The independent groups design is an experimental design whereby two groups are exposed to different

experimental conditions. Usually half of the participants are assigned to the experimental group where
they are exposed to a condition where the independent variable is manipulated. The other half are
assigned to a control group for comparison, where no such manipulation occurs. One advantage of using
this design is that there are no order effects which affect the outcomes of the experiment. These happen
when participants take part in both conditions of the experiment, and their performance differs across
conditions as a result. For example, the practice at doing a memory task felt after the first condition
could lead to better performance on the second memory task, irrespective of the manipulation of the
independent variable. One disadvantage of this design is differences between the experimental and
control groups may be due to individual differences between participants., rather than the effect of the
independent variable. For example, due to chance, one group may have a better working memory than
the other, and when given a memory task, that group will perform better, regardless of the independent
variable manipulation, due to pre-disposed advantage. This could be mitigated with random sampling of
participants.

 Important concepts related to experimental research

Why Psychologist Conduct Experiments

 Researchers conduct experiments to test hypotheses about the causes of behavior

 Experiments allow researchers decide whether a treatment or program effectively changes
behavior .

Scope of Experimental Research

Experimental research recognized psychology as a “ social science “ and the scientific study of behaviors
which can be provided through experimental replications .

Types of Independent Groups Design

1. Random groups design .

2. Matched groups design .

3. Natural groups design .

When random assignment to treatment conditions is used , the independent groups design is called a
random groups design .

 Core Concepts of Experimental Research Designs

Random Assignment

 Experiments in which each sperate group of subjects in the experiment represents a different
condition as defined by the level of the independent variable .
 It uses random assignment subjects to conditions in order to form comparable groups prior to
implementing the independent variable .

Rationale of Independent Groups Design

(1 ) can conduct an experiment to study treatment effects .

( 2 ) ability make between group comparisons .

( 3 ) use of control groups infer changes in experimental groups only due to treatment .

Threats to Internal Validity

( 1 ) occurrence of events between treatment condition and measurement of its effects

( 2 ) time span between treatment condition and measurement of its effects

( 3 ) presence of plausible alternatives .

 Randomly assigning intact groups to different conditions of the independent variable

creates a potential confounding due to preexisting differences among participants in the
intact groups.
 Block randomization increases internal validity by balancing extraneous variables across
conditions of the independent variable.
 Selective subject loss, but not mechanical subject loss, threatens the internal validity of an
experiment.
 Placebo control groups are used to control for the problem of demand characteristics, and
double-blind experiments control both demand characteristics and experimenter effects.
 Logic of the experimental research
Experimental Manipulation

 Researchers manipulate an independent variable in an experiment to observe the effect on

behavior , as assessed by the dependent variable.

Experimental Control

 Experimental control allows researchers to make the causal inference that the independent
variable caused the observed changes in the dependent variable .
  Control is the essential ingredient of experiments ; experimental control is gained through
manipulation , holding conditions constant , and balancing.

Internal Validity

 The independent variable caused the difference in behavior as measured by the dependent
variable .
 An experiment has internal validity when it fulfills the three conditions required for causal
inference : covariation , time – order relationship , and elimination of plausible alternative
causes .
 High internal validity of Experiments
Covariation

When two different measures of the same people , events , or things vary together – that is , when
scores on one variable covary with scores on another variable . [ Ideally “ no event “ between
treatment and measurement of its effects ] .

Time Order Relationship

The efforts of maintain minimum possible time between a “ treatment and measurement of its “ effects
“ (. Ideally “ No Time “ between treatment and measurement of its effects ).

Elimination of all Plausible Alternatives

 When confounding occurs , a plausible alternative explanation for the observed covariation
exists , and therefore , the experiment lacks internal validity
 Plausible alternative explanations are ruled out by holding conditions constant and balancing
 Elimination of all Plausible Alternatives
Holding Conditions Constant

• It is to make sure that the independent variable is the only factor that differs systematically across the
groups . [ All groups only differ on treatment conditions ] .

Balancing

 Balancing the differences among subjects tested from heterogeneous populations .

 Forming comparable ( similar ) groups at the start of the experiment .
 The participants in each group should be comparable in terms of various characteristics such as
their personality , intelligence and so forth ( also known as individual differences ) .

Averaging

 As a part of balancing , the researchers averages the individual differences among subjects
across the groups of the experiment .

Objective

 Dittmar et al . ( 2006 ) Their goal was to determine whether exposure to very thin body images
causes young girls to experience negative feelings about their own body .
Sample

 In the experiment small groups of young girls ( 5¹ / 2-6 ¹ / 2 years old ) were read a story about “
Mira “ as she went shopping for clothes and prepared to go to a birthday party .

Procedure

 As they heard the story , the girls looked at picture books with six scenes related to the story .
 Treatment Conditions ( Manipulation – Levels of IV )
Condition 1

In one condition of the experiment , the picture . books had images of Barbie in the scenes of the story (
e.g. , shopping for a party outfit , getting ready for the party ) .

Condition 2

In a second condition the picture books had similar scenes but the figure pictured was the " Emme "
doll . The Emme fashion doll is an attractive doll with more realistic body proportions .

Condition 3

in the third condition of the experiment the picture books did not depict Barbie or Emme ( or any body )
but , instead , showed neutral images related to the story ( e.g. , windows of clothes shops , colorful
balloons ) .
  Data analysis and results
Observations of Behavior The young girls turned in their picture books and completed a questionnaire
designed for their age level ( i.e. the Child Figure Rating Scale )

Results

The average body dissatisfaction score for the 20 girls in the Emme condition and for the 20 girls in the
neutral – image condition was zero . In contrast , the average dissatisfaction score for the 17 girls in the
Barbie – image condition was.76 indicating their desire to be thinner.

