Discussion Question
Suppose a researcher gave a series of wellness workshops over a six-month period and
then determined that five of the participants had quit smoking during the six-month
period. The researcher’s interpretation was that the workshops caused the decrease in
smoking. Is this interpretation flawed? Explain.
Response
I think that on the surface this interpretation appears reasonable, however is fundamentally flawed. The main flaw is the lack of supporting evidence.
The book states “Suppose the treatment (X) was designed to improve participants’ self-concept, and the researcher observed an average gain of nine points in self-concept from pretest (the first O) to post test (the second O). Of course the treatment could be responsible for the increase. Another possibility is the internal threat called history” (Patten and Newhart, 2017). It further states “perhaps some of the participants were part of a winning team during the same period of time” (Patten and Newhart, 2017).
This case is an almost perfect example of a study that has low internal validity. Participants could have been influenced by any number of factors, such as a new less stressful job, changes in living situation, or something like a medical emergency that forced them to stop smoking. Without any data collected on external factors, such as a survey or questionnaire before and after to identify changes, it’s impossible to know.
Reference:
Patten, M. L., & Newhart, M. (2017). Understanding Research Methods: An Overview of the Essentials (10th ed.). Routledge.
Hi Benjamin!
I had the same idea as you when I read this question. I think it is okay to assume that some who quit smoking were so impacted by the workshop that they decided to stop smoking, but it is really reaching to think that is the reasoning for all who quit. Some of the external factors that could have contributed to some to quit smoking were
1. Financial reasons – cigarettes are expensive. Some health insurances are more expensive if you smoke.
2. Change in living situation – maybe they moved to a new location that does not easily allow smoking. I lived in an apartment that was banning smoking near the buildings and were going to make smoking areas throughout the apartment complex. The inconvenience could drive some to quit.
Discussion Question.
1. Briefly describe an experimental problem for which a researcher probably would not be able to assign participants at random to conditions.
Researchers might not be able to assign participants at random because of ethical and lawful conditions. For example s research might not be able to give a participant a treatment because of the religious believes of the participant. Therefore eliminating that participant and others like them. Another example would be because the researcher wants to administrate a treatment and a placebo they would need to follow the law and get concoct from the participant. Eliminating the placebo effect because the participants would know they are getting the actual treatment. The way researchers might conduct how they assign participants at random can have some roadblock because of ethics and the law.
Benjamin, you are correct on stating that the changes on the participants decision on quitting smoking can’t be attribute to the workshop. It’s a clear flawed interpretation because there are multiple facts besides the workshop alone act could have contributed to the patricians decision on quitting smoking. They could have been already planning on quitting smoking before the treatment or they had a visit to the doctor and were told they had to stop smoking to increase their health. Also any financial problems they would have ran into during the treatment could have affected the outcome. It can not be all on the treatment because of so many variables.Great job.