How to do a critique: November 14th 2013 To get published: accepted with minor revisions APA Style Use headings

ngs in guidelines to structure critique Before we start critiquing it; try to devote paragraph to explain what it about So from our example - emotion = physiological arousal + cognitive label (situation) > look at attractiveness men would perceive women as more attractive when more aroused the experiment was static group comparison design it was a quasi experiment design Bridge (fear/anxiety) it was low vs. high Researcher Male vs. female No random assignment > they pick that themselves; the control group is really a pseudo control group: no random assignment > going to have problems because this is a pseudo control group DV: 1) Sexual content of TATS 2) Took Researchers# 3) Did they phone Critique: - The hypothesis: arousal: misattributed to sexual attraction the fear is misattributed to sexual attraction (but note fear is never really measured) > they never measure fear or anxiety Threats of internal validity: - no random assignment: pps self select - maybe certain type of guy; choose to go for high bridge - alternative explanation: people can be thrill seekers so could have measured thrill seeking in this study to could have also randomly assigned researcher to people male/female confound: systematic error maybe name of researcher is systematically confounded - maybe it has something to do with name? Unlikely, but possible - 2 names: systematic confound - could have done 2 names: 2 different phone numbers in your critique make recommendations

they have behavioral manipulation check in first one: - how they walk: slowly/carefully - someone who ran across: fearless or fearful - there are problems in interpreting the meaning Pilot study: - after crossing the bride; how fearful would other people be/ how fearful were you? Correction ** If took down measure of fear; do it after you take dv But make sure when you do manipulation checks it doesnt give off demand characteristics; will effect other measures Random error: gay: Increase the noise; retain null when you shouldnt DVS: - Tats sexual imagery: - For female researcher: sexual score was higher for higher than lower Took Phone Number: - control (low) : 16/22: 73%) - Experimental (18/23: 78%) 3rd DV: calling back =- in the female condition: more people phone after high bridge than low bridge in the male conditions (6/7 sample -> no power here: cant assume power here. The small n detracted from ability to find detracted from effect 4th DV: - participation response rate - when researcher was female Biases: - demand characteristics - experimenter effects/expectancy effects the researcher were blind to the hypothesis systematic confound: the experiment on the bridge; female researcher: maybe more sexually attracted to the guys; might have influenced her behavior The TAT analysts could not bias: they were blind Overall: there was enough power: found significant differences - but in the issue where we have small n: we have small power

in cases where there are low power: - Look at her hand out to see Manipulation check: fear: exclude people who been on the bridge Homosexual men: ask in the demographics - Exclude men in a relationship stats A 2 way ANOVA would be better: it could test main effect gender/type of bridge/and interaction It was lacking SDs (this is need for meta analysis) 5) External Validity: - restricted sample: young men - mundane realism: creating situation like someone would face in real life (yes, it was a field study) - experimental realism (fully engaged, more important, but often come hand in hand) ethical issues: - no informed consent - no debriefing Did second study: because people self-select into which bridge they go to want to disprove the macho factor after 10 minutes: low arousal: all the fear has dissipated now the researcher was always female so two conditions: on the bridge or 10 minutes after (so we assume they are less likely to have sexual imagery/take number/call) The findings are identical: mixed results Bias: no experiment expectancy effects - no demand characteristics - ethical issues: same as study one > they replicate findings of study one The lady in distress hypothesis: - more responsive; because she looked like she was in distress - Lab experiment: - 2 by 2 factorial design - are the male participants more attractive when they are about to get high shock/low shock

we look at males in the high shock and see what they are attracted to more (low shock females or high shock females)

No systematic confounds: random assignment Manipulation check: for anxiety: use 5 point scale how much they liked vs. disliked being shocked - just be more straight forward - included a hanging control group Demand characteristics: - kiss and date; does not make sense of kissing and dating female confederate - does not make sense of TAT Experimenter For assignment: go after ethics if they make no mention Across all three studies: internal validity is a problem