I am diligent. Not much like me |
12. I am diligent. Not like me at all |
Prev
Next
Powered by
See how easy it is to
create a survey
.
|
Assessing Attitudes and Behaviors |
*
7.
How old are you?
*
8.
What is your gender?
Female
Male
*
9.
How do you usually describe yourself? (Mark all that apply)
White, non Hispanic (includes Middle Eastern)
Black, non Hispanic
Hispanic or Latino/a
Asian or Pacific Islander
American Indian, Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaiian
Biracial or Multiracial
Other
Prev
Next
Powered by
See how easy it is to
create a survey
.
|
Assessing Attitudes and Behaviors |
*
6.
For each item, indicate how true it is of you, using a scale from 1-4, where (1) not at all true, (2) barely true, (3) moderately true, (4) exactly true
| 1 Not at all true | 2 Barely true | 3 Moderately true | 4 Exactly true | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1. I can concentrate on one activity for a long time, if necessary. 1 Not at all true |
1. I can concentrate on one activity for a long time, if necessary. 2 Barely true |
1. I can concentrate on one activity for a long time, if necessary. 3 Moderately true |
1. I can concentrate on one activity for a long time, if necessary. 4 Exactly true |
|
|
2. If I am distracted from an activity, I don’t have any problem coming back to the topic quickly. 1 Not at all true |
2. If I am distracted from an activity, I don’t have any problem coming back to the topic quickly. 2 Barely true |
2. If I am distracted from an activity, I don’t have any problem coming back to the topic quickly. 3 Moderately true |
2. If I am distracted from an activity, I don’t have any problem coming back to the topic quickly. 4 Exactly true |
|
|
3. If an activity arouses my feelings too much, I can calm myself down so that I can continue with the activity soon. 1 Not at all true |
3. If an activity arouses my feelings too much, I can calm myself down so that I can continue with the activity soon. 2 Barely true |
3. If an activity arouses my feelings too much, I can calm myself down so that I can continue with the activity soon. 3 Moderately true |
3. If an activity arouses my feelings too much, I can calm myself down so that I can continue with the activity soon. 4 Exactly true |
|
|
4. If an activity requires a problem-oriented attitude, I can control my feelings. 1 Not at all true |
4. If an activity requires a problem-oriented attitude, I can control my feelings. 2 Barely true |
4. If an activity requires a problem-oriented attitude, I can control my feelings. 3 Moderately true |
4. If an activity requires a problem-oriented attitude, I can control my feelings. 4 Exactly true |
|
|
5. It is difficult for me to suppress thoughts that interfere with what I need to do. 1 Not at all true |
5. It is difficult for me to suppress thoughts that interfere with what I need to do. 2 Barely true |
5. It is difficult for me to suppress thoughts that interfere with what I need to do. 3 Moderately true |
5. It is difficult for me to suppress thoughts that interfere with what I need to do. 4 Exactly true |
|
|
6. I can control my thoughts from distracting me from the task at hand. 1 Not at all true |
6. I can control my thoughts from distracting me from the task at hand. 2 Barely true |
6. I can control my thoughts from distracting me from the task at hand. 3 Moderately true |
6. I can control my thoughts from distracting me from the task at hand. 4 Exactly true |
|
|
7. When I worry about something, I cannot concentrate on an activity. 1 Not at all true |
7. When I worry about something, I cannot concentrate on an activity. 2 Barely true |
7. When I worry about something, I cannot concentrate on an activity. 3 Moderately true |
7. When I worry about something, I cannot concentrate on an activity. 4 Exactly true |
|
|
8. After an interruption, I don’t have any problem resuming my concentrated style of working. 1 Not at all true |
8. After an interruption, I don’t have any problem resuming my concentrated style of working. 2 Barely true |
8. After an interruption, I don’t have any problem resuming my concentrated style of working. 3 Moderately true |
8. After an interruption, I don’t have any problem resuming my concentrated style of working. 4 Exactly true |
|
|
9. I have a whole bunch of thoughts and feelings that interfere with my ability to work in a focused way. 1 Not at all true |
9. I have a whole bunch of thoughts and feelings that interfere with my ability to work in a focused way. 2 Barely true |
9. I have a whole bunch of thoughts and feelings that interfere with my ability to work in a focused way. 3 Moderately true |
9. I have a whole bunch of thoughts and feelings that interfere with my ability to work in a focused way. 4 Exactly true |
|
|
10. I stay focused on my goal and don’t allow anything to distract me from my plan of action. 1 Not at all true |
10. I stay focused on my goal and don’t allow anything to distract me from my plan of action. 2 Barely true |
10. I stay focused on my goal and don’t allow anything to distract me from my plan of action. 3 Moderately true |
10. I stay focused on my goal and don’t allow anything to distract me from my plan of action. 4 Exactly true |
Prev
Next
Powered by
See how easy it is to
create a survey
.
1/17/2018 Assessing Attitudes and Behaviors Survey
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F3YW6NZ?sm=Pdnt5a89iZ80mWtloqwOsw%3d%3d 1/1
Powered by
See how easy it is to create a survey.
Assessing Attitudes and Behaviors
Thank you for taking the time and thought to complete this survey on Behavior and Attitudes.
We appreciate your participation!
Email Dr. Scott for a copy of the results after May 31, 2013.
(This page can be printed for a record of your participation.)
Prev Done
https://www.surveymonkey.com/?ut_source=survey_poweredby_home
https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/take-a-tour/?ut_source=survey_poweredby_howitworks
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 1/20
Chapter 1
Discovering Social Psychology
1.1 What Is Social Psychology?
1.2 Where Did Social Psychology Come From?
Social Psychology Before 1950
Social Psychology Since 1950
1.3 How Do We Do Social Psychology?
Observa�onal Method: What Is Happening?
Correla�onal Method: What Might Happen?
Experimental Method: What Causes That?
Sta�s�cal Measurement
Ethics in Research
Spencer Grant/age fotostock/SuperStock
Learning Objec�ves
By the end of the chapter you should be able to:
Define social psychology
Describe the history of social psychology
Describe the scien�fic method
Discuss the observa�onal method and explain when that method is most appropriate to the research ques�on
Discuss the correla�onal method and explain when that method is most appropriate to the research ques�on
Discuss the experimental method and explain when that method is most appropriate to the research ques�on
Define terms associated with the experimental method including independent and dependent variable,
experimental group and control group, random assignment and random sampling, internal and external validity,
generalizability, experimental and mundane realism, and demand characteris�cs
Understand the dangers of hindsight bias
Chapter Outline
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 2/20
Chapter Summary
* * *
One in every seven people on Earth is registered on Facebook. The site added the 1 billionth user in September 2012. Each U.S. user has an average
of around 260 friends (Sta�sta, 2012; Vance, 2012). In 2011 there were an es�mated 181 million blogs by people from around the world
(Nielsenwire, 2012). On its sixth birthday in March 2012, Twi�er reported an average of 340 million Tweets a day, with a 140 million users
(Twi�erblog, 2012). What can we conclude from this informa�on? Human beings are intensely interested in and regularly seek out interac�on with
other human beings. Social psychology is a field that is also interested in human beings. Social psychologists study people—in par�cular, people
interac�ng with one another.
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 3/20
Chris�n Gilbert/age fotostock/SuperStock
Humans use social networking websites to stay connected and interact with other
people.
Characteris�cs of a social psychologist.
Becoming a Social Psychologist
Cri�cal Thinking Ques�ons
According to Dr. Christenfield, what are the two skills
needed to thrive as a social psychologist?
Which of these skills is easier to train, and why?
1.1
What Is Social Psychology?
Social psychology is the scien�fic study of human thoughts, feelings, and behavior as
humans relate to and are influenced by others. However, many academic disciplines
are interested in human thoughts, feelings, or behavior. If you were to take a
literature course, you would find yourself contempla�ng the thoughts of Ishmael in
Moby Dick or the ac�ons of Lady Macbeth in Macbeth. In an art course you might
work on transla�ng a par�cular feeling into a sculpture or a pain�ng. What makes
social psychology different is the method it employs to study humans. As with other
science-related fields, social psychologists use the scien�fic method to learn about
human beings, a method that employs careful observa�on and empirical evidence to
come to conclusions. The focus of social psychology, however, is on the thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors of people, rather than the physical pieces that together make
up a person like DNA, cells, or muscles, and cons�tute the focus of natural science
fields like biology. Social psychology, as a branch of psychology, focuses on how
individuals are affected by others; and, as related to sociology, social psychology looks
at a person’s social se�ng within the dynamics of the social system.
Social psychology is o�en
paired with another
branch of psychology, personality psychology. One of the largest organiza�ons for social psychologists,
the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), includes personality psychologists. Social
psychologists emphasize how different people act in similar ways in similar situa�ons, documen�ng
how outside forces affect behavior. Personality psychologists focus on differen�a�ng people from one
another, observing how forces inside the person affect behavior. For example, to explain why your
friend Stuart joined a cult, a social psychologist might look at the persuasive techniques the cult used
to convince all of their converts to join. In contrast, a personality psychologist would focus on how
Stuart’s tendency toward following those in authority makes him, but not someone else, par�cularly
vulnerable to cults. Because situa�onal forces interact with personal characteris�cs, explana�ons for
behavior must address both. Social and personality psychologists therefore largely address both in the work they do.
Social psychologists study a wide variety of topics, including views of the self, persuasion, a�rac�on, and group processes. In general, social psychologists are
interested in how people relate to and influence one another, but there are many facets that do not fit this defini�on. Social psychology is a large, unwieldy, and
largely disjointed field of study. In a history of the field of psychology, science writer Morton Hunt (1983) aptly summarizes the issue: “The problem,” he writes,
“is that social psychology has no unifying concept; it did not develop from the seed of a theore�cal construct . . . but grew like crabgrass in uncul�vated regions
of the social sciences” (p. 397). Welcome to the study of crabgrass.
Large, unwieldy, and disjointed as it may be, social psychology offers the student and the scien�st a way of answering the ques�ons that haunt our daily lives.
How do I understand who I am and my capabili�es? What should I do in this new situa�on? Is that person interested in da�ng me? Does that infomercial really
convince anyone to buy the product? How do I get my school or work group to work be�er together? The diversity of topics found in social psychology also
allows for wonderful interconnec�ons with other areas of psychology. Both social psychologists and cogni�ve psychologists are interested in decision making and
a�ribu�ons. Social psychologists and developmental psychologists are both interested in a�achment and roman�c rela�onships. The special exper�se and focus
of the different areas means we know more about these topics than we might if they were studied in only one field of psychology.
Test Yourself
Given the preceding introduc�on to the field of social psychology, which of the following ques�ons would best be answered by social
psychology?
Click on each ques�on below to reveal the answer.
What happened in Ge�ysburg in July 1863?
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
While the answer to this ques�on might involve human behavior, it is a ques�on be�er answered using methods found in studies of history
than social psychological methods.
Does playing violent video games cause people to behave more aggressively toward others?
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
This ques�on is well suited to social psychology; it focuses on human behavior in rela�on to others and can be studied using the scien�fic
method.
Can playing hard-to-get make a person more a�rac�ve to others?
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 4/20
This ques�on is well suited to social psychology; it focuses on human behavior in rela�on to others and can be studied using the scien�fic
method.
Is there a God?
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
This is not a ques�on appropriate to social psychology. Social psychology is the scien�fic study of human thoughts, feelings, and behavior,
and this ques�on would be difficult or impossible to study scien�fically.
