HU245 Unit 6 Assignment Rubric Grade Grading C.docx

HU245 Unit 6 | Assignment Rubric
Grade: Grading Criteria
A: 90 -
capital punishment in a thorough and
reasoned manner.
including theory,
course terms, concepts, and/or ethical theories.
B: 80 - scusses position regarding war or
capital punishment.
including theory, course
terms, concepts, and/or ethical theories.
equirements.
C: 70 -
arguments are weak.
including theory,
course terms, concepts, and/or ethical theories.
ical or stylistic errors.

D: 60 -
originality.
theory, course terms,
concepts, and/or ethical theories.
F: 0 -
es to lesson material
including theory, course
terms, concepts, and/or ethical theories.
BY MARCELLA H. BOYNTON, DAVID B. PORTNOY,
AND BLAIR T. JOHNSON
Exploring the Ethics and Psychological Impact of Deception in
Psychological Research
T
he determination of what experimental prac-
tices constitute potential harm to research
participants is an area fraught with conflicting

opinions, in part due to past examples of exploitation
and abuse. Psychological studies involving deception
in research studies have been especially controversial.^
The debate regarding the ethics of the practice contin-
ues to this day.̂ Deception in psychological research is
often stated as acceptable only when all of the fol-
lowing conditions are met: l) no other nondeceptive
method exists to study the phenomenon of interest;
2.) the study makes significant contributions to scien-
tific knowledge; 3 ) the deception is not expected to
cause significant harm or severe emotional distress to
research participants; and 4) the deception is explained
to participants as soon as the study protocol permits.3
Many institutional review boards (IRBs) have placed
substantial restrictions on researchers' use of decep-
tive methodology in social science research,^ and some
disciplines and institutions have banned the practice al-
together.' In recent years, there have been repeated calls
for empirical examination of the assumptions underly-
ing IRB policies when determining risk and harm^ and
the effects of deception in human subjects research.7
Although there have been some empirical studies
examining the effect of deception on research partici-
pants,* much of this literature is philosophical in na-
ture.? Because the empirical literature on the effects of
deception in research is somewhat limited, IRB policies
are often primarily based upon principled arguments
about what constitutes harm.^° Our study empirically
tested the hypothesis that deception in psychological
research negatively influences research participants'
self-esteem, affect, and their perceptions of psychologi-
Marcella H. Boynton, David B. Portnoy, and Blair T. Johnson,
"Exploring

the Ethics and Psychological Impact of Deception in
Psychological Research,"
IRB: Ethics & Human Researdo 35, no. 2 (2013): 7-13.
cal researchers and researchers' deceptive practices.
Ethical Concerns about Deception
A lthough often regarded as a single construct, in
xl-practice deception in research encompasses a va-
riety of methodologies. Indirect deception occurs when
participants agree to postpone full disclosure of the true
purpose of the research or when the goals of the study
are not conveyed in their totality to the participant.
This methodology has few, if any, ill effects.̂ ^ Much of
the debate surrounding the potential harm of deception
focuses on direct deception—deliberate misinformation
provided to participants about some essential compo-
nent of the study's procedure, including deceptive study
descriptions or instructions, staged manipulations, false
feedback, or the use of confederates.^^
One deceptive element commonly cited as poten-
tially harmful is false feedback ostensibly derived from
an evaluative task or test. Some have suggested that
participants may feel demeaned or have decreased
self-esteem if they believe this feedback.̂ 3 Participants'
sense of autonomy may also be harmed if they are not
given the requisite information to have made a truly
informed decision about study participation in the first
place.̂ 4 Thus, some researchers argue that deception
contains elements that have potentially negative effects
on a participant's emotional state and self-esteem. ̂ 5
In addition to concerns about harms to participants,
questions of methodological and reputational harms

have also been raised. Deception may result in more
suspicious or contaminated pools of research partici-
pants.^^ Participants may be aware of deception but
not say so because they are embarrassed or trying to
be compliant. ̂ 7 Increasing suspicions and reactance
(i.e., strengthening a negative view of researchers and/
or combative participant behavior) among participants
IRB: ETHICS & HUMAN RESEARCH MARCH-APRIL 2013
may not only threaten the validity of psychological
research but also the reputation and legitimacy of
psychology as a science by fostering negative attitudes
toward psychological researchers and their practices. ̂ ^
Despite these concerns, others believe that decep-
tion in psychological research can be acceptable in at
least some circumstances.^^ Psychological discomfort
resulting from deception is viewed as a regrettable but
defensible cost given the knowledge that will be gained
by both the researcher and participants.^" The accep-
tance of deception is based on the belief that any psy-
chological discomfort resulting from deception is likely
fleeting^^ and no greater than what an individual might
experience in interpersonal encounters in everyday
life.̂ ^ Indeed, evidence suggests that most participants
are not at all bothered by deception^^ and may even
be more likely to enjoy and learn from their experience
participating in a study using this methodology. ̂ 4
In brief, those in favor of the judicious use of decep-
tion believe that its potential benefits to participants,
science, and society are worth the largely negligible
psychological costs. Because research participants may

withdraw from participation at any time, presumably
individuals who find deceptive research objectionable
can exercise their autonomy by withdrawing their
participation.^5 Also, some have posited that a thought-
fully executed debriefing can ameliorate the ill effects of
a study that uses deception. ̂ ^
One potentially important aspect of research eth-
ics that garners rare mention in the literature is ex-
perimenter professionalism. Benham argued that the
researcher-participant relationship is first and foremost
a professional relationship, similar to that between
teacher and student or physician and patient.^'' Con-
sequently, the professional demeanor of the research
staff is likely to be extremely important to participants'
perceptions of their research experiences, especially in
combination with the use of deception. As Baumrind
noted in her critique of research deception, "Perhaps
the seminal problem in social and behavioral research
is that not all investigators . . . respect their subject-par-
ticipants as persons."^^ Despite this astute observation,
no studies on the ethics of psychological research to
date have explicitly examined experimenter profession-
alism. This may be in part because professional conduct
encompasses multiple aspects of social interactions
and therefore is difficult to operationalize. Research
on physician professionalism is informative in this
regard.^9 A systematic review identified five dimensions
of professionalism. 3° Of those, effective patient interac-
tions (e.g., politeness) and reliability (e.g., punctuality)
are the most germane to experimental psychological re-
search, and therefore are the focus of the experimenter
professionalism manipulation in this study.
The present study examined the effect of three ele-

ments central to understanding the potential harms of
deception in research: l ) deceptive task instructions;
z) false feedback; and 3) the interpersonal deception of
experimenter professionalism. The task deception ma-
nipulation examines the effect of deceiving participants
about the true purpose of a study. The false feedback
manipulation examines the impact of leading people to
believe something about themselves that is not actu-
ally true. The interpersonal manipulation allows us to
determine the effect of unprofessional experimenter
conduct, as well as the knowledge of this interpersonal
deception after a funnel debriefing. Importantly, includ-
ing multiple forms of deception in the same study per-
mitted their relative impact to be evaluated with respect
to each other and to experimenter professionalism.
Examining both task deception and experimenter be-
havior required two simultaneous layers of deception.
The deception surrounding the nature of the study task
was surrounded by a layer of deception related to the
experimenter's behavior. Measures administered prior
to the funnel debriefing assessed the effect of unpro-
fessional experimenter behavior because as far as the
participants were aware, the experimenter's behavior
was authentic. The effect of the unprofessional behav-
ior manipulation on any postfunnel debriefing mea-
sures can be considered the effect of an interpersonal
deception because at that point in the study all partici-
pants were aware of the unprofessional experimenter
behavior manipulation. This design permitted us to
examine the unique impact of all three types of decep-
tion on participants' self-esteem, emotional state (i.e.,
positive and negative affect), and trust in psychological
researchers. It also permitted a test of the unprofes-
sional experimenter behavior manipulation on these
outcomes. We hypothesized that: 1) task deception

would not negatively influence participants; 2) partici-
pants receiving false feedback and/or who were treated
unprofessionally would report higher levels of negative
emotion and less trust in psychological researchers; and
3 ) the funnel debriefing would mitigate negative effects
of the interpersonal deception.
MARCH-APRIL 2013 IRB: ETHICS & HUMAN RESEARCH
Study Methods and Design
Given that university students are the populationmost likely to
participate in psychological re-
search,3i they were the group selected for participation
in this study. Participants were 183 undergraduates,
56.3% female, from a large university in the northeast-
ern United States. Participants were recruited from the
university's psychology participant pool and received
research credit for their participation.
Participants signed up for a study whose objective
was described as "looking at how people rate certain
objects and people." Because our study involved more
than one independent variable, we used a 3 x z x 2
between-subject factorial design (task deception: none,
indirect, or direct x false feedback: informed that task
performance feedback was personally meaningful vs.
not X experimenter professionalism: courteous/reliable
vs. discourteous/unreliable). Two male and two female
undergraduate research assistants were involved in
the development of the procedure and conducted all
experimental sessions. Multiple role-playing sessions
were conducted with the research assistants to ensure
consistency and comfort with the procedure.

