For my friend, David Raves, whose heart is also in the work

Research Methods for, Social Psychology

Dana S. Dunn

@wmy-nLAcKwELLA tahn wiley & Sons, Lrd., publication

ll() Basjc ExPeritrlettnl De;tgn

2 Using the variables found in question 1, write your own theoreiical definjtions andoperationalizations, and suggest some other ways to measure the sarne dependenl

Ex3mine severa/ issles of a social psychology journal Keep a count of how manyexperiments rely on between-subjects rather than within-subjects designs. Why doyou think this is so?

Seleci a between-subjects design from one of the ariicles identified above in 3. Canyou conved the design into a vvithin s!bjects design? Why or why not?

Active Le.rning lxe.cise 48 lnswe6: I lndependenr variable: wherher.urs were packaged or noti depen-dent va.iable: amount of nurs coosunred (obesity is subiect,variable-rr is soDetimes tieated as an independent variable). 2 Indep.ndent vari.blr: whethcr or not shocks were dcscribed as paintul; dependentvaflable: whether the women p.elerred to rv.ir ilooe o vith someone clse- i lrdependent variab{e: choi.eor se.ond.hoi.e o€pen; depend.nr nrclsur.r rariDg olliking tbr pen.Table 4.6 arshe.s: I Nhin etr ct ior A; main effect ibr Bi A x B inreractioo. 2 No nrain eflect tor A: .omain eflecr litr B; Ax B intencrion.3 No nrain cffcct for Ai no drri el{ect iirr Bi noA x B interactio..4.No nrain etle.r ior Ai mJin etfrcr lirr Bi no A x tl i,rrerr.rion.

Chapter 5

Alternatives to ExperimentalResearch in Social Psychology

"Thank You for Not Sharing Your Earthquake Experience" (Sentiment emblazonecr'

on t-shirts that appeared in Palo Alto, California, aPProximately four weeks aher the

October 1989 Loma Prieta Eirrthquake; Pennebaker & Ilarber, 1993, P l33)'

Disasters happen. PeoPle and P.operw are lost SLl ivors are lefi to make sense of

the eveit, plodding through the mental or physical remnants asldng questions like

"Why me?" or "Why themi" In our time, the bombirrg of the Federal Buildi:lg in

Oklahonra City, the terrorist attacks ofSePtember I I, 2001, the lr{q war, and FIu fricJ!e

Katrina have all prompted collective soul searching ln the aftermath olthese and other

calanrities, the search for erning can continue for some time seeking answers' peoplc

ask ea.b other questions; they offer opiilioos and shnre exPeriences in search ofclosure

(e.g., l-lorowitz, 1976). Some answers Are painful but cleat. Other questions aboLrt the

causes and consequences ofsuch shared traumas rvill never be ansrvercd'

Profound evenls are worthy of serious enrPirical scrlrtiny eveo if they cannot be

examined with the rneticr.Llous research designs associated lvith laborltorT_based

research in social psychology. Colsider a compellil]g example; Social Psychologists

Jaoes Pennebaker ancl Keot Harber (1993) undertook a very itvolved piece ofresearch

within one week after the October l989 Loma Prieta Earthquake which, regrstering

7.2 on the Richter scale, wreaked havoc in the San Francisco Bay area and car'rsed over

60 deaths. Using random digit dialing (or RDD, a technique for randomly phoninll

rcsialents relatecl to the sampling ideas reviewed in chaPters 4 and 6), these researchers

iDterviewed close to 800 tesidents of three Caljfornia cities (San Francisco, Sacra-

mento, Claremont) aod Dailas, Texas.'fhe ParticiPilnts were called by phone ouce

within l, 2,3,6,8, 16,28, or 50 weeks after the qualce and for l0 minutes were asked

about theit ealthquoke experiences. Because Pennebaker and Hatber were cspecialll

interested in social responses (i e, communicating thoughts and feelings about the

quake to others) and psychological resPonses (i e., thinkiug about the quake) to the

seisnric activity, all participants were asked how many times in the previolrs 24 htrurs

they had talked about and thought about the ea.thqtake.

Let's look at the responses ofthe people who experieoced the quake 6rst hand, tbe

sample ofresidents trom San Francisco Figr:re 5-l plots the self-reported incid:'rrr'- r''thi kiog and talking about the earthquirke among a sample of 275 citv resirLerrs

I

l

II

I

l,si

Il2 Alt.tlttrfts to Erperifietlt(l Research

"f

a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 2a 50

Weeks afler quake

--- Thought --1- Talk

Selt-reported number of thoughls and conv€r;Jlions in the previous 24 hours concerning lheearthquake among San Francisco residenls Data we.e based on 275 telephone intervrews(approximately 34 respondenls at each lime poinl). To conlrol lor exl.eme responses.subjects who repoded thjnking or talking aboul the quak€ more lhan 25 imes ln lho previous24 hours were assigned a value ol25 t'mes

Figure 5.1. Inciden€e of thinking and talkurg about tie Loma Prieta €arthqoake. So,r,rcr

Pennebikcr {199.1, r'igurc 9.1, p. 211)

(around 34 peoplc were interviewed at each of the key time points noted earlier ). Whatcan we lerrn from }igure 5.I ? San Francisco residents spoke about and thought aboutrhe quakc a grcat deal dlrrilrg the nrst two weeks, so that nlaDy people rel)orted thatthe event "brought rhe city together" (Pennebaker, 1993, p. 2l l). After two weeks andLrp to the eight-week mark, however, chatter about the quake died down precipitously.

OD the other hand, a fair rlumber of respondents-above 20olo-continued to trirftabout the disaster (see Figure 5.1). Although theywanted to telltheir own sto(ies aboutivhat happened, people bccame much less willing to hear others talk about the disaster(r...rll thc t-shirt slogan that opened this chapter). They became socially conshained,yet they-,^'ere still mulling the quake's occurrence ovel in their own minds. As Penne-

baker and Harber ( 1991, p. l3l) put it, "A sub tle conspiracy r)f silence was the result"of the collective social constraint.

This intriguing pattern of collective behavior ailowed Pennebalcer and Harber(i99-1) io propose a three-stage model of collective coping shown in Figlre 5.2 (the

cuivcs sltowll in this figure are idealized but thcy are based on the pattern of datashol'n in !'igure 5.i). Briefly, thev argue that coUective coping occurred io three

0

ot lhoughls

talking

Alternitivcs ta Exprunultal Resett(h 11-\

Emergency

Figure 5.2. Penoebaker and Harber's (1993) three-stage model of collective coPing based on

self-rcported thinking and ialkitg following thc Loma Prieta earthquakc. .Sorrrre: Pennebaket

il]d Hirber ( 199i, Figure 2, P. i3l)

distinct stagcs-an emergency phase, an inhibition phase' and an adaPtation Phase

(see Figure 5.2). Thoughts about the everlt remain relativelv high cluring the first two

phases but then finally dissipate in the third phase, whcre people act as if the event-literaL and psychoiogical is over. In contrast' actual talking abor.:t the event clc'linc\

from the end of the emergency Phase through the adaptation phase

Psychologically speaking, the irtriguing story is what happened during the inhibi-

tion phase, where people reftained fiorn talking aborrt the event Lacking oPPortuniq'

to talk with others about wllat haPPened, peopie continued to reflect on' even rrrmi-

nale about, the upheirval. Ironicaliy, this conlmunity-i pos€d silence or "holding

back" {ctlrally heighterred people's risk for health problems and psychological difficul-

tjes (Pennebaker & Harber, 1993) San Francisco residerlts rePorted a greater fre

qLr€ncy of foul moods than norrnal, higher rates ofquarrtiing with their tamilies and

coworkers, a iump in minor health problems, and havit]g sleeP disturbances irl the

form ofquake-related dreams. In short, not talkilg but contirluing 1o mentallv "stew"

about the quake had conseqlrences [br the city's residentsj oPening up to others might

have been a preferabie course ofaction (Pennebakcr, J997). Furthermore' the conse

quences of inhibition were public as well as personal- Cornpared to the sarne time

period during the previous yeat, police reports of aggravated assnults grew 10 percent

a few weeks after the disaster (Penlebaker & Harber, I99l)

lnhibilion phase

Il1 Altettlati,et t() Expetimental Resurclj

As for good news, about eight weeks later, participants reported returning to no.mal,The intrrLsive thoughts about the disaster and the accompanfng interpersonal conflictdissipitted, eventually disappearing altogether. To demonstrate this retu.n to baselineself-reports regardir,g behavior, Pennebal<er ald Harber (1993) compared ihe larerSaa Francisco residents'inteNier.r' data with that obtailed from the three.,control"cities.

The Loma Prieta earthquake is not the only real world caianity affefiing largenumbers of people that Pennebaker and his colleagues have studied. Pennebaker andHarber (1993) also examined coliective responses to the Persian Gulf War tbrough thelens of tireir proposed model of large scale coping. Back in the 1980s, pennebakerexamined community aeactions to the eruption of the Mount St. Helens volcano(Pennebaker & Newton, l9B3). Pennebaker and his colleagues have also examinedthe natule of social int€ractions foilowing Septernber ll, 2001 (Mehl & pennebaker,2003) and online chat room conversations concerning the death of princess Diana(Stone & Pcnnebaker, 2002). For a broader djscussion of inhibition and its role insocial life, see Pennebaker (1989, 1997).

leaving the Comfort of the Lab: Problems and Prospects

r\s tirc worli by Pennebaker:rrrd Harl.:er (1991) illustates, social psychologists doconduct real lifi: research in real Life settiilgs outside thc controlled confines.of thelaboratory. But lyhen researchers leave the lab, difliculties arise fhe predicrabiliry ofthe lab is lost; lesearch out in the .eal world or the 6eld is less predictable-very oftenit is unp.edicrable. There are problems associated with coodLicting nooexperim€ntalstudies, that is, res€aich efforts that do not satisry the requirements of..true,,expeflments in social psychology (see chaprer 4).'I'hese problerns can include:

' Nu rJnJom a5signtneitt lo conditron.' No controlled manipulation ofan independent variable,. No conditions representing distind levels of an independent valiable,. No sensitive dependent variables that allow researchers to directly link cause

with effect,. No control group(s) or use of limited comparison groups,. No opportuniry to debrief research participants.

In sholt, research in the teal world lacks the rigor associated with the iab wherebetween- or within-group diflerences caused by the manipulation of an independentvariablc can be cleanly and clearly documented. Reserrch out in the rcal worlcl isconrplicated, often hard to do, and sometinres messy- Things go awry aud researchersnlust compcnsate or go with the flow in ao elfort to idertiry iDterestiDg, even funda_tlental, issues in the study of social behavior.

Ahenuttit,es to Eipetifienta! Retedrih I 15

Therein Iies the excitement and challenge of doing research where expe.imental

control and exactitude are lessened or ever absent as compaaed to the lab The loss ofrigor need not mean a corresponding loss of vigor. As lve learned from Pennebaker

and Harber's (1993) work on collective responses to a cornmon disaster, there aie rvays

to capit{ize on natule's caprices. If.andonl assignment to condition is not possible,

perhaps some fofin of random selection can be performed. lf an ideal control group

is not avaiiable, perhaps some similar grouP ot peoPie can be identified as a PossiLrl.

substitule. The advantages associated with lronexPerimental research illclude:

' Thinking broadly and creatively about social behavior in actual social

conteals,. Testing out ideas uncovered in the lab out in the 6eld (and vice versa),

' Developing new and creative dePendent variables and ways to measure

b€havior,. Having opportunityto examine howPeople respond to orcopewith a real social

oa natural evcnt,. Using social psychologicai theo.y to explain or improve some Practical issuc n1

the sor:ial world-

Many social psychologists like to leave the reladve qrriet of the lab for the hr.rrlv-

burLy action outside in the world. Some nlake it a practice to 6rst identiry a socirl

psychological effect in the lab and then exanjne its influence out in everydav life In

this chapter, we will considec sonre intriSuing research design altcruatives to iruc

experiments. These ilrclude observational studies, correlationill apProa€hes' so_callcd

qudsi-expcrimental designs, survey research, experience sarnpling approaches and

cliary sttrdies, Internet-based research, and archival and meta-rnah'tic studies.

Otrservational Research

The most basic form ofnonexperirnental social psychoiogical research involvcs simply

Iooking around and observing what people do. ln general, obsel'vatiollaL rrwdrch

involves watching peoplc engage in norlnal behavior in Public settings ln contmst to

experimental research, observatiotral research does not interfere in the situation-there is no ;ntervention that might disrupt what is occurring natulally. Most ob\.rva-tions are nrade in an unobrrusive or even "secret" filanner so that the individuaLls]

being observed do not alter their actiorls. In a real sense, we all engage in I forrn o[obser_vational research any time we are in a public settinS-a Park, the ma11, a sporLing

event, ir sidewalk cafe that ca ses us to watch and wonder aboul what oljvales

people to perform some acts but not others. Wh€re real observational research differs

from casual obse ation, of course, is that some lecord is being maintained: An

obseryer or observers takes notes on the behavior being rvatched.

i i 6 Al t.t iltt; i','rs ta bcPerinent.ll Resedrch

Here is a simple, off-the-cuff observational study: Wheo walking past Jarge depart-

ment store windows, do peoplc look at their own rellections or do they avoid doinS

so? 5ocial psyi.i.rologically spealiing, we might be investigating public displays of self-

consciousness (e.g., Fenigstein, 1984; Scheier & Carver, 1985) or naturally occurringsiLuatioos where self-awareness is triggered (e.g., Duval & Wicldund, 1,972). Nl one

would need to do would be to sit on a bench adjacent to a dePartment store and watch

what people do.Ofcoulse, an investigator would define what constitutes a "gldnce"-some conclete

behavionl dcscriptioil is Decessaryso that the observed behavior can be measured. For

example, a simple count of (a) how ma[y people walk by ald (b) how many subse-

,l,rel1:ly glance at dleir o!r'n reflections coold then be recorded. A researcher might also

talce note of rire gender of the passers-by-do womcn iook at their reflections moreoften then men? what sort ofwomen (or meD) look at tl, eir reflections? How long (irr

seconds) do peopie look at their reflections? How nany adjust their hair or clothing

after doing so? Does weigirt, height, age, or other characteristics aPpear to influence

-rirethcr people look at their reflectionsi How crn the observations we collect lend

:. jr'-rJr'! to rnore "causai" arguments? Even in a simple exampie like this one, one

obseryation leads to other observations; questions beget other questions. What seefted

sirnple can become rnore complex-even a castrtl observation can quickly morph irrtoa theory (albeit olle thal must be tested in a more rigorous manner)-

Thc virtues of obscrvational research are easy to sumnlarize: it can be done inalmost any pr.rblic pLace where people gather or pass by. No expensive tools are usually

nceJ.-d; a pad and pencil, a simple checklist, or some other recording device is usually

sufhcicnt. Finally, the real and true advantdge of observatioial resea(cb is that it crnbe used to qenertte ideas-future, potential h)?otheses*that can be examined e{Peri-

rnentaily. lronically, this strengtlr also highlights thc downside of observational

research: lts speculative nature docs not allow a researcher to determine causality-

',fiat internal or external factor(s) Ied to what witnessed behavior. Still, corducting arr

iliscrvatiooal study can be a great way to begin gathering ideas fbr subsequent exPeri

mcnlai research in social psychology.

ACTIVE TEARNJNC EXERCISE 5A

Designing and Conductint an Observational Study

An observationaj study should be simple and straightforward to conduct and, as

McKenna ('1995) suggests, they can almost always be carried out on a typical

college campus or in some commLrnity settings. Remember: You are to carefully

observe soara behavior as it occurs (or does not occLrr)*you are noi supposed to

otherwrse influence what happens. Table 5.'1 lists some possible topjcs and locales

for observaiional studies.

Alkrna!pu< !o Ftpetit'tnulR,'sr'drrlr I l7

Table 5.1 Watching Social Behaviorr Some Suggested Obse.vational StuCy Topics and

Locales

T.Jp c Locale

Failing tq discard tash or clear table

Wastinef of food

Talking or sleepiflg rather than studyiflg

People's weiSht and speed of tood consumption

cender and ry 5how choice (e.8, comedy,

Frequency of interaction belween people of

dlfferent races o. ethnicities

Littering and gender

Watching (not watching) reflection in mirror

Talking during a movie or play or concert

Laie arrivak and early departsres from class

Cafeteria, fast food restaurant

Cafeteria, fast food re5taurant

Library

Cafeteria, fast food restaurant

Dorm lounge

Various pos3ible locations

Public park. various other locations

campus weight room

Theater, auditorium

Lecture hall, senrinar, classroom

Here are the steps you need to follow to do an observational piece of

research:

1

2

3

4

5

7

B

Develop a hypothesis regarding some naturally occurring behavior.

Concretely define the behavior !n operational terms (recall chapter 4's dis'

cussion of operationaiiz ng variables).

ldentify what other related variables (e.g., gender) should be considered.

ldentily a public locale for observing the behavior.

Develop a coding system and record sheet for ihe behavior How will you

tally what you see?

Decide whether you necd to enlist the help of a fellow obsenver to help you

verify your observations (see the discussion of reliability in chapter 8)

Seek IRB approval before you begin any daia collection (see chapter 3)

How will you display your data? You might want to create simple bar graphs

or data tables, for exampie (see the discussion of tables and figures in

chapter 12).

Pe#orm the observational research.

Correlational APProaches

Unlike observational research, correlatiorral research allows an investiSator to assess

the degree ofassociation between pairs of vatiables. A .offelation is a measure of asso-

ciation between two variables. As,vou probably learned in an earlier class, the nature

of the association belween two variables can be one of three tt?es:

L'LS Altcnlatiret to Expeti eitdl Rese.lr,:h

Pasiti/e dssaciation: As the value ofone variable jncreases (or decreases), the valueof the other variable behaves the same way. I"iere is a fbvorite example that nicelyillustrates positive correlationi Tbe more hours a iirst year college student studiesper week, the higher his or her grades are likeiy to be at the end of the rerm.Conversely, fewer hours of study are also positively related to lower grades at aterm's end,

Negative associntiotl: As the value of ooe variable increases, the value of the othervariabie decreases (or vice versa). Ill other words, eacir variable follows a directionopposite to that of the other. The more hours spent studfng, the fewer hoursavailable for watching television (or vice versa).

Zero or no association: There is no discernable pattern of covariation between thevar iables being considered. Time spent sludfng has no relationship witit or cffecton grades, nor is there any liltk between study time and discretionary time speDtwatching televt'sion.

The statistical magnitude of the association between two variables is described bya numerical index, the "correlation coeilicient.', The statisticalsl,mbolused to denotethe correlation coefficient is r.. The value of a correlation coefficient (e.g., pearson orSpearman, the two most common ty?es of coriBl..rtions) can range between +1.00 (aperfict positive correlition) arld -1.00 (a pertect negative correlation). As the value ofa correlation approaches the rnid-point betweel these tivo poles-that is,0-there isno association between the variables. The presence of a in fiont of acoefficienl (e.g., .25) onlF indicares the direcrion oi the associirtion between the,trvovariables under co sideration-in fhct, the pirrs or lnirus sign is there to help usreadily interpret the re lationship-Lrut the sign says nothing about the strelgth of rheassociition. (APA style, 2001, drops the "f" for positive correlations, however, the., ,,

sign is always shown fbrnegarive correlations.) Only the coelficient itselfindicates thatstrength (i.e-, stronger correlational relationships occrrr the further a coefficient i$ fiornthe 0 point in the range between +1.00 and -l.00). Thus a correlation oF+.32 is notas strong as the association indicated by a correlation of-.56. It follows, then, that thestrelgth of associatio n ol +.75 and, -.76 is t]re same.

Correlational approaches to research are described as passive designs in that aresearcher explores how variables "covary"-how theil values do or do not changewitlr each otheF-without any direct interventiolt or manipulatioD (Wampold, 2006).Social and persoualiry researchers rely on correlational methods because when anassociation between valiables is established, knowledge of one variable can be pre-dicted from what is known about the other. Thus knowing where oDe person fajls onsome rneaslrre of personaliry eiables a researcher lo preclict the likeiy value of somemeasure of anothcr telated variable, such as another measure of personality or sornerelated construct.

Indeed, one of the more poprrlar, if passivc, research approaches is to distributepackets of personality arld related psychological neasur€s thought to be associatedwith each orher to a iarge sample of peopLe. Thc data fiom the completed packets are

Alternatives to Experiile tLtl Reseerci! i1,9

Table 5.2 Correlations betwcen Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Selected policy ltems

{II

III

ivlilitary proglams

Gay and lesbian rightswomen's rightsRacialpolicy

+.27

-50-.32-.46

Srar.e: Sample 3b from Pratro et al. (19t4, Tablc 5, p. 750).

coded, put in { spreadsheet or other data 6le, and quickly converted into correlational

lratrices-la.8e tables illustraling all of th€ associations between each possible twovariable pairings. Guid€d by theory, the researcher therl scrutinizes the correlarions ro

learn wirether ihe resulting associations make sense.

Consider the case ofsocial dominance orienrnrion (SDO), a personality chiracteristicindicating the degree to which one prefers inequality among social groups (Pmttc,Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). For example, people high in SDO, such as avowedracists, would likely believe that their race is by deonition superior to-and by rightshould dominate-all other races. TlTose low in SDO, on the other hend, tend not tobelieve in any such sociai peckiog order, or thirt the sociery's "haves" should dictatclvhat happens to thc "have nots." Using a correlational research design, Pratto a.,d

colleagoes denoDstrated that kno\a'ing how people sco(€d on a mensule of SDO was

predlctive of a wide variery of the;r social and politicaL attitudes. The researchers

developed a 14-item measure ofSDO. Participants read each item (e.g., "Some groups

are simply oot the equals of others," "Some group are just inferior to others") and

then ratcd it on a I to 7 scale (from I =uery negafiwtoT =very positive, fot a.atr:,plelecopy ofthe measure, see Pratto et al., 1994). Different groups o[ particip^lrts com-pLeted the SDO measule and many other measures of social, political, and racial attj-tudes, personllity scales, and demographic questiols.

Table 5.2 shows correlations between scores on the SDO scdle and some selected

social policy variables- These data are based on one of several samples included inPmtto et al-'s (1994) study. As you can see, individuals who scored irigh on SDO hrda positive preference for military programs, which emphasize the need tbr and mairt€nirnce of distinctions among diiferent ranks of people. In contrast, high scores onSDO were inversely related to (negatively correlated with) policy issLles that tend toreduce or eliminate ba.riers by promoting the rights of miflority or clisadvantaged

groups (here, gays and lesbians, women, and ethnic minorities).Look once more at Table 5.2: We have considered these data from the point ofvrer'

of people who score high on SDO. The same correlations also predict the likely attitudes of low scorers on this personaliry measure. People low in SDO wouid be less

favorably disposed toward the hierarchical nature of the nilitary (a positive assocLs

tion lowero one variable, lower on the other variable, as well) andfavorable towarclpromoting the rights of lninority groups (negative associatiorls-lower on one

II{

120 Alterruttives ta ExPerimental Resedrch

variable, ligher on the other). Among other hndings, Pratto et al. aiso found that menare nore likely to etpress a social dominance orieniation than women, that high-SDOpeopie r.e cial\.n tc carccrs that are hierarchical (e.g., business, law enforcement), and

that SDO was negatively correlated with rolerance, empathy with others, and altruism(for a broader discussion ofSDO, see Sidanius & Pralto, I999).

There is, olcoursc, one major drawback to all correhtional research: Correlation does

not indicatc causation. This is one ofthe grcat dictums of all science and ofspecial rele-

vance to social psychology-social behavior is not alwa/s caused by the factors we

articrpate. ln other lvords, the presence ofa positive or a negative associatign between

two variables does not inform us about the actual origin-the cause----ofthe reiationship.Knowing that there is correlatioo betlveen one sample's scores on a measure of SDO(variabie;c) and any one ofthe policy variables shown in Table 5.2 (a variable 7) can be

explained in ouc of threc ways: ia causeS /, / causes )i, or some unknown third vari-able-let's call it z-is causiDg the association between rc andy. We simply do not kaowlvhich of thesr directional accounts is the cofiect one. Thus conelations are interesting,suggestive, and often inte.pretable-th€y can even point us in the right direction where

answers can be found-but they do not offer causal accounts. As we learned in chapter

4 (and elsewhere ir this book), our best course ofaction for leaming how a chaoge rn

one variable leads to the change in another is byjonducting a true experiment.Please noie thatwe are not ruiing out an important roie for €orrelations-they often

provide an overLooked insight or highlighr an issue that will eventually drive an entireexperimental research program. We must, however, remember that correlatio[s onlvpoint to possible (and often competing) explanations that must be teased apart usingother research methods-again, correlation does not imply causation-

There are some advanced statistical approaches emplolng correlations that allowresearchers to infer causality under particular conditions. These approaches, calledstruc-tural equation modeling (SEM) or causal modelinS, are beyond the scope of this book(see, e.9., Hoyle & Robinson,2004; Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998). SEM is a techliquefor deciding howwell data representing a set ofvariables link to the h;potheses regardingcausal connections among the variables. Social psychologists who use SEM build and

test 1nodeis to determine the presence, nature, and exlent ofcausai relationships amonS

variables (c.g., does variable x cause a change in variable 1or does some other variablez mediate the relation between x and 1 see, for example, Breckler, 1990).

ACTIVE LEARNJNC EXERCI5E 5B

Conducting a Correlational Study on Personality

Correlational studies are ideal for situations where experimental manipulations are

either lmpossible or unethical. Researchers who study alcoholism or drufi abuse,

for example, cannot require some people to consume liquor or lllegal substances

Alfernativ'.s ta Experinental Resnrch I)l

(or deny others the right to avail themselves of either) in order to examine subse-

quent declines in health and psychological well-being. You can imagine any nunrber

of interesting i55ues (e.t., marriage, divorce, sexual orientation, adoption, health

problem!) that preciude any assignmerlt lo a condition or state, lct alone random

assienment. but can nonetheie!s be exarnined through correlatiorral means And,

a5 we learned from the work by Pratto and collea8ues (1994) correlational research

is often the choice method for exanlirring how an expressed personality trait can

predict responses on related social variables, such as attitude5 toward certain

groups (e.g., ethnicities) or issues (e.9.. affirmative action).

As noted earlier, cofielational studies are not difficult to conduct; in fact, they

are relatively inexpensive "PaPer and pencil" procedures Here are some straight'

forward steps for executing a correlational study:

Step one. You need to identify some personality trait of interest and then locate

an existing instrument or Scale designed to measure il Table 5-3 lists some poPular

traits for which various measLlres or scales exist in the sociai and personality P5y-

chology literature (this list is by no means an exhallstive one-list other traits you

find or record them in your research notebook). Cood sources for personality traits

(and occasionally some measures) include introductory text books on lhe lopic

Alternatively, you can look 1n your library for reference works containing personal_

ity measures (e.g.. Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991) or search PsyclNFC)

for references that provide personality gcales and scoring information Some p5y_

chology departments also maintarn files of pe15onality mea!ures students can Lise

in their research (ask your instructor if such liles are availabl-" at your institution)

Step two. Once you identity a personality traii of interest and locate an apPropri-

ate scale or measure (note that shorter personality inventorie5 are generally easier

to score), develop a queslionnaire containing items that you believe will be posi-

tively and negatively correlated with it. For example, if you were studying procras-

tination, you would want to know how many hours per week a person studied (or

not). typical number of hours of sleep per night, how olten assignments are

Table 5.3 Some Sampl€ PeAonality Traits Appropriate for

Correlational Research

lntrovelsion/extroversion

Optimism

Self-consciousness

Ma5culinity/feminlnity/androgynyShyness

Self monitoring

Conscientiousneg!

Agreeablenesg

Procrastination

SensaUon teeking

12.2 Alterndttrei ta Expe] inrefi!,1] Re;enrall

submitted past itre due date (where 1 = very inlrcquently to 7 - all the timd. andso on. Chapter 6 provides detaiied guidelines for writing questions and puttingtogether qLrestionnaires.

The questions you use should have numerical answers, whjch means that raijngscales, behavtor counts, or any self-report-based questions that have some rangeof valires can be correlated with one another and with scores on the personalitymeasLrre you select. Questions requirjng answers of ,,yes" and ,,no,, have a limitedrange of values, which means that they are not appropriate for conventional cor-relational anaiyses. you shouid also collect descriptive demographic informationabout your participanis, such as age, sex, year in college, ma]or, or whateverjnformation seems relevant (tor more on demographic information, see chapter 5)Such information wrll allow you to characterize your sample for readers (see alsothe discussion of Method sections in chapter 12)

Step three. After yo\r have collected the measures, created a ques0onnaire packet,and copied, distributed, and then collected them from a padrcjpanI sampJe. all thatremarns is for you to code the data (per person) and enter it into a file. Correlatjonalanalyses can then be quickly and easily performed using a statistical softwarepackage or a basic spreadsheet program (most,have a correlatjon option built intothem). Obtain a printout of the correlations and look for intere5ting associaiionsthat confirm or refute your th€ory about how the trait would be linked with theother self report iiems A rnore detaiied di5cussion of correlational analysesincluding reporting correiatjonai results in writien form,may be found inchapter 11.

Alteftlati|es to LtDerinental llesear|It )23

lVhen conducting any quasi-experiment, a social psychologist's chief coocern isintertal nlirlity, whether an observed demonstration of cause and effect is so.rrrd.When internal validity is high (i.e., few, ifany, design problcms exist), then ferv a1:er-

native or competing explanalions are likeiy 1o account for some set of r'esults. Aresearchts can be conEdent about the favored explanatiou. When internal validity is

low, cerlainty is lorq any number of rival accounts could explain a set of findings. Wewill discuss the two types of validity-internal and external validily (whcfier obtai e(l

results are generalizable to other settings)-in detail in chapter 9.

Quasi-experiments are approximalions of true experiments, making the best ofwhat can sometimes be a murky empirical situation. In fact, wl]en researchers condrlctquasi-experiments, they often substitute the term "treatment" or "intervention" in lieLl

of using the term "irdependedt variable." Why? Very often a rescarcher will study

some event over which experinrental manipulation is neither possible nor necessariLy

desirable (e.g., assessing the health and edu.ational benefits ofa fiee breakfilst rroglirllfor djsadvantage elem€ntary schoolchildren-rvouLd a control group be ethicall,v

viable?). Similariy, instercl of assessing treatment effects by evaluating delrendentvariables, quasi expcriments use the term "outcome variables" to renect the lack ofprecise control associated wjih true experiments. Like true experiments, however,quasi-experirnents can be multivnriate; more lhan one trealment and nlore thaD oneor]taome ca., be evaluated in the sanre 6tudy.

