We now have examples of successfully and unsuccessfully designed experiments. Is it possible to further improve a well-designed experiment? And is it possible to make an experiment absolutely flawless? The answer is: any experiment can be improved indefinitely, or - which is the same thing - a perfect experiment cannot be carried out. Real experiments improve as they get closer to perfection.
The perfect experiment
Impeccability is best defined in terms of the concept of an ideal experiment (Keppel, 1973, p. 23). In an ideal experiment, only the independent variable (and, of course, the dependent variable, which takes on different values under different conditions), is allowed to change. Everything else remains the same, so the dependent variable is only affected by the independent variable. This is certainly not the case in our three well-designed experiments. Weavers wore headphones and worked without them at different times - even or odd weeks. The pieces that Jack learned using the whole and partial methods were also different. Yoko never drank both types of tomato juice on the same day. In each case, something else changed in addition to the independent variable. In subsequent chapters, we'll cover a different type of experiment in which different subjects are used for each independent variable condition, allowing for time variations (like even and odd weeks) and task differences (like memorized pieces) to be eliminated. But they also do not meet all the requirements of an ideal experiment, because the subjects will also be different. As you will soon see, a perfect experiment is impossible. However, the idea itself is useful, and it is what guides us when improving real experiments.
In an ideal (impossible) experiment, the weaver would work with and without headphones at the same time! Jack Mozart would simultaneously learn the same piece using whole and partial methods. In both of these cases, the difference in the values of the dependent variable would be due only to the independent variable, the difference in its conditions. In other words, all incidental circumstances, all other potential variables would remain at the same unchanged level.
An impeccable experiment, according to Gottsdanker, must satisfy three criteria:
1. Ideal experiment (only the independent and dependent variables change, there is no influence on it from external or additional changes)
2. Infinite experiment (the experiment must continue indefinitely, since there is always the possibility of the manifestation of a previously unknown factor)
3. Full correspondence experiment (the experimental situation must be completely identical to how it would happen “in reality”)
4. Conditions for planning experiments. Basic meanings of the term “planning”. Planning is substantive and formal. Establishing a minimal effect and making a decision not to reject the experimental hypothesis.
Experiment planning(English: experimental design techniques) - a set of measures aimed at effectively conducting experiments. The main goal of experiment planning is to achieve maximum measurement accuracy with a minimum number of experiments performed and maintaining the statistical reliability of the results.
Experimental planning is used when searching for optimal conditions, constructing interpolation formulas, selecting significant factors, assessing and clarifying constants of theoretical models, etc.
Stages of experiment planning
Experimental planning methods make it possible to minimize the number of necessary tests, establish a rational procedure and conditions for conducting research, depending on their type and the required accuracy of the results. If for some reason the number of tests is already limited, then the methods provide an estimate of the accuracy with which the results will be obtained in this case. The methods take into account the random nature of the scattering of the properties of the tested objects and the characteristics of the equipment used. They are based on methods of probability theory and mathematical statistics.
Planning an experiment involves a number of steps.
1. Establishing the purpose of the experiment(definition of characteristics, properties, etc.) and its type (definitive, control, comparative, research).
2. Clarification of experimental conditions(available or accessible equipment, timing of work, financial resources, number and staffing of employees, etc.). Selecting the type of tests (normal, accelerated, shortened in the laboratory, on a bench, test site, full-scale or operational).
3. Identification and selection of input and output parameters based on the collection and analysis of preliminary (a priori) information. Input parameters (factors) can be deterministic, that is, registered and controllable (depending on the observer), and random, that is, registered, but uncontrollable. Along with them, the state of the object under study can be influenced by unregistered and uncontrollable parameters, which introduce a systematic or random error in the measurement results. These are errors in measuring equipment, changes in the properties of the object under study during the experiment, for example, due to aging of the material or its wear, the impact of personnel, etc.
4. Establishing the required accuracy of measurement results(output parameters), areas of possible changes in input parameters, clarification of types of impacts. The type of samples or objects under study is selected, taking into account the degree of their correspondence to the real product in terms of condition, structure, shape, size and other characteristics.
The designation of the degree of accuracy is influenced by the manufacturing and operating conditions of the object in the creation of which these experimental data will be used. Manufacturing conditions, that is, production capabilities, limit the highest accuracy actually achievable. Operating conditions, that is, the conditions for ensuring the normal operation of an object, determine the minimum requirements for accuracy.
The accuracy of experimental data also significantly depends on the volume (number) of tests - the more tests there are, the (under the same conditions) the higher the reliability of the results.
For a number of cases (with a small number of factors and a known law of their distribution), it is possible to calculate in advance the minimum required number of tests, the implementation of which will allow obtaining results with the required accuracy.
5. Planning and conducting an experiment- number and order of tests, method of collecting, storing and documenting data.
The order of testing is important if the input parameters (factors) when studying the same object during one experiment take on different values. For example, when testing fatigue with a stepwise change in load level, the endurance limit depends on the loading sequence, since damage accumulates differently, and, therefore, there will be a different value of the endurance limit.
In a number of cases, when systematically operating parameters are difficult to take into account and control, they are converted into random ones, specifically providing for a random order of testing (randomization of the experiment). This allows you to apply methods of the mathematical theory of statistics to the analysis of results.
The order of tests is also important in the process of exploratory research: depending on the chosen sequence of actions during the experimental search for the optimal ratio of the parameters of an object or some process, more or fewer experiments may be required. These experimental problems are similar to mathematical problems of numerical search for optimal solutions. The most well developed methods are one-dimensional search (one-factor single-criteria problems), such as the Fibonacci method, the golden section method.
6. Statistical processing of experimental results, construction of a mathematical model of the behavior of the characteristics under study.
The need for processing is due to the fact that selective analysis of individual data, without connection with other results, or incorrect processing of them can not only reduce the value of practical recommendations, but also lead to erroneous conclusions. Processing of results includes:
§ determination of the confidence interval of the average value and dispersion (or standard deviation) of the values of the output parameters (experimental data) for a given statistical reliability;
§ checking for the absence of erroneous values (outliers), in order to exclude questionable results from further analysis. It is carried out for compliance with one of the special criteria, the choice of which depends on the distribution law of the random variable and the type of outlier;
§ checking the compliance of the experimental data with the previously introduced a priori distribution law. Depending on this, the chosen experimental plan and methods for processing the results are confirmed, and the choice of mathematical model is specified.
