Research Method and experimental research

Paul Diaz
Professor: Dr. Moon
Course: Research Design
Assignment: Hand−On Experience Research Method and Experimental research
EXERCISE #1
Experimental Research #1:
There are two factors in this experimental research, which are setting and difficulty of task. The setting has
two levels in itself, namely, room with themselves and room with other people. The difficulty of the task also
has two levels, these levels being the easy task and the difficult task. Thus, this research is an example of a
2x2 design. Each of the factors is tested between the participants. The research has a factorial design with 4
conditions namely working in a lab alone with an easy task, working in a lab alone with a difficult task,
working in a lab with other people with an easy task and lastly, working in a lab with other people with a
difficult task. The dependent variable in this experiment is the speed or amount of time needed to complete
the task. The schematic diagram for this research is:
FACTORS
LEVELS
DEPENDENT VARIABLE
1: Working in a room by themselves increases the amount of time needed to complete task.
2: Working in a room with other people decreases the amount of time needed to complete task.
3: Working on an easy task decreases the amount of time needed to complete task.
4: Working on a difficult task increases the amount of time needed to complete task.
Experimental Research #2:
There are two factors in this experimental research, which are physical characteristic of the communicator and
the amount of noise present. The physical characteristic of the communicator was further subdivided into two
levels, namely an attractive persona and an unattractive one. The second factor, the amount of noise present,
also has two levels, namely loud construction noise from the next room and quiet conditions. This also, like
the first experimental research is an example of a 2x2 design. It only measured repeated. The research also has
a factorial design with four conditions that are listening to an attractive persona where there is a lot of
construction noise in the next room, listening to an unattractive persona with the same environment, listening
to an attractive persona in a quiet room and listening to an unattractive persona in a quiet room. The
dependent variable in this experiment is the attitude change in the participants. The schematic diagram for this
research is:
FACTORS
1
LEVELS
DEPENDENT VARIABLE
1: An attractive communicator would bring about attitude change in participants.
2: An unattractive communicator would not bring about attitude change in participants.
3: Loud construction noise in the next room would not bring about attitude change in participants.
4: Quiet conditions would bring about attitude change in participants.
Experimental Research #3
There are also two factors in this research, which are, claim by a witness and speed of reading. For the claim
by a witness, its levels are either with false accusation or without false accusation. On the other hand, the
levels of the speed of reading include slow−paced (43 letters per minute) and fast−paced (67 letters per
minute). It is also a 2x2 design. It is measured between participants. The research also has a factorial design,
again, with four conditions. First is no accusation by witness with letters read at a slow pace, second is no
accusation by witness with letters read at a fast pace, third is being accused by the witness with letters read at
a slow pace and lastly, being accused by the witness with letters read at a fast pace. The dependent variable in
this research is acceptance of false accusation. The schematic diagram for this research is:
FACTORS
LEVELS
DEPENDENT VARIABLE
1: Witnesses who make false accusations influence the participants accept the false accusation.
2: Witnesses who do not make false accusations do not influence the participants to accept the false
accusation.
3: When the speed of reading is slow, the participants are not influenced to accept the false accusation.
4: When the speed of reading is fast, the participants are influenced to accept the false accusation.
EXERCISE #2:
Schultz, Ashby−Hughes, Taylor, Gillins and Wilkins (2000) used a 2x2 factorial design in study treatments to
reduce diarrhea among critically ill tube−fed patients receiving antibiotics. One factor was presence of fiber in
tube feedings with levels subdivided into fiber containing versus fiber−free tube feedings. The second was
type of treatment administered with levels divided into administration of pectin versus a placebo. Each factor
is measured between participants. The researchers found a trend toward fewer diarrheas in the fiber/pectin
group. www.uni−duesseldorf.de/AWMF/ll/073−einl−e.htm
EXERCISE #3:
Research Design #1:
Confounding variable preference for the letter M rather than Q. Assuming that most participants select glass
2
"M" over glass "Q" and like the product, there would be bias since this leaves no basis of comparison for the
participants. What should have been done instead was to
allow the participants to taste both products and decide which drink they prefer.
Research Design #2:
Confounding variable in this design could have been evaluation apprehension by the white college students.
Since the students knew that they were participating in an experiment, they wanted to do the right thing in the
experiment. Their desire to become model participants may not reflect reality. It might be eliminated if the
study was done with the use of a blind method in research.
Research Design #3:
Confounding variable in this research design would be the difference in the perception of need by the human
observers who acted as instruments. It would lead to different observations among the participants. In
addition, there are also some extraneous variables that may cause the participants to help the ill rather than
those who had lost a contact lens such as physical symptoms shown by the ill persons. What could have been
done is a change in the instrumentation or not depends merely on the observation of the human participants.
Research Design #4
The confounding variable in this research would be other activities that undergraduate women undergo aside
from the aerobics class and watching a videotape. Since both programs take place for ten weeks, the
researchers might not be aware of every activity the participants go through. The confounding variable could
be eliminated by assigning people who would be able to observe the participants in all their activities or
confining the participants to a single place for the research.
Research Design #5
The confounding variable is the actual pitch of the participants' voices. Post−test reveal higher voices used as
the participants described the unpleasant film. There should have been a pre−test prior to the experiment to
confirm the hypothesis and the voice quality should have been evaluated not only in terms of pitch but also in
terms of speed, volume, etc.
Research Design #6
Confounding variable in this example is stress that the participants may have experienced during the week.
Because of stress, the participants may have opted for the more familiar words to lessen mental work. To
eliminate the confounding variable, the length of time for the study should be shortened and the participants
could be confined to a single room for a couple of hours before allowing them to view the words again.
Research Design #7
Confounding variable is the attitude of the participants toward males versus that to females. The variable that
the researcher wants to measure is the softness or loudness of the voice but the use of a male actor and a
woman might be the one that affected the experiment. To eliminate the confounding variable, only one actor
should have been used whose voice would just vary from being loud and soft, also done to lessen confounding
variable, which could be related to the physical appearances of the speakers.
Research Design #8
3
Just like in research design #4, confounding variable could have been other activities that the student
undergoes to accomplish his or her math homework such as tutorials or group studies. This could mislead the
conclusion that parental involvement is the one that actually increased the students' score. To eliminate the
confounding variable, the parents must be briefed properly about the role they would play, how long, what
method they will use and so on.
Research Design #9
Confounding variable could be the possible diffusion of the experiment between the two groups during
non−work hours. Despite withholding the information from the second group, they may get hint from the first
group, which would tend to equalize the outcomes between groups, minimizing the chance of seeing a
program effect even if there is one. To minimize the confounding variable, there should be absolutely no
interaction between the two groups.
SETTING
DIFFICULTY OF TASK
Room by themselves (+)
Room with other people (−)
Easy task (−)
Difficult task (+)
Amount of time needed to complete task
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC OF COMMUNICATOR
AMOUNT OF NOISE PRESENT
Quiet conditions (+)
Loud construction noise in next room (−)
Attractive (+)
Unattractive (−)
Attitude change in participants
SPEED OF READING
CLAIM MADE BY A WITNESS
Fast paced (+)
Slow paced (−)
Without false accusation (−)
4
With false accusation (+)
ACCEPTANCE OF FALSE ACCUSATION BY PARTICIPANTS
5