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 5/20
Associated Press
Kurt Lewin, an important early social psychologist, emphasized
the importance of theories and methods.
1.2
Where Did Social Psychology Come From?
In 1898, Norman Triple� published an ar�cle posing a ques�on about bicyclists. He wondered why cyclists seemed to race faster when in the presence of other
cyclists than when racing against the clock alone. To explore the effect of others on individual ac�on, Triple� developed a few hypotheses and then tested them
using the scien�fic method. For this reason, Triple� is considered by many social psychologists to have conducted the first social psychological research study
(Allport, 1954; Jones, 1998; though there is some disagreement, see Danziger, 2000 and Haines & Vaughan, 1979). Triple� found that, in general, par�cipants in
his study were able to perform ac�ons more quickly when in the presence of others.
The other study o�en cited as one of the first in the field of social psychology was performed by Max Ringelmann, a French agricultural engineer. He carried out
his work in the 1880s and published his findings in 1913 (Kravitz & Mar�n, 1986). In his research, Ringelmann asked par�cipants to pull on a rope either alone, in
a group of 7, or in a group of 14. He then assessed how hard the par�cipants pulled. He found that in the group of 14, the average per person force was much
less than the average per person force when par�cipants were pulling alone: 61.4 kg of force versus 85.3 kg of force. In a later study where par�cipants pushed
a cart in pairs or alone, he also found less individual exer�on of force when par�cipants were working with others. Both Triple�’s and Ringelmann’s studies used
the scien�fic method to be�er understand how an individual’s performance is affected by others, the essence of social psychology.
Social Psychology Before 1950
If we date the start of social psychology to 1898, we realize that the field is not very old, at least not
for a scien�fic discipline. Work in the field began slowly, and before 1950 the number of researchers
and theories was small. Muzafer Sherif (1936) did some early work on the power of the group to
influence judgments, discovering that norms were quickly and naturally developed in groups of
people. Miller and Dollard studied aggression and proposed a link between frustra�on and
aggression (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939; Miller, 1941). In early work on a�tudes,
Richard T. LaPiere (1934) found that our a�tudes and our ac�ons do not always align, while Fritz
Heider (1946) proposed a theory of a�tudes that focused on balance.
In these early days the field struggled to define itself, its method, and its subject of interest. Two
major figures in the field held opposing views. Floyd Henry Allport (1890–1979) wrote an early
textbook for social psychology, published in 1924. Allport was a strong proponent of the use of a
rigorous scien�fic method. He advocated for a focus on individuals, not groups or norms, and the
behaviors of people, not thoughts or feelings. Another major figure was Kurt Lewin (1890–1947), a
refugee from Nazi Germany who moved to the United States in 1933. Lewin had a major influence
on the field of social psychology. He believed that outside forces affect the behavior of the
individual, that the ac�ons and decisions of the individual are constrained by fields of force, similar
to how the planets in our solar system are constrained in their movement by the pull of gravity from
the bodies that surround them. But Lewin’s contribu�ons were primarily in the realm of theory and
method—it was the way he did social psychology that people emulated. For more on what Lewin did
and his disagreement with Allport, see the Social Psychology in Depth box.
Social Psychology in Depth: Lewin’s Contribu�ons
The psychologist finds himself in the midst of a rich and vast land full of strange happenings: There are men killing themselves; a
child playing; a person who, having fallen in love and being caught in an unhappy situa�on, is not willing or not able to find a way
out; . . . there is the reaching out for higher and more difficult goals; loyalty to a group; dreaming; planning; exploring the world;
and so on without end.
It is an immense con�nent full of fascina�on and power and full of stretches of land where no one ever has set foot.
Psychology is out to conquer this con�nent, to find out where its treasures are hidden, to inves�gate its danger spots, to master
its vast forces, to u�lize its energies. How can one reach this goal? (Lewin, 1940, cited in Marrow, 1969, p. 3)
As a young science, social psychology struggled to find its direc�on and focus. Kurt Lewin helped the field find its way, while also making great
contribu�ons to child development and industrial/organiza�onal psychology (Ash, 1992). Lewin explained that behavior (B) was a func�on (f) of
both the person (P) and the environment (E), resul�ng in an equa�on wri�en as B = f (P, E). For human beings, the environment (E) most o�en
includes other people, so Lewin was intensely interested in the effect we have on one another. In fact, Lewin was the person who coined the
term group dynamics (Berscheid, 2003).
Lewin saw the importance of studying people outside the laboratory, in everyday situa�ons. He also studied the important issues of the day,
focusing psychological study on the par�cular social issues that needed to be solved. The study that ini�ally gained him popularity in the United
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 6/20
States was one of leadership styles. Lewin and his colleagues (Lewin, Lippi�, & White, 1939) compared the behavior of children assigned to
groups led by adults using an authoritarian and laissez-faire style with the behavior of children led by those using a more democra�c style. They
found that hos�le behavior was usually higher in the groups led using an authoritarian or laissez-faire style than led using a democra�c style.
Lewin believed that groups could be studied experimentally and did so in studies like the one on leadership styles.
Another prominent psychologist, Floyd Allport (1924), argued that only the individual could be the subject of study. Allport maintained that
psychology studies the individual, so extending psychology to groups goes against the defini�on of the field. Allport also believed that social
psychologists should focus on laboratory studies. It was Allport who pointed to Triple�’s 1898 study as the first in the history of social
psychology, not because Triple� himself saw it as a social psychological study but because it fit Allport’s model of what a study in social
psychology should be (Berscheid, 2003). Allport was a good salesman.
The topics that social psychologists study, however, are more in line with Lewin’s ideas of appropriate subjects for the field than Allport’s ideas.
Social psychologists study the interac�on of the person and environment, and groups—both large groups and very small groups (those made up
of two people). The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, an organiza�on Lewin helped start, is alive and well. Lewin’s ideas
con�nue to be used in the area of ac�on research, which focuses on making improvements to difficult situa�ons while advancing scien�fic
knowledge (Bargal, 2008; Sommer, 2009). Given the big issues we face in the world today—war, poverty, and discrimina�on, to name a few—one
can hope for Lewin’s tradi�on to con�nue.
Social Psychology Since 1950
In the 1950s and 1960s, the number of social psychologists and research within the field expanded rapidly. A number of factors contributed to this increased
interest in the field. One desire of a number of social psychologists, and therefore a topic of study in this period, was to explain the violent events leading up to
and taking place during World War II. Researchers focused on subjects such as the causes of aggression, group ac�ons (e.g., conformity and social facilita�on),
and individual ac�ons (e.g., obedience). In the United States the field benefited from a number of psychologists who fled Europe before or during World War II.
Serious study of many of the topics you will read about throughout this text began in these decades. These concepts, the researchers, and their major findings
are summarized in Table 1.1. As we explore social psychology throughout the coming weeks, keep this table in mind.
Table 1.1: Social psychological topics and researchers of the 1950s and 1960s
Topic Researcher, Date, Title, and Journal Major Finding
Aggression Berkowitz, L., & LePage, A. (1967). Weapons
as aggression-elici�ng s�muli. In the Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology.
The presence of a weapon elicited greater aggression than the
presence of a neutral s�mulus or no object.
A�rac�on Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., &
Ro�mann, L. (1966). Importance of physical
a�rac�veness in da�ng behavior. In the
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
A�rac�ve individuals were liked more, more likely to be pursued
for a later date, and rated their dates more harshly.
Cogni�ve
dissonance
Fes�nger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959).
Cogni�ve consequences of forced compliance.
In the Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology.
Par�cipants receiving a small reward to lie to another
par�cipant were more likely to report they enjoyed the boring
study and would par�cipate in a similar study in the future than
those who received a large reward.
Conformity Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of interdependence
and conformity: A minority of one against the
unanimous majority. In Psychological
Monographs.
Even when an answer was obviously wrong, individuals
conformed to a unanimous group at least some of the �me.
Helping Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group
inhibi�on of bystander interven�on in
emergencies. In the Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology.
Par�cipants alone helped more quickly when alone than when
in the presence of unresponsive others or other naïve
par�cipants.
Obedience Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of
obedience. In the Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology.
Commands of obedience were obeyed even when the
commands appeared to harm another individual.
Persuasion Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The
influence of source credibility on
communica�on effec�veness. In Public
Opinion Quarterly.
A�er �me, par�cipants accepted an originally rejected message
from an untrustworthy source.
Social
facilita�on
Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E.
M. (1969). Social enhancement and
impairment of performance in the cockroach.
In the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology.
Cockroaches running a difficult maze took a shorter �me when
they were alone than when they were observed by other
cockroaches. Cockroaches running an easy maze took a longer
�me when they were alone than when they were observed.
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 7/20
Expand Your Knowledge: Looking for More?
The Inquisi�ve Mind, or In-Mind, is a website with interes�ng,
accessible ar�cles on social psychology for the general public. If you
would like to learn more about current findings in the field from
respected researchers, take a look at h�p://beta.in-mind.org/
(h�p://beta.in-mind.org/) .
Since the 1960s, psychology as a whole has put more emphasis on cogni�on or thinking processes rather than just observable behavior. In research on the self,
for example, social psychologists have found that the way we think about ourselves influences the way we approach the world. People who view themselves as
possessing par�cular quali�es tend to no�ce those quali�es in others. Our cogni�ve processes also impact the decisions we make, an idea we will explore in the
chapter on making judgments. Basic cogni�ve processes such as categoriza�on also impact how we think about others. Because of our tendency to categorize,
we assume people who share one characteris�c share others as well, resul�ng in stereotypes.
As our technologies for looking inside the brain have improved, so too have our abili�es to see how brain anatomy and brain processes relate to the social
aspects of the person. Researchers have found that when we think about ourselves, we use a different part of the brain than if we are thinking about other
people or things. Processing informa�on about the self u�lizes a unique loca�on in the brain, and when people are thinking about themselves, this part of the
brain shows heightened ac�va�on. Other parts of the brain are ac�vated when people are paying a�en�on to what others are doing, either in a�emp�ng to
understand others’ thought processes or evalua�ng whether their ac�ons may be threatening. We also use different parts of our brain when we are a�emp�ng
to regulate our thoughts or behaviors in social situa�ons (Heatherton, 2011). Social neuroscience is s�ll a rela�vely new field; researchers are only beginning to
explore all the ways our brain reflects our social ac�vi�es.
In more recent decades, social psychologists have also paid more a�en�on to the impact of cultural differences on the person (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
They have found that people may think differently about themselves and their rela�onships and interact with one another differently depending on culture. For
example, studies show that young people in the United States place more emphasis and importance on roman�c rela�onships than people in South Korea do.
College students in the two countries were surveyed at the beginning and the end of the spring semester to assess stability of roman�c rela�onship status,
roman�c loneliness, and closeness. The researchers then compared the South Korean and U.S. students—those who were in stable roman�c rela�onships and
those who were not. U.S. students in stable roman�c rela�onships showed less loneliness than their U.S. counterparts without a stable roman�c rela�onship.
Korean students had only a small decrease in loneliness when in a stable roman�c rela�onship. In other words, when not in a roman�c rela�onship, Korean
young adults do not experience as much roman�c loneliness as young adults in the United States do. Within rela�onships, young adults in the United States
report greater closeness to their partner than young adults in Korea do (Seepersad, Choi, & Shin, 2008). These findings suggest that young adults in the United
States place greater importance on roman�c rela�onships for comba�ng loneliness and gaining closeness with another person. Friends or family may be more
important for South Korean young adults in mee�ng social needs.
