Human Resources - Assignment Example

Due Human Resources: Exercise 11 •Which of the sampling strategies presented in Rosnow and Rosenthal (2008) best characterizes the sampling strategy used in Middlemist et al. (1976)? It would seem the most likely comparable sampling approach used in the Middlemist article is the probability sampling (Rosnow & Rosenthal 199-200). In the sense that the selection of the men relied on the probability of the random men who may enter the restroom were only used in their study. The researchers can realistically assume that the subjects will be readily available. For example in the article the researchers could be generally certain that the only people entering the men’s restroom are going to be men, therefore they are already targeting their goal subject. •What do you think of the sampling strategy used by Middlemist et al. (1976) as a way of creating a representative sample? By choosing random individuals who are completely unaware that they are participating in a study realistically has the greatest likelihood of providing the most natural and uninhibited responses and reactions. People who are being watched, often, behave much differently than those who do not. So that part is an agreeable means to attain information that is completely uninfluenced by the research. However, by having no in-depth or personal knowledge of the test subjects there is now way of knowing if there are extenuating circumstances or variables that may make them poor candidates for such study. For example, some people suffer from a psychological or medical issues or inability to use the restroom when others are present, this preexisting condition could contribute to the study’s intention in a negative way; there slow or complete inability to urinate may have nothing at all to do with arousal. •Do the authors attempt to generalize from the sample to a population? Cite statement(s) from the article (quotations) that helped you decide how to answer this question. “Although the parameters of these measures have not been extensively studied, the present study implies that they have some construct validity as indicators of arousal” (Middlemist, Knowles, and Matter 544-545). Here they already are attributing the results that they gained as indicative of validation of the hypothesis that arousal can occur from the nearness of other men when urinating in a public restroom. However, the results of their study do not, however, randomly the participants selected, are not representative of the whole of society. Researchers said, that “…during tests of the experimental procedures, none of the test subjects had any suspicions about the confederate's activity” (Middlemist, Knowles, and Matter 545). They repeat this point multiple times in the course of the article. That the lack of knowledge of the test subjects that somehow, again, speaks to the universality of their results, which there is no direct evidence of. In fact, regardless of the “promising” results they recorded there is actually no guaranteeing evidence that men are, often, aroused when near to others while urinating at a public urinal; and whether or not the slowness to begin urination or the shortness of its duration has anything to do with arousal, since most men complain of discomfort and unpleasantness associated with personal space violations in public restrooms. •Did the authors have any other purposes for sampling besides trying to enable generalization to a population? If so, describe this (these) purpose(s) Well there is a duality in their overall efforts to begin with. Although this study is specifically geared to determining the potential arousal responses of men when urinating while their space is invaded, there are other accessory purposes mentioned. Firstly, are the greater studies being attributed to invasion of personal space. Most of those studies have already indicated that there may be biological reaction that can occur that might interfere with the immediacy and duration of urination that can be attributed to an invasion of personal space; however, those biological responses may have absolutely nothing to do with arousal. Personal space is something we all value and many people react badly to anyone that does not respect it. However, most men would never be inclined to describe the experience of using a public urinal as “arousing.” In some ways it feels that this study was a “shock value” effort to gain attention to the overall research. •What other comments do you have about the use of sampling in this article? My greatest commentary one this study has less to do with the sampling, which I think may be a bit unreliable. As stated earlier, there is no way of knowing, when choosing their subjects randomly, what other extenuating issues, conditions, personal variables that exist that could be falsifying their perceived results. However, it is the overall point of the study that is worth commenting on. What greater relevance in there to the community of science to know whether or not men standing close to each other while urinating leads to negative feelings of space invasion or to some kind of sexual arousal? This seems an inane question and, therefore, an inane study, however, a little amusing. Ultimately it may be concluded that the origin of this study can be attributed to a scientist who wanted to know if he was the only man that is aroused when urinating closely to another man, which seems more a personal issue that a public one. •What comments do you have about the ethical implications of the study design and procedures used in this study? How do you think the authors were allowed to get away with conducting a study like this? Honestly it is likely the only element that allowed researchers to “get away” with this study is the time period that it was conducted. The 1970s were quite different, including the aspects of scientific research, than it is today. There is an ethical question right from the start in the case of this study. First of all, including people in a scientific study without their consent, today, could very easily result in a trip to the courtroom facing charges like invasion of privacy. The researchers explained that there was a researcher stationed in a bathroom stall in order to watch and time the different men who came in to urinate. In the 1970s people were not as jaded by the realities of the world, as they are today. People, often, check bathroom stalls before using them today and if they found someone hiding in a stall with a notebook and stopwatch they would get knocked around and arrested, mistaken as some sort of pervert. Also, the greatest of all the ethical issues is the idea that in a restroom, even a public men’s restroom, there is still a level of privacy expected and a study like this one is a direct invasion of that. Works Cited Middlemist, R. Dennis, Eric S. Knowles, and Charles F. Matter. "Personal Space Invasions in the Lavatory: Suggestive Evidence for Arousal." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 33.5 (1976): 541-546. Print. Rosnow, Ralph, and Robert Robert Rosenthanl. Beginning Behavioral Research: A Concept Primer. 6th. Pearson, 2008. 480. Print. Read More