Quasi-ex!-.cr imental research is part of the legacy olDonaid T. Canpbcll, a brilLiantmethodologjst and creative socialpsychologist. I m€t the lilte, great Do., Cimpbell orld llw pleasart occasions back i11 the Late i980s lvhen he lvas teaching nt r neighboringuniversity. I once heard hirD quip that quasi-experinlents were sometinles "queasy"

experiments. By that he meant their results could be "unsettiing," that reseiuchers

using quasi-experimental designs in certain setlings could never be altogether cerl]]lrabout the trlLe nature of the cause and effect reiationships. Some interesting behil!iorthat looked io be causcd by one variable miglrt very lvell be due to the onforc5ccninfluence of another vdriabie, some artifact of the research design, the hck ot arr ade-

quate control or comparison group, or anorher uncontrollabie quality inherent to the

reSearch,

What are hardworking social psychologists to do? Give in to frustration and rethiijithe virtues of pursuing a topic, or reconcile thelnselves to the vagaries oF l esearch lil'e

beyoDd the serenity and control ofthe lab? I think thnt the better part of reseerch valoris lo press on and conduct the research. Quasi-experimental designs ale not ideal-after all, they are not purcly exper-inreltal-but they offer a lnore constructive solutionthan deciding not to pllrsue a question. An investigator mxy not learn the tl1le state

of affairs regarding some phenomenon, but sone insights will bc learned. ln some

cases, a clever researcher can build a theoretical case by combining results obiained

from a mix of experimental and qrrasi-experimental investigations.Carrpbell and his coileagues published a series of very important works on qLrr\i-

experimental and experimental research designs (Campbell & Stanley, 1966; Cook &Canpbell, 1979; Shadish, Cook, & Canrpbell, 2001). These are arnong the nlost usetirl

Quasi-Experimental Research Designs

Interesting research quesiions often precede thc availabiiit/ of ideal metlrods for studying them. As we learned from Pennebaker and llarber,s ( 1993) effol ts on psycltosoci.ilreilctions to natural disasters, however, social psychologists are flexible, learning whatthey can whenever antl rvherever thcy can. 1'he premise of this chapter is that controlled or true experiments a.e not alwlys feasible ald, in any case, that there is nosingle, perfact research design. We now turn ro the original anticlote to the absence ofempirical controi: quasi-experiments.

A quasi experittrcnt is "close to but not quite,, an experiment bccause it lacks oneor more ofthe following: experinlental cotrtrol, randon assignment to conclition, lacj(ofa representative control or comparison grorLp, and mxn;pu1x1ion ofan independentvariable. As Wampold {2006) notes, any resenr€h design that possesses on" o. -orathreats to validiq'is by de6nition a qLrasi-cxperiment. Threats to validity are designflaws or nrethodological limirations reduciog the con6dence researchers piace in theirability to orake inferences based on research results

124 t\ll€r ctivcs to Experimental Research

books on researctr design in psychology and the other social sciences. We cannotreview ail oftheir insights on methodology,let alone quasi-experiments, due to spaceconstraints. Instead, our review of quasi-erperimental designs will be highly selective.!Ve r-il1 consid.r son'le examples froln each ofthe rwo main design categories identiliedby Cook and CampLrelt (l979): nonequivalent group designs and time-series designs.Other designs can be found in the books by Campbell and his colleagues.

Nonequivalent group designs

Nonequivalent group designs involve two or more groups, at ieast one of which is

exposed to some treatmenl, In the ideal case, the groups compiete the same outcomerncasure before and after the treahnent occurs, so that any change can be docufiented.Give! thal randoln assignnient to a group nlay not be feasible, the groups may differtiom onc arother at the study's outset (he[ce thc label "nonequivalent"). F'urther, thetreatrnent m:ly be naturaily occurring (like the Lornn Prieta earthquake) or it may bec.iiltiolLcd bv someone other than an experimenter (e.g., layoffs instituted as 0n eco-rlonric rneasLire by a corporation).

When no randomiy assign€d control group exists, researchers sometimes createa nonequivalcnt control or conparison grouF Pennebaker and Harber (1993), forexample, compxred the earthquake responses ofDajlas residents (who were completel),unaile.i.d) to thosc ofSat't Franciscans whose lives were disrupted- The design problemis obr.ious: Thc neorbers of the control or contparison group may not be from thesan1e population as the treatment group. On the other hand, one can argue that evena nonequivalerlt corltrol elroup is bett€r thau no control group whatsoever (however,exceptions to this rule e-{ist; see, e.g., Pennebaker, Barger, & Tiebout, 1989). ID diagramlblnr, this nonequivalcnt control design-labeled the untreatcd control group designwith n prctest and a posttest (see Cook & Campbell, 1979)-looks like this:

o:

ol o,

STmbolically, the Os represent a pretest outcome measure (O,) and a posttreatmentoutconre measure (O1). The single X in the upper half of the diagram indicates thatthe treatmeot was presented to one group after the first ottcome measure. Ihe secondgroup (the bottom half of the diagram) serves as the (noncquivalent) control group,which corl]pletes outcome m€asures at the same points in time. The broken line indicates that the two grorps were created without the benefit of randomization. Thedesign is by no neans ideal; you can easily imagine maD/ different ways the groupscan ciifier fiorn orle another besides t-he one of interest, the effects on the treatm€nteroup's posttreatment outcome. -fhe

key here is whether the cootrol group cafl besho\^/n to shalc any common experiences with the treatment group. If yes, then sweralof the threats to lhe internal validity of this design pose no problem (i.e., history,

o

Altenatives t0 Experimenhll Resea :h l)5

maturation, testing, instrumentation; these svstematic risks to veri$'ing that change is

attributnble to an iddependent variablc and not some uncontrolled or random factorare discussed in detail in chapter 9; sce pp. 237-239\. Two other tlrreats-mortalityand selection-still pose a problem, however (see p. 239 iri chapter 9).

Wh4t happens when no reasonable contiol group exists? Some researchers emplotseverai di fferen t comparison gioups. Baum, Gatchel, and Schaeffer ( 1983), for example,

used a design called the posttest only desigo witlr nonequivalent groups (Cook &Campbell, 1979) which, when diagramed,looks like this:

or

ol

ol

o1

The researchers examined the stress responses of people residing near Pennsylva'

nia's Thr€e Mile Island (1Ml) nuclear reactor. wher-. a reiatively serious industrialaccident occurred in the late 1970s. As with any accident, there was no forewarning,so Baum et al. could do no pretesting to establish that groups were similar before theevent (i.e., the taeatment) occurred. Three comparison groups were formed: Onegroup lived near a functioning I]uclear polver plant, anothei close to a coal-fir€d power

generator, and a third resided over 20 miles away lrom any energy facility. Why bothergathering such groups? As with an ideal (randomly assigned) control group, Baum

and colleagues wanted to rule out rival explanations for the physical and psychological

stress reporied by the lMl residents.

What about vaiidity concerns? lntewiew data from all fort groups were gathered

simultaneously, thereby eliminatirrg worries about five major validity thteats: history,maturation, testing, instrumentation, aod mortality (again, see pp.237-239 in.hapret9). lhe threat ofselection bias-the possibility that members ofthe treatment grouF

haii from a different population than the control or comparison groups-remained,however, as is often the case in any nonequivalent control Sroup design. The decision

to use more than one compa(ison group was an effort to rule out selection bias as ir

threat to the study's intenral vaiidity.

Time series designs

Time serjes designs are a form of repeited nreasures or within-subject designs: The

same measure is adrninistered to the sam€ Sroup at several points in time (see chapter

4). One difference bet'.,/een this tt?e of quasi-experimert and a standard exferiment

l:6 Alternatli.a:s to Experin€ntal Ilesearch

Averase dairy numbe, orT;tlJill,"j.",, 0,,"".o "*n,"""".

Figure 5.1- Flvidenc. lrom an inter.upted rime series design: The effects of charging for.clirec-tor/ rssistance in Cincinriri, Ohio. .Soame: Fiture 6.1 in Shadish, Cook, * Crinpi.tt 1ZOOZ,p 175), based on Mcsweeny (1978)

is that the tine frame is usually much broader_days, weeks, or even months betweenmeasures, rather than minutes. A second difference is the lack ofcontrol ever whatparticipants experience between the adnlitiistaations of the ineasures. And, just as wastrue of soDle nonequivalent group designs, there may be no control o, ao,rrpor,ron8rouP.

^ The most basic time series design is rhe inrerrupted time series design (Cook &

Campbell, 1979), where a single treatment ,.interrupts,,numerous ub."."*tion, col

lected f.om one population or group_ in diagram foim, the design looks iike this:

o, o: o, o, (f5 x oo o, os o, o,u

The choice of l0 outconre observations is arbitrary; however, more rather than fewermeasures ale apt to lend credence to any arguments supporting observed cha gcs.

Figlue 5.3 illustrates a clever demonstration <lf rhe inierrupled time series design.Mcsweeny ( L97B) examirlecr the effect of cincinnari Bell's charging a zo ..nt r." to,local ciirectory assistance calls. As showrl io !-igure 5.3, lnposir[ tie fee (treatInent)

Altcmatt!t,, to Espr in,e'i:a! I?,rr,r,rl Il-

*\

'51 '52 ',53 54 ',55 '56 '57 '58 '59

figure 5..1. Interrupted tirne series dcsigr: )righwa/derths in Connecticlrt fiom 1951 to 1959.Sorrccr Canrpbell ( 1969, p.413)

in 1974 ied to a shnrp and steep decline in the number ol directory assisred cai1s. Evenin the absence ofa controi groLrp, Shadish et l. (2002) suggest that few plausible livirlexplanations can reasonrbly account for the tlrop in calls.

Campbell (1969) himself offered what is one of the most elegant dernonsrr:rtionsofthe irterrupted time series design. In 1955, Connecticut began a concelted eflbr tto stop speediog on its major highways. A reduction in highways deaths followed: only284 fatalities in 1956 compared to 324 in 1955. Did better policing of the stare's higir-ways lead to close to l3olo fewer deaths? Campbell used the interrupted time serLes

design to exanine the highway deaths in Connecticut ftom 1951 ro 1959 (see Figure5.4) and answer this question. A drop did occur once the treatment was int.odltced,but the decline in mortality rates is not very convincing wben you consider how r arr-able the rate was over the 8-year period (see Figure 5.4).

To address the variabilitl problem, Campbeli (i969) used a variarion on rhe bnsicinterrupted time series design, ol1e with a control group: the interrupted time series

with a nonequivalent no-tr€atment control group time series (Cook & Campbell,1979). Adrnittedly a mouthful to say, the design looks like thisl

e 275

3

:l 2s0E

z

E

F

I2E Alternat;Es io Experinental Research

OL ol o, o.

'17

16

r5

14

12

11

IgE3

10

I

'51 '52 '53 ',54 ',55 ',56 '57 '.58 '.59

Figuie 5.5. lnterrupted tinre series design with control groups: Highway deaths in Connecti-cut and four control states hom 1951 to 1959. Sorrce: Campbell (1969, p.419)

o6 o!, O,oos()-o,o, or o, o1 o. 06 o' o' o' o'o

His clevei solution was to examine the bighway mortaliry rates fiom fosr similar states

that did not institute speeding reduction programs during the same time period.

Figure 5.5 superimposes the death rates for the four control states over that for Con-necticut. As you can see, the number ofdeaths in rhe control states is relatively steady

across the 8-year period, whereas Connecticut's rare deciines fairly steadily once the

speeding interveotion ensued. In short, the new policy ofpolicing the highways led toa lower mortality rate (bearing in mind, as Campbeli did, that other influences were

no doubt also at work). Evidence for the decline in highway deaths, however, was less

tenable without the support provided by the time series design.

The alternative designs we reviewed so far have largely been behavior based.

Instead of only observing what people do and inferring the cause of outcornes, whatif we ask tirem directly why they do what they do?

Abernatwes t0 Expetinrcnta! Researdt 129

SurveY Research

Surve,v research is predicated on a basic idea: If you want to linow what people thinkabout ggrne rssue, iui,t ask them. Srrrvey rese.rr.l! entails the creation and dissemination

of self leport questionnaires designed to gaLrge people's thouglrh and feelings about

something-a political (e.g., imntigration, foreign policy) or social (e.g., drug use)

issue, an experience (e.g., qtuiity of serwice in a hotel), or an idea (e.g., changing a

school's mascot). Our review of survey researcir will necessarily be brief because

chapter 6 is devoted to a detailed discussion ofcreating questionnaires and conducting

survey research.

Survey research takes place out in the field afld nol in the controlled settiDg of the

laboratory. Surweys can be conducted by handing or maiiing our questionnaires, irrter-

viewing people in person or by phone, or having them submit resPonses over lhe

I[ternet. Most surveys have a sin'ilar goaii adequateiy describing the reactions of a

representative sample ofpeople from sonre larger populatior (e.g., residents ofa lo!vn,

a city, a state, or a country; students who attend a Particolar schooi; regisleled voters;

retirees living in an assisted lir.ing tacility). Naturally, having access to a landom

sample of survey participants generally strengthens a researcher's corr6dence rn any

conclusions drawn from it (recail the discussion of sanrpling issues in chapter 4i see

also chapter 6).

One of the striking characteristics of a good survey is that a researcher really only

needs drornd 1,200 responses (assuming they were randootly gathered) in order to

adequately portray the generaj opinion ofsome PoPulation ln fact, whether theyare

nntionaL or local in scope, tnost such survevs can clainr a 95olo level of conddence in

characterizing the opinion held by the popularion of interest (usually with an error

rate of around only 39/o). There is one inPortanl Point to keeP in mind about such

survey reslllts-the data represent public opiniorr at one nronent in tinle; thus the

knowledge gained reflects culrent feelings and not necessarill a valid prediction

OpiniorT changes, often swiftly, which is one ofthc reasons that public opinion polling

during the months leading up to elections is doDe so frequently

A pploac hcs to surveying opinion

Surueys are either cross-sectional or lolrgitudinal. A ctoss-sectio al su tey is designed

to coilect responses from one or moLe 'samples of people at one Point in time. The

aforemention€d electioll-oriented suneys are usualiy cross-sectional. In the we€ks and

days leading up to an election, different samples composed of different voters are

srrrveyed at different times in ord€r to poltray the electorate's opinions Lotrgilwlinal

J rtels contact and collect respoDses from the same sample of People at more than

one point in time. The goal is to assess attitude ol opinion changes across tintc (e g,do peopie feel differently about health irrsurallce before and afier retirement?)

:

130 Alterllitives ta Experinrcntal Research Ahet ctires to E peritnenta! Pesearch ),1'

ing, if often solitary, game. Flow never happens when we are watching television lo.example. lronicaily, howeyer, if we erjoyourwork a great deal (i.e., our work is play),we often find flow there but not always in pursuit of leisure time activities that are

supposed to be linked to our well-beiD8 (e.g., sunbathing around the pool).

.t

ACTIVE LEARNINC EXERCISE 5C

Conducting an ESM Study

Can you conduct an ESM study? cerlainly. According to Punzo and Milier (2002)

student-conceived and run ESM studies are not difficult to conduct. These

researchers had students from two of their cJasses examine a normal week in the

life of a teenager. The teen participants were given electronic beepers and were

"paEed" at random times. Once a beeper went off, the participants completed

some scales and an5wered some questions.

Punzo and Miller's (2002) student researchers used one of two institutiohaily

owned beepers (i.e., numeric display pagers) that could transmit signals across wide

distances. Pairs of student researchers borrowed a pager for a day or br'r'o, giving it

to a teen participant to carry around along with copies of the experience sampling

form (EsF; Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984). A sample €SF is shown in Table 5.4

Experience Sampling Nlethods and Diary Approaches

What ifyou cornpleted a short su.ve), about yourself-what you,,vere doing, thinking,and feeiing, for instance-at severai points during the day? What would these mini_assessments reveal about you? An interesting variation of survey-oriented research iscalled tlre E-tpclierrre Sn npling Methorl (ESM; e.g., Csikszentnihalyi, 1997; Csikszentmihall & Larson, 1937; Moneta & Csikszenrmihaif, 1996). pioleered by MihalyC,sikszentmihalyi (pronounced "Me high Chick-sent.ne-high-ee,'), ESM uses a pageror programmabLe watch (a "Personal Datir Managet" or pDM can work as well) to alertparticipants as to when they must stop what they are doing ro fill out a few pages in aresearch pamphlet-a mi|i-diary, reaily--already in their possession. Csikszentmihalyiand his colleagues usirally program the pagers to ring randomly during trvo-hour blocksof time throlrghour norrnal waking hou ls (say, 7anl ro I t pm.-a week of these diaryentries fiLls over 50 pages). When the pager sounds, participants record where they are,their current actioDs or ictivities, and who is ,vith them. participants also rate their"consciousness" at that nromejtt using close,ended, numerical scales tbr self-esteem,happiness, concentration, motivatioll, and other self-report indicators of emotion andwell being. Other opeo-ended questions (e.g., "What,ryere you thilkirg abo ut when thebeeper souorlcd?') are often included (Hektner & Csiks?eDtmihalyi, 2002).

What do these brief i)ut repetitivc snnpshots in time revcal about people, theirconscious statcs, :rnd thcir social doings? Csikszentnriha,lyi (1992) Dotes that la.gecaches olobscrvations fronl differcnt people allolv inyestigators to poltray the naturcof dailv life. Traditional e\periments oj.slrweys cal)tlire a monent in tirne (i.e., across-sectionalapproiLcl) ) not nlitDy nlornents across r rrlnljYely short pcriod oftinte(with the exception, of coulse, of sone rvithin-subjecrs Jcsigns; see chaplcr 4). yet thisform oflongitudinal work is decidedly diflereDr than most long-term stuclies-r weekof fiequcnt recolds is different tban mcasur ing peopie's responses only once a month,:r fc\v linre\ r ycJr, or rcro(, mrny ye:rts. For exanrple, ESM hr: been uscd to exemineaffect (Schimmack, 2003), emotion (Scollon, Diener, Oishi, & Biswas-Diener,2004),nttitudes ibou t wo.k and Ieisu re (Csikszentmihall & LeFevre, I9g9), gender and af6liation tendencies (Wong & Csikszentoihalyi, 199I), relationships and family life(Larson & Richards, 1994), even driving (Csikszentrnihalyi & LeFevre, 1989), aruongolher topics.

Csikszentmihalyi's key interest is often to illustrate those moments iD our liveswhere we becone wrapped up in tasks that are chalienging and engaging, where webecome so focused on what we are doilg that we overlook the passage of time. Hecalls these sorts ofpeak experiences the "flow effect" or simply.,flow', (Csikszentmihalyr,1997). Such moments are apt to oc€ur when a task requires a high degree ofsicilland a suf.ficient level of comnitment, and ESM studies reveal ,ue ",i hupliest whenlve arc in the midst of flow experiences (for a list ofother quaiities associated with theflor,v experience, s€e Csikszentmihah, 1997). What makes them of ilterest to socialpsychologists is that flow nloments often occur outside Lrsual venues for social interac_tion*saf, when a person is writing o. playing a nlusical instrument oa some interest

{

tiFi

ii

ii

ti

;iiti

irgi

dif'

ft

li

fr

fl

ll

$$

-[

$

.J

{{,t

i-

Table 5.4 A Sample Experience Sample Form (ESF)

Daie: _ lifie beepedi _ Time filled o!t:

-V,/hat were you thinkjng about?

What was the main thint you were do ng?

Who were you with?Please choose one of the follownt responses for each question

hclow ,nd write the oumbeB in the blanks:

1 = none/not at all

2 = a liitle3 = rnoderat€ly

u/ere you rnaking progress on a task?

Were you relating well wrth someone?

Did you feel posiiive emotions?Were you concentrating?v1/as it hard to concentrate?

la2 Aitert,triws io :).Perinental Research

Usi.g this samp e form a5 a template, you can create an ESF designed to learn about

lhe typical sociai experiences of a group of people. You might, for examPle, explore

the experiences of fraternity or sorority members, commuter students, stLrdent

athletes, or representatives from 5ome other on-campus grorJps. Each ESF should

contain the sa.ne set of open-ended questions, rating scales, checklists, or otherpsychoiogicai measures-jLJrt keep it to two pages or less. Your research padiciPants

must be ab e to complete the ESF quickly.

What if you do not have access to a pager or oiher beeper device? You will

need to be creative. what other small, portable, and hopefully inexpensive devices

could be pressed into service as proxy beepers? Some digital watches have built

in alarms, as do cell phones. Alternatively, you could call participants'cell phones

at random tjmes- When they answer, identiiy yourself and ask them to complete

the a5F (a variation is for the researcher to call participants at random times and

interview them via the cell phone, eliminating the need to provide participants withESF packets). For more ideas on planning and running an ESM study, see Punzo

and Miller (2002), Csikszentmihalyi and Larson (1984), Reis and Cable (2000), or

Hektner and Csikszentmihalyi (2002).

IJ yc,r prefer to follow a low-tech route, then you could have parlicipants follow

morc oi a drary approach. They would agree'to complete ESF-like measures at

certain times during the day or even just once a day, but they have to remind

the.nselves when it is time to complete the measures- lf you elect to follow the

once-a'day option, then your approach would be consistent with the idea underly-jng most Ciaries or private journals, which serve as a repository for individualsl

confrdent ai thoughtJ, feelings, and recollections about the events of some period

of tirne, usually a day. As we will see, social and personality psychologists also

make u5e of existing diaries.

Dear diary: An examPle

'fhe ESM can be thought of as a sort of diary approach, as research ParticiPatts are

keeping daiiy (or even more frequent) records of their doings. A traditional diary,

horvever, is a place to .ecord private reflections. Psychologists have shown interest in

learnir,g rvhetier what people write in their diaries at one poilt in time not onlyclurracterizes thcir experience then, but how this early (recorded) expe ence alfe€ts

their future lives.

Danner, Snowdon, and Friesen (200I), for example, exan'tiued handwritten, one-page autobiographies flonr 180 Romal Catholic nuns, which were written when thewomen were around 22 years oid. These women were part of the Nun Study ofagingancl Alzheimcr's disease (e.e., Snowdo|r, 1997). Specilicaily, in 1930, as each nun tookher 6nai vows sl,e was asked to:

A[tetitcttives to Expennertutl Resedrclt I33

write a short sketch of lher] lite. This accornt shor.rld no! contain mote ihan wo to three

hundredwordsandshouldbewrittenonasinSlesheetof paper. -. includeplaceofbirth,parentage, interestirll aod ediSing cvents ofchildt{ood, schools attended, influences that

led to the convent, religious life. anJ orrtstanding events, (Dannet et al., 2001, p. 806)

Daor$r and colleagues (2001) riecided to expl<-rre the possible association b€tween

written enrotional expression in the one page diary and longevity (when this study

started, thc nuns in the sample were an average of 83 years old). The diarics were coded

for emotional coritent (e.g., use of positive, negative, or nettral words). What made

the group ofnuns interesting was thei. similarir'' to one another: They had comparable

social, (non)marital, and reproductive lives; had the same socio-economic status and

access to medical care; and neither smoked nor drank excessive amounts of alcohol.

Of course, these sinilarities also preclude generalizinE; any findings to oth€r groups.

Did written emotions predict longevity? Indeed, they did: Positive ernotional

content was strongly associated with lower mortaiily risk. In other words, those nuns

who expressed their thoughts and feelings using positive words were more likely to be

aiive and well almost 60 years later than their counterParts who used more negative

language. Optinristic outlooks are linked with longer lives (Peterson, Seligman, Yurko,

Martin, & Friedman, 1998).

Given the use of oid records as keys to psychologicalstates, the Danner et al. (2001)

study could also qualifu as a form of archival research (see below). However, I elected

to place it in this section ofthe chapter because our locus here i5 oIt the role ofsocialinformation gathered at a key point in tinre in diary fornr' For a broader discussrorr

of issues pertaiDirrg to the measurenrent of daily event and exPeriences, see Stone,

Kessler, and Hay$orn$waite ( l99l ).Both ESM and other diary approaches rely on researcltcrs to recruit or track dorvn

participants. we now turn to an alternative apProach_-the Internet-that encournges

would-be participants to seek out research opportullities.

Internet-Based Research

The Internel has truly changed everything- Knowledge about anything and everlthirrg(and no doubt some things we wouid be better off not knowing) is literally at our fin

gertips. The advent of the Internet-the World Wide Web of compr.rters-has also

atfected social psychological research Partici!'ants need not ever darken the door of a

psychology department in order to lake Part in a piece of research lnstead, they can

be virtual participants, electing to take part in online investigations or surveys olhuman social behavior. In fact, participants can decide when and, thanks to wircless

access to the lnternet, even where they take part in lnlernet-based research-theymight be right next door or they might be iIr Nicaragua or the PhilipPines.

As Fraley (2004) exFlaills, virtualiy ary piece of psychological research that can be

dore with a traditional paper and pencil approach ca8 be put online (see also DillInan,

If4 Altetnatiws lo Experirtenttil Reraolah

2000). The real boon fbr researchers is that participant resporses can be directlyentered into an existing and eve.-grotving data base. There is no need to laboriouslyread, code, and copy information ftonr a questioDnaire for eotry into a computer_allthat time and roil is gone because participants q?e in or othenyise select their respoDses,r'hr.h ar< i.rued by ar,d in ro softwrre.

Interlet-based research also aliows social psychologists to think locally (on campus)but to act globally (collecting responses from participanrc from all over the worid).This adrantage reduces leliance on the traditiotlal college sophomore samples (recallthe discussion of homogeneous participait samples in chapier 4), meaning that theparticipants in rnany (any) o ine social psychology p.uj".ts are likely to-be morediverse, which can enhance claims that the results from a given research effort possessgeneralizability (this desir.able, empiricai criterion, aiso krowl as external validity, isdjscussed in chapter 9).

The Internet also allows investigators to:

. Ernploy web-based questionnajres containing rating scales, checklists, and openor fiee responses;

. Conduct experinents oniine fronr start (instrLrcrions) to finish (debrieling);. Randomize the order in which stirnuli, questions, images, o. text appears;. Randomly assign e participant to an expe-ttmental conditionj' Measure retction or response tirne, that js, how long a particl)ant takes to coDt,

plete (c.g., reason throogh, ansrvcr) a pr()blenr or qLrestion;, Store particip.lots' responses and prepdre them for irnalysis.

Ilternet ethics

Because people are involved, lnternet research is like any other form of research insocial psychology; Certain erhical obligations nrust be uret. Anyone who elects to pat-ticipale in an oniine projcct, for example, must co plete an infornred consent form(see chapter'3). Problenrs associaLed with onlile research, hr.rwever, include ensurrrrgthat participants are old enough ro participate and whether tinle was taken to actuallyreid the informed conseit fo l bet'bre ..signing,, it, that is, proceeding with the experi_ment or questionnairc. Obviously, any web based project tnust pass muster with anIRB (recall chaptel,3). Ruies var7, however, as noted by Fraley i:OO+):

At the Universiry of lllinois at Chicago, getring IRB approval for Irternet research ismostly r firmality, tbr trvo reasons. The first is that Internet patticipation is ftrlly volun_tary; research subjects can withdralv, quite lirerally, from the r€search at any time. Thesecond inrportaDt faclor is that we do not coll€ct personal identrfyiog iDformation fronrou! r€search subjects. Ir other words, we have no way of knowint fiom whom the daraconre. Fo. my universiry, whcn our research violares thcse tuo condirions, we musrsu[:mit nrore complex protocols to ihe lRB. (Fraley,2004, p.274]

, Fraley (f004) dlso ggests rhat u!ing deception online is not a gootl idea and shouldhe avorded, thereby reirerrtjnq it cl;rim made earlier in this book (see chapter 3). Mild

A lte I n!:ttires ta LrperimentaL R.esea rci t 135

deception that can be dealt with in a face-to-face encounter in a iab is one thing {sucltmild deception is acceptabie to many participants; see Epley & Huff, 1993), but deceiving someone for whom there is no opportunity foi direct discussion about the needfoI intentional "dishonesty" is quit€ another. The seaioLls concern here is that withoutan expepioenter-to-participant encounter, which is precluded by online research, it isvirtually' impossible to determine how the use ofd€ception will affect participants. !-orsocial psychologists employing the Intemet, it is better to be safe than sorry u,hfleparticipant welfare is concerned. However mlld it may seen, the best poiic)- is to ir'. oidany level of deception when planning or implementing Internet-bascd research-

Time, participant loss, and sampling issues

All else being equal, Internet-based research should take a relatively short anrouot oltine. In a lab or even tradidoral 6eld setting, the prordmity and presence oI xn in\ es-

tigator can probably encourage respondents to complete a whole packet of qucstion-naires. Online survets are a different matter, however. ifan Internet-based suryei- takes

too long to complete, then participants may simply quit the program. To discouragepremature depdrtures, Fraley (2004) suggests that no online study should take utoreth0n l0 n1inutes or so to finish. As an aside, I completed an online survev recentlv thatcontinr.rally graphed rny pro€{ress throuBh the rnaterials-as I mo!'ed forwarcl to each

subsequent Fage, a bar advanced so that I could gauge how close I was to being fin-ished- I confess that without this ifldicator of ary progress, I might have quit early.

What aborLt pirrticipant loss or "dropout" during online surveys or investigationsiShould orline researchers be concerned? Absoluteiy. Such participant loss-oftenlabeled "mortality"-poses a threat to a study's validity (see chapter 9). SpeciGcrrlly,particjpants irre much more likely to drop out, that is, quit the online stlrdv L.efbre itis over, than those who tzrke part in traditional,lab-based research projects. The reasonlirr worry is a standard one: Perhaps ihe people who drop out are somehow dillerentfrorn those wlio remain, potentially biasing the intact data that renain. AlthoLrgh theprobleo can never be entir€ly avoided, one solution loted by Fmley is to collectinfornration (e.g., sex, age, education, and other uscful demographic char.Lcteristics)about all respondents early on, in the opening pages of an online experience. Lxier,you can compare the deftographic data collected froot subsequent dropouts with th:1t

from the individuals who completed the experiment, to assess any between-grorrpdifferences (e-g., nren teDded to drop out compared to women). Detailed discussionofthe d.opout problem is available in work by Frick, Bachtiger, and Reips (200i ) andby Knapp and Heidingsfelder (2001).

In a related vein, Vaux and Briggs (2005) note that researchers unknowingly increasetheir own dropout rate by sending suweys in the body of emaii messa€ies instead ofcreiting websites where the surveys can be accessed and completed. Surweys in emailmessages often lose their original formatting, which mal<es them difficrrit to read orrecreatc, thereby discouraging recipients from bothering to fill ol.lt and .eturn thern.Like a high tiropout rate, a lowered response rate reduces a researcher's conh,:lence inthe daia that are obtained (see Dlllman, 2000; Salant & Dil-lman, 19941.

i36 Abenratlr€3 ta Lxpero ental Research

Who takes part in lrtemet-based research and how do we krrow? Do Internetsarnples differ fron the gpical sarr,ples of people who take l.art in social psychology

studies? We already noted tbat keeping track ofparticipant demographics early in rhe

online experience is one way to learn aboul who starts, who linishes, and whether these

groups differ in meaningful or consequential ways. Fraley (2004) suggests an obvious

possibiliv: Stick with your same participant population but have them participale

online. Although inelegant, this solution ensures that you are recruiting trom yourlocal and tipical participant sample.