The construction of a mathematical model is carried out in cases where quantitative characteristics of the interrelated input and output parameters under study must be obtained. These are problems of approximation, that is, the choice of a mathematical relationship that best matches the experimental data. For these purposes, regression models are used, which are based on the expansion of the desired function in a series with retention of one (linear dependence, regression line) or several (nonlinear dependences) terms of the expansion (Fourier, Taylor series). One method for fitting a regression line is the widely used least squares method.
To assess the degree of interconnection of factors or output parameters, a correlation analysis of test results is carried out. The correlation coefficient is used as a measure of interconnectedness: for independent or nonlinearly dependent random variables it is equal to or close to zero, and its closeness to unity indicates the complete interconnectedness of the variables and the presence of a linear dependence between them.
When processing or using experimental data presented in tabular form, the need arises to obtain intermediate values. For this purpose, methods of linear and nonlinear (polynomial) interpolation (determining intermediate values) and extrapolation (determining values lying outside the data change interval) are used.
7. Explanation of the results obtained and formulating recommendations for their use, clarifying the experimental methodology.
Reducing labor intensity and reducing testing time is achieved by using automated experimental complexes. Such a complex includes test benches with automated setting of modes (allows you to simulate real operating modes), automatically processes the results, conducts statistical analysis and documents research. But the responsibility of the engineer in these studies is also great: clearly defined test goals and a correctly made decision make it possible to accurately find the weak point of the product, reduce the cost of fine-tuning and iterative design process.
5. Types of real experiments; approaches to their classification
A real experiment is always projective, a mental experiment is usually retrospective, aimed at the past; the researcher analyzes information about past events and tries to test hypotheses about the causes that caused the present effects. Thought experiments can also be projective if they are used to predict future events and if their conclusions are verified by real experiments and other research methods. In a single-factor experiment, the hypothesis about the consequences of the influence of one independent variable is tested, in a multifactorial experiment - a whole complex of variables in their interaction. Real multifactorial social experiments are very rare due to their complexity.
Real experiments - especially, as already mentioned, experiments in the social sciences - are not and cannot be ideal and impeccably reliable. Consequently, the researcher is always faced with the task of statistically assessing the significance of the results obtained.
Multivariate experiments in sociology are very often field experiments that model the complex relationships of the real world. The advantage of field multifactorial experiments is their “life-likeness,” i.e., external, face validity. But here lies the main drawback of such experiments - lower reliability and internal validity. Critics of field multivariate experiments often note that bringing the experiment closer to the real world is often achieved by replacing experimental control with purely statistical control. In the latter case, threats to validity increase, associated with incorrect specification of the measurement model, with the “correlation” of individual levels of independent variables with uncontrolled external variables (see Chapters 5, 6). In addition, in multivariate experiments, the problem of data aggregation is more acute than in individual and intergroup experiments - there is almost always the possibility that the relationships identified in the analysis of aggregate group data are not exactly observed for any individual subject (just as the average of a certain sample may not relate to any specific sample observation). The undeniable advantages of factorial experiments include significantly greater possibilities for statistical analysis, including the analysis of various effects of interaction of “factor” variables.
6. Quasi-experiment as an experiment with limited forms of control and as an example of “passive-observant” research.
Quasi-experiment- a type of experiment when the experimenter does not directly influence the participants or the experimental conditions, but uses already existing groups to study the processes of interest to him. If a researcher is interested in the results of two different methods of teaching reading in elementary school, he can either divide the children into two groups and control the learning (true experiment), or study existing groups who learn to read using different methods (quasi-experiment). Both methods allow the researcher to come to certain conclusions, but the conclusions obtained as a result of a quasi-experiment are more speculative in nature due to weak control over the situation and possible influencing factors.
In the social sciences, the concept of quasi-experiment or quasi-experimental research design is also often used. We are talking about panel, trend, etc. sample survey designs (Chapter 5). Sample surveys, especially those that are ongoing or conducted as comparative cross-sectional studies of subsamples that did or did not experience a specific time-localized impact (for example, a social revolution, educational reform, or a stock market crash), do allow inferences to be made about the relationships between the independent variables of interest. and dependent variables, which means testing hypotheses about alleged cause-and-effect relationships, however, experimental randomization and control in sample studies, as shown in the relevant chapters, is replaced here by the use of random samples and special methods of statistical data analysis.
7. Psychological, pedagogical and formative experiments
The essence of the experimental method is that the experimenter deliberately creates and in a controlled manner changes the conditions in which the subject being studied acts, sets certain tasks for him and, by how they are solved, judges the processes and phenomena that arise during this process.
Experiment(from Latin experimentum - test, experience) - a research strategy, which is characterized by the fact that it carries out targeted observation of any process in conditions of regulated changes in individual characteristics of the conditions of its occurrence. In this case, the hypothesis is tested.
For practical problems, it is important that by conducting research under the same conditions with different subjects, the experimenter can establish the age and individual characteristics of the course of mental processes in each of them.
There are two main types of experiments used in psychology:
- laboratory experiment which is usually carried out in specially equipped rooms and on subjects who consciously participate in the experiment, although they may not be aware of the true purpose of the experiment;
- natural experiment, the participants of which are unaware of their role as subjects.
A natural experiment combines the positive aspects of observational method and laboratory experiment. Here the naturalness of the observation conditions is preserved and the precision of a controlled experiment is introduced. The fact that the subjects are unaware that they are being subjected to psychological research ensures that their behavior is natural.
At the same time, for the correct and successful conduct of a natural experiment, it is necessary to comply with all the requirements that apply to a laboratory experiment.
In accordance with the purpose of the study, the experimenter selects conditions that provide the most vivid manifestation of the aspects of mental activity that interest him.
One option for a natural experiment is psychological and pedagogical experiment, or experimental learning, where the study of the mental characteristics of a schoolchild, subject to formation, is carried out in the process of training and education.
The psychological and pedagogical experiment was developed in child and educational psychology. This is a unique form of natural experiment, since it is carried out in the natural conditions of life and activity of children.
An essential feature of a psychological-pedagogical experiment is that it aims not only to study itself, but also to actively, purposefully change, transform, form one or another mental activity, the psychological qualities of an individual. Accordingly, two types are distinguished:
Educational psychological and pedagogical experiment,
Educational psychological and pedagogical experiment.
