For our second methodological problem, we have Quasi-Experiments, which we will be illustrating by

noise and cognitive performance.

QUASI-EXPERIMENTS
ILLUSTRATION: NOISE AND COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE

True experiments require random assignment of participants to experimental conditions. This can be
difficult to achieve in the area of environmental psychology, and so quasi-experiments are often
substituted for true experiments.

Since it's often not possible to conduct true experiments in everyday life situations, environmental
psychologists prefer quasi-experiments to learn about the person-environment interaction.
Conducting true experiments is difficult because, in real life situations, it is less likely that we can control
other variables that might be influencing us

A European study (Hygge, Evans, & Bullinger, 2002) took advantage of the simultaneous opening and
closing of the Munich airport to create a quasi-experiment.

Two experimental groups:

● children who were exposed to aircraft noise at the old airport
● children who would be exposed at the new airport

Two control groups:

● two groups of children who were not exposed to aircraft noise

Data were collected in three waves:

● Wave 1 was 6 months prior to the opening of the new airport
● Wave 2 was 1 year later
● Wave 3 was 2 years later

Testing was conducted in a sound-isolated mobile van so that there was no confounding with immediate
noise effects. (So the noise affecting the subjects are strictly the airport noise)

-next slide-

Results show that noise influences memory but that this effect is reversible when the noise source is
removed
At the old airport, memory with aircraft noise was worse before the airport closed (Wave 1). Once the
airport closed, however, the effects of noise disappeared.
We would expect the opposite findings at the new airport. At Wave 1 there was no statistically significant
effect of noise. However, at Wave 3 performance was better without noise.

There was an ex post facto study of aircraft noise around Heathrow Airport in London:

Haines, Stansfeld, Head, and Job (2002) correlated standardized tests in mathematics, science, and
English with aircraft noise exposure; exposure varied according to distance from the airport. Exposure
was statistically related to poorer reading and mathematics test scores. However, when other
socioeconomic variables were statistically controlled, this correlational association disappeared.

Tuckman (1972) defined the term ex post facto as”an experiment in which the researcher examines the
effects of a naturalistically-occurring treatment after that treatment has occurred rather than creating the
treatment itself”

It’s like that study we mentioned earlier under crowding in humans, where researchers studied the
crowding and social withdrawal in India.
After observation, the researchers did a correlational study on the exposure to aircraft noise to reading
and mathematical test scores. They did find that they are statistically related BUT when they took into
account other socioeconomic variables, they found that exposure to aircraft noise isn’t exactly the leading
reason for poorer reading and mathematical test scores.

So in general, quasi-experiments could bring stronger results than ex post facto studies since scientists
prefer statements about causation rather than correlation

Another quasi-experiment studied the effects of construction noise on residents of college dorms:

(Ng, 2000) studied the effects of construction noise on residents of college dorms.

The noise level from outside building construction varied in three dorm wings:
● near
● central
● far

Four kinds of measures were taken:

● a questionnaire survey,
● self-completed activity logs,
● resident-turnover record,
● external observation of windows open or closed

-next slide-
Findings:
● Higher percentages of residents in the noisier wings reported interference with activities such as
telephone conversations.
● The near-wing residents reported keeping their windows closed more often than residents of
quieter wings.
● However, while the objective external observation of windows found more open windows in the
quieter wings, there was no reliable effect or interaction of whether construction was going on.
● The most important correlate of the number of open windows was outside temperature.

So in a sense, this study did not really take into account if it was construction noise causing the behavior
of the residents. Instead, other variables such as outside temperature and telephone conversations
influenced their behavior.

All quasi-experiments are not automatically equally useful just because they are quasi-experiments.

They should be carefully designed quasi-experiments for them to wield meaningful results.
In the ones we’ve discussed so far, the European study— the one on Munich Airport— was more carefully
designed. The results are strongly due to airport noise, this is because the experimenters managed to
control several variables. As for the study on construction noise, The residents closed their windows for a
number of reasons other than just construction noise, this is obvious because they do so even in the
absence of construction noise. Failing to control the variables is what makes the study similar to an ex
post facto study of noise. It fails to take into account other variables that may influence behavior.