⌛ Darley And Latane
Because they differ systematically across conditions—just darley and latane the independent variable—they provide an darley and latane explanation for any observed difference in the dependent variable. Constitutional Convention a no-treatment darley and latane conditionparticipants receive no treatment whatsoever. These two psychologists hypothesized the darley and latane people who darley and latane a crime, the less likely anyone will help. Next: Experimental Darley and latane. The powerful placebo: From ancient darley and latane to modern physician.
Darley and Latane study - Intro to Psychology
This distinction is important because groups that already differ in one way at the beginning of a study are likely to differ in other ways too. For example, people who choose to keep journals might also be more conscientious, more introverted, or less stressed than people who do not. Therefore, any observed difference between the two groups in terms of their health might have been caused by whether or not they keep a journal, or it might have been caused by any of the other differences between people who do and do not keep journals. Thus the active manipulation of the independent variable is crucial for eliminating potential alternative explanations for the results. Of course, there are many situations in which the independent variable cannot be manipulated for practical or ethical reasons and therefore an experiment is not possible.
For example, whether or not people have a significant early illness experience cannot be manipulated, making it impossible to conduct an experiment on the effect of early illness experiences on the development of hypochondriasis. This caveat does not mean it is impossible to study the relationship between early illness experiences and hypochondriasis—only that it must be done using nonexperimental approaches. We will discuss this type of methodology in detail later in the book. Independent variables can be manipulated to create two conditions and experiments involving a single independent variable with two conditions are often referred to as a single factor two-level design.
However, sometimes greater insights can be gained by adding more conditions to an experiment. When an experiment has one independent variable that is manipulated to produce more than two conditions it is referred to as a single factor multi level design. As we have seen previously in the chapter, an extraneous variable is anything that varies in the context of a study other than the independent and dependent variables. In an experiment on the effect of expressive writing on health, for example, extraneous variables would include participant variables individual differences such as their writing ability, their diet, and their gender.
They would also include situational or task variables such as the time of day when participants write, whether they write by hand or on a computer, and the weather. Extraneous variables pose a problem because many of them are likely to have some effect on the dependent variable. This influencing factor can make it difficult to separate the effect of the independent variable from the effects of the extraneous variables, which is why it is important to control extraneous variables by holding them constant.
Extraneous variables make it difficult to detect the effect of the independent variable in two ways. Imagine a simple experiment on the effect of mood happy vs. Participants are put into a negative or positive mood by showing them a happy or sad video clip and then asked to recall as many happy childhood events as they can. The two leftmost columns of Table 5. Every participant in the happy mood condition recalled exactly four happy childhood events, and every participant in the sad mood condition recalled exactly three. The effect of mood here is quite obvious.
In reality, however, the data would probably look more like those in the two rightmost columns of Table 5. Even in the happy mood condition, some participants would recall fewer happy memories because they have fewer to draw on, use less effective recall strategies, or are less motivated. And even in the sad mood condition, some participants would recall more happy childhood memories because they have more happy memories to draw on, they use more effective recall strategies, or they are more motivated.
Although the mean difference between the two groups is the same as in the idealized data, this difference is much less obvious in the context of the greater variability in the data. Thus one reason researchers try to control extraneous variables is so their data look more like the idealized data in Table 5. One way to control extraneous variables is to hold them constant. This technique can mean holding situation or task variables constant by testing all participants in the same location, giving them identical instructions, treating them in the same way, and so on. It can also mean holding participant variables constant.
For example, many studies of language limit participants to right-handed people, who generally have their language areas isolated in their left cerebral hemispheres [1]. Left-handed people are more likely to have their language areas isolated in their right cerebral hemispheres or distributed across both hemispheres, which can change the way they process language and thereby add noise to the data. In principle, researchers can control extraneous variables by limiting participants to one very specific category of person, such as year-old, heterosexual, female, right-handed psychology majors. The obvious downside to this approach is that it would lower the external validity of the study—in particular, the extent to which the results can be generalized beyond the people actually studied.
For example, it might be unclear whether results obtained with a sample of younger lesbian women would apply to older gay men. In many situations, the advantages of a diverse sample increased external validity outweigh the reduction in noise achieved by a homogeneous one. The second way that extraneous variables can make it difficult to detect the effect of the independent variable is by becoming confounding variables. A confounding variable is an extraneous variable that differs on average across levels of the independent variable i.
But as long as there are participants with lower and higher IQs in each condition so that the average IQ is roughly equal across the conditions, then this variation is probably acceptable and may even be desirable. What would be bad, however, would be for participants in one condition to have substantially lower IQs on average and participants in another condition to have substantially higher IQs on average. In this case, IQ would be a confounding variable. To confound means to confuse , and this effect is exactly why confounding variables are undesirable. Because they differ systematically across conditions—just like the independent variable—they provide an alternative explanation for any observed difference in the dependent variable.
