Please read Experiment #1 and answer these 3 questions about it, thank you so much!! 4. Thinking about construct validity, respond to the following: A. What construct are the researchers attempting to manipulate? How do the researchers operationalize this construct? Is the operational definition of the manipulated variable reasonable? B. What constructs are the researchers attempting to measure? How do the researchers operationalize these constructs? Is the operational definition of these measured variables reasonable? Explain. 5. Thinking about internal validity, respond to the following: A. Did the researchers implement control variables? If so, list at least two. B. Was there a confound? If so, explain. C. How did the researchers handle variables they could not control such as participant characteristics? Are there any other relevant threats to internal validity? D. After considering your response related to internal validity, rate the internal validity of this study as high or low. Explain. 6. Thinking about external validity, respond to the following: A. What was the sample in this study? Was it randomly selected? Is there a potential bias present? B. Do you think the results of this study are generalizable? 1862Vobs et al.spent the same amount of time (10 min) in the orderly ordisorderly environment.Next, participants were presented with an opportunityto donate to a charity. They learned that the departmentin which the study was being conducted supports a char-ity that supplies children with toys and books (Fennis,Janssen, & Vohs, 2009). Participants wrote the amount, ifany, they chose to donate on a sheet of paper, whichthey placed into a sealed envelope (so that self-presenta-tion concerns would be dispelled).The researcher then discussed the concepts measuredin the filler questionnaires as a partial debriefing. Uponexiting, participants were allowed to take an apple orchocolate bar, which constituted the measure of healthyfood choice. Participants then were fully debriefed.Results and discussionThe results supported our predictions. Participants whocompleted the study in the orderly room donated morethan twice as much as those who completed the study inthe disorderly room (M = €3.19, SD = 3.01, vs. M = €1.29,SD = 1.76), (32) = 2.24, p = .03, d = 0.73. Fully 82% ofparticipants in the orderly room donated some money,versus 47% in the disorderly room, x(1, N = 34) = 4.64,p < .04, q = .37. Also as predicted, participants in theorderly room chose the apple (over the chocolate) moreoften than those in the disorderly room' (M = 67% vs.M = 20%), x°(1, N = 30) = 6.65, p< .05, o = .44.The results confirmed the prediction that an orderly(vs. disorderly) environment leads to more desirable,normatively good behaviors. Sitting in a tidy room led tohealthier food choices and greater financial support of acharitable institution, relative to sitting in a clutteredroom. Physical Orderliness Changes Decisions and Behavior1861Experiment 1: Environmental OrderEncourages Healthy Choices andCharitable DonationsExperiment 1 tested whether physical order would pro-mote healthy choices and charitable behavior, On thebasis of hints in the literature that convention is associ-ated with healthy eating (Roberts et al., 2009) and cleanli-ness with giving (Liljenquist et al., 2010), we predictedthat people placed in an orderly environment would bemore likely to choose a healthy snack over an unhealthysnack than would people placed in a disorderly environ-ment and that they would also donate more money tocharity.MethodParticipants and design. Thirty-four Dutch studentsparticipated. They were randomly assigned to an orderlyor a disorderly condition.Procedure. We manipulated environmental orderlinessby having participants complete the study in an orderlyor disorderly room (Fig. 1). The rooms were adjacent(and therefore had the same sunlight exposure andview), and they had the same size and configuration. Themain difference was their orderliness. The disorderlyroom had papers and common office items scatteredthroughout the work space. The orderly room had noclutter.Participants first were told that they would receive €3for participating. Then they completed unrelated fillerquestionnaires intended to ensure that all participantsOrderlyDisorderlyFig. 1. The rooms used in the orderly (left) and disorderly (right) conditions of Experiment 1.

Construct validity refers to the extent to which an assessment measures what it is intended to…

Experiment 1: Environmental Order Encourages Healthy Choices and Charitable Donations Experiment 1 tested whether physical order would pro- mote healthy choices and charitable behavior. On the basis of hints in the literature that convention is associ- ated with healthy eating (Roberts et al., 2009) and cleanli- ness with giving (Liljenquist et al., 2010), we predicted that people placed in an orderly environment would be more likely to choose a healthy snack over an unhealthy snack than would people placed in a disorderly environ- ment and that they would also donate more money to charity. Method Participants and design. Thirty-four Dutch students participated. They were randomly assigned to an orderly or a disorderly condition. Procedure. We manipulated environmental orderliness by having participants complete the study in an orderly or disorderly room (Fig. 1). The rooms were adjacent (and therefore had the same sunlight exposure and view), and they had the same size and configuration. The main difference was their orderliness. The disorderly room had papers and common office items scattered throughout the work space. The orderly room had no clutter. Participants first were told that they would receive €3 for participating. Then they completed unrelated filler questionnaires intended to ensure that all participants

Ciccarelli: Psychology_5 (5th Edition)

5th Edition

ISBN:9780134477961

Author:Saundra K. Ciccarelli, J. Noland White

Publisher:Saundra K. Ciccarelli, J. Noland White

Chapter1: The Science Of Psychology

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1TY

See similar textbooks

Related questions

Question

Please read Experiment #1 and answer these 3 questions about it, thank you so much!! 4. Thinking about construct validity, respond to the following: A. What construct are the researchers attempting to manipulate? How do the researchers operationalize this construct? Is the operational definition of the manipulated variable reasonable? B. What constructs are the researchers attempting to measure? How do the researchers operationalize these constructs? Is the operational definition of these measured variables reasonable? Explain. 5. Thinking about internal validity, respond to the following: A. Did the researchers implement control variables? If so, list at least two. B. Was there a confound? If so, explain. C. How did the researchers handle variables they could not control such as participant characteristics? Are there any other relevant threats to internal validity? D. After considering your response related to internal validity, rate the internal validity of this study as high or low. Explain. 6. Thinking about external validity, respond to the following: A. What was the sample in this study? Was it randomly selected? Is there a potential bias present? B. Do you think the results of this study are generalizable?