The experimenter professionalism manipulation
alternated based on predetermined blocks of experi-
mental sessions. For all other experimental factors,
assignment was randomized. In both professionalism
conditions the content of the verbal instructions, which
briefly described the nature of the computer task to the
participant and provided an opportunity for questions,
were identical except for the salutation and farewell
that constituted the verbal aspect of the professionalism
manipulation. In the professional conditions (n = 90),
the experimenter was efficient and punctual and admin-
istered the verbal instructions using a polite demeanor,
eye contact, and a smile. In the unprofessional condi-
tions (n = 93), the experimenter administered the verbal
instructions using a brusque demeanor, made little or
no eye contact, expressed no positive facial expres-
sions, and after admonishing the participant to "hurry
up," had the participant wait while sending a text
message on a cell phone. Apart from the professional-
ism manipulation, the experimenter was kept blind to
condition. Immediately after placing a participant in a
private cubicle and providing the verbal instructions,
the experimenter recorded perceptions of the partici-
pant's nonverbal responses to the interaction.
At the start of the computer task, participants
viewed a series of screens that administered the major-
ity of information and instructions about the experi-
mental task. For the task deception manipulation,
participants were informed of the true purpose of the
computer task (no task deception, n = 58), given a
vague but accurate description of the task (indirect task
deception, n = 61), or given a false description of the
task (direct task deception, n = 64). For the false feed-

back manipulation, participants were either informed
that the computer task was being validated and the
performance feedback was generated at random and
therefore invalid, or that their performance feedback
was "a statistically reliable predictor of cognitive ability
and future decision-making capacity." After reading the
task description and instructions, participants complet-
ed the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (a = 0.87).3^
Participants then began the computer task, an exact
replication of a study of in-group bias.33 This proce-
U n e potentially important aspect of research
ethics that garners rare mention in the literature
is the professionalism of the researchers.
dure measures an individual's bias for remembering
more positive information about one's own perceived
in-group. Participants completed 12. trials of a visual
estimation task and were subsequently falsely told that
they were "overestimators." Participants were then
asked to review behaviors purportedly extracted from
interviews with overestimators (their in-group) and
underestimators (the out-group) and to form an impres-
sion of each group. Following a brief distracter task,
participants then recalled the list of behaviors for each
group.
After completing the computer task, participants
were debriefed by the computer about the true purpose
of the experimental task (i.e., that it was a measure of
in-group bias) and either notified that they were de-
ceived about the task and/or feedback or reminded that
they had not been deceived. Specifically, participants

were told that "The test you completed was rigged . . .
you were randomly assigned to one of the groups. . . .
despite what we may have told you, there is no such
distinction between overestimators and underestima-
tors. " Immediately after this disclosure participants
completed a series of questions assessing study par-
ticipation perceptions (a = 0.83), researcher traits (a
= 0.71), positive and negative emotions (a = 0.83; a =
0.77) using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS),34 and a trust in psychological researchers
scale (a = 0.80), which was modified from the Trust in
Medical Researchers Scale.'5
Finally, a screen appeared directing the participant
to alert the experimenter who was waiting in the lobby
that the computer task had ended. Once both the
participant and experimenter were again in the private
cubicle together, the experimenter fully debriefed the
participant about the purpose of the entire study, in-
cluding the professionalism manipulation. A funnel de-
briefing procedure was employed in order to maximize
the positive impact and methodological integrity of the
participant debriefing. In this debriefing the researcher
asked a series of increasingly specific questions before
finally revealing and discussing the interpersonal decep-
tion. After the debriefing procedure was complete, par-
ticipants privately completed a brief survey readminis-
tering a subset of the study participation perceptions,
positive emotions (a = 0.84), negative emotions (a =
0.89), and trust in psychological researchers' measures.

Study Results
The analyses presented below employed analysisof variance
models for continuous outcomes and
logistic regression models for dichotomous outcomes.
To examine our first hypothesis, that there would be no
negative effect of the task deception on the participants,
we examined the participant study perception and emo-
tion scales administered directly after participants were
debriefed about the task and false feedback manipula-
tions but before the funnel debriefing revealing the in-
terpersonal deception. Consistent with the hypothesis,
task deception had no impact on study perceptions,
positive emotion, negative emotion, or trust in psycho-
logical researchers (all p values > 0.05).
The second hypothesis was that the participants
would feel a greater sense of violation if they received
false feedback and/or if they were treated unprofession-
ally. The false feedback manipulation had no impact
on any of the posttask debriefing measures (p > 0.05).
Also, neither the task nor false feedback manipula-
tions had a significant impact on any of the postfunnel
debriefing measures (p > 0.05). The sole significant
effect was that after the funnel debriefing, participants
in the direct task deception arm felt less concern about
deception when compared to those in the indirect and
no deception arms (F [1, 155] - 5.69, p < 0.05).
Although false feedback did not have a negative psy-
chological impact on participants, the professionalism
manipulation had a significant effect. Participants who
were treated unprofessionally reported greater negative
perceptions about their study experience (F [1, 178] =
225.3, P < 0.001) and greater negative emotions (F [1,

178] = 1,210.0, p < 0.001) compared to those treated
professionally by the research assistant. Moreover,
participants in the unprofessional condition expressed
significantly less trust in psychology researchers (F [1,
178] - 6.91, p < 0.01) and were more likely to exhibit
nonverbal anger or confusion during their interaction
with the researcher (OR = 46.5, 95% CI [6.15, 351.2]),
as recorded by the experimenter. Positive emotions and
self-esteem were unaffected by experimenter profession-
alism (p > 0.05).
The third hypothesis was that the funnel debriefing
procedure would ameliorate any negative psychologi-
cal impacts of the deceptive manipulations. To test this
hypothesis we examined the measures administered
directly after the funnel debriefing that revealed the
interpersonal deception. For all outcomes where a
predebriefing score was available, it was entered as a
covariate in the analysis in order to control for base-
line levels. Confirming hypothesis three, the funnel
debriefing appeared to undo the negative effects of the
interpersonal deception of unprofessional experimenter
behavior, returning participants to levels similar to
those who were treated professionally. Controlling for
the prefunnel debriefing scores, the interpersonal decep-
tion did not have a significant effect on perceptions of
how enjoyable or interesting the study was (all p values
> 0.05). There was also no effect on perceptions of how
well the study was explained by the experimenter or
on negative emotions (all p values > 0.05). There was
a positive effect of interpersonal deception on whether
the individual would recommend study participation
to a friend (F [1, 149] = 35.3, p < 0.001) and a margin-
ally significant effect on positive emotions (F [1, 127] =
3.22, p = 0.08). Individual ANOVAs examining the ef-
fect of the experimental manipulations and controlling

for prefunnel debriefing scores on each of the positive
adjectives administered from the PANAS found that
the ratings for interested (F [1, 157] = 8.09, p < 0.01)
and excited (F [1, 155] = 7-47, p < 0.01) were signifi-
cantly higher for participants who were interpersonally
deceived.
Finally, although we did not have a measure of past
experiences with deceptive research studies, we were
able to examine whether past experience participat-
ing in any psychological research (M = 5.8, SD = 4.0),
MARCH-APRIL 2013 IRB: ETHICS & HUMAN RESEARCH
in conjunction with the manipulations in this study,
predicted a greater hkelihood of guessing that there was
some additional purpose to the study, correctly guess-
ing the interpersonal deception, or a decreased trust in
psychological researchers. The only manipulation that
was significantly predictive in these analyses was that
individuals in the direct task manipulation were more
likely to guess during funnel debriefing that there was
an alternative purpose to the study (OR = 2.54, 95%
CI [1.09, 5.90]), although they were no more likely
to correctly guess the specific nature of the deceptive
interpersonal manipulation (OR = 3.84, 95% CI [0.74,
19-8]).
Discussion
A lthough some past forms of deception in research
. Í 1 certainly constitute a violation of dignity, this
study suggests that a unilateral moratorium on experi-

mental deception may not be the best way to protect
participants or the integrity of psychological science.
We found that relatively benign forms of deception,
such as receiving false feedback or obfuscating the true
hypotheses of a study, pose little psychological harm to
participants and may not generally require more than
a basic debriefing procedure to counteract the decep-
tion. In contrast, unprofessional behavior on the part
of the experimenter had a substantial negative effect on
participant perceptions and negative emotions. How-
ever, the negative effect of the fairly potent interper-
sonal deception that unprofessional researcher conduct
represents was ameliorated by the funnel debriefing
procedure. Taken together, this evidence suggests that
the debate on the ethics of deception may be overlook-
ing the impact of other seemingly mundane risks, such
as experimenter professionalism, which may do much
more to impact the participants' thoughts and feelings
than a deceptive manipulation per se.
Indeed, these results showed a significant negative
behavioral and psychological impact associated with
unprofessional experimenter behavior. In the wake of
unprofessional treatment, participants demonstrated
greater negative reactions in their body language
and self-reported emotions. Those who were treated
unprofessionally had substantially worse perceptions
of the experimenter they interacted with, as well as of
psychological researchers in general. Importantly, all
of the negative effects of the unprofessional behavior
on mood and trust in psychological researchers ap-
peared to be eliminated by the detailed funnel debrief-
ing procedure. In fact, a number of participants reacted
positively to the revelation of the interpersonal decep-
tion during the debriefing, with those who had been