At the same time, a special role in the construction of various theories of mental development plays educational experiment. This is a form of natural experiment, which is characterized by the fact that the study of certain mental processes, primarily related to the cognitive sphere, occurs when they are purposefully formation.
Thus, the psychological and pedagogical experiment, or formative experiment, is a method used in developmental and educational psychology for tracking changes in a child’s psyche in the process of the researcher’s active influence on the subject.
A psychological and pedagogical experiment requires very high qualifications on the part of the experimenter, since unsuccessful and incorrect use of psychological techniques can lead to negative consequences for the subject.
The essence of the psychological and pedagogical experiment is that first they study the characteristics of children’s mental activity (not only the registration of highlighted facts, but also the disclosure of patterns, mechanisms, dynamics, development trends). Then, on this basis, special training is organized in order to optimize the identified processes and promote them to a higher level.
A psychological and pedagogical experiment not only establishes the level of development of memory and other aspects of a student’s mental activity, but studies the possibilities and ways that ensure the improvement of this activity. Here, the study of schoolchildren is carried out in the learning process, the influence of training and education on the development of mental activity of students, on the formation of certain personality qualities is traced. That is why it ensures the connection of psychological research with pedagogical search and design of the most effective forms of the educational process.
Let's give an example. When studying the memory characteristics of younger schoolchildren, it was found that children often memorize material mechanically, instead of meaningfully remembering it. The reason for the established fact turned out to be children’s ignorance of meaningful memorization techniques, with the help of which an understanding of the material and its logical assimilation is achieved. By teaching children methods of semantic grouping of educational material, the experimenter ensured that schoolchildren began to memorize not mechanically, but meaningfully.
During the psychological and pedagogical experiment, it is assumed formation of a certain quality(that is why it is also called “formative”). The formative experiment is widely used in Russian psychology when studying specific ways of forming a child’s personality, ensuring the connection of psychological research with pedagogical search and design of the most effective forms of the educational process.
In psychological and pedagogical research there are stating and formative experiments. In the first case, the teacher-researcher experimentally establishes only the state of the pedagogical system being studied, states a fact connections, dependencies between phenomena. When a teacher-researcher applies a special system of measures aimed at developing certain personal qualities in students and improving their learning and work activities, they already talk about formative experiment.
During a psychological and pedagogical experiment, two groups usually participate: experimental and control.
Participants in the experimental group are offered a specific task, which (in the opinion of the experimenters) will contribute to the formation of a given quality.
The control group of subjects is not given this task. At the end of the experiment, the two groups are compared with each other to evaluate the results obtained.
During a formative experiment, active actions are performed by both the subjects and the experimenter. A high degree of intervention and control over the main variables is required on the part of the experimenter. This distinguishes experiment from observation or examination.
The formative experiment as a method appeared thanks to the theory of activity (A.N. Leontiev, D.B. Elkonin, etc.), which affirms the idea of the primacy of activity in relation to mental development.
The main stages of the psychological and pedagogical research are presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Stages of psychological and pedagogical research
experimental psychology didactics methodology
Mandatory for a full-fledged psychological and pedagogical experiment is compliance with the following basic rules:
A clear formulation of the problem, goals and objectives of the study, and the hypotheses tested in it.
Establishment of criteria and signs by which one can judge how successful the experiment was, whether the hypotheses proposed in it were confirmed or not confirmed.
Precise definition of the object and subject of research.
Selection and development of valid and reliable methods for psychodiagnostics of the states of the object under study and the subject of research before and after the experiment.
Using consistent and convincing logic to prove that the experiment was successful.
Determining the appropriate form for presenting the results of the experiment.
Characteristics of the area of scientific and practical application of the experimental results, formulation of practical conclusions and recommendations arising from the experiment.
The objectives of specific experiments in the field of didactics and teaching methods for individual subjects most often come down to the following:
1. checking a certain training system (for example, checking the effectiveness of the initial training system developed by L.V. Zankov);
2. comparison of the effectiveness of certain teaching methods (research by I.T. Ogorodnikov and his students);
3. testing the effectiveness of the problem-based learning system (research by M.I. Makhmutov);
4. development of systems of measures to develop students’ cognitive interests and needs (research by G.I. Shchukina, V.S. Ilyin);
5. testing the effectiveness of measures to develop students’ academic skills (experiment by V.F. Palamarchuk);
6. development of cognitive independence of schoolchildren (experiments by N.A. Polovnikova, P.I. Pidkasisty).
7. didactic research related to the choice of the optimal option for a particular system of measures or pedagogical actions:
Updating the system of measures to prevent academic failure (Yu.K. Babansky and others),
Optimization of the volume and complexity of educational material included in school textbooks (J.A. Mikk),
Choosing the optimal number of exercises to develop a certain skill (P.N. Volovik),
Selection of optimal options for a system of measures to develop planning skills in students (L.F. Babenysheva),
Construction of problem-based learning for low-achieving schoolchildren (T.B. Gening),
Differentiated work with students based on different degrees of assistance provided to them in learning (V.F. Kharkovskaya),
Justification of the optimal system for teaching a technical drawing course at a university (A.P. Verkhola),
Equipment for a school physics room (S.G. Bronevshchuk).
All these tasks are to a certain extent intertwined with each other, but each of them also has some specific emphasis that determines the features of the pedagogical experiment.
Thus, the range of problems that can be solved with the help of a pedagogical experiment is very wide and versatile, covering all the main problems of pedagogy.
8. Longitudinal method
The longitudinal method consists of repeated examinations of the same individuals over a long period of time. The purpose of longitudinal studies is to record the somatic and mental development of the individual. Initially, longitudinal research (known as the “longitudinal section method”) developed in child and developmental psychology as an alternative to methods for determining states or levels of development (“cross-sectional” methods). The independent value of the longitudinal method was associated with the possibility of predicting the further course of mental development and establishing genetic connections between its phases. The organization of a longitudinal study involves the simultaneous use of other methods: observation, testing, psychography, etc. Longitudinal research is most effective if it is designed as a study of various development options. The longitudinal method has advantages over the cross-sectional method. It allows:
carry out data processing cross-sectionally for individual age periods;
determine the individual structure and dynamics of development of each person;
analyze the relationships and connections between individual components of a developing personality, resolve the issue of critical periods in development.
The main disadvantage of this method is the significant time required to organize and conduct the study.
9. Cross-cultural research as quasi-experimental
Cross-cultural research is essentially a special case of a group comparison design. In this case, the number of compared groups may fluctuate (minimum – 2 groups).
