Laboratory experimentation and social field experimentation: An ambiguous distinction

Critical and epistemological reflections on the use of experimental methods in social psychology are often made to distinguish between two types of settings where these methods are used: The laboratory and the social field. But it is by no means certain that such a division has, from the start and at its own level, real significance: for one thing, because in social psychology, laboratory work is probably never merely laboratory work; and for another, because an analysis of what happens in practice would show that much experimental research work carried out in the social field merely transfers into that setting tools, concepts and a theoretical intention derived from the laboratory. If that is so, it follows that it is not at its own level that the laboratory-social field distinction has a heuristic and epistemological significance, nor is that the real location of the breaking-point between the methodologies. Perhaps the real ‘dividing’ line is one which separates experimental work which, whether in the laboratory or in the social field, concentrates on social interactions which are miniaturized or able to be so, from work which, in the social field, aims to concentrcte on processes which cannot be simulated or miniaturized without becoming distorted and seeks to reach social systems which are relatively complete and essentially intact.     

Ambiguity in perception and experimentation

Bruno and Cutting (1988) varied four monocular cues to perceived depth in a factorial design. Subjects judged the distance between test objects. Given main effects in the analysis of variance, the authors concluded that the perceivers integrated the four different sources of information, as opposed to simply selecting a single source. Given no interactions in the analysis of variance, the authors concluded that the integration process was additive rather than multiplicative. The ambiguity inherent in Bruno and Cutting's experiments and analyses is discussed. As presented, their results did not provide evidence for integration of depth cues or evidence for additivity, independence, and parallel processing of the cues. An additional analysis of the distribution of the rating judgments given by their subjects, however, provides some evidence for integration of the cues. The fuzzy logical model of perception (FLMP) is extended to describe perceptual recognition of depth. The model assumes independence of the cues during feature evaluation and a nonadditive integration process in which the least ambiguous cues have the greatest impact on the judgment. The FLMP is contrasted with a model assuming additivity of the cues. Because both models describe the results equally well, it remains for future researchers to provide definitive tests between the models.     

On boredom and experimentation in humans

This article discusses the ethical and methodological issues associated with boredom experienced by human participants during psychological experiments. Ways are suggested in which informed consent, briefing, and debriefing can be used to prevent or remedy boredom induced during experiments. We address methodological and ethical concerns, and we discuss the advantages of the proposed approach for experimenters' practice and training of undergraduate students. Future directions for much needed research on these topics are also emphasized.     

The purposes of laboratory experimentation and the virtues of deliberate artificiality

Critics of the laboratory experiment have maintained that artificiality (the intrusion into the experiment of “unrealistic” conditions) vitiates any possibility of generalizability beyond the confines of the laboratory. It is argued here that such artificiality in laboratory experimentation is a defect or flaw only within the context of verification and may be a distinct virtue in the context of discovery. Indeed it is argued that social psychological experiments may not be artificial enough when contrasted with the most fruitful experiments in the natural sciences. One purpose of an experiment may be to maximize artificiality deliberately so as to discover regularities that do not presently obtain under the “real” conditions outside the laboratory but which are capable of existing. When such observed laboratory regularities produce potentially beneficial outcomes, an attempt may be made to create the specific artificial laboratory conditions outside the laboratory to benefit mankind. This logic, exceedingly common in the natural sciences, has been virtually ignored in social psychology, even in the laboratory experiment, in favor of “realistic” reproduction of existing or reasonably plausible situations. Theoretical benefits of this additional modality of experimentation are illustrated by two recent developments in psychology.     

Cultural variation in the social organization of problem solving among African American and European American siblings

This study examined the social organization of a problem-solving task among 15 African American and 15 European American sibling pairs. The 30 sibling pairs between the ages of 6 and 12 were video recorded constructing a marble track together during a home visit. African American siblings were observed to collaborate more often than European American siblings who were more likely to divide up the labor and direct each other in constructing the marble track. In addition, older European American siblings made more proposals of step plans than older African American siblings. The findings provide insights into the cultural basis of the social organization of problem solving across African American and European American siblings.     