What we do know about broader Internet samples is that they are apt to attract a

more restricted audience (at least for trow and the foreseeabie future) than traditionalresearch. 1he reason is that people who have access to the Internet are likely to be

befter educated and somewhat more lechnically savry than the avenge person (Reips,

2000). As the Internet becomes even more common in daily life, this difference irr

sophistication among samples will likely disappear. Fraley (2004) believes, however,

that under the right couditions, htemet samples can be superior to the haphazardsamples most social psychologists rely upon. Online respondents can be anticipated

to dernonstiale a greater range ofages, income levels, careers, and coultries oforigin.':, suirpori of this view, Var.rt and Briggs (2006, p. 190) claim that, "As more people

gain access to the Internet, samples of Internelusers will become increasingly repre

sentative of the general population."Tabie 5.5 summarizes some of the advantages and disadvantages of Internet-based

reseaich and data collection. Before you commit to launching an online social psychol-

'ry projcct, be sure the benefils associated with doing so outweigh the costs involved.

L:irlcss you aheady possess some programming skills or are familiar with wcb site design,

using the Interoet for a research project in social psychology may be a considerable

undertaking. Still, use of th€ Internet is becoming more comnlon in social scicnce

research and some very good "how to" works are available (Birnbaum, 2001; Dillnan,2000: Fraley, 2004). LeCs consider an example of how some psychologists used the

Inieanet to characterize and capture people's rcactiolrs to a fateful moment in time.

An Internet-based example: Online character pl e andpost September 11, 2001

Peterson and Seligman (2001) used an online survey to assess whether Arnericans

changcd following rhe terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The presence ofsomechan6e in ,A.mcricar attitudes (e.g., "People in the United Siates have forever changed")was voiced rcpeatedly in the days following the loss of tlre World Trade Center towers,

the crash oi Flight 92 in Pennsylvania, and the damage and loss of life sustained at the

Pentagon. As data were collected before and after the anack, the resealchers were able

to determine whether-as popular lore rvould have it-citizens becanre nicer, nTore

spiritural, and more affectionate people. For their part, Peterson and Seligman also

u'ondered ifpcople devcloped less pessimistic or more cou.ageor:s outlooks, and ifso,tbr how long.

Aiter atiws to ExPeriltEntil Research 137

Table 5.5 Some Advantages and Disadvantages of Intemet-Based Research in Social

Psychology

Sorrc srrrrples re.g.. computer u5ct.., (olrege fu,ult1 and <rudents arc I'ighr' r' Prescrt tire'

so e, ntializins beyon.l them is unn"-tt t' y

Data collection can be speedy and less error Prone than traditional melhods'

Materials are virtuxl rather than physjcal (i e-, no paper needed)

Internet su.veys can b€ cheaPer to conduct and analyze than traditional surveys'

Internet surveys and exPeritnents can ren.h or .titract more people than tri(litional methods'

Participants can take part in research in their ow-n time

Fewer item completion errors or skipped items a.e asso'iaied with online surveys (e'g '

Kiesler & Sproull, 1986).

Responses on tle Inte(net are often hon€st and lcss susceptiL'le to social desirability bias (e 8 'Dilimxn, 2000; Kiesler & Sprouil, 1986)

Drsatlvantages

Lack of genuine social irtteraction.

Participants cannot ask an experimenter any questions or for helP

Delivery of participant incentives (e g , course credit, rnodest remuneration) is difficnlt'

Lack ofsimilarity to everyday life or experiences (tow in mundane realism; see chapter 9)

Snmples a.e not necessarily random

S.mples may not be represent.ltive of PoPul'tion of interest

Sta(-up costs can prohibit Internet_based research

Lack of computer skills in a researchcr crn inhitrit lnt€rnet_bnsed rcsearch

Anrpl€ prctesting ofonline experinrents and surweys is sonrctimes needed

As part ol their reseaich prograrn in positive psychology' thcse lwo resear'hers

developed a measure of people's positive traits, the vdlues i Actio (YIA) Clnssifcn

tiafis of Strengths (see also Peterson & Seligman, 2004)' Peterson and Seligrnan argue

that the presence of positive traits (c g., bravery, Sratitude, self-control) within an

individual enable him or her to have positive exPeriences The authors creatcd an

online version ofthe VIA so that they could collect suf6ciellt self rePort data to veriry

the instrument's validity (see chapter 9).

Between January 2001 and tLrnc 2002, 4,817 people completed a version of the VIA

onliDe. The Vlr\ measures People's responses to 24 characier traits (see the list in Table

5.6).'len different items assess each strength ParticiPaits read an item anrl then

respondtoitofla5-pointraiingscale(wheteI=rctln rch Lo ikctnelo5=rer.vn1ucl1

li&e rlre).'Iable 5.6 shows the average scores on the VIA before Seprtenrber t 1 a!1d then

one and two months later (note that ihe responses shotr, here are based on a sub

sample of 1,396 people).

Did p"opl" represented in the sample change in the aftermath of Septeruber 1l'

2001? P;te;son and Seligman (2003) for.rnd that saven strengths showed a posirive

138 .\lie/iat;vct ta Exoerinental Research

Table 5.6 Character Srrcngths Before and Afrer Septcmber l lth: Mean Scores on the Valuesin ,{crion hventory ofStrentrhs

Trnit

Mean

before 9/ I t(n=906)

Mean i

after 9/11

(n = 2es)

lv{ean 2

monthsafter 9ltl(|! = les)

Appreciation ofbeautyBravery

Creativiry, ingenuir,/Curiosiry, iniercstEquity, fairnessGraritudei'Iope, optimismIndustry, perseveranceIntegrirv, honesty

ludgrnentKindness

Leadership

Lovc of le!LningLovc, intinacyPerspective, wisdonrPRrdence, cautionSelf controlSocirllntelligenceSpirituility, faith

Modesty'Forgiveness"

Plal.fulness"

ZesC

3.7s (0.66)

1.63 (0.s8)

3.73 (O.7 rJ3.99 (0.5s)

3.9r (0.5i)3.83 (0 59)3.56 (0.6/-)

3.60 (0.64)

_1.94 (0.46)'j 92 10.49)).87 lA.s2)3.62 (0.54)

l.8a (0.64) "3.8S (0.s3)

J.79 (0.53)

3.48 (0.s7)

3.28 (0.61)

3.70 (0.5s)

3.16 (0.88)

3.48 (0.54)

3.26 (0.66)3.57 (0.66)

1.80 (0.60)

3.62 (0 67)

3.8 i (0.66)

3 70 (0.58)

3.75 (0.66)

4.03 (0.s4)

r.9s (0.48)

4.02. (0.58)

3.68* (0.66)

3.67 (0.68)

3.97 (0.47)

1.98 (0.50)

3.99+ (0.47\

r.73+ (0.s3)

1.87 (0.6r)4.02r (0.57)

3.8r (0.49)

3.s2 (0 s5)3.30 (0.53)

3.76 (0.s2)

3.s74 (0.8t)3.651 (0.5J)

3.33 (0.64)

3.34 (0.66)

3.86 (0.s9)

l.s8 (0 65)

3.80 (0.62)

3.12 \0.62)3.87 (0.62)

4.08 (0.55)

3.98 (0.s1)

1.01. (0.s7)3.804 (0.67)

3.7s* (0.6s)

4.03 (0.49)

4.03. (0.s6)

4.01r (0.sr)r.78. (0.s8)3.87 (0.66)

4.0s* (0.s3)3.86 (0.s.1)

3.s4 (0.64)

l.l l (0.6s)

3.8s'(0.5s)3.s7f (0.93)

3.73. (0.s6)

3.27 l0.69)3.69 (0.65)

3.86 (0.66)

r.66 (0.56)

Nore: Slandard deviarions rre jr parenrhcses.'Modesry, lorSrvcncss, pldyfutness, .od zest werc not measurcd i,r rhc e.r1y versions ofour survcy (scc rhctetr). Belc,re Seprernbe' ll, ll = 6s9 for tnodesry dnd 471 for forgjveness, plu),tutness, iDd zert. postSeptcmb.. I I scores on rhcsc scdles did not diffcr riom pre-seprember I r scorcs G terts, pr > .05).'N1c!n djfterenr irom p.e,September ll mern by I rexr (p < .01).Sorcr: Reprinred fionr Pere.son & Seligman (2003, p. J82, Table l)

increase one ard two months following the tragedy: gratitude, hope, kindness, leader-ship, love, spiritualiry, and teamwork (see the rrairs with asrel;sks listed in .I,able

5.6).Otherrraits-chiefly those no1 conceptually related to caring for others (e.g., integriiy,love of leaming)-did oor vary with respect to this date ofd;stiny. peterso; and Seligfian suggest that the seven virtues that did change allowed people to feel a sense ofbelonging that encou.aged thenr to turn to others in beneficial -ays. Tbeir social

A[Lernativts to Experinentdl ]ieseat;h 139

worlds were changed, and they reported acting and feeling in ways m€ant to createconnections with people in days and weeks followinlj the event. Several months e.terthe events of September li, subsequent responses to the VlA indicatecl thar sclf-reported strengths aating rec€ded somewhat.

ThesElnternet balcd data are only suggestive, of course. peterson and Seligman(1003) happened ro hare rhis project up and rLtnning for a different purpose-liliePennebaker (e.g., Pennebaker & Harber, I993; Pennebaker & Nevtson, 1983), theysought to caplur€ a sense ofa psychological monent in time Lo assess collecttve rcactions to it. Peterson and Seligman readily admit that true change nlay n.rt ha1.eoccurred-respondeflts chose when and whether to take part in the online VIA (i.e.,before or after September I l) and their responses were restricted to one point in rime:People offered either a pretest or a postevent response, not both. Ideally, change inpositive traits would be measured across time, that is, longitudinally, rather than inthe oecessariiy cross-sectional manner th€ researchers were forced to use-septernberI I was an alvhrl, if historical, momenr oFhappenstance.

Yet Peterson and Seligman's (2003) work nicely illustrates that reactioDs to ,.calen

dar-based," realworld events can be documented using thelnte.net. Online approacheslike this one are interesting to sociai psychologists because they happen in ,,reai tirne.',How can social psychologists study events long after tire fact, when such ideai recordsare nonexistent? Are any materials available rhat cao shed lighr on :rnd rnsighr irtopast social bellavior?

Archival Research and Meta-Analysis

Consider these nonexperirnental research results, which share one charactelistic incommon-the investigrtors r€li€d on data tiat ivere collccted independently anC torsonre other pu.pose:

The need to belong to some group i$ so powerful that, particularly anong sportsfans who "pulltogether," it may conrribute to a reduction in suicides. ln rhe US,for example, between 1984 and 1994, Ferver suicides occurred on Strpei BolvlSunday thar on comparison Sundays (loiner, Hollar, & Van Orden, 2006).Presidential candidates who gave pessimistic nomination speeches wenr on tolose 9 out of l0 elections berween 1948 and 1984 (Zullow & Seligman, 1990).Riots, nrurclers, and rapes appear to be related to the w€ather; hotter days predicthigher rates of aggression (Anderson, 1989; Anderson & Andcrson, i984;Carlsmith & Anderson).As student newspaper reports became less emotional following the rccicleltirldeaths of l2 students during the constrlrction ofthe rraditional bonlire at TexasA&M LjDiversity, student visits to rhe university's health center and medicalclilic increased dramatically. However, ilirress rates returned to preaccidentlevels within two IDonths (recali the social sta6les of coping model discussed inthe opening pages of this chapter; Gorrner & Pennebaker, 2003).

140 r\lt€ ntNe5 ta F)x|]et imentdl Research

What makes these examples interesting is that the researchers used existing

records-sLricide rates, long pubiished (and possibly forgotten) spccches' w'ather

reports, criln. stories, c1-1ll€ge newspaPer articlcs' Inedical records-to proilose itnd

demonstrate sociaL psychological Phenolncnr' lio nc!v data were collect':d; existing

information was gathered and then organized or sorllehorv reorgaoized No reseatch

participants ran through their paces in aoy expcriment or study ln fact' the data were

ior]g " tttatte. of public or Pdvate recold: filcd but accessible, mute but speaking

\.,1llner wher cxarnine.l in a new light.

Researchcrs do not only intentionally collect social psychological data Many times'

res€archers take advantage of data that already exist by placing some interPr€tive

framework on information gathered by others Archival research is a Prime examPle

ofhow social psychologists nlake sense ofpreexisting information concerningall sorts

ofpublic andlrivate social behaviors. An arcfiile is some storehouse ofknowledge or

sour ce of inlormation. An archive can be as sinple as a set of files Pertaining to a toPic'

a courputerized database, or an extensive collection ofobjects ln the minds ofmany

peopie, the lern "a|chive" connotes old, eved arcient, information, but this is not

nllv"y, t.u". A contemPorary research library is an archive of sorts, as is your high

school or coliege transcriPt or the local plrorre book Sinihrly, we associate archir-es

with docurncnis but groups of objects in gc'geral can be archival A coilection of

stanrps, rnatchbooks, camprlign buttons, or bumper stickers can aLl be considered an

.Lrchivc of sor ts.

Archivai clnta. or archival material thal can be cortverted itrto "measures" ofbehav-

ior, le sonletimes referred to ds nonrea(tive ol unobtausive mcalsures (Webb, CatrrP_

bell, Schwartz, Sechrest, & Grove, 1931). A. ttonreactive nledsllre is ooe ernpioyed so

tirat reserrch participarrls remai!1 uuaware tbeir bchavior is being measured or evalu-

ntcil (rjpe.iflc exalnPles of nonrenctive ciependent measures are Presented in chapter

8). ln coritrast, redctive measlues ale those psychological instruments, such as surveys

or queslionnailes (see chirpter 6)' or even direct inlerviews, that invite ParticiPants'

atte;tio11, curiosity, and ev€n sPec! atioo about researcheN' intentions Bias is always

possible in any type ofsocial psychoiogical tesearch, but its Potential Presence is less-

ened ',vhen-as in the casc of archival data-the oriSinal particiPants remain truly

unrware tliat their responses are being tallied or reviewed'

Ii pri.ctical terms, doing archival research in sociai psychology requires a 'esearcher

to systematically delve into records or other documentation that shed light on some

research questiou. What sorts of records or documents? Psychologists have been

known to examine court records, want ads, personal ads' newspaper stoties' old

posters, films, ctirre rePorts ol sLatistics-r€ally, xny account that dcscribes the behav_

i.r. of a persott or people fiom which psychologically relevlnt infornation can be

dLarvn,

Table 5.7 Lists sorrre Possible sources foI alchival data-you will no doubt think of

othets (jot ihem down at the bottom ofth€ table or in your research llotebook) Natu-

rally, researchers hope that their chosen database will be obiective and unbiased They

must taiic steps to ensore these quaLities are presenl, irrcluding identifyilrg inaccuratc

Altenatites to F.xperinerlhli Res€drah l4l

Tabl€ 5.7 Some Archival Sources for Social PsYchobgical llesearch

NewsFapcrs

lvlaSazines

Lourr reBorts or records

Yearbo<,[s

Diaries

Census data

Personal ads

Videotapes

ObituariesLetters to the editorWants ads, classrfied ads

Sales 69rrres

lk'spit.l or rredidl records

Tclephonc logs

LettersClini.,rl .ase nles or re(ordsEDlail .or!esf ,)ndence

Fnmily phot0 altrurrsGraduatir..rn or other student records

Public specches

The lntemet"Hits" on an Interret web site

craflitiRecyclable materials, trash

or missing inforrnation, correcting erroneous or false enlries. and verilying th.r1 tlre

origirral record kecpcrs avoided making subicctive judgnlerlts (uniess such judgments

support a researcher's hvPothesis, such as uncovcring selective bias; see, e.g ' Gould's,

1996, reiuralysis ofdata on race rnd brain size)

Let s considet a popular sourcc of tinrely irltbrrnation rve can all r-elate to and access

with relative cascr the sports Palics ol the nervspapcr. Lau and RLrssell (1980; see rlso

l,aLr, 1984) rend and coded the altributiols-persc'rral, caLrsal iudgrnents-of athletes'

colches, and sports writets in the daily sPolts Pages Their inter'cst wds to see how

these irdividuals expiained the win or loss ofa team followirrg a baseball or a fbotLrall

ganrc. Specifically, Lau and Russell tested :r particular predictiorl ofattribution theory,

Damely that we are motivaled to rnnkc internal (seLf-related, often self-€nhancing)

explanations for our successe$ (i.e., \vins) and offer extcrnal (situaiionaily d€Pendent'

oltelr beyond our control) accounts lbr our i:riltrres (i e , lossesl see, e.g , Miller & Ross,

I975). Thc r esearchers predicted thrt quotatio!]s from Postganle interviews ol analvsis

would revcal self-sewing bias, tbat is, rehtively more irlternal attributions wortld be

oflered in the case of wins than ibr losses

Lau and Rr.rssell (1980) developed a coding system alld systematicaily evoluatcd

sports afticles fiom eight daily newspapers during the autumn of 1977. As anticiPated,

thcy found a clear notivatiorrally based trend where stLccess was attributed intcrnally:

About 75olo of the attributions of a willning team were inteanal' whereas less thin 5501'

ofthose from losing teams lverc internal. 'lhe teseatchers also follnd that mote dttri'

butioDs were offered after unexpecteLl outcomes (e.g., a teanr was tavored to wjil Lrut

lost) thalr expected ones (e.g., a losing team lost, a home court advantflge prevailed).

Lau and Russell (1980) raised an imPortant fiethodological poirlt about archival

data: Interpretation can lre in the eye of the beholder, which mealls that researchels

must be careful theit desire to confirm a ht'Fothesis does not bias their work Consider

\12 Alten|]tives ta Etperirtentol Resettlt

two h)?olhetical attributions a piayer trom one ream nright nlakc rega|ding the otherteam's pert'brmao.e: "Those guys played a better game that tve did" tnd "{lur teantplaved a worse game than they did." These rlvo comments leRect and lepolt the sameconclusion, and as sucir, are t]?ical in pLayer ir,tervie$s and newspaper stories. Butiook again-in the study of causal athiburioDs fur success or failure, the first onervouid be labeled as "exteflial" (i.e-, the orher team pidyed better thar we did) rvhilethe second rvould be coded as "internal" (i.e., weplayed rvorse than the othet team")-speakinq mcthodoiogically, which is which (see also lvlonson & Snyde., 1977; Ross,1977)? And what does that decision ilarbor for ps1'chological explanations for nrotiva-liorl where the peaception of success or faiiure is concelned? The poilt is that thearchival researcher must take cale to think through the different ways that a mutef-act-an observation, a recorded comment, a quotation-is interpreted betbre decid-ing which account rs dennitive. Because this exampie ofarchival reseiuch is rrot experi-mental, there will always be some doubt about how to precisely interpret a cau$ljudgment of a wiD ol a loss. Following Lau and Russell, however, a consctentrousresealcher should allvays point out potentiul flaws wltere interpretations and conclu-sioils are aonl:erned

lVhat about an a.chival source that ls not dependerlt ol1 the printed wordl Caninages, specilically, posed pictures, be usedJo expiore social psychological theory?l{lrker and Keltner (200t) cooclLrcted an inrcrestiDg srLtdy relying on a lrrmiliar Photoglilphic nrrhive-college yearbook photos raken at age 2i -and linked thefl to thesanre people to lerrn holv they rvere faltng socially and emotionaliy 30 years later.These researcher's e-rploIcd the cl.rirn tLat individual dilferences in emotion do shapcour personilities :Lld lilc outcomes .rcross tinle. Using the FdcialAction Codjng System(FACS; Ehman & Fries..n, 1973), trained raters coded p()sitj\.e emotioniii exprcssionsdisplayecl by rvorrrn in coll,:qe yearbooli photos dnwn from the Mills Collegc scnrorclasses of 1958 and | 9iiri. -fhcse

same rvomen vrere paft ofthe i\,{ills Longitudiiil Study,a long-tcrnr resear.h proie.t tracing tlrc lives of graduates fronr this privite wonren'scollege in Oa1<lnnil, CA (Ll.'l\on, 1967J. Previously, at ages 21, 27,43, atlcl 52, theseparticipants contpLeted vaIious psyctrologic.rl and selt repott nreasures, includingsoole liiused on en)oti(tDality, at'6iiation and nurtlrrance, competence, and long termlife outcomes iocused on nrarriage (marital stalus, satisfaction, tension) and personalwell-being.

Very olten, we jLrdge people's personalities and presunre the presence of particularattributes besed on their lacial expressions. Thus, to add a deglee ofrealisnr by trearingthe womerl's elrotional expressions in a more active sociill vein, Ilarker and Keltner(2001) had a group of oale and f,.male undergraduare students carefully examine a

sample ,rf the yealbook photos- These untraioed judges were asked to lorn irrrprcs,sions of the women based on their photos and to reflect on whit meeting th€ womenmight be like (e.g., a positive or a negative experience) and to rate the women'spersonalities.

As predicted, tlte presence ofgeituine, positive entotions in the photos were lssour-ated with the,,vomen's self reported pe$orality traits including afliliation, competence,and l(nv nesative emotionalit), from the early 20s thougl.l adLLidrood. Moreover, pu5itrve

Altetnati,es to Exper't teltltl Rrleor.)| i.i3

emotionnlity (denoted by sincere rather than false smiles) was an elTective frrre.asrertbr good maritaloutcomes (being or remaining married, high leveis of marital satisfac-tioD, low tension with spouse) and persoDal psychological well-being across thr.ecdecades. What about lhe student judges' iLrdgmenrs of the photos? The stud€rts Der-sonalitvgrdgments lvere related to the rvomen's self-reported personalities (e.g., a rvarntsnile rval judged to predict a rvarm personaliry, which it did). The srudenrs lnticipatecithai a.tual encoonters with those women with positive fircirl expressions rvoulcl bepositive rather than negative. Pictures are worth a thousadd words, ai least where theexpression and anticjpation of favorable, pleasant emotions are concerned.

A decided strength of Harker and Kelher's (2001) stldy is tl,e judicious rnix ofestablished record (data coded fiom photographs) with self-report measu.es of p.r-sonality and social well-being (e.g., marital status, stabilirv, and satisfaction) and eventhe expectations of obseryets 30 years after the yearbook photos wer€ taken. Whatabout shortcomings? The researchers acknow)edge that no photos of men lvere usedin this project, and existing research demonstrates that women tend to smile nrore endwith more strength in high school and college yearbool( photos than do nten re.g.,

LaFraoce & Banaii, 1992). This difference is worth considering and exploring ernpirically. FiDally, Harker and Keltner make the observation tltat the photos are "sileLlC'when it comes to er?laiDing whethel positive emotional expressions or posirive e\feri,ences are the key to good outcon)es acLoss tinle. Again, the nonleactive nature ofarchival methods can be a strength when it comes to preventing subjectivin.frornclouding conclusiorrs. On the other hand, the absence ol relevant leactive tnctsuresprevented these researchers tiom acldressitg this iltteresting poitrt.

Stiil, archival nrethods offer unique opportunitics t() social psycho]ogists. Thesuengths of archival research iI)cltrde:

. Dnta cln b€ quflntitative (e.g-, counts ofsomething, sales figures) or qrlalitativc(intcrwiervs, case stuclies)

' The data are already collecred*they need oniy be verified for iccuracy andanalyzed in Iight of the r.esearcher's hypothesis.

' No nranipulation of independent variables is necessary (of course, a rcscirchcrrnust be scrupulous about drawing definitive causal conclusions).

. Unusual, mre, afypical, or long past behaviors or beliefs can be exrLnlinccl tit liqirtofcurrent theory or social experience.

However, enthusiasm for thc archivalapproach must be appropriately tempcred Lr1.

realiry. There are some drawbacks to this tnethod, such as:

. Data may be false, fabricated, incomplete, or otherwise suspect.' 'Ihe original record keepers were not intentionally developing ail irchLv( tur

fLrture rr:searchers.. Any coDclusions cannot be cdllsal, only suggestive.. Archivai methods often iclentiry questions that can ooly be answered by addi

tiooal, experjinentally focusecl research.

111 Ait€rndti|es ta L\petittrctial Resedrch

Perhaps th€ ideal approach is to mix archival research with other methods including,

ofco,.rr;e, expeliment.,tioll. ReaLly' no method or rescarch tool should be used in isola

lion or reliecl upon exclusively. And in anlz case, "No [singlel research method is

without bias" (Webb et al., 1981, p. I ). Overdependcnce on ary one research aPProach

not only opens the door to bias and error, it is simPlli not very creative

5umrnarizirg studies of social behavior: Meta-analysis

Il.elir.icd to bul distinct from arcfiival reseal-ch is a technique for performing a study of

separate stlldies on the same psychological topic (Glass' 1976) ln other words' an

existing archive aimed at understanding one psychological effect or observation is

ulrnlyr-"d. e nretd-allalysis is an advanced statistical technique that assesses ihe effects

ol indcpendent studies exantining the same Psychological effect ol Phenomenon (e'g''

CooPersFlcdges, 1994; Ling, 2004; Lipsey, 2001; Rosenthai, l99I) When performing

,i ,rTera-analysis, u social Psychologist will search the literature for all studies exploring

a parlicular hlpothesis or denronstrating a specific effect or finding ln a sense, the

pLiblished or otherwise obtainable literltut e serves as an archive ofsorts Met:r-analytic

iechniques allorv a researcher to combine together all the results of disparate studies

thirt usecl clifteredt samples of people, differenMePendent measures, and found sig

niircani as wcll as nolisigli6cant differences betweeo €iroups. A meta-a]ralysis Ptovides

.L rvl,v toi rcsearclters to vetifo the existence ofsofie cffect by identifying it os a con_

s..tcrrr .lnJ prr(li'lrLle Palrerr) of bcl)irvio'

A succes;tul rneta anal,vsis benehts tirture researchers who elect to study some social

psychological effect furthcr. The results can help researchets gauge how tlifhcult it can

te to obscrve a small, medium, or large elfect when plauning to conduct a study An

eilcct size indicates the mcdsured Strength of association among some variablcs iD :r

stlldy or lhe obserwed rnagnitudc olsome exPerinentai result (eg, Cohen, I988)-

Effeits sizes are a good guideline to deternrinittg how many participants will need to

be recruited for a Siven study (cl, power anllvsis in chaPter 4)'

Social psychologists olien perform a mcta-anaLysis to summarize qtrantitatively

rvhat is knorvrr about a Pnrticular question or toPic. Durilrg the lvriting olhis doctoral

clissertation Lr.rck in the 1950s, for examPle, Robert Roscnthal unwittingly discovered

rlrat has bccone known as the exPedatrcy efect (also known as the "seif-ftrlfilling

prophecy"; we specihcally discuss how exPectancy effects can be problcrnatic for

experirnental research in cbaPter l0). llosenthalobserved that ho!v he interacted w;th

research participants often led them to behiLve in accordance with tlre hypolhcsis beitg

tcsted in his experiment. His (research) expectancies affected (influenced) the Partici-

lrints' beir:lvior. Any social Psychologist warrts to conlirm the experimental h)'Pothesis'

oL'course, but br the lighl reason-becltlse the obsefted effect is both true and real;

not because the pal ticipants unknowingly recognize and comply with the experiment-

er's wishes. Expectancy effects havebeen demonstrated in the context of animal lealn

iDg (drat's light-an animal, in this case a mt-learns and confitms expectations

"lrrnsmilred'' from a stLl(lent trainer; RoseDthal & Fode, 1963) and in the classroom

Akemntiyts t0 Exp€riflenfrll Rrsedrcil I45

(str,rdents randomlv labeled "intellectual bloorners" suhsequentl,v oLrlperform theil

peers-bul only the teaahers kflerv rvho was or was not expected to bloom; see

Rosenthai c\ ]acobson, 1968).

What is truly remarkable about the exPectancy efllct phenomenon is the nrrmbet

ofstudies cffrducted since the 1950s that verily the prcsence or inllLlence ofthe elfect.

lndeeci, in l!78, Rosenthal and Rubin published an article sunlrnarizing J45 studies

using ureta-analysis (sce also Rosenthal & Rubin' 1980) No .l()uL't nrrrlv additionirl

studies have appeared si,1ce this 1978 nreta'analysis-expectallcy elli'cts dre rohrrst A

more recent pLtblication by Rosenthal (1994a) offers a short but reilective (aDd quan-

titative) accourlt ofthe importance of exPectancy effects, whicb are found in manage

ment settings, ntrrsing homes, and courtrooms, probably anlplace where people have

the opportunity to influence one another'

Meta-analysis is obviously an advanced topic, on€ dcpendent on statistical sophis'

tication and deep l$owledge regarding a research question or area of inqtlity Nt)ne

theless, meta-analytic studies are not only becoming more colnmo[ in the social

psychological literature, they are extremely useful when it comes to supPotting theo-

retically based arguments with actual, denotstrated results. As a student of social

ps,vchoiogy, it is possible that you will cone across a meta analFic study in the coursc

ol doing library research for your resexrch Project and accompanfng paper-thus you

should be farniliar with the conccpt. Table 5.8 lists soirre reviewarticles related to soci'1

Tal'le s.8 A St'nrpling ol 'l opical, N4eta-Annl,Yti. Rcvicw Arricles

Co,tfott ityBond, R. U., .k Sniith, P. B. (1996). Cultirrc ind conlbrmity: r\ nret.r-analysis ol studies using

Aschs(1952[r, 1956) litre judgrnent t]sk |'r'thologcal Btlkli , 119' I ll-117

Dcbnliria aio a,.l AI i'Sorinl BelnriotPostmcs, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividtration and rntinormaiivc behirvior: A

rneta-analysis. Pslcholo gital l3ullctut' I 21, )'jR-259

Gendcr Difiercnccs

F-,rgly, A. H., Crowley, N4. (1986) Gendcr und helping bchrvior: A nletr 'rorllt'c review 6r

tbe social psychobgical literature. Prl./rolo.rarrdl Dnlletitt 100' \3 3A8

Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986) Cender and aggressive trehavior: A nlett'analytic rcview

ot rlre social psychological literattrre Psychologiral Bulletitl, lu0, 109-ll0'Feingold, A. (1994). (;ender differenccs in personality:,{ mela an.rlysis Pslclrchtgical Bullttut

t t6, 429,456.