Conventionally, we can distinguish 2 main plans used in cross-cultural research.
First plan: comparison of 2 or more natural or randomized groups from 2 populations.
Second plan: a combination of a comparison plan of 2 or more groups with a longitudinal plan, in which not only differences in the behavioral characteristics of these groups are compared, but the process of change in these characteristics under the influence of time or time and additional external factors is studied.
The main feature of cross-cultural psychology is the subject matter, which determines the specifics of the method.
Cross-cultural psychology originates in the works of W. Wundt [Wundt V., 1998] and French sociologists of the early 20th century: G. Lebon [Lebon G., 1998], A. Foulier [Foulier A., 1998], G. Tarde [Tard G., 1998].
However, these scientists did not conduct empirical studies. The methodologist of cross-cultural psychology (as well as empirical psychology) was Wilhelm Wundt. In 1900-1920 he undertook the publication of the grandiose, 10-volume “Psychology of Nations”. He considered language activity to be the main manifestation of the “folk spirit” (as opposed to the language system, the subject of study by linguists). This work, along with “Fundamentals of Physiological Psychology,” became W. Wundt’s main contribution to psychology. The work “Problems of the Psychology of Peoples” is a collection of articles representing a brief summary of W. Wundt’s research program, and serves as an introduction to the multi-volume “Psychology of Peoples”.
Wundt distinguished at least 2 disciplines in the science of “national spirit”: “historical psychology of peoples” and “psychological ethnology”. The first is an explanatory discipline, the second is descriptive.
The laws of “psychology of peoples” are the laws of development, and its basis is 3 areas, the content of which “exceeds the volume of individual consciousness: language, myths and customs.” Unlike French psychologists and Austrian psychoanalysts, V. Wundt was less interested in mass behavior and the problem of “personality and mass”, and more in the content of the “national spirit” (Volksgeist), which, however, corresponded to the idea of psychology as the “science of consciousness.” He emphasizes the genetic priority of the “national spirit” over the individual: “In the history of human society, the first link is not the individual, but precisely their community. From the tribe, from the circle of relatives, through gradual individualization, an independent individual personality emerges, contrary to the hypotheses of the rationalistic Enlightenment, according to which individuals, partly under the yoke of need, partly through reflection, united into society.” A hidden polemic with French social psychologists is also present in the interpretation of the role of imitation. V. Wundt, using examples of individuals mastering two languages, shows that imitation is not the main, but only an accompanying factor in social interactions; he subjects the “theory of individual invention” to similar criticism. In place of these theories, he puts the processes of “general creativity”, “assimilation” and “dissimilation”, but does not fully reveal their nature.
The main method of “psychology of peoples,” according to W. Wundt, was the understanding and comparative interpretation of cultural elements.
In modern cross-cultural psychology, the empirical method dominates.
The subject of cross-cultural research is the characteristics of the human psyche from the point of view of their determination by sociocultural factors specific to each of the ethnocultural communities being compared.
It follows that in order to properly plan a cross-cultural study, it is necessary, firstly, at a minimum, to determine which mental characteristics may be potentially influenced by cultural factors, and also to identify many behavioral parameters corresponding to these characteristics. Secondly, it is necessary to give operational rather than theoretical definitions of the concepts of “culture” and “cultural factor”, as well as to describe many of these factors that presumably can influence differences in the mental characteristics and behavior of people belonging to different cultural communities.
Thirdly, an adequate research method and adequate methodology should be selected to measure the behavioral characteristics of people belonging to different cultures.
Fourthly, you should decide on the object of research. It is necessary to select populations for study that clearly represent subjects from different cultures. In addition, selection or selection of groups from populations that are representative of the cultures being compared is critical.
Let's look at these questions in more detail.
Cross-cultural psychology begins where psychogenetics ends. The result of psychological research is to determine the relative contribution of genotype and environment in the determination of individual differences between people in some psychological property.
Environmental determination also includes cultural factors. Therefore, at first glance, the hypothesis of any cross-cultural research should concern those properties of the psyche that depend more on the environment than on heredity, or that significantly depend on the environment.
However, there is not a single individual psychological parameter that is not, to one degree or another, subject to environmental influences. Therefore, hypotheses about the cultural determination of psychological properties cover their entire spectrum: from psychophysiological parameters to the value orientation of the individual.
Among the cultural factors that can potentially influence individual psychological differences, universal and specific ones are distinguished [Lebedeva N.M., 1998].
There are many classifications that characterize the psychological characteristics of cultures.
The most popular classification is by X. S. Triandis, who formulated the concept of “cultural syndrome” - a certain set of values, attitudes, beliefs, norms and behavior patterns that distinguish one cultural group from another.
He considers the main dimensions of culture to be “simplicity-complexity”, “individualism-collectivism”, “openness-closedness”. A number of researchers [in particular, Hofstede J., 1984] identify such parameters as: 1) power distance - the degree of uneven distribution of power from the point of view of a given society, 2) uncertainty avoidance and 3) masculinity-femininity.
Of course, these parameters are extremely primitive. Even an “inveterate” ethnopsychologist will never consider them sufficient or even necessary to describe a particular culture.
The term “culture” itself is extremely vague. One can, following K. Popper, consider the “third world” culture, a system of “transformed reality” created by people.
Most often, cultural differences are reduced to ethnic ones, and cross-cultural research means ethnopsychological research. Sometimes cultures (more precisely, groups of people belonging to different cultures) are distinguished according to other criteria: 1) place of residence - we are talking about “urban” and “rural” culture; 2) religious affiliation - they mean Orthodox, Muslim, Protestant, etc. cultures; 3) involvement in European civilization, etc.
Hypotheses that are formed during cross-cultural research express cause-and-effect relationships between cultural factors and mental characteristics. Cultural factors are considered to be the cause of differences in the mental properties of individuals belonging to different cultures.
There is a reasonable assumption about the reverse influence of the mental characteristics of individuals on the nature of the culture of the peoples to which these peoples belong.
In particular, such hypotheses can be put forward in relation to temperamental, intellectual and a number of other mental characteristics, the hereditary determination of which is very significant. In addition, biophysical factors also influence individual psychological differences. However, classical cross-cultural studies are carried out within the framework of the paradigms: “culture as a cause, mental characteristics as a consequence.”
