Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The nature of constructs in social psychological research Zerbe, Wilfred Joachim 1981

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A8 Z47.pdf [ 3.36MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095553.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095553-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095553-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095553-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095553-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095553-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095553-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095553-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095553.ris

Full Text

THE NATURE OF CONSTRUCTS IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH by WILFRED JOACHIM ZERBE B . A . , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1978 A THES IS SUBMITTED IN PART IAL FULF ILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ( D e p a r t m e n t o f P s y c h o l o g y ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERS ITY OF BR IT ISH COLUMBIA S e p t e m b e r 19 81 (c) W i l f r e d J o a c h i m Z e r b e , 1981 MASTER OF ARTS i n In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It i s understood that copying or pu b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Psychology The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date January 15 f 1982 ABSTRACT A fundamental assumption i n s o c i a l psychological research, that the construct underlying conditions i n an ^  experiment i s stable and varies only i n quantity across cond-i t i o n s , i s explored. I t i s argued that instead the r e s u l t of the manipulation of the independent variable i s a qual-i t a t i v e difference between the relevant psychological const-ructs. A d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between theories of empirical constructs and those which posit unobservable, hypothetical constructs. The assumption of construct s t a b i l i t y relates only to theories of relationships between hypothetical const-ructs. The lack of d i r e c t access to the ide n t i t y of geno-typic processes underlying observable behaviour or manipul-ations allows the p o s s i b i l i t y of construct i n s t a b i l i t y . Methods of improving access discussed centre on increasing the number and d i v e r s i t y of observations by repeating the operationalization and measurement of variables i n ways d i f f e r e n t but t h e o r e t i c a l l y t i e d to the construct of inte r e s t . The Q-sort method of c o r r e l a t i n g behaviour with items desc-r i p t i v e of personality i s proposed as a method of examining the i d e n t i t y of constructs and thus of assessing the hypo-thesis that conditions are q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t . This method i s applied to an examination of the relationship bet-ween incentive and choice and latency behaviour i n the P r i s -oner's Dilemma game. A s i g n i f i c a n t difference between cond-i i i i t i o n s was found for choice behaviour but not for latency. Q-item—behaviour correlates, however, were d i f f e r e n t i n each condition and for each behaviour, supporting the hypothesis that conditions d i f f e r i n some meaningful way. A stronger t e s t of the hypothesis involved the construction of templates describing the ideal-personality most l i k e l y to e x h i b i t the designated behaviour. These templates were able to predict behaviour within conditions and, i n agree-ment with the hypothesis, no p r e d i c t a b i l i t y was found across conditions. However, within-condition v a l i d a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were very low, such that the across conditions r e s u l t s were uninterpretable. I t was concluded that the Q-sort method, while a t t r a c t i v e , i s constrained i n i t s usefulness and a b i l i t y to test the hypothesis. Discussion included examination of the l i n k between q u a l i t a t i v e differences and person by s i t u a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n . I t was recommended that s o c i a l psychology improve i t s recognition of methodological assumptions made and of how these and theories of s o c i a l behaviour are i n t e r r e l a t e d . TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract L i s t of Tables .s  L i s t of Figures Acknowledgement's CHAPTER 1: Introduction • Constructs i n Soc i a l Psychology . Identifying Constructs . . . . . . The Q-sort Method The Prisoner's Dilemma Game . . . CHAPTER 2: Method Overview Subjects Q-sort Prisoner's Dilemma Game . . . . . Dependent Measures CHAPTER 3: Results and Discussion Manipulation Check Incentive and Latency E f f e c t s . . Factor Analyses Q-item--Behaviour Correlates . . Assessing Qualitative Differences CHAPTER 4: Conclusions Limitations of the Q-sort Method Person by Situation Interaction . Implications REFERENCES V APPENDIX A The C a l i f o r n i a Q-Set 58 APPENDIX B Expanded Prisoner's Dilemma Game Instructions . . . . 61 . APPENDIX C Q-item-Behaviour Correlates . . 