P hy 5i cit I A I t nt I ive t?ss

Eagly, A. H., Ashnrore. R. D., Makhiiani, M (1., & Longo' C. (1991). Whnt is beautifirl is

goocl, brt . . . : A meta anahlic revicw ol rescarch on the physicitl rttractivencss stereotyPe

Psycholo{col Brlhtttt, l1r, 109-128.

Feirl€iold, A. (1991). Good-looking People are rrot n4rat rve ll\ink Psychalcsicnl BLtll?ti'L t l1

304,14t.

146 Altematives to Experinental Research

alrd personaliry psychology that relied on or incorporatecl a rneta_analysis. you willaiso note that all these citations are from the joornj psychotogictt Bulbiin, which fteqriently publishes meta-analltic reviews.

Guidance for performing actual meta_analyses is available jn the work cited previ_ously (see especially Rosenthal, 1991, 1993; Cooper & Hedges, 1994). Finalln forwould-be meta-analysts, guidelines for writing meta_analJtic rJviews are also available(e.g., Rosenthal, 1995b).

Conclusions

"Social psychologists should oot be one-trick ponies,, (Mark & Reichardt, 2004, p.284 ).

As this chapter has amply demonstrated, the.e is more to Iife_research life and rhemethods it embraces-than the stalwart trle experiment. Expe.inrents in general mayoffer a more certain insight ioto the nature ofwhat factors directiy cause ihe richoessof much rocial behavior, but by no means all social behavior. Unusual, unexpected,or ethically demanding events, as well as situations that do not lend th"rru.lves torandom assignment, careful control, and diftct manipulation and measurement ofvariables, are still worthy of critical study. Social psychoiogists have evolved andadopted a_diverse array oftechniques aimed at fillingin gaps i"n our understanding ofwhy people behave as they do when real or imagined otie., u.. pr"."nr.

. Socirl psychologv r.'ould be shol.iBhred il only rrue .xp.rirn.nrs were the sorrrLc

ot rdeas, rnsrtshts, and theones. Instcad, the ideal approach to learniDg about people isto use an array of methods that complement one another. Some of the most creatirreresearchers examine an effect 6rst in the controllotl con6nes ofthe lab before venturingout into the 6eid, rvhere niceties ofcontrol and causal inference are more difficult toobtain. Srili other researchers obserye an event iD the r€al worid and then later. oncethey understand it better, only then clo they attempt to recreate ana iharn"ss,, it inthe lab. The point is that a !,ariety of different ."rhod,

".. ,r"a a.p"naing nn ,t "unlque clrcumstan€es researchem face. Social psychologists are creative and risource_

ful; they are not limited in rheir vision or th" ,n"ihods ti"y.un *". if,"f "r"*.,"rniynoL. -nor should bc rhey one. trick ponies in rhe search for adequate explanations ot

social behavior

Exercises

1 Select a sight on or oft carnpus and conduct a brief observationar study (5ee Tabre5.1 for potentjal sites and behaviors). What difficulties, it any, dia you encounterwhen coding behavior? Would a second observer agree with your aoaing ,f;".

"naobservational record? Why or why not?

Alternatiles to Exoe lnentdl Research i17

What changes in rules have occurred on your campus lately? Have these changesresulted in any behavio r ch an ges? Describe a quasi-experiment thatcouid be Cesignedand conducted to demonstrate whether any changes actually occurredlf you were to conduct an ESM study, what daily experrences would you want toexaqine? What do you think a record of ESFS would reveal?ldentify some archival sources that could be used to characterize the students whoattended or are currently attending your institution What would these sourcesreveal?

\34 IntrolLtcing a DLfierence: lntlepende t VttritbLes

randornly determinccl oLrtcomes Choiceisaskill |cl.rtctLvrriablctiratnanyofusPride

ourseltes on; -e nray'- feel, fot instance, that we art'al'le to select tbe best oPtion ironlan array of possibilities.

Nlaking choices, especially what we see as thc "right" or "best" choice, is a way ofexcfiirg control, oDc tltat works lvell in settings tllat are not determined Lry.hance

Unforturrately, we often assume that our ability to rrrake things happen also holds true

in chance situxtions. For example, people are nrore conlident of winning the roll ofsome dice when they can toss the dice themselves than'rhen another Person does itfor them (Dunn & Wilson, 1990). Langer coined the term "illusion ofcoDtrol" to refer

to sitlrlLions where people ignore objective probabilities and anticipate personally

succcecling at something in spite ofthe odds (see also Wortman, 1975).

The office worters who were given a iottery ticket-those who had no choicc and

could not exert any illusory control-requested a resale ptice of$1.96 on average. The

wotkers who chose theit orvn tickets and feit "control" asked for an average of $8 671

That's quile a difference, especially when the orrly difference was whether one was

handcd a ticket or llot to dralv one from the deck. Having choice, then' gave some

people an illusion of controi-they assumed that picking their own tickcts wouid

enhance their chances ofwinning the Iottery.

Langer conducted a seties oI ingenious studibc exploring the consequence of peo

ple's often-exiggerated beliefs about control (Langer, 1983) ls ther€ an)'thjng \'!lor1g

with maintairrirrg such beliefs? Should we corsider Peoplc \a ho overstate their contiolto be soln€how deLuded? We'd better not draw sLLch conclusions because other research

srLggesrs rhlt illusory control and related erroneous perceptions aIe actuaLly a hallmark

ol melrt{l heaith (Tayior & Brown, 1988, 1994). We actually need these ,lnd other

positive illusions in order to rnnint:rin ir sense of Personal well-being (Tlylor, 1989)

l hat raises nn obvious question: Ifweil-adjusted peoPle overestilnate their control over

things like the oLltcome oF lotterie$, does anyone realize theY actually lack contlol over

such ev€ntJ? Yes, but thosc lvho do tend to suffer frorn depression. In fact, dePressed

rofLc tura out to be quite accurate when it comes to appreciating how little control

they (ancl we) have o1'er what happens to us (Abramson, Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989).

The perception that one has no control over cven minor events in daily life carr have

conscquences for healtb, well being, and even nror tality (L rger&Rodin, I976;Rodin

& Langer, 1977; Schultz, 1976).

What nl:rl<es man,v studies exploring control so Provocative, especially those con-

ii.icteci by Lange. (e.g., i975; Langer.\ Roth, 1975), is that the independent variables

involved are commonplace, relatively simple, arrd found in daily life. Table 7 t iists

some oI lhe corceptual, independent variables aod their operationalizations that catr

trigger a sense ofiUusory or perceived control. I offer tbis list to il|'rstlate how powerfirl

the "simplc" cifects found in daiJy life can be. You no doubt remember that the inde

rencicnt variablc, the ciusolvariable, is controlled by the experilnerter who'iuaniprr..:tes" it, p;cscnting one variation to olle grouP and at least one olher, diffelent vclsion

to another group. As we learr,ed in the study of illusory control, introducing rnodest

change into a situation-giving sorrre people choice, others none-is suffici€nt to alter

lrttotlutit'g Lt Diftcretlz: l dtpetiLbtii "/nrin0lcs

185

Tablc 7.1 Sample Conceptt,al 'Jariables and Operationalizarions Related to lllusorv Conlrol

' onrcptu.rl r rnrl,le Operationali^ttiorl

skill

ResponsjbilitySrinrulus lamiliarirY

Conlpetition

Choosing a ticket in a btterYCausing an outc,'rne to obtain a plize

Rolling dice

FlippurS a coin

Caring for a plarlt

Cards prirrted with lamiliar or

unfirniLiar symbols

Dralving a high card trom a deck of

Colnpeting against an oPponent who

trppears to be skilled or unskillcd

Langrr (19/5)Worhlan ( 1975)

Dunn 'k Wilson ( t990)

LangeL & Roth ( 1975)

t.anger & Rodin (1976)

Lang€r 11e75)

Larger (1975)

Langer (1975)

irow people think abottt lheir Pelsonal influence regarding future events' This chaPter

is about how to create change in social situations ald to sr"rbsequently learn lTow

thought, emotion, and behaviol are affe.ted. !V€ lvill dlscuss ho\a'to con'civs, create'

iri.l test the effccts of indcpendcrrt variables in socinl I's,vchology experinrents

Conceiving Independent Variables

Although social Psychologists conduct researclr in a varicty ofsettirlgs, their eftbrts are

often aisociated with highly controlled Lab strrdies There is a good chance that yolrr

lirst effolts will also be lab-based.Ior thesc reasons, rve rvill fircLrs on how to conccj!c

of independent variables in lab-like conditions (naturalLy, much of the followurg

advice cdn be adapted to less coDtrolled 6eld settings)'

In social psycliologl, inclependent variables play inlportant roles in trto typer of

lab-based stuclies: imPact studies lrnd judgment studies (Aronson, Wilson, & Brerver'

t998). This dichotomy is useful for thiiidng about whether the nranipulation of an

independent variable has a reLatively powerful effect on participants' thoughts' fecl-

ings, and behavior or a more subtle illfluence l,npact shdies rte experinellts wherein

soirrething relatively pronourrced happens to ParticiPants The impnct ofthe sirrr'rtion

is usually due to an indePendent variable, one that is usually highly involving lor thc

l\rrlrcipanls.Consider an intriguing imPact study exploring regiooal diflerences in violence rn

the northern and southern Unltcd States (for a review, see Nisbett & Cohen' 1996)'

Uniike their relatively cooperative nolthero counterParts' southerners otten teel that

insults an<1 other social provocations lnust be addressed witir a toL18h, even aggrestive'

response unless (or uDtil) the offender apologizes

l{a htnodu;ing a Dtflirettce: lndepndtnt Variables

hr one study, a confaderate unexpectedly insulted participants so that experimsot,ers could assess th€ participants'faciaL reactions. Each participant lvas asked to placea completed questionnaire in a box at the end of a long, narrow, and crowded hallway.On the return trip up the hall, a confederate brusquely bumpecl inro the participantrvhile rnumbiing an obscelitv under his breath. The confederate then disappearedthrough aD adjacent door. As expected, observers [ound that sout]rerners exhibitedmore arlgry facial expressions than the northern participants, wiro tended tolook surprised by the etcounter (Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, & Schwartz, 1996).Classic examples of impact studies include Alonson and Mills's (1959) severity ofinitiation study, N,lilgran'r's (1974) obedience experiments, l)arley and latan€'s(1968) research on bystalder ioterveniion, Asch's (1951) conformity paradigm, andScha.hter's rvork ou afhliation (Schachtcr, 1959) and emolional lability (Schachter &Singer, 1962).

Irr contaast, participants take a less :lctive behaviorai role iA judgfient stud.ies,

wherein they are more likely to be obsewers who reflect on, remember, and react tosome set of slimuius materials. JudgmeDt studies are much less interactive than impactsrudiesj indeed, rhe interaction io judgment studies is largely based on recalling prsrevents o. anricipating what future or imagined ones might be like. Parlicipants simplyshrre their thoughts and feelings-theil jucbments-about what they read, watched,or thought about. Indepcidert variables in judgntent studies can be powerfui anddraDriLtic, bLrt the events are usually desclibed as happening to someoDc else, not theparticipant. 1hus, where an impilct study ofl bystilndea intervention woLLld assess aparticipant's reaction to sonre staged accident, ir iLrdgnrent stLrdy worrld likely describean acciLlcnl scen:rrio il print or ask the participant to rvatch and respond to a lilmedmishap.

MasLrda and Nirbeti (200 t ), fbr example, conducted o judgment study on colturalditTerenccs in perceiving information in social contexts. 'l hese researchels asked lapa-nese ancl Arner ican Lrniversily students to wtich carloons of undersea scenes contain,ing plants, sand, rocks, llsh, and other sea life. Later, all rhe participants were asked torecail what they had seen.-lhe Arnerican students recalled largely "focal objects,"stinruli that stood out in the scenery, such as rapidiy darting fish and brightly color.edmlitter. In contlast, tlle Japanese students focused on conteitual matter, taking greaternote of the "background" objects, such as plaots and r.ocks (indeed, these studentsreported 60% n]ore information about the ]vatery environs than did the Americans).One Lntngujng concl sion is that the context where behayior occurs matters more toEasterners whereas the behavior alone matters to Westernels (see also Chalfonte &Johnson, 1996). Other studies conducted in the iudgment tradition iDc[ide early,ciassic research on the fuodamental attribution error'(Jones & Harris, 1967), studieson self-serving biases (e.g., Ross & Sicoly, 1979), the just world hlpothesis (e.g.,Abrams, Viki, Masser, & Bohner, 2003), salience eflects (Taylor & Fiske, 1975), as wellas much of the social cognition research dealing with judgment under uncert.rinty(e.g., Gilovich, Griftin, & Kahoelran,2002j Nisbert & Ross, 1980).

Introducing a Difter{n(c: I clePendetlt \lriables 137

Types of indePendenl variables

Just as there are two broad tlpes of social psycholog,v experiments, there are aLso t1\"o

4pes of independent variables Llsed in exPerimental social psychology. Betbre rve

describ+hese two i),pes ofindependent variables, we need to establish their logic based

on the some ideas from the history of exPerimental Psychology (see, e.g, Leahey,

200.1). All experimentation iD psycholog/ reiies on what is referred to as "S-O R"

psychology: "S" refers to the presentation of a stimulus to an organislTl-tlle "O,''

which can be human or animal-in an effoat to discern the "R" or tesponse Most

often, the stimulus in experimental psycholopry is, of course, some indePendent vIi-able designed to create change in one SrouP but not anotiler- Ideaily, the resPon\e is

a behavior, but rvith humans, self:reports, ratings, and the like are used alongside more

traditional overt behaviors. Psychologists focus their theodzing o11 lvhat hRPPens

inside the organism, for exa ple, how thoughts, enotions, Personalhistories, ard so

on can elicit particular responses.

Social psy.chologists also do a variant of S-O-R Psycholog/ in that they try to explain

how a socialstimulus, sonre social indePendentvariable (a persorr, other peoPle, cusloms'

folkways, the sel0, elicits social behaviors (actions, feelings, emotions, facial exPres\ions'

comments). Social psychologists, too, hypothesize about the interllal, mentnl Processes(e.g., ernotiol. cognition) thnt connect social slimuli to socinl tesponses. Indeed' most

expcriments are designed to demonstrate behaviors that are believed to |esulr fr-onr

social bcliefs people acqui.e through exPerience and socialization. Social psychologists

Benerally use one of two types of independent variables in their experiments: thosc

causirg behrvior directll aDd those causing bchavior irrdirectly.

Indtpenclent 'lariables cafi caltse belnvior cLirectly. An independent variabl: causes

behavior dircctly when some exterrlal stimulLLs calrses ir Participant to leact in n Ple-dicted manner. Wheo an independent vatiable serves as a direct c:rLlse ofbehxvior, its

role is usually concrete and straightforward. In the study of interpersonal attraction,

tbr example, ample evidence poiDts to the favorable effects ofpropit?{ritl or phvsicxl

proximity (e.g., Eckland, 1968; Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950; Segal, 197'r). A

person will often form a close friendship or a romarltic attachmett based si]nPly orr

whether and how often contact with another person occtlts. Consider life in the typicllcollege dormitory: Proximity to others (hali or suile mates) leads to fiiendship because

of the sheer number of charlce encoutters tha! occur. What make slLch an oL)viotls

externnl situation variable so interesting is not merely that bonds fotm, but that the

bonds are so strong and long lasting (e.g., I am slill good friends with the men who

livecl ol my hall in my freshmen dorm well over 25 years ago). InterestingLy' indivi,l'rals rve like the least can also be identihed based on their proxiniw to ,-rs (Ebbesen'

Klos, & Konecni, 1976).

l) practicirl, experinlental lerms, varying where tesearch PalticiPants sit, whoIn tliey

sit rvith, work on tasks with, and so on can be a means to establish the beginnings of

i

,'

I

,.

)'i

I

I

l

I

188 Intaitl cin!n DifJerence: Independettt Variables

social bonds- Thus sitr.rational coostraints can selve as an iirdellendent vaiiable' one

having a direct irnpact on behavior, such as an incteasc in reportcd liking for another

or othcrs. rs rvell as enhanced afiliative behavioral displays (e.g ' heacl nodding, eye

contact, smiling). Lower liking and fewer affiliative tendencies would be predicted for

participanls who ha(l less contact with one another, sat farther away from each other'

and so on.

Indepetldetlt variables can cause behaviot indirectly, How can an indePendent vari-

able cause behavior to occur indirectly? in many cases, the independent variable of

interest atfects or creates some inlernal state in the particiPant. Such internal states

are often emotions or other feelings. These internal states, in turn, Ptornote some

behavioral resPonse in the particiPant; hence the connection between the independent

variable and tire (eventr.Lal) behavioral response is indirect.

Consider a .Lever study conducted by Schwartz and Clore (1983) that exanined

horv rvc usc olli currellt fcelings as inforrnatio[ for makrng relatively complex iudg_

ments aborLt our lives (see aiso Ciore, 1992). Using Phone interviews, thcse iesearchers

askcd Midwesterners to rate how happy they were with their lives on either a sunny

or a gloomy, overcast day. The respoldents in one condition (the no promPt group)

irrdicated they were less happy and satisfied wlh life on the overcast dals, suggesting

that tlicy based their outlook on the weather (those phoned on sunry davs lePorted

bcing rehtivcly happicr and satisfied with life) lust before beilg asked to repolt on

their rrrood and salisfaction with life, a second group ofparticipants was asked "How's

the lveather down ther€?" Schwartz and Clore assumed thirt fhis prompt would canse

the respondents to initi.llly attribLlte their current ood and lift satislaction to the

weather (sur-rny or gloomy) but that subsequently, they would not use these corre

sponcling feeli]1gs to judge tlleir life satisfaction. Sure enough' the promPt l(ept PeoPle

lrom la.loring thc weather into their sense of overall irappiness and life satisfac-

tior-when the weather was "discourted" from the judgrnenl' they reported similar

leveis of satisfaction regardless of the weatlrer.

In this study, Schwartz and Clore (1983) assLrlned that peopie's feelings were already

intluenced by the weather but that being prompted (or rot) to reflect on the likeLy

source of the nroods would aff€cl subsequeot-and more complex-judgments (decid-

ing contentmeot with our lives is hardly a simPle matter). In other wolds, internal

states aLrcady causillg some behavioral response (i.e.' self-report regarding haPPiness

ancl life satisfaction) were further affected by an intervention-a Prompt-designedto leacl to further reflection otl the source and aPproPriateness offeelings This hrrther

refiectior: was hypothesized to ieadto an adjustment in iudgment, oDe causing, in turn,

an cinotional co.rection. Compaled to the sinlPler, direct effects of propinquity, the

cftect oithe independent variables (strnny or ibul weather, pronlPt or no prompt) was

rnore in.lirect.

Further rcfr efient: Mediator dnd nnderator variables. Bcsid€s the two broad catego-

ries of urdependent variables, social psychologists are also concerned with horv

IntrotlLLcitrg a Differente: Intlepeniurr Varidbles 139

variables exert urediating influences (i.e., a "go-berween" variable linking some X to

sonr e l'J and moderilling (promote or inhibit) effects ( Baron & Kenly, t 986 ) A ,redid-

tar vatiable is a\e that is plesumed to create the connection between an independerrt

and a dependent valiable such that sorne external' physical event leads to an inrernal

psycholpgical change and ils consequerrces. A mediator variable explains the nature ofthe relatioo or cotnection between a predictor and an outcome variable. Fiske (2004),

tbr example, notes that in its originai formulation, the frustralion-aggression hypoth-

esis did not specify any particular enotioDal state connecting the blocking ofa desired

goai (frustration) to subsequent (eactions (aggression; see Dollard' Doob, Miller,

Morlrer, & Sears, 1939). One obvious and logical candidate emotion is anger, wbich

could be a mediating mechanism between frtstration and aggression (i e, a blocked

goal is fiustratjng, anger .esults, lvhich in turn leads to a violenl, physical response)-

Unfortunarely, the causes of aggressiot't appear to be more conlPlex than the

frustration-aggression hlpothesis would suggesl (e g., Baron & Richardson, 1994: see

also Berkowitz, 1993).

However,let's continue to reflect on the possible causes ofaggression in considering

moderator variables. Moderator variables explain the strength of the relationship

behveen two variables; they can be quantitative (e.g , score on exarn' amount ofpraise)

or qnalitative (e.g., social class. race, reliEion, sex). As such, a mLtrlerntor can enhance

or reduce the likelihood that Particular behaviors wtll occur. Consider this: Most

irdepcndent variabies are not of the "pr€sent or absent" variety; rather, they are a

nr.rttcr ofdegree. Thus the lelative anrount of frlrstratior cottld be the key: Larger (or

lesset) frustrations would be anticiPated to iead to lireater (ol lesser') anounts ofaggression. Similarly, perhaps a cue can moderatc aggressive behavior (rec:rll the

Klinesmith, Kasser, c\ lvlcAndrcw, 2006, eKPeriment discussed in chapter l). We know'

for exarnpLe, that the presence of guns or othcr lveapons (the so-called "weapons

effect"; Berkowitz & LePage, i967) can lead to aggression do some weapons (e-g,

pocket knives, paddies) leacl to lesser levels of aggressive response than others (e g,

butcher knives. clubs)? Exploring the irnpact of different sorts of cues cotlld serve as

a test ofand for moderating variables-

Can one opetationalization of an independent variable rePresentall Possibilities?

Whether the sludy is a jrrdgment or an inrpact experiment, when decidin!! to construct

an<i manipulate an independent variable, a researcher's goal is simple: to manipulate

a practical variable that tepresents a conceptual valiable but not to n1anipulate aoy

thirtg else. B/ Practical variab]€' I reier to the emPirical realization or operationaliza-

tion ofsome abstract idea or social phenomenon (recall chapter 4) There is no single

perfect way to represent a conceptual variable cmpirically. The practical apProach a

researcher chooses-his or het operationalization-should be sr'rflicierrt to convillce

irterested parties, especially fellow researchers, that it is a good representation of the

conceptual variable of concern. More to the Point, a given oPerationalization of an

I9A Iriod,l(.ittg i Dijiereuce: Itdependent VariabLes

independent variable effectively serves as a stand-ir1 for other, possible operationalizations ofthe same variable. Renember, the higher order concern is with the conceptualindependent variable beurg manipulated and its effect on the dependent variable; itsoperationalization is a practicai matter.

What is rhe imporrance of this point when it comes to doing research? Studentsoftcn worry that thev will not hit upon the ideal independent vaiiabie to rnaoipulatein an exleriIrlent. let me dispeJ a counlerproductive mFh: l.here is no irleal or perf.ectway to operationaiize any independent variable-there are many ways to do so. yourgoal is to identiE an operationaiization that will work and seem plausible givcn yourresearch context (e.g., a lab, a dorD] room, a classloom, on the street, in a mJl;. Induc,ing a good mood on rhe street (e.g., leaving $l bills on the ground for passers-by topick up) is different than in the lab (e.g., haying parricipanrs watch an uilifting 6lor),but both nlethods lead to a simiiar psychological state.

I aor not suggestirg that established independent variables and ways to nanipulatethem should be avoided in favor ofnew variables or interventions. euite the contrary:Eslablished wisdont is just that, anti looking to the iiterature is always a good idea (seechapter 2). By all means, use whxrever.eliable variables, nrelhods, or telhnitlues youknorv about. I wsnt to reiterate that there is Do single best way to do anFhing or tooperationalize any variablc. So try your luck anid develop a new approach or tely onc,ne rl,or i. rricd.u,rl rluc. ,he.hur.e t\ up to yuu.

Providing Context for the lndependent Variable: Instructions

Research p.rrticipents rvill generalll clo whatever yoLl asl( oIthem (sometiDles to theirown and a study's detriment; see chapter I0's dtscussion of demand characteristics).But you must ask, which means th.rt your instructions must be crystat clear. lnexpe.imeDtal research, jrrstructiorls are qpically delivered ro participants orally by anexperinenter and then reiterated irr written ibrnr. For instructions to work_tohelp participants lirlfill their irnportant role in research-they must possess severalqualities.

lnsttllctiotls tust be ilrolr,ing Whether a covei story is involved oa not, tell pd{tici_pants things that will get their atteition-what the study is about, what will happen,what their role is, and what they will do. lD lact, gile rhem something to do_ Engagetheir help, ask lor their assistance, give them a small responsibiliry, anything that willkeep thei. attentioo focused on what is happening and loing to h"ppen shirtty. L.lr.work should not be overly challeuging or taxirg, nor should it be mindlessly dull(unless creating boredorn is arr enpiricalgoal; see Festinger & Carlsmith, i9591.

Instr,uctions nust be sinple anl straightt'orword. Cornplerity is the enemy of inde-pendent variables thar engage participants. Similar to the craftiDg of questions dis-cussed in chapter 6, what you tell parriciptnts to do nust be clear. Wh.tirer presented

Iftroducing,t Dffirexce Inrleputtlent Variai.lc: l9 I

in rvritten or spoken form, or a combination ofboth, be sure to construct thern u\rngbasic, everyday language to convey what will happen in the study and what the participant's role will be. Deline any technical terms or unfamiliar language for the pai-ticipants. Abundant use of examples cao sometimes help as wcll.

IBuiLl iu retlundancy. leli participants what they a.e supposed to do, either orall,y orin writjnS, aDd ther teil tirem again. You need not be condescending about this repetition. Build it logically into the procedure. Minimally, after the instrlrctions are shared

with the participant through whatever mode (spoken, written, or via compnter), qo

over them once nore. This can be done in a friendly, helpful manner:

I just lyant trr remind you that in the next phase ofthe studv, you will be reading about

someone you rvill later meet. Be sure to learn as much as you can liom tlre individual's6le. As I noted a few nrinutes ago, you can take notes usJng the notepad if it helps youto organize your thoughts about him.

Instnrctions should be task oriented. Besides being involving and easy to understard,instnrctions should give participants sonething to do. Left to their own devices, par-ticipants'minds wili wander, their nlotivation to take the experiment seriously willdrop, and they may even begin to try to figure out the study's hypothesis (see therelated discussion of participant curiosiry and demand characteristics in chepier 10).

If yoLi keep participants busy, they wiil not get bored and they w.ill need to show theexperimenter that they know what they are sLrpposeci to be doing. By the parlicipirts"doing sornething," the experimenter gets behavioral confirmation that the instructioos werc understood (or not).

Always verif)' tlfit itlstr ctiotls a d prccedures at e nldel stood. Watching what par

ticipants do or fail to do is not the orly \4ay to determine if instrrrcrions (and the

indepcndent variable thar may be linked to them) were taken seriously. lnstead ofwaiting for participartts to ask fbr help or sheepishly adnit they forgot what they xre

supposed to do next, ask probing questions. Such questions will need to be tailoredlo the specinc procedure in a gjven experiment. Your inquiries should be friendly butsiraightforward so that participants.eceive the clear jn]pression that their role in the

experiment is important. Make certain that the answers you receive indicate that theparticipant's roie in the experimeDt, and the duties associated with it, arc ciearLy

understood. Answer any pertinent questiols theparticipanis do bave in as much detajlas Decessary. When their questions are not relevant to their role or the proccdure,inform them that you will explain everl,thing when the experim€nt is over.

Plan for piloting

Beftrre beginning actual drta coileclir)I1, set aside some time for pilot testing the inde-pendent variable and the expetiorent- A piiot test is a lun-through ofthe experiment

:

I

i

Ig2 Inttoliucltlr a f)ifference: Indepen'lent Variabl*

from staii to linish that allows an investjg;ator to deternine that things rvill rrrn

.-"",tif arrd thal, ir,r Parlicular' the independent variable is certain to. create the

l..jJ-ip*ai.*uf change in the 'Jependent variable Piloting the study allows a

a"r.ur.tt", ,o g", ou, ,he kink, to to'rett o'- cllangc aspects of the exPerirnent' implov_

,.. ,i'. l;f.a' f'-nna *t"t ir will succeed. How much time i5 needed for pilot testing? That

i.;;;;t "" the comPlexity of the study, but a few days should be. sufficient where

.,.ri..,r4t r".""..t, is.onc.rnecl, pilot testing the independent variable can make all

tie difitrelce.

Delivering the Independent Variable

Bclbrc \ae turn to consiclering some of the diftireot ways independent variables can

i,. iro"ar."a lo Parlicipants;we need lo highlight one feature they all should share:

i".rir,...f ,*ff p*,icipanrs should be p rowided wi th or exposed to the same informa-

ti.o'l"p.irar"g, "f.ours., upon *hith l"uel or condition of the independent variable

,n"l*ifi "*p.rit.". f'fote that the tern "consistency" does not necessarily mean some

tJ,ur oi Lo.lrt.p ,,ondardization' The realiry of running an experiment with,real live

,r-o.* .,1 ., . p r ir, it,s much iJe everTdav li6!'you cannol complelely Prcdi' t whJl

;,1i..:,'t.; 'n,. w rl sry *hat to whom or what qrrestions uil' L-re a'ked or 'nf"'ma-

tiu,. iSUorc,l.'-'if,i, "*p"ti*"n,"rs

aod confederates (if any) must be watchful' -

making cettain

th.rt participants ilore or less expelience the same thing some i-lexibility is perrnitted

ri."i*". ot ot."r-l' Ellsworth, Carlsmith' and Gonzaies (i990) note' the goal is not

iur" -.*rAnrai^,-n-everyone

getting the same information-rather' the goal is

in:rking certaio that all participnnts grasP the instructioos.and whrt is going to happen

in the"course ofthe eiperinent Keep thrs go'rl in mind as you lelrn 'rbout ways to

.tel;ver''1depetldeol vrrl.lbles

Delivery via authority: The experimenter

lhc Nost straightfbrward way to deliver an independent variabLe is by having an

"*o"ti-""r". piesent it to the research ParticiPaflts

-f)?ically' the key infornlation

ihrt Dlaces a Darticlpant in a grven condilion is provicled orirlly at soore point during

,"" *0",.*"1,.,f p,:o."du," br"l delivery requires that lhe.exPclimenrer know the

..,rp, i,"" chapter tO) and that a mechanism exists to indjcate which level of the

i"Jip.na"* ".."frf. ihe participant is t" receive To reduce tbe Possibility oferPcri'

t"..i* Lrr^l; (sce chapter L0), tlrc ideal situation is one where the experimenter does

r'ro, tnoou o l,articipant's assigned condition until the lasl Possible moment (e g ' use

"l " pr*", ,in"atf.l. Alterla-tively, some experiments involve lnore than one.experi

rTt",rt".-"*p.,int"nter I greets the Participalt and describes the-study' experimenter

2 runs the participirut through the procedule' exPerimenter I briefly returns to admin'

ii", il* tnr1.p"..l.t, variolile, o,,r1 "*p"timenter

2' who is rrnaware of which level of

Innatluciry a Dilferctlce: Iwbl)t lt'l.ttt Vrrri,rblc-r I9i

the irldependent variable is in play, retlrrrls to adlninister the depcn(lent variahle- In

this scenario, one of the experirrenters temalns "blind" to the pa.ticiPant's assigned

condition and thus is less likely tc' iilirrcnce the particiPart to behave in a wa/ that

will coIllirm thc h)?othesis.