treated professionally frequently expressing some regret
at having not been in the other group. This anecdotal
evidence is supported by the empirical finding that
individuals in the unprofessional group reported higher
"interested" and "excited" PANAS positive emotion
subscale scores than did participants in the professional
group. Also, individuals in the unprofessional group
indicated a significantly greater likelihood of recom-
mending participation in the study to a friend. We infer
from these findings that college student participants are
largely unconcerned with our specific experimental hy-
potheses and that some may find an engaging deceptive
manipulation to be an interesting diversion. This con-
U e b a t e on the ethics of deception may
be overlooking the impact of other
mundane risks that may impact participants'
thoughts and feelings more than deceptive
manipulation per se.
elusion is not meant to imply that deceptive methods
should be preferred, but it gives further evidence that
the psychological risks associated with deceptive proce-
dures that evoke strong negative reactions in the short
term—such as interpersonally oriented deceptions—are
not likely to be psychologically harmful when coupled
with a thorough and thoughtful debriefing.
In his seminal paper on the issue of the ethics of
deception in social psychological research, Kelman?^
postulated what our research illuminates: that the
relationship between an experimenter and participant

is meaningful, albeit temporary, and that experimenters
have a responsibility toward their participants' human
dignity. Although the Belmont Report identified respect
for persons as one of the fundamental ethical principles
of human subjects research,37 it did not specifically
include professionalism under that category. One might
argue that it should be unnecessary to note such a basic
tenet; however, given that psychology experiments with
human subjects are most typically conducted by under-
graduate or graduate students with limited training and
oversight, unprofessional behaviors such as poor time
management and an indifferent demeanor may be far
too common. A recent national survey of psychology
graduate students reflects this possibility: one in four
respondents felt that graduate research assistants were
confused about their roles and responsibihties, one in
five indicated that their mentors did not provide suf-
ficient research guidance, and one in three felt that their
research was inadequately supervised.^^ This situation
is ripe for the unprofessional treatment of research
participants, which may pose a much greater risk of
psychological harm and decline in researcher trust than
deception.
We note several limitations to our study. In order to
ensure that the study was ethical, certain compromises
were made. For example, the false feedback ma-
nipulation was fairly benign in nature. The feedback,
although similar to what is often used in psychology
experiments, did not allow us to examine the full range
of false feedback that may be used in such studies.

Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on all types of false
feedback.
Because we did not track participants beyond their
brief participation in our study, we were unable to ex-
amine in the long term if or how these series of decep-
tions possibly affected future participation in other psy-
chology studies. Analyses of our data did not show that
greater previous experience participating in psychologi-
cal research increased the likelihood of reporting sus-
picions of additional deceptive elements. These results
cannot be considered conclusive given that we did not
measure the number of deceptive studies in which the
participants had previously participated; however, it
is important to note that those who had been actively
deceived about the experimental task were more likely
to guess that there may have been other deceptive
elements present in the study. Individuals in the direct
task deception arm also reported less concern about
the use of deception in general. These findings support
the notion that while prior experience with deception
may make participants somewhat more suspicious of
the veracity of an experiment's cover story, they do not
seem especially bothered or influenced by the idea that
they may be deceived. This finding corroborates prior
research showing that most participants seemed to have
the expectation that they cannot and should not know
the entire purpose of a psychological experiment before
its completion.39 Determining the extent to which
deceptive methods may influence participant suspicions
in the long term would provide further insight into the
possible scientific costs of their use in research.
Our operationalization of professionalism simultane-
ously manipulated aspects of both courteousness and

reliability. While this approach is true to prior research
in the domain of physician-patient interactions, one
could argue that it fails to specifically identify the pre-
cise mechanism underlying the effect of the unprofes-
sional manipulation. Although this methodology may
lack absolute experimental vigor, it has considerable
ecological validity and has been previously employed to
demonstrate similar psychological phenomena.4° More-
over, this approach provides a broader theoretical base
for future research illuminating the specific aspects of
deception and professionalism most essential to positive
research participant experiences.
Conclusion
Despite well-intentioned philosophical concernsabout the use of
deception in psychological
research, the present study found limited negative
psychological effects. Further, any negative effects of
the interpersonal deception on mood and attitudes
toward psychological researchers were alleviated by the
debriefing procedure. These results suggest that the nec-
essary use of deception, when paired with correct ex-
perimenter training and experimental procedures, poses
limited psychological harm to participants. Deceptive
research is not free of risk, but this study suggests that
its short-term psychological risk can be largely mitigat-
ed by conscientious behavior and considerate debriefing
procedures enacted by well-trained experimenters.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Ross Convertino, Debbie Grunin,
Fritz Ifert-Miller, and Anna Rogers for assistance with
the experimental design and data collection, Richard
Gramzow for sharing stimuli for the in-group bias task,

Stephenie Chaudoir for feedback about the study design,
Anne Fletcher for assistance with the literature review, and
Rick Hoyle for comments on a version of the manuscript.
The research and manuscript preparation was supported
by F31-MH079759 and P30 DA0230Z6.
• Marcella H. Boynton, PhD, is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the
Uni-
versity of Connecticut Medical Center, Farmington, CT; David
B.
Portnoy, PhD, MPH, is a Social Scientist at the U.S. Food and
Drug
Administration, Center for Tobacco Products, Rockville, MD;
and
Blair T. Johnson, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of
Psychol-
ogy, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
References
1. Milgram S. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Ab-
normal and Social Psychology i963;67(4):37i-378; Humphreys
L.
Tearoom trade. Society i97o;7(3):io-25.
2. Kelman HC. Human use of human subjects: The problem of
deception in social psychological experiments. Psychological
Bulletin
MARCH-APRIL 2013
IRB: ETHICS & HUMAN RESEARCH
___ . I

I 9 6 7 ; é 7 ( i ) : i - i i ; Hertwig R, Ortmann A. Deception in
experi-
ments: Revisiting the arguments in its defense. Ethics and
Behavior
2oo8;i8(i):59-92; Broder A. Deception can be acceptable.
American
Psychologist I998;53(7):8o5-8o6; Ortmann A, Hertwig R. Is
decep-
tion acceptable? American Psychologist ')<)-j:,^2.(j):ji^6-j^j.
3. American Psychological Association. Ethical principles of
psychologists and code of conduct, Z002,
http://www.apa.org/ethics/
code/index.aspx.
4. Kimmel AJ. Ethical Issues on Behavioral Research: Basic and
Applied Perspectives, znd ed. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell
Publishing,
Z007; Cook KS, Yamagishi T. A defense of deception on
scientific
grounds. Social Psychology Quarterly z o o 8 ; 7 i ( 3 ) : 2 i 5 -
z 2 i .
5. Riach PA, Rich J. Deceptive field experiments of discrimina-
tion: Are they ethical.' Kyklos 20O4;57(3):457-470; Oakes JM.
Risks
and wrongs in social science research: An evaluator's guide to
the
IRB. Evaluation Review 2oo2;2é(5):443-479.
é. Grady C. Do IRBs protect human research participants?
]AMA
2 0 i o ; 3 0 4 ( i o ) : i i 2 2 - i i 2 3 ; Kim S, Ubel P, de Vries
R. Pruning the
regulatory tree. Nature zoo9;457(7229):534-535.

7. Hertwig R, Ortmann A. Deception in social psychological
experiments: Two misconceptions and a research agenda. Social
Psychology Quarterly zoo8;7i(3):222-2Z7.
8. Epiey N, Huff C. Suspicion, affective response, and
educational
benefit as a result of deception in psychology research.
Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin i998;z4(7):759-768.
9. Christensen L. Deception in psychological research.
Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin i988;i4(4):664-675.
10. Singer E, Levine FJ. Research synthesis: Protection of
human
subjects of research: Recent developments and future prospects
for
the social sciences. Public Opinion Quarterly 2OO3;67(i):i48-
ié4.
11. Eillenbaum S. Prior deception and subsequent experimental
performance: The "faithful" subject. Journal of Personality and
So-
cial Psychology i96é;4(5):532-537; Finney PD. When consent
infor-
mation refers to risk and deception—implications for social
research.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality i987;z(i):37-48.
l z . Baumrind D. Research using intentional deception: Ethical
issues revisited. American Psychologist I985;4o(z):i65-i74;
Portnoy
DB. Deception (methodological technique). In: Baumeister RF,
Vohs
KD, eds. Encyclopedia of Social Psychology Thousand Oaks,