Social psychologists have also begun incorpora�ng evolu�onary theories to explain
various psychological findings. According to evolu�onary theory, those
characteris�cs of an organism that allow it to survive and reproduce within its
environment are most likely to appear in later genera�ons. Evolu�onary theory is
o�en used in biology and other sciences, but within psychology our focus is more
o�en on adap�ve behaviors (e.g., being afraid of strangers) rather than on
adap�ve biological characteris�cs (e.g., opposable thumbs). Adap�ve behaviors
may s�ll have a biological mechanism that can be passed on through the genes.
For instance, in evolu�onary history, individuals who showed a strong response to
strangers in the amygdala, the brain structure largely responsible for the emo�on
of fear, were more likely to survive an a�ack by a rival group. Their survival meant they had children and passed the genes responsible for their stranger-
ac�vated amygdala on to future genera�ons.
Evolu�onary psychology can act as a metatheory, a theory that explains other theories (Duntley & Buss, 2008). For example, on the theme of roman�c
rela�onships, evolu�onary psychologists would suggest that a man capable of iden�fying a fer�le woman and keeping that woman away from other men will be
more successful in passing down his genes to future genera�ons. A woman, on the other hand, would want to iden�fy a man who is willing and able to invest in
her and her offspring, given the long investment she has in pregnancy and a dependent infant. We find exactly these kinds of pa�erns across cultures (Buss,
Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Buss & Schmi�, 1993; Kaighobadi, Shackelford, & Buss, 2010). Men report greater interest in physical a�rac�veness, desire
more sexual partners, and are more jealous of sexual infidelity than emo�onal infidelity. Women, on the other hand, show more interest in status and income
and are more jealous when a partner becomes emo�onally close to another woman, which could poten�ally lead him to stop inves�ng in her and their offspring.
Test Yourself
Click on each ques�on below to reveal the answer.
The first study in social psychology was conducted by Triple� in
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover#)
a. 1809
b. 1898
c. 1950
d. 1989
Correct answer: b
http://beta.in-mind.org/
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 8/20
When did the number of researchers in the field of social psychology begin to increase?
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover#)
In the 1950s and 1960s, a�er World War II, the number of social psychologists, and the topics they studied, grew.
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 9/20
Belinda Images/SuperStock
Observa�onal studies allow researchers to observe people and their behavior in
naturalis�c se�ngs.
1.3
How Do We Do Social Psychology?
What makes social psychology a science? The common theme among the chemist in the lab, the physicist at the Large Hadron Collider, the ecologist out in the
forest, and the psychologist is the method all use to explore the subject ma�er: the scien�fic method. The scien�fic method begins with a testable predic�on, a
hypothesis, which can be inspired by experiences in the world or developed from a theory, which is a set of principles or a framework for a set of observa�ons
based on previous research. Once a hypothesis has been developed, the researcher will want to actually test the predic�on. There are three basic methods for
tes�ng hypotheses: the observa�onal method, the correla�onal method, and the experimental method. Which one to use depends on the ques�on asked.
Observa�onal Method: What Is Happening?
When a researcher simply wants to know what is happening within a situa�on or with
a par�cular phenomenon, observa�onal methods are most appropriate. For example,
while watching one of those long commercials on late-night television called an
infomercial, a researcher might wonder how many include a “free bonus gi�.” An
observa�onal method can help to answer this ques�on. When using observa�onal
methods, a researcher simply observes a behavior or situa�on and records what is
happening.
Observa�onal methods are systema�c in nature. Before conduc�ng the observa�on, a
researcher most o�en decides exactly what cons�tutes the behavior being studied.
For example, in inves�ga�ng how many infomercials offer a free gi�, the researcher
might specify that the free gi� must come with the purchase and not require separate
shipping and handling charges. Decisions must also be made about when to sample
the behavior. A researcher could decide to sample infomercials occurring between
12:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. on network television or between 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
on weekends on cable television. Depending on the research ques�on, observa�onal
research might take place in a wide variety of se�ngs. An interest in children’s
aggressive behavior might lead to observa�ons in a day care se�ng. For a research
ques�on about the ac�ons of people si�ng in wai�ng rooms, data collec�on could take place at a local den�st’s office.
Observa�onal methods are helpful in describing if or how o�en something might happen. Many observa�onal studies take place in naturalis�c se�ngs, so
people’s behaviors are generally the same as in their everyday lives. One drawback of this method is that rela�vely rare or private behaviors, such as sexual
ac�vity, are difficult or unethical to observe. Scien�sts using this method also need to be careful to not allow their presence to affect the behavior being
observed.
Test Yourself
Click on the ques�on below to reveal the answer.
Describe several research ques�ons that would best be answered using the observa�onal method.
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
Examples: How o�en do people jaywalk? How o�en do people hold open the door for strangers when going into a store? Do people read the
magazines in a doctor’s office wai�ng room?
Correla�onal Method: What Might Happen?
Researchers o�en want to be able to predict if one behavior (or feeling or thought) will occur as a result of another behavior. In these cases, they use the
correla�onal method. If a researcher was interested in whether the age of people is associated with their likelihood of buying an infomercial product, the
correla�onal method would be used. To apply this method, people’s ages would need to be recorded, as well as how many infomercial products they had
purchased within a specified period, for instance, within the last month. In research, the en��es assessed when using a correla�onal method are called variables.
A variable is literally something that varies or can vary. In this study, two variables are assessed: age and purchases. Researchers are interested in whether there
is a rela�on between the two variables they are comparing. Does knowing a person’s age tell us anything about the number of adver�sed products bought last
month? Are these variables co-related?
Correla�onal research o�en involves the use of survey methods. Surveys help researchers gather informa�on about people by asking individuals to answer a
ques�on or a series of ques�ons about themselves and what they think, feel, or do. Surveys may be conducted in a wide variety of ways. Some�mes researchers
do face-to-face interviews, or talk to people on the telephone to collect informa�on. Other �mes a paper-and-pencil survey is sent to poten�al par�cipants or
people sit in a group se�ng, like a classroom, to fill out a survey. Surveys are also administered online. Surveys can be helpful in collec�ng a lot of informa�on in
a rela�vely short period, but researchers must be careful of the wording of ques�ons within a survey so they do not lead people to a desired answer.
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100… 10/20
Expand Your Knowledge: Par�cipate in Research
Want to see what social psychological research is really like?
Par�cipate in online research. One clearinghouse for studies can be
found at the Social Psychology Network website:
h�p://www.socialpsychology.org/ (h�p://www.socialpsychology.org/) .
Another concern of survey research is the reliability of the survey. A reliable survey is one that provides consistent informa�on. For example, if an individual was
surveyed about his or her religious beliefs one week and then again 2 weeks later, the answers on the survey should be similar both �mes, unless, of course, the
person surveyed experienced a religious conversion in that �me. If two administra�ons of a survey provided very different results and there is no alterna�ve
explana�on for the lack of consistency, the survey is unreliable and should not be used in research. Surveys are o�en used in correla�onal research but may also
be used in experiments to find out how people think, feel, or behave.
Beyond the survey method, other methods can be used when collec�ng data on variables, combining more than one research method. For example, if the
researcher was interested in whether children’s aggressive behavior was related to the number of teachers observing the children’s play, the children could be
observed on the playground, and the number of teachers watching could also be recorded. If a researcher wanted to know if the number of aggressive acts by
children was related to parental a�tudes toward violence, observa�ons might be paired with a survey of parental a�tudes toward violence. Data might also be
obtained from other sources. A research ques�on about the rela�on between age and purchasing from infomercials might be answered with a survey of
individuals but could also be addressed if the researcher received permission to look at people’s credit card purchases of infomercial products, as well as the
credit card company’s data concerning their clients’ ages. Note that with the correla�onal method, the researcher is not manipula�ng the environment or
a�emp�ng to change people’s behavior, but rather, looking at what people are naturally doing, specific a�ributes, or what they are thinking or feeling.
The correla�onal method can be very useful, but it must be used with cau�on. If
knowledge of one variable (age) helps predict another (buying), does that mean
that one causes the other? Not necessarily. It is possible that the first variable
caused the second, or that the second variable caused the first, or that some
other variable caused both variables. Without further research we cannot know
which possibility is true. For example, a researcher might find a nega�ve
correla�on in schools between the number of teachers monitoring hallway
behavior and the number of acts of aggression in the hallway. It is possible that
more teachers in the hallway caused lower aggression, but it is also possible that
there were fewer teachers in the hallway in the face of aggression because they had le� to avoid it. Knowing that there is a correla�on between two events does
not tell us which, if either, is the cause. In fact, it is quite common to have a third variable cause a correla�on between two other variables. For example,
sunburn and outdoor temperature are correlated. Does this mean that hot weather causes sunburn or that sunburn causes hot weather? Of course not. The
summer sun causes both sunburn and hot weather. Cum hoc propter hoc—correla�on does not imply causa�on.
Test Yourself
Click on each ques�on below to reveal the answer.
If a researcher were to give a test of crea�vity to a par�cipant and get a score of 12 and a week later give the same test again and get a
score of 12, that crea�vity test would have what quality?
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
Reliability. A test that provides consistent scores is reliable.
If two variables are correlated, does that mean that one of them causes the other?
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
No. Two variables can be correlated but both be caused by another variable. Correla�on is not causa�on.
Experimental Method: What Causes That?
A researcher interested in causality would use the experimental method (see Figure 1.1). For example, if we are interested in whether offering a free gi� makes
people more likely to buy things, we would do an experiment. In this basic experiment half of a group of people would be randomly assigned to watch an
infomercial where a free gi� is offered at the end, and the other half of the group would watch an iden�cal infomercial but without reference to a free gi�. Each
person would then be asked how much they would like to buy the product.
The Experimental Study
In an experiment, the group that receives the treatment or experiences a change in their environment is called the experimental group. In the study of free gi�s
in infomercials, the group that is offered the free gi� would be the experimental group, and the group to which nothing was offered is called the control group.
Researchers use other terms for other parts of an experiment. The variable manipulated in an experiment, in this case the presence or absence of a free gi�
offer, is called the independent variable. The variable we measure in an experiment, in this case desire to buy, is the dependent variable. An experiment tests
whether the independent and dependent variable have a cause and effect rela�onship. If the presence or absence of a gi� (i.e., the independent variable)
changes buying behavior (i.e., the dependent variable), the assump�on is that gi�s cause a desire to buy.
Figure 1.1: The experimental method
http://www.socialpsychology.org/
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100… 11/20
A simple experiment can be designed to test a hypothesis.
Many experiments involve random assignment, which means that each individual in the sample has an equal chance of being in each of the groups (levels of the
independent variable). In the study of infomercials, the researcher might flip a coin and assign those who got heads to get the free gi� and those who got tails
to be offered no free gi�. Random assignment is important because it lessens the possibility of extraneous variables affec�ng the study. Extraneous variables are
things that are outside of our interest but that may affect the results of the study. For example, if a researcher assigned the first half of the people who
volunteered to be part of the study to watch the infomercial with the free gi�, they may be more likely to buy because they are generally eager people. They
signed up quickly for the study and were also very interested in other opportuni�es, like a free gi�. If, instead, the researcher randomly assigned individuals to
the two groups, the eager people would likely be distributed fairly equally between the two groups. Random assignment allows preexis�ng differences within
par�cipants to be randomly distributed among the groups in a study.