A clas$ic studl or fear and afliliation nicely delnonstrates how an exPerimentcr can

deliver the independent variabie (Schachter, 1959) ln this study, Staniey Schachter

and his colieagues were essentially interested in demonslrating that "misery loves

con,pany." To induce feat (or not), groups of women Parlicipants met the exPeri_

menter, a Dr. Cregor Zillstein, who wore a white lab coat and exPiained that the study

involved electric shock. ln the high fear condition, Dr, Zillstein was quite authorihr

ian, as well as alool He delivered the ildependcnt vatiable by telling the grouP:

Now, I feel I mrlst be con]pletell honest wilh yo(r and tetl yor €xactly what you are in

tb.. These shock will hurt, they rvill be painful As vou can guess' if, in research ofthis

so.t, we're to learn an)'thing at allthat willhelP humallity, it is necessary that our shocks

be intense. . . .I do want to be honestr/ithyou and telLyou thai theseshocks willbequirc

painftrlbut, ofcourse, thcywill do no pernrancnt damage (Sclr;rchter', 1959'P ll)

ln corltrast, the iow fear group nlet a ftiendly' warm, even engaging Dl Zillstein He

alllyed their fears regarding the shocks by explaining that:

I have askcd you all to come toclay in orde. to serve,s subiects in an experiment con

ce.rred with thc elfccts of clcctric shock l hastcn to idd. do not let the worlt "sho'k"

trouble yotr;l nm srrre yorr $'ill enjoy the exf'e|iment \4'c would lilic to give each o'

you a series of nrikl electric sho.ks. I assrrr e you that whit yolr will lcel ivill not in any

way be painful. It will resenlble more a tickle o. n tinglc than 'rnything Lrnp'leasant

(Schachter, 1959, pp. l3-i4)

After delivering the independerrt variatrle, Zillstein explained thrt the particip'rrrts

woulci nced to wait a while before taking Part in thc exPeriment [Jc casually noted

that he wanted them to comPlcte a brieF qucstionnaile iI1dicating whether they Pre-

ferred to wait alone or with another ParticiPant ln actu:lllty' tile study was etfectively

over (no shocl$ were actually administered) and the questionraire wis thc dcPendeot

measure, Conhrming Schachter-'s (1959) prediction, individuals who received a high

fear rnessage preferred to wait with others, while those in the iow fear condition wcre

genernlly content to wait by themselves. This exPeriment capitalized on the fa't that

participants look to exPerinrenters for guidance. An articulate exPerimenter can readily

present the independ€nt variable in a manllel that commands ParticiPants'attention(ct., lv{ilgram, 1974).

Personal delivery: Conf-ederates and Peers

A second way to introduce an independent variab{e is by having either a confederate

or a peer present it to Participants. We atreatiy rcvicwed dre ifiPortant roles lhat

194 Intt"il ang o Dqference: lnLLpendent Voriobies

confederares can play in social psvchology experiments (see chaprer 3). you may, forexxmple, recall how a group ofconfederates successfully delivered the independent vari-able-groLrp pressure-in Asch's ( 1956) study of conforrnity. Their r.rnanimity led a

substantial minodty of resealch participants to knorvingly give the wrong answer in theLine judgment task. Similarly, when a confederate "defected" and.joined the parricipantby gilrng a correct answerr the participant was often willing to stand up against the socialpressure. Participants, then, understandabiy treat confederates as peers who can provideinformation and sometines solace withio eqerinrents. Ofcourse, as we sawwith Cohenet al.'s ( 1996) experiment on regiooal reactions to insults, confederatcs can also deliveran independent variable by conlionting or inrentionaliy upsetriog a participant.

What if peers deliver the independent variable but not by acting as confederates?On occasion, aD experimedt can use the mere presence of participants as an indepen-dent variable. Consider one of th€ nrost convincing displays of what is know as therlrlfusion of responsibilir1, a reduced urgency to seek help in an emergency dlle to anassumption that others wiii help or take note of rhe probLem. In an experiment byLatanE aod Darley (1968), college-aged .uales completed a questionnaire in a roorn,either alone or irl a group ofthree people. These researchers hypotbesized that peopleare more likely to notice an enletgency and to take action when they are alone thanwith a group ofstrangers. While the participants"r'er.e completing the questionlraires,smoke begau to pour into the roont through a vent. Solo participants usuaily noticedthe smoke withjn 5 seconds. lvlost got Lrp, sntelled it, lvaited a ferv mornents, and thenwent to Ieport it. WheD the merl were in gaoups, howevet, everyone kept wo.king,even when the smol(e hlled the roorn contpletely, obscured their vision, aod callsedsome to cough. Indeed, oLrt of24 men who conrprised eight three,person groups, onlyone person gof up to report the smoke within the first 4 minutes (the experimenrlasted only 6 lrtinutes).

What makes the Lata116 ancl Darley (1968) study so elegant is that the pcers influencedone another without any instructions fio the experimenter {other than those directitgtheru to con]plete the innocuous questionnaire). Thc experinrenter left thc rootn priorto the staged emergency but watched it unfold through a one-way l1lirror. The participants'dctelmination to fiil our rhe questionnaire while (perhaps) not appearing foolishin the eyes of their peers ("No one else seems concerned so that can't t,e snoke coningout of the wall") served as a powerflrl independent variable. When they were all alone,however, participants had no ole to look to for social gLridance or feedback-they hadto relv on theil olvn irtLrition about whether the stnoke qualified as an emergency.

Written delivery

Writlen instructions designed to deliver the independent variable are commonplacein both impact and judgrneDt studies. Written inst.uctions olien come in the form ofa sheet of instructions or even a booklet. More involved writte, instructions will haveboldface directions embedded in rhem (e.g., IfYou Hav€ Any euestions, Ask ThemNow) or appearing at rhe boftom ofthe page (e.g., Do Not Turn the page Until youAre Instructed To Do So). Such instructions can make the experiment seem more

IntrodtLcing a Difference: Indepentlent Varizr6lcs i95

artihcial than real life; indeed, the directions will rernind some participants of stan-dardized testing sessions. In point offact, delivering the independent variable throughwrilien means is away to introduce a high degree ofstandardization: participants learnwhat they need to know, inch.rding being exposed to the appropriare level of the inde-pendent Friable (it's very easy to change the content ofkey pages while making themlook sr'milar to one another), at a pace set by the experimenter. This high dceree ofcoDtrol is helpful but ii does nalie the experi€nce seem relatively far-renloved fronldaily life, at least the life outside mass test sessions. As an experimenter, you need toconsider how best to balance the benedts ofstandardi?ed lvritten instructions as a ,\.avto deiiver the independent variable with the drawbacks in doing so.

Other forms of delivery

Instruction slieets and booklets are not the only option. Under the category of othermodes of delivery of independent va ables, some lesearchers have tried using trpedinstructions (e-g., Milgram, 1974), where participants appear at an appointed time andactivate a tape aecorder, cassette player, or the equivalent. The participants then listcnto the experimenter's directives and carry them oLlt as best they can. The advantage oftaped instructions is twofold: uniforrnity and decreased experimerter bias. By Lrnjfor-mity, I nrean that every person who iistens to a given tape hears the same instnrctronsfrom the s{mc person in the same order. No errots can tre made because the instftrctionsare set. As dre experimenter is Dot physically present, there is no chance thet he or shecan sLrbtly, unintcntiooally cue the participant into giving the desired (hypothesis-consistent) behavior (see chapter I0's discussion oflvays to reduce experinentcr bias).'Ihesc strengths, however, can also be drawbacks. Consider thjs: Taped ir)strucuons,lleusrrally played only once aod, without an experintenter prcsent, there is no guaranteethat the pafticipaDts are taking the procecdings seriously. Moreover, if they beco0leconfused or forget what to do, there is no one present to answer their qrLestions.

As for other delivery systems, sorne researchers have tried delivery of the independent variable over the telephone. Once again, Stanley Milgrarn wal a trailblazer. Inone variation of tlre obediel'lce paradignr, for exarnple, after giving the n]ost essentialinstructions, the arthority figure left the room and gave subseqLrent directions to th-.participart "teacher" by phone (Milgram, 1974), Can phoning be LNed in a less emo-tionally charged experiment? Certainiy. Participants mighr arrivc for an inpressronformatioi study, read a folder of standard directions, rnd therr djaL r numbet: tocontact the expe.imenter, who could then provide the crucial information repr-esent-ing the (random) manipulation of the independent variable. This approach has thebeoefits of unit'brmity and th€ opportunity for contact (albeit by phone) so tnat par,ticipants can ask questions. Given that cell phones are now so commonplace, perhrpryou can thinl< of a creative but methodologicaily sound way to use them to pre5enrinstructions and to manipulate the independent variable, Ofcoursc, any phonc methodstill srrffers front being iess involving than having a real flesh and blood experimenrerpresent (but see an elegant study on social perception and self-fulfilling stereotypeswhere the phone played a key role; Snyder,'faake, & Berscheid, 1977).

196 Intrati Lrcit ry a Dtlt'eretce: irttlept ntlent Variables

I'i.'jj''oi'nE:sscalchershavetrleddcli!eryoftlleinJependent"ariablcinanonline."::i;;; ;;;;;J'C;u"n ti" ubiquirv o[ LomPurers rn daiiv life' tew panicipants'

:::::':il'i:5.;,;';'...u,iuu'1"' onuv'hisapproaclr'r)ntheotherhanJ thequalitv

:;ffi'fi.-;;;;;iJt'"*"i"iiv tieir claritv' roatters The same concerns that are

;;;;;;t; t"b'b*"i ,",""ith applv here (see chaPter 5) once. again' havins

;;;;;;; ;;, . "

fiesh and blood peison' the experimenter' is apt to trig8er a higher

i"r"i J l"grg".t"t't, ftorn participants than the artihcial inrrnediacy of a website or

i.r,.*,t"t! ""ta

-a"p.nd""t uu'iobi"' '"ttt

Yia email Of course' there are bound to be

.r"*.",*..p,1"',".aresearchoppoltunitiesinthisvein.lamsimplysusgestilgthdtin,.""tJ tr-ri* t, tt" t"bstitute fo;;lose' Personal contact with an experimenter'

Onc more time: Instruct' repeat' and probe

At the risk of repeating myself, I musl remind you that embedding the independent

variable rvithin the body of some set of instf[ctiolls is frne as long as Participants wili

i"t"lt,i.. "f

l, f" ""sure

they do, you rnust present the instructions ill a steady' natur:

manoer. You nrust also tepeat the kel Points irr a ftiendly' helpful way' and not in a way

,ir"i-i. "oii" "r.* *.picion fiom the participants Finally' you sholid probethe partici

,,: nr. r)\ 'r.',{-n: rncm it llley hJ!c any questions'Sbout the procedure' the role rhey are

:l:l:,::'"';' ';;"";;

"ir" 0",*,n;n* ,o the cxper'ment so rrr" lr' prst Parti(iPrnts

:;:;; ;;';;';#;".i ul rh" iid"p""d"'rr varlrble tor exirnrple therr vou rnrght

::',:::::;ll: ".",'" l" u'",' l, ".t'.n. on the othcr lr:rnrl ir Pa' Pirni(ifxntr had lirrle

"Jl" "''il'lJ, ',i"', ao nlit"p' ru* uv a''twing 'rttcntion Io the isslrl Si'rplv'rscenaitr

,"r,r.il"i i't.r'i"t" "t1y

geleral questions lf they ask any questions that peftiin to the

";..l.::,""i: p.,.por"'uid rhe if,e, genrly tell them you will be hrppy to discrrss those

ir.r"r "t." ,i i l;rir"rrment is over' T;ll them that "fo' now' I need to be sure you under-

stand your role so that we can go on to the next Phase of the ex?erinlent'"

ACIIVE LEAR.N INC EXERCI5E 74

Developing lndependent Variables

As noted previously in this chapter and in chapter 4' there is no-single best choice

i"r ""

-Jap""a"* "ariable

nor is there a "right way" to transform a conceptual

""r,"lf.,"ii " g""O operationalization Yet' a5 a researcher' you must develop an

"a"p"nOan, uir'uU," or variables for your project This exercise is meant to help

yo,r develop some irdepe'rdent variables

1 Define your canceptual variable(s) whal social behavior do yoLl want to

"*untin"Z Oo you have a theory in mind or are you relying on an existing

theory from social PsYchology?

Intratltriq a Difteretce: InfupetLlcnt Yariahks 19 t

2 Laok to the litelaturc fot ideas on aperationaltzng the independent vari'

able. How was the conceptual variable operationaJized in the published lit-

erature? How many levels did the oPerationalized independent variable tend

to have in the studies You found?

1 ,BGtnttotm vout owt', operaltanallTattan lr\Lead of 'elyrng on pub|s'ed

'worL, come up with your own operalo.alizaIon or the rrdependent va|

able and how to rnanipulate it Begin by th nking of how the independent

variable appears in everyday life. Where and how does it occur most fre-

quently? You may want to use Active Learning Exercise 44 to help you with

this task.

4 Will you expeliment be an impact study, a iudgrnent study, or some other

research approach? As you identify possible independent variables and ways

to manipulate them, be sure to consider what type of experirnent yoLl envi'

sion doing.5 Wilt yout independent variable cause behavior in a dircct or an indirect

way? An important pa.t of designing an experiment is thinking through the

50cial psychological processes involved Be sure to determine whether you

are seeking to change palticipants' behavior using direct or indirect

meanS-

6 How do you intend to deliver the independent variable? Will you use an

experimenter, a Peer, a confederate, written instructions' or some combina_

tion to present a distinct level o{ the intended independent variable to an

individual or to participani group5?

7 Seek feedback an yau ideas far independent vaiables Share your first pass

at an independent variable with your in5tructor and peers {rom your class

Be certain to explain both the conceptual and cperational definitions for the

variable. Be open to suggestions that can improve the delivery of the inde-

pendent variable or the experiment

How Many IndePendent Variables? A RePrise

lndependent variables shed light or causality and it can be temPtirlg to idd "iust one

mo.e" to learn more information about the extentofor limits to some social pher,om

ena. As noted il chapter 4, however' the more independent variablcs you add' the

rtrore you must manipulate. In that chapter. we noted that each indcpeldent variable

increases the complexity of any factorial desigrr' Each variable must have at leasl two

levels*some will have rnore than that-ard simPie multiPljcatiorr indicates how

rnany results cells ot conclitions nrost be frlled with particiPants (i e ' a 2 x 2 design

has4cells, a3x2x2 design has l2 cells, and so on) lvlore is not necessariLy merrier'-lhe addition of any inclependent vnriable n1ust be justiliecl Reasonable justificrti')n

irrvolves adding an ir'tdependent variable that has not yet becn e-rarrrined in relation to

the social behavior bciig studied. Unreasonable iustification is addillg an indePendert

193 Int'odLEilS a t)iftlrente: IrtLlependmt \!tirubles

variable because you can, or you think it would be "interestiug" or cl'en "fun"-sorne

;;:;,.;;'"*J.;i, ''""xurv lVitho.,t such support' you risk m*ddf ng the resr'rlts

"Jr,""i"* aimttrq' making any sense out of them

Ifvou do iclentify one o' 'nuo

ndtl'tton^l independellt variablcs that you think would

o" l;i;il,',;;;.'t'n rne, lherr LonrrJer a pra'ti''rl "lur''n LorrJu' t trv'r rtudres Tn

rhe hrst sttrJ;' dLmor'\lrdre ttt"t tt'' t)"'il ' ffect eri ts 'lere I int'rgire you r'roulJ

maDipulate one or two indepenclent va'iahles' but not three) Once the basic e{fe'ts

are established aDd thc results lrre knowrl' then run a variation of the exPerimeol

incorporating tire additioDal indepe-nJenr variable (l lvould not try lo ftanipuiate

more than thlee variabltt i" o"" 't"oy

until vou are a ]1rore experienced investigator)

;;; il';il",.' you have a nic" patk"g" of studies and are well on your way

a i""r"t"n ,fl" ttu*s of contlucting prograrnmatic research'

Individual Diffetences as Independ€nt Variables;

ProsPects and Problems

Can rnclivirlual diflerence variables' such as s[bject variables or ptrsonaliry ttaits' sewe

:r.i"i1;:*:: :::lilljl""'",,';u;,:::i* jl#il'f : j ;:.:li:::"',:;:

:. :; ;;:tJ.;;;"''''li" '"i"*

s' r changcs an exPeritn€ntal investisation into a

correlalional stucly Suggcstive ol"t'uoti_ont'"t"y b" iourld' bLrt delinitive cause antl

effect relations rerr,ain elusive

PracticaLly sPeukiog, of course' nonmallipulated indepenclent variables are used

tl.,.,rrgh,u,.r-,'r.,1 I'v'nologicrl reserl! h \rome Jre rll('wn rl T'rblc+l) Lon!;der<e)i:

Rc5e .n,.rs rlHre\rcd rrr 'er, role. ruurirrelv dc'.rrbe how nren ' hehJvr-'r Jiffcr' frolll

;";;;;; ;;;';'.' ranging fiom dotnestic liie to achievernent settings l here rs no

random assignorent allu'"ing o rtsentlhtt to make one P€rson"a lrl:n an!,1notheL a

;;;;;,;,;;;" ttttt"theless talk about sex diflerences' albeit ofte. in cautLous' non

causal tetuls.'"'t"it.t'o ," "

.o*,.1er examinrng ildivicluai diflerence vadables in the cor'Lrse of yorLt

re.errrh? Yes. JU)rlulel/. Minirr''lly' r'o _r 'hollld 'hccl( to see whcth-cr the nren l'rd

worllen ln your sru'1y bchave'lsirrril'rrly or dilterently fronr one dnothcr' You mighl

"l...""'a.r.""*,'"irrg how an indiuiiu'rl d;ff<'encc v;ri'rble' such cs a P(rsonJhly

;;;i, ;;;;;;; ; tndependent variable rhink abo t a trait like selt'-consciousness'

"',""."'.'...".r'.lf"wa..n.,.ofb.inganrn.lrviclLrll.especiallllntlrosesituationsthrtDr.rmorcJ'(n'eolLeingsocidllf iff i """ 'r'g formrl dinners' lob "t1s11lervs)'

H:;;;i;',;';,;;"rii-"",."ri'.""*i""'11"f,61nsr''andv'ruh1;uthesiz' th'tt

this trait affects tbe accuracy ot hrst rn]pressiolls Due to thelr olvn selt foetrs' individu-

.rl: whtr.rre hrtsh ,n ,"lt tont''uu'""" ottend tt' tewer d'frils Jbot'l new 'rrql,irrntrn!e\

,rr"rl a. irr.*"i"" * the trait. Ir fbllolvs rhat peopie who are low in self-co'scioustters

r.",i;,i. '" ,*.', nr,,re detdil) ,borrr :tr'rrrger' rr'el irr 'd\uJl en!runrcr\'.

You cannol create a trait experimentaLly:trorts';rfter all' are irlputhcsized to be

permanent qualities- but you can cefiainly create x icnlPorary state by heielrtening

lrtra]lutitlg 4 Dtffercncc: Irnlzpendctt VLlrnblc' 199

seLf'consciousness in some PafiiciPants relative to others To accompiish this i"rt lar

"r;;;i;, ,"." randomly assigned Parti'ipants might have to deliver a-spontancous

.""..i "f,l'i. U.i,tt nlmeJ rhigi .;eli-'on'cio"'nes'r rvh lc orh<r; wnrrld h:rv' to rv:r'-

i"r'"" " il.i rt".!n t"ith .., ierlbrnance ele'rent (low self-conscio.sness) Afterthe

i"i*,ior" "ou

.o.,ta ,t.rge a brief meeting behveen each participant and a conieier;te.

fu;;;"d'l;;.."'"ry iest The tnduction method woulcl allorv yo. to cont'ol an{l

,."",',io "lti

it"."te irs an independent variable You would then be able to ol-'ser"c

ioi."ii-.u,tr.loutn"ss affects behavior and to discuss it iu a causal wav'

Ver"ifying Cause and Effect: Manipulation Checks

Horv does a social psychologist know if rn independent variable had the hlpothesil:eri

iif"cti Is .he.king iit. dependent measure-how particiPants reacted to the indepen

l"rri " ,i"frrc-*tfn.ienti Sometimes ves' sometimes no Most.social Psychologists

*"",," i" r"r. that the indcpeodent variable hari the anticipated impacr on !-esearch

;;;;,;.;;."t, thoughrs. feelings orrcrion! orcour\e rheir "ub\equenr beJl:rvrnr i) 1r

i,J;il;';;i*;';,, oi o ,"",'"t'1t"" theory' bur as we have noted througllout thi'

ffii,;;;;;r;;;;.0 unaware of what factors do or do not influence dcir bchr'vior'

il; Ui,!"ti ",ta

lVitrun (1977) noted in theit classic teview of verbal reports on meltal

orocesses, research parti.rP:lnis often relrain uDaw'rr€ lhat a stimulus led to a respotlsc'

iL',., ,arU,,n.. n!rurr(\1, ot IIral lll< \rilnulrl5 even lfl(clcJ 'l rclon'e

Tl,erue.sac" here is thal wise rescarchers also seel< to vcrify that their indeprendent

*.nli", _-"t"

O*-lved ds anliciPatccl' To do so' many researchers rely oll wh;rt lll

."."""ttf y .-f LJi .""ipuLation checks A naniprrlntiot clrcckis a mensurc that ioilo"{'r;

,f,r" i,,J"fita"", "".irbie

a'rcl is clesigneri to discern whether participants dctuelly expc

,i",r."a,'fr- ""rt"Uf.'r

aiffercnt levels. In other words, a ltauipulation check is a sa{egrrard

d<siencdl(Jdclnulllll!tcrlr''tthern'lnrPulrliorrworktd'F,'rer.rmple'rtl,.tnip'l'''trott.;".'i ;;" ;. "t.;

lo ver,ry thal crinc rl inst-'r'tions were heard 'rnd undrrstor)d hy p rr

,;.;o..-n* ,q, rnu,'iourotrorr check car'r .rlso be used to denronstrate that pafiiciPants exl].'

.f"i."Jl o.r.fl"f.gt..rl stale iutegral Io the successfill comPletion of the experinerli"-:rir*.

"rJ r*" tipes of mnil'rrlation checks' internal and external ones (Rosenth'rl

S Rnrttouu, lggl). A!\ irtetnal manipLlation dleck is given during the course of the

"*nu.irrr".,,, "o-"u-es shortly after the irldcPendetrt variable is Presented and other

,ui., l"r* ,i. o.rrrieFng portion ofthe exPeriment PerhaPs you.wcre interested in

Iearoinc whelher embanassment Pronotes arr increase in prosocir] behavior Hallol

;;;";.t;',,ti. .-"erience a staied acciclellt-they 'accidentally" bump-into i trbie'

;;;. il;;::ll:,';;l' spc* ng 'ev"e.l

strcl'r or prpcrs rll over tlre rlc'r' Tlres< p rrr' '

,",'r,, *o..,"n.. Lh. lriglt "t"b""assnrent

condition Parlicipants in the low embar_

i;;;;;;i:;;;i"",' are also led to acci<lerrtallv br'rmp inro a table' but it does not

."ti"orJ"*"a, " oericil falls to the floor' FollowinB this rnishap' yol adnrinistcr a

tr.i"-t-'oo.rrlonno,r. rr.rpposedlv designed to PrePilre the ParticiPant fot th" ""*t l'hot"

.i't t" i,ri". i"'i,"lJ,'J rn the questl''nnai'e rre some rtems dc'igne'l to 'rs'"r' er" r:

;il;;;.1; ;,;;,;;f 'Jn'ion or

'i'' indepe ndent variable was successf..l' compa.ed

2(.t0 IrtrathLci ng a Dit'ieretice: I ntlependent V ariables

io the low enrbarrassment group, intlividuals in the high embarrasstnent condition

,bJa r"po.t ttigit"t levels of social discornfort and awkwardness'""i.-p-iJ,.

i,"".nal manipulation checks' external manipulation checks have one

airJ".,'"J"""og", They do not disruPt the flow of an exPerimenl's procedure An

,LrrrroL .or;prrlnrnr. check is giv€n outside ihe con6nes ofthe actual exPeriment and

inuot"", u dif"r"nt group ofparticipants Essefltially' the exPerimenter runs a simula-

""r ri"iy *r."." n.".,r rlt"

""ks this otl'"t group ofpeople to r eflect on horv.thel would

teoct if th"v\a'"r" faced with the events as laid out in the proposed €xperiment (e g '

:ii'."ra t.t *i "-uarrassed

ifyou knocked over a table full ofpapers? How embar-

,".J"i *iuta you feel?") External manipulation check are.often don€ during Pilo,t

testing and do represel]t a reasonable way to derermine how the actLlaL' tuture researcn

o rrti.lo"nr' are golng to licl al)out rno reilct lo lhe ind€pendenl varlaDle't'

*""'o i" -t"irf.r"igoo<i manrpulation checks are hard to develop Administering

** q'"".,.tt.";*.' .lp"cially ttefbre "ssessing

the dependent variable' can unknow-

t,xiy i,gf-rfisir, the hlpothesii as well as tl.rc independent variable for participaots

\V"r-rl,*t?, p-..r rf"' "taking

use o f natura lly occurring manipulation checkJ is the ideai

..i",i"". gy ';"","t"11,v ociurrilg," I refer to some indirect way the pa'ticiPants dis-

.i"r" r"i",lf..t are thinking, horv they are feeling' and the like Behrrrors,do speak

louder than wor<1s, of course, especially grven'Nisbett and Wilson's (1977) warnlng

ih^ir"ooi. *ut t* fre .rble to adequateLy or accurately rePort on what the)' are expe

;,",..:;;:;.i"; ,h" ."u.se ofrn experime.t' Niturnlly occurliog ma.ipulation checks'

.,,.n "riuuingl,rag"s

code palti€ipants'facial expressions for the display ofParticular

elllotions 1c.gl, shan-re, embarrassnent), tepresent a good soltrtioi'- In the casle of the h)?othetical manipulation of high versus low emb.arrassment'

however, I believe there iniglrt be a naturally occurring maniptrlation check wired into

it,. .ituniion. s"ria". the eibedded embarrassmenl quesrions, the experimenter miglrt

"-J f,.- i-.L of the number of times erch parliciPrrrt isstred an aPolog) followinS

ii. ,il*ia "..,a"r,.

Think about the last rime you damxged sotnerhirrS beloogirlg ro

rl"r-i" .f," or dicl something embarrassing in the presence of others-how many

,Un"s-,f,a t"t apologize for wiat happened? We nlitsht l€gitinlately exPecl that high

.Jnr.nrr,tt"n, por,iaipants would say 'I am so sorry" and make si m ilar, commen ts

-"," ,i"t* f". a"","ring ao experimenter's PnPers about the loom.rhan I lorv embar-

,"."""t i o"rti.tp"", wo-rlld foi dropping the experimenteL's.pencil ThuJ the relative

".,r'rir". of apclogies issued p"t p""oni a naturally o(currrng mlnipulation check'

,r.oul,t b" ,o,rr" nii" ndditional evidence to support the check done through examiniog

thc embarrassnent cluestions.'--lvf."iL"pp*t ;f

" Participant's response to an inteJnal mctriPulation clteck reveals

th'at h. or she either did not understairJ the rndependent variable ls intended or mis-

i,ri"ft""a f,"y i"r,tuctioos duridg the study? Besides determining whether an inde-

p"rai'u "^,.1f" registers with participants' manipuLation cbecks can be used to

irrri,'toi,., tt "

integrii of aa experiments data When one or two participants clearly

"irttaJ tatpun*ri"e to an error in undtrstanciing' al experimenter can legitimately

.u,r_rou. *,ii. a",o r.o.r further consideratiou. nropping any data, of course, is a rather

Itttt|dt(it| tl Dr[lerence: Indeputclellt Ndtiibles 2Ql

big ciecision: Not only is the collection of the information hard work' when yott

a"i,,ot" aom"o,t" faom at1 experiment' yc'Ll not only- lose that Persoll's resPonsesr tou

recluce the statislical power availahle during the analysis stage (i e ' you redrlce the

chance you will find a delectabie effect)- '1he best course is to determiie plior to the

actual data collectron whar sort of responses to the maniPuiation check warrant

the discarlrng ofdata (bearing in mind that ifseveral participants "fail" the maniPula-

tion check, tiren you should question the effectiveness of the manipr ation and not

the veracity of the participtnts--you may neecl to revisit the expelimental

procedure).When deci<ling on a n1aniPulation check' the best advice is this: Be creative with

this aclvice in mind, let's turn to an exercise designed to help you be creative

ACTIVE LEARNINC EXERCISE 7B

DeveloPing a ManiPulation Check

When it comes to developing a manipulation check be as subtle as possjble Do fot

disrupt the llow of the experimental procedure or cause partjcipanis to think too

much about what they did, are doin8, or will soon do in the study- Here are some

questions designed to help you to design a manipulaiion check to verify the effec-

iiveness of your chosen independent variable (recall Active Learning Exercise 64)'

1 Wi you design an intenal or an external manipulatian check? lf the latter'

do you have sufficient time available for a pilot study?

2 lf yau do an interna! .heck, will it accur dunng the experiment or during

the PafticiPant debtiehng?

3 lf yau canducl an tntenal check, will yau use a self-rcpatt measure' a

behavioral measure, ar same other method (e g, obseNation af Partict'

pan\' facial ex?ressiont)?

4 lf you condu.t an external check, be certain that the pilot participants ate

from the same population as the eventual parti'ipants yau intend to use in

the exPetiment. lf you rely on some self-repori measure' can it be readily

presented during the experimental procedure without aflecting (biasing)

participant responses to the dependent variable? Perhaps the manipulation

check can be given after the dePendent measure is collected either dLlring

oriustbefore thedebriefinS lfyoLl decideto use a behavioral manipulation

check, select some naturally occurring behavior that is conceptually related

to the independent variable (e g apologies and embarrassment)

5 Seek feedback Share your draft of the rranipulation check with yotrr

instructor and classmates- Use any suggestions that imProve the manipLrla_

tion check-

102 Introdu':ing a L)tffeftnc.: I]n1epettde]1r \iariLtlrles

The Best Laid Plans (and Independent Variables)

Novice siudenh ofsocial psychology are apr ro believe rhat the meticulously describedstudies found in social psychoiogy joulnals or introductory books iust sprang forthwhole and compLete frolTl the minds oi some clever researchers. I am here to tell 1,outhat, in the rvords of the old soug, it "ain't necessarily so.,' Things don'r always go asplanned. Few menorable social psychology experiiuents just happen or are the resultof sudden, blinding insight 01 intLlition. Instcad, melnorabie studies a.e actuaily theresult of much toil, many tears, and qui(e a bit ofsweat, Dot to mention careflll thinkiog arrd the thorough researching ofpast relevant efforts. In many respects, conductinga quality sociai psychological experiment-one that ,,works,, so that the intendedindependent variables creates the expected change in the indicated dependent vari_ables-is similar to staging a good play_ Not only are Lhere bits of theater invoh,ed(e.9., a cover story, roles fbr experimenter and pa.ticipant, a setting), the ,.show,'_the

actual running of the study cannot go on (nril everlthing works, ftom sign,up todebriefirg (see chapter 10).

