Reference no: EM133520612

Question: For your chosen scenario, determine the possible confounding variable(s) (there may be more than one), and consider how they might be eliminated using research designs presented in the readings (e.g., 2x2 factorial design).

Indicate the letter of the scenario you selected in the "Subject" field of your post. You should be addressing a scenario different from those posted, unless your colleagues have already addressed all nine scenarios. Identify and explain the possible confounding variable(s) (e.g., demand characteristics, placebo effect) in your chosen scenario.
Drawing from the Learning Resources this week, explain a specific research design (e.g., 2x2 factorial design, repeated measures design) the researcher(s) could use to control for confounding variables.
Choose from one of the scenarios

D.-McCann and Holmes (1984) tested the hypothesis that exercise reduces depression. They randomly assigned depressed undergraduate women either to an exercise condition (attending an aerobics class a couple of times a week for ten weeks) or to a felaxation training condition (the individuals relaxed at home by watching a videotape over the same period of time). Although the results showed that the exercise group reported less depression at the end of the ten-week period than did the telaxation group, why can't the researchers conclude that exercise reduces depression?

E.- Ekman, Friesen, and Scherer (1976) tested whether lying influenced one's voice quality. Participants were randomly assigned to view either a pleasant film or an unpleasant film, but all of the participants were asked to describe the film they saw as being pleasant. (Thus, the subjects who watched the unpleasant film had to lie about what they saw.) An analysis of voice quality showed that participants used significantly higher voices when they were describing the unpleasant film rather than the pleasant film. Why can't the authors conclude that lying produced the differences in voice quality?

F.-A researcher studying the "mere exposure" phenomenon (Zajonc, 1980) wants to show that people like things more if they have seen them more often. He shows a group of participants a list of 20 words at an expert-mental session. One week later, the participants retum for a second session in which they are randomly assigned to view either the same words again or a different set of 20 words, before indicating how much they like the 20 words that everyone had seen during the first session. The results show that the participants who have now seen the words rice like the words better than the group that only saw the words once. Why can't the researcher conclude that people like the words more because they have seen them more often?

H.-An elementary school teacher wants to show that pareats lavolvemens belps their children lear. She randomly chooses one half of the boys and one half of the guts in her class and sends a note home with them The note asks the parents to spend more time each day working with the child on his or her math homework the other half of the chaldren do not receive a note Ai the end of the school vear, the teacher finds that the children whose parents she sent notes to have significantly her ter final math grades. Why can't the researcher conclude that pareptal involvement increased the students' scores?

i. Employees in a large factory are studied to determine the influence of providing incentives on task performance. Two similar assembly rooms are chosen for the study. In one room, the experimenters talk about the research project that is being conducted and explain that the employees will receive a reward for increased performance: Each worker will receive a weekly bonus if he or she increases his or her performance by 10 percent. In the other room, no mention is made of any research If the reward is found to increase the performance in the first assembly room, why can't the researchers conclude that it was the financial bonus that increased production?