Would lsoe some internal validity but wld be more natural
There are pros and cons to these
- selection of participants
o waiting for volunteers to sign up for your study
o call people, do survey on phone from ur lab or ask them to come in for
- in field, where would participants come from?
o How you would randomly assign them to a condition? Randomly.
o Would go to a place where they are, like a mall, and do study in the
natural setting that they naturally exist.
- Control over independent variable
o Can do something simple, like put an advertisement out. Each
participant has or does not have a condition. The degree of condition
is important. Bcs in lab its very specific, stare at a screen, look at this
dot. In the world, not sure if they saw it but hope majority of ppl in
study saw it – the indep variable
- In lab can randomly assign in field settings
- Indirect measures of dependent variable
o Cant ask in field.
o In exp can ask how hostile do u feel?
o You measure in this case, how far are they walking, so look at more
indirect behaviour codes bcs not doing anything that is compromising
o More natural environment
Watching them in normal environment
o More generalizable: studies in lab more contrived, ur not sure if they
wld do this outside of a controlled experiment
o Less chance of demand charac
o Less sample bias: certain type of person wld come into the lab to do
this kind of research vs observing ppl, not really looking at volunteers.
o May provide – have a lot of info, can develop more hypothesis – this is
very interesting. Every code of behaviour, find new thing and consider
it, then re-code and then go again and again and again. – quality rich
o Lack of control – did they see the ad? Were there societal influences?
o Difficult to replicate – bcs its in natural environment, cant replicate
exactly the same thing everytime
o Difficult to record data accurately
Writing what they are saying, how they are walking etc – hard
to write and watch at the same time
o Theres less control but more generalizable – validity o Ethical – watching ppl in natural environment. They don’t know u are
watching them. If its public and its observable by anyone and not
We’LL BE GOING IN TO THE FIELD
- each grp will have 2 sheets of paper. Geneder of target- approaching the
door. Have three options: full hold, half fold – flinging the door open, no hold.
- Experimenter two – record the quality of the interaction, non verbal. Thigns
like were they with a lot of people etc. was it a door in ward or outward. Ex it
was raining = exp three.
- Not everyone will maintain these roles each of the time. Everyone has to take
- Debriefing is not necessary
- CALL ANY WOMAN ‘ the WEAKER SEX”…
o Don’t know if u should open the door or u shldnt
o Where and what is chivalry?
o Hostile sexism is what we often think of
o Hostile: a woman asserting herself in corporate word. Its considered
o Benevolent sexism : embracing traditional roles.
o Both types reinforce –
- GENEDER ROLES AND HELPING
o Male gender roles are coushed in chivalry: honour women bcs
o We have ingrained and perpetuated in our culture
o Gemales: traditional roles: be caring kind, helpful
o Providing nurturance to others
o Its not that they are less helpful, but are helpful to a spec other
o Things to consider:
Not true that one or the other is more helpful
- OUR STUDY
o Men more likely to hold door for others, bcs women are no