You are on page 1of 2


1. IV = stress levels experienced 5pts

DV = eyewitness accuracy
Between-subjects design: presumably there will be at least two
levels of stress and a participant will witness some kind of event
unexpectedly then have to report on it; having done this once, it
would be impractical to have the same person do it again when
experiencing a different level of stress.
Equivalent groups: use random assignment if there is a large
participant pool; otherwise, it might be wise to match the groups on
their characteristic levels of anxiety, as determined by a test for
anxiety tendencies.
2. IVs = culture and age 5pts
DV = level of prejudice
Between-subjects design: both independent variables are subject
variables, thereby dictating a between-subjects approach; because
the groups are inherently nonequivalent
Equivalent groups: neither random assignment nor matching could
be used to create equivalent groups (you will learn in Chapter 7,
however, that a form of matching is often used in designs like this to
reduce the degree of nonequivalency)

IV = maze running schedule 5pts

DV = learning
Between-subjects: once a rat has been tested in one of the three
conditions, that rat knows the maze; rats should begin each of the
three conditions in a state of maze ignorance.
Equivalent groups: white rats are very similar genetically and cheap
to buy or raise; random assignment will be fine here.

1. Main Variables: 10pts
IV 1: Training Session
Level 1: Multitasking Seminar; OD: Get advice on multitasking
Level 2: Control Seminar; OD: Do not get advice on multitasking
IV 2: Gender
Level 1: Males; OD: look at driver's license
Level 2: Females; OD: look at driver's license
DV: Performance at Multitasking
OD: Scores from 0-100% generated by the computer based task

Hypothesis 1: Participants who attended the multitasking seminar and got advice on
multitasking will have better multitasking scores
Hypothesis 2: Females will have better multitasking scores than males
Type of Design: 2 x 2 between subjects factorial experimental design
2. IV:

hours of deprivation (levels = 5, 10, 15) 8 pts

between-subjects; manipulated
time to run maze (ratio)
single-factor, multilevel, matched groups
design (matching variable = weight)
3. IV: city location (levels = London, Paris, Berlin, and Rome) 8 pts

between-subjects; subject (local residents)

whether help is given or not (nominal)
single-factor, multilevel, nonequivalent
groups design

hunger level (levels = 6 or 12 hours without food) 6 pts

between-subjects; manipulated
rankings of the magazine ads (ordinal)
single-factor, two-level, independent
groups design
5. IV#1: personality type (introverts, extraverts) 15 pts
between-subjects; subject variable
IV#2: room size (large, medium, small)
between-subjects; manipulated variable; situational
IV#3: expectation (told hypothesis; not told)
between-subjects; manipulated variable; instructional
DVs: anxiety survey (interval); song rankings (ordinal)
Design: 2x3x2 P x E factorial design

intelligence (high, average) 9 pts
between-subjects; subject variable
IV#2: chess expertise (high, low)
between-subjects; subject variable
recall scores on the memory tests (ratio)
Design: 2x2 nonequivalent groups factorial design

Website test bank: