Scribd
Upload
126 views2 pages

Module 3 Assignment - Evaluate A Study Design

The document discusses a study that examined how extended interaction with others affects self-deceived individuals' ability to deceive those individuals. It notes that when self-deceived individuals obtained more information from peers over six weeks, their self-deception and ability to deceive others decreased. Potential threats to internal validity included the participants being aware they were in a study and dropping out. The document also discusses investigating the authors' hypothesis using a Solomon ABCD design to address issues like pre-evaluation influences and dropouts.

Uploaded by

Grayson Young
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
126 views2 pages

Module 3 Assignment - Evaluate A Study Design

The document discusses a study that examined how extended interaction with others affects self-deceived individuals' ability to deceive those individuals. It notes that when self-deceived individuals obtained more information from peers over six weeks, their self-deception and ability to deceive others decreased. Potential threats to internal validity included the participants being aware they were in a study and dropping out. The document also discusses investigating the authors' hypothesis using a Solomon ABCD design to address issues like pre-evaluation influences and dropouts.

Uploaded by

Grayson Young
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1. How strong is the support for a causal relation in this study?

You are asked to support


your answer by providing at least two potential alternative explanations for the results.
For each of these alternative explanations, indicate which threat to internal validity is
involved.

The support for causal relation in this study depends on which question is being asked in their
results section. When looking at the question “Does extended interaction with individuals
diminish a self-deceived individual’s ability to deceive those individuals”. You will see that this
part of the study, there is a very strong support for causal relation. When the self-deceived
individuals were able to obtain more information from their peers in the classroom for six weeks,
their self-deception and deception were weakened.

The study doesn’t directly state which threat of internal validity were involved however; you can
see that a threat that could have occurred is that the participants in this situation were aware of
the study that they were a part of. They could have given different information than they did
before in week one to through off the results. You could say that the participants were deceiving
the ones who were testing this study. Another threat that could have occurred or was involved
were participants dropped out. Since they studied students in a classroom, a student could have
dropped that course, therefore they wouldn’t be involved in the study anymore.

When looking at the other question in the study, “is the degree to which individuals are self-
deceived constrained by how believable their self-deception is to others?”, you will see that the
support for causal relation was relatively week. The individuals who self-predicted themselves to
do poorly or great on the test didn’t affect how they actual performed based on the actual grade.

Without really know these participants, a threat to internal validity that was could be involved
was whether or not a specific event altered their ability to believe someone else’s self-deception.
It was also known that when they had their two testing groups, they obtained data that had a
significant change in results which can lead to confounding outcomes.

2. How would you investigate the authors' hypothesis if you could design a study from
scratch? You can choose any of the designs discussed in the week.

- indicate what design and what variables you would use, and in general terms explain
how you would operationalize your variable.

- indicate how your choices would resolve some of the methodological issues you
raised in the previous question.

To investigate the authors’ hypothesis, I would design a Solomon ABCD Design study. This
study design will allow myself to measure the dependent variables before and after exposing the
participants to the independent variable however we are able to give the pre-evaluation to one of
the groups and not the other. All the variables in this design study will stay the same as the
author’s however we will have 2 additional groups. In this design we will be able to study four
different groups to test our hypothesis instead of two. In group A/B we can have them give their
self-deception grading and ranking in week one and week six. In group C/D we can give the self-
deception grading and ranking in only week six. This way group C/D won’t be aware of what is
going on since they won’t have any influences or knowledge of the study since they didn’t do the
pre-evaluation in the first week. This study will make sure that these participants are at random.
To make sure the participants won’t drop out from the study, we will give all groups an incentive
for staying through the entire study/group meetings such as a prize, gift cards, or money
reimbursement. However, of course, we will not tell the participants that they are engaged in a
study, so they aren’t aware of their performance and results.

You might also like