Obviously, any cross-cultural study is based on a non-experimental design; the experimenter cannot control cultural factors. Consequently, there are no methodological grounds to consider the connection “culture - mental characteristics” to be cause-and-effect. It would be more correct to talk about correlation dependence.
Depending on the methodological focus and subject matter, cross-cultural research is divided into several types.
F. Van de VyveryK. Leung (1997) proposed to classify cross-cultural research depending on two bases: 1) confirmatory (aimed at confirming or refuting a theory) - exploratory (search) research, 2) the presence or absence of contextual variables (demographic or psychological).
A generalizing study is carried out when there are opportunities to transfer or generalize the results obtained from the study of one cultural community to others. These studies are based on some theory and do not take into account the influence of contextual variables, therefore, in a strict sense, they cannot be classified as cross-cultural. They are carried out to confirm universal hypotheses that apply to all representatives of the species Homo sapiens and clarify external validity.
Theory-based research incorporates cross-cultural contextual factors. They test hypotheses about specific connections between cultural and psychological variables. In the strict sense of the term “cross-cultural research” only they can be considered as such. But more common are studies of psychological differences. Typically, a standard measurement procedure is applied and the existence of significant differences in the mean or standard spread of measured mental properties of 2 or more groups belonging to different cultures is determined. Cultural factors are not taken into account when planning research, but are used only to interpret the differences obtained.
The last type of research - “special studies of external validity” (more precisely, ecological) is aimed at identifying differences in the manifestation of mental properties under the influence of cultural factors. The influence of a number of factors on 1 (rarely 2 or 3) mental characteristics is studied. Regression analysis techniques are used to process the data. As a rule, researchers do not have any preliminary ideas about which cultural variables influence mental characteristics and to what extent.
The main problem of planning a cross-cultural study is the design or choice of a methodology for recording behavioral parameters that are valid in description for the mental characteristics being studied. Any psychological measurement technique is a product of culture, most often Western, and can only have adequate meaning in the context of this culture. The first task of the researcher is to achieve high (substantive) validity of the methodology, otherwise the subjects simply will not “get involved” in the research process.
Cross-cultural research in psychology is becoming increasingly widespread and popular. Interest in cross-cultural research in our time is fueled by unresolved political, social and economic problems, outbreaks of interethnic conflicts and everyday nationalism.
The realization that we live in a multicultural world, that the unusual is not necessarily bad, comes to humanity very late.
10. The correlation approach as a research method and as a method of statistical evaluation of hypotheses about relationships.
The task of any correlation study, as well as an experimental one, is generalization, i.e. dissemination of meaningful conclusions about the studied dependence in a broader context of understanding than limited by given situations, populations, variables, etc. However, with the correlation approach, the ambiguity of the conclusions is always preserved in terms of the directions of possible generalizations. The limitations of control in obtaining empirical data also determine the limitations of permissible conclusions. Although the level of generalization is not directly related to the use of certain standards of logic, i.e. conclusions often imply some breakthrough in generalization; they should not contradict logic.
One of the techniques for correlating empirical and logical data analyzes is enshrined in the system of conditions for causal inference in the experimental testing of causal hypotheses. Let us recall that in it the establishment of the absence of a connection between changes in the independent and dependent variables allows us to reject the statement about the causal nature of the experimental effect. If the corresponding statistical decision is made in relation to the data of the implemented experiment, then with a high assessment of it internal And operational validity according to the standard of transition from the rejection of the null hypothesis (and directional hypothesis) to the psychological one follows the rejection of the experimental hypothesis. In other words, the empirically established fact that there is no covariation between variables serves as the basis for the statement that the experimental hypothesis has failed empirical testing, or that the empirical data are inconsistent with it. If experimental control was not carried out and this empirical conclusion about the absence of a connection was made using the means of the correlation approach, then its statement allows us to reject the postulated causal dependence before the experiment.
Thus, conducting a correlation study on preliminary stage of data collection in favor of the psychological hypothesis allows one to make decisions about the need for further experimental research itself. If the covariation of variables is empirically established in a correlational study, then the organization of an experiment (as a set of forms of experimental control) will be the next step in establishing the cause-and-effect relationship assumed in the experimental hypothesis.
When developing psychological tests, correlation research serves a similar function of empirical verification of hypotheses about relationships between variables. At the same time, the means of the correlation approach are included in different standards for the interpretation of these connections than in experimental studies. Before getting acquainted with the relevant sections of psychodiagnostics, these standards for discussing correlation dependencies would be premature. Therefore, further we will focus on the use of correlation approach tools in testing psychological hypotheses, keeping in mind mainly the differences between correlation studies and experimental ones.
The experimental method involves developing a plan to control the independent variable, i.e. schemes for specifying its levels, differing in the ways of presenting them to different but equalized (or equivalent) groups or to the same subject in a certain sequence. This experimental design is also a design for measuring the dependent variable as an indicator of changes in the underlying process under study, which is presumably influenced by the experimental influences. Correlation schemes also include defining the order in which data will be obtained, but only as a plan for measuring variables. Plans for processing the results obtained may be similar to those used to analyze experimental data.
The actual experimental conclusion is not based on the statistical decisions themselves. The latter only serve the purpose of quantitative assessment of the achieved experimental effect. Typically this involves determining the significance of differences in the values of a dependent variable between an experimental and control condition (or between different levels of an independent variable). With the correlation approach, the degree of arbitrariness of the substantive interpretation justified by certain statistical decisions is much higher; at the same time, the conclusions are less conclusive, since if a significant connection is established, many explanations (or theoretical hypotheses) remain regarding its nature and direction.
psychology test subject experiment
Man and the characteristics of his personality have been the object of interest and study of the great minds of mankind for centuries. And from the very beginning of the development of psychological science to the present day, people have been able to develop and significantly improve their skills in this difficult but exciting matter. Therefore, now, in order to obtain reliable data in the study of the characteristics of the human psyche and his personality, people use a large number of different methods and methods of research in psychology. And one of the methods that has gained the greatest popularity and has proven itself from the most practical side is a psychological experiment.
An experiment in psychology is a certain experiment that is carried out under special conditions in order to obtain psychological data through the intervention of a researcher in the process of the subject’s activity. Both a specialist scientist and a simple layman can act as a researcher during an experiment.
The main characteristics and features of the experiment are:
- · The ability to change any variable and create new conditions to identify new patterns;
- · Ability to select a starting point;
- · Possibility of repeated implementation;
- · The ability to include other methods of psychological research into the experiment: test, survey, observation and others.
