Bi-Modal Scales--Middling Liability

What is your view on gun control?

Totally against

-3

Mainly against

-2

Some-what

against

-1

Neither for nor against

0

Some-what favor

1

Mainly favor

2

Totally favor

3

1. Equal numeric values ≠ equal psychological values

2. “0” = undecided? Ambivalent? Unfamiliar? Don’t Care?

Measure Attitude Behavior  

       

Support for Public Schools

Survey

Degree values public

schools

Votes to increase local taxes for

schools.

IMPLICIT MODEL OF ATTITUDE MEASURES

Problems with Verbal Measures Response Biases:

1. Social desirability2. Sabotaging

Affected by situations and contexts Salience problem: Ss know that they are being measured.

a. High salience attn, but biasb. Low salience attn but accuracy

Reactivity problem: IV = (IV + Measure) May require a-typical depth of processing/introspection Can assume people know own inner states/inner processes more than they actually do.

Information Processing Model of Survey Response Strack & Martin, 1987

Moral Values InventoryRettig & Pasamanick, 1959

Sample items to display inter-generational limitations of empirical realization

TO WHAT DEGREE WOULD YOU CONDONE:

Item 6: Girls smoking cigarettes

Item 31: Buying bootleg liquor under prohibition law

Item 39: Seeking amusement on Sunday instead of going to church.

Bi-Modal Scales--Middling Liability

What is your view on gun control?

Totally against

-3

Mainly against

-2

Some-what

against

-1

Neither for nor against

0

Some-what favor

1

Mainly favor

2

Totally favor

3

1. Equal numeric values ≠ equal psychological values

2. “0” = Undecided? Ambivalent? Unfamiliar? Don’t Care?

Behavioral Measures

1. Overt behavior 2. Behavioroid

3. Physiological

Advantages of Behavioral Measures

1. More absorbing

2. Require less inference of rel. btwn IV and behavior, b/c measure IS behavior.

3. Tells a better story

Types of Behavioral Measures

Frequency Extent/Amount Speed Intensity Duration Preference Latency Social/Physical Distance Non-verbal Cues and

Expressive Behaviors

Unobtrusive Measures

Non-Verbal Behavior as DV

Non-Verbal Behavior as DV

Behavioroid Measures

Defined: Measure INTENT to commit the behavior, w/o actually measuring or inducing behavior.

Used when actual behavior is too impractical, unethical, or otherwise inappropriate.

Example of Behavioroid Measure

Freedman and Fraser "Foot in the Door" StudyJPSP, 1966

Behavioroid Measure:

Willingness to have 2.5 hour intrusive survey of house conducted by 5 strangers.

a. Not previously contacted: 22.2%b. Familiarized with survey questions: 27.8%c. “Complete short survey?”, not administered 33.3%d. “Complete short survey?”, administered 52.8%

Physiological Measures

Defined: Bodily states that reflect psychological states

Examples: Blood pressure, heart rate, skin conductance

Advantages:

Problems:

Not under conscious control

Display mediation

Costly; Intimidating to subjects;

Typically gross, rather than subtle;

Require inference to conceptual DV

Indirect Measures

Measures that imply DV, without directly testing it.

Observable Behavior Implied State

Physical Distance from a minority person

Reselling price for chosen vs. given item.

Eye contact during "get acquainted" meeting.

Hostility

Valuation due to perceived control

Liking, attraction

Concluding Points Re. DVs1. Which is the better feedback bias measure?

a. Feedback bias = overall rating of essay

b. Feedback bias = (# pos. comments − # neg. comments)

2. Which is better measure of hostility to out-group?

a. Amount of shock delivered during “learning” task

b. Physical distance during interview

Aim for actual and behavioral, rather than general attitude

Expt. DV should be close to conceptual DV.

3. Which is better measure of health after disclosure?

a. Visit vs. Did Not Visit MD

b. Number of MD visitsDV should be as precise and sensitive as possible

Experimental Designs

Class 10

C = Control Cond

B = Black Writer Cond

W = White Writer Cond

IV Induces, DV Confirms

Reliability and Validity of Dependent Variables

Reliability: DV provides consistent measurement

Temporal: Test/Re-test

Inter-observer or Inter-rater

Inter-item reliability (for scale development)

SPSS Reliability Output

Inter-Item Reliability for Optimism Measure

AKA “Cronbach’s Alpha”

LOT = Life Orientation Test

Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994

Measures of Reliability

“Mood” = sad + angry + (not) happy + afraid

Reliability Type

Internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Rater A and Rater B agree 92% Inter-rater

Ethics measure taken at start of term agree with same measure taken end of term

Test-retest

Method

ValidityValidity: DV measures what it is supposed to measure

Face ValidityThe measure has a “common sense” resemblance to the

construct

Criterion-Related Validity

The measure is confirmed by a more rigorous standardConcordant validityPredictive validity

Construct Validity

Proves merit of underlying constructBest obtained through multiple measures

Face Validity

Construct

Hostility

Prejudice

Need for affiliation

Attraction

Empirical Realization

No. of shocks to harasser

RT: see Black or White target, ID pos/neg words

Choosing to be alone or with another person

Pupil dilation

Face Valid?

