TECHNIQUES OF

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS
Tooba Arshad
Institute of Professional Psychology, Bahria University-
Karachi Campus
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS
 Experiments in Psychology- to generate reliable reports
about psychological life of people and animals-
development of theories and models
 Psychological experiments- (mostly) study cause-and-
effect relationship
 Psychological Phenomenon- multiple cause and multiple
effects
 Development of sophisticated experimental designs and
analysis
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS
 The design of controlled conditions under which one
might make empirical observations within the context of
testable hypothesis, that leads towards anticipated r/s b/w
the conditions of an experiment and its outcome
TECHNIQUES OF EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGNS
 Factorial Design
 Complex Factorial Designs

 Quasi-Experimental Designs (ex post facto research)

 Functional Designs

 Small n Designs (AAA and ABA Designs)

SINGLE-FACTOR DESIGNS
 Effect of only one IV on one DV
 Only one factor is manipulated-rest of the factors are
controlled or held constant
 Example: Effect of Audio-Video (AV) Aids on the
learning of students
 Rare situations

 Example????
Factorial Designs
IVS
 Reinforcement = Positive and Negative
 Experience = Intermediate & Expert

 DV= Performance

2(IV1)x2(IV2)

2x3x3
EFFECT OF REINFORCEMENT AND
EXPERIENCE ON THE PERFORMANCE
 Reinforcement (Positive &
Negative)Levels
 Experience (Intermediate & Master, mod,
mod)
 2 x 4=8 Factorial Design
 Positive & Intermediate =5
Conditions
 Negative & Intermediate =0
 Positive & Master =10
 Negative & Master =2
Effect of Gender and academic
Background on the Learning of
students
2x3 factorial
Effect of Grades, Gender and
Academic Year on the Learning of
Students
6x2x4=36 factorial
Effect of shape (round &
square), size (Big & small) and
color (Red, Blue & Black) of
the cake on the perception of
the taste
2x2x3=12
FACTORIAL DESIGNS
 Psychological Phenomenon are not that simple that
could be measured by only one cause
 Experimenters not only try to find out the cause but they
also try to find out the combination of cause that would
lead towards a behavior
 To determine the effects of two more than two IVs on a
DV factorial designs are used
 May be manipulated at the same time
FACTORIAL DESIGNS

 IV= Degree of Parenting (Kindness or Hostility) and

Degree of Control (High & Low)
 DV= Behavior of the children
 No. of IVs 1x1
 Level of IVs 2x3x2

 Ehrenfreund and Badia (1962)- examined the

performance of rats under varying food-deprivation and
incentive conditions
 Apparatus: 5 foot long straight alley-start box and goal
box
 DV= the running speed of rat

 20 rats
2X2 FACTORIAL DESIGN
1. High deprivation- High Incentive
2. High deprivation- Low Incentive
3. Low deprivation- High Incentive
4. Low deprivation- Low Incentive
 5 rats in each condition

 Performance = running speed of rat traversed in the

middle 2feet of alley
 Median of running speed/ 10 each

 Higher Score= faster running time

 Main Effect
When you see the effect of an IV on DV and ignore
the other IV

 Interaction Effect
When you see the effect of one IV on the DV in the
presence of Other IV
RESULTS
 Deprivation treatment
Mean of High incentive > Mean of Low incentive
 Incentive treatment

Mean of High deprivation group > Mean of Low deprivation

group
EFFECT OF SHAPE (ROUND & SQUARE) AND SIZE
(BIG & SMALL) OF THE CAKE ON THE PERCEPTION
OF THE TASTE
EXPERIMENT ON DISSONANCE THEORY
 Dissonance Theory
 Level of Dissonance depends on the amount of money

 High Dissonance= ?

 Low Dissonance= ?
LINDER, COOPER AND JONES (1976)
 Reinforcement theory is a applicable only in no choice
condition
 Dissonance can be created when people have choice; not
when they are forced
 Experiment: students have to write an essay on speaker-
ban law
 Factorial Design?????
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
 Independent variables
 Choice (No Choice- Free Choice)

 Incentive (50 cents- $2.50)

 Dependent Variable= the amount of attitude change

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
 Level of Significance: as the statistical point above (or
below) which one can infer the operation of no chance
factor
 0.05 (1 in 20)

 0.01(1 in 100)

 Statistically Significant: When data meet the pre-

established criteria
 Chance of variation
MAIN EFFECT
 Effect on one IV on DV ignoring the other IV
INTERACTION EFFECT
 One IV is effecting the DV in the presence of other IV
 Interaction= One IV effects the DV differently in both
levels of other IV
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o7wyyh8Lu8