Despite researchers’ best efforts, there are �mes when a par�cular kind of extraneous variable interferes with research conclusions. Confounding variables, also
known as “third” or “latent” variables, are variables that change or are inadvertently manipulated along with the independent variable. For example, imagine we
found a difference in buying behavior between the experimental group and control group in our study of infomercial free gi�s. If every par�cipant saw the same
infomercial in our study, and only the experimental group saw a final segment offering them a free gi�, we might reasonably assume that a free gi� encourages
buying. But this might not be the case. If the offer of the free gi� took another 20 seconds, perhaps the extra processing �me influenced the buying behavior of
the experimental group. Along with our independent variable manipula�on (offer of a free gi�), came a confounding variable (extra processing �me). Extraneous
variables, and in par�cular confounding variables, are notoriously difficult to control and, at �mes, even see. As you read about research in social psychology, be
on the lookout for extraneous variables and keep in mind their poten�al impact on our conclusions.
A study free from extraneous and confounding variables, where we are fairly certain that the independent variable caused the observed change in the dependent
variable is described as having internal validity. But having humans as research par�cipants creates special problems for those who study them. For example,
demand characteris�cs occur when research par�cipants change their behavior because of what they perceive to be the purpose of the study. If par�cipants
believe a researcher is looking at whether free gi�s made people happy, those par�cipants might report being happy when ge�ng a gi�, even though they
actually find the free gi� an annoying distrac�on. When demand characteris�cs are in play, the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable
cannot be clearly seen. The researcher would not know if the par�cipants were ac�ng happy because they were being nice or because the free gi� actually
made them happy. One way to avoid demand characteris�cs is to use decep�on to mislead par�cipants about the true focus of the study. However, decep�on
brings with it a variety of ethical problems.
Test Yourself
Click on each ques�on below to reveal the answer.
Iden�fy the independent and dependent variables.
a. To see if college students ate less when served on smaller plates, students received a normal cafeteria meal on the regular plates or
on plates that were 1 inch smaller in diameter.
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1
Independent variable: size of plate; Dependent variable: amount eaten
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100… 12/20
©2008/Daily News, L.P./NY Daily News via Ge�y Images
If a psychological study is conducted with only adolescent-aged males, do the
results have external validity?
Using the scien�fic method in social psychology
research.
Conduc�ng Research
Cri�cal Thinking Ques�ons
How is the scien�fic method u�lized in social
psychology research?
Think of a ques�on related to social psychology. How
would you go about answering that ques�on?
b. Inves�ga�ng whether receiving candy while taking a test improved test scores, students either received a small candy bar while
taking a test or no candy.
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1
Independent variable: candy; Dependent variable: test scores
c. Looking at the difference clothing might make on perceived trustworthiness of a newscaster, the newscaster either wore very casual
clothes or his usual suit and �e to present the news. Both the viewers who saw him wearing casual clothes and the viewers who
saw him in his usual clothing rated his trustworthiness.
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1
Independent variable: clothing; Dependent variable: perceived trustworthiness
For each of the preceding scenarios, iden�fy the experimental and the control group.
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
Experimental group: students ea�ng off the plates that were 1 inch smaller in diameter; Control group: students ea�ng off the regular plates
Experimental group: students receiving candy; Control group: students receiving no candy
Experimental group: viewers who saw the newscaster in casual clothing; Control group: viewers who saw the newscaster in his usual suit and
�e
Applica�on of an Experiment
Researchers want the findings of their work to have generalizability. A study that is
generalizable is one whose results can be applied in a variety of situa�ons. If the
findings of a study apply only to the laboratory se�ng or only with the type of people
that par�cipated, the findings are not very useful to everyday people in everyday
situa�ons. Studies that are generalizable are said to have external validity, which is
the extent to which the results of a par�cular study are applicable to other places,
other people, and other �mes.
To ensure that findings are relevant to a variety of people, researchers try to get a
representa�ve sample of the popula�on to be part of the study. In a study of the
effect of free gi�s in infomercials on buying behavior, a researcher could recruit a
number of friends to be part of the study. The problem with this idea is that the
results might apply only to people like the researcher, likely of similar age and life
situa�on. Would the findings also apply to an 80-year-old widow, 50-year-old
businessperson, and 30-year-old stay-at-home dad? To make certain the findings will
apply to a wide variety, researchers try to get a random sample from a popula�on. A
random sample is a group of individuals chosen from a popula�on where every
member of the popula�on had an equal chance of being part of the study. Random
samples give us a good chance of ge�ng a sample that is representa�ve of the
popula�on, and therefore, results that are applicable back to the popula�on. Random
samples are important not just when using the experimental method but for the observa�onal and correla�onal method as well.
True random samples can be difficult to obtain. Ge�ng the contact informa�on for everyone at a somewhat small workplace might be rela�vely easy, but what if
the popula�on is the en�re television-viewing public in the United States? How does one assure that every U.S. television viewer has an equal chance of being
part of a study? Choosing a sample from all the people listed in phone books would be excluding those with only cell phones, unlisted numbers, or no phone. A
sample from all the addresses of U.S. households, assuming such a list could be obtained, would exclude the homeless and those in transi�on between
residences.
The issue of random sampling has been problema�c in social psychology. Many social psychologists
teach and do research at colleges and universi�es, so they use the par�cipants that are easily
available to them: college students. In one assessment of this problem Henry (2008) looked at
ar�cles on prejudice and s�gma published in the top three journals in social psychology between
1990 and 2005, finding that between 87% and 98% used student samples. While this tells us a great
deal about “college sophomores in the laboratory,” as Sears (1986) put it, the findings may not apply
well to those not in college, those of middle age, or the elderly.
When drawing conclusions about social behavior, there is a tempta�on to believe that the conclusion
reached was obvious all along. This tendency to overes�mate your ability to have predicted the
results is known as hindsight bias (Bernstein, Atance, Lo�us, & Meltzoff, 2004; Fischhoff, 1975; Werth
& Strack, 2003). An example of hindsight bias is when someone says that they knew which team was
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100… 13/20
going to win a championship game, a�er that team had already won. Or, a�er telling your grandma about your recent engagement, she informs you that she
“knew all along that girl was ‘the one.'” Many students of social psychology face hindsight bias when studying various social phenomenons. As you read about
the research of social psychologists, you may think that the conclusion was obvious, so much so that it seemed like a silly study to do in the first place. But what
is obvious is not always right.
Researchers want to be able to apply results to different people and to se�ngs outside of the laboratory. If par�cipants act differently in a research lab than they
do in everyday life, a researcher can only predict what happens in research labs, not in the real world. In order to encourage par�cipants to act naturally, some
researchers try to make the experimental se�ng as similar to the real-life se�ng as possible. When the environment par�cipants experience is similar to what
they would experience in real life, the study is said to have mundane realism. For example, in a study of infomercials, researchers might ask par�cipants to sit on
a comfortable couch in a decorated room to simulate the home environment rather than have par�cipants sit at a desk or on a hard office chair.
Even without mundane realism, it is possible to encourage experimental realism in a research study. Experimental realism occurs when research par�cipants are
completely involved and engaged in what they are doing. With experimental realism, the par�cipants’ immersion in the ac�vity causes them to act as they would
in their everyday lives. Researchers generally prefer experimental realism over mundane realism. Par�cipants watching an infomercial on a comfortable couch
may experience the real-life se�ng but s�ll act in the way they think the experimenter wants them to, showing demand characteris�cs and providing a response
they would not in their everyday life. Mundane realism can encourage experimental realism, but experimental realism can occur even without mundane realism.
Par�cipants might feel very comfortable watching the infomercial on the couch and pay as much a�en�on to it as they would in their own living room at home,
but it is possible they might have been equally engaged while si�ng on a hard chair in a stark room.
Test Yourself
Click on each ques�on below to reveal the answer.
Why is generalizability important?
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
Without generalizability, the findings of research are only applicable to the situa�ons or types of se�ngs in which the data were collected.
Social psychologists want to know how people normally behave in everyday situa�ons, so they want their findings to apply to those
situa�ons and types of se�ngs.
What is the difference between random sampling and random assignment?
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
With random sampling, researchers are obtaining par�cipants from a popula�on. Sampling involves ge�ng par�cipants for a study. Random
assignment is what a researcher may or may not do a�er acquiring a sample. Random assignment involves actually pu�ng par�cipants into
the experimental or control group(s). Just because a researcher does one, it does not mean the research has done the other. It is possible to
do random sampling and then fail to randomly assign par�cipants and to do non-random sampling and then randomly assign par�cipants to
group.
If you were doing a study on conflict in roman�c rela�onships, what might you do to encourage mundane realism?
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
Place par�cipants in a se�ng that approximates real life. For example, couples are likely to spend much of their �me in conflict at home, so
a researcher could ask couples to sit in a room that looks like a living room and talk about a topic that causes conflict in their rela�onship.
Why is the hindsight bias also known as the I-knew-it-all-along phenomenon?
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
When people engage in the hindsight bias, they believe that what they did not know earlier is so obvious they must have known it all along.
Sta�s�cal Measurement
The results of research need to be organized and summarized so they can be understood and shared. Researchers use various sta�s�cal measures to help them
see what the collected informa�on means and to communicate this informa�on succinctly. Within observa�onal research, coun�ng the total number of behaviors
seen and describing the range can be helpful. For example, a researcher could observe aggression shown by different children on the playground and report the
total number of aggressive acts shown by each child. Table 1.2 shows the results from one observa�on of seven children on a playground. A researcher could
report that the range of scores was between 2 and 7 acts, with a total of 5 acts between the most aggressive and least aggressive child. This may be helpful
informa�on, but it would also be interes�ng to know the number of aggressive acts most children engage in or the average number of aggressive acts.
One way to report this informa�on would be to describe the most common number of aggressive acts seen in the children. Repor�ng the most common
response is repor�ng the mode. As seen in Table 1.2, three of the seven children engaged in three aggressive acts; 3 was the most common number of acts, so
the mode for this group is 3. Another way of looking at the average score is to line the scores up from smallest to largest and see what score falls in the middle.
The middle score in such a list is called the median. For the number of aggressive acts performed by children, the numbers from the table would line up like
this: 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 7. The middle number in that list is the last 3, so the median for this group is 3. The final way of looking at the most common score is to
find the arithme�c average of the scores, called the mean. To find the mean the scores are summed and divided by the number of scores. In the list of scores in
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100… 14/20
the table, 4 + 6 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 7 + 3 = 28. The sum (28) divided by the number of scores (7) equals 4. The mean for this group of scores is 4. In observa�onal
research the mean, median, or mode are reported to help communicate the most common score.
Table 1.2: Number of aggressive acts observed
Child Number of aggressive acts
Child 1 4
Child 2 6
Child 3 3
Child 4 3
Child 5 2
Child 6 7
Child 7 3
In correla�onal research, researchers o�en use the results of a sta�s�cal test to describe any poten�al rela�on between variables. The primary sta�s�c used with
the correla�onal method is the aptly named correla�on coefficient (technically a Pearson product-moment correla�on). A correla�on coefficient is a number that
describes a rela�onship between two variables, varying from a −1.0 to a +1.0. There are three possibili�es for a correla�on. The first possibility is that as one
variable increases, the other variable increases as well. If the older people in a study of buying behavior and age bought more than the younger people, and the
older they were the more they bought, the rela�onship would be described as a posi�ve correla�on. A correla�on coefficient between 0 and +1.0 is a posi�ve
correla�on. The second possibility is that as one variable increases, the other variable decreases. If the older that people are, the less they buy—that is, if buying
goes down as age goes up—the rela�on would be described as a nega�ve correla�on. A correla�on coefficient between 0 and −1.0 is a nega�ve correla�on. The
final possibility is that the two variables are not related to one another. In this instance age would have no rela�onship to buying, no correla�on. A correla�on
coefficient of 0 indicates no correla�on. Scores closer to 0, either posi�ve or nega�ve, indicate a weaker correla�on; and scores closer to −1 or to +1 indicate a
stronger correla�on. Figure 1.2 shows what posi�ve, nega�ve, and no correla�on might look like.