67 v i L I S T OF TABLES PAGE TABLE 1. F a c t o r l o a d i n g s o f pre-game r a t i n g s f o r e a c h c o n d i t i o n , a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l o a d i n g s f r o m K e l l e y e t a l . (1968) 25 TABLE 2. Q - i t e m — b e h a v i o u r c o r r e l a t e s f o r PD C h o i c e b e h a v i o u r , P e n n i e s c o n d i t i o n 28 TABLE 3. Q - i t e m — b e h a v i o u r c o r r e l a t e s f o r PD C h o i c e b e h a v i o u r , Q u a r t e r s c o n d i t i o n 29 TABLE 4. Q - i t e m — b e h a v i o u r c o r r e l a t e s f o r PD L a t e n c y b e h a v i o u r . P e n n i e s c o n d i t i o n 30 TABLE 5. Q - i t e m — b e h a v i o u r c o r r e l a t e s f o r PD L a t e n c y b e h a v i o u r , Q u a r t e r s . c o n d i t i o n - - 31 TABLE 6. Mean r a t i n g s o f i n d i v i d u a l s d e s c r i b e d b y Q - i t e m — b e h a v i o u r c o r r e l a t e s 33 TABLE 7. C o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n s i m i l a r i t y t o t e m p l a t e s and b e h a v i o u r ' 38 TABLE 8. C o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n s c a l e s c o r e s a nd b e h a v i o u r 43 v i i APPENDIX C. PAGE TABLE I. Q-item—Behaviour correlates for a l l items, choice and latency behaviour, pennies and quarters conditions. „ 67 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES PAGE FIGURE 1. P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma Game payo f f matrix. . . 21 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I w i s h t o thank Dr. Dale M i l l e r f o r p r o v i d i n g t he impetus and d i r e c t i o n f o r t h i s t h e s i s as my p r i n c i p a l s u p e r v i s o r . I am a l s o i n d e b t e d t o the o t h e r members o f my committee, Dr. Bob Knox f o r h i s s u p p o r t and encourage-ment, Dr. Danny Kahneman f o r h i s i n s i g h t and e x p e r t i s e , and Dr. P h i l Smith f o r a g r e e i n g t o s e r v e on the committee d e s p i t e b e i n g c a l l e d upon l a t e i n the p r o c e s s and even y e t making a r e a l c o n t r i b u t i o n . I am g r a t e f u l f o r t h e use o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , A n t h r o p o l o g y and S o c i o l o g y S m a l l Groups L a b o r a t o r y , and t o Dr. Reg Robson f o r h i s a s s i s t a n c e i n i t s use. 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Research i n s o c i a l psychology seeks to es t a b l i s h the relationships between variables pertinent,to s o c i a l behav-iour, and does so within a well established methodological framework. This framework has two main requirements which researchers attempt to f u l f i l l . The f i r s t i s that the oper-a t i o n a l i z a t i o n or manipulation i s conceptually related to : the independent variable of i n t e r e s t . Second i s that the measure used i s related to the dependent variable as intended. Ultimately, however, these requirements are assumed and e f f o r t i s directed at maintaining the v a l i d i t y of the assump-tions. These assumptions concern the construct v a l i d i t y of the operationalized manipulation and measure: that the psych-o l o g i c a l construct underlying them i s the one intended. T y p i c a l l y , experiments are designed so that the relat i o n s h i p between manipulation and measure i s c l e a r l y d i s c e r n i b l e . An additional assumption i s made, however, but not rec-ognized. It i s that the difference i n the dependent variable r e f l e c t s a quantitative difference i n the construct under-l y i n g the independent var i a b l e . That i s , i f quantitative d i f f -erences i n the independent variable r e s u l t i n quantitative differences i n the dependent variable i t i s assumed that this difference also r e f l e c t s a quantitative difference i n the intervening psychological construct. A quantity of a psychological construct i s assumed to e x i s t i n a given cond-2 i t i o n and across conditions the i d e n t i t y of the construct i s s t a b l e ; i t varies only i n quantity, For example, i n a study of the e f f e c t s of incentive on cooperation an experimenter would manipulate some operationalizatiori — p a y o f f — to create a high l e v e l of incentive i n one condition and a low l e v e l i n another. The two conditions are created i d e n t i c a l l y ( s o c i a l psychologists take great care i n this) except for the quantity of the conceptual variable or construct which i s present. Any difference i n subjects' subsequent behaviour i s interpreted as a r e f l e c t i o n of t h i s quantitative difference. This thesis questions the assumption that the construct underlying conditions varies i n quantity only, an assumption of construct s t a b i l i t y . The p r i n c i p a l argument of this thesis i s that, at times, the r e s u l t of manipulation of the independ-ent variable i s a q u a l i t a t i v e difference in the relevant psychological constructs across conditions. That i s , rather than the construct underlying conditions i n an experiment being the same, d i f f e r i n g only i n quantity, i t i s i n