(High, Med., Low)

High

Med/low

High

Low

Criterion Validity

Match or fit between specific, empirical DV (i.e., the one used in study) and an independent (and presumably stable, encompassing) measure of conceptual DV (i.e., the criterion).

Concordant validity: Criterion exists in the present.

Predictive validity: Criterion represented by future behavior.

Expt’l DV Criterion

Gym visits Treadmill Endurance

Conscientiousness No. of missed classes Survey (week 1) (end of semester)

Validity Type

Concordant

Predictive

Conceptual DV

Fitness

Reliability

Construct Validity

Face validity and criterion validity refer largely to the validity of the measure.

Construct validity refers to the validity of the underlying conceptual DV.

Typically requires multiple measures

Convergent Validity

Different measures that have only the underlying construct in common.

Neuroticism: moderately related to stress, negative affect, self-preoccupation, fear of judgment

Divergent Validity

Measure is not tightly related to similar constructs

Neuroticism introversion, conscientiousness

Neuroticism

Validity

Sexism scale items include:Women demand too many rights Wives should vote as their husbands do

Validity Type

Face Validity

“Acrophobia Survey” verified with heart rate, sweating, hyperventilation

Criterion

Aggressiveness Measure taken at prescreening predicts shocks delivered in experiment, 3 weeks later

Predictive

Method

Validity (continued)

“Nurturance” = Attn. to other’s emotions Listening to problems Willing to help

Validity Type

Construct Validity

Self Esteem moderately related to:

Self-confidence; Self-Clarity; Self- acceptance

Convergent Validity

Method

Self Esteem is not highly correlated with self-efficacy

Divergent Validity

Boosting Validity

Avoid “response set”: Alternate (or mix) the positive and negative valence of questions, in survey DV.

Systematic Replication: Several experiments, each one accounts for alternative explanation

Disguise measure: “Chicken game” in Culture of Honorstudies—non obvious measure of aggression.

DV outside of conscious control, e.g., physio reactions

Weighing the Alternatives

I had to shed 20 pounds or else I’d lose my job and my wife would leave me and I’d die an early death. I was desperate for a solution. Then I found Chubby Checkers ®. Within 2 months I lost 15

pounds! You can, too!

Implied causal story?

Alternative explanations?

Saturday Academy Research Design

Pre-test SAT= 940

Class sessions

Post-testSAT = 991

SAT gain pre to post test = 51 points

p < .01

Implied causal story?

Alternative explanations?

What does design need to address alternative explanations?

Control Groups

Purpose: To establish causality; that it is IV, and only IV, that accounts for DV.

Attributes of Control Group:

1. Random selection: * Each participant is equally likely to be

assigned to expt'l or control condition. * Provides a check on systematic error

But, does not control for random error

2. Control condition should mimic experimental condition in all respects other than the IV.

3. Assign Ss to control or experimental conds. just before

introducing IV

Counterbalancing

Sub. No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Confederate Race

Black

White

Black

White

Black

White

Black

White

Confederate Temperament

Friendly

Friendly

Unfriendly

Unfriendly

Friendly

Friendly

Unfriendly

Unfriendly

Essay Topic

TV

TV

TV

TV

Environ

Environ

Environ

Environ

Single Factor Design

(1 X 2) (From Interracial Feedback Research)

  Black White

Writer Race I II

1 Factor: Race of Writer

2 Levels: Black writer or White writer

Shows main effect only (whether phenomenon exists).

Does not show interaction.

Components of Factorial Design

Factors: The independent variables

Factor 1: Writer raceFactor 2: Writer friendliness

‘

Levels: The dimensions within factors

Level 1, Friendliness: FriendlyLevel 2, Friendliness: Unfriendly

Conditions: The intersection of factors and levels

Condition I: Friendly, Black writerCondition IV: Unfriendly, White writer

Black White

Friendly I II

Unfriendly III IV

2 X 2 Friendly Unfrnd

Black Ia 1b

White 2a 2b

2 X 3 Friendly Unfrnd Neutral

Black 1a 1b 1c

White 2a 2b 2c

3 X 3 Friendly Unfrnd Neutral

Black 1a 1b 1c

White 2a 2b 2c

Asian 3a 3b 3c

Friendly Unfrnd

Black Ia 1b

White 2a 2b

Friendly Unfrnd

Black Ia 1b

White 2a 2b

2 X 2 X 2Race-relevant Essay Race-Irrelevant Essay

Factorial Designs as Coherent Sentences

Number of Factors

Factorial “Sentence”

1 Ethical decisions (blind/don/t blind) are affected by discussion opportunity (discuss vs. don’t discuss).

2 Ethical decisions are affected by group discussion and social contexts (Ghakistan vs. NY)

3 Ethical decisions are affected by group discussion and by social context as a function of gender.

4 Ethical decisions are affected by group discussion and by social context, as a function of gender—but only among college educated.

5 Ethical decisions are affected by group discussion and by social context, as a function of gender—but only among the college educated, who specialized in humanities rather than engineering.

Determining Number of Levels w/n Factors

How does arousal affect test performance?

0

2

4

6

8

10

Low Arousal High Arousal

02468

10

LowArousal

Mod.Arousal

HighArousal

Yerkes-Dotson Law

Perfo

rman

ce L

evel

Low Moderate High

Arousal Level