There are many views on the differentiation of experimental techniques and a significant number of terms denoting them. If we summarize the results in this area, then the totality of the main types of experiment can be presented in the following form:
I. On the validity and completeness of the procedure
- 1. Real (specific). A real (specific) experiment is an experiment conducted in reality under specific experimental conditions. It is real research that provides factual material used for both practical and theoretical purposes. The experimental results are valid for specific conditions and populations. Their transfer to broader conditions is probabilistic in nature.
- 2. Mental (abstract): A thought experiment is an imaginary experience that is impossible in reality. Sometimes this category also includes mental manipulations regarding the organization and conduct of a planned real experiment in the future. But such a preliminary “playing out” of real experience in the mind is in fact its obligatory attribute, implemented at the preparatory stages of research (posing a problem, putting forward a hypothesis, planning).
- a) ideal;
- b) infinite;
- c) flawless.
An ideal experiment is one in which the dependent variable is free of any influence other than one independent variable. In reality, it is impossible to exclude the additional influence of many additional factors. Therefore, an ideal experiment is not actually feasible. In practice, the approximation of real experience to the ideal is realized by controlling additional variables outlined in the description of the experimental procedure.
An infinite experiment is an experiment that covers all possible experimental situations for the entire population under study (general population). In reality, the many such situations are limitless due to the huge, and often unknown, size of the general population and the countless number of factors acting on the subject. Taking into account this infinite number of situations can only be done in the imagination of the researcher. Due to its limitlessness (in diversity and time), such an experiment was called infinite. The practical pointlessness of an endless experiment is in contradiction with one of the main ideas of empirical research - the transfer of results obtained on a limited sample to the entire population. It is needed only as a theoretical model.
Flawless is an experiment that combines the features of both ideal and endless experiments. As a standard for a comprehensive experiment, it makes it possible to evaluate the completeness and, accordingly, the shortcomings of a specific real experience.
II. According to the purpose of the experiment
1. Research.
A research experiment is an experience aimed at obtaining new knowledge about the object and subject of study. It is with this type of experiment that the concept of “scientific experiment” is usually associated, since the main goal of science is knowledge of the unknown. While the other two types of experiment based on the goal criterion are primarily of an applied nature, the research experiment primarily performs a search function.
2. Diagnostic (examination).
A diagnostic (survey) experiment is an experiment-task performed by a subject in order to detect or measure any qualities in him. These experiments do not provide new knowledge about the subject of research (personality quality). This is actually testing.
3. Demonstration.
A demonstration experiment is an illustrative experience that accompanies educational or entertainment activities. The immediate purpose of such experiments is to familiarize the audience with either the corresponding experimental method or the effect obtained in the experiment. Demonstration experiments are most widespread in educational practice. With their help, students master research and diagnostic techniques. An additional goal is often set - to interest students in the relevant field of knowledge.
III. By level of research
1. Preliminary (reconnaissance)
A preliminary (exploratory) experiment is an experiment carried out to clarify the problem and provide adequate orientation to it. With its help, little-known situations are probed, hypotheses are clarified, and questions for further research are identified and formulated. Studies of this reconnaissance nature are often called pilot studies. Based on the data obtained in preliminary experiments, questions about the need and possibilities for further research in this area and the organization of basic experiments are resolved.
2. Main
The main experiment is a full-scale empirical study carried out with the aim of obtaining new scientific data on a problem of interest to the experimenter. The resulting result is used for both theoretical and applied purposes. The main experiment may be preceded by preliminary experiments of both an exploratory and fact-finding nature.
3. Control.
A control experiment is an experiment whose results are compared with the results of the main experiment. The need for control may arise for various reasons. For example: 1) errors were discovered in conducting basic experiments; 2) doubts about the accuracy of the procedure; 3) doubts about the adequacy of the procedure to the hypothesis; 4) the emergence of new scientific data that contradicts previously obtained data; 5) the desire for additional evidence of the validity of the hypothesis accepted in the main experiment and its transformation into a theory; 6) the desire to refute existing hypotheses or theories. It is clear that in terms of accuracy and reliability, control experiments should not be inferior to the main ones.
IV. By type of impact on the subject
1. Internal.
An internal experiment is a real experiment where mental phenomena are caused or changed directly by the volitional effort of the subject, and not by influence from the outside world. Experimentation is carried out in the subjective space of a person, where he plays the role of both the experimenter and the subject. Internal influence always includes an independent variable, and ideally it should be limited only to it. This brings the internal experiment closer to the mental ideal.
2. External.
An external experiment is a common experimental way of studying mental phenomena, when their appearance or change is achieved through external influences on the sensory organs of the subject.
V. According to the degree of intervention by experimenters, the life activity of the subject (by type of experimental situation)
A. Classic grouping
1. Laboratory (artificial).
A laboratory (artificial) experiment is an experiment carried out in artificially created conditions that allow strictly dosing stimulation (independent variables) and controlling other influences on the subject (additional variables), as well as accurately recording his responses, including dependent variables. The subject is aware of his role in the experiment, but his overall design is usually unknown to him.
2. Natural (field).
A natural (field) experiment is an experiment carried out under normal conditions for the subject with a minimum of interference in his life on the part of the experimenter. The presentation of the independent variable is, as it were, “woven” naturally into the normal course of his activities. Depending on the type of activity performed and the corresponding situation, types of natural experiments are distinguished: in conditions of communication, work, play, educational, military activities, in everyday life and leisure. A specific type of this type of experiment is an investigative experiment, in which the artificiality of the procedure is combined with the naturalness of the conditions of illegal actions.
3. Formative.
A formative experiment is a method of actively influencing the subject, promoting his mental development and personal growth. The main areas of application of this method are pedagogy, developmental (primarily children's) and educational psychology. The active influence of the experimenter consists mainly in creating special conditions and situations that, firstly, initiate the emergence of certain mental functions and, secondly, allow them to be purposefully changed and formed. The first is typical for both laboratory and natural experiments. The second is the specificity of the form of experiment being considered. The formation of the psyche and personal properties is a long process. Therefore, the formative experiment is usually carried out over a long period of time. And in this respect it can be classified as a longitudinal study.