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hnkvr3oyQM
MORE (1969)
 Compare the effects of immediate and delayed
information feedback using learning material
 8th Grade students from 4 different schools
 IV1- Feedback: length of delay b/w taking the test and
learning of the results
 Intervals: immediate, 2.5 hr, 1 day, 4 days
 After receiving the feedback they took the same test
again
 IV2 – the students either took the test immediately after
receiving feedback (acquisition treatment) or 3 days
after receiving feedback (retention treatment).
 DV: no. of students answered correctly the second time
 High Performance= Acquisition group> Retention Group
 For Acquisition treatment, the no-delay feedback group
scored significantly lower than other three groups
 For retention treatment, 2.5 hours delay and 1 day delay
groups scored significantly higher than other groups
 No support for the assumption that immediate feedback
maximizes learning
 Some delay in feedback is better
Complex Factorial
Designs
SOLSO AND SHORT (1979)

 Measurement of mental processes-reaction time

 Intellectual processes such as matching two signals take
some time, albeit a very small amount of time
 T-scope (tachistoscope):
 aninstrument used for exposing objects to the eye for a brief
measured period of time.
 Used to test the limits of human visual perception
 Psychologists have been interested in the way
information is coded in the memory after it is perceived
 Previously, it was found that participants initially formed
visual codes for letters and then formed name codes.
3X3X2 WITH IN SUBJECT DESIGN
 Solso and Short performed experiment on color codes
 IV (1)= type of relationship (color to associate, color to
word, color to color)
 IV (2)= delay b/w the stimuli (0, 500, 1500 msec)

 IV (3)= match (red, blood) or miss-match (red-blue)

3X3X2 WITH IN SUBJECT DESIGN
 Experiment on color codes
 IV (1)= type of relationship (color to associate, color to
word, color to color)
 IV (2)= delay b/w the stimuli (0, 500, 1500 msec)

 IV (3)= match (red, blood) or miss-match (red-blue)

 DV= reaction time

 With-in subject design: each subject was treated with

each of the experimental variables.
RESULTS
 Equal number of non-matched secondary stimuli
 Fastest response= color-color pairings (red-red)

 Slowest response= color- association pairings (red-

blood)
 Increase in interval (1500msec) decrease in Reaction
time
 Parallel development of codes to color
PRACTICE
 Design an experiment while using factorial design
technique and indicate following:
 IVs and DV
 Levels of IVs
 Subject Participation (With-in Group/ Between Group)
 Main Effect
 Interaction effect
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF
FACTORIAL DESIGNS
Advantages Disadvantages

 Investigate multiple  Factorial designs take

factors or variables much more work
simultaneously  Factorial designs can
 Multiple factors can produce interactions
combine in different ways which are difficult or
impossible to interpret
QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS
 Introduced by Campbell and Stanley (1966)
 Studies which selects IVs from the natural environment

 Overcome the problems faced by psychologists who

wish to study behaviors occurring in less formally
structured environments than labs
 sometimes termed as “ex post facto research” or “as if”
designs
 The collection and the analysis of the data take place after an
event has happened
 Similar to naturalistic observation; difference introduction of
IV
 The logic is, had the experimenter been able to introduce an IV
into a situation, then that variable would have been the same as
the variable that was naturally introduced
 As if the experimenter is Responsible for the introduction of
the experimental variable
 Selection of participants: random- well defined characteristics
 Lab Setting- controlled environment- results are generalized to
real life
 Real life occur naturally- sometimes natural settings cannot be
brought in labs

 How can someone study a riot in laboratory?

 Examples????
 Observation based on microcosmic life (as might be
observed in labs) may not be valid for macrocosmic life
(real-life)

 Closed System: dealing with highly control

system/environment- the lab has many virtues and many
psychology experiments require this rigid control over
stimuli
 A Open System: is an environment over which we have
no or little control- real world
CAMPBELL (1969)
 Record number of automobile fatalities in Connecticut-
harsh actions were taken against speeders
 Once these measures were introduced, a decline in traffic
fatalities was noticed
 Campbell made a detailed study of this phenomenon
utilizing a quasi-experimental design

 After the introduction of harsh treatment for speeders

was introduced, a decline in traffic fatalities was seen.
 Other factors may be responsible: road conditions, better
driving education
 Compare the fatality rates among comparable states

 Higher decline in Connecticut

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
 Lab experiment could not be possible in the real life
situation
 With less experimental control Quasi Experimental
Design renders a close approx to valid conclusion that
one could expect
DIFFERENCE'S B/W TRUE AND QUASI
EXP.
FUNCTIONAL DESIGNS
FUNCTIONAL DESIGNS
 Within Subject Design
 Factorial Designs: Mean/ Percentage/ Frequency is
compared of the scores of the participants by using
statistical analysis
 Experimental Analysis of behavior

 Originated by B.F. Skinner-Skinnerians

 Uses functional definitions of terms and concepts

 Developing a functional definition of a concept (e.g.

punishment) is accomplished by specifying the
relationship between a set of conditions and their effects
on behavior
 Example: Punishment
 Precisely Measurable

 Researchers in this area-

atheoratical
 Concerns with testing the

variables that control behavior

than testing a theory
 Instead of viewing an experiment

as a means of theory testing,

experimenters systematically
explore variables that control
behavior with the assumption that
theory will emerge inductively
from the data