fact q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t across conditions. The construct underlying the independent manipulation i n condition A i s d i f f e r e n t from that underlying condition B. Constructs i n S o c i a l Psychology It i s important to consider early what i s meant by the term "construct". A construct i s defined as a concept which represents the r e l a t i o n s h i p between empirically v e r i f i a b l e 3 e v e n t s o r p r o c e s s e s . I n d e p e n d e n t a n d d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s u s u a l l y r e p r e s e n t a s p e c i f i c c o n s t r u c t o r c o n c e p t u a l v a r i a b l e . Thus t h e r e i s t h e c o n s t r u c t a n x i e t y w h i c h i s r e l a t e d t o o b -s e r v a b l e b e h a v i o u r o r t h e c o n s t r u c t a g g r e s s i o n w h i c h i s a f f e c t e d ' b y e n v i r o n m e n t a l f a c t o r s . M a c C o r q u o d a l e a n d M e e h l (1948), h o w e v e r , h a v e a r g u e d f o r a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n e m p i r i c a l c o n s t r u c t s o r i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s w h i c h a r e " s i m -p l y ( q u a n t i t i e s ) o b t a i n e d b y a s p e c i f i e d m a n i p u l a t i o n o f t h e v a l u e s o f e m p i r i c a l v a r i a b l e s " a n d " i n v o l v e no h y p o t h e s i s as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f n o n o b s e r v e d e n t i t i e s o r t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f u n o b s e r v e d p r o c e s s e s (p.103)", a n d h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s w h i c h "do n o t meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s " a n d " i n v o l v e t e r m s w h i c h a r e n o t w h o l l y r e d u c i b l e t o e m p i r i c a l t e r m s ; t h e y r e f e r t o p r o c e s s e s o r e n t i t i e s t h a t a r e n o t d i r e c t l y o b s e r v e d (p.104; i t a l i c s i n o r i g i n a l ) . " I n s t a n c e s o f " p u r e " i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s a r e T o l m a n ' s demand, H u l l ' s h a b i t s t r e n g t h , a n d L e w i n ' s v a l e n c e . E x a m p l e s o f h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s a r e a n x i e t y a s u s e d by M i l l e r and D o l l a r d , a n d F e s t i n g e r ' s d i s s o n a n c e . The a r g u m e n t t h a t p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t s d i f f e r a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s i s a p p l i c a b l e o n l y w h e r e h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s a r e i n v o l v e d . T h i s i s b e c a u s e i f c o n s t r u c t s a r e t h o u g h t t o be o n l y t h e c o m b i n a t i o n a n d m a n i p u l a t i o n o f e m p i r i c a l v a r i a b l e s o r o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s t h e n t h e q u a n t i t a t i v i t y a s s u m p t i o n i s v a l i d . I f t h e c o n s t r u c t c o o p e r a t i o n i s d e f i n e d as b e i n g n o t h i n g more t h a n an A" r e s p o n s e i n t h e P r i s o n e r ' s D ilemma game a n d o u r t h e o r y r e s p e c t s t h a t d e f -4 i n i t i o n then the assumption may be v a l i d . However, i f our theory says that s i t u a t i o n a l variables i n the PD a f f e c t the hypothetical construct cooperation--- a motivational state r e f l e c t i n g t r u s t and empathy^— then the assumption of q u a n t i t a t i v i t y i s questionable. A l l constructs are t h e o r e t i c a l - - a l l relate to a s p e c i f i c theory about the relat i o n s h i p between independent and depen-dent variables. S o c i a l psychologists have, however, borrowed a methodology based on theories about empirical constructs and applied i t to theories about hypothetical constructs. As a consequence we have gained an assumption but have f a i l e d to recognize i t . We deal mainly with S<-0-R research but act as i f i t was exclusively S-R research. In S^O^R research we have access only to the stimulus and the response. Infer-ences we make about the psychological processes l i n k i n g the two are severely constrained. We do not have d i r e c t access to the i d e n t i t y of the hypothetical processes which underlie the behaviour we observe. Spence (1944) relates the task of the s c i e n t i s t as that of attempting to discover ever more generalized laws by which the observable events within his f i e l d of study may be brought into i n t e r r e l a t i o n with one another. To t h i s end he develops and refines (mainly i n the d i r e c t i o n of quantitative representation) his concepts or variables, arranges highly controlled (experimental) conditions of observation and introduces t h e o r e t i c a l constructions (Spence, 19 44, p. 47). Theoretical constructions or constructs are essential 5 to science and to psychology. They are the "abstract explanatory p r i n c i p l e s " (Marx, 1951, p. 4) which elevate-psychological theory above the l e v e l of anecdote or mere c o l l e c t i o n of observations. Marx says that while d i r e c t empirical