Figure 1.2: Sca�erplot of a posi�ve correla�on, nega�ve correla�on, and no correla�on
In a posi�ve correla�on (A), when one variable increases, so does the other. For a nega�ve correla�on (B), as one variable
decreases, the other decreases as well. When there is no correla�on (C), no discernible pa�ern exists.
In experimental research, experimenters o�en compare the means of groups to see if they are different. If means are quite different from one another and the
study was well designed, and therefore high in internal validity, it is likely that the differences are due to the manipula�on of the independent variable. When
the means of groups are close to one another, it is possible that any difference is due simply to chance. Various sta�s�cal tests might be used to look at whether
the differences between the means are likely to be due to a real difference and not because of chance, but two of the most basic sta�s�cal tests are “t tests”
and “analysis of variance.” A t test is used when a researcher is comparing two groups and looking for a difference between them. Analysis of variance is used
when there are three or more groups and a researcher is looking at whether there are differences among them.
When looking at the quali�es of a group, psychologists use a variety of scores ranging from very high to very low. Much of the �me, very few people have very
low scores and very few people have very high scores, with the majority of people in the middle. When averaging those high, low, and medium scores, we end
up with an average right in the middle. When there are a few high scores, a few low scores, and a large number in the middle, we have a distribu�on of scores
called a normal distribu�on, also known as a normal curve or a bell curve. When looking at differences between groups, we get two distribu�ons of scores. The
averages of two groups might be vastly different (far apart) or extremely similar (close together). When the averages are close together, their distribu�ons are
likely to overlap (see Figure 1.3). Overlapping distribu�ons mean that a number of people in one of the groups have similar scores to the people in the other
group. When the averages are farther apart, there is likely to be less overlap of the distribu�ons, so many members of the two groups are likely to have different
scores. The amount of overlap between two distribu�ons also depends on the spread of the scores in the distribu�on, that is, how variable the scores are. Two
very spread out distribu�ons may have a great deal of overlap despite having averages that are far apart.
Figure 1.3: Overlapping distribu�ons
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100… 15/20
Overlapping distribu�ons indicate that a number of par�cipants in one group have
similar scores to par�cipants in the other group.
One technique psychologists use extensively is meta-analysis. In meta-analysis, researchers use a sta�s�cal technique to combine the results of a large number of
studies. By combining results we get a be�er idea of what is truly happening because many more people are included in the analysis—an extraneous variable
that might have impacted the results of one of the studies will have only a small effect when many studies are combined. The sta�s�c most o�en used to
describe the results of a meta-analysis is called an effect size. The effect size takes into account how much difference there is between distribu�ons. If there is no
difference between two groups, the distribu�ons of the groups should overlap completely. Some�mes there is very li�le difference between two groups, and
their distribu�ons overlap a great deal. When this is true, we have a low effect size. It is hard to see differences with a low effect size without using sta�s�cs. A
medium effect size might be visible to someone who is paying a�en�on. This is when the distribu�ons do overlap, but the differences between the groups are
big enough to see. A large effect size is one that is very easy to see. The averages of the two groups and the distribu�ons do not show a lot of overlap.
Test Yourself
Click on each ques�on below to reveal the answer.
What is the most common score in a list of scores called?
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
The most common score is the mode.
Name two variables that are likely to be posi�vely correlated.
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
Examples: �me spent studying and course grade, number of calories consumed and weight, age and number of gray hairs.
Name two variables that are likely to be nega�vely correlated.
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
Examples: number of sick days used and amount of work produced, amount of caffeine consumed and hours of sleep, hours spent si�ng per
day and physical fitness.
Ethics in Research
When conduc�ng research, it is important to safeguard the well-being of par�cipants. Social psychologists must solve a difficult problem: While seeking to
discover how a normal person in a normal situa�on might act, simply watching the ac�on might change the nature of the ac�on. For example, if you knew
someone was watching you in a public restroom, you might spend more �me washing your hands than you normally do. In one study of this phenomenon,
researchers found that women observed in the bathroom were more likely to wash their hands than those who believed they were not observed (Pedersen,
Keithly, & Brady, 1986).
To avoid this problem, researchers have disguised the purpose of their studies, the iden�ty of the researchers, or, at �mes, not told research par�cipant that they
were par�cipa�ng in research. A number of studies have included someone trained by the experimenter to appear to be a naive part of the situa�on, usually
pretending to be another par�cipant. This individual, called a confederate, helps create a situa�on that would be otherwise impossible to set up. However, the
prac�ce is ethically ques�onable because it involves decep�on.
Decep�on is a poten�ally dangerous prac�ce in research, and hiding the nature of a study introduces a number of problema�c issues. One obvious problem is
that being lied to could cause distress in the short term and even affect how individuals feel about themselves over the long term. Angry or upset people may be
a problem for the decep�ve researcher and may cause larger problems for research in general. Knowing they may be deceived, par�cipants may be less likely to
volunteer to par�cipate and more suspicious during a study, leading to behavior that is not as natural as a researcher might desire. If researchers become known
as liars, the results they are repor�ng might be ques�oned as well. If they were willing to lie to research par�cipants, why not lie about the results as well?
A�er a number of studies with ques�onable ethics in the 1960s, the field of psychology as a whole has paid more a�en�on to issues of the rights of par�cipants
and the ethics of research methods. Studies involving human par�cipants must go through an ins�tu�onal review board, which is a commi�ee at a university,
college, or other organiza�on where research is done that evaluates the ethics of a research study. For most studies researchers must obtain informed consent
from par�cipants. Informed consent involves researchers telling the par�cipants what they can expect within their par�cipa�on, and informing them of their
rights as par�cipants—including the right to discon�nue par�cipa�on (see Figure 1.4). Research par�cipants can then be part of the research knowing what is
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100… 16/20
Social psychology covers a broad range of topics.
What Do Social Psychologists Study?
Cri�cal Thinking Ques�ons
What are some examples of behaviors that are
studied by social psychologists?
What are some of the applica�ons of these types of
studies?
expected of them or decline to par�cipate. Decep�on is s�ll used in some social psychological research but only when deemed absolutely necessary. Researchers
who use decep�on are also careful to talk to par�cipants a�erward and address any nega�ve feelings that might have come up. Almost all research in social
psychology now includes an explana�on to par�cipants about the nature of the study, whether or not study included decep�on. This explana�on is called a
debriefing. A major goal in debriefing is to iden�fy and address any distress a research par�cipant might have experienced in the course of the study.
Figure 1.4: APA’s ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct
The APA has formulated strict literature on the nature of informed consent in psychological research.
Source: Copyright © 2010 by the American Psychological Associa�on. Reproduced with permission. The official cita�on that should be used in referencing
this material is: American Psychological Associa�on (2010a). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended June 1, 2010).
Retrieved from h�p://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx (h�p://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx) . No further reproduc�on or distribu�on is permi�ed
without wri�en permission from the American Psychological Associa�on.
Test Yourself
Click on the ques�on below to reveal the answer.
Describe a research ques�on or topic that would be difficult to study without the use of decep�on.
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
Example: It may be difficult to study par�cipants helping in emergency situa�ons without se�ng up a scenario where they believe someone
is injured or in danger or a dangerous or troubling situa�on is happening.
Conclusion
Social psychology is a broad field, covering a variety of topics. At the heart of social psychology is an
interest in people as they relate to others. Although rela�vely new, it is a field of much richness and
diversity. Social psychologists study a variety of topics including a�rac�on, helping, aggression,
obedience, and a�tudes. To conduct these studies, researchers use various methods to learn about
these topics and more.
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100… 17/20
Chapter Summary
What Is Social Psychology?
Social psychology is all about people: what they do, how they think, and what they feel. As a branch of the larger field of psychology, social psychology is unique
in its a�en�on to how people relate to and influence one another. Social psychologists use the scien�fic method to study how others affect our thinking, ac�ons,
and feelings.
Where Did Social Psychology Come From?
Most date the beginning of social psychology to 1898 with Norman Triple�’s study on the effects of the presence of others on bicyclists’ speeds and Max
Ringelmann’s 1913 study of people working together on a task. A�er World War II, social psychology expanded as a field and now covers a wide range of topics.
In more recent years, greater a�en�on has been paid to cogni�on, neuroscience, and evolu�onary psychology.
How Do We Do Social Psychology?
Social psychologists use the scien�fic method—a hypothesis, or testable predic�on, is developed and then tested using observa�onal, correla�onal, or
experimental methods. These different methods answer different kinds of ques�ons. Observa�onal methods answer ques�ons rela�ng to what is happening.
Correla�onal methods look at rela�onships between variables, enabling predic�on. Correla�on, however, does not allow us to determine causa�on. With the
experimental method, researchers manipulate one variable, the independent variable, and measure the effect of that manipula�on through assessment of the
dependent variable. At �mes, once one knows the results of a research study, those results may seem obvious, but people tend to fall short when truly
predic�ng results beforehand. This sense that “you knew it all along” is called the hindsight bias. In research, a�en�on is paid to poten�al ethical issues.
Researchers have their research plans checked by an ins�tu�onal review board, and par�cipants provide informed consent and are debriefed at the end of
par�cipa�on.
Cri�cal Thinking Ques�ons
1. What makes social psychology different from other academic disciplines?
2. What makes social psychology different from other areas of psychology?
3. If social psychology were the only discipline we could use to answer ques�ons, what types of ques�ons would we have difficulty answering?
4. As a discipline that is just over 100 years old and covers a wide variety of topics, what issues might social psychology encounter and present that an older or
more focused field might avoid?
5. Consider a topic such as online shopping. What research ques�ons might a social psychologist ask about this topic? For these ques�ons, what research
method might you use to answer them?
6. If two things are correlated, why is this correla�on not evidence of causa�on?
7. Experiments are designed to inves�gate causality. How do they do that?
8. Why is hindsight bias dangerous?
Key Terms
Click on each key term to reveal the defini�on.
confederate
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
A person covertly working with an experimenter, appearing to the par�cipant to be another par�cipant or part of the situa�on.
confounding
variable
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
Within the experimental method, a variable that changes or is inadvertently manipulated along with the independent variable.
control group
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
Within the experimental method, the group that is not manipulated does not receive the treatment or experience a change. Contrast with experimental group.
correla�on coefficient
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
A number that describes a rela�onship between two variables.