Thc independent variable plays a crucial part here. If it fails ro create a change inbehavior, pret'erably the behavior predicte{ by the hlpothesis, then there is no reasonto proceed with data collection. Thus pilot lesting the experiment is critical. But whathappens if you pilor rhe experinlent and the independent variable does not appeart() be causing the expected .l1an1e or atty change in the dependent variablei Whcnthis happens, a aeseatcher needs to explore possible reasons irnd remealies for thesituatioD.

Pelfbrm an in ternal analysis

The nranipulation of the independent variable nlay have been qLlite effective_ir iuslnay have becn more effective on the behavior of some participants than others. llother words, some ptrticipants may be more susceptilrle to th€ influence of a glvenindependent variabLe than other participants. The key, of course, is identifTing thefactor or factors that allow the independent variable to create greater be]ravioralclLange in some people. Doing so involves concluctillg what is commonly referred toa, arr irrtcrrirl analysi<.

A\7 itter al dnalysis is a careful examination ofobtained data with ao ey€ to exam,ining a possibly influential variable th?rt was not manipulated in the experiment.Variables identilied through an internal analysis are very oflen subject variatles, tl.roseindividual qualities people cany with them into the experimenr and which are largelyimnrdne to experimental intervention. Schachrer's (1959) previously noted .esearchon tear and alfiliation iovolvcd a parricularly fruitful inrernal analysis. Recall thltparticipants in the high fear condition (they were threatened witlr painful electricshocks) expressed a greater ciesire to affiriate with orhers than did those in the low fcar(no pain) condition. In a series of variations on the original study, Schachter found

Introtlucing a Differerlce: Indepetde t Vari^ble]' lAJ

that the positive rclationship between arxiety and afiliation was much more odestand often had to be teased out of the data. lfhy?schachter (t959) concluded that some participants rnust be more prone to seek outcompany when anrious tha)r were rhe oth;rs. He guessed colrecUy ifu, f,r,-Uo.n unao.ly cfrldren wourd be more rikery to af6riate whin anxious thaniut",_t o.n .nita*n.nts ralronale rs simple: Firrt-born and onJy children e)iperience a rnore J-LUi,u\ f.r.enting sttle than later'-born children; rnom and dad,s faith in and skill at chilclearing

grorv with their experience. As parents, they probably responded more quicklyto quellaniety in 6rst and only children than those to.r, I"ter. As a r.sult, fir.t-'bo.n ",ra

onlychildren grow to prefer-are more coftfortable_being with ori;, f"opf. _}r"n *pr",relative to larer-born children. The dara bore out s jr.lt..t ,p!.rf'"ii"", u.oin^f

Position matters in the presence ofarlrjety. First_born ona orrty.f,ita."n "*p,.r..a "gieater desire_to wait with others prior to the supposed ,t o.t po,tlon of tl" .*,0".r-ment thaD did later-bnrns. Mystery solved.

_

Llt course, perform ing an internal analysis can providc insight but it also introducesa famiJiar ploblem: the violation ofrandomn",r. ih. ir.r,.rnol""nulyri, .iong.. o .^",_ally focused experirnent inro a correlational nrdy. o.dir;i;;r;r-i;,n ,-i" o", y_birih order-canrrot be nrarripulateci the w"y u flgi, o. l._ i."".-.o.rrruni_r,o" ..noe presentecl. yes, brrth order and affiiiative tendencies are correJatecl, but jn a canJalsense, Schachter. coulcl not prove ivhy definitively. lnternal auai"."a oft",, l-"u"rl aonr_pelli.g widence and arguments as to why .rn .*perin,ent arJ."i ,r,,,

"", * "",i-cipated, but rhey do not arways prove Jrow on. ua.i"bre "ffu.t.

a"oir,.,.., i. aor" i, "true experiment.

Ask participants but be waryThe most ohvious recourse for a researcher is to ask a ferv participants what they werethirking aboutduring the experiment, especraliy when they were exposecl to the incle-pendent variable. This sort ofdebriefirrg is drfferent thrn if,r,,rr"fi,

"r.".","a *i,l(xp(r'rments tsee chiprcr l0). Insread oiassessing suipicion. "

.".";,'.;;. i. ," .,., o,,

l:::::l:^l:: Tl,"'tanrs werc inrerprerins rhc jynamics of.he

"xp",im.,,. p.,''r,., .

larry wllether the independent variable was noteo and with whit eilpcr, ilrn7. lr rqtite possible that a manipulation that seems apparent to fhe researciter who createdit. is bartly notired by research participants. Sinilarly, rhere rnay b" ,onr" .,itr"rionolorstracrons-noise, orher people, unclea. instructions, intereiting or odd objectspresent in the lab settiig-that weaken the impact of the ina"p.na""nt *rioil". tt.o,discussing the experimental proceclure with a fe- p".ticipantsInuy

"*n"".,t.problem and suggest ways to correct it,

, 'i he caveat to this approach is that, as noted previously, peopie often do not knor,/rvhat aspects ol a situarion influence them and which a" rI",. i" "r" "f N;.U"r, *aWiison s ( l9;7) studies, tbr example, some participants watched a lilm whilc a conrcqerarc fieatccl J highly distrdct lg noise (he ran an electric saw) in an adjacentnallwuy Other paflicipi t\ wrt\hed tlre sime 6lm Lrrrr it.rvas out ol fo.tr!. A contro;

2A4 lrtrodtLcittli a DiJference: trdependent lrtriables

grorLp wetched the film in r€lative Peace Later' the nlembers ofall three grottps rvere

^.k.d to r"L tl e hLIT 5 rntercst vatue' their \ynlllllly lor the pr('tJ!'ullist' a'nd ho!v

;]::i;i..;';";'.".rldbetouchedbvir'Theexp<rirrrcnter'rpol"giredtothenoise

"'J"* "if".", *r".ros, asking them to note neit iu eaLh rating whether $e distra€-

tionsi[f}uencedt}reircoiclusions'lnfeality'neitherthenoisenorthebad'focrrshad,.. ,tfp, r .n I)articio:tlrts' rdtlngs, which were analogous to those made by the 'onlrol-"j:,:i'; :;:i;;;i;:,"o" o.,.',ilip",.";"

'rre poor rocr* group did not think the Pro-

:;;;: 'i.J;.i.,"rrngs

The participa nts exposed to the powe r 5^w.( norse ho\ ever'

ffi'Jri;il".i;ffir.,"-"ir. ati i^pu.t o., their rarings. The methodological

;:;:i:.i;;;.tf ""t''"'" "n"" "**"re ot what factors influence their bchavior

;;;;;;;'r.;;";;'on p"opl"'t foibles at recognizing causal influences' sec Nisbett

g. Wilsnn, f S;;, Wilson & siune, lc85i see also Wilson & Dunn Ztlu4l',-

iir, tlr" "*'rt". to tt"k o'-" po'titip"nts'oprnions md observations' but you must

he rvar.r of rhen Although they may sincettiy *"nt to help yotr determine why the

l"::il;;;;,..;l: i, nli iii'iting u"t'o"ior as hlpothesized' their intuitions misht

'..1- i,..'*"r.1" *n"" their thoughts during the task Participants are oftel unaware of

u.r-. ,r, or\.r.lrally Jffect their behavior'

ImPact: Increase obviousness

L: .:n iuipa.r strtdl actu,rlly impacting on behavior? Is a judgment stu'iy too s1ll)lle and

.t.r.. r"' l"Oit.. 'O"tticipants' attention? A second !'ossibility is that the presenl'ltion

__ '-_-i_''l'ri^n ^f the in'leDendent variable is lot obvious enough ln other words'or I.rrLrylrLd'ti'r "' "'' --'- --

the minds of the Participants' but it rvas neitherthe inclependcnt v.rr'iablc registered rn

,,rri."nl .* ot*"uul enough ro change their behavior' As pelceivers' People nte not

';;:;;;;;;o:; ,;

";"quat!lv' l't alo-ne acc'ratelv' detect covariation' or how one

.ll:rilbicclratlgesbehaviolinthePresenceofanother(e.g.,Iennings,Anrabile,&Ross'

rvtll. r't "y

dio be.t *h"n the conrrections are clear and ideai' that is' otrvitltts'

Wh.rL c'rn be dorrc to cotrtbal rht f'oble'n of nonobviousne's? First' any uerbirl

directions involving the indepenclent variable shoulcl be revised with an eye to empha-

, ;;;;;;;:;'.; i"'*':,i: ::l'l'J,f ",,,",11i:'il:::ji"T,ilil$:*Tj: jt:Lrn(( or even tlvLce. Second, pirtlclPa

;.,;;;;;,t;, is certain that all puit' of th" Procedlrre are ulderstood .Third'

when

t1-re inclepcndent variable is presenteci as a prct'''rirl stimulus (e g '

r photo' a graph or

othet graPhic image), perhaps it needs to stlnd out fron1 the rest of the exPerimental

i""i.i, ib"ts,,j" !..Nitu"n, rgzt' Nisbett & Ross' 1980) Perhaps the imase can be

Or".t "ll.?."r""0 in some way that is colorful and attentiofl getting' but not garish'

Fourlh, consider lhe lesearch context: ls the setting spale or cluttered? Iflhete are too

;;;;i';."*';;'.':".lot:Il-:::l;,?ll,l?l,,ii""li;lil',iil':*',,",.,,i,'::jli;pendent vari.rbie to ctrPture Pattlcll

iri"i"'""a .""" so,rt"wh^t barren' then by detault the independent variable may be

lnore attentio1') getting.

In oLiut 'tl tt L)trttrerrce: [ndeiteutleut \,'ariahles 2A5

Reconsider thc hlPothesis

A linal possibilitv is one that reserlrchcrs do l)ot like to corsider: Perhapr; the h,vpothesis

is sinplylvrong. That is, people ma,v respond to the indePenLlent variable in a wav not

captured'by the h)?oth€sis. lf the hlpothesis is incorrect, the| there should be no

surprise regarding the participants' failure to dernonstrate the anticiPated reaction to

the independen t variabie-

How can a researcher determine if a favored hypothesis is in error ? Sometinreg Iperiod oftriai and error-running several particiPants through their ernpirical paces,

asking them about their exl-eriences, and then evaluatirrg tlle (non)ihPact of the

independent variable-is necessary. Once these steps are followed, a tesearcher should

carefully evaluate the behaviors assessed b1'the depcndent measrlre. How are tl,e pa1-

ticipants reacting to the independent variable? Are participants' behaviors sinilarwitlrin each level or condition of the indePendent variable? If so, do the participants'

reactions.eveal any interesting or unexpected hehavior Patterns? When patterns

emerge, the researcber may wart to "listen to the data" and reconsidel the nature and

accuracy of the hlpothesis.There is no shame associated with hlpothesis revision in the course ofresearch ln

fact, remaining open nrind€d to othcr possibilities is a hallmark ofhigit quality tesearch

in psychology. Pavlov's (l957) discover,v of classical oi insttumental conditioning, tor'

example, occurred rvhen he noticed drat dogs in his digestive studies nnticipated the

arrival offood rewards (they began to salivate) wilen they heald their teiders con)irrg

down the hall. Instead of igrroring this unexPected behavior, which was not at all rel

eva t to the work going ol1 in lris lab, Pavlov studied it. The Russiarl Physiologist'sstLldI of srrch b,rsic learning revolLltionized subsequent theories about hunlarr

learning.In a similar way, the social psychologist Shelly E. Taylor noticed and then lirlthel

expiored an initially puzzling finding. TayLor (1983, 1989) was interested in the onset

oldepression among women who are diagnosed with breast cancer. When recrurting

women to take part iD the study, shc struggled to find enough depressed cancet

patients. Most of the wonten she encountered were copiDg with their conditions by

engaging in a rather stlategic form oIsocial conlparison: l hey looked kr real or inlrg

ined women with cancer who were worse olf than themselves- Taylor found that these

"downward" social comparisons had uplifting psycirologicai qualities (e.g., "1 may

have had a maslectomy, but I'm not having as much difficrrlty adjusting as my frierrd

who had a double mastectomy"). Further, she concluded that instead oi being in ps"-

chological denial, the women in her sample were effectively combating tbeir disease

in a very positive, r'eality-based way.

The take-home message here is this one: Be open to unforeseen possibilities in the

course ofdoing soc ial psychoio gica L research Sociai psychology is a "hands on" science

The craft of experimentation is Lrest learned by doing it. Reading about research'

even in a book like this one, is no substitute- Much nemorable and illterFsting

i

I

Keep a Causal Focus

Wiihout a caLrse, there is no eftict. Social life is rife with inrerplays ofcause and effect;thoughts, fitelings, and actions have consequences for our-selves and the people aroundus. Many of these consequences carr be observed and even controlied so as to beunderstood. Independent variables are the one factor that is under complete controlof the social psychologist. lndependent variables are arguably the one experimentalfeature that has defined sociai psychology in the minds ofgenerations ofstudents andrn tire hearts of researchers. Sonle of the nlost nlemorabie research in psychology isfionl social psychology, and what ntakes the work memorable is the impact of inde-pendent variables on behavior. Keep a causal focus in mind as we turn t; the topic ofthe ncxt chapte[, the lneasLuelnent of behavior_

2A6 ltltrctiucitig Dtftbrence: lnijepetulentVariables

researah occurs wheri the tesearcher is attune to sercndipiry accirlental, unfbreseendiscoveries-in the dara

Exercisqs

Examine a recent i3sue of a social psychoiogy jo!rnal. How many studies were in)pactsludies? How many were judgment studies?Look through a recent i55ue ot a social psychology journal to create a tallv of hor^rindependent variables were presented to re5earch partcrpants (e.g, verbalti, writteninstructrons, behaviorally). What ls the most common mode of presentation? Whydo you think thrs is so?

Design a rnanipulation check for one of the studies cited in an afticle you found forexercise 2

Revierv lhe contents of Table 71: What other conceptual varjables trigger a senseof illusory control? How would you operatronaljze these variables?Use your answe(s) to exercise 4 to design an impact study and a judgment stldy.

'ti

I

il

I

Chapter B

Measuring What Happens:Dependent Variables

Consider the comrnon pen. Can the pen you w(ite with tell us anything abour yori or,vour social behavior? On the face ofit, this is an absurcl question. ihe peir itself doesr.ttell us anything, rather, it is the wielder of the pen, the writer, from'whom rr.e learnsomething (consider, for iDsrance, the adage that .,the

pen is mightier tllan the slvord,,).And what we learn is likeiy to be based on what tbe w-iter writ"es_right? We focus oni\hal people say in writiog to learn sonrething about them, their thoughts, feelings,and opinions. How coLrld a pen alone teil us anlthing about peopl"? SoJe .""der. *."probably.thinking, "Wcll, people who use fountain pens a.e kind of old lashioned.whiclr.ntight reveal their stotlginess', or,,l use wbatcver p"n l"pp"n, ,o U" l1.lngaround-who cares" or "Pens? Who uses pens ar.rr,rllore? I use my laptoo.,,What ifwriti g instruments can be rrore tha| just tools for recording oul. tho,rlhtsl Whntit-sometimes, anFvay--they servc ;rs objecrs revealing rhings ;bout u.- Llt nr" sl.ror"yorr rvhat I mcan.

individLrality and a sense of choice in dally life are importnnt parts of Iife in Westerncultule. If 1-orr are Amer ican or European, tllen you know what I fiean: you ts.qume ihr tyou hav'e a grelt deal ofpersonal li.eeciont ancl you express it by what you wear, eat, s.,y,and, naturall'', how you bchave. This pronounced sense of.,agency,,,or how we expressour sense of poweL or influence in the social wo11d, is not alwa"ys found in other cultllres

_::,.11,"*,1 contexrs (Mrrkus & Kitayama, 2004). yer even minor.choices can speak

volumes ebout who we rre. Soci.rl and cultural psychologist Hazel Markus and her col_leagues at stanford universiry a.sked American studentJand Indian stLrdents ro serc.tone pen from a collection of five pens-one pe' was bl,e and the other four r,/ere red.stopi which color ofpen would you choose, a red one or a brue one? Americao studentsroutinely chose the sir.rgular blue pen, while the Iudian stLldents always chose the commonred pen (Nicholson, 2006; see also Connor Snibbe & Markus, 2005; Kim & MarkLrs,1999; Stephens, Mar kus, & Torrnsend, 2007). Conclusion: lVe expres-s ourselves througirthe choiccs we nrake even when those choices are modest ones.

, We,rrc not d,,rrs u/l1h 1ir. pens vet: In a variation of this first strrdy, Marl<us and

lkr.c.{rea8res took rway the pen ai the mofienr sonle of the stude'ts mad€ thei'choice, saying "No, actuiilly you can,t hdve that pen. Here, take this oDe inr,"oa..,,tffstlldenls wer-e then told to tay out their new pen, either one ,,chosen,,

or one..given,,

208 rLler,(r{rirg \\'lirt HapPe s: Depenlent vatialtles

to rhem, and to rate it. what hapPened? The Americans liked lhe Pens they originally

iir"l"',it"r" ttt..'*" "giu""" "

tliff"t"nt pen devalued it Agarn'ourculturepromotes

;;;;; ";; .itoi.", ,.,.1 *" do nor like ro have cilher one thrcatcned what about

,'frli"i;". ti"J.u.,'fhey showe<l no preference tor either the P"rr they.freely chose

"rii. """ ,ft" ** tiven to thenr sometimes a pcrr is just a pen Does this resrrlr <rrr-

rtt."l" tii"."ta*ihc tnct that the c(rlture oflndia' as well as lastero cuLturcs gener-

l,rv. i. n.orc al'..rt Lor'rrLJIrily tlrarr irrdividuality"" #"rt-t*]" ,tt,inoi aone loitl' ttt" p'ns' Lci! foLds on Anreri(an <ulture exclu-

' \clv Lrow lulr.t moment Markus repeatetJ the pen exPerimenls in two subiu't'-rrcs oI

il.; ;;;,':;;; ;;,n'it'. mlaal' ci*s and others from workrng-class backgro'nds

,i,.,,f-,.r. ", "f.,

2007). working cl rsq parlicjpants routincly selected the maiority pen

ff";;,i.t..;;t p.,'f t"ft"'"nt" th"n either they or the experimenter made the

:i,;l;. ;;;;.;l;*, -bout t'he middLe-class folk? Thev liked the unique pen'.especiallv

*fl"crl1t"r".ftur" the pen themselves How do we explain these differences.in choice?

"";;.'*;;;;ilJo.gu". "tg""

th"t diff""nt grouPs conceive of personal agencv itr

a,fi.r"^, *"yr. rtalaali-.lust leople uie- themselves as individuals with the freedont

i"'il'".r" ""i rn"r*, rheit own iestinies ln conlrast' working-class people sirrrilar to

,fr" i.ir",l students fio the earlier studies' focus on community and t'inriiv issues'

ir^"att*..,, is .r less desirabie choice for woik'ing class people' lvhile their middle

:,-': .;:.:,;"';';.vi',i''t"'6tring rrr' olcourse re'rlitv.ir rnore rorrrl'ler thrn

lvi* .^" fr" ievealed by one's choice c'f p"'rs But Pen choice is not thc rssue-it is a

."."*t."t "iti.f", a measute ot'something else' here the vrlues associnted with

.rii.*l "ta ciass, perceived freeclom ald choice (see also Connol Snibbe & Markus'

2005; Kim & Droiet,2003)lvhAt call wc conclude about comnron pens? As we learncd here and in the lasl

,,.,", ,',.u r(Jl I rroL[hout this bool' socirl psychologists rre-oftcn ver-y creltive

"r.,, ', ."."" ,"

",,o,o.in'i-t "l-u" *'o'" exPloiting-the-(luft oIeveryday,lile NIel

-"t.-"tti,t f."y' S"aetilr-es the choices we make do speak louder than words because

lil.wrFflPllolrII)erceDtionswhenwearenotconscious]ymonitoringouractions.This:il:l.;.:. :;;,''i;li.,'i"J"L,r*, ,r'"

'alue of which is clependert on the impact of

;;.1:1.;.;;.;,;.;"ble. lvltrth of wh:rt we do-our behaviors and our self'reports-

.a. i" ,i""r,,t*a, thesc acts depend uPon what is happenrng to us' including how .l',e

"r.' ""i",i* "tta tf-lt"l""g ar a point in time Dependent vanables show us' wtut-hapP€ns

,"'unl_r'"U,,*",., tiild rr,.,dy 1.,1 ill*rratin; how one group (or morc) diflcrs fionr a

::ili:ilt;;;' -;;

'''*rr''"", like those red and blue pens' dependent variables

,i.... f".. ","

rnostly rrlent-rhe sociJl p(ychologisl must m'Ike a case- lor whv a giverr

nl(-,..r, t',uIi;ci.ntlJl lePrcsc'lt;rrg solrre meaningful PsyLholoFr(al slJte'

Behavioral DePendent Measures

A thoeidenr variable or meas[re is the variable that is 'or

under the control of a

:'i:;;". tio,l'"r, 'l'. v.Lluc oI the dependent varirble dePcr'ds uP'n the re]ctions-

Il

I

Itlt:asuring Whot Happens: Dependent Variables 709

thoughts, feelings, actions of the research participant to the independent variable

Where irdependent variables must have at least two levels or conditions' deperrdent

variables are the same, dtat is, constant, across the nuttber of conditiol-ls in a study''lhe value ofthe dependeni variablc as a nrcasure ofsorne outconre onll'changes based

upon thaint'luence of the independent variahle-

Behavioral dcpendent Ineasures are userl because they represent visible' external

indicators of peoplc's psychological states When llvo peoPle spend the tinle togetller

gazing into each others' eyes, smiling genuine (or Duchenne) smiles (e.g., Frank'

Ekman, & Friesen, I993), and remaining physically close (e.g,, Arkin c\ Burger' 1980)'

for exarnple, a social psychologist can reasonably assume that these observable behav-

iors indicate friendship or intelPersonal attraction. When individuals remain Physi-

cally distant, exchange few smiles, and make little or no eye contact, then their actionE

suggest they are stranliers dnd not attracted (at least l.Iot yet) to one another'-*here

social behavior is concelned, then, behavioral dependent measures invoh'e

tracking what people do when interacting with or pianning to interact with othel

people. Of course, behavioral dependent measures are also revealing of people's

tho,tghm and feeliigs when they act lr5 rf otirers-whether real or irnagioed-were

present as witnesses (1\llPort, t985) ldexlly, too' behavioral measL!res are concrete 2nd

codeable.Why do the latter two critcria matter? A sociaL psychologist will

'vant to be abie to

ernploy measures that are easy to use aod about which there can be little disagreenrent

regarding what behavior is revealed or what it means For exarnple, it's possible that

good friends who are shy ot socially withdrawn nright not sit neat one aoother' smile'

or look into each others' eyes for significant periods of tirne, yet most People who have

n relationship with one another would disPlay such behaviors No behaviotal measure

is ideal because we must inf'er and explaii a link betweerr it and some internal, lrypo-

thetical, psychological state. The hoPe is that nrost obserweLs-whether fellow social

psychologists, studellts of the discipline, or intelcsted renders-will agree th.rl some

concrete tehavior or set of actioos is reP.escntdtive of purported feelings' thoughts,

emotions, and so orr (ir.:st as pen choice can sometimes indicate the Presence or

abselce of social ageucy; see also chaPter 9).

Codeilbility matters in that a researcher wirrlts to be able to keep an accuratP r€'ord

of what each particiPant did in the course of an experiment' Participants' responses

are neasured and then coded (usually, but oot always, as numbcrs) in preparation ftrr

data analysis (see chapter I I ). There should be no doubl about what a partic4rant did

or did not do behaviotally. Whenever Lrehavioral measules llrc used, a Participant s

reactions to them should be both concrete and codcable

There is qne aclditional, compelling teason to choose behaviorai measures: They

are often less reactive than verbai nreasures- When conducting research, the mere act

of observing or asking about people's behavior cirtt clrangc that behavior indepeu-

dcntly ofany planned treatment ln exPerilrrental social Psychological reseirrch' redt-

ti.rity refe$ to the wav in which a partictllar dependent variatrle can interact with an

independent variable, rherebl creating a false etfect that world rot have occurred if

ll0 ,\fcnjurir.g l\11.1t HdPpe s: DtpenLle V(inbles

some diliereni dependent va|iablc uere uscd. The problem is tllat jf a researcherrelics on only one depeldcnt measure, there is oo way to krow whelher rt rs e

A classit example ofreactivity is the still contrcversial H4nllofl e effect (e.g., Ad.ai,193{; lones, 1991; Parsor)s, 1974; Sofirrner, L9o8). Th€ word "conttoversial" applies

here because somc scholars believe the purported efTect is real rvhereas others claimits scientific status is dubious at best. ln any case, in the latcr 1920s aDd early t9j0s,employees at lhe Hawhome plant of the \rvestern Eiectric Company were studiedwhiie they worked (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). Basically, researchers concludedthat the workers' behavior changed-for example) productivity increased-simplybecause they were aware they were participating in aI1 experiment. In other words,"being watched," and not any innovetive worker training programs, saused theirchanged perforn-rance. Labeling a 6ndilg a "Hawthorne eI1ict" highlights the possibil-ity that observed change oc€urred due to participa.t reactivity and not the irnpact ofan independent variable. Aithough reactivity is often a concern in field research wh€reexperimental controi is lifirited, it can also pose proLrlems for traditional experimentalresearch (Canpbell & Stanley, 1966).

Here is a hl?othetical example of rerctivity in a social psychology expetLrnenrilmagine yotr were stud)'ing faciors that prrrrlor activate certain rcpreseotatlons orassociations in mernory dealiI1g with the cievelopnrent of fi iendship betlveen strtngcrs.You asJr pairs of parlicipaflls to gel acqurintecl wilh onc anothcr for several trl,nLrtesby talkinq about where they are fronr, their college majors, hobbies, and fivorite tclcvi-sions shows. Yor.r asstune that this excha ge wiii trigger thoLLghts relflteci to irowcat'r'raraderie and closeless develop once we neet l'l€w people. After the inter.t!tion,each membeL of a l)air is given a questiornaire thnt asks vario s things about thcnxture olalose Lrul lrorrrome lic relationships. A controLgloup consists ofparti.lp.tnrpairs who neither meet nor interact wih one anolher; they €ompletc a 6lier task(writinB about their Iast vacation) before answering the questionnaire.

Anal),sis of the questionnaire reveals that individuals who interacred in pairs correctly idellti6ed and positively endorsed illterpe.sonal fldors thai predict t'riendship.By compa|ison, orenrbers ol the control group chose ti:lver of the correcl, predictivefirctors. Does this nlean that actual social interaction prinrcs people to 1c-rr-rk for andact on lriendship cuesl Not necessariiy. No behavrorai data, such as observations, we.ecollected during the peer pair interncrions. Perliaps no priming actually occurredthere; ratirer, once the experimental group members begarl to complete th€ question-naire they guessed thal the "getting acquainted'' manipulation was about friendshipfo.mation. I{elative to the control group, the experimcntal group responded by callingupon shared culturalstereotl?es regarding frierdship (e.g., "smiling promotes friend-ship"). lhey scored higher on the measure than the contlol group not because ofanypriming eflect per se bllt because most of thelrl correctiy guessed the experimeot'spurpose (i.e., " l'hey want to see iF I know how peopie le:rrn to like one another-thisshould be easy"). In sbort, the questionnaire led to reactive respol]ses that, while con-sistcnt with the hypothesis, were not due to any priniing effect.

I

I

i

J

I

i\_.i

Iiril

t?

il

rilI

IIri

itleasuittg t{htrt Haooen5: D.le1Ident 1'ar:e r.1,i.,. _lII

What, ilanything, can be done about the problerns posed by reactiviq"? Reactjvirybecomes less of a concern when a researcher relies on overt measuaes of behaviorseparate from or combined with verbal measures ofbehavior. The reason that overtmeasures are less reactive is that research participants are often unawarc thai..-hairbehaviol is being measured (the Hawthorne eftect studies being an exceptiont recirll,instead, the pen choice studies by Mrrkus and colleagues). ln the case ol foiendshlpdevelopment, [or- instance, a rcseatcl]er coold decide to look for priming eflects drrringthe actual paired interactions rather thall relying exclusive)y on an aher,the-fact self-report measute.

Measuring what people do

Hunran behar.ior is divelse. People do so many things that the issue is often not somuch what to nleasure but how to go about measuring it. To begin, social psycholo-gists usrrally decide whether the behavior is part ofthe person-a facial expression, lmovement of the body, something spoken, arld the lil<e-or something outside o. j,-rtnonetheless caused b1, the person. By outside the person, I mcan somethtrg t..irihappens becruse of what the individual does, such as an action the person performs.

Whcn I rvas an undergraduate student, for example, I once took part in a soclalpsychology experilitent where I got to choose a gift, a pxperback novel fiom a gronpof boolts. i\Iy choice ofone book r-ather than lnother is an exanrple ofsuch outsi(1ebchirvior' (of:ourse, a reseatcher might wnnt to know the reasons, mv thoucht.r rrifcelings, underlying my preference). Note thet whether the trehavior is pirrt ol rlrcperson or something outsicle the person) the behavjor is overt*that is, obvious,explicit, and complerely oLrt in the open.

The chiefad\.antagc ofmeasuring overt behaviol is th:rt witnesses relders, fellowresearchers, students of tlre discipline-are apt to agree that the measure is arr apprlr-priate one. To use a fanriliar exantple, tloes it nake more sense to ask people rvhctherthey rvould help someone who has had irn accident or io see what they do behaviorlllvwhen preseoted with an actr.ral, ifstaged, accident? I think you will agree that what weanticipate doing does not always mat.h whet we actu:rll1, do when faced with I chal,lengrng circumstance (cf- Darley & Latani, 1968). Orrr (overt) acrions truly spc^akiouder than our words.

In general, behlvioral measures shoLrld bc as specific as possible. Thus a nel:u:,:-ment of"how quickly a bystander walks over to help the fallen confederate' js l bertermeasure of helping than is the vague "helping behavior." This specific mcasure illLrs-trates an inlportant second quality: Measur.es of behavior need not be all,or-nothingi di.atori--they can be rnore sellsitive than that. Instead of tracking whether a

bystander offlrs to help (or not), this sanple-spccific measore tracks behavior on :l

time continuunt-how nruch tirne passes before aid is rendered. ll?rlafioir tirr?. is theaolount oftidle that passes between the preseDtation ofsome stinulus and a persorr

"measurable response to it. Shorter reactioD times associated n,jth offers of assisunLc(which coLrld be measured in seconds on a stopwatch) could indicate a srronger

2 i 2 r\ftaitr'rr,-{ \t }1 t1 t H r1P p en t : D ePentit rt L \t eu i a bles

disDosrtion lo hclp. Longer reaclion limes might suggest confusion or a iack ofaware-

."rl "iin. ."J ,i n"lp,"as wnuL'l n" offer ofai<] at all (in advaoce' a reseatcher wouid

a".ia. ". ". "*ta ,i,te" fol the helping opportunity s'ry' 5 nrin(rtes) [he.rdvantage

of measuring reaction tine-also called rcspunsc lat'ttcy-is it\.quartrtatlve.nature'

i""tt,",J."a**a"nt .t,.u.,,,", to" b" ""alyzed

r'rsing statistical techniqtes in order

i-J.n o.,rur"'u.,r"een,group differences (see chapter 1l). Easily interpreted tables

*"nJig,,r"l; ,t-r-ulttg' tbr e'xampie, me"ns (averages) tor each level of the indepenclent

variabie can also be created (sec chapter 12)'

Resiclesreactiontime'whatotherqrrantifiableclirrrcnsionsofbehavioraldependcrrtrneasures are there? Here are several to consider:

F|erlrurcy. How oftcr] does somethinS-a behavior' thought' or feeling-occur? In

ii]" rrr", oru,"ri., ofclever studies on selt_reported thought sLrppr ession, wegner

""Jl"ff."g*, seated indiviciual studerrts at a table with a microphone and the

."u "ifr.Liy."

*,".iate rvith a hotel's ftont desk (Wegner' Schneider' carter' &

whit., tqgi; ,"" olro Wegner, 1994) For five minutes' the student said whalever

carr,e lo nlind into the microphone For the subsequent 6ve rninutes' the student

,""t i"fa t" continue thinking alor.:d while 'or

thinking of a white bear' Evety

timchedidtlrin]<ofsuchabear,lrewasifpposedtorinSthebell(mostpartici-p^ni. ,"rtg ,lt" baf t* dmes and talked about the bear out loud' as well) Using

iirtrpl" fr"!u",t.y,t,"asures, wegner discovered a rather iroDic ef ct associated

*ith tl',oujh, sr'lppression: Not only is it difficult to supprc\r a thought' when

; r,, no 'r-i,,t" rrir,ught ,r' tu'rlly becomes more frequent I wcener' lo94)'

iLlrarion. ilehavior is iarely all ol nothing How long does some behavior occur?'"wi"Ir

pr.,i.ipont, are emotionally aroused and delivering (false).electric shocks

Lo r confeder.,te .ts Part of an cxPerimcnl (e g Milgranr' l96J' 197't;.Prenti'e-

o*. * n"g".r, tgso; zimba'do, 1969), for how long d'r they Press the button

,tr"i ,,tpporJaty aaiuers the shock? The drration of this behavior is another way

,o -1,"iu',on.l,r" the relalive \trelrBlh ol rn aggrcssive rerponse'

er"r;irt), u tlistance- How close physrcally does one person get to another (e g-''

H"it, iSeg)t Holv .lose do we allow others to get to usi To measure ioterpersonal

.".f",,, "" .*p*it"entel could count th€ number of floor tiles lying between a

pori,aipnnr and a confederate Few€r tiles would serve as a ploxy measrtre for

qrcatcr icvelr ol cornfort or soci'tl c'rse'

^,'lrlr,t ,1.* *,.L olsomething will people spend or wager? Simple games ol

- - .i"nl"

"t-" popot^. *uyt of

""t"ing p"oPle's willingness to t'rke risks' a nd tokens

sLLch as poker chips, piny ton"y' uni otiu'ionally rcai money or other materials

(e.g., gift.e*ifi."tes, toupons) are used in exPetiments ln an e{periment involv-

infiiti,rury .o"*or lrecali chapter 7)' Dunn and Wilson ( 1990) obsewec{ peoplet

;i;;,g".r. to risk more poker chips with the roll of a.f'rir die whcn, the stakes

*"." I-oru thart .he., they where hiih' The number of chips rctained by the end

oi,t . "*p".lrn"n,

.oulcl be "casheJin" for a modest rewald' while a chip deficit

mear,r a participant had to perlbrnr some onerous tasks'

r"i

,Ililri;

tl#.ti

,{

I,teasur ry l{hat Happens: I)epentlett Variables 113

Specrl. How quickly will parti.ipants try to escape ftom a perceived threat? In a

series of 6eld experintents, Ellsrvorth, Carlsmith, and Ilenson ( 1972) found that

staring at drivers motivated them to stop for brieter periods irt a stoP $igi than

drivers who made no eye coDtact \aith an exPerimenter-

INo doubt yon can think of other dinrensions where behavioral dependent measures

cao be quantificd so that statistical analysis and group differences (xttributable to the

effects of an indePendent variable) can be demonstrated.

Ofcourse, using a quantinable dePelrdent measllre is not alwa)'s necessarT. Orr occa-

sion, observing participants' choices can bc quite revealing. Cousider this elegant study

dealing with past guilt and a desire to currently feel clean. Zhong and Liljenquist (2006;

see also Carey, 2006) wondered whetherpeople will get an urge to clean themselves whe:r

prompted to remember a questionabie deed conllnitted in the past. 1n one exPeriment'

undergraduate students were asked to recall doing something unethical (e g., betrafng

a fiiend) or something ethicallyworthy (e 8., retuming a lost wallet to a stranger). Alier

doing some refiection, the students were told to choose one of trvo hee gifts' either an

antiseptic hand-wiPe or a pencil. Those students who focused on past dishonorable deeds

were rwo times more likely to choose the wipe than the pencil cotnpared to those who

had recalled an ethical action- Note lhat sone modest quantification is still involved here

(i.e., counting the nunrber of people per condition who chose which q?e of gift) but

that the dependent variable does not vary on a coDtiDutlm

All of the examples cited so far place the beh;rviorai dependent variabie closc in

tiore to the presentation of the independent variabie. Generally speaking, this sort of

ternporal contiSuity between the tr^/o t)?es of variables is necessarv in order to dern

onstrlrte predicted effects. Nonetheless, some social psychologists have executed studies

where the presentation of the independent variable occurs quite a long time before

any dependent variable is actually measured.

A study by Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, and lvlilster (2006) illustrates this time Lag rrsing

an intriguing example. Following stereotype threat theor y (recall the study by Spencer,

Steele, & Quinn, 1999, discussed in chapters 4 and I I ), these researchers tested whether

a l5-minute in-class lvriting assilinm€nt on "self-integrity" could inprove the grades

of a group of Aftican American seventh graders. Studellts in the experinlental group

read n list of values, selected one, and wrote about why they chose it' Those in the

control group saw the same list, chose the least imPorlant virlLle, and then wrote about

why this value might be imPortant to someone else. This maniprrlatiotl occurred 'tthe beginnjng of the fall semester and the depentlent variable-the students' grnde

point averages (GPAs)-was not measrrred uDtil the end of the year ' Atiican Anrelican

students who wrote about their own inlPortant values ended up with GPAs approxi-

mately one-third of a point higher than African Arnericans in the control group (the

GPAS of white students ir lhe lreatment gtoLrp did not differ from rvl-rite students in

the corltrol condition). Cohen and colleagues were so surprlsed by this close in the

achievenent gap between races that they rvaited to publish the findings urtil they

successfully replicated the experiment a year latcr.

2I1 Nleiti /itlg )\/|nt IlLtppens: Depetrdent Varrnbls

Aside tronl rhc rleed for resources to conr]uct sLtch s[Lrdies, permission to work iDl sclrool settirrg, and the need tbr an expansive tirne frame, are there any drarvbacks

to such behirvioral dependert variabiesi Actually, yes. A1fior.rgh the results obtainedb1'Cohen et al. (2006) are both provocative and plomising, more research Deeds tobe conducted before the link between the treatment variable and the dependelrt van-able are presumed to be solid and causal. llultiple factors, and the need to account oreven control for them, conre into play when the time lag between these variables is

sucLr a Iong one (see tire discussion of threats to internal validity in chapter 9). On theplus side, other social psychological interventions involving people's self-perceptionsand subsequent efl€cts on academic performance exist (see Wilsol,2006), As a buddingsocial researcher, however, you should be encouraged by such work to sometimes txkethe long vielv wheie rr,teasrrring dependent variables is concer'ned.

Measriling intenlions and future comrnltments

Whether in the lab or the lleld, not all sociai behaviors of interest can be exanined as

they occur. Much of social life involves anticipating the future, our hopes and fears,

our rolc there, and t{hal we expect to do. Given pcople's abilities to look ahead, thereare ro doubt mnny behaviors worlh study t)fit have not yet occurred or will nothappen fo| some time. Unril they actuaily occur (and ifthey occur), we cannot studyfutur'e behaviors djrectly; holvevcr, \\'e can nreasure people's iDtentions. For exanrple,politrc,ll pollsters continLrnlly intervicw eligiblc votcrs in the weeks and montirs ieadlngup to an election in ordcr to get a se se ofwhich candiclate is favored by the electorate.People's actLral votes may change by Election Day, oI course, but docunlentii)g suchintentions across time rcvcals r'rlrrch about horv opinion carr be influenced by canrpaignads, currcnt events, rnd scanddls, to identifr a few crus.rl factors. [n our own dlilyii\,es, most of us routinrly rnake public comrrritrnents to perform certain deman(lingtasks (e.g., "WeLl, I plan to hnally clean out the garage this weeicend," "l anr absolutelygoing io begin writing my paper long befirre it's due"). Sonretimes we follow throtrghand carry out the intentior), other times we fail to do so- The point is that, psychologi-callyspeaking, at onepoint in time we rvere sincere in our beliefregardingthe intendedbehavior. Such declzrrations are lvorthy of sludy.

Measures of intention or future commitnrent are comn,totrly labeled behavioroicl,redv/res (e.9., Aronsorl, Ellslvorth, Carlsmith, & Gonzales, 1990j AronsoD, Wiison, &Brewer, )998). A classic study ol'compliance conducted by Cialdini and coileagues(i975, study t) illustratcs how straightlorward rnd useful behavioroid measures canbe. -fhese

researchers were exploring the door-in-the-t'ace technique, a method forinducing compiiance whereby a refusal to perform a large request increases the chaocethat a later, smaller request will be granted.

Experimenters approached college students between classes and asked whether theywould be willing to escort a group ofjuveni)e delinquents ol1 a two hour tour of a

zoo. When rhis was the onll tequest lllade of them, vety few students (about 1696)ag.eed to serve as escorts. llefore being askecl to go on the zoo trip, othc! studeutslvere asked \^,llether they would be wiLling to act as coLtnselors to some juvenile delin

Measwing What Liappe s: Depe dent \ldriaLits 2ta

quents t'br a tlvo-tear period. Not surprisir.rgly, no one agreed to this latge recucstrhorvever,50olo ofthis second group s ubsequen dy agreed to talce some ju,reniles on it-,e

two-hour zoo trip. Refusing to agree to perform a large request ensures that manypeopie will leel obligated to contpiy ivith a smaller reqlrest (for a discussion of othelrelatedFocial intluence techDiques, see Cialdini, 2000).

The behavioroid measure was simple, powerful, and easily understood ty the stu-dents: Will you or won't you be willing to performins a denanding task ir, rh€ Frru.e?Note rhat agreeing to go on a two-hour zoo trip is still quite a commitment, especialivwhen the request is sudden, unexpected, and unplirnned. This comnitntent pal-.s irrcomparison to the two-year volunteer stint, however. As a behavioroid measure, peo-ple's willingness to volunteer was sincere (or, ifthey deciiued to help, we can asrumethat they still took d1e requests-large or small-quite ser iously).

On occasion, similar compelling or convincing behavioroid measures eliminar,e theneed fb. actual behavioral measures. Think back to the guilt and cleanliness stud,vpresented earlier (Caren 2006; Zhong & Liljenquisr, 2006). In a related study, the sameresearchers founrl that people who were encouraged to thini( about their o$'n pasttransgressions against others were tnore likell, than a conttol group to volurteel rohelp others \rith a sclrooi project. There was one ioteresting qualiffing factor, however:Ifthe participrnts were given the opportu ity to rvash their hands after their periodof reflection, the Iikelihood that they would subsequent\' commit to helping out $ iththe project fell by almost half. Sometimes, then, having participanrs commit ro performing some Lrehavior is as porverful as actually having th€m do the behavio.. Whenconducting an experiment, behavioroid measures possess a practical side that shouldnot be overlc'oked.

Behavioral measures in disguise: Unobtrusive measures

Unobtrusive t easLUes are an alternative to behavioral or behavioroid measLrres thatavoid triggering aDy reactivity; incleed, participanrs are conlpletely un$vare rhat rheirbehavior is being observed, let alone measured. Such measures c.,ln be concexled,hidden, or nonobvious in a research siruation. Social psychology lirboratories, l'hichusually comprise suites of roo ms, typically have one-way rnirror.s. I hese mirro rs allowresearchers or research assistants to observe participants'behavior during the courseofan experilnent. Ofteo, for example, one-w{y minors enlble trained coders io lookfor and maintajn records ofbehaviors in keeping with the lavored hypothesis. Wilson,Dunn, BII)ee, Hyman, & I(otondo (l9tl4, study 1), for exarnple, relied on onc,waytDirrors to observe and record for how long participalts played wirh some pLlzTles inan attitude behavior consistency experiment. Ilr:L cornpanion study (study 2), rvatching fron behind a one-way rtirror, th€se researchers co,led the emotional content ofparticipirnts' iacial expressions as they watched I series of scenic slides.

Besidcs one-way mirrors, hidden cameras and tape recorders are soruetjmes usedto record behaviols occurring when neither an experimenter nor a confederdte i5

present during an experiment. 'lhese sorts ofconcealed methods do pose ethical con-cerns, as the researchers are, in effect, "spfng" on the participants, albeit for a gooci

ritilili;lii.ri,i.:l

lil'*i'

$

216 lvleast'n ag Whtii H.PPI s: Depentlent Vartal es

reason (see chapter 3). Minimally, the use of such methods must be justilied to and

."1-""a frt,L" ft*l IRB, aud researchers must p(ove there is no reasonable alterna

,ili "po-" t,flr, a"e' not relv on any masked tools At the endof every experiment

..rlt"'"i,f-t" n.,..t.+"nts must be told about aly nonobvious measures or methods

during a carefui, systematic debriefrng (see chapter l0)'--e".1a",

-"u.or:ttg whal people do, another possibility is to examint what they leave

behind or the.llonjes rh.y iniroduce into situations. very otten, physical remnants

."n'U" "'

*t""ftttg".ource of knowledge about sociai behavior (Webb' CamPbell

schwartz, & Sechrest, 1999) Researchers have bcen chiefly interested tn e\amlnrng

two c.rtegolies ofphysical remnatts, accretion measules and erosion measures'

ii;-;f,;g, p".'pl" 1."u" behind constitute accretion nlelsures (webb et al'' 1999)'

Thinkaboutit:Whatcouldsonreottelearnaboutyoubyexaminingyour'mateliai

"."i". a".tt ls the conteltts of your backpack or the objects in the room.where you

ii.oi'lV*i *""fa yo.,r '""kly trash reveal about your eating or recycling habits?

-oJria"r ynu, own personal security: Do you routinely lock the door to your room'

;;";;'..",.; o. hom"? Does vour "Locking" behavior reveal anl'thing about your sense

"!t.l"rUt.",lpersonalsaiery?Sechrest(1971)'forexample'speculatedthatwomen*"r" ft"U"Ufy *o." "onr.iou.

of persoral security than men To vetily this htrnch'

ttr" ,*r"nratt". determined the reiative numbei'of locked cars parked next to men's

and rvomen's dornrirories. Some examples oIaccretion measutes are noted in the top

palt ofTablc 3.l No doubt you can think of some others'

Sample physical traces

Contents ol trash or recycling

Contents oftrash or recyclinB, l-ength of

cigarette butts

Cigarette butts on the gro nd

Contents oI trash or recycling

Station settings on car rtdioGrat'fiti in restrooms

Crnffiti on desks

Buflper stickers on c.rr, stgns Posled on home or

in yard, grafliti in Public Places

Fingcr and nose-Prints on display cases

Trash and refuse leFt on ground

Sample Physical traces

Wear and terr of s.at and qhoLrlder bclts in .irr'

Wear and iear of covers and Pages

Damxge to student desks and chairs

Wear and tear ofcarPet, tile lloor

iv[casuriry\{hat Hap1en5: D€p€ ie]it Variubles 71,"

fro,rior ed-(rrres constitute the second category of unobtrusive nlethods for assess

ing hehavior. By erosion, Webb and colleagues ( 1999) mean how peopie's contact withthings aud places causes actual, visible, physical wear and tear' On my campus, forexiunple, a s€t ofpavcd pathways was laid out in one ofthe quadrangles behind a main

acadenlc building. The goal was to encorrrage students to use the paths so as to Pte-serve the green space and some plantings on it. What happenedl Despire the presence

of the new paths (which were iargely ignored), students continued to take the shorlest

route across the quad, thereb), cutting a clear dirt trail in the lalvn gventually, the

grorrndskeepers bowed to the inevitabie and installed a per manent, paved path in place

of rhe worn shortcut. ln this case, wear and tear lvas quite revealing: The students

made their walking preferences known behaviorallv

Erosion measures are often apParent in public settings, especially museums The

ncxt time you visit a gallery, look to see how many exhibit cases have finEier and nose

p.ints on them. Note also thxt when such grime appears at or belorv your t'aist level,

it may indicate that the contents of a case are especially popr.rlar among vounger chil-

dren. Similally, popular exhibits in art mLNeuols often lead curators to repaint walls

(too many handprints) and repiace floor tiles (too much fbot traf6c) The leed fbr

such repairs suggests that latge numbers of people are passing through to lool' 'i rhP

art. Imagine, then, what a continually spaikiing clean ga1lery suggests about the popu-

larity of its contellts. 'fhe botlom Ptrt of'Iable 8.1 contains sonle examples ofother'

unobtl usive erosion nleasures.

ACTIVE LEARNINC EXERCISE BA

Creatint Creative Dependent Measures

As already noted, oved behavior is all around you As a student of social psychol-

ogy, your goal is to de'/elop creative ways to measure people's aclions The goal

of this exercise is to help you develop behavioral dependent measures based oryour own everyday experiences.

Overt behavioral measures. Athletic events are popular on most college or uni-

versity campuses Both athletes and sPectators exhibit a variety of behaviors-

actions on the sidelines, cheering or jeerjng, wearing team insignias-that reveal

their involvemenl in the event or loyalty to the team Co to a game, waich the

team and the fans, and create a list of behaviors that are specific and codeable

Are the behavioral mea5ures you identify quantifiable? Are your chosen measures

good operationalizations of the prevailjng school or team spirit? Why or why

I

I

I

Table 3.1 Sontc Unobtrusive Dependeni Vari'rbles: PhysicalTrace Measutes

,{csretio varixbles

Spending habits

Afnuc ce or hrgalitY

Places whcre s rokcrs Sather

DietListerring habils

S€xurl or sociat rttitudes

Boredom in the classroom

Polirical PhiLosoPhl

Popular iry oi arr exhibjt or disPla/

Use of public Parks

ErosioD variables

Sateu hdbits

Popuiarity of books or magazine

Bof€doi in '.hc classroonr

Popolarity of ex]]ibits

Use ofpublic parks

Preferred PathwnYs

Wear ofbenches, picn;c tables, fences, gates

Brolvn spaces or paths cui in lai{ns

2l8,Vleasrrri/jg \{ltat H,tppens: Deptrtdent \rarittbles

Behaviotoid measures. Under what conditions are the people you know likeJy toexpress their intentions for the future? Be on the lookout for potentjal behavioroidmeasLrres in your daily life. Here is one common example I am sure you have wit-nessed: Once the calendar turns io the new year, many of Lls embark on nelv dielsor exercise regtmens (or plan to do so). Such commjtments are often touted duflngthe busy and food-filled holiday season leading up to the new year. What sort ofbehavloroid measure(s) can you create to capture people 5 new year,5 resoJutions?lf this context seems to be too nafiow, then identify some behavroroid measureslinked with people's desires to reduce bad habits while instilljng new, presumablybetter (e.g., healthier) ones.

Unabttusive measurcs- Aa and explore 5ome familia. place on your campus orin an offrce setting, for example, where many people come and go each day (e.g.,the library, the student union, the gym). What physical trace measures-erosionor accretjon-can you identify there? What traces reveal whether people use aspace or srmply pass through it? What physjcal indicators suggest people's ptelet_ences (e.9, waste, foodstu#s, seating)? Do people seek to connect with others rn

the space or do they want privacy? How do you know?

Yaut own research proiect. lf you are making sufflcient progress on your socialpsychological research proje.t, then you will need to develop an appropriatedependent variable for it. Will you rely on a measure of overt behavior, a behavioroid measure, oa an unobtruslve meas!tre? How will this dependent variable belinked to your independent variable?

It'leasuring \\Ilur Happe115: DePelklent Varhbies iI9

thoughts or fee)ings, especially those djrecied at other People. I an, thinking, forexanple, of situatiorls involving prejudice or discriminatioo towards AfricanAmericans.

NjanyWhite AmericaDs now hold rather egalitarian values when it aones to !n:rltrrsofrace, re;oundingly rejecting prejudice, racism, and discriminatory actions. Yet whiie

man,v Whites disavow racist beliefs (e.g,, there ate genetic diffelences among fhe races

where ioteiligence is concer-ned), they nonetheless harbor more subde prejudicial

thoughts (e.g., Blacks are less selt--reliaDt thafl Whites, Blacks bene6t too much fronlafRrmative action; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; N{ccoDahay & Hough, 1976; see 'iiscSidanius & Pratto, 1999). Overt behaviors will not reveal lingering prejudice, especirlly

among individuals who work with and live among and socialize with members ofminority groups. Onlyprivate, sonretimes anonymous, verbal nreasutes can docutrentsuch prejudicial thoughts (as can some nonverbal, physiological, and ir-nplicit ore.t

sures, which are discussed later in this chapter).What about precision, the secoid reason f<rr using verbal dependent measuresl In

man; situations, a given social behavior is obvious, yet its very obviousness prevents

a reselrcher tlom discerniDg fine shades of meal l18 or getting at bow people actuallv

feel and sometines act despite the irnagc they project. Consider how we act in ourpublic lives versus our truly private lives, especiaily when our lilestyle affects our social

stancling with some groups. Use ofa verbal dependent measure in addition to r behav'

ioral measurc can be quite enlightening about the soci31 psychologv of real 1ife.

Here's an intriguing case. People who live in "special interest houses" on r college

cnmpus presunrably take the interest qlritc seriously. Kitts (2003) studjed stlrdenls who

elected to live in vegetariao hous€s where there wer-e strict prohibitions agaillst eating

meat and lisb (perhaps yoru school bas one). Yet Kitts found that some residents were

n1ore observant ofthe rules than othcrs, arld that most ofthem admitted to breachingl

their vegetariin regime (tlpically by eating fish) in Lrrivate on occasion. They did str

in secret because they wanted to protect their fellow vegetarians' sensibilities ("1 never

want to gross them out that I eat neat") and their own welfare ("1 doi't want my

housemates to guilt rne out"). In this exnrrple, private verbal reports revealed a great

de.ll nore than public behavior, thereby allowing Kitts to provicle a more per'.ePtive

account of stadents' choices, lifesryle, and actual eating habits.

Varieties of verbal measures revisited

As we lcarneci iD chapter 6, there ale a host ofdilfcrent tpes ofways to ask and receive

answers to eitirer close-ended or open-ended questiotls. I ant Dot going to revisir all

of the suggestions preseDled in chapter 6, bnt I do recomnrend that voo review that

chapter's coDtints before makiug any firal decisions abotlt what sort ofverbel dcper

deDt measuies you will use in your research project. What I am lioiog to do hefc it :.remind you oi the v:rriety of differelt solts of verbal measures lou can use ii socia]

psychological research. I am also going to offer sone suggestions about constrLrctilrtverbal dependcnt measures that were not otfered earlier in the book.

Verbal Measures

Despite the fact that we have already discussed the use of verbal nteasLires in greitdetail in chapter 6 when we learned about suweys and questionnaires, we need to noteagaio their importance to social psychological research (but see Baumeister, Vohs, &Funder, 2007). Why are verbal dependent rneasures so important? If we nre interestedilt studfng the origins ancl purpose ofsocial behavior, then shouldn,t our fbcus be onwhat people do, their actions ratlrer than their opinions or comments in passingi

Sociai psychologists reiy on verbal dependent measures for tlvo main reasons: con-venieDce and precision. As already acknowiedged, verbal n.ieasuaes are easy. Suchnreasllres are easy to constrlLct, easy to administer, and easy for research partjLlpdtrtsto understand and to respond to_ There is another side to such convenience: Sornesocial behavior-s are difficult to study because people are overly conscious of fhejractions. 'fhat is, under certain conrlition, or in crrt,tiu srtudtions, people carefirllymonitor or control theit behaviot so that it does not accurately reflect sither their

I

'i

,i

'1

).20 Nl€nsuriflg \\4ldt HaPPe s: Dependeflt Vatiables

Table 3.2 Some Open-Ended and Ciose-Ended Verbal

DePendent variables

Open-endedPaper and pencil me$ures (e g , questionnaiLes)

Sttrveys

Free recall mcasures

Serial tecall rneasures

Cued recall measures

Narrative methods

Close-endedPaper anrl pencil nT ersures (e g , quesliorlnaires)

Personaiitv inventories

Ratin€iscales

SufleysR€cognition mensures

Measuring \\hat Hap pefts: Def,endent V ariables 221

Presenting participants with specific responses ensures thal all the lesponses are

based on the same shared metric rather tllan People's idios/ncratic sense of measure

ment (and the si,'( responses shown above car easily be coded by a researcher as ratings

of"I" to "6" for analysis). For exa!nftle, when you use descriPtiofls sLlch as "a couple"

or "a ferv," do you rnean "two" and "three," respectively? Many but by no means all

peopie ascribe these partict ar numbers to those Particular words. Thus' lvhenever

possible, either provide expiicit numbers for peoPle to resPond to or defrne your ternts

clearly fbr then.

Keep tlte cofltent ofyour questions relevotrt to )tour Pdrticipanfs. The content ofyour

questions should be both grouP and age approPriate Thus, ifyou are intetested in the

experience and pressures involved in joining an on_camP{s groLlp' such as pledgirrg a

fiaternity ol a sororitv, you must be su.e your research Palticipants either went

through "rush" (a period rvhere unafnliated students exPlore life in a fraternity or

sorority) or joined one of these organizations. Having "independent" students take

part in the reseatch is not going to inform yoLr about the process of becollring a

nlenlbpr of one ol these social organizatiorrs.

Similarly, be sr.tte to screen your participalrt sample with an eye to the relevance of

your questions for thenr. Questions about gender. religion, race' culture' social cLass'

for example, can be interestilrg aod quite inlpoltant when it comes to portlaying social

life. You nrust. however, ensure that such questions are relevant to all the members of

your sampie.'Io ensure acquiring the sarrrPle )ou want arld need for your research, be sure lo

list any particip:rnt qualiiicatjons on $'hatev€r sign- p lnethod you are usitrg to r€cturt

participants (see chapler l0) There is nothing wrong witir positing such qualifirntions

("This study is about worrlen's vietls of feminisrn' thr'rs we are only inte'€sted iD havtng

wornen studerlts si€in uP to Participate") as long as,votl do so in an open and hnnest

manner. Always ask yourselfthis question: Is there anlthing about the listecl quali6ca

tions that could offend anyone? If so, then briefly and honestly explain why you are

linriting yonr reseatch project to cer-tai11 people or groups'

Be aware of the distittctiotl betweefi recogttitiotr a ?L recall nlelttres On occastotl' a

sociai psychologist will want to assess PeoPLe's memories tbr some event or for some-

thing about the self or sonle olher Person. A thoror.rgh review of social psychoiogical

issues pertaining to mernory and lelated mental lePresentations are beyond the scope

of this chapter and book (llut see, e.g ' Moskowirz' 2005; Smith' 1998) Measrrres of

recognitiol or recali are sornetines Llsed ill studies of imPression formation A rcr:all

task;sks a participant to produce some itenl fiool memory, such as a fact, a word' a

description, or an imp ress ion There are three basic so rts o f recail tasks A f ee rcr:a l/ rask

requires participants to repeat learned itens in any o|der they can recall ln contrast,

serial-.scall tasks anticipate that Participants will repeat items iD the exact ordet in which

they were originally heard or read to thetn Finaily, ared rzrall tasks call for particip rnts

to rnemorize a list ofpaired items (e g.' "kiendly - Latino") Whcn given one item lrolr

the pair later, participants are exPected to recall the item's mate correctly'

Txble 3.2 lists a variety of verbal dependenr variables you drould co sider' Natu-

' 'll rhi t lr\t i\ nol art crh'rustrve one Aq alr^ay* votrr go'rl qhould be lo qele(t a vPrbil

;;,"i;;;." ,;",-,;;.;trc:rllv arrd Practically supPoris whatever behavioral. dependcnt

,,'r""r"r. ,'".'. a".ra" ,o use. F"w itu<lies in social psychology rely exclusively on verbal

,,r"n.u.". u. tal-tuuiurai measttres Some colnbination ofthe two is tlpical' Note thal

"o"." i, p.ouia"a in Table 8.2 for you to jot down other verbal dePendent ineasures

it., ".rLrtt "trot, tn the sociil psychological literatuie or that you discover on your

_- fal. ,ur,t ,o some fionl suggeslions for constructing verbal dependent measures

Wlrett dskrng t'or ntmterical responses, be specifc aul:cucr c Res€aI ch ,PirticiPants

ur.'on."1 a.f,"d ,o "r,imate

how often they do or think about something ("Abotlt how

"far a" y",,

"if '*llite lies'in order not to hurt soDeone s feelirlgs?") Altho'lgh this

ott,orine inuit"" un open-ended lespoDse' a researcher would be better servcd to offer

.- ,1i,r,,,1' .'no l.m,tcd:et of responses' su'h rs:

NeveiOnce a week

A few tincs a week

Sevetal tinres a week

Once a clay

t"rlorc Lhan once a day

I

I

rl

I

i

I

I

I

u3?l

itl1

,,i

,j

Ii

l

i,l

J$l

t

i

,1

l

{il

122 Meastu itlg \\:hat I Iappens: Depuiett Varicble:

Usrrig a recall tasli, tor €xample, a researcher could pres€Dt people with a wlitlendescription ol some target person. Larer, after completing somc unrelated task, par-ticipanh are asked to write dor.wr all the information they can remember-that is,recall-about the target. The researcher can examine recalled information to learnwhat is remenbered accurately (perhaps salient characteristics, such as mce, gender,aud so on), the [umbcr of facts reca]led, and the order i| which the information is

remembeted- Oiten itens learned iast are recailed 6rst, the so called recency efitct.Similarly, primacy effects are also often observed, where items learned early on arerecalled better (perhaps due to rehearsal) than infornation appearing later. Ofparticular interesi to some social psychologists would be facts that participdnts"recall" that wele not part of the written description; social perceivers often fill illthe blani(s, judging what additional qualitics about a person should or could bepresent

\\4rer1 participant perf<)rm a rccagtifit l task, they are asked to select or identilrpreviously learned material from sol1le ar ray of other r.elated rnformation. Multiplechoice and true-false tests are basic exanrples of recognition memory tasks. A sociaipsychologist nligilt lvant to measLlre how weil irarticipants learned whatever detailedinformntion tvas presented during the instruction phase oIan experiment. A recognition measure could be Lrsed as a manipulation'€heck at that point before proceedingto the next phase of thc expedmeDt. For rnore detailed informirtjon on men]ory pro,cesses ir psvehological rescarch generolly, see Tulving and Crnik (2000).