Daylight savings: what an answer to the perceptual variation problem cannot be

Philosophical Studies - Significant variations in the way objects appear across different viewing conditions pose a challenge to the view that they have some true, determinate color. This view...     

Mathematical models of memory and the problem of stimulus variation: A comparison of Minerva 2 and Todam

MINERVA 2 Hintzman, 1983, Hintzman, 1984 and TODAM (Murdock 1982, 1983), two contemporary mathematical models of memory, are compared with regard to the way they conceptualize and formalize the processes of encoding, storage, and retrieval. Both models were applied to a set of data from an experiment involving stimulus variation and memory (Avant and Bevan 1968b). Results show that TODAM more closely simulated tha data than did MINERVA 2. These findings are discussed in terms of the relevant differences between the two models.     

Development and experimentation with synthetic visible speech

We have implemented software for development of synthetic visual speech and perceptual experimentation on a UNIX workstation. We describe recent improvements in the speech synthesis and the capabilities of the development system. We also show how a typical experiment is programmed and describe our solutions for real-time experimental control under the UNIX operating system.     

Models,measurement and computer simulation: the changing face of experimentation

The paper presents an argument for treating certain types of computer simulation as having the same epistemic status as experimental measurement. While this may seem a rather counterintuitive view it becomes less so when one looks carefully at the role that models play in experimental activity, particularly measurement. I begin by discussing how models function as “measuring instruments” and go on to examine the ways in which simulation can be said to constitute an experimental activity. By focussing on the connections between models and their various functions, simulation and experiment one can begin to see similarities in the practices associated with each type of activity. Establishing the connections between simulation and particular types of modelling strategies and highlighting the ways in which those strategies are essential features of experimentation allows us to clarify the contexts in which we can legitimately call computer simulation a form of experimental measurement.

Revisiting field experimentation: field notes for the future

Field experiments in the social sciences were increasingly used in the 20th century. This article briefly reviews some important lessons in design, analysis, and theory of field experiments emerging from that experience. Topics include the importance of ensuring that selection into experiments and assignment to conditions occurs properly, how to prevent and analyze attrition, the need to attend to power and effect size, how to measure and take partial treatment implementation into account in analyses, modern analyses of quasi-experimental and multilevel data, Rubin's model, and the role of internal and external validity. The article ends with observations on the computer revolution in methodology and statistics, convergences in theory and methods across disciplines, the need for an empirical program of methodological research, the key problem of selection bias, and the inevitability of increased specialization in field experimentation in the years to come.     

Laboratory experimentation at the center for computer-based behavior studies

The Center for Computer-Based Behavioral Studies (CCBS) is designed around a time-shared computer system to make its informational and technological resources available to behavioral scientists and policy analysts at remote locations (through the ARPA Network and through dial-in phone lines) as well as in our own laboratory. The principal goal of CCBS is to broaden and expand the capabilities and horizons of behavioral research for studying problems of real-world complexity and theoretical relevance. The principal focus is on strengthening laboratory and associated research methodologies through computer-administered multiperson experiments and gaming simulations.     

A software tool for auditory and speech perception experimentation

A computer program capable of supporting auditory and speech perception experimentation is described. Given a continuum of acoustic stimuli, the program (Paradigm) allows the user to present those stimuli under different, well-known psychophysical paradigms (simple identification, identification with a rating scale, 2IAX, ABX, AXB, and oddity task). For discrimination tests, both high uncertainty (roving designs) and minimal psychophysical uncertainty (fixed designs) procedures are available. All the relevant time intervals can be precisely specified, and feedback is also available. Response times can be measured as well. Furthermore, the program stores subjects’ responses and provides summaries of experimental results for both individual subjects and groups. The program runs on Microsoft Windows (3.1 or 95) on personal computers equipped with any soundboard.