CA:
Sage Publications, 2007, p. 2ZZ-223.
13. Oczak M, Niedzwienska A. Debriefing in deceptive
research:
A proposed new procedure. Journal of Empirical Research on
Hu-
man Research Ethics 2OO7;2(31:49-59.
14. See ref. 12, Baumrind 1985.
15. Baumrind D. IRBs and social science research: The costs of
deception. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research i 9 7 9 ;
i ( é ) : i -
4; Ortmann A, Hertwig R. The costs of deception: Evidence
from
psychology. Experimental Economics 2OO2;5(2):iii-i3i.
16. Sharpe D, Adair J, Roese NJ. Twenty years of deception re-
search: A decline in subjects' trust? Personality and Social
Psychology
Bulletin I992;i8(5):585-59o; Edlund JE, Sagarin BJ, Skowronski
JJ,
et al. Whatever happens in the laboratory stays in the
laboratory: Tbe
prevalence and prevention of participant crosstalk. Personality
and
Social Psychology Bulletin 200953 5:63 5-642.
17. Taylor KM, Shepperd JA. Probing suspicion among partici-
pants in deception researcb. American Psychologist
i996;5i(8):886-
887.
18. McDaniel T, Starmer C. Experimental economics and decep-
tion: A comment./oMwa/ of Economic Psychology

i998;i9(3):4O3-
409.
19. See ref. 2, Broder 1998; Babbie E. Laud Humphreys and
research ethics. The International Journal of Sociology and
Social
Policy. 2OO4;24(3-5):i2-i9.
20. Bortolotti L, Mameli M. Deception in psychology: Moral
costs and benefits of unsought self-knowledge. Accountability
in
Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 2oo6;i3(3):259-275.
21. Pihl R, Zacchia C, Zeichner A. Follow-up analysis of the
use
of deception and aversive contingencies in psychological
experiments.
Psychological Reports i98
zz. Benham B. The ubiquity of deception and the ethics of
decep-
tive research. Bioethics 2oo8;z2:i47-i56.
23. See ref. 8, Epley and Huff 1998; Smith CP. How (un)ac-
ceptable is research involving deception? ¡RB: A Review of
Human
Subjects Research i98i;3(8):i-4; Soliday E, Stanton AL.
Deceived
versus nondeceived participants' perceptions of scientific and
applied
psychology. Ethics and Behavior i995;5(i):87-iO4.
24. Smith SS, Richardson D. Amelioration of deception and
harm
in psychological research: The important role of debriefing.
Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology I983;44(5):io75-io82.
25. Elms AC. Keeping deception honest: Justifying conditions
for
social scientific research stratagems. In: Beauchamp TL, Faden
RR,
Wallace RJ, Walters L, eds. Ethical Issues in Social Science
Research
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982, p. 232-
245.
26. Holmes DS. Effectiveness of debriefing after a stress-
produc-
ing deception. Journal of Research in Personality I973;7(2):i27-
i38;
Holmes DS, Bennett DH. Experiments to answer questions
raised by
tbe use of deception in psychological research. Journal of
Personality
and Social Psychology i974;29(3):3 58-367.
27. See ref. 22, Benham 2008.
28. See ref. 15, Baumrind 1979, p. 4.
29. Tsugawa Y, Ohbu S, Cruess R, et al. Introducing the profes-
sionalism mini-evaluation exercise (P-MEX) in Japan: Results
from a multicenter, cross-sectional study. Academic Medicine
2 o i i ; 8 6 ( 8 ) : i o 2 6 ; Ginsburg S, Regehr G, Lingard L.
Basing the evalu-
ation of professionalism on observable behaviors: A cautionary
tale.
Academic Medicine zoo4;79(io):Si-S4.
30. Wilkinson TJ, Wade WB, Knock LD. A blueprint to assess
professionalism: Results of a systematic review. Academic
Medicine

31. Sears DO. College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences
of a narrow data base on social psycbology's view of human
nature.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology I986;5i(3):5i5;
Henry
PJ. College sophomores in the laboratory redux: Influences of a
nar-
row data base on social psychology's view of the nature of
prejudice.
Psychological Inquiry 2oo8;i9(2):49-7i.
3 2. Rosenberg M. Society and the Adolescent Self-image.
Princ-
eton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965.
33. Gramzow RH, Gaertner L. Self-esteem and favoritism
toward
novel in-groups: The self as an evaluative base. Journal of
Personality
and Social Psychology 2OO5;88(5):8oi-8i5.
34. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and
validation
of brief measures of positive and negative affect: Tbe PANAS
scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology I988;54(6):io63-
io7o.
35. Mainous AG III, Smith DW, Geesey ME, Tilley BC.
Develop-
ment of a measure to assess patient trust in medical researchers.
Tfye
Annals of Family Medicine zooé;4(3):247-252.
36. See ref. 2, Kelman 1967.

37. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects
of Biomédical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report:
Ethical
Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects
of
Research. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1979,
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.btml.
38. Fisher CB, Fried AL, Feldman LG. Graduate socialization
in the responsible conduct of researcb: A national survey on the
research ethics training experiences of psychology doctoral
students.
Ethics and Behavior 2oo9;i9(6):49é-5i8.
39. See ref. 24, Smith and Richardson 1983.
40. Cohen D, Nisbett RE, Bowdle BF, Schwarz N. Insult,
aggres-
sion, and the southern culture of honor: An "experimental
ethnogra-
phy." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
i996;7o(5):945-
959; Williams LE, Bargh JA. Experiencing physical warmth
promotes
interpersonal warmth. Science 2oo8;322(59oi):éo6-6o7.
IRB: ETHICS & HUMAN RESEARCH
MARCH-APRIL 2013
Copyright of IRB: Ethics & Human Research is the property of
Hastings Center and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
1/17/2018 Imprimir
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY301.14.1?sections=ch0
1,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,ch01summary&content=all&clientToken=
14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 1/20
Chapter 1
Discovering Social Psychology
1.1 What Is Social Psychology?
1.2 Where Did Social Psychology Come From?
Social Psychology Before 1950
Social Psychology Since 1950
1.3 How Do We Do Social Psychology?
Observa�onal Method: What Is Happening?
Correla�onal Method: What Might Happen?
Experimental Method: What Causes That?
Sta�s�cal Measurement

Ethics in Research
Spencer Grant/age fotostock/SuperStock
Learning Objec�ves
By the end of the chapter you should be able to:
Define social psychology
Describe the history of social psychology
Describe the scien�fic method
Discuss the observa�onal method and explain when that
method is most appropriate to the research ques�on
Discuss the correla�onal method and explain when that
Discuss the experimental method and explain when that
Define terms associated with the experimental method
including independent and dependent variable,
experimental group and control group, random assignment
and random sampling, internal and external validity,
generalizability, experimental and mundane realism, and
demand characteris�cs
Understand the dangers of hindsight bias
Chapter Outline

1/17/2018 Imprimir
14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 2/20
Chapter Summary
* * *
One in every seven people on Earth is registered on
Facebook. The site added the 1 billionth user in
September 2012. Each U.S. user has an average
of around 260 friends (Sta�sta, 2012; Vance, 2012). In
2011 there were an es�mated 181 million blogs by people
from around the world
(Nielsenwire, 2012). On its sixth birthday in March 2012,
Twi�er reported an average of 340 million Tweets a day,
with a 140 million users
(Twi�erblog, 2012). What can we conclude from this
informa�on? Human beings are intensely interested in and
regularly seek out interac�on with
other human beings. Social psychology is a field that is
also interested in human beings. Social psychologists study
people—in par�cular, people
interac�ng with one another.
1/17/2018 Imprimir
14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 3/20

Chris�n Gilbert/age fotostock/SuperStock
Humans use social networking websites to stay connected
and interact with other
people.
Characteris�cs of a social psychologist.
Becoming a Social Psychologist
Cri�cal Thinking Ques�ons
According to Dr. Christenfield, what are the two skills
needed to thrive as a social psychologist?
Which of these skills is easier to train, and why?
1.1 What Is Social Psychology?
Social psychology is the scien�fic study of human
thoughts, feelings, and behavior as
humans relate to and are influenced by others. However,
many academic disciplines
are interested in human thoughts, feelings, or behavior. If
you were to take a
literature course, you would find yourself contempla�ng
the thoughts of Ishmael in
Moby Dick or the ac�ons of Lady Macbeth in Macbeth.
In an art course you might
work on transla�ng a par�cular feeling into a sculpture
or a pain�ng. What makes
social psychology different is the method it employs to
study humans. As with other
science-related fields, social psychologists use the
scien�fic method to learn about
human beings, a method that employs careful observa�on
and empirical evidence to

come to conclusions. The focus of social psychology,
however, is on the thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors of people, rather than the physical
pieces that together make
up a person like DNA, cells, or muscles, and cons�tute
the focus of natural science
fields like biology. Social psychology, as a branch of
psychology, focuses on how
individuals are affected by others; and, as related to
sociology, social psychology looks
at a person's social se�ng within the dynamics of the
social system.
Social psychology is o�en
paired with another
branch of psychology, personality psychology. One of the
largest organiza�ons for social psychologists,
the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP),
includes personality psychologists. Social
psychologists emphasize how different people act in
similar ways in similar situa�ons, documen�ng
how outside forces affect behavior. Personality
psychologists focus on differen�a�ng people from one
another, observing how forces inside the person affect
behavior. For example, to explain why your
friend Stuart joined a cult, a social psychologist might
look at the persuasive techniques the cult used
to convince all of their converts to join. In contrast, a
personality psychologist would focus on how
Stuart's tendency toward following those in authority
makes him, but not someone else, par�cularly
vulnerable to cults. Because situa�onal forces interact with
personal characteris�cs, explana�ons for
behavior must address both. Social and personality
psychologists therefore largely address both in the work

they do.
Social psychologists study a wide variety of topics,
including views of the self, persuasion, a�rac�on, and
group processes. In general, social psychologists are
interested in how people relate to and influence one
another, but there are many facets that do not fit this
defini�on. Social psychology is a large, unwieldy, and
largely disjointed field of study. In a history of the field
of psychology, science writer Morton Hunt (1983) aptly
summarizes the issue: “The problem," he writes,
“is that social psychology has no unifying concept; it did
not develop from the seed of a theore�cal construct . . .
but grew like crabgrass in uncul�vated regions
of the social sciences" (p. 397). Welcome to the study of
crabgrass.
Large, unwieldy, and disjointed as it may be, social
psychology offers the student and the scien�st a way of
answering the ques�ons that haunt our daily lives.
How do I understand who I am and my capabili�es?
What should I do in this new situa�on? Is that person
interested in da�ng me? Does that infomercial really
convince anyone to buy the product? How do I get my
school or work group to work be�er together? The
diversity of topics found in social psychology also
allows for wonderful interconnec�ons with other areas of
psychology. Both social psychologists and cogni�ve
psychologists are interested in decision making and
a�ribu�ons. Social psychologists and developmental
psychologists are both interested in a�achment and
roman�c rela�onships. The special exper�se and focus
of the different areas means we know more about these
topics than we might if they were studied in only one
field of psychology.

