1. Bi-Modal Scales--Middling Liability What is your view on gun control? Totally against -3 Mainly against -2 Some- what against 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?

2. Measure  Attitude  Behavior Support for Public Schools Survey  Degree values public schools  Votes to increase local taxes for schools. IMPLICIT MODEL OF ATTITUDE MEASURES

3. Problems with Verbal Measures Response Biases : 1. Social desirability 2. Sabotaging Affected by situations and contexts Salience problem: Ss know that they are being measured. a. High salience   attn, but  bias b. 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.

4. Information Processing Model of Survey Response Strack & Martin, 1987

5. Moral Values Inventory Rettig & 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.

6. Bi-Modal Scales--Middling Liability What is your view on gun control? Totally against -3 Mainly against -2 Some- what against 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?

7. 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

8. Types of Behavioral Measures FrequencyExtent/Amount SpeedIntensity DurationPreference LatencySocial/Physical Distance Non-verbal Cues and Expressive Behaviors Unobtrusive Measures

9. Non-Verbal Behavior as DV

11. 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.

12. Example of Behavioroid Measure Freedman and Fraser "Foot in the Door" Study JPSP, 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?”, administered52.8%

13. 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

14. Indirect Measures Measures that imply DV, without directly testing it. Observable BehaviorImplied 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

15. Concluding Points Re. DVs 1. 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 visits  DV should be as precise and sensitive as possible

16. Experimental Designs Class 10

17. C = Control Cond B = Black Writer Cond W = White Writer Cond IV Induces, DV Confirms

18. 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)

19. SPSS Reliability Output Inter-Item Reliability for Optimism Measure AKA “Cronbach’s Alpha” LOT = Life Orientation Test Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994

20. 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

21. Validity Validity: DV measures what it is supposed to measure Face Validity The measure has a “common sense” resemblance to the construct Criterion-Related Validity The measure is confirmed by a more rigorous standard Concordant validity Predictive validity Construct Validity Proves merit of underlying construct Best obtained through multiple measures

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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 Honor studies—non obvious measure of aggression. DV outside of conscious control, e.g., physio reactions

28. 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?

29. Saturday Academy Research Design Pre-test SAT= 940  Class sessions  Post-test SAT = 991 SAT gain pre to post test = 51 points p <.01 Implied causal story? Alternative explanations? What does design need to address alternative explanations?

30. 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

31. Counterbalancing Sub. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Confederate Race Black White Black White Black White Black White Confederate Temperament Friendly Unfriendly Friendly Unfriendly Essay Topic TV Environ

32. Single Factor Design (1 X 2) (From Interracial Feedback Research) BlackWhite Writer RaceIII 1 Factor: Race of Writer 2 Levels: Black writer or White writer Shows main effect only (whether phenomenon exists). Does not show interaction.

33. Components of Factorial Design Factors: The independent variables Factor 1: Writer race Factor 2: Writer friendliness ‘ Levels: The dimensions within factors Level 1, Friendliness:Friendly Level 2, Friendliness:Unfriendly Conditions: The intersection of factors and levels Condition I: Friendly, Black writer Condition IV:Unfriendly, White writer BlackWhite Friendly I II Unfriendly III IV

34. 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 2 Race-relevant Essay Race-Irrelevant Essay

35. 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) 3Ethical decisions are affected by group discussion and by social context as a function of gender. 4Ethical decisions are affected by group discussion and by social context, as a function of gender—but only among college educated. 5Ethical 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.

36. Determining Number of Levels w/n Factors How does arousal affect test performance?

37. Yerkes-Dotson Law Performance Level Low Moderate High Arousal Level