measurement i s the fundamental task of science too many phenomena appear too remotely related to immedi-ately observable variables to permit such a d i r e c t approach. For t h i s reason natural sciences have developed theories "based upon but not e n t i r e l y reducible to bare empirical measurements (Marx, 1951, p. 4)." Constructs are infer r e d on the basis of observed rela t i o n s h i p s . This results i n a trend toward ambiguity which i s es p e c i a l l y marked i n a complex f i e l d l i k e psychology. Aronson and Carlsmith (196 8) state the problem as follows: the d i f f i c u l t y occurs because i n building the experiment we do not deal d i r e c t l y with conceptual variables. We must deal with imperfect translations of con-ceptual variables (p.>13). we have a conceptual variable...whose e f f e c t we wish to study. There are many ways to translate t h i s abstract conceptual variable into a concrete experimental operation... How can we. be sure that t h i s operation i s , i n fact, an empirical r e a l i z a t i o n of our con-ceptual variable? Or, conversely, how can we abstract a conceptual variable from our procedure? (p. 14) Their concern across experiments i s about a lack of' si t u a t i o n which construct v a l i d i t y has serious consequences. 6 One i s r e f l e c t e d i n the complaint that s o c i a l psychological research cannot be generalized from the laboratory to the re a l world, that i t lacks ecological v a l i d i t y . If the construct underlying behaviour i s f a l s e l y i d e n t i f i e d then i t follows that i t w i l l not be generalizable or comparable to other settings. A further r e s u l t i s the d i f f i c u l t y i n r e p l i c a t i n g findings. S i m i l a r l y , while constructs may or may not be c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d , such lack of insight into the true determinant of behaviour results i n a surplus of alternate explanations for findings. Few studies are free of alternate conceptual variables which describe the r e l a -tionship between the independent and dependent variable. The p o s i t i o n being advocated here i s that s o c i a l psychologists should also show concern about the i d e n t i t y of constructs across conditions within experiments. Before we can compare across settings we must have comparability within settings. The absence of such comparability prod-uces problems very quickly. Much of the s c i e n t i f i c method i s based on M i l l ' s method of "concomitant v a r i a t i o n " ( M i l l , 1843; Boring, 1969) which requires that conditions be quant-i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t . The notion of a variable i s of a single concept changing i n quantity. A difference i n the dependent measure i n an experiment i s t y p i c a l l y attributed to the i n -dependent manipulation. Differences i n subjects' choice behaviour are inferred as due to the difference i n payoff. However, they are not necessarily due to a difference i n the interveningjhypothetical construct cooperation and i f the relevan psychological constructs are d i f f e r e n t across conditions then the e f f e c t of a single construct on the dependent measure cannot be in f e r r e d . S i m i l a r l y , i t i s common for s o c i a l psychological exper-iments to contain only one dependent measure. The psych-o l o g i c a l construct of most relevance to t h i s measure i s assumed to be the same across conditions. But i f conditions i n an experiment d i f f e r q u a l i t a t i v e l y then i t follows that differences i n the behaviour of subjects r e f l e c t s q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t psychological processes. The r e s t r i c t i o n to a single dependent measure produces phenotypically similar behaviour that may r e f l e c t very d i f f e r e n t genotypic psycho-l o g i c a l processes. We have seen the problem psychologists face i n cor r e c t l y i d e n t i f y i n g constructs and i n making inferences on the basis of unobservable processes. If t h i s i s the case, for experiments then i t i s also the case for conditions i n experiments. And i f constructs are f a l s e l y i d e n t i f i e d i n experimental conditions then these conditions may be qual-i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t . Rather than a single perhaps unknown construct underlying conditions, multiple d i f f e r e n t constructs, equally unknown, may be present. How then can these cons-tructs be i d e n t i f i e d ? 