Test Yourself
Given the preceding introduc�on to the field of social
psychology, which of the following ques�ons would best
be answered by social
psychology? Click on each ques�on below to reveal the
answer.
What happened in Ge�ysburg in July 1863?
(h�p://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�o
ns/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY3
01.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�
While the answer to this ques�on might involve human
behavior, it is a ques�on be�er answered using methods
found in studies of history
than social psychological methods.
Does playing violent video games cause people to behave
more aggressively toward others?
This ques�on is well suited to social psychology; it
focuses on human behavior in rela�on to others and can
be studied using the scien�fic
method.
Can playing hard-to-get make a person more a�rac�ve to
others?
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cov

er/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1
/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 4/20
This ques�on is well suited to social psychology; it
focuses on human behavior in rela�on to others and can
be studied using the scien�fic
method.
Is there a God?
This is not a ques�on appropriate to social psychology.
Social psychology is the scien�fic study of human
thoughts, feelings, and behavior,
and this ques�on would be difficult or impossible to
study scien�fically.

1/17/2018 Imprimir
14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 5/20
Associated Press
Kurt Lewin, an important early social psychologist,
emphasized
the importance of theories and methods.
1.2 Where Did Social Psychology Come From?
In 1898, Norman Triple� published an ar�cle posing a
ques�on about bicyclists. He wondered why cyclists
seemed to race faster when in the presence of other
cyclists than when racing against the clock alone. To
explore the effect of others on individual ac�on, Triple�
developed a few hypotheses and then tested them
using the scien�fic method. For this reason, Triple� is
considered by many social psychologists to have conducted
the first social psychological research study
(Allport, 1954; Jones, 1998; though there is some
disagreement, see Danziger, 2000 and Haines & Vaughan,
1979). Triple� found that, in general, par�cipants in
his study were able to perform ac�ons more quickly when
in the presence of others.
The other study o�en cited as one of the first in the
field of social psychology was performed by Max
Ringelmann, a French agricultural engineer. He carried out
his work in the 1880s and published his findings in 1913
(Kravitz & Mar�n, 1986). In his research, Ringelmann
asked par�cipants to pull on a rope either alone, in
a group of 7, or in a group of 14. He then assessed how

hard the par�cipants pulled. He found that in the group
of 14, the average per person force was much
less than the average per person force when par�cipants
were pulling alone: 61.4 kg of force versus 85.3 kg of
force. In a later study where par�cipants pushed
a cart in pairs or alone, he also found less individual
exer�on of force when par�cipants were working with
others. Both Triple�'s and Ringelmann's studies used
the scien�fic method to be�er understand how an
individual's performance is affected by others, the essence
of social psychology.
Social Psychology Before 1950
If we date the start of social psychology to 1898, we
realize that the field is not very old, at least not
for a scien�fic discipline. Work in the field began slowly,
and before 1950 the number of researchers
and theories was small. Muzafer Sherif (1936) did some
early work on the power of the group to
influence judgments, discovering that norms were quickly
and naturally developed in groups of
people. Miller and Dollard studied aggression and proposed
a link between frustra�on and
aggression (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939;
Miller, 1941). In early work on a�tudes,
Richard T. LaPiere (1934) found that our a�tudes and our
ac�ons do not always align, while Fritz
Heider (1946) proposed a theory of a�tudes that focused
on balance.
In these early days the field struggled to define itself, its
method, and its subject of interest. Two
major figures in the field held opposing views. Floyd
Henry Allport (1890–1979) wrote an early
textbook for social psychology, published in 1924. Allport

was a strong proponent of the use of a
rigorous scien�fic method. He advocated for a focus on
individuals, not groups or norms, and the
behaviors of people, not thoughts or feelings. Another
major figure was Kurt Lewin (1890–1947), a
refugee from Nazi Germany who moved to the United
States in 1933. Lewin had a major influence
on the field of social psychology. He believed that outside
forces affect the behavior of the
individual, that the ac�ons and decisions of the individual
are constrained by fields of force, similar
to how the planets in our solar system are constrained in
their movement by the pull of gravity from
the bodies that surround them. But Lewin's contribu�ons
were primarily in the realm of theory and
method—it was the way he did social psychology that
people emulated. For more on what Lewin did
and his disagreement with Allport, see the Social
Psychology in Depth box.
Social Psychology in Depth: Lewin's Contribu�ons
The psychologist finds himself in the midst of a rich and
vast land full of strange happenings: There are men
killing themselves; a
child playing; a person who, having fallen in love and
being caught in an unhappy situa�on, is not willing or
not able to find a way
out; . . . there is the reaching out for higher and more
difficult goals; loyalty to a group; dreaming; planning;
exploring the world;
and so on without end.
It is an immense con�nent full of fascina�on and power
and full of stretches of land where no one ever has set
foot.

Psychology is out to conquer this con�nent, to find out
where its treasures are hidden, to inves�gate its danger
spots, to master
its vast forces, to u�lize its energies. How can one reach
this goal? (Lewin, 1940, cited in Marrow, 1969, p. 3)
As a young science, social psychology struggled to find
its direc�on and focus. Kurt Lewin helped the field find
its way, while also making great
contribu�ons to child development and
industrial/organiza�onal psychology (Ash, 1992). Lewin
explained that behavior (B) was a func�on (f) of
both the person (P) and the environment (E), resul�ng in
an equa�on wri�en as B = f (P, E). For human beings,
the environment (E) most o�en
includes other people, so Lewin was intensely interested in
the effect we have on one another. In fact, Lewin was
the person who coined the
term group dynamics (Berscheid, 2003).
Lewin saw the importance of studying people outside the
laboratory, in everyday situa�ons. He also studied the
important issues of the day,
focusing psychological study on the par�cular social issues
that needed to be solved. The study that ini�ally gained
him popularity in the United
1/17/2018 Imprimir
14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 6/20

States was one of leadership styles. Lewin and his
colleagues (Lewin, Lippi�, & White, 1939) compared the
behavior of children assigned to
groups led by adults using an authoritarian and laissez-
faire style with the behavior of children led by those
using a more democra�c style. They
found that hos�le behavior was usually higher in the
groups led using an authoritarian or laissez-faire style than
led using a democra�c style.
Lewin believed that groups could be studied experimentally
and did so in studies like the one on leadership styles.
Another prominent psychologist, Floyd Allport (1924),
argued that only the individual could be the subject of
study. Allport maintained that
psychology studies the individual, so extending psychology
to groups goes against the defini�on of the field. Allport
also believed that social
psychologists should focus on laboratory studies. It was
Allport who pointed to Triple�'s 1898 study as the first
in the history of social
psychology, not because Triple� himself saw it as a
social psychological study but because it fit Allport's
model of what a study in social
psychology should be (Berscheid, 2003). Allport was a
good salesman.
The topics that social psychologists study, however, are
more in line with Lewin's ideas of appropriate subjects
for the field than Allport's ideas.
Social psychologists study the interac�on of the person
and environment, and groups—both large groups and very
small groups (those made up
of two people). The Society for the Psychological Study
of Social Issues, an organiza�on Lewin helped start, is
alive and well. Lewin's ideas

con�nue to be used in the area of ac�on research, which
focuses on making improvements to difficult situa�ons
while advancing scien�fic
knowledge (Bargal, 2008; Sommer, 2009). Given the big
issues we face in the world today—war, poverty, and
discrimina�on, to name a few—one
can hope for Lewin's tradi�on to con�nue.
Social Psychology Since 1950
In the 1950s and 1960s, the number of social
psychologists and research within the field expanded
rapidly. A number of factors contributed to this increased
interest in the field. One desire of a number of social
psychologists, and therefore a topic of study in this
period, was to explain the violent events leading up to
and taking place during World War II. Researchers
focused on subjects such as the causes of aggression,
group ac�ons (e.g., conformity and social facilita�on),
and individual ac�ons (e.g., obedience). In the United
States the field benefited from a number of psychologists
who fled Europe before or during World War II.
Serious study of many of the topics you will read about
throughout this text began in these decades. These
concepts, the researchers, and their major findings
are summarized in Table 1.1. As we explore social
psychology throughout the coming weeks, keep this table
in mind.
Table 1.1: Social psychological topics and researchers of
the 1950s and 1960s
Topic Researcher, Date, Title, and Journal Major Finding
Aggression Berkowitz, L., & LePage, A. (1967). Weapons
as aggression-elici�ng s�muli. In the Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology.
The presence of a weapon elicited greater aggression than
the
presence of a neutral s�mulus or no object.
A�rac�on Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., &
Ro�mann, L. (1966). Importance of physical
a�rac�veness in da�ng behavior. In the
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
A�rac�ve individuals were liked more, more likely to be
pursued
for a later date, and rated their dates more harshly.
Cogni�ve
dissonance
Fes�nger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959).
Cogni�ve consequences of forced compliance.
In the Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology.
Par�cipants receiving a small reward to lie to another
par�cipant were more likely to report they enjoyed the
boring
study and would par�cipate in a similar study in the
future than
those who received a large reward.
Conformity Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of interdependence
and conformity: A minority of one against the
unanimous majority. In Psychological
Monographs.
Even when an answer was obviously wrong, individuals

