Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches

EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH

5.How do the interrupted and the equivalent time series designs differ?

6.What is the logic of internal validity, and how does the use of a control group fit

into that logic?

7.How does the Solomon four-group design show the testing effect?

8.What is a double-blind experiment, and why is it used?

9. Do field or laboratory experiments have higher internal validity?
   External validity? Explain.

10.What is the difference between experimental and mundane realism?

NOTES

1. Cook and Campbell (1979:9–36, 91–94) argued for a
   modification of a more rigid positivist approach to
   causality for experimental research. They suggested a
   “critical-realist” approach, which shares some features of
   the critical approach outlined in Chapter 4.


2. For discussions of the history of the experiment, see
   Danziger (1988), Gillespie (1988), Hornstein (1988),
   O’Donnell (1985), Scheibe (1988), and Webster and Sell
   (2007:6–9).


3. See Hornstein (1988:11).


4. For events after World War II, see Harris (1988) and
   Suls and Rosnow (1988). For a discussion of the in-
   creased use of deception, see Reynolds (1979:60).


5. See Field and Hole (2003) for a review of different
   comparisons.


6. Cook and Campbell (1979:7–9) and Spector
   (1981:15–16) discuss control in experiments.


7. The notation for research design is discussed in Cook
   and Campbell (1979:95–96), Dooley (1984:132–137),
   and Spector (1981:27–28).


8. For additional discussions of threats to internal va-
   lidity, see Cook and Campbell (1979:51–68), Kercher
   (1992), Spector (1981:24–27), Smith and Glass (1987),
   and Suls and Rosnow (1988).
   9. This example is borrowed from Mitchell and Jolley
   (1988:97).
   10. Experimenter expectancy is discussed in Aronson
   and Carlsmith (1968:66–70), Dooley (1984:151–153),
   and Mitchell and Jolley (1988:327–329).
   11. For discussions of external validity, see Aronson and
   Carlsmith (1968:22–25), Cook and Campbell (1979:
   70–80), Lucas (2003), and Zelditch (2007).
   12. For a discussion of external validity, see Lucas
   (2003), Mook (1983), Willer and Walker (2007b), and
   Vissersi et al. (2001).
   13. The Hawthorne effect is described in Roethlisberger
   and Dickenson (1939), Franke and Kaul (1978), and
   Lang (1992). Also see the discussion in Cook and Camp-
   bell (1979:123–125) and Dooley (1984:155–156). Gil-
   lespie (1988, 1991) discussed the political context of the
   experiments and how it shaped them.
   14. See Piliavin and associates (1969).
   15. See Hegtvedt (2007) for a recent review of ethical is-
   sues in experiments.
   16. See Graham (1992).