Page 1 of 6 ID# Exam 3 PS 306, Spring 2008 (You must use your real student ID#) This exam should contain no surprises. Read each question carefully and answer it completely. Treat the point value as a clue to the time necessary to complete your answer (i.e., a 10-pt question should take you about 10 minutes). Show all your work so that I might be able to give you partial credit. There are 75 points in the exam, so it should take you less than an hour and a half to complete. Finally, I want to thank you for a pleasant semester. I wish you all a peaceful summer, and for the seniors a successful future. I look forward to seeing many of you throughout the coming academic year. Take good care of yourself, and be gentle with one another. 1. Using the Elaine Walster study of momentary self-esteem of young women given either positive or negative personality assessments (from a San Francisco therapist), articulate the difficulties of removing deception by means of a debriefing. Then, using the studies discussed in the Ross et al. paper, describe the evidence that process debriefing may be useful in removing the effects of deception? [10 pts]Page 2 of 6 2. We talked about the Doob & Wood (1972) study (Catharsis and aggression: Effects of annoyance and retaliation on aggressive behavior) when we discussed two-factor designs (Factor 1: Participants were either Annoyed or Not Annoyed in Phase 1 and Factor 2: confederate is either Shocked by Experimenter, Shocked by the Participant, or Not Shocked at all during Phase 2—DV is shock level to rate creativity in Phase 3). However, we didn’t really talk about it when discussing ethics. I’d like you to use the APA guidelines to evaluate the extent to which the Doob and Wood study is ethical. In essence, I’m asking you to “pretend” that you’re a member of an IRB and to evaluate whether or not you would approve the Doob & Wood study. [10 pts]Page 3 of 6 3a. In Lab 2 we studied hindsight bias by presenting anagrams of different lengths, which we analyzed as a single-factor design. However, now that you know about two-factor designs, we could consider a similar study (though completely independent groups) that might be analyzed using a two-factor ANOVA. That is, we can present some people with anagrams to solve and measure the time (in minutes) to solve the anagrams (the Worksight Condition). For other people, we can present the anagrams and the solutions simultaneously. Their task is to estimate the time they think it would take someone to solve the anagram (the Hindsight Condition). Thus, to the extent that hindsight bias is present, the estimated times in the Hindsight Condition will be less than the actual solution times in the Worksight Condition. In addition to this factor, we might also examine the extent to which anagram length has an impact on hindsight bias, but unlike our lab, some people would get only 4-letter anagrams, some would get only 6-letter anagrams, and some would get only 8-letter anagrams. Thus, the two independent variables would be: TASK (Worksight vs. Hindsight) and LENGTH (4-, 6-, or 8-letter anagrams). Complete the analysis below, and interpret the results as completely as you can. Briefly discuss the results as you would in a Discussion section. [20 pts] Dependent Variable:"Solution" Time Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Observed Powerb Task 73.711 .000 .577 1.000 Length 179.091 .000 .869 1.000 Task * Length .743 .480 .027 .170 Error .057 Corrected Total 27.755Page 4 of 6 3b. Suppose that you had analyzed these same data as a one-way ANOVA on TASK. What would your resulting F-ratio have been? Source SS df MS F Task Error Total 4. We discussed the problem of experimenter expectancy effects in class. Describe the nature of the problem these effects create and describe at least two experiments discussed in class that argue for the existence of these effects. Discuss at least two strategies that might be used in experiments to minimize experimenter expectancy effects. Finally, if experimenter expectancy effects really do exist, why do you think that it might be difficult to demonstrate conclusively that they do exist? [10 pts]Page 5 of 6 5. In Lab 3, we discussed the impact of gender of participant on perception of the gender of faces. In a related study, Rehnman and Herlitz (2007) examined male and female subjects who viewed faces of both children and adults of either Swedish or Bangladeshi origin. They were later tested on their ability to recognize the faces from among a set of new/distractor faces (all presented in color from a frontal view, but free of facial hair and glasses). The DV in this case is d’, a measure of sensitivity (higher d’ means more sensitivity, or greater recognition ability). Complete the source table below (slightly modified from SPSS output), then interpret the results as completely as you can. Finally, tell me how you would explain these results, as you would in a Discussion section. [15 pts] Dependent Variable:d' Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Observed Powerb Model 2.534 .000 .735 1.000 Subject 1.395 .000 .604 1.000 Model * Subject .582 .000 .389 1.000 Error .915 Corrected Total 5.426Page 6 of 6 6. Chris Jones completes a senior thesis with Professor Smith. The thesis is done within an area of research about which Professor Smith is an expert and Chris developed the design of the study with help from Professor Smith. However, once they had developed the design together, Chris needed little additional guidance from Professor Smith. Chris’s senior thesis was well done, but not suitable for publication. Professor Smith worked with other students (Morgan Tabernacle and Jean St. John) the following year and put together a paper that contained three studies (one based on Chris’s thesis, one based on Morgan’s and one on Jean’s), for which Professor Smith did all the writing (drawing very little verbiage from any of the three theses). Describe how you would use the three principles articulated in the Fine and Kurdek (1993) article to determine the authorship in the following situation. What do you think the order of authors on the paper should be? [10