conformed to a unanimous group at least some of the
�me.
Helping Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group
inhibi�on of bystander interven�on in
emergencies. In the Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology.
Par�cipants alone helped more quickly when alone than
when
in the presence of unresponsive others or other naïve
par�cipants.
Obedience Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of
obedience. In the Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology.
Commands of obedience were obeyed even when the
commands appeared to harm another individual.
Persuasion Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The
influence of source credibility on
communica�on effec�veness. In Public
Opinion Quarterly.
A�er �me, par�cipants accepted an originally rejected
message
from an untrustworthy source.
Social
facilita�on
Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E.
M. (1969). Social enhancement and
impairment of performance in the cockroach.
In the Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology.
Cockroaches running a difficult maze took a shorter �me
when
they were alone than when they were observed by other
cockroaches. Cockroaches running an easy maze took a
longer
�me when they were alone than when they were
observed.
1/17/2018 Imprimir
14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 7/20
Expand Your Knowledge: Looking for More?
The Inquisi�ve Mind, or In-Mind, is a website with
interes�ng,
accessible ar�cles on social psychology for the general
public. If you
would like to learn more about current findings in the
field from
respected researchers, take a look at h�p://beta.in-mind.org/
(h�p://beta.in-mind.org/) .
Since the 1960s, psychology as a whole has put more
emphasis on cogni�on or thinking processes rather than
just observable behavior. In research on the self,
for example, social psychologists have found that the way
we think about ourselves influences the way we approach
the world. People who view themselves as
possessing par�cular quali�es tend to no�ce those

quali�es in others. Our cogni�ve processes also impact
the decisions we make, an idea we will explore in the
chapter on making judgments. Basic cogni�ve processes
such as categoriza�on also impact how we think about
others. Because of our tendency to categorize,
we assume people who share one characteris�c share
others as well, resul�ng in stereotypes.
As our technologies for looking inside the brain have
improved, so too have our abili�es to see how brain
anatomy and brain processes relate to the social
aspects of the person. Researchers have found that when
we think about ourselves, we use a different part of the
brain than if we are thinking about other
people or things. Processing informa�on about the self
u�lizes a unique loca�on in the brain, and when people
are thinking about themselves, this part of the
brain shows heightened ac�va�on. Other parts of the
brain are ac�vated when people are paying a�en�on to
what others are doing, either in a�emp�ng to
understand others' thought processes or evalua�ng whether
their ac�ons may be threatening. We also use different
parts of our brain when we are a�emp�ng
to regulate our thoughts or behaviors in social situa�ons
(Heatherton, 2011). Social neuroscience is s�ll a rela�vely
new field; researchers are only beginning to
explore all the ways our brain reflects our social
ac�vi�es.
In more recent decades, social psychologists have also
paid more a�en�on to the impact of cultural differences
on the person (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
They have found that people may think differently about
themselves and their rela�onships and interact with one
another differently depending on culture. For
example, studies show that young people in the United

States place more emphasis and importance on roman�c
rela�onships than people in South Korea do.
College students in the two countries were surveyed at the
beginning and the end of the spring semester to assess
stability of roman�c rela�onship status,
roman�c loneliness, and closeness. The researchers then
compared the South Korean and U.S. students—those who
were in stable roman�c rela�onships and
those who were not. U.S. students in stable roman�c
rela�onships showed less loneliness than their U.S.
counterparts without a stable roman�c rela�onship.
Korean students had only a small decrease in loneliness
when in a stable roman�c rela�onship. In other words,
when not in a roman�c rela�onship, Korean
young adults do not experience as much roman�c
loneliness as young adults in the United States do. Within
rela�onships, young adults in the United States
report greater closeness to their partner than young adults
in Korea do (Seepersad, Choi, & Shin, 2008). These
findings suggest that young adults in the United
States place greater importance on roman�c rela�onships
for comba�ng loneliness and gaining closeness with
another person. Friends or family may be more
important for South Korean young adults in mee�ng social
needs.
Social psychologists have also begun incorpora�ng
evolu�onary theories to explain
various psychological findings. According to evolu�onary
theory, those
characteris�cs of an organism that allow it to survive and
reproduce within its
environment are most likely to appear in later genera�ons.
Evolu�onary theory is
o�en used in biology and other sciences, but within
psychology our focus is more

o�en on adap�ve behaviors (e.g., being afraid of
strangers) rather than on
adap�ve biological characteris�cs (e.g., opposable thumbs).
Adap�ve behaviors
may s�ll have a biological mechanism that can be passed
on through the genes.
For instance, in evolu�onary history, individuals who
showed a strong response to
strangers in the amygdala, the brain structure largely
responsible for the emo�on
of fear, were more likely to survive an a�ack by a rival
group. Their survival meant they had children and passed
the genes responsible for their stranger-
ac�vated amygdala on to future genera�ons.
Evolu�onary psychology can act as a metatheory, a theory
that explains other theories (Duntley & Buss, 2008). For
example, on the theme of roman�c
rela�onships, evolu�onary psychologists would suggest that
a man capable of iden�fying a fer�le woman and keeping
that woman away from other men will be
more successful in passing down his genes to future
genera�ons. A woman, on the other hand, would want to
iden�fy a man who is willing and able to invest in
her and her offspring, given the long investment she has
in pregnancy and a dependent infant. We find exactly
these kinds of pa�erns across cultures (Buss,
Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Buss & Schmi�,
1993; Kaighobadi, Shackelford, & Buss, 2010). Men report
greater interest in physical a�rac�veness, desire
more sexual partners, and are more jealous of sexual
infidelity than emo�onal infidelity. Women, on the other
hand, show more interest in status and income
and are more jealous when a partner becomes emo�onally
close to another woman, which could poten�ally lead him
to stop inves�ng in her and their offspring.

Test Yourself
Click on each ques�on below to reveal the answer.
The first study in social psychology was conducted by
Triple� in
ns/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover#)
a. 1809
b. 1898
c. 1950
d. 1989
Correct answer: b
http://beta.in-mind.org/
er/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 8/20
When did the number of researchers in the field of social
psychology begin to increase?
ns/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sec�ons/cover#)

In the 1950s and 1960s, a�er World War II, the number
of social psychologists, and the topics they studied, grew.
er/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
14cd3905-fb2c-f100-… 9/20
Belinda Images/SuperStock
Observa�onal studies allow researchers to observe people
and their behavior in
naturalis�c se�ngs.
1.3 How Do We Do Social Psychology?
What makes social psychology a science? The common
theme among the chemist in the lab, the physicist at the
Large Hadron Collider, the ecologist out in the
forest, and the psychologist is the method all use to
explore the subject ma�er: the scien�fic method. The
scien�fic method begins with a testable predic�on, a
hypothesis, which can be inspired by experiences in the
world or developed from a theory, which is a set of
principles or a framework for a set of observa�ons
based on previous research. Once a hypothesis has been
developed, the researcher will want to actually test the
predic�on. There are three basic methods for
tes�ng hypotheses: the observa�onal method, the
correla�onal method, and the experimental method. Which
one to use depends on the ques�on asked.