Ensuring Covariance and Time Order Relationship

Through the control technique of manipulation , the first two requirements for causal inference were
met in this experiment :

1. Differences in the girls ‘ body dissatisfaction covaried with the conditions of the experiment.
2. body dissatisfaction came after viewing the images ( time order relationship ) .
 Elimination of alternative explanation
Third Requirement of Causal Inference

The third requirement for causal inference , elimination of alternative explanations was
accomplished in this experiment through holding conditions constant and balancing

Holding Conditions Constant

 Researchers use holding conditions constant to make sure that the independent variable is the
only factor that differs systematically across the groups .
 They all received the same instructions throughout the experiment and received the exact same
questionnaire at the conclusion .

Confounding Factors

Holding conditions constant is a control technique that researchers use to avoid confounding factors

 Balancing
Random Assignment
The goal of random assignment is to establish equivalent groups of participants by balancing , or
averaging individual differences across conditions .

Balancing the Weight

When we balance a factor such as body weight , we make the three groups equivalent in terms of their
average body weight . Note that this differs from holding body weight constant , which would require
that all of the girls in the study have the same body weight.

Balancing the Number of Barbie Dolls

Similarly , balancing the number of Barbie dolls owned by girls in the three groups would mean that the
average number of dolls owned in the three groups is the same , not that the number of dolls owned by
each girl is held constant at some number.

 Block Randomization
• Block randomization balances subject characteristics and potential confounding’s that occur during the
time in which the experiment is conducted, and it creates groups of equal size.

A common procedure for carrying out random assignment is block randomization. First, let us describe
exactly how block randomization is carried out, and then we will look at what it accomplishes. Suppose
we have an experiment with five conditions (labeled, for convenience, as A, B, C, D, and E). One

“block” is made up of a random order of all five conditions:

One block of conditions → Random order of conditions

ABCDE CAEBD

In block randomization, we assign subjects to conditions one block at a time. In our example with five
conditions, five subjects would be needed to complete the first block with one subject in each condition.
The next five subjects would be assigned to one of each of the five conditions to complete a second
block, and so on. If we want to have 10 subjects in each of five conditions, then there would be 10
blocks in the block-randomized schedule. Each block would consist of a random arrangement of the five
conditions. This procedure is illustrated below for the first 11 participants.

There are several advantages when block randomization is used to randomly assign subjects to groups.
First, block randomization produces groups that are of equal size. This is important because the number
of observations in each group affects the reliability of the descriptive statistics for each group, and it is
desirable to have the reliability of these measures comparable across groups. Block randomization
accomplishes this. Second, block randomization controls for time-related variables. Because
experiments often take a substantial amount of time to complete, some participants can be affected by
events that occur during the time the experiment is conducted. In block randomization, every condition
is tested in each block so these time-related variables are balanced across the conditions of the
experiment. If, for example, a traumatic event occurs on a college campus in which an experiment is
being conducted, the number of participants who experienced the event will be equivalent in each
condition if block randomization is used. We assume, then, that the effects of the event on participants’
performance will be equivalent, or averaged, across the conditions. Block randomization also works to
balance other time-related variables, such as changes in experimenters or even changes in the
populations from which subjects are drawn. For example, a perfectly acceptable experiment could be
done drawing students from both fall and spring semester classes if a block randomization schedule is
used. The beauty of block randomization is that it will balance (or average) any characteristics of
participants (including the effects of time-related factors) across the conditions of an experiment.

MATCHED GROUPS DESIGN

A matched pairs design is an experimental design where participants having the same characteristics get
grouped into pairs, then within each pair, 1 participant gets randomly assigned to either the treatment
or the control group and the other is automatically assigned to the other group.

[A good example of matched group designs are Twin Studies, which match subjects based on their
genetic makeup; e.g. identical vs fraternal twins].

• A matched groups design may be used to create comparable groups when there are too few subjects
available for random assignment to work

effectively.

• Matching subjects on the dependent variable task is the best approach for creating matched groups,
but performance on any matching task must correlate with the dependent variable task.

• After subjects are matched on the matching task, they should then be randomly assigned to the
conditions of the independent variable.

Random assignment is not likely to be effective in balancing differences among subjects when small
numbers of subjects from heterogeneous populations are tested (e.g., newborns). In this situation,
researchers may want to consider the matched groups design.

NATURAL GROUPS DESIGN

Natural groups designs are those in which individual difference variables are selected rather than
manipulated. A simple example is when you use age or sex as an independent variable – you cannot
randomly assign people to the conditions “young” or “old,” or to “female” or “male.”

• Individual differences variables (or subject variables) are selected rather than manipulated to form
natural groups designs.

• The natural groups design represents a type of correlational research in which researchers look for
covariation between natural groups variables and dependent variables.

• Causal inferences cannot be made regarding the effects of natural groups variables because plausible
alternative explanations for group differences exist.

The matched groups design is an alternative to the random groups design when only a small number of
subjects is available, when a good matching task is available, and when the experiment requires
separate groups for each treatment. The biggest problem with the matched groups design is that the
groups are equated only on the characteristic measured by the matching task. In the natural groups
design, researchers select the levels of independent variables (usually individual differences, or subject,
variables) and look for systematic relationships between these independent variables and other aspects
of behavior. Essentially, the natural groups design involves looking for correlations between subjects’
characteristics and their performance. Such correlational research designs pose problems in drawing
causal inferences.