In a 2 times 2 factorial study, what is the maximum number of the main effect th

Question

In a 2 times 2 factorial study, what is the maximum number of the main effect that you possibly observe? A) two B) one C) three D) four If Tanisha made use of random assignment, means that each participant in her study: A) had an equal chance of being assigned to any particular condition of her study B) was perfectly matched with another participant in the study C) participated in every condition of the study D) was assigned to a different control condition in the study Lena says that science requires objectivity because it is essential for empirical findings to be unbiased. Do you agree? A) No, because bias is unavoidable in science, B) No, because scientific objectivity is about being public not about bias C) Yes, because bias destroys scientific credibility, D) Both A and B, E) None of the above. Measures of self-esteem that accurately predict how good people feel about themselves are high in: A) restrictive validity B) construct validity C) external validity D) internal validity E) All of the above Which of the following must the psychological scientist to assume is true? A) People are as determined by natural law as cockroaches. B) People do not have free will, C) People are more complex than other parts of nature. D) None of the above. E) A and B

Explanation / Answer

Internal Validity

Internal validity occurs when it can be concluded that there is a causal relationship between the variables being studied. A danger is that changes might be caused by other factors.It is related to the design of the experiment, such as in the use of random assignment of treatments.

External validity

External validity occurs when the causal relationship discovered can be generalized to other people, times and contexts. Correct sampling will allow generalization and hence give external validity.

Construct validity

is the hardest to understand in my opinion. It asks if there is there a relationship between how I operationalized my concepts in this study to the actual causal relationship I'm trying to study? Or in our example, did our treatment (attendance policy) reflect the construct of attendance, and did our measured outcome - increased class participation - reflect the construct of participation? Overall, we are trying to generalize our conceptualized treatment and outcomes to broader constructs of the same concepts.

In self esteem, The validity of explicit measures increasingly has come under challenge because, by definition, such measures rely on individuals’ potentially biased capacity to accurately report their attitudes and feelings. As a result, implicit measures of attitudes, including self-esteem, attempt to tap into the unconscious, automatic aspects of self. People do not necessarily have access to their internal mental states, and therefore self-presentational motives or other beliefs may produce bias or distortion, both intended and unintended. Implicit self-esteem as “the introspectively unidentified (or inaccurately identified) effect of the self-attitude on evaluation of self-associated and self-dissociated object”. A variety of evidence supports the idea of implicit positive attitudes about the self. For instance, people show a positive bias for information about the self, such as preferring their own initials and preferring members of their in-group more than those from an out-group, even when the groups are determined arbitrarily

So the answe internal vaidity is correct for Q 18.

Internal validity occurs when it can be concluded that there is a causal relationship between the variables being studied. A danger is that changes might be caused by other factors.It is related to the design of the experiment, such as in the use of random assignment of treatments.

External validity

External validity occurs when the causal relationship discovered can be generalized to other people, times and contexts. Correct sampling will allow generalization and hence give external validity.

Construct validity

is the hardest to understand in my opinion. It asks if there is there a relationship between how I operationalized my concepts in this study to the actual causal relationship I'm trying to study? Or in our example, did our treatment (attendance policy) reflect the construct of attendance, and did our measured outcome - increased class participation - reflect the construct of participation? Overall, we are trying to generalize our conceptualized treatment and outcomes to broader constructs of the same concepts.

In self esteem, The validity of explicit measures increasingly has come under challenge because, by definition, such measures rely on individuals’ potentially biased capacity to accurately report their attitudes and feelings. As a result, implicit measures of attitudes, including self-esteem, attempt to tap into the unconscious, automatic aspects of self. People do not necessarily have access to their internal mental states, and therefore self-presentational motives or other beliefs may produce bias or distortion, both intended and unintended. Implicit self-esteem as “the introspectively unidentified (or inaccurately identified) effect of the self-attitude on evaluation of self-associated and self-dissociated object”. A variety of evidence supports the idea of implicit positive attitudes about the self. For instance, people show a positive bias for information about the self, such as preferring their own initials and preferring members of their in-group more than those from an out-group, even when the groups are determined arbitrarily

So the answe internal vaidity is correct for Q 18.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.