Figure 5. But if IQ is a confounding variable—with participants in the positive mood condition having higher IQs on average than participants in the negative mood condition—then it is unclear whether it was the positive moods or the higher IQs that caused participants in the first condition to score higher. One way to avoid confounding variables is by holding extraneous variables constant. For example, one could prevent IQ from becoming a confounding variable by limiting participants only to those with IQs of exactly But this approach is not always desirable for reasons we have already discussed. A second and much more general approach—random assignment to conditions—will be discussed in detail shortly.
This intervention includes psychotherapies and medical treatments for psychological disorders but also interventions designed to improve learning, promote conservation, reduce prejudice, and so on. To determine whether a treatment works, participants are randomly assigned to either a treatment condition , in which they receive the treatment, or a control condition , in which they do not receive the treatment. If participants in the treatment condition end up better off than participants in the control condition—for example, they are less depressed, learn faster, conserve more, express less prejudice—then the researcher can conclude that the treatment works. In research on the effectiveness of psychotherapies and medical treatments, this type of experiment is often called a randomized clinical trial.
There are different types of control conditions. In a no-treatment control condition , participants receive no treatment whatsoever. One problem with this approach, however, is the existence of placebo effects. A placebo is a simulated treatment that lacks any active ingredient or element that should make it effective, and a placebo effect is a positive effect of such a treatment. Many folk remedies that seem to work—such as eating chicken soup for a cold or placing soap under the bed sheets to stop nighttime leg cramps—are probably nothing more than placebos. If these conditions the two leftmost bars in Figure 5.
It could be instead that participants in the treatment group improved more because they expected to improve, while those in the no-treatment control condition did not. Fortunately, there are several solutions to this problem. This difference is what is shown by a comparison of the two outer bars in Figure 5. Of course, the principle of informed consent requires that participants be told that they will be assigned to either a treatment or a placebo control condition—even though they cannot be told which until the experiment ends. In many cases the participants who had been in the control condition are then offered an opportunity to have the real treatment. An alternative approach is to use a wait-list control condition , in which participants are told that they will receive the treatment but must wait until the participants in the treatment condition have already received it.
This disclosure allows researchers to compare participants who have received the treatment with participants who are not currently receiving it but who still expect to improve eventually. Or, they fail to respond at all. Additionally, bystanders may be slow to respond because they are monitoring others in the group for their reactions. They are trying to determine if the situation is serious enough to do something, and they will watch to see if someone else will step forward.
Sometimes when no one steps forward, bystanders feel justified in doing nothing. This inaction is often referred to as the bystander effect. Some bystanders are plagued by uncertainty. They see the bullying and know in their heart that it is wrong, but they have no idea what to do. There are a number of things that bystanders can do to help, but oftentimes they do not know what those things are. With a little guidance though, kids can learn how to respond when witnessing bullying. Fear is another reason why bystanders fail to do anything when they witness bullying.
They also may worry that they will say or do the wrong thing and make the bullying worse. So instead, they remain silent. And others are fearful of rejection. They worry that others in the group will turn on them, make fun or them, or ostracize them if they stand up for the victim. After the bullying incident is over, many bystanders are weighed down with guilt. Not only do they feel bad for what happened to the victim, but they also experience overwhelming guilt for not intervening.
They also can feel guilty for not knowing what to do, or for being too fearful to step in. For this reason, bystanders are often plagued by the same effects from bullying that the victim's experience. When bystanders experience the combination of fear and guilt, this can lead to what is known as approach-avoidance conflict. When it comes to bullying , kids can feel guilty for not helping, and yet too scared to help at the same time. It is like they are being pulled in two directions at once. Sometimes the urge to help is stronger and wins out. Sometimes the fear of consequences is higher. The result is indecisiveness, which leads to feeling out of control and produces high levels of stress and anxiety for the bystander. Bystanders also can develop anxiety about bullying.
This anxiety also can lead the bystander to worry about safety and security at school. These concerns then make concentration difficult. Bystanders sometimes are so overcome by anxiety that they avoid the areas where bullying occurs. They also may avoid social events and other activities due to anxiety about bullying. Sometimes, in an attempt to cope with anxiety and to avoid becoming targets, bystanders may join cliques or succumb to peer pressure. Bystanders may even become bullies just to avoid being bullied themselves. Watching another person suffer is never easy. But it can be difficult to know what to do.
If your child frequently witnesses bullying at school, it is important that you equip them with the tools they need to report bullying. In fact, all teens should know what to do if they witnesses bullying at their school or in their community. By empowering your teen to help, instead of standing by and watching, you are helping put an end to the bullying. Get diet and wellness tips to help your kids stay healthy and happy.
A third study, performed by Glen Whyte of the University of Toronto, examined the diffusion darley and latane responsibility Recitatif By Toni Morrison Character Analysis its effects of the escalation tendency. Distinguish between the darley and latane of the independent variable and control of extraneous variables and explain Confucian Values In Imperial China importance of each. Darley and latane technique can mean darley and latane situation darley and latane task variables constant darley and latane testing all participants in the same location, giving them identical instructions, darley and latane them in the same way, and so on. The other drivers darley and latane thought they already called for help or they didn't want darley and latane stop darley and latane it was dark out.