Status of Frustrator as an Inhibitor of Horn-Honking Responses - Assignment Example

Assignment # 3 Status of Frustrator as an Inhibitor of Horn-Honking Responses A. N. Doob and A. E. Gross The Journal of Social Psychology, 1967, Vol. 78, pp. 213 -218. Instructions: Answer all questions using Question and Answer format. 1. Who conducted the current study? The authors are Anthony N. Doob and Alon E. Gross. 2. What is (are) the source(s) of study funding, if any? Doob was supported by a Public Health Service Predoctoral Fellowship. 3. What is the overall purpose of this study? Generally, this study seeks to determine if a high status frustrator will generally inhibit horn honking. 4. What is the research strategy used (i.e., Experiment, Survey, Field Research, and/or Secondary Data Analysis)? Field Experiment was utilized as a research strategy. Rather than in the laboratory, scientific method was applied to gather data in the real world. 5. What is the motivating research question? Do differences in frustrators’ status result to differences in horn honking responses? 6. What is the unit of analysis? Is there any risk of Ecological Fallacy? The major entity that is being analyzed are drivers. Yes, there is risk of ecological fallacy since some of the subjects’ characteristics were just estimated. There could be chances of having assumptions that relationships between variables at the aggregate level imply the same relationships at the individual level since the researchers do not have much access to the individual-level data. For instance, the observers only had approximated ages of the drivers. The researchers also could not verify certain information since the subjects are not supposed to be aware that they are being observed. 7. What are the independent and dependent variables? Are manipulation checks used for the independent variable? How are the independent variable and dependent variables operationalized? The independent variable or the value being manipulated is the frustrator’s status, whereas the dependent variable or the observed result is the horn honking responses. The drivers causing frustration (“frustrator”) wore a plaid sport jacket and white shirt while driving the high status car (hardtop), and an old khaki jacket while driving the low status car (old station wagon and old sedan). At the end of each trial, the subjects were observed whether they had honked once, twice, or not at all. Latency of each honk and estimated length were recorded and double checked against tape recordings. Manipulation checks were not used for the independent variable since there was no chance for the subjects and the researchers to interact. However, there was a questionnaire experiment conducted to verify the results between actual and predicted behavior. The results showed that the behavior reported in the questionnaire reflected what was observed in the field. 8. What is the research hypothesis? A high status frustrator will generally inhibit horn honking responses. 9. State the null hypothesis. There is no relation between frustrators’ status and drivers’ horn honking responses. 10. What types of samples are employed in the study? Briefly, describe the samples and sample designs. Are the samples strong on external validity? The study employed probability sampling or representative samples. Subjects were selected to be representative of the population. Specifically, random sampling was utilized. This means that each driver in the population of interest has an equal likelihood of selection. There were 82 drivers observed. They are motorists taking some intersections in California. External validity is very well manipulated since the subjects are chosen and observed in real life settings. 11. What are the study populations? Among the 82 subjects, 26 were women and 56 were men. Their sex and estimated age were also noted. In addition, the year, make and model of each subject’s car were monitored. The experiment was conducted in six intersections in Palo Alto and Menio Park, California. 12. How are data collected? Please provide a descriptive summary. A luxury car (1996 Chrysler Crown Imperial hardtop) was used as the high status car. Two low status cars ( a rusty 1954 Ford station wagon and an unobtrusive gray Rambler sedan) were alternately utilized. The driver of the experimental car was instructed to arrive at an intersection just as the traffic light was turning red. If at least one other car had come to a stop behind the experimental car when the light changed, a hidden observer noted the latency, length, and frequency of the subject’s horn honking response. The drivers of the experimental cars waited 12 to 15 seconds before moving on. 13. Is a pre-experimental or experimental design used in this study to determine whether there is a causal relationship between the independent and the dependent variables? Is random assignment used? Please state the design and sketch it. A randomized experiment or true experiment was used by the researchers. In this case, the “frustrator” has two status ( high and low). If the driver has a high status, the subject is likely to have inhibited horn honking responses. However, if the driver has a low status, the subject is likely to have less inhibition regarding his horn honking responses. High Status Frustrator  Randomization Frustrating Experience  Inhibited Horn Honking Response Low Status Frustrator Randomization Frustrating Experience Less Inhibited Horn Honking Response 14. Is the research design strong on internal validity? The research design appears to have a strong internal validity since the subjects do not know that they are under scrutiny. Therefore, the “true” behaviors of the subjects were observed. Threats to internal validity such as demand effects, social desirability, self-selection effects, and experimental mortality are lessened. 15. Discuss the issues of experimental and mundane realism in this study. In this field experiment, the reality of the situation is very much emphasized since the researchers aimed to investigate unobtrusively some effects of frustration in a naturalistic setting without sacrificing experimental control. Clearly, the experiment yields results that actually happen in real life. In fact, observers were usually stationed in a car parked close to the intersection, but when this was not feasible, they were concealed from view in the back seat of the experimental car. 16. Discuss how the researchers addressed the ethical considerations of the current study. Though the subjects’ consents were not obtained due to the nature of the experiment, their identities were not divulged in the paper. Confidentiality was still maintained in a way that the subjects’ age were just estimated rather than asked. Even if they were unaware that they were actually being observed, the procedure involved does not particularly harm the subjects. However, causing them a little bit of delay may arouse negative emotions such as anger, irritability, and aggression. 17. What are the results? Results show that status clearly inhibit horn honking responses. Concerning the low status condition, 84% of the subjects honked at least once and 47% honked twice. This difference is significant with the p-value 0.05. On the other hand, 50% of the drivers honked in the high status condition and only 19% honked twice. These figures are significant at p-value 0.01. For both sexes, the latency is longer for the high status car. In general, men honked faster than women; however, this difference is not statistically significant. 18. What are possible biases or problems of the study? Factors such as the subject’s personality traits, age, and job description could have effects on the results of the study. For instance, those who tend to be more impatient, younger, and have emergency situation professions could honk faster and more frequently regardless of the status of the car in front of them. The passengers of some subjects could also instigate or inhibit the driver’s tendency to honk. For instance, a normally patient driver could have honked faster because of his passenger’s insistence. In addition, four cars in the low status condition and one in the high status condition went around the experimental car, therefore they were eliminated from the analysis. This could have been avoided by making use of another experimental car situated beside the frustrator’s to block the subjects car. The study may also be more statistically significant if more subjects were taken into consideration. It would also be beneficial to conduct the experiment in several locations. Read More