8 Identifying Constructs Aronson and Carlsmith's (1968) chapter i n The Handbook  of S o c i a l Psychology, "Experimentation i n Soc i a l Psychology" represents a most cogent analysis of the importance of correct i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the conceptual variable under-l y i n g a given experimental s e t t i n g . They point out that while the problem of assuring v a l i d operationalization of a conceptual variable or hypothetical construct i s not unique to s o c i a l psychology, i t i s more acute because our manipu-lation s are often extremely complex. They present two solu-tions, aimed at increasing the confidence we have i n the v a l i d i t y of our constructs. The f i r s t i s that a set of experiments must possess a number of empirical techniques which d i f f e r i n as many ways as possible, having i n common only (the) basic conceptual variable. If a l l these techniques y i e l d the same res u l t , then we.become more and more convinced that the underlying variable which a l l the techniques have i n common i s , i n fact, the variable producing the results (p. 15). The second procedure i s to show that a p a r t i c u l a r empirical r e a l i z a -t i o n of our independent variable produces a large number of d i f f e r e n t outcomes, a l l of which are t h e o r e t i c a l l y t i e d to the independ-ent variable (p.16). Solutions s i m i l a r to these have been discussed by Brunswik (1956), Campbell (1957), and Campbell and S t a n l e y (196 3 ) . The p r o p e r t y common t o Aronson and C a r l s m i t h ' s s o l u t i o n s i s t h e r e p l i c a t i o n o f r e s u l t s : o v e r a number o f dependent v a r i a b l e s o r o v e r i n d e p e n d e n t o p e r a t i o n a l ! z a t i o n s . The r e l i a n c e i n s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y on s i n g l e dependent measures has a l r e a d y been s t a t e d . I t appears t h a t we are. p e r p e t u a t i n g the problem r a t h e r t h a n c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e s o l u t i o n . I n c r e a s i n g t h e number o f dependent measures and l o o k i n g f o r t h e o r e t i c a l l i n k a g e s i s commonly how t h e o r i s t s a s s e s s t h e v a l i d i t y o f c o n s t r u c t s . G i v e n t h a t , f o r any dependent v a r i a b l e , we cannot be c e r t a i n o f t h e c o n s t r u c t o f most r e l e v a n c e , what we can do i s see how s c o r e s on t h e v a r i a b l e c o r r e l a t e w i t h o t h e r v a r i a b l e s w h i c h a r e supposed t o measure th e same c o n s t r u c t . I n t h i s way the " c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y " o f t h e measure i s a s s e s s e d . A s i m i l a r method, which uses m u l t i p l e measures t o examine t h e c o n s t r u c t u n d e r l y i n g t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e , i s t h e Q - s o r t method. The Q-Sort Method. Bern and Funder (1978) have proposed t h e Q - s o r t method t o a s s e s s "the p e r s o n a l i t y o f s i t u a t i o n s " o r t h e "phenomen-o l o g y o f t h e s i t u a t i o n " . T h i s method i s based on t h e argument t h a t a s i t u a t i o n o r s o c i a l s e t t i n g can be d e s c r i b e d i n terms o f t h e p e r s o n a l i t y o f i n d i v i d u a l s who beWstve, i n a g i v e n way i n t h e s e t t i n g . So, f o r example, a P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma s i t u a t i o n can be d e s c r i b e d i n terms o f t h e p e r s o n -a l i t y o f a p e r s o n who tends t o choose a g i v e n r e s p o n s e . 10 Restated, the phenomenology or conceptual variable under-l y i n g behaviour i n a se t t i n g can be expressed i n terms of the type of person exh i b i t i n g the behaviour. This method employs the C a l i f o r n i a Q-Set, a person-a l i t y assessment too l , devised by Block (1961). In fact, Block has also used VWL Q-set i n the manner outlined by Bern and Funder (Block, 1977) . The Q-Set consists of 100 de s c r i p t i v e personality statements, such as " i s unable to delay g r a t i f i c a t i o n ". These items are sorted by a judge into nine categories ranging from least to most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the person being described. Statements which are neither c h a r a c t e r i s t i c nor uncharacteristic are placed i n the middle categories. A s p e c i f i e d number of statements are placed i n each category, with fewest i n the extremely c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and uncharacteristic categories, more i n the moderately c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c categories, and so on, with the most items i n the neutral category. This results i n a bell-shaped d i s t r i b u t i o n with mean 5 and standard deviation about 2. The Q-Set was designed for use by c l i n i c i a n s as a descriptive t o o l . I t was intended that they sort the items as they would describe t h e i r c l i e n t s , with Q-sorts of d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s being compared to one another, or to a hypothetical "perfectly adjusted person". In t h i s study, as Bern and Funder have proposed, the Q-Set w i l l be used to describe the experimental s e t t i n g . This i s accomplished 11 by c o r r e l a t i n g Q-item ratings with behaviour i n the setting, across a l l individuals p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the sett i n g . The Q-items which correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p<.10) with behaviour indicate the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the person most l i k e l y to exhibit the behaviour or the type of person doing the behaving. For example, the Q-item " i s unable to delay g r a t i f i c a t i o n " could be highly negatively correlated with behaviour i n the setting, i n d i c a t i n g that people who are able to delay g r a t i f i c a t i o n are those that score highly and hence, that delay of ^ g ratification i s an important component of the behaviour in the sett i n g and of i t s phenomenology. Bern and Funder (1978). used th i s Q-Sort technique to assess the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of two delay of g r a t i f i c a t i o n experiments. In one, children were asked to choose between two food items. They were then t o l d that the experimenter was going to s i t on the other side of the room and that when he or she returned the c h i l d could have the preferred snack. The c h i l d could have the less preferred snack at any time by summoning the experimenter. Delay time was the length of time u n t i l the experimenter was summoned, up to 15 minutes. Q-sort descriptions of the children were obtained from t h e i r parents, using the C a l i f o r n i a Child Q-Set (Block and Block, 1969). The items which correlated p o s i t i v e l y with delay time depicted a c h i l d who adopts high standards of performance, becomes protective of others, i s 12 h e l p f u l , cooperative, empathic, considerate, thoughtful, and capable of developing close rel a t i o n s h i p s . Bern and Funder describe t h i s depiction as quite consistent with the l i t e r a t u r e on ego control and pro-social behaviour. Negatively correlated items include " i s unable to delay g r a t i f i c a t i o n " and describe the long delaying c h i l d as emotionally unexpressive and not r e s t l e s s or fidgety. However, the c h i l d i s also depicted as not very i n t e l l i g e n t , not verbally fluent, not eager to learn, not open to new experiences, and not s e l f - a s s e r t i n g , cheerful, interesting, or creative. Bern and Funder say that t h i s suggests "that the c h i l d who delays i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s as accurately described as one who i s d u l l , passive, and obedient to authority as he or she i s described as one who possesses a large amount of s e l f - c o n t r o l (p. 490)." Bern and Funder compared t h e i r delay of g r a t i f i c a t i o n experiment with one by Block (1977). In Block's experiment, children were given a wrapped present and t o l d that i t would remain wrapped u n t i l he or she completed a puzzle. The experimenter helped the c h i l d complete the puzzle, taking about four minutes to do so. The c h i l d then waited a further 90 seconds while the experimenter busied herself. During t h i s time the g i f t was i n the child's sight. Delay time was the time during the 90 second i n t e r v a l before the c h i l d took the present. Q-set items which correlated with delay i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n were " i s planful, thinks ahead", 13 " i s attentive and able to concentrate", " i s r e f l e c t i v e " , "thinks and deliberates before acting." The best single predictor of delay (negatively correlated) was " i s unable to delay g r a t i f i c a t i o n . " In t h i s s i t u a t i o n the d u l l -passive-obedient cl u s t e r of items emerging from Bern and Funder's experiment i s absent. Bern and Funder concluded that these represent two situations that appear conceptually equivalent but that are f u n c t i o n a l l y quite d i f f e r e n t and i t would appear that d i f f e r e n t subsets of children are delay-, ing i n the two settings. Typically, one learns only that behaviour across two t h e o r e t i c a l l y s i m i l a r situations i s disappointingly inconsistent ... Q-set information provides valuable guidance to the investigator who needs to rede-sign an experimental procedure so that i t serves i t s intended conceptual pur-pose. Even psychologists who have no in t e r e s t i n i n d i v i d u a l differences per se should welcome t h i s entree into the phenomenology of the situations they have created (p. 491). Bern and Funder's comparison of two delay of g r a t i f i c a -t i o n experiments i s an example of how two s i m i l a r settings can have very d i f f e r e n t underlying constructs. It shows, as well, how the Q-sort technique can be used to uncover the construct or conceptual variable underlying a given experimental s e t t i n g . While Bern and Funder examined settings i n two d i s t i n c t experiments i t should be clear that the technique can be s i m i l a r l y applied to the compar-ison of two or more settings i n a single experiment, s p e c i f i c a l l y to conditions i n an experiment. In short, the 14 Q-sort technique i s a method by which the v a l i d i t y of the assumption of a quantitative difference between conditions might be assessed. The experimental paradigm chosen to demonstrate t h i s use of the Q-sort technique i s the Prisoner's Dilemma game. This s e t t i n g was chosen for two reasons. F i r s t , evidence exists to suggest that conditions assumed to be quantitative-l y d i f f e r e n t might, i n fact, be q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t . This evidence w i l l be presented below. Second, the Prisoner's'Dilemma game represents a s o c i a l psychological research paradigm which has been c r i t i c i z e d as being stark and l i f e l e s s compared to other settings. I t i s , therefore, not an overly complex, convoluted s e t t i n g i n which the man-ip u l a t i o n i s so contrived or elaborate that q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t conditions would be expected to r e s u l t . Rather, i t i s a paradigm i n which one would not expect a q u a l i t a t i v e change i n the relevant psychological construct across conditions and represents, i n practice, a conservative te s t of the argument that such q u a l i t a t i v e differences e x i s t . The Prisoner's Dilemma Game A s i g n i f i c a n t portion of research i n s o c i a l psych-ology has involved the PD and s i m i l a r mixed-motive games. Some of t h i s research has been c r i t i c i z e d as lacking meaning with regard to the study of bargaining and interpersonal 15 i n t e r a c t i o n as i t occurs i n r e a l l i f e ( e . g . , Nemeth, 1972). It has been argued that low or imaginary payoffs i n Prisoner's Dilemma Game experiments make them ungeneralizable to r e a l l i f e . Research which has t r i e d to show that differences i n behaviour e x i s t between high and low payoff conditions has produced equivocal findings. Evans (1964), Wrightsman (1966) and Knox and Douglas (1971) found l i t t l e or no e f f e c t of incentive on mean l e v e l of cooperation. Knox and Douglas did, however, f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n intersubject response v a r i a t i o n under high incentive. McClintock and McNeel (1967) found marginally more cooperation under high incentive i n a maximizing difference game. Oskamp and Perlman (1965) found a small e f f e c t with greater cooperation under high reward. Radlow, Weidner and Hurst (1968) found more cooperation under r e a l than imaginary payoffs. Gumpert, Deutsch and Epstein (1969) examined responses over f i v e reward l e v e l s / concluding that no differences existed over a l l conditions although they did f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between individuals i n the r e a l and imaginary d o l l a r s condition, with less cooperation i n the former. Oskamp and Klienke (1970) showed no d i f f e r -ences over f i v e l e v e l s and i n another experiment, found a non-significant trend toward more cooperation i n a no reward condition. These contradictory findings could be due to a nonlinear r e l a t i o n s h i p such that whether cooperation was increased or decreased depends on the lev e l s of incentive chosen. They 16 could be the r e s u l t of improper or unreliable experimental procedures. It could also be that not a l l the researchers were studying the same phenomenon. This has been noticed by researchers who emphasize the importance of i n s t r u c t i o n a l set (Radlow, Weidner and Hurst, 1968). Results of a l l kinds could r e s u l t from the lack of consistency i n the conceptual variables underlying d i f f e r e n t conditions. As Gallo (1966) has stated: , another a l t e r n a t i v e explanation that cannot be disregarded i s that the mean-ing of the s i t u a t i o n i s changed for' the subjects when r e a l money i s at stake...In addition, the meaning of various behaviours may be altered when rea l money i s at stake (p. 19 ). In a mixed motive negotiation s i t u a t i o n s i m i l a r to the PD, Kelley, Shure, Deutsch, Faucheux, Lanzetta Moscovici, Nuttin, Rabbie, and Thibaut (1970) examined the e f f e c t of points versus money as incentives. They found that money had p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s on the negotiation such that agreement was reached more quickly and more frequently and with greater gain for the ind i v i d u a l s . How-ever, they also found that money as compared to points probably does more than merely increase the value to the subject of the negotiation out-comes. Factor analyses of the meaning of cooperation - competition i n the money and points conditions suggests that the d e f i n i t i o n of the s i t u a t i o n i s modified to some degree by the type of incentive. Money tends to make the si t u a t i o n one in which cooperation -competition means Dynamism (weak and 17 passive versus strong and active)' rather than Evaluation (Moral and honest versus immoral and dishonest). This more subtle e f f e c t seems to be that the s i t u a t i o n becomes a more instrumental or t a s k - l i k e one with money and more interpersonal or moral i n i t s implica-tions when the incentive i s merely points (p. 434). • These studies strongly suggest that research examining the e f f e c t of incentive on cooperation may represent a paradigm i n which what i s assumed to be an exclusively-quantitative difference between conditions i s actually con-founded with the existence of a q u a l i t a t i v e difference. It should also be clear that the Q-sort method can be used to assess the phenomenology of or construct underlying condi-tions within an experimental s e