B. Extraordinary grouping:
1. An experiment that duplicates reality.
Experiments that duplicate reality are experiments that simulate specific situations in real life, the results of which have a low level of generalization. Their findings apply to specific people in specific activity settings, which is why they are also called full compliance experiments. These experiments pursue purely practical purposes. This type of experiment is close to the natural type according to the classical grouping.
2. An experiment that improves reality.
Reality-improving experiments are experiments in which only some of the variables to be studied are changed. The remaining variables are stable. This type is similar to a laboratory experiment according to the generally accepted classification.
VI. To the extent possible, the influence of the experimenter on the independent variable
1. Provoked experiment.
A induced experiment is an experiment in which the experimenter himself influences the independent variable. Changes in NP can be both quantitative and qualitative. And then the results observed by the experimenter (in the form of the subject’s reactions) are, as it were, provoked by him. It is obvious that the vast majority of experimental studies relate to this type. P. Fress, not without reason, calls this type of experiment “classical”.
2. The experiment being referenced.
The experiment referred to is one in which a change in the independent variable is made without intervention by the experimenter. These include personality changes, brain damage, cultural differences, etc. According to P. Fress, these cases are very valuable, “since the experimenter cannot introduce variables whose action would be slow (education system), and does not have the right to experiment on a person if his experiment can cause serious and irreversible physiological or psychological disorders ". There may be cases where an experiment is induced for some variables, but is referred to for others.
VII. By the number of independent variables
1. One-factor (two-dimensional).
A one-factor (two-dimensional) experiment is an experiment with one independent and one dependent variable. Since there is only one factor influencing the test subject’s answers, the experience is called single-factor or single-level. And since there are two measurable quantities - NP and GP, the experiment is called two-dimensional or bivalent. Isolating only two variables allows us to study a mental phenomenon in its “pure” form. The implementation of this research option is carried out using the procedures described above for controlling additional variables and presenting an independent variable.
2. Multifactorial (multidimensional).
A multivariate (multivariate) experiment is an experiment with several independent and usually one dependent variables. The presence of several dependent variables cannot be ruled out, but this case is still extremely rare in psychological research. Although, apparently, this is the future, since real mental phenomena always represent a complex system of many interacting factors. The name “poorly organized systems”, common in science, is applicable to them, which precisely emphasizes the multiplicity of determination of their manifestation
VIII. According to the number of subjects
1. Individual.
Individual experiment - an experiment with one subject.
2. Group.
Experiment with several subjects at the same time. Their mutual influences can be both significant and insignificant; they can be taken into account by the experimenter or not. If the mutual influence of the subjects on each other is due not only to co-presence, but also to joint activity, then it is possible to talk about a collective experiment.
IX. By the method of identifying relationships between variables (by the procedure for varying the experimental situation)
1. Intraprocedural (inside).
An intraprocedural experiment (lat. intra - inside) is an experiment in which all experimental situations (and, in essence, all values of the independent variable) are presented to the same group of subjects. If the subject is alone, i.e. individual experience is carried out, then they speak of an intra-individual experiment. Comparing the responses of this subject, obtained in different situations (for different values of NP), makes it possible to identify dependencies between variables. This option is especially convenient for quantitative changes in NP to determine functional dependencies.
2. Interprocedural (between).
An interprocedural experiment (Latin inter - between) is an experiment in which different groups of subjects are presented with the same experimental situations. Work with each individual contingent is carried out either in different places, or at different times, or by different experimenters, but according to identical programs. The main goal of such experiments is to clarify individual or intergroup differences. Naturally, the former are revealed in a series of individual experiments, and the latter in group experiments. And then in the first case they talk about an interindividual experiment, in the second - about an intergroup, or more often intergroup experiment.
3. Cross-procedural (intersection).
A cross-procedural experiment (English: cross) is an experiment in which different groups of subjects are presented with different situations. If subjects work alone, then we are talking about a cross-individual experiment. If each situation corresponds to a certain group of subjects, then this is a cross-group experiment, which is sometimes called intergroup, which is a terminological inaccuracy. Between-subjects is a synonym for inter- rather than cross-group experiment. This inaccuracy stems either from inadequate translation of foreign sources, or from a careless attitude to terminology.
X. By type of change in the independent variable
1. Quantitative.
A quantitative experiment is an experiment in which the independent variable can be decreased or increased. The range of its possible values represents a continuum, i.e. continuous sequence of values. These values, as a rule, can be expressed numerically, since the NP has units of measurement. Depending on the nature of the NP, its quantitative representation can be carried out in various ways. For example, time interval (duration), dosage, weight, concentration, number of elements. These are physical indicators. The quantitative expression of NP can also be realized through psychological indicators: both psychophysical and psychometric.
2. High quality.
A qualitative experiment is one in which the independent variable has no quantitative variation. Its meanings appear only as various qualitative modifications. Examples: sexual differences in populations, modal differences in signals, etc. The limiting case of a qualitative representation of an NP is its presence or absence. For example: presence (absence) of interference.
The concept of a flawless experiment was introduced into psychology by Robert Gottsdanker. Psychologists view a perfect experiment as a model in which all requirements are embodied and nothing threatens a reliable conclusion. Such a flawless research model is unattainable in reality. However, this concept contributes to the development and improvement of experimental methods and the avoidance of possible errors when conducting experiments.
R. Gottsdanker defined the criteria for an ideal experiment: it must be ideal, infinite and an experiment of complete compliance.
In an ideal experiment, only the independent and dependent variables change; there is no influence on them by external or additional variables. A variation of it is a pure experiment, in which the researcher operates with only one independent variable and its completely purified conditions.
In an infinite experiment, the number of trials and subjects makes it possible to capture all sources of variability in the variables. Such an experiment can continue indefinitely, since there is the possibility of an unknown factor acting. To find out all the side effects that distort the action of the independent variable, the researcher must continue the research indefinitely both in time and in the number of trials, since there is always the possibility that in the next trial something may violate the ideality of the experiment.
In a perfect matching experiment, the additional variables must closely match the counterparts of those variables in reality. The experimental situation is completely identical to the actual real situation.
The model of an ideal experiment is an unattainable ideal to which we must strive. The closer the real experiment of this model is, the better it is.
D. Campbell offers the following criteria for a good experiment:
1. A good experiment defines a clear time sequence: the cause precedes the effect in time.
2. The influence or influences must be statistically related to each other. If a possible cause and effect are unrelated (no covariation), then one phenomenon cannot be the cause of the other.
3. There should be no alternative plausible explanations for the causes of the effect, that is, it is necessary to exclude the influence of side variables or at least control them.