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100… 18/20
correla�onal method
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
A research method that allows researchers to predict the value of one variable if provided with informa�on about a second variable.
debriefing
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
Explana�on of the study’s true purpose given at the end of a research study. If decep�on was used or a stressful situa�on was encountered during the study, the
researcher uses the debriefing to iden�fy and address the issues.
demand characteris�cs
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
A change in the behavior of par�cipants in a research study because of their perceived knowledge of the hypothesis or variables in the study.
dependent variable
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
The variable we measure in an experiment.
experimental group
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
Within the experimental method, the group that is manipulated, receives the treatment, or experiences a change in its environment. Contrast with control group.
experimental method
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
A research method involving manipula�on of one variable to inves�gate whether the manipulated variable causes change in a second, measured, variable.
experimental realism
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
The phenomenon that occurs when research par�cipants are completely involved and engaged in what they are doing.
external validity
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
The extent to which the results of a study are applicable to other places, other people, and other �mes. Studies with greater external validity have more
generalizability.
extraneous variables
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
Variables that are outside of our interest but may affect the results of a study.
generalizability
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
A research study is high in this if what the par�cipants do in the study is similar and can be applied to what people tend to do in the world. A study that is
generalizable is one whose results can be applied in a variety of situa�ons.
hindsight bias
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
Our tendency to believe, a�er the fact, that something was obvious. Also known as the I-knew-it-all-along phenomenon.
hypothesis
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
A testable predic�on.
independent variable
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
The variable we manipulate in an experiment.
informed consent
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
Obtained from research par�cipants. Within informed consent researchers tell the par�cipants what they can expect within their par�cipa�on and about their
rights as par�cipants, including the right to discon�nue par�cipa�on.
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100… 19/20
ins�tu�onal review board
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
A commi�ee at a university, college, or other organiza�on where research is done that evaluates the ethics of a research study.
internal validity
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
A study free from extraneous and confounding variables where it is fairly certain that the independent variable caused the observed change in the dependent
variable.
mean
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
Arithme�c average, found by summing all of the scores in a group and dividing by the number of scores.
median
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
Middle score, found by lis�ng the scores in order and loca�ng the score at the halfway point.
mode
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
Most common score, found by coun�ng the number of each response and loca�ng the one that is used the most.
mundane realism
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
Within an experimental study, when the environment par�cipants experience is similar to what they would experience in real life.
nega�ve correla�on
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
A rela�onship between two correlated variables in which one variable increases as the other variable decreases.
normal distribu�on
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
A distribu�on of scores where there are a few high scores, a few low scores, and a large number in the middle. Also known as a normal curve or a bell curve.
observa�onal method
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
A research method that involves observing par�cipants and not manipula�ng any variables within the situa�on. This method answers ques�ons about what is
happening.
posi�ve correla�on
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
A rela�onship between two correlated variables in which one variable increases as the other variable increases.
random assignment
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
Within an experiment, each individual in the sample has an equal chance of being in each of the groups (levels of the independent variable).
random sample
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
A group of individuals chosen from a popula�on where every member of the popula�on had an equal chance of being part of the study.
reliability
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
Consistency of a survey.
social psychology
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
The scien�fic study of human thoughts, feelings, and behavior as they relate to and are influenced by others.
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=14cd3905-fb2c-f100… 20/20
theory
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
A set of principles or a framework for a set of observa�ons and research findings.
variable
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/boo
Something that varies or can vary; the factors assessed when performing an experiment.
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
BY MARCELLA H. BOYNTON, DAVID B. PORTNOY,
AND BLAIR T. JOHNSON
Exploring the Ethics and Psychological Impact of Deception in
Psychological Research
T
he determination of what experimental prac-
tices constitute potential harm to research
participants is an area fraught with conflicting
opinions, in part due to past examples of exploitation
and abuse. Psychological studies involving deception
in research studies have been especially controversial.^
The debate regarding the ethics of the practice contin-
ues to this day.̂ Deception in psychological research is
often stated as acceptable only when all of the fol-
lowing conditions are met: l) no other nondeceptive
method exists to study the phenomenon of interest;
2.) the study makes significant contributions to scien-
tific knowledge; 3 ) the deception is not expected to
cause significant harm or severe emotional distress to
research participants; and 4) the deception is explained
to participants as soon as the study protocol permits.3
Many institutional review boards (IRBs) have placed
substantial restrictions on researchers’ use of decep-
tive methodology in social science research,^ and some
disciplines and institutions have banned the practice al-
together.’ In recent years, there have been repeated calls
for empirical examination of the assumptions underly-
ing IRB policies when determining risk and harm^ and
the effects of deception in human subjects research.7
Although there have been some empirical studies
examining the effect of deception on research partici-
pants,* much of this literature is philosophical in na-
ture.? Because the empirical literature on the effects of
deception in research is somewhat limited, IRB policies
are often primarily based upon principled arguments
about what constitutes harm.^° Our study empirically
tested the hypothesis that deception in psychological
research negatively influences research participants’
self-esteem, affect, and their perceptions of psychologi-
Marcella H. Boynton, David B. Portnoy, and Blair T. Johnson, “Exploring
the Ethics and Psychological Impact of Deception in Psychological Research,”
IRB: Ethics & Human Researdo 35, no. 2 (2013): 7-13.
cal researchers and researchers’ deceptive practices.
Ethical Concerns about Deception
A lthough often regarded as a single construct, in
xl-practice deception in research encompasses a va-
riety of methodologies. Indirect deception occurs when
participants agree to postpone full disclosure of the true
purpose of the research or when the goals of the study
are not conveyed in their totality to the participant.
This methodology has few, if any, ill effects.̂ ^ Much of
the debate surrounding the potential harm of deception
focuses on direct deception—deliberate misinformation
provided to participants about some essential compo-
nent of the study’s procedure, including deceptive study
descriptions or instructions, staged manipulations, false
feedback, or the use of confederates.^^
One deceptive element commonly cited as poten-
tially harmful is false feedback ostensibly derived from
an evaluative task or test. Some have suggested that
participants may feel demeaned or have decreased
self-esteem if they believe this feedback.̂ 3 Participants’
sense of autonomy may also be harmed if they are not
given the requisite information to have made a truly
informed decision about study participation in the first
place.̂ 4 Thus, some researchers argue that deception
contains elements that have potentially negative effects
on a participant’s emotional state and self-esteem. ̂ 5
In addition to concerns about harms to participants,
questions of methodological and reputational harms
have also been raised. Deception may result in more
suspicious or contaminated pools of research partici-
pants.^^ Participants may be aware of deception but
not say so because they are embarrassed or trying to
be compliant. ̂ 7 Increasing suspicions and reactance
(i.e., strengthening a negative view of researchers and/
or combative participant behavior) among participants
IRB: ETHICS & HUMAN RESEARCH MARCH-APRIL 2013
may not only threaten the validity of psychological
research but also the reputation and legitimacy of
psychology as a science by fostering negative attitudes
toward psychological researchers and their practices. ̂ ^
Despite these concerns, others believe that decep-
tion in psychological research can be acceptable in at
least some circumstances.^^ Psychological discomfort
resulting from deception is viewed as a regrettable but
defensible cost given the knowledge that will be gained
by both the researcher and participants.^” The accep-
tance of deception is based on the belief that any psy-
chological discomfort resulting from deception is likely
fleeting^^ and no greater than what an individual might
experience in interpersonal encounters in everyday
life.̂ ^ Indeed, evidence suggests that most participants
are not at all bothered by deception^^ and may even
be more likely to enjoy and learn from their experience
participating in a study using this methodology. ̂ 4
In brief, those in favor of the judicious use of decep-
tion believe that its potential benefits to participants,
science, and society are worth the largely negligible
psychological costs. Because research participants may
withdraw from participation at any time, presumably
individuals who find deceptive research objectionable
can exercise their autonomy by withdrawing their
participation.^5 Also, some have posited that a thought-
fully executed debriefing can ameliorate the ill effects of
a study that uses deception. ̂ ^
One potentially important aspect of research eth-
ics that garners rare mention in the literature is ex-
perimenter professionalism. Benham argued that the
researcher-participant relationship is first and foremost
a professional relationship, similar to that between
teacher and student or physician and patient.^” Con-
sequently, the professional demeanor of the research
staff is likely to be extremely important to participants’
perceptions of their research experiences, especially in
combination with the use of deception. As Baumrind
noted in her critique of research deception, “Perhaps
the seminal problem in social and behavioral research
is that not all investigators . . . respect their subject-par-
ticipants as persons.”^^ Despite this astute observation,
no studies on the ethics of psychological research to
date have explicitly examined experimenter profession-
alism. This may be in part because professional conduct
encompasses multiple aspects of social interactions
and therefore is difficult to operationalize. Research
on physician professionalism is informative in this
regard.^9 A systematic review identified five dimensions
of professionalism. 3° Of those, effective patient interac-
tions (e.g., politeness) and reliability (e.g., punctuality)
are the most germane to experimental psychological re-
search, and therefore are the focus of the experimenter
professionalism manipulation in this study.
The present study examined the effect of three ele-
ments central to understanding the potential harms of
deception in research: l ) deceptive task instructions;
z) false feedback; and 3) the interpersonal deception of
experimenter professionalism. The task deception ma-
nipulation examines the effect of deceiving participants
about the true purpose of a study. The false feedback
manipulation examines the impact of leading people to
believe something about themselves that is not actu-
ally true. The interpersonal manipulation allows us to
determine the effect of unprofessional experimenter
conduct, as well as the knowledge of this interpersonal
deception after a funnel debriefing. Importantly, includ-
ing multiple forms of deception in the same study per-
mitted their relative impact to be evaluated with respect
to each other and to experimenter professionalism.
Examining both task deception and experimenter be-
havior required two simultaneous layers of deception.
The deception surrounding the nature of the study task
was surrounded by a layer of deception related to the
experimenter’s behavior. Measures administered prior
to the funnel debriefing assessed the effect of unpro-
fessional experimenter behavior because as far as the
participants were aware, the experimenter’s behavior
was authentic. The effect of the unprofessional behav-
ior manipulation on any postfunnel debriefing mea-
sures can be considered the effect of an interpersonal
deception because at that point in the study all partici-
pants were aware of the unprofessional experimenter
behavior manipulation. This design permitted us to
examine the unique impact of all three types of decep-
tion on participants’ self-esteem, emotional state (i.e.,
positive and negative affect), and trust in psychological
researchers. It also permitted a test of the unprofes-
sional experimenter behavior manipulation on these
outcomes. We hypothesized that: 1) task deception
would not negatively influence participants; 2) partici-
pants receiving false feedback and/or who were treated
unprofessionally would report higher levels of negative
emotion and less trust in psychological researchers; and
3 ) the funnel debriefing would mitigate negative effects
of the interpersonal deception.
MARCH-APRIL 2013 IRB: ETHICS & HUMAN RESEARCH
Study Methods and Design
Given that university students are the populationmost likely to participate in psychological re-
search,3i they were the group selected for participation
in this study. Participants were 183 undergraduates,
56.3% female, from a large university in the northeast-
ern United States. Participants were recruited from the
university’s psychology participant pool and received
research credit for their participation.
Participants signed up for a study whose objective
was described as “looking at how people rate certain
objects and people.” Because our study involved more
than one independent variable, we used a 3 x z x 2
between-subject factorial design (task deception: none,
indirect, or direct x false feedback: informed that task
performance feedback was personally meaningful vs.
not X experimenter professionalism: courteous/reliable
vs. discourteous/unreliable). Two male and two female
undergraduate research assistants were involved in
the development of the procedure and conducted all
experimental sessions. Multiple role-playing sessions
were conducted with the research assistants to ensure
consistency and comfort with the procedure.
