question archive Experiment 1: Environmental Order Encourages Healthy Choices and Charitable Donations Experiment 1 tested whether physical order would pro- mote healthy choices and charitable behavior
Experiment 1: Environmental Order Encourages Healthy Choices and Charitable Donations Experiment 1 tested whether physical order would pro- mote healthy choices and charitable behavior
Subject:PsychologyPrice:3.86 Bought9
Experiment 1: Environmental Order Encourages Healthy Choices and Charitable Donations
Experiment 1 tested whether physical order would pro- mote healthy choices and charitable behavior. On the basis of hints in the literature that convention is associ- ated with healthy eating (Roberts et al., 2009) and cleanli- ness with giving (Liljenquist et al., 2010), we predicted that people placed in an orderly environment would be more likely to choose a healthy snack over an unhealthy snack than would people placed in a disorderly environ-ment and that they would also donate more money to charity.
Method
Participants and design. Thirty-four Dutch students participated. They were randomly assigned to an orderly or a disorderly condition.
Procedure. We manipulated environmental orderliness by having participants complete the study in an orderly or disorderly room (Fig. 1). The rooms were adjacent (and therefore had the same sunlight exposure and view), and they had the same size and configuration. The main difference was their orderliness. The disorderly room had papers and common office items scattered throughout the work space. The orderly room had no clutter.
Participants first were told that they would receive €3 for participating. Then they completed unrelated filler questionnaires intended to ensure that all participants spent the same amount of time (10 min) in the orderly or disorderly environment.
Next, participants were presented with an opportunity to donate to a charity. They learned that the department in which the study was being conducted supports a char- ity that supplies children with toys and books (Fennis, Janssen, & Vohs, 2009). Participants wrote the amount, if any, they chose to donate on a sheet of paper, which they placed into a sealed envelope (so that self-presenta- tion concerns would be dispelled).
The researcher then discussed the concepts measured in the filler questionnaires as a partial debriefing. Upon exiting, participants were allowed to take an apple or chocolate bar, which constituted the measure of healthy food choice. Participants then were fully debriefed.
Results and discussion
The results supported our predictions. Participants who completed the study in the orderly room donated more than twice as much as those who completed the study in the disorderly room (M = €3.19, SD = 3.01, vs. M = €1.29, SD = 1.76), t(32) = 2.24, p = .03, d = 0.73. Fully 82% of participants in the orderly room donated some money, versus 47% in the disorderly room, χ2(1, N = 34) = 4.64, p < .04, φ = .37. Also as predicted, participants in the orderly room chose the apple (over the chocolate) more often than those in the disorderly room1 (M = 67% vs. M = 20%), χ2(1, N = 30) = 6.65, p < .05, φ = .44.
The results confirmed the prediction that an orderly (vs. disorderly) environment leads to more desirable, normatively good behaviors. Sitting in a tidy room led to healthier food choices and greater financial support of a charitable institution, relative to sitting in a cluttered room.
Experiment 1
1) Identify the IV and its levels
2) Identify the DV
3) Does this study utilize a between or within-groups design?
4) Construct Validity
a. What construct are the researchers attempting to manipulate?
b. How do the researchers operationalize this construct?
c. Is the operational definition of the manipulated variable reasonable? Explain. There is no particular answer I am looking for here other than your assessment of how reasonable/valid their manipulation seems to be.
d. What constructs are the researchers attempting to measure?
e. How do the researchers operationalize these construct(s)?
f. Is the operational definition of these measured variables reasonable? Explain. There is no particular answer I am looking for here other than your assessment of how reasonable/valid the measurements seem to be.
5) Internal Validity
a. What variable did the researchers manipulate (i.e. operational definition of the IV)?
b. Did the researchers implement control variables? If so, list at least two.
c. Was there a confound? Was there anything else that was different between the two groups other than the level of orderliness? If so, explain.
d. How did the researchers handle variables that they could not control such as participant characteristics (individual differences)?
e. After considering your responses for items a, b, c, and d above, rate the internal validity of this study as high or low.
Purchase A New Answer
Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts
GET A QUOTE
Answer Preview
- The IV was how orderly their environment was. The two levels were orderly and disorderly.
- The DV was how much money the participants donated to a charity as well as whether they chose a healthy or unhealthy snack.
- The study utilizes a between groups design.
Construct Validity
a. The researchers are attempting to manipulate the construct of order.
b. The researchers operationalize this by creating two levels of an orderly or disorderly room. This is done by manipulating the amount of clutter in each room.
c. The operational definition of the manipulated variable seems reasonable because the researcher controlled for other factors by keeping the rooms adjacent to make sure they had the same amount of sunlight and same view. By adding clutter, one makes an environment orderly or disorderly.
d. The researchers are attempting to measure the construct of charity, health, and good behavior.
e. The researchers operationalize this construct with the amount of money given to charity. They operationalized health by seeing which snack participants would choose whether it was the healthy or unhealthy one.
f. The operational definition of the manipulated variable is reasonable because if you are trying to measure normatively good or desirable behaviors, charitable behavior can be seen as prosocial and choosing healthier snacks are more conducive to an overall healthy lifestyle.
Internal Validity
a. The researchers manipulated the variable of orderliness by having clutter present or absent in a room.
b. The researchers implemented control variables such as adjacent rooms (same sunlight, same view) and they also spent the same amounts of time in the room whether it was orderly or disorderly. In addition, the charity that they were to donate to was the same charity that donated toys and books for children.
c. A possible confound is the questionnaire administered. It was not explicitly stated whether or not this questionnaire was the same between groups and could have influenced the results if it gave subliminal messaging about either donating to charity or about eating healthy.
d. Because they could not control individual differences, they randomly assigned students into different groups. In theory, this should even out the groups so even if one person was naturally more charitable than another person, they had an equal chance of being in either group.
e. The internal validity of this study is relatively high as long as the questionnaire given was checked to be neutral and made to be the same across both conditions.
Step-by-step explanation
- First sentence of the methods section tells us what the IV is - it's the manipulation. The two levels are the two "types" of the manipulation.
- The DV is found in the procedure as well as the results and discussion. The DV is what's measured and what you expect to see change.
- A between groups design is when different people test different conditions. So in this case, different people were in either the orderly or the disorderly room. If this was within groups, participants would take a questionnaire in first the orderly room and then the disorderly room.
Construct Validity
a. A construct is not something that can be concretely measured and is any complex psychological subject like hate, love, or fear. In this case, they're studying charity and what influences it.
b. To operationalize a construct is to find a way to measure the construct concretely. In this case, you're measuring how generous someone is by seeing how much money they'll donate.
c. This is just my opinion as someone who conducts research.
d-f have the same explanations as A-C
Internal Validity
a. You can see the manipulated IV in the beginning of the methods section
b. This is also found in the procedure section. Control variables are things you want to keep the same between the two conditions (levels) of the IV to avoid confounding variables. You want to keep as much the same besides the actual variable(s) you are manipulating so that you can rule out other causes of your DV changing.
c. A confound is something that might have influenced the results other than the manipulated IVs. In this case, if the questionnaires were different, then you couldn't for sure say that the DV was a result of your IV. It could have been a result of your confound.
d. Random assignment makes it so that no individual difference should have a large enough sway over the results. This is to avoid systemic differences.
e. The internal validity is relatively high because of random assignment and multiple control variables. However, to make it even higher, you would want to check the questionnaire.
