Copy of PSYC 3111 Group Activity #6

pdf

School

University of Colorado, Boulder *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3111

Subject

Psychology

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by bengoldberg402

Group Activity #6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***Follow these instructions carefully before you get started.*** 1. First, please choose a group member to serve as the recorder . 2. The recorder should make a copy of this Google doc handout (File ⇒ Make a copy) to fill in on behalf of your group. 3. The recorder should also share the Google doc with the other group members (see “Share” in upper-right corner). 4. Important: Although everyone in your group will have the same answers, each group member must submit a copy of their group’s completed handout by the end of this class session today to receive credit. 5. Please submit your completed handout via the Canvas assignment as a PDF document. You can do this by going to File ⇒ Download ⇒ PDF document (.pdf). Have fun! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please list the full names of all group members who contributed to this handout: 1. Reina Arora 2. Carson Minter 3. Stella Brenman 4. Gisele Placeres 5. Mason Davis 6. Matthew White Group Activity #6: Assessing the validity of a real study A psychology graduate student, Monica, proposes that looking at ultra-thin women fashion models might have a negative impact on women’s self-perceived attractiveness. She posts an advertisement on her university’s psychology subject pool website to recruit women to come to her lab to participate in an experiment. Participants choose whether to sign up for a morning (8am) or afternoon (3pm) session, per their availability.

Monica shows pictures of ultra-thin female fashion models to the 10 participants who come in at 8am. She shows pictures of average-weight women to the 10 participants who come in at 3pm. After the participants view the pictures, Monica has all the women fill out two scales to rate their own attractiveness: 1) A 28-item measure that has been validated by past research for assessing body self-esteem (which includes questions to assess how the participant feels about their weight, sexual attractiveness, and physical fitness), and 2) A new 8-item measure that Monica designed herself to assess women’s self-perceived physical attractiveness . It includes questions like “How physically attractive do you think you are?”, “How confident do you feel about your body?” and “How physically desirable do you think you are to potential dating partners?” She also has all of the women complete the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (for detecting socially desirable responding ; see survey design lecture slides for more information). After data collection is complete, Monica first conducts some correlational analyses. The correlation between the existing body self-esteem measure and her new measure of self-perceived attractiveness is r = .56, p = .01. The correlation between her new measure of self-perceived attractiveness and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (assessing socially desirable responding) is r = .11, p = .05. [Before moving on, ask yourself/your group: Why is she examining these correlations? Neither of these is a test of her hypothesis, so why bother performing these analyses?] Next, Monica runs an independent t -test to test her hypothesis. She finds that the women who were shown photos of ultra-thin fashion models reported significantly lower self-perceived attractiveness than did the women who were shown photos of average-weight women, p = .01. 1. What is the independent variable? What are its levels? Is it measured or manipulated? IV: Viewing ultra thin women models Levels of the IV: 2 - seeing an ultra-thin model model, seeing an average model Measured or manipulated: Manipulated 2. What is the dependent variable? How is it measured? DV: Self-perceived attractiveness - measured using self-report measures 3. Next, state the null hypothesis and alternative (research) hypothesis for this study? H 0 : Viewing ultra thin models has no effect on self-perceived attractiveness

H 1 : Viewing ultra thin models has an effect on self-perceived attractiveness Before you answer this, ask yourself: Is Monica examining an association between two quantitative variables or a difference between groups (which is the same thing as an association between a categorical variable and a quantitative variable)? ● If Monica is examining an association between two quantitative variables, you should state the null hypothesis as “The association between X and Y will equal 0” and the alte rnate hypothesis as “The association between X and Y will not equal 0.” ● Alternatively, if Monica is examining a difference between groups, you should state the null hypothesis as “The group means will be equal” (there will be no difference between group means) and the alternate hypothesis as “The group means will not be equal.” H 0 : The group means will be equal H 1 : the group means will not be equal 4. Now, evaluate the internal validity of the study. Is it good, OK, or poor? If it is good, why? If it is OK or poor, what are some alternative explanations for Monica’s finding (describe at least two alternative explanations, and be specific)? How would you address these alternative explanations if you were to redesign her study? Evaluate the internal validity: good, OK, or poor? Why? I think that the internal validity would be alright because the relationship being tested is going to be inﬂuenced by other variables. If applicable, alternative explanations: 1. Selection Bias, the participants who signed up in the morning and afternoon may differ the people who signed up in the morning may be more tired or less confident so they may rate themselves as less attractive in the photos compared to people who signed up in the afternoon. 2. Another alternative explanation would be demand characteristics. The participants may have guessed Monica's hypothesis based on the photos they saw and may have changed their responses due to their self-perceived attractiveness measures. How you would address these alternative explanations: Monica could randomly assign the participants to the morning or afternoon session or match the participants to ensure they are equal in mood/confidence. She also could use a double blind procedure where neither the participants or the experimenter knows which photos are being presented to the group. 5. Evaluate the external validity of the study. Is it good, OK, or poor? If it is good, why? If it is OK or poor, what are some specific ways in which the generalizability of the findings may be