The experimenter professionalism manipulation
alternated based on predetermined blocks of experi-
mental sessions. For all other experimental factors,
assignment was randomized. In both professionalism
conditions the content of the verbal instructions, which
briefly described the nature of the computer task to the
participant and provided an opportunity for questions,
were identical except for the salutation and farewell
that constituted the verbal aspect of the professionalism
manipulation. In the professional conditions (n = 90),
the experimenter was efficient and punctual and admin-
istered the verbal instructions using a polite demeanor,
eye contact, and a smile. In the unprofessional condi-
tions (n = 93), the experimenter administered the verbal
instructions using a brusque demeanor, made little or
no eye contact, expressed no positive facial expres-
sions, and after admonishing the participant to “hurry
up,” had the participant wait while sending a text
message on a cell phone. Apart from the professional-
ism manipulation, the experimenter was kept blind to
condition. Immediately after placing a participant in a
private cubicle and providing the verbal instructions,
the experimenter recorded perceptions of the partici-
pant’s nonverbal responses to the interaction.
At the start of the computer task, participants
viewed a series of screens that administered the major-
ity of information and instructions about the experi-
mental task. For the task deception manipulation,
participants were informed of the true purpose of the
computer task (no task deception, n = 58), given a
vague but accurate description of the task (indirect task
deception, n = 61), or given a false description of the
task (direct task deception, n = 64). For the false feed-
back manipulation, participants were either informed
that the computer task was being validated and the
performance feedback was generated at random and
therefore invalid, or that their performance feedback
was “a statistically reliable predictor of cognitive ability
and future decision-making capacity.” After reading the
task description and instructions, participants complet-
ed the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (a = 0.87).3^
Participants then began the computer task, an exact
replication of a study of in-group bias.33 This proce-
U n e potentially important aspect of research
ethics that garners rare mention in the literature
is the professionalism of the researchers.
dure measures an individual’s bias for remembering
more positive information about one’s own perceived
in-group. Participants completed 12. trials of a visual
estimation task and were subsequently falsely told that
they were “overestimators.” Participants were then
asked to review behaviors purportedly extracted from
interviews with overestimators (their in-group) and
underestimators (the out-group) and to form an impres-
sion of each group. Following a brief distracter task,
participants then recalled the list of behaviors for each
group.
After completing the computer task, participants
were debriefed by the computer about the true purpose
of the experimental task (i.e., that it was a measure of
in-group bias) and either notified that they were de-
ceived about the task and/or feedback or reminded that
they had not been deceived. Specifically, participants
were told that “The test you completed was rigged . . .
you were randomly assigned to one of the groups. . . .
despite what we may have told you, there is no such
distinction between overestimators and underestima-
tors. ” Immediately after this disclosure participants
completed a series of questions assessing study par-
ticipation perceptions (a = 0.83), researcher traits (a
= 0.71), positive and negative emotions (a = 0.83; a =
0.77) using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
IRB: ETHICS & HUMAN RESEARCH MARCH-APRIL 2013
(PANAS),34 and a trust in psychological researchers
scale (a = 0.80), which was modified from the Trust in
Medical Researchers Scale.’5
Finally, a screen appeared directing the participant
to alert the experimenter who was waiting in the lobby
that the computer task had ended. Once both the
participant and experimenter were again in the private
cubicle together, the experimenter fully debriefed the
participant about the purpose of the entire study, in-
cluding the professionalism manipulation. A funnel de-
briefing procedure was employed in order to maximize
the positive impact and methodological integrity of the
participant debriefing. In this debriefing the researcher
asked a series of increasingly specific questions before
finally revealing and discussing the interpersonal decep-
tion. After the debriefing procedure was complete, par-
ticipants privately completed a brief survey readminis-
tering a subset of the study participation perceptions,
positive emotions (a = 0.84), negative emotions (a =
0.89), and trust in psychological researchers’ measures.
Study Results
The analyses presented below employed analysisof variance models for continuous outcomes and
logistic regression models for dichotomous outcomes.
To examine our first hypothesis, that there would be no
negative effect of the task deception on the participants,
we examined the participant study perception and emo-
tion scales administered directly after participants were
debriefed about the task and false feedback manipula-
tions but before the funnel debriefing revealing the in-
terpersonal deception. Consistent with the hypothesis,
task deception had no impact on study perceptions,
positive emotion, negative emotion, or trust in psycho-
logical researchers (all p values > 0.05).
The second hypothesis was that the participants
would feel a greater sense of violation if they received
false feedback and/or if they were treated unprofession-
ally. The false feedback manipulation had no impact
on any of the posttask debriefing measures (p > 0.05).
Also, neither the task nor false feedback manipula-
tions had a significant impact on any of the postfunnel
debriefing measures (p > 0.05). The sole significant
effect was that after the funnel debriefing, participants
in the direct task deception arm felt less concern about
deception when compared to those in the indirect and
no deception arms (F [1, 155] – 5.69, p < 0.05).
Although false feedback did not have a negative psy-
chological impact on participants, the professionalism
manipulation had a significant effect. Participants who
were treated unprofessionally reported greater negative
perceptions about their study experience (F [1, 178] =
225.3, P < 0.001) and greater negative emotions (F [1,
178] = 1,210.0, p < 0.001) compared to those treated
professionally by the research assistant. Moreover,
participants in the unprofessional condition expressed
significantly less trust in psychology researchers (F [1,
178] - 6.91, p < 0.01) and were more likely to exhibit
nonverbal anger or confusion during their interaction
with the researcher (OR = 46.5, 95% CI [6.15, 351.2]),
as recorded by the experimenter. Positive emotions and
self-esteem were unaffected by experimenter profession-
alism (p > 0.05).
The third hypothesis was that the funnel debriefing
procedure would ameliorate any negative psychologi-
cal impacts of the deceptive manipulations. To test this
hypothesis we examined the measures administered
directly after the funnel debriefing that revealed the
interpersonal deception. For all outcomes where a
predebriefing score was available, it was entered as a
covariate in the analysis in order to control for base-
line levels. Confirming hypothesis three, the funnel
debriefing appeared to undo the negative effects of the
interpersonal deception of unprofessional experimenter
behavior, returning participants to levels similar to
those who were treated professionally. Controlling for
the prefunnel debriefing scores, the interpersonal decep-
tion did not have a significant effect on perceptions of
how enjoyable or interesting the study was (all p values
> 0.05). There was also no effect on perceptions of how
well the study was explained by the experimenter or
on negative emotions (all p values > 0.05). There was
a positive effect of interpersonal deception on whether
the individual would recommend study participation
to a friend (F [1, 149] = 35.3, p < 0.001) and a margin-
ally significant effect on positive emotions (F [1, 127] =
3.22, p = 0.08). Individual ANOVAs examining the ef-
fect of the experimental manipulations and controlling
for prefunnel debriefing scores on each of the positive
adjectives administered from the PANAS found that
the ratings for interested (F [1, 157] = 8.09, p < 0.01)
and excited (F [1, 155] = 7-47, p < 0.01) were signifi-
cantly higher for participants who were interpersonally
deceived.
Finally, although we did not have a measure of past
experiences with deceptive research studies, we were
able to examine whether past experience participat-
ing in any psychological research (M = 5.8, SD = 4.0),
MARCH-APRIL 2013 IRB: ETHICS & HUMAN RESEARCH
in conjunction with the manipulations in this study,
predicted a greater hkelihood of guessing that there was
some additional purpose to the study, correctly guess-
ing the interpersonal deception, or a decreased trust in
psychological researchers. The only manipulation that
was significantly predictive in these analyses was that
individuals in the direct task manipulation were more
likely to guess during funnel debriefing that there was
an alternative purpose to the study (OR = 2.54, 95%
CI [1.09, 5.90]), although they were no more likely
to correctly guess the specific nature of the deceptive
interpersonal manipulation (OR = 3.84, 95% CI [0.74,
19-8]).
Discussion
A lthough some past forms of deception in research
. Í 1 certainly constitute a violation of dignity, this
study suggests that a unilateral moratorium on experi-
mental deception may not be the best way to protect
participants or the integrity of psychological science.
We found that relatively benign forms of deception,
such as receiving false feedback or obfuscating the true
hypotheses of a study, pose little psychological harm to
participants and may not generally require more than
a basic debriefing procedure to counteract the decep-
tion. In contrast, unprofessional behavior on the part
of the experimenter had a substantial negative effect on
participant perceptions and negative emotions. How-
ever, the negative effect of the fairly potent interper-
sonal deception that unprofessional researcher conduct
represents was ameliorated by the funnel debriefing
procedure. Taken together, this evidence suggests that
the debate on the ethics of deception may be overlook-
ing the impact of other seemingly mundane risks, such
as experimenter professionalism, which may do much
more to impact the participants’ thoughts and feelings
than a deceptive
manipulation per se.
Indeed, these results showed a significant negative
behavioral and psychological impact associated with
unprofessional experimenter behavior. In the wake of
unprofessional treatment, participants demonstrated
greater negative reactions in their body language
and self-reported emotions. Those who were treated
unprofessionally had substantially worse perceptions
of the experimenter they interacted with, as well as of
psychological researchers in general. Importantly, all
of the negative effects of the unprofessional behavior
on mood and trust in psychological researchers ap-
peared to be eliminated by the detailed funnel debrief-
ing procedure. In fact, a number of participants reacted
positively to the revelation of the interpersonal decep-
tion during the debriefing, with those who had been
treated professionally frequently expressing some regret
at having not been in the other group. This anecdotal
evidence is supported by the empirical finding that
individuals in the unprofessional group reported higher
“interested” and “excited” PANAS positive emotion
subscale scores than did participants in the professional
group. Also, individuals in the unprofessional group
indicated a significantly greater likelihood of recom-
mending participation in the study to a friend. We infer
from these findings that college student participants are
largely unconcerned with our specific experimental hy-
potheses and that some may find an engaging deceptive
manipulation to be an interesting diversion. This con-
U e b a t e on the ethics of deception may
be overlooking the impact of other
mundane risks that may impact participants’
thoughts and feelings more than deceptive
manipulation per se.
elusion is not meant to imply that deceptive methods
should be preferred, but it gives further evidence that
the psychological risks associated with deceptive proce-
dures that evoke strong negative reactions in the short
term—such as interpersonally oriented deceptions—are
not likely to be psychologically harmful when coupled
with a thorough and thoughtful debriefing.
In his seminal paper on the issue of the ethics of
deception in social psychological research, Kelman?^
postulated what our research illuminates: that the
relationship between an experimenter and participant
is meaningful, albeit temporary, and that experimenters
have a responsibility toward their participants’ human
dignity. Although the Belmont Report identified respect
for persons as one of the fundamental ethical principles
of human subjects research,37 it did not specifically
include professionalism under that category. One might
argue that it should be unnecessary to note such a basic
tenet; however, given that psychology experiments with
human subjects are most typically conducted by under-
graduate or graduate students with limited training and
oversight, unprofessional behaviors such as poor time
management and an indifferent demeanor may be far
too common. A recent national survey of psychology
IRB: ETHICS & HUMAN RESEARCH MARCH-APRIL 2013
graduate students reflects this possibility: one in four
respondents felt that graduate research assistants were
confused about their roles and responsibihties, one in
five indicated that their mentors did not provide suf-
ficient research guidance, and one in three felt that their
research was inadequately supervised.^^ This situation
is ripe for the unprofessional treatment of research
participants, which may pose a much greater risk of
psychological harm and decline in researcher trust than
deception.
