DOC PREVIEW
SKIDMORE PS 306 - PS 306 Final Exam

This preview shows page 1-2 out of 5 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 5 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 5 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 5 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Page 1 of 5 Final Exam PS 306, Fall 2005 1. As clearly and carefully as you can, 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] Use the Ross et al. paper to answer this question. 2. Dr. I. P. Freeley was interested in replicating the Middlemist et al. study, but using a repeated measures design for greater power. For several days, he had a rotating cadre of confederates (so that the students wouldn’t think that someone was stalking them) follow a set of students enrolled in an introductory psychology class. Whenever one of these students would enter a restroom to urinate, a confederate would check to ensure that no one else was using a urinal. If the participant were alone at one of the urinals, the confederate would either: 1) go to the urinal immediately next to the student (Near Stall); 2) go to a urinal one urinal away from the student (Distant Stall); or would simply go to the mirror and comb his hair (Alone). The dependent variable, as in the Middlemist study, was the time (in minutes) between when the unwitting participant unzipped his pants and when he began to micturate. Complete the source table below and interpret these data as completely as you can. [10 pts] 9 1.228 .1362 2.282 1.141 111.217 <.0001 222.433 1.00018 .185 .010DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda PowerSubjectCategory for DistanceCategory for Distance * SubjectANOVA Table for Distance 10 .550 .227 .07210 .560 .196 .06210 1.140 .259 .082Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.AloneDistant StallNear StallMeans Table for DistanceEffect: Category for Distance There is a significant effect of the Presence/Distance of another person, F(2,18) = 111.217, MSE = .01, p < .001. Post hoc analysis was conducted using Tukey’s HSD: ! HSD = 3.61.0110= .11 Men with another man at the near stall took significantly longer to begin urination (M = 1.14) than men with another man at a distant stall (M = .56) or men who were alone in the restroom (M = .55). 3. Correlational designs do not allow you to make casual claims. Why not? Be very explicit about the difficulty of claiming that changes in one of the two variables in a correlational study causes the related changes observed in the second variable. We also discussed the shortcomings of using non-manipulated characteristics of the participants as “independent variables” in an experiment. How is this class of variable related to the notion of correlational designs? [10 pts]Page 2 of 5 Cannot make causal claims because of the causal arrow problem and the third variable problem, which you should define clearly. You also need to be clear about the lack of manipulation in an “experiment” in which you use a non-manipulated characteristic of the participants (e.g., age, intelligence) as your “independent variable.” The primary problem in such studies, of course, is that if you find a difference you cannot be certain that the effects are due to the variable of interest or some other (i.e., third) variable. 4. Kitamura (2005) was interested in the impact of mood on cognitive processes. Kitamura thought that a positive mood leads to more automatic processing than a negative mood, which leads to more controlled processing. In one study, half of the participants were placed in a positive mood and half in a negative mood (using a mood induction technique). Then they were all given a list of non-famous companies either once or four times. Two days later they were asked to judge the fame of a list of companies, including ones that had been seen previously. Let’s pretend that the participants rated fame on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not famous” and 7 = “ famous”). Suppose that the data had produced the results seen below. Complete the analysis and interpret the results, including a brief discussion (as you might find in a Discussion section). [20 pts] 2 38.110 19.055 50.168 <.0001 100.337 1.0001 39.902 39.902 105.055 <.0001 105.055 1.0002 21.012 10.506 27.660 <.0001 55.320 1.00066 25.068 .380DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda PowerNumberMoodNumber * MoodResidualANOVA Table for Mean Fame 12 1.208 .178 .05112 1.233 .183 .05312 1.583 .327 .09412 3.425 .748 .21612 1.633 .487 .14112 4.233 1.144 .330Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.0, Negative0, Positive1, Negative1, Positive4, Negative4, PositiveMeans Table for Mean FameEffect: Number * Mood 11.522.533.544.5Cell Mean0 1 4CellPositiveNegativeInteraction Line Plot for Mean FameEffect: Number * Mood There was a significant main effect of number of presentations, F(2,66) = 50.168, MSE = .38, p < .001. There was also a significant main effect of mood, F(1,66) = 105.055, MSE = .38, p < .001. There was also a significant interaction between Number and Mood, F(2,66) = 27.66, MSE = .38, p < .001. To interpret the interaction, you would first compute Tukey’s HSD: ! HSD = 4.15.3812= .74 Thus, when people had not seen the company names previously (0 presentations), regardless of mood, they rated the names as equally famous. However, if they had seen the company’s name either once or four times previously, they rated the companies as more famous if they had been in a positive mood than if they had been in a negative mood.Page 3 of 5 These results would be consistent with the underlying hypotheses. That is, if being in a positive mood leads you to engage in more automatic processing, then it seems that people are automatically taking in the number of times that a company name appears. Then, when later asked if the company names are famous, they rate them as relatively famous (consistent with Zajonc’s Mere Exposure Effect). On the other hand, if they are in a negative mood, they tend to process the information in a more conscious, controlled fashion, which may lead them to be less likely to encode the company names (even if presented four times). As a result, they don’t think that the company names are all that famous when later asked. 5. While discussing ethics in research involving human participants, you broke into groups to discuss the ethics of three particular studies. Using only one of the specific studies that your group discussed that day, tell me here how you used the APA guidelines to respond to that particular study. If you thought it was unethical, tell me


View Full Document

SKIDMORE PS 306 - PS 306 Final Exam

Download PS 306 Final Exam
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view PS 306 Final Exam and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view PS 306 Final Exam 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?