Observa�onal Method: What Is Happening?
When a researcher simply wants to know what is
happening within a situa�on or with
a par�cular phenomenon, observa�onal methods are most
appropriate. For example,
while watching one of those long commercials on late-
night television called an
infomercial, a researcher might wonder how many include
a “free bonus gi�." An
observa�onal method can help to answer this ques�on.
When using observa�onal
methods, a researcher simply observes a behavior or
situa�on and records what is
happening.
Observa�onal methods are systema�c in nature. Before
conduc�ng the observa�on, a
researcher most o�en decides exactly what cons�tutes the
behavior being studied.
For example, in inves�ga�ng how many infomercials offer
a free gi�, the researcher
might specify that the free gi� must come with the
purchase and not require separate
shipping and handling charges. Decisions must also be
made about when to sample
the behavior. A researcher could decide to sample
infomercials occurring between
12:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. on network television or
between 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
on weekends on cable television. Depending on the
research ques�on, observa�onal
research might take place in a wide variety of se�ngs.
An interest in children's
aggressive behavior might lead to observa�ons in a day
care se�ng. For a research

ques�on about the ac�ons of people si�ng in wai�ng
rooms, data collec�on could take place at a local
den�st's office.
Observa�onal methods are helpful in describing if or how
o�en something might happen. Many observa�onal studies
take place in naturalis�c se�ngs, so
people's behaviors are generally the same as in their
everyday lives. One drawback of this method is that
rela�vely rare or private behaviors, such as sexual
ac�vity, are difficult or unethical to observe. Scien�sts
using this method also need to be careful to not allow
their presence to affect the behavior being
observed.
Test Yourself
Click on the ques�on below to reveal the answer.
Describe several research ques�ons that would best be
answered using the observa�onal method.
Examples: How o�en do people jaywalk? How o�en do
people hold open the door for strangers when going into
a store? Do people read the
magazines in a doctor's office wai�ng room?
Correla�onal Method: What Might Happen?
Researchers o�en want to be able to predict if one
behavior (or feeling or thought) will occur as a result of
another behavior. In these cases, they use the
correla�onal method. If a researcher was interested in

whether the age of people is associated with their
likelihood of buying an infomercial product, the
correla�onal method would be used. To apply this
method, people's ages would need to be recorded, as well
as how many infomercial products they had
purchased within a specified period, for instance, within
the last month. In research, the en��es assessed when
using a correla�onal method are called variables.
A variable is literally something that varies or can vary.
In this study, two variables are assessed: age and
purchases. Researchers are interested in whether there
is a rela�on between the two variables they are
comparing. Does knowing a person's age tell us anything
about the number of adver�sed products bought last
month? Are these variables co-related?
Correla�onal research o�en involves the use of survey
methods. Surveys help researchers gather informa�on about
people by asking individuals to answer a
ques�on or a series of ques�ons about themselves and
what they think, feel, or do. Surveys may be conducted in
a wide variety of ways. Some�mes researchers
do face-to-face interviews, or talk to people on the
telephone to collect informa�on. Other �mes a paper-and-
pencil survey is sent to poten�al par�cipants or
people sit in a group se�ng, like a classroom, to fill out
a survey. Surveys are also administered online. Surveys
can be helpful in collec�ng a lot of informa�on in
a rela�vely short period, but researchers must be careful
of the wording of ques�ons within a survey so they do
not lead people to a desired answer.
/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AU
PSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/co

ver/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.
1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/A
UPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/c
over/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.1
4.1/sections/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover/books/
AUPSY301.14.1/sections/cover#
1/17/2018 Imprimir
14cd3905-fb2c-f100… 10/20
Expand Your Knowledge: Par�cipate in Research
Want to see what social psychological research is really
like?
Par�cipate in online research. One clearinghouse for
studies can be
found at the Social Psychology Network website:
h�p://www.socialpsychology.org/
(h�p://www.socialpsychology.org/) .
Another concern of survey research is the reliability of the
survey. A reliable survey is one that provides consistent
informa�on. For example, if an individual was
surveyed about his or her religious beliefs one week and
then again 2 weeks later, the answers on the survey
should be similar both �mes, unless, of course, the
person surveyed experienced a religious conversion in that
�me. If two administra�ons of a survey provided very
different results and there is no alterna�ve
explana�on for the lack of consistency, the survey is
unreliable and should not be used in research. Surveys are
o�en used in correla�onal research but may also

be used in experiments to find out how people think, feel,
or behave.
Beyond the survey method, other methods can be used
when collec�ng data on variables, combining more than
one research method. For example, if the
researcher was interested in whether children's aggressive
behavior was related to the number of teachers observing
the children's play, the children could be
observed on the playground, and the number of teachers
watching could also be recorded. If a researcher wanted to
know if the number of aggressive acts by
children was related to parental a�tudes toward violence,
observa�ons might be paired with a survey of parental
a�tudes toward violence. Data might also be
obtained from other sources. A research ques�on about
the rela�on between age and purchasing from infomercials
might be answered with a survey of
individuals but could also be addressed if the researcher
received permission to look at people's credit card
purchases of infomercial products, as well as the
credit card company's data concerning their clients' ages.
Note that with the correla�onal method, the researcher is
not manipula�ng the environment or
a�emp�ng to change people's behavior, but rather, looking
at what people are naturally doing, specific a�ributes, or
what they are thinking or feeling.
The correla�onal method can be very useful, but it must
be used with cau�on. If
knowledge of one variable (age) helps predict another
(buying), does that mean
that one causes the other? Not necessarily. It is possible
that the first variable
caused the second, or that the second variable caused the
first, or that some

other variable caused both variables. Without further
research we cannot know
which possibility is true. For example, a researcher might
find a nega�ve
correla�on in schools between the number of teachers
monitoring hallway
behavior and the number of acts of aggression in the
hallway. It is possible that
more teachers in the hallway caused lower aggression, but
it is also possible that
there were fewer teachers in the hallway in the face of
aggression because they had le� to avoid it. Knowing that
there is a correla�on between two events does
not tell us which, if either, is the cause. In fact, it is
quite common to have a third variable cause a correla�on
between two other variables. For example,
sunburn and outdoor temperature are correlated. Does this
mean that hot weather causes sunburn or that sunburn
causes hot weather? Of course not. The
summer sun causes both sunburn and hot weather. Cum
hoc propter hoc—correla�on does not imply causa�on.
Test Yourself
If a researcher were to give a test of crea�vity to a
par�cipant and get a score of 12 and a week later give
the same test again and get a
score of 12, that crea�vity test would have what quality?
Reliability. A test that provides consistent scores is

reliable.
If two variables are correlated, does that mean that one
of them causes the other?
No. Two variables can be correlated but both be caused
by another variable. Correla�on is not causa�on.
Experimental Method: What Causes That?
A researcher interested in causality would use the
experimental method (see Figure 1.1). For example, if we
are interested in whether offering a free gi� makes
people more likely to buy things, we would do an
experiment. In this basic experiment half of a group of
people would be randomly assigned to watch an
infomercial where a free gi� is offered at the end, and
the other half of the group would watch an iden�cal
infomercial but without reference to a free gi�. Each
person would then be asked how much they would like to
buy the product.
The Experimental Study
In an experiment, the group that receives the treatment or
experiences a change in their environment is called the
experimental group. In the study of free gi�s
in infomercials, the group that is offered the free gi�
would be the experimental group, and the group to which
nothing was offered is called the control group.
Researchers use other terms for other parts of an
experiment. The variable manipulated in an experiment, in
this case the presence or absence of a free gi�

offer, is called the independent variable. The variable we
measure in an experiment, in this case desire to buy, is
the dependent variable. An experiment tests
whether the independent and dependent variable have a
cause and effect rela�onship. If the presence or absence
of a gi� (i.e., the independent variable)
changes buying behavior (i.e., the dependent variable), the
assump�on is that gi�s cause a desire to buy.
Figure 1.1: The experimental method
http://www.socialpsychology.org/
1/17/2018 Imprimir

14cd3905-fb2c-f100… 11/20
A simple experiment can be designed to test a hypothesis.
Many experiments involve random assignment, which means
that each individual in the sample has an equal chance of
being in each of the groups (levels of the
independent variable). In the study of infomercials, the
researcher might flip a coin and assign those who got
heads to get the free gi� and those who got tails
to be offered no free gi�. Random assignment is
important because it lessens the possibility of extraneous
variables affec�ng the study. Extraneous variables are
things that are outside of our interest but that may affect
the results of the study. For example, if a researcher
assigned the first half of the people who
volunteered to be part of the study to watch the
infomercial with the free gi�, they may be more likely to
buy because they are generally eager people. They
signed up quickly for the study and were also very
interested in other opportuni�es, like a free gi�. If,
instead, the researcher randomly assigned individuals to
the two groups, the eager people would likely be
distributed fairly equally between the two groups. Random
assignment allows preexis�ng differences within
par�cipants to be randomly distributed among the groups
in a study.
Despite researchers' best efforts, there are �mes when a
par�cular kind of extraneous variable interferes with
research conclusions. Confounding variables, also
known as "third" or "latent" variables, are variables that
change or are inadvertently manipulated along with the
independent variable. For example, imagine we

found a difference in buying behavior between the
experimental group and control group in our study of
infomercial free gi�s. If every par�cipant saw the same
infomercial in our study, and only the experimental group
saw a final segment offering them a free gi�, we might
reasonably assume that a free gi� encourages
buying. But this might not be the case. If the offer of
the free gi� took another 20 seconds, perhaps the extra
processing �me influenced the buying behavior of
the experimental group. Along with our independent
variable manipula�on (offer of a free gi�), came a
confounding variable (extra processing �me). Extraneous
variables, and in par�cular confounding variables, are
notoriously difficult to control and, at �mes, even see. As
you read about research in social psychology, be
on the lookout for extraneous variables and keep in mind
their poten�al impact on our conclusions.
A study free from extraneous and confounding variables,
where we are fairly certain that the independent variable
caused the observed change in the dependent
variable is described as having internal validity. But having
humans as research par�cipants creates special problems
for those who study them. For example,
demand characteris�cs occur when research par�cipants
change their behavior because of what they perceive to be
the purpose of the study. If par�cipants
believe a researcher is looking at whether free gi�s made
people happy, those par�cipants might report being happy
when ge�ng a gi�, even though they
actually find the free gi� an annoying distrac�on. When
demand characteris�cs are in play, the effect of the
independent variable on the dependent variable
cannot be clearly seen. The researcher would not know if
the par�cipants were ac�ng happy because they were
being nice or because the free gi� actually

made them happy. One way to avoid demand
characteris�cs is to use decep�on to mislead par�cipants
about the true focus of the study. However, decep�on
brings with it a variety of ethical problems.
Test Yourself
Iden�fy the independent and dependent variables.
a. To see if college students ate less when served on
smaller plates, students received a normal cafeteria meal
on the regular plates or
on plates that were 1 inch smaller in diameter.
01.14.1/sec�ons/cover/books/AUPSY301.14.1
Independent variable: size of plate; Dependent variable:
amount eaten
1/17/2018 Imprimir

