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

Share With

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.