4. It is important to correctly identify cause and effect in concepts and terms.
The use of experiment in various fields of psychology has its own specifics. Psychological experiments are aimed at studying specific problems, and in different branches of psychology their specific problems occupy a central place. The main problems are determined by the curiosity of the researcher, his versatility, imagination, as well as the fact that there are possibilities for implementing experimental plans. For example, the outstanding psychologist John Watson in his book “Behaviorism” (1924), expressing conviction in his ideas, proposed the following: “Entrust me with ten healthy normal children and give me the opportunity to raise them as I see fit; I guarantee that by choosing each from them randomly, I will make him what I think: a doctor, a lawyer, an artist, a businessman, even a beggar or a thief, regardless of the data, abilities, vocation or race of his ancestors." The concept of such an experiment may be astonishing, but of course the proposal goes too far beyond what most of us consider acceptable.
Professional requirements for psychologists do not clearly define the nature and content of their research activities, teaching and consulting. In any setting, not just at a university or scientific institution, there is an opportunity to conduct research. The experiment is possible in a school, office, government or commercial organization, in everyday life, on vacation.
JUST PLANS AND MORE SUCCESSFUL PLANS
Undoubtedly, the first condition for conducting an experiment is its organization, the presence of a plan. But not every plan can be considered successful. Let us assume that the experiments described in Chapter 1 were carried out differently, using the following designs.
1. In the first experiment, let the weaver first wear headphones for 13 weeks, and then work without them for 13 weeks.
2. Suppose Yoko decided to use only two cans of each type of juice in her experiment, and the entire experiment took four days instead of 36.
3. Jack decided to apply the partial method of memorization to the first two plays, and the whole method to the next two.
4. Or, keeping the same sequence of methods, Jack chose short waltzes for the experiment, rather than the longer pieces that he usually learned.
We feel quite clearly that in comparison with the experiments previously described, all these plans are unsuccessful. And if we had a sample for comparison, then we could definitely say exactly why the original plans were better. A flawless experiment serves as such a model. In the next section, we discuss it in detail and then see how it is used to evaluate our experiments.
We now have examples of successfully and unsuccessfully designed experiments. Is it possible to further improve a well-designed experiment? And is it possible to make an experiment absolutely flawless? The answer is: any experiment can be improved indefinitely, or - which is the same thing - a perfect experiment cannot be carried out. Real experiments improve as they get closer to perfection.
The perfect experiment
Impeccability is best defined in terms of the concept of an ideal experiment (Keppel, 1973, p. 23). In an ideal experiment, only the independent variable (and, of course, the dependent variable, which takes on different values under different conditions), is allowed to change. Everything else remains the same, so the dependent variable is only affected by the independent variable. This is certainly not the case in our three well-designed experiments. Weavers wore headphones and worked without them at different times - even or odd weeks. The pieces that Jack learned using the whole and partial methods were also different. Yoko never drank both types of tomato juice on the same day. In each case, something else changed in addition to the independent variable. In subsequent chapters, we'll cover a different type of experiment in which different subjects are used for each independent variable condition, allowing for time variations (like even and odd weeks) and task differences (like memorized pieces) to be eliminated. But they also do not meet all the requirements of an ideal experiment, because the subjects will also be different. As you will soon see, a perfect experiment is impossible. However, the idea itself is useful, and it is what guides us when improving real experiments.
In an ideal (impossible) experiment, the weaver would work with and without headphones at the same time! Jack Mozart would simultaneously learn the same piece using whole and partial methods. In both of these cases, the difference in the values of the dependent variable would be due only to the independent variable, the difference in its conditions. In other words, all incidental circumstances, all other potential variables would remain at the same unchanged level.
Endless experiment
Poor Yoko! In her case, even a perfect experiment will not be flawless. No wonder she fears that tomato juice of the same variety varies in quality in different cans. Even if she had conducted a perfect experiment, managing to drink two different types of juice from the same glass at the same time, her estimates would still only apply to particular examples of each type. Yet Yoko could eliminate the effects of juice quality variability across jars, achieving a different kind of impossible feat. “All” she needs is not to stop her experiment after 36 days and continue it indefinitely. Then she could average out not only the variability of each type of juice, but also possible fluctuations in her own assessment of its taste. This is an endless experiment. It is not difficult to see that it is not only impossible, but also meaningless. After all, the general meaning of the experiment is to draw conclusions that have a wider application based on a limited amount of data. However, an endless experiment, like an ideal one, also serves as our guiding idea.
In fact, Jack Mozart and the authors of the weaving workshop study could also be asked to conduct an endless experiment instead of an ideal one. After all, even if in an ideal experiment Jack discovers that the partial method is more effective for this particular piece, the question remains whether the advantages of this method will continue to be learned when learning other pieces. The first experiment raises the same doubts: what if the weaver worked better with headphones only during the experiment? However, they (and you) need to be warned that endless experimentation also has its downsides. The very fact that subjects are presented with one of the experimental conditions may affect (during the study period) their performance under another condition. It is possible that the partial method was more effective during the experiment only due to the contrast with the whole method. And after the experiment, only one method will be used, and the contrast factor will disappear. All this proves that neither ideal nor endless experiments are completely flawless. Fortunately, they not only have different disadvantages, but also different advantages and can serve to evaluate real experiments that are very far from perfect.
Full Compliance Experiment
Neither ideal nor endless experiments can eliminate the shortcomings of Jack Mozart's unsuccessful version of the study - learning waltzes instead of sonatas. At best, Jack could have carried out a brilliant experiment on waltzes - which, however, would not make them sonatas!
To completely eliminate shortcomings of this kind, a full compliance experiment is needed. This experiment is also pointless, although it is practically feasible. In his study, Jack would have to learn the same pieces that he would learn after this. There is no benefit from such an experiment, just like from an endless one. But no one can point out to Jack the inconsistency of the plays that he learned in his experiment.
All three types of (almost) perfect experiment are unrealistic. An ideal experiment is impossible, an experiment of complete compliance is meaningless, and an infinite experiment is both. They are useful as “thought” experiments. They tell us what to do to create an effective experiment. Ideal and infinite experiments show how to avoid extraneous influences and thereby achieve greater confidence that the experimental results truly reflect the relationship. independent and dependent variables. The full compliance experiment reminds us of the need to control for other important experimental variables, which we hold constant.