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

limited (describe at least two, and be specific)? How would you address these limitations if you were to redesign her study? Evaluate the external validity: good, OK, or poor? Why? OK- she uses two validated scales, but one that she came up with herself. If applicable, limitations to the external validity : A limitation to the external validity would be that the researcher used a scale she came up with herself that was not validated by others before use. How you would address these limitations: Take out that scale or find one that is validated and similar to the one she came up with. 6. Aside from testing her hypothesis, you may have correctly guessed that another of Monica’s objectives in conducting this project was to begin validating her new measure of self-perceived physical attractiveness. Along those lines, does Monica’s new measure of self-perceived physical attractiveness have adequate convergent validity? How did you decide? (See lecture slides on construct validity from Week 6 for more info.) Evaluate the convergent validity of Monica’s measure: good, OK, or poor? Monica’s measure would be considered good What information did you use to decide? I used the correlation between her measure of self perceived attractiveness and the measure of body self esteem. These measures were moderately strong (r =.56, p=.01) 7. Does Monica’s new measure of self-perceived physical attractiveness have adequate discriminant validity? How did you decide? (This is a tough one! Don’t hesitate to ask Dr. Gildersleeve for help.) Evaluate the discriminant validity of Monica’s measure: good, OK, or poor? - I would say monica’s measure is poor What information did you use to decide? She created the scale herself and there is no Cronbach’s alpha value to determine there is any discriminant validity

8. Give an overall evaluation of the validity of Monica’s study. Would you evaluate it as good, OK, or poor? Why? Evaluate the overall validity of Monica’s study: good, OK, or poor? - I would say it’s good because of the internal/convergent validity Why? - The study design used random assignments with experimental conditions and the use of control group which enhanced internal validity and monica also used measures of body self-esteem and desirability which enhances convergent validity.

Related Documents

Peds Fall 2018- Exam #1- Blueprint.xlsx

Bipolar Disorder .docx

Untitled document-2.docx

Quiz- The Christian Counselor's Ministry and Roles .docx

The Theories on Lifespan Development.docx

3.docx

Movie Paper Instructions Spring 2023_9c25e4e9b5fc97b3e1c393e687f8fb01 copy.pdf

AB 1.docx

Lab #5 Neuropsychology -2.docx

Annotated Bibliography W 2.docx

SWLS.docx

Quiz #1 Chapters 1-3- Attempt review.pdf

Recommended textbooks for you

Ciccarelli: Psychology_5 (5th Edition)

Psychology

ISBN:9780134477961

Author:Saundra K. Ciccarelli, J. Noland White

Publisher:PEARSON

Cognitive Psychology

Psychology

ISBN:9781337408271

Author:Goldstein, E. Bruce.

Publisher:Cengage Learning,

Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and ...

Psychology

ISBN:9781337565691

Author:Dennis Coon, John O. Mitterer, Tanya S. Martini

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Psychology in Your Life (Second Edition)

Psychology

ISBN:9780393265156

Author:Sarah Grison, Michael Gazzaniga

Publisher:W. W. Norton & Company

Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research a...

Psychology

ISBN:9781285763880

Author:E. Bruce Goldstein

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Theories of Personality (MindTap Course List)

Psychology

ISBN:9781305652958

Author:Duane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen Schultz

Publisher:Cengage Learning

SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS

Recommended textbooks for you

Ciccarelli: Psychology_5 (5th Edition)
Psychology
ISBN:9780134477961
Author:Saundra K. Ciccarelli, J. Noland White
Publisher:PEARSON
Cognitive Psychology
Psychology
ISBN:9781337408271
Author:Goldstein, E. Bruce.
Publisher:Cengage Learning,
Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and ...
Psychology
ISBN:9781337565691
Author:Dennis Coon, John O. Mitterer, Tanya S. Martini
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Psychology in Your Life (Second Edition)
Psychology
ISBN:9780393265156
Author:Sarah Grison, Michael Gazzaniga
Publisher:W. W. Norton & Company
Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research a...
Psychology
ISBN:9781285763880
Author:E. Bruce Goldstein
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Theories of Personality (MindTap Course List)
Psychology
ISBN:9781305652958
Author:Duane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen Schultz
Publisher:Cengage Learning