1.8: Alternate Text Descriptions

Figure 1.4.1: Operational Definitions

This diagram illustrates how researchers convert a conceptual variable into measurable variables through operational definitions.

At the top of the figure is the label “Conceptual variable:” followed by an oval containing the statement “Sarah likes Robert.” This represents the abstract concept that researchers want to study.

Two arrows extend downward from the conceptual variable to the label “Measured variables:”, which branches into two examples of operational definitions:

• On the left, a box states: “Sarah says, ‘I like Robert!’ (self-report measure).” This represents measuring the concept by asking Sarah directly about her feelings.
• On the right, a box states: “Sarah spends a lot of time with Robert. (behavioral measure).” This represents measuring the concept by observing Sarah’s actions.

Function: The figure demonstrates that a single conceptual variable can be measured in different ways. Social psychologists use operational definitions, such as self-report and behavioral measures, to convert abstract concepts into observable and measurable data for research.

Figure 1.4.3: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)

The figure consists of two parts. On the left are several functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) brain scans showing highlighted regions of brain activity, with labels identifying specific brain areas. The colored regions indicate areas that were more active during a research task. On the right is a photograph of an fMRI scanner, a large cylindrical neuroimaging device in which participants lie while brain activity is measured. Together, the images illustrate how researchers use fMRI technology to identify brain regions associated with cognitive, emotional, and social processes.

Figure 1.4.7: Correlation and Common-Causal Variables

The diagram illustrates how a correlation between two variables may be explained by shared underlying factors rather than a direct causal relationship.

At the top, a curved arrow labeled “Correlates with” connects two variables:

• Where we sit in the class
• Our course grade

This indicates that seating location and course grades are associated with one another.

Below these variables is the heading “Potential common-causal variables.” A third box lists:

• Interest in the class
• Intelligence
• Motivation to get good grades

Arrows extend from the common-causal variables box to both where students sit in the class and their course grade, showing that these factors may influence both variables.

The figure demonstrates that when two variables are correlated, the relationship may be due to one or more common-causal (third) variables rather than a direct cause-and-effect relationship. In this example, students who are more interested, motivated, or academically prepared may both choose to sit closer to the front and earn higher grades, creating the observed correlation.

Figure 1.4.8: Experimental Research Design

The diagram illustrates the steps in an experimental research design.

On the left, random assignment to conditions divides participants into Group A and Group B. Random assignment is used to create initial equivalence, meaning the groups are expected to be similar before the experiment begins.

Each group then receives a different experimental condition:

• Group A is assigned to play a violent video game.
• Group B is assigned to play a nonviolent video game.

These conditions represent the independent variable (experimental manipulation).

Arrows extend from both video game conditions to the outcome white noise administered, which is identified as the measured dependent variable. Researchers compare the amount or intensity of white noise administered by participants in each group after the manipulation.

The figure demonstrates how experimental research uses random assignment and manipulation of an independent variable to test causal relationships. By creating equivalent groups and varying only the experimental condition, researchers can determine whether differences in the dependent variable are caused by the manipulation rather than by preexisting differences between participants.

Figure 1.4.9: A Person-Situation Interaction

The bar graph compares first-noise setting (a measure of aggression) across two levels of agreeableness: Low and High.

The legend identifies two experimental conditions:

• Neutral prime (green bars)
• Aggression-related prime (yellow bars)

For participants with low agreeableness:

• The neutral-prime condition has a score of approximately 4.1.
• The aggression-related-prime condition has a higher score of approximately 5.5.

For participants with high agreeableness:

• The neutral-prime condition has a score of approximately 3.9.
• The aggression-related-prime condition has a lower score of approximately 3.1.

The graph demonstrates a person-situation interaction. Exposure to aggression-related words increased aggressive responses among participants low in agreeableness but did not increase aggression among participants high in agreeableness. The figure shows that the impact of a social situation (aggression-related priming) depends on an individual's personality characteristics (agreeableness).