14cd3905-fb2c-f100… 12/20
©2008/Daily News, L.P./NY Daily News via Ge�y Images
If a psychological study is conducted with only adolescent-
aged males, do the
results have external validity?
Using the scien�fic method in social psychology
research.
Conduc�ng Research
Cri�cal Thinking Ques�ons
How is the scien�fic method u�lized in social
psychology research?
Think of a ques�on related to social psychology. How
would you go about answering that ques�on?
b. Inves�ga�ng whether receiving candy while taking a
test improved test scores, students either received a small
candy bar while
taking a test or no candy.
Independent variable: candy; Dependent variable: test
scores
c. Looking at the difference clothing might make on
perceived trustworthiness of a newscaster, the newscaster

either wore very casual
clothes or his usual suit and �e to present the news.
Both the viewers who saw him wearing casual clothes and
the viewers who
saw him in his usual clothing rated his trustworthiness.
Independent variable: clothing; Dependent variable:
perceived trustworthiness
For each of the preceding scenarios, iden�fy the
experimental and the control group.
Experimental group: students ea�ng off the plates that
were 1 inch smaller in diameter; Control group: students
ea�ng off the regular plates
Experimental group: students receiving candy; Control
group: students receiving no candy
Experimental group: viewers who saw the newscaster in
casual clothing; Control group: viewers who saw the
newscaster in his usual suit and
�e
Applica�on of an Experiment
Researchers want the findings of their work to have
generalizability. A study that is
generalizable is one whose results can be applied in a
variety of situa�ons. If the

findings of a study apply only to the laboratory se�ng or
only with the type of people
that par�cipated, the findings are not very useful to
everyday people in everyday
situa�ons. Studies that are generalizable are said to have
external validity, which is
the extent to which the results of a par�cular study are
applicable to other places,
other people, and other �mes.
To ensure that findings are relevant to a variety of
people, researchers try to get a
representa�ve sample of the popula�on to be part of the
study. In a study of the
effect of free gi�s in infomercials on buying behavior, a
researcher could recruit a
number of friends to be part of the study. The problem
with this idea is that the
results might apply only to people like the researcher,
likely of similar age and life
situa�on. Would the findings also apply to an 80-year-old
widow, 50-year-old
businessperson, and 30-year-old stay-at-home dad? To make
certain the findings will
apply to a wide variety, researchers try to get a random
sample from a popula�on. A
random sample is a group of individuals chosen from a
popula�on where every
member of the popula�on had an equal chance of being
part of the study. Random
samples give us a good chance of ge�ng a sample that is
representa�ve of the
popula�on, and therefore, results that are applicable back
to the popula�on. Random
samples are important not just when using the
experimental method but for the observa�onal and

correla�onal method as well.
True random samples can be difficult to obtain. Ge�ng
the contact informa�on for everyone at a somewhat small
workplace might be rela�vely easy, but what if
the popula�on is the en�re television-viewing public in
the United States? How does one assure that every U.S.
television viewer has an equal chance of being
part of a study? Choosing a sample from all the people
listed in phone books would be excluding those with only
cell phones, unlisted numbers, or no phone. A
sample from all the addresses of U.S. households,
assuming such a list could be obtained, would exclude the
homeless and those in transi�on between
residences.
The issue of random sampling has been problema�c in
social psychology. Many social psychologists
teach and do research at colleges and universi�es, so they
use the par�cipants that are easily
available to them: college students. In one assessment of
this problem Henry (2008) looked at
ar�cles on prejudice and s�gma published in the top
three journals in social psychology between
1990 and 2005, finding that between 87% and 98% used
student samples. While this tells us a great
deal about “college sophomores in the laboratory," as
Sears (1986) put it, the findings may not apply
well to those not in college, those of middle age, or the
elderly.
When drawing conclusions about social behavior, there is
a tempta�on to believe that the conclusion
reached was obvious all along. This tendency to
overes�mate your ability to have predicted the
results is known as hindsight bias (Bernstein, Atance,

Lo�us, & Meltzoff, 2004; Fischhoff, 1975; Werth
& Strack, 2003). An example of hindsight bias is when
someone says that they knew which team was

1/17/2018 Imprimir
14cd3905-fb2c-f100… 13/20
going to win a championship game, a�er that team had
already won. Or, a�er telling your grandma about your
recent engagement, she informs you that she
"knew all along that girl was 'the one.'" Many students of
social psychology face hindsight bias when studying
various social phenomenons. As you read about
the research of social psychologists, you may think that
the conclusion was obvious, so much so that it seemed
like a silly study to do in the first place. But what
is obvious is not always right.
Researchers want to be able to apply results to different
people and to se�ngs outside of the laboratory. If
par�cipants act differently in a research lab than they
do in everyday life, a researcher can only predict what
happens in research labs, not in the real world. In order
to encourage par�cipants to act naturally, some
researchers try to make the experimental se�ng as similar
to the real-life se�ng as possible. When the environment
par�cipants experience is similar to what
they would experience in real life, the study is said to
have mundane realism. For example, in a study of
infomercials, researchers might ask par�cipants to sit on
a comfortable couch in a decorated room to simulate the
home environment rather than have par�cipants sit at a
desk or on a hard office chair.
Even without mundane realism, it is possible to encourage
experimental realism in a research study. Experimental
realism occurs when research par�cipants are

completely involved and engaged in what they are doing.
With experimental realism, the par�cipants' immersion in
the ac�vity causes them to act as they would
in their everyday lives. Researchers generally prefer
experimental realism over mundane realism. Par�cipants
watching an infomercial on a comfortable couch
may experience the real-life se�ng but s�ll act in the
way they think the experimenter wants them to, showing
demand characteris�cs and providing a response
they would not in their everyday life. Mundane realism
can encourage experimental realism, but experimental
realism can occur even without mundane realism.
Par�cipants might feel very comfortable watching the
infomercial on the couch and pay as much a�en�on to it
as they would in their own living room at home,
but it is possible they might have been equally engaged
while si�ng on a hard chair in a stark room.
Test Yourself
Why is generalizability important?
Without generalizability, the findings of research are only
applicable to the situa�ons or types of se�ngs in which
the data were collected.
Social psychologists want to know how people normally
behave in everyday situa�ons, so they want their findings
to apply to those
situa�ons and types of se�ngs.
What is the difference between random sampling and

random assignment?
With random sampling, researchers are obtaining
par�cipants from a popula�on. Sampling involves ge�ng
par�cipants for a study. Random
assignment is what a researcher may or may not do a�er
acquiring a sample. Random assignment involves actually
pu�ng par�cipants into
the experimental or control group(s). Just because a
researcher does one, it does not mean the research has
done the other. It is possible to
do random sampling and then fail to randomly assign
par�cipants and to do non-random sampling and then
randomly assign par�cipants to
group.
If you were doing a study on conflict in roman�c
rela�onships, what might you do to encourage mundane
realism?
Place par�cipants in a se�ng that approximates real life.
For example, couples are likely to spend much of their
�me in conflict at home, so
a researcher could ask couples to sit in a room that looks
like a living room and talk about a topic that causes
conflict in their rela�onship.
Why is the hindsight bias also known as the I-knew-it-all-
along phenomenon?

When people engage in the hindsight bias, they believe
that what they did not know earlier is so obvious they
must have known it all along.
Sta�s�cal Measurement
The results of research need to be organized and
summarized so they can be understood and shared.
Researchers use various sta�s�cal measures to help them
see what the collected informa�on means and to
communicate this informa�on succinctly. Within
observa�onal research, coun�ng the total number of
behaviors
seen and describing the range can be helpful. For
example, a researcher could observe aggression shown by
different children on the playground and report the
total number of aggressive acts shown by each child.
Table 1.2 shows the results from one observa�on of seven
children on a playground. A researcher could
report that the range of scores was between 2 and 7 acts,
with a total of 5 acts between the most aggressive and
least aggressive child. This may be helpful
informa�on, but it would also be interes�ng to know the
number of aggressive acts most children engage in or the
average number of aggressive acts.
One way to report this informa�on would be to describe
the most common number of aggressive acts seen in the
children. Repor�ng the most common
response is repor�ng the mode. As seen in Table 1.2,
three of the seven children engaged in three aggressive
acts; 3 was the most common number of acts, so
the mode for this group is 3. Another way of looking at

HU245 Unit 6 Assignment Rubric Grade Grading C.docx

HU245 Unit 6 Assignment Rubric Grade Grading C.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to HU245 Unit 6 Assignment Rubric Grade Grading C.docx

Similar to HU245 Unit 6 Assignment Rubric Grade Grading C.docx (20)

More from wellesleyterresa

More from wellesleyterresa (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

HU245 Unit 6 Assignment Rubric Grade Grading C.docx