We note several limitations to our study. In order to
ensure that the study was ethical, certain compromises
were made. For example, the false feedback ma-
nipulation was fairly benign in nature. The feedback,
although similar to what is often used in psychology
experiments, did not allow us to examine the full range
of false feedback that may be used in such studies.
Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on all types of false
feedback.
Because we did not track participants beyond their
brief participation in our study, we were unable to ex-
amine in the long term if or how these series of decep-
tions possibly affected future participation in other psy-
chology studies. Analyses of our data did not show that
greater previous experience participating in psychologi-
cal research increased the likelihood of reporting sus-
picions of additional deceptive elements. These results
cannot be considered conclusive given that we did not
measure the number of deceptive studies in which the
participants had previously participated; however, it
is important to note that those who had been actively
deceived about the experimental task were more likely
to guess that there may have been other deceptive
elements present in the study. Individuals in the direct
task deception arm also reported less concern about
the use of deception in general. These findings support
the notion that while prior experience with deception
may make participants somewhat more suspicious of
the veracity of an experiment’s cover story, they do not
seem especially bothered or influenced by the idea that
they may be deceived. This finding corroborates prior
research showing that most participants seemed to have
the expectation that they cannot and should not know
the entire purpose of a psychological experiment before
its completion.39 Determining the extent to which
deceptive methods may influence participant suspicions
in the long term would provide further insight into the
possible scientific costs of their use in research.
Our operationalization of professionalism simultane-
ously manipulated aspects of both courteousness and
reliability. While this approach is true to prior research
in the domain of physician-patient interactions, one
could argue that it fails to specifically identify the pre-
cise mechanism underlying the effect of the unprofes-
sional manipulation. Although this methodology may
lack absolute experimental vigor, it has considerable
ecological validity and has been previously employed to
demonstrate similar psychological phenomena.4° More-
over, this approach provides a broader theoretical base
for future research illuminating the specific aspects of
deception and professionalism most essential to positive
research participant experiences.
Conclusion
Despite well-intentioned philosophical concernsabout the use of deception in psychological
research, the present study found limited negative
psychological effects. Further, any negative effects of
the interpersonal deception on mood and attitudes
toward psychological researchers were alleviated by the
debriefing procedure. These results suggest that the nec-
essary use of deception, when paired with correct ex-
perimenter training and experimental procedures, poses
limited psychological harm to participants. Deceptive
research is not free of risk, but this study suggests that
its short-term psychological risk can be largely mitigat-
ed by conscientious behavior and considerate debriefing
procedures enacted by well-trained experimenters.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Ross Convertino, Debbie Grunin,
Fritz Ifert-Miller, and Anna Rogers for assistance with
the experimental design and data collection, Richard
Gramzow for sharing stimuli for the in-group bias task,
Stephenie Chaudoir for feedback about the study design,
Anne Fletcher for assistance with the literature review, and
Rick Hoyle for comments on a version of the manuscript.
The research and manuscript preparation was supported
by F31-MH079759 and P30 DA0230Z6.
• Marcella H. Boynton, PhD, is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Uni-
versity of Connecticut Medical Center, Farmington, CT; David B.
Portnoy, PhD, MPH, is a Social Scientist at the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, Center for Tobacco Products, Rockville, MD; and
Blair T. Johnson, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Psychol-
ogy, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
References
1. Milgram S. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Ab-
normal and Social Psychology i963;67(4):37i-378; Humphreys L.
Tearoom trade. Society i97o;7(3):io-25.
2. Kelman HC. Human use of human subjects: The problem of
deception in social psychological experiments. Psychological Bulletin
MARCH-APRIL 2013
IRB: ETHICS & HUMAN RESEARCH
___ . I
I 9 6 7 ; é 7 ( i ) : i – i i ; Hertwig R, Ortmann A. Deception in experi-
ments: Revisiting the arguments in its defense. Ethics and Behavior
2oo8;i8(i):59-92; Broder A. Deception can be acceptable. American
Psychologist I998;53(7):8o5-8o6; Ortmann A, Hertwig R. Is decep-
tion acceptable? American Psychologist \’)<)-j:,^2.(j):ji^6-j^j.
3. American Psychological Association. Ethical principles of
psychologists and code of conduct, Z002, http://www.apa.org/ethics/
code/index.aspx.
4. Kimmel AJ. Ethical Issues on Behavioral Research: Basic and
Applied Perspectives, znd ed. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishing,
Z007; Cook KS, Yamagishi T. A defense of deception on scientific
grounds. Social Psychology Quarterly z o o 8 ; 7 i ( 3 ) : 2 i 5 – z 2 i .
5. Riach PA, Rich J. Deceptive field experiments of discrimina-
tion: Are they ethical.’ Kyklos 20O4;57(3):457-470; Oakes JM. Risks
and wrongs in social science research: An evaluator’s guide to the
IRB. Evaluation Review 2oo2;2é(5):443-479.
é. Grady C. Do IRBs protect human research participants? ]AMA
2 0 i o ; 3 0 4 ( i o ) : i i 2 2 – i i 2 3 ; Kim S, Ubel P, de Vries R. Pruning the
regulatory tree. Nature zoo9;457(7229):534-535.
7. Hertwig R, Ortmann A. Deception in social psychological
experiments: Two misconceptions and a research agenda. Social
Psychology Quarterly zoo8;7i(3):222-2Z7.
8. Epiey N, Huff C. Suspicion, affective response, and educational
benefit as a result of deception in psychology research. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin i998;z4(7):759-768.
9. Christensen L. Deception in psychological research. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin i988;i4(4):664-675.
10. Singer E, Levine FJ. Research synthesis: Protection of human
subjects of research: Recent developments and future prospects for
the social sciences. Public Opinion Quarterly 2OO3;67(i):i48-ié4.
11. Eillenbaum S. Prior deception and subsequent experimental
performance: The “faithful” subject. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology i96é;4(5):532-537; Finney PD. When consent infor-
mation refers to risk and deception—implications for social research.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality i987;z(i):37-48.
l z . Baumrind D. Research using intentional deception: Ethical
issues revisited. American Psychologist I985;4o(z):i65-i74; Portnoy
DB. Deception (methodological technique). In: Baumeister RF, Vohs
KD, eds. Encyclopedia of Social Psychology Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, 2007, p. 2ZZ-223.
13. Oczak M, Niedzwienska A. Debriefing in deceptive research:
A proposed new procedure. Journal of Empirical Research on Hu-
man Research Ethics 2OO7;2(31:49-59.
14. See ref. 12, Baumrind 1985.
15. Baumrind D. IRBs and social science research: The costs of
deception. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research i 9 7 9 ; i ( é ) : i –
4; Ortmann A, Hertwig R. The costs of deception: Evidence from
psychology. Experimental Economics 2OO2;5(2):iii-i3i.
16. Sharpe D, Adair J, Roese NJ. Twenty years of deception re-
search: A decline in subjects’ trust? Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin I992;i8(5):585-59o; Edlund JE, Sagarin BJ, Skowronski JJ,
et al. Whatever happens in the laboratory stays in the laboratory: Tbe
prevalence and prevention of participant crosstalk. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 200953 5:63 5-642.
17. Taylor KM, Shepperd JA. Probing suspicion among partici-
pants in deception researcb. American Psychologist i996;5i(8):886-
887.
18. McDaniel T, Starmer C. Experimental economics and decep-
tion: A comment./oMwa/ of Economic Psychology i998;i9(3):4O3-
409.
19. See ref. 2, Broder 1998; Babbie E. Laud Humphreys and
research ethics. The International Journal of Sociology and Social
Policy. 2OO4;24(3-5):i2-i9.
20. Bortolotti L, Mameli M. Deception in psychology: Moral
costs and benefits of unsought self-knowledge. Accountability in
Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 2oo6;i3(3):259-275.
21. Pihl R, Zacchia C, Zeichner A. Follow-up analysis of the use
of deception and aversive contingencies in psychological experiments.
Psychological Reports i98
zz. Benham B. The ubiquity of deception and the ethics of decep-
tive research. Bioethics 2oo8;z2:i47-i56.
23. See ref. 8, Epley and Huff 1998; Smith CP. How (un)ac-
ceptable is research involving deception? ¡RB: A Review of Human
Subjects Research i98i;3(8):i-4; Soliday E, Stanton AL. Deceived
versus nondeceived participants’ perceptions of scientific and applied
psychology. Ethics and Behavior i995;5(i):87-iO4.
24. Smith SS, Richardson D. Amelioration of deception and harm
in psychological research: The important role of debriefing. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology I983;44(5):io75-io82.
25. Elms AC. Keeping deception honest: Justifying conditions for
social scientific research stratagems. In: Beauchamp TL, Faden RR,
Wallace RJ, Walters L, eds. Ethical Issues in Social Science Research
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982, p. 232-245.
26. Holmes DS. Effectiveness of debriefing after a stress-produc-
ing deception. Journal of Research in Personality I973;7(2):i27-i38;
Holmes DS, Bennett DH. Experiments to answer questions raised by
tbe use of deception in psychological research. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology i974;29(3):3 58-367.
27. See ref. 22, Benham 2008.
28. See ref. 15, Baumrind 1979, p. 4.
29. Tsugawa Y, Ohbu S, Cruess R, et al. Introducing the profes-
sionalism mini-evaluation exercise (P-MEX) in Japan: Results
from a multicenter, cross-sectional study. Academic Medicine
2 o i i ; 8 6 ( 8 ) : i o 2 6 ; Ginsburg S, Regehr G, Lingard L. Basing the evalu-
ation of professionalism on observable behaviors: A cautionary tale.
Academic Medicine zoo4;79(io):Si-S4.
30. Wilkinson TJ, Wade WB, Knock LD. A blueprint to assess
professionalism: Results of a systematic review. Academic Medicine
31. Sears DO. College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences
of a narrow data base on social psycbology’s view of human nature.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology I986;5i(3):5i5; Henry
PJ. College sophomores in the laboratory redux: Influences of a nar-
row data base on social psychology’s view of the nature of prejudice.
Psychological Inquiry 2oo8;i9(2):49-7i.
3 2. Rosenberg M. Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princ-
eton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965.
33. Gramzow RH, Gaertner L. Self-esteem and favoritism toward
novel in-groups: The self as an evaluative base. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 2OO5;88(5):8oi-8i5.
34. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation
of brief measures of positive and negative affect: Tbe PANAS scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology I988;54(6):io63-io7o.
35. Mainous AG III, Smith DW, Geesey ME, Tilley BC. Develop-
ment of a measure to assess patient trust in medical researchers. Tfye
Annals of Family Medicine zooé;4(3):247-252.
36. See ref. 2, Kelman 1967.
37. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects
of Biomédical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical
Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Research. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979,
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.btml.
38. Fisher CB, Fried AL, Feldman LG. Graduate socialization
in the responsible conduct of researcb: A national survey on the
research ethics training experiences of psychology doctoral students.
Ethics and Behavior 2oo9;i9(6):49é-5i8.
39. See ref. 24, Smith and Richardson 1983.
40. Cohen D, Nisbett RE, Bowdle BF, Schwarz N. Insult, aggres-
sion, and the southern culture of honor: An “experimental ethnogra-
phy.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology i996;7o(5):945-
959; Williams LE, Bargh JA. Experiencing physical warmth promotes
interpersonal warmth. Science 2oo8;322(59oi):éo6-6o7.
IRB: ETHICS & HUMAN RESEARCH
MARCH-APRIL 2013
Copyright of IRB: Ethics & Human Research is the property of Hastings Center and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