Sone additional verbal rlependent tneasules

Ittteruiev,s. Another wav to learn how people thini(, feel, and act is to intervie1v them.Interviews can be conducted il1 a face-to face rnanner or over the telephone, and theyare often used in place of surveys or questionnaires because a researcher wants anopportunity to delve deepeI into peoplc's opinions about, or reaction to, some ropic.An inteNiewer, tlsuall)_ the experimenter, asks a particjpant a series ol questions in arelatively set order. The individual fbcus inhe.ent in an i|rterwiew allorvs the inrer-viewer to depart from the Iist ofset queslions as warranted by the interviewee's comfirents. Stiuctured interviews tend to rely on close-ended questions,,lvhereas morefieewheeling interviews use open-ended questions.

CondLrctirlg an interview sounds easy enoLrgh, but doing so well entails a couple ofchallcnges. Tire prinarT challenge to an interviewer is to remain open and unbiasedwhen listening to and keeping track ofparticipant responses. No matter how unusudlthe lcsponse, a good intervieryer sboLrld remain unflappable. A second challengeinvolves horv to adeqrately and lhoroughly keep a record of participant r€spor5c5.Some intcrviewers rely on a chec[ list composed ofclose ended qu€stions while othersgive dre ilterwiewee lree rein to disclosc whatever comes to mind, Eitlr€r the inter-viewer rnust be able to write verbatim staterDe|ls quickly and accurately or somerecording device (e.g., a tape recorder.) must be used. Asking a participant to pause inlnid-thoLrght while the irtcrviewel llnishes iotting down some comment can be dis-

Nleasuing Wlnt L[aoperLs: Depen,.leni VarittL,ics 2i]

ruptive to the itt€ryielv alld to thc research process. C)nce a transcr+)tion oi the iirter'view is cornplete, some intervielvers invite intervicwees to leview the documents foraccurary; such verification is fine for journalism but can introduce a bias into socjalps,vchological research.

'I'hege are decided strengths to inteF/iewing as a research techniqu€. The exchrnsebetween interviewer and interviewee can be a greal soulce of ideas for future expcri-menial i,r'ork. OLrtside of a debrieling (see chapter l0), researchers rarely have theopportunit,v to learn from pafticipants in a back-and-forth manner. The physical pres-ence, too, of an interested, motivated interviewer can encourage participants to takethe exelcise quite seriously, thereby r.esulring in higher quality data.

As for drawbacks, interviewing is very time-consuming and clearly not as ef6cieniarr enterprise as administering surveys or questionnaires. A good inteniew is patt altand part science, aod it is dependent on tire interviewer's demeanor. Tfthe intirvreweris not comfbrtable in the role, interactions will be arvklvard and little valuable verbalinformatiol will be gathered. More problematic still, howcv€r, is the bias that can beintroduced during the interaction if the interviewel is awar.e ofwhether a particjprr!tis in the experimental or control coldition. To redrrce the possibility of bies her.e, jtis alwals a good iclea to keep the interviewet unaware ofa pafticipant,s group assLgnment. For lDore detailed guidance on planning and conducting interviews, see, forex-rrnplc, G:rbrium ancl Hoistcin (2002), Houtkoop (2000), Mishler (1986), Schumrn(19311, Schwarz, Grove, and Schuman (199s), and Seidman (1999).

V,: rbal p:otocols. Protocoi anall'sis is a familiar tooi in experimental ancl cognitr!eps.,'chology (e.g., Ericsson & Simon, 1980, 1993; Newell ck Simon, 1972). A proro.olanalysis involves giving a r.esearch participant some problem to solve and thcn havingth€ individual "tilink out loud" while solving it. In theory, a participant's,,online"verbaiizations, as it were, should reveal the steps being used in the coursc of thinkingthrough some situation. Siniilar to some interviews, a detailed transcdpt (the prolocol)is prepared ior subsequent anaiysis (e.g., identirying kev moments in the oar-ricipant'sthjnking that indictte how lre or she sought ;t soiution). The study and inregration ofdata from several protocols is often used to describe the presumcd process ofre.rsc,nin3people use in a given domail.

The use ofverbal protocols is relarively Llncommon in social psychology, possiblydue to the critical evaluation ofresearch relying on verbal reports of mentai processes(Nisbett & Wilson, I977). Under some circumstances, ofcourse, tsl<ing peoFle takingpart jn a social ps/chology experiment to describe their on-going thoughts (as opposeclto reflecting back on what ied them to some conclusion or trying to explain whythey perf-ormcd some behavior) approximates protocol analysis. Ericsson and Simon(1993) algue that bias is introduced in a pr.otocol when participa[ts are asked toexplain their cognitive processes but not when they sirv whlt the\, are tltinlell3 oulloud.

'\ rellte.l, if somewhat retrospecti!e, techjtique used in sociai osychologJ, to stlrdypecple's responses to persuasive Dtessages is called tlrcrLght listing (Cacioppo, T-iaLkins,

22:l lvlea*u ing \1,41ttt Happens: Dependent Variables

&Pctry, 193I;CacioPPo&Petty, 1981; Pettv & Cacioppo' l98l ) Research particiPantl

ur" g-.n ,o." p.rioj oftirne (e g , : minutes) during wlrich they list nil thc thouilft'

,i"olhnd ,hrL. ,'h", .ead oI heard some persuasive argument ("record only those ideas

;;"i;;; *".. thinkjng durinB the last few mioutes"; cacioPPo & Petq" l98l' p 3l5)'

i"i"l, " *r..p "r ".

,r,'e.l ;ud g"es tvalt't"te the iisted thoughts to determine favorable or

,.,nfauorible iesponses in light of the persuasive communication'

Other TYPes of DePendent Measures

Sundardbehavioralorverbal-dependentmeasulesdonotexhaustresearchpossibil-ii.r li. .".^t psychologists Other distinct approaches that complement.or supPle-

-"ri t"fr*io,of "ta ,'er'bal dependent variables exist' ilclut{ing nonverbal measures'

irrfii.l, rn.oru."., physiologilai measures' bogr'rs pipeline methods' and narrative

approaches.

Nonverbal moatures

,\..onverbrL nteasures would seenl to be behavioral measures because they iDvolve acts

that llck or rlo not rely on words PerhaPs becar'rse nonverbal measrlres of behavior

are so subtLe and yet ihey are all arounJ us all the tirne, social psychology;scribes

,p"aiol ,ouo ,o tltem Nonvetba! neasare-s are designed to ass€ss actiois or cues ihat

;'";;i" ;r" t;;t t"t "teaLring

i.dependenl ofverbal comnents consider' for example'

i"r,i "fr"" you ,.,.. nonu"rbnl clues to infer how a person is feeling Happiness or

l"jlcti"tt i" others, for example, is often appatent to us' even when no words have

t .'",r u,r.."a. Do they look relaxed? Are they smiling and looking you in the eye? Or

"* ,fr", f""mg a*ay nn,1 n"rvot"ly *ringing their hancls? Categories. of,nonverbal

b"iu"io, inaua". "oi.e tone and Pitch, faciai expressions' hand gestures' body lean and

;;i;;,",i;;; le.g., towards or awav from others)' eve contact and gaze (Dep'irlo &

Friedman, 19!)S).- ";;;;.,;r". nonverbal cues rouiilrely acconrpanv what peoPle say and' in fact' such

*., oi*n ,"t*Lp.ople's underlying intentrons Thushowynusaysomethingisofte'1

". i*po*nn, n, ,uhni you say. For exantple'

-have you el:r heard one.person say to

"r]ott'"., "lli." clress" or a similar renar k and recognizetl rmmediitely that the inteot

*u. ,,,,*]jnt ti " , t"ftdt an

'gl)' dress)? Social Psychologists are ioterested in measuring

.."r..,i"f t"jr.,to, Linked iirh peopie's speech becarse it often revealsiow they are

i".iing. Naor.ou"., nonverbal reaclions often reveal people's "true" feelings because

.u.r',""..ion,alenotalwaysr'rndervoluntarycontrol-Alltoooften,people..leak,'their lrue emotions despite protests to the conltary ("I'fir not mad at you really' I'm

rot"; Ekman & FIiesen, 1969). How close a person sits to another' as well as the rela-

i;u" ,tu.l". of soiles clirccted at that person' readily reveals whether attitrtdes are

posilivc or L-regativc (Hazlewood & Olsor' 1986)

NIea:tning Wutt Hapltens: Itepenlettt Varutbles 215

I r rrpl.cil nrcasures

Nonverbal rneasrrres are ideal becausc lhcy are lcss subjecl to conrcious coutrol ordistortion than verbal reports. Many sociil psychologists ar e irrcreasirrBly interestcd ina partidlrlar nonverbal measure, so called impli,:it nreaslres, which ate used to asscss

people's automatic p()sitive or negative reactions to objects or other people- Considet-

abie research has been conducl€d on implicit prejudice (e.g., Greenwaid & Banaji,

i995), where people associate positive or negative characteristics toward differeotsocial groups. The chiefadvantage of implicit measures is their subtlety; people cannot

censor their habitual reactions-thoughts or feelings (e.g., unlriendiiness, faar)-toward a social category (e.g., Black people). Thus a research participant can claim topossess a positive attitude toward a group but his or her response to ao implicitmeasure might reveal the opposite attitude, one lying belou'conscious awateness (fo!

reviews of recent social psychological Leseatch on uncorscious processes, see l{assin,

Uleman, & Bargh,2005; Uleman & Bargh, 1989; Wilson,2002).To measure irnplicit, prejudiced attitudes, most researchers use the l Qlicit Associa-

lion 1'esr (tAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, i998). Participants are asked to com-

plete two sorting activities as fast as possible. -lhe assumption is that participants'

reaction times reveal how they fcel about some tn,gel (e.9., race, ethnic group) sport).

One activity requires them to piace the target in the salrre crtegoryas a list ofwords withpositive meanings (e.g., nice, fair, beautiful). In tl're second aclivity, the target is placed

with some negative terms (e.g., unkind, rrgiy, dishonest). locleternrinchr.)wparticiprntsactually feel about a given target, a reserrcher compares the spced with which the two

soating activities occur. If thc tar8ct is associated rvith the positive terms more qtricldy

than the negative terms, the participant is presumed to have a positive implicit atiitude

toward the taigel. However, ifthe target is linked rnore quickly with the negative terms

than the positive ones, then the inrplicit attitude is identilied as negative. You can take

an online version of the IAT at https://implicit.hnrvard.edu/implicit/.The nTain drawback of the IAT is that it takes $ome time to complctc, aod sonrc

researchers questio. the measure's validity (e.g., Brertdl, Markman, & Messner. 2001;

but see Nosek, Creenwald, & Banaji, 2007). On the other hand, peoPle's responses on

the IAT have been linked with a variety of nonverbal, prejudiced reactions, iucluding

making or failing to make eye contact, tentative spoken exchanges, and the presence

or absence of smiles (e-g., Dovidio, Kwakami, lohnson, lohnson, & Howard, 1997).

Regarding preferences for sone groups over others, both younger and oldet individuals display a bias toward the youn8 over the old, and rnany people who complete the

IAT carry a moderate to high level of prejudice faYoring White tar8ets over Blacks

(Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002).

Physiological measur€s

Measrrres of physiological states-bodiiy processes-in the study of social behavior

are not new. Socialpsychoiogists sometimes measure blood Pressure, heart rLlte, pupil

12b Nledsruing WnLtt HdPpens: 1)ePetLtiettt \/aritbles

dilation, i1s uell as galvanic skln rcsponse (CSR), a chaog€ iD the electrical ProP('rties

ofskin (i.e., sweat) in response lo a stifiulus that triggers €xcitement or anxiety Such

me.rsurcs are outside peop)e's conscious control. thus rcscarchers can emPloy them as

unbiased dependent variabies.

Unfortunately, physiological measures often require sensitive and rather exPensive

equipment to employ. SLlch equipmcnt requires training for us€Is, as well as routin€

-uin,"rlnrt.a, which rneans it is not likely to be available fbr use iil studeut lesearch

projects. N{any physiological measures also have a conceplual dr'wback: 'l'hey measure

tl,. p."s.n.. or "bs",rce

of general bodily arousal but they fail to differentiate among

uo.iou. qp., of ".ousal.

Considet a measure ofGSR: Despite th€ fact that being friSht-

ened and being thrilled are distinct tyPes of emotional experieoces, most of us are

likeiy to b€gin lo sweat in the same way whether we are watching a scary movie or atr

exhilarating sporting event Naturally, objective physiological dePendent measures

should be sLrpported by self report and observational nleasur€s FoI more detailed

discussion of- physiological measures and their use in social psychoiogical researcir,

see Cacioppo and Tassinary (I990), CacioPPo, Tassinary, and Berntson (2000)' Petty

(1933), and Wagrler and Nlanstead (1989).

Noninvasive nrcasLrtesfrom soci.tl tte rcsci"u.r)"O,'t" t "* ""' ofphysioLogical inqLliry

in sociai psycholr:gy is rvorth nrentioning The subrliscipline of sociol neurosciettte'

which examines horv brain processes influence social cognition, emotion, and inter

personal relatronships, anrong other rcpics in social rnd personality psychology' uses

noninvasive tools including functional rnngnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and posi-

tron emission tomograPhY (PET).

These "high tech" tools arc obviously beyond the scope of aoyone's first foray into

social psychological Iesearch, bt:t I do think it is iurPoltant to uoderstand the potential

of socirl rrcurosciettce. Let's briefly consider how fMRl can be used to shed light on

our social exp€rience. MRI is an itlraging technology that allows researchers to obsefle

brain structures anci to measure changes (e.g., blood flow) happeniDg therein while Lr

person is perfbrming some cognitive task Eiseuberger, Lieberman, and Williams

i200;;, lo, "*"-ple,

.oDducted a study to deternljne whether the brain bases ofsocirl

pain are similar to tiros€ associated with physical pain (see also Panksepp, 2003) To

test the effect of social pain, the researcheas chose to exanine horv people feel when

they are socially excluded-ignored, passed over' ostracized-by others Whil€ playing

a computerized (virtuai) ball tossing game v,rith others, ParticiPaDts were eventually

exclr.rded from play by their opPonents As anticiPated' brain activiry following this

mild ostracism paralleled that found in studies of physical pain arld was associated

with self-reports of aoguish. The Promise of MRI data are that they can be linked

up with more traclitional, sociaL psychological research on ihe effects of being

sociaily exchLclecl or even dropped by others (see Williams' 2002, for a revierv of

traditional social psychological rese:rtch on ostracism) For an introduction to social

neuroscience, see CircioPpo and Berntson (1004) and CaciopPo, Visser, and Pickett

(2oos).

Measuing \llLat Llttppens: Dependent Variables 22,-

False physiological feedback The bogus pipeline

I would be remiss if I did not mention a ciassic dependent measure designed to ensure

trutlrful responses fron research particiPants-the bogr:s pipeiine (lones & Sigail,

l97l).i[his paradigm was created to convince research particiPants that an crcperi-

menter could actually "read rheir minds" by discerning when they were being tr'.rthtr].

Well in advance ofbeing connected to a fake lie detecting devicc in a lab selting' loncs

and Sigall assessed participants'attitudes in a Pretest sessioo. Parti.ipalrts'pretestresponses were then used in concert with the pipeline device to denlonstrate tiral

ironest opinions and feelirgs could be measured. From thal point on, the majority oF

participants were willing to disclose how they truly felt about various stigmatized

gror:ps (e.g., peopie with disabilities, Blacks). The bogus pipelinc proved to bc an

exaellent mcasure of attitudes as depefdent variables, a methodological innov]tionsocial psychologists used to obtain true resPonses towards ideas, groups, and social

issues (for a review of the bogus pipeline's effectiveness as a research tooi, see Roese

& Iamieson, 1993).

Narrative approaches

Narrative aprproaches rcpresent a neu qualitative approach lo dependcnt variables

th,1t is gaioing popularity in sociil and Personallty psychoiogy. By narrative,l l]|'ea']

the personiil stories pcople tcll in orcler to make sellse of their own iives, both for

themselves nnd fo. odrer people (e.g., McAdams, 1993) Research on Dartotives sLrg-

gests that people coonecl their experiences with different asPects of thcir seil-conccpt

in order to rlevelop a coherent identity, albeit one th'nt can change ac:oss ti;ne Incl

circumstln.e. Pcople are especially likely (o sear.h tbr meaning and prrrpose in

their iives fsllowirlg critical nloments or major transitions (McAdams, Josseison, &Lieblich,2001).

Use of narrative approaches by having participants write about their own lives is

one way to collect a great deal of rich, interesting informatioo alrout sociilL life and

personal development. On the other hand, a rescalcher must have some orgrnrzingtheme or coding schene to impose order on so much information (similar concerns

were raised about open endcd measures in chaPter 6). Smaller scale narratil'e studies

using selected self reports as dependent variables are no doubt possible. For ideas,

consult Josselson, Lieblich, and McAdams (2002), McAdams (1993), and N{cAdams

et al. (2001).

Some Practical Issues for Administering Dependent Variables

Will thc pr{:sentation ol-a depcnclent variable change a participant's behavior for rhe

w(ong reason (i.e., reactiviry)? what can be done to reduce participants's.rsDici'r'curiosity, or wariness regarding the delivery of dependent variables jn slndies2 Ho'i'

22.3 Lica.s''o 1g t\:iu1t I[|pPens: DePeti'lekt Vfiiables

can a researcher be sure that admil]istering a dePendeDt variabl€ won't alert,partici-

;;;; ";"tt the hl?othesis being studiedi We already roted that many behaviorai

measureshaveanadvanlageoververbalmeasures-peopleareoftenless.likelyton.ri.. ,L"*

"ta' i" uny case' behavior is often harder to monitor or control than are

,i..*f*. tlt*. "* " variery ofsinlple steps a researcher can consider so that a study's

fu.pl." "na tl. tttuin dependent variable are not linked togetirer'

Attend to issues of p rivacy and sensititily ' Keep participarrt reaclivity ill min d l f you(

",1.,-, i. a*i"^#,o ask questions aboui sensitive or private matters' remember that

:;;;;;;:t;;;" er'barrassed or inhibited to reveal how they actuallv feel about a

i-,".'"*" i...ltLt" ,rteir:relevaut pastbehavior' Topics such as sexualiq?' controversial

""irilt*", i.. g. ' "U"rtion), racc relations, and the like will often induce participants

to elve less than candid answers'" i"i* .l,r

'r" a"""? In the first place, make certain that you really ard truly want

anclneedroconductleseatchonsetlsitiveorplivateissues.Therearemanyotlrer."J"iprla,l"f"si."i ,opics thxt do not arouse participant concern or suspicion Second'

iii"r'p.l*." """ "fthese topics, then take great methodological pains to assure par-

tlclDan$thnthorrestresponsesareneededandthatyouwillkeepthoseresponses

"rJ"t"r"tt. t,, J"-.o, b.hn"lo'^lly illustrate hdw you wiil maintain anonyrnity by

;;;;;;"io;",; place complcted questionnaires' for example' in a contai.er with

.rir"r"ti,.""t,lutprjin thaL ilfornred consent forrus (recall chapter 3) will be kept

,"u"rni" f,o- anv dat.r coLl'ctcd flom them (an ethical practice which siould be

";;;;":';;-"'1;.".;1- tL'i.d, ;.d*it that lhe toPic of vour project is oDe that often

..ir", .on.",n. in'irhuur revealing your hWothesis, explrirr why the roprc is important

"lit.ti" ".ir" ,rt" participants'-help as iesearch collaborators and not sinrply as good

,o.,..J, ut.o.iot inforrt,ntion The urain point is that sincerity and candor can often

an.o.r.og" ,"r.or.l, P?uticiPaits to rpproach your project with interest' enllagsmejlt'

and truthful resPonses.

Dtsgutse a ,:lependetrt nlcosLne A deperdenl neasure need not announce itseli Why

not dissrlise it so that participants are not aware their actions have been neasured?

.';;;. ";;;...t:;; "t'o,,obt'utiu"

behavioral measttres were already suggested as

"""i1.dr.",".t ,f "*ple's meltal states or dispositions Another aPproach can be to

li"-" ".i""r."" "ni, ".ilticipants dt.r at the criticalmoment ir an erPeriment' thereby

."i"".i,"*i.n"r,"r.u'observarions that are consisrent with the hl?orhesis. ln rhe cas€

.i .,".frni .l""r.,,.., <lisguising the clepeneleot variable can be as.straightforvard

"ll .,ltt"aaing o k"y tluestinlt o' qtl"ttions with some filler items within a

questionnaire

Rentove tlrc depetitettt vctriable front tlLe 5itLuxtiotl To reduce particiirant suspicion'

,on-r. ,"."r..It..r.o-Plete ti\e main Part ofthe study (i e'' delivery ofthe indePendent

vari,rble), ciaim that t-he study is ovt', ""<1

then begin a debrieling ln the course of

til. a"b,ienng, for instance, the exPerinlenter asks the Participant lo complete an

Nledsurury Mnt Happens: Deper ett |ariables 229

additional, short set oIqu€stions The actual dePendent variable is etnbedded therein

and the participant is none the wiser uniil the actual debrie6ng strbscquentiy occurs

Alternatively, a researcher nlight ir)fbrnl ParticiPants that they lvill take Part irl tuo

separate but unrelated studies. After the lirst study is supposedly over, the dependent

varralrlejs presented as an unrelated part of the second study Again, due to the cover

storf regarding the two studies, the Participants are unlikely ro link the actual depcn-

dent variable with what €am€ before.

Consitlet rotrverbal dePendent neastn es. lnstead of asking Participants directly how

they feel about another person through an intenie$'or a questionnaire-horh nf

which are apt to tligger social desirabilit,v concerns (recall chapter 6)-look to subtle

nonverbal measures ofaffect Thele is a large literature on nonverbal behavior, muclt

ofit concerned with social psychological processes (for a review, see DePaulo & Fried-

man, 1998). Proximity or interpersonal distance was already suggested as one way to

assess one persoo's liking ofanother (e.g.' Hall, 1966)- Making eye contact is another

(Exline, 1971). Before emplofng a nonverbai dependent variable, a conscientious

researcher wiil search the relevant literature to lnake certain that the behavior has beerr

validated as a reliabie indicator of the desired psychological state'

ACTIVE LEARNINC EXERCISE 8B

Developint Dependent Variables by Looking to the Literature

Corning up with just the right dependent variable for a study can be a challenge

Keep in mind that you need not reinvent the wheel in order to find one that will

work for your purposes. Several times in the aourse of this book I have suggested

that you look to the literature for ideas- Borrowin8 and adapting existing depen

dent measures is entirely appropriate as long as you credit the creator by citing his

or her work in your research repoir or sumnlary (see chapter 1 2) Here are two

suggestions:

Develop dependent measures based an an atticle you think is interesting Look

through a recent issue ol a social psychology iournal or look up a study you admire'

neview the description of the dependent variables in the Method section of the

article. What makes the measule a good one? ls it comPeJling and involvinSt

Clever and unobtrusive? Well written? How could you adapt il for your own

research? Can you think of ways to improve it? Wriie a Paragraph describing the

original measure, why you think it is a strong one. and how you might u5e it

)3A [4ca'ut ing 1t\"'hi.t, ttdDpens: l)cPe tLent \'.Lnnbles

Develop Cepetident nrcasures linked to an article rclevantto your prciect. Lookthrolgh the articles you gathered for your own project. Are there dependentrneasures that would fit your project well? Should they be adapted or altered?How might the measures be irnproved for yoLtr purposes? Write a paragraphdescribing each onginal measure, why you think each is of potential Ltse, or rs ast.ong one, and how you might use it for your own project. Be sure to tndicatehow the difterent levels of your jndependent variable will affect each rneasure_

Reliability and Dependent Variables

One finai, rrlportant c<lncern [or dependent variables is their reiiability. Whcn psy-chologists talk about reliability, they ale not refe.ring ro whether a measure can betrusted or whether it is dependable-ttrose chamcteristics refer more to the validityof a construct or a measLlre (se€ chapter 9). Reliability refers to a measuret clegree ofconsistency or stability; horvevcr, there ate a fer,v ways il measure can be consistent_The 6rst is Lhe melsure's consistency across tirDe. Many tlreasures, suci as intelligence(lQ) tests and some personality inventories, asJuane that a person's score at one poiutin time should be approximately the sanle at another point in time, even ifthe interualis quite large, say, scveral nrollths or er,en lougler Social psychologists use these sortsofleliabi]itymersLrreslessoftenthirnotherpsychologists,asmostoftheirexperimelisare dcsigrlecl k) creirte son'le change ill respollsc due to the impact of an indcpendentvariable olt a dcpendent variable. LIowever, if a social psl,chologist wanted to recruitparticipilnts h,itil a p.u ticular h.ait-say, shyDess or optimism, for example-then theuse of a consrsten! personality measure wo!ld be very important.

,A. second rlpe of reliability is often rehted to dependent variables that contain avariery of itenrs all designed to measure the sarne coostruct. Intunol consistcncy rcfers lohow well a collection of similar items are associated with one another. l'echnically speaking, tlris for rn of reliability is determined by the dcgree of iDtercorrelations amoDg agroup of related test items or a coll€ction ofsubtests. lmagine, fcx example, that yor.rwere developing a lrew personality scale designed to measure modesr), to identify jndi,viduals who rarely cali atteDtion to theDtselves or theft aciio s. A common appaoach isto \,\,.r-ite a large pool of items and to then pilot test then on a group ofpeople. The initialrun ofanalyses involves correlating all lhe responses to the itellls lvith oti€ anothet_ l.ocrearc a.cliable n]easure, ihose items that are highly associated with one anotber (i.e.,tapping ioto the sanle construct) are retained, whereas thosc wirh low correlations aredropped. Ihe decisiou to rerain some irems while dropping others usually involvesexamininB what is called an a/p/ra coelfcient, a nLtmerical indcx of internal consistencyreliabiliry. Ac.ording to Rosenthal .nd Rosnorv (1991), a reasonable alpha coelficientfor tests used tbr clinical ptLrposes sirould be .85 or higher., levels which indicct€ themeirsure is dependable. r\[ha leveis for experimental work-inciuding experimenta]social psychology-can be lower and still be used, but I would suggest using care with

l\'leosuring )\,)utt Happens: Depeudertt \,.itriubies 23 I

anything under.70. Sometimes a researcher ir"ill revise some items or I,rite nerv oresand then coneluct a second pilot test (and recalculate internal consistenry) in or.ler topreeale the measure for !rse. !_or a more technicai discussion ofinternal conr^istenq., sr,eCronb"ch (195I). Before deciding to use any published scale in a research pro,1ecr, youshould elanrine its intertral consistency reiiability to be sure it reaches an acceptable level(such inforrnation is available in the publication introducing tl.te scale or, in the case ofpLrrchased products, in the test booklet accompanying the copies ofthe rneasur.et.

A type of reliability ofien found in social psychology expetiments is called irrrcrrlsener reliability, thar is, the degree to which observers agree about what beha.r,ior thevare observing, codiig, or otherwise describing. Earlier, when discussiog unobtrLtsivemeasures, I cited.esearch byWilson et al. (l984, studies I and 2) where coders observedand recorded participants'puzzle play and facial expressions from behincl a one-waymirror. Inter(,bsewer reljabiliry was obtained in both studles by correlxtjns the oLrservx_tions ofone observer with those ofthe orher (i.e., a high positive correlation indicatedthat both observers effecrively saw the same behaviors). The utility ofthis form of reli,abilin. is an error check, a way to ensure that the m.a.uremerrt of depen<ient v:rriables(horv long eatlr pLrzT-le was played with by each participant; the number, strength, anddr.rution of each participant's smiles) is accurate. ktealiy, the obsefr'ed correlntior)betlveen two observers'ratilgs shouJd be above.g0, preferably closer to .90.

Let's close with one intpo.tant obseryation allout any dependent variable or othernleasure, one that nicely sets rp the topic of the next chapter. lust because a depenclentvariable is rcliable does not mean thit it is valid, that it is trul), measLrring nhat it issrLppose to.apt0re in ternrs ofbehavior, ver.bal report, or psycholoeical construct. Anunihir o. poorly constructed tesl wili remain so, anci people taking itlrrore than oncewill still score bedly on it. Reliability, then, while importanr, is onlv one impot:anrasirect of a nteasure. Researchers musr bc sure that their dependcnt variabies aretxpping irlto the intended social phenoolena.

Exercises

1 Review the "pen" study conducted by Hazel Markus that opens this chapter. aanyou thrnk of other everyday choices or objects that reveal how different cLrlturalgroups dr5play understandings of agency? How would you measure these dependentvariables?

2 List some possible behavjoral dependent variabJes that could represent the quantifi,able dimensions noted in this chapter (e.g., frequency, duration, speed, proxlrnity)

3 You are planning a study on people's willingness to donate blood to a local bioocibank. ldentify some overt behavioral, behavioroid, and unobtrusive measures for thest!dy.

4 Rcview the section discussing unobtrusive measures an.l then walk around yourcampus to jdentify physical evidence pointing to possible erosion and accretionmeasures.