Scribd
Upload
10 views

Research Key Pointers Back Up

The document discusses establishing causality in research experiments. It explains that to demonstrate causation between a variable A and B, researchers must show: 1) a correlation between the variables, 2) that changes in variable A occurred before changes in variable B, and 3) rule out alternative explanations for the changes in variable B. The document uses the example of Adele's song causing emotional reactions to illustrate these requirements and discusses how researchers control for confounding variables through experimental design.

Uploaded by

Ziana Blaire
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
10 views

Research Key Pointers Back Up

The document discusses establishing causality in research experiments. It explains that to demonstrate causation between a variable A and B, researchers must show: 1) a correlation between the variables, 2) that changes in variable A occurred before changes in variable B, and 3) rule out alternative explanations for the changes in variable B. The document uses the example of Adele's song causing emotional reactions to illustrate these requirements and discusses how researchers control for confounding variables through experimental design.

Uploaded by

Ziana Blaire
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

Mabuting araw everyone!

We are the Group 6, assigned to discuss Chapter 8 – Examining Causal Relationships Among Your
Variables.

In this chapter, you will learn

- The key components necessary to test cause and effect


- How to design an experiment.
- How to manipulate an independent variable (IV)
- How to measure the dependent variable (DV)
- How to balance internal and external validity in an experiment, and the
- Limitations to experimental design

In doing a research, we want to be confident that our findings are directly related to the independent
variable, and this is why researchers examining causality use an experimental design to reduce the
chances that something other than the independent variable caused changes in the dependent variable.

For example, when the singer Adele won six Grammy Awards in 2012, The Wall Street Journal and
National Public Radio (NPR) ran stories about why many people seem to have such a strong emotional
reaction to her music, particularly “Someone Like You”. One theory is that the song includes a type of
note, called an appoggiatura, appoggiatura is a type of ornamental note that clashes with the melody
just enough to create a dissonant sound. The discordance is unexpected and is believed to cause tension
to the listener.

Can we conclude that Adele’s song causes an emotional reaction? and that the presence of the
appoggiatura is the causative factor.

We can establish causality if we met these 3 requirements.

1. Correlation - There must be a relationship between variable A and B. In other words, a change in
one of the variables corresponds with changes in the other.
2. Sequencing - If we want to demonstrate that changes in one variable caused changes in another
variable (variable B), then the change in variable A must come before the change in variable B.
3. The final requirement of causation is Ruling out Alternative Explanation – we must be certain
that variable A is the only factor that could have caused the change in variable B.

Going back to the research sample, only two out of the 3 requirements have been met.

We are not certain that appoggiatura is the only factor that caused the reaction.

That is why researchers must control other possible confounds so that variable A must be the only factor
that could have caused the change in variable B.

Confounds is a variable that varies systematically with the variables of interest in a study and is a
potential alternative explanation for causality

In 1963, Campbell and Stanley identified eight confounds that are key threats to internal validity. In
2000 Gliner and Morgan divided these into two categories, based on whether the threat was due to
experiences or environmental factors, or if the threat was due to participant (or subject) characteristics.
HISTORY - Any event or environmental condition other than variable A caused the change in variable B.

MATURATION - The change in variable B was due to natural changes that occur over time.

3. Testing: Observed changes in variable B were due to previous exposure to a test.

4. Instrumentation: Observed changes in variable B were due to inconsistency in the measurement


instrument, administrators, or scorers.

Threats to internal validity due to participant characteristics:

1. Statistical Regression: Observed changes in variable B were due to a statistical phenomenon in which
very high or low scores will regress to the mean, meaning that extreme scores will get less extreme over
time.

2. Attrition (or Mortality): The change in variable B was due to participants withdrawing from the study.

3. Selection: When comparing groups, the change in variable B was due to pre-existing differences.

4. Selection Interactions: The change in variable B was due to an interaction between the pre-existing
differences and another threat to internal validity.

Internal validity: The extent to which we can say that one variable caused

ONE-GROUP PRETEST-POSTTEST DESIGN

(does not demonstrate causality)

a.

You might also like