 Inductive approach towards

theory development
INDUCTIVE APPROACH
DEDUCTIVE APPROACH
FRESTER AND PERROTT (1968)
 Skinner Box- 14 sq inches
 Small Plexiglas plate-food magazine
 If the plate was pushed, a food pellet would be released
from the food magazine
 A pen point rested on a strip of paper- each time the
pigeon pecked on the Plexiglas plate, the pen moved-
automatically note down the pigeons rate of response
 Pigeon- with prior experience
 80% of the free feeding weight through out the experiment
 1 hr per day for 6 weeks
 Pigeon was reinforced for pecking the plate on a fixed-
ratio schedule
 Pigeon received food after n number of times pecking the
plate
 Several fixed ratios were used

 Week 1: 70 pecks (FR 70)

 Week 2: 185 pecks (FR 185)

 Week 3: 325 pecks (FR 325)

 Then the order was reversed for the next 3 weeks

RESULTS
 Pecked 3-4 times per second for FR70- almost
continuous pecking- slight pause after each
reinforcement
 FR185: long pauses after each reinforcement; rapid
pecking until the food was appeared
 FR325: longer pauses after each reinforcement; pecking
rate same as for FR70 and 185
CONCLUSION
 No. of pecks necessary for reinforcement do not
influence the rate of pecking but does affect the length of
the pause b/w the dispensing of a reinforcement and the
resumption of pecking
DIFFERENCE B/W FUNCTIONAL AND
FACTORIAL DESIGNS
Factorial Designs Functional Designs

 Deductive Approach  Inductive Approach

 Big samples  Small n

 Sophisticated Statistical  No particular statistical

Analysis analysis- typical curves
SMALL N DESIGNS
SMALL N DESIGNS
 Other than approach (atheoretical) the number of
subjects differs in functional designs- compared to
factorial designs
 Small n Designs use only one or two subjects in each
experimental treatment
 Data presented in responsive curve rather than in forms
of means and variances
 Curve is a segment of subject’s behavior that deemed his
performance in Experimental Conditions
ABA DESIGNS

A B A
Observation of Introduction of Removal of
the untreated experimental experimental
behavior variable(s) and variable and
measures of measure of
behavior behavior
 A: is observed first
 Baseline Data: observation/scores of the subject of
untreated behavior
 Departures from which contrast effect of experimental
behavior
 B: Experimental variable is introduced and its effects are
measured
 A: Experimental variable is absent and behavior is
observed
EXAMPLE
 Behavior therapist wants to treat overeating
 IV= Over Eating

 DV= Weight of the client

 A= Weight before the Treatment

 B= Treatment (Behavioral Therapy)

 A=Withdrawal of the treatment and again Weight of the

client

 Withdrawal Designs
MULTIPLE IVS
 Earlier Example: behavior therapy+ positive
reinforcement + exercise
 Critical Situation: do not permit unequivocal Cause-and-
Effect relationship (have to mention that both the IV’s
combined, produced the effect)
 Combination of Treatments: Synergistic Effect

 Cooperative action of the treatments could result in more

effective reaction- profound behavioral consequences

 Alternating Treatment Designs

AAA DESIGNS
 Internal validity
 Baseline data of a single subject serves as a Control for
subsequent observation

A A A
Observation No treatment Measure of
of untreated introduced, behavior
Behavior measure of
behavior
 EXTENDED VERSIONS
 ABABA Designs: Experimental Variable is reintroduced

A B A B A
Observation of Experimental Withdrawal of Again Withdrawal of
the untreated Treatment and the treatment Experimental the Treatment
behavior the measurement and the Treatment and and the
of the behavior measurement of Measurement of measurement of
the behavior the Behavior the behavior
 EXTENDED VERSIONS
 AB1AB2A Designs: Experimental Variable is
reintroduced
A B1 A B2 A
Observation of Experimental Withdrawal of Again Withdrawal of
the untreated Treatment 1 and the treatment Experimental the Treatment
behavior the measurement and the Treatment 2 and and the
of the behavior measurement of Measurement of measurement of
the behavior the Behavior the behavior
 AB1AB2AB3
 Extensive Control
AYLLON (1963)
 A strength of response may decrease with continuous
reinforcement called satiation
 When animals were given a continuous reinforcement
for a long period of time they stop emitting the
reinforced response
 Used the same procedure to control hoarding behavior in
a psychiatric patient
 47-years old female used to collect towels and kept them
in her room
 Nurses used to retrieve the towel but 20 towels per day
on an average
 Baseline was established on the basis of observation of
seven weeks
 Satiation period: nurses stopped removing the towels
instead they used to bring the towels and handed over to
her without any comments
 7 per day 1st week- 60 per day 3rd week
 Satiation period lasted for 5 weeks
 Accumulated 625 towels and started removing the towels

 Removing of towel continued until week 22

 Average of 1.5 towel in the room and lasted till 28 weeks

 Periodic observation was made until the next year-

average was continued
 Never returned to hoarding behavior-no other problems
were replaced