t t i n g . According to the Q-sort technique, i f only a quantitative difference exists we would expect the Q-item - behaviour correlates to be the same i n each condition. That i s , the same type of people would be e x h i b i t i n g the behaviour in each condition, the difference being that i f incentive a f f e c t s cooperative behaviour people i n one condition would exhibit more of i t If, however, a q u a l i t a t i v e difference exists, we would expect to f i n d d i f f e r e n t correlates. What follows i s such a t e s t . CHAPTER TWO: METHOD 18 Overview Subjects arrived i n pairs and were ushered into the room where the experiment was to take place. The general course of the experiment was outlined and subjects were asked to sign informed consent forms. They were then introduced to the C a l i f o r n i a Q-Set, listened to and read the in s t r u c -tions, and used the Q-Set to describe the person "they came with. When a l l subjects had completed the personality descriptions these were c o l l e c t e d and response boxes for the Prisoner's game set out. Subjects then heard and were read in s t r u c t i o n s for the PD. Subjects completed pregame ratings of the PD before p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n 20 t r i a l s with an anonymous partner. A post game questionnaire included rating the PD and a manipulation check. Subjects were then t o l d that the experiment was over, any deceptions and the reasons for them were explained, and they were thanked and allowed to leave. Subjects Sixty undergraduate subjects participated as subjects In the experiment. Volunteers, at the time they were recruited, were asked to bring a f r i e n d with them to the experiment, someone who would be able to describe them f a i r l y well. Both i n d i v i d u a l s served as subjects i n the same experimental session. Subjects were t o l d that the experiment would 19 involve describing t h e i r friend and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a game s i t u a t i o n . Subjects were told that they would have an opportunity to earn some money but were not t o l d how much. Q-sort Subjects p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the experiments i n groups of two to four p a i r s . Individual subjects were seated at small separate tables, out of d i r e c t sight of each other Subjects were t o l d they were "going to complete a person-a l i t y d e scription and p a r t i c i p a t e i n a game s i t u a t i o n . " Subjects were then given instructions for the Q-sorf» taken from Block (1961). These instructions were also read to them. The Q-items, also taken from Block (1961) were presented on small cards, and a folder was provided to aid i n th e i r sorting (Q-items used are l i s t e d i n Appendi A.). Subjects were asked to use the Q-sort to describe the person they came to the session with. Sorting took about 40 minutes. When a l l subjects were finished the folders were c o l l e c t e d . Prisoner's Dilemma Game After completion of the Q-sort by a l l subjects, they p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the Prisoner's Dilemma game. Response boxes used for the PD were set up on each table. Subjects were asked to choose "A" or "B" for each of twenty t r i a l s . Subjects were told that t h e i r payoff depended on the i n t e r -20 section of t h e i r choice and that of the person they were anonymously paired with. The payoff matrix i s shown i n Figure 1. Subjects were to l d that they would be paired with someone i n the room other than the person they came with. In fa c t , the "other" person's responses were pre-programmed to follow a random 60% choice "B" schedule and were i d e n t i c a l for a l l subjects. Insert Figure 1. about here Subjects p a r t i c i p a t e d i n either a Pennies incentive or a Quarters incentive condition, decided at random. The figures i n the c e l l s of the payoff matrix thus represented pennies and quarters i n the respective conditions. Subjects were informed of the "other's" choice aft e r each t r i a l , and paid themselves immediately by taking the appropriate number of coins from a tray. Instructions for the PD were adapted from Knox and Douglas' (1968) expanded instructions and were aimed at maximizing the understanding and relevance of the game s i t u a t i o n . ' Dependent Measures After hearing the instructions for the PD but before p a r t i c i p a t i n g , subjects were asked to rate the s i t u a t i o n i n which they were about to p a r t i c i p a t e on each of eight 21 Figure 1. Prisoner's Dilemma Game payoff Matrix (Payoff to Person 1 i s top number in c e l l s , payoff to Person 2 i s bottom number). CHOICE A PERSON 1 CHOICE B 3 0 3 5 5 1 0 1 CHOICE A CHOICE B PERSON 2 7-point bipolar scales. The anchors for the scales were: passive-active, dishonest-honest, hostile-peaceful, wise-f o o l i s h , cooperative-competitive, weak-strong, brave-cowardly, and moral-immoral (after Kelley et. a l . , 1970). Subjects then participated i n 20 t r i a l s of the PD. Subjects' responses i n the Prisoner's Dilemma (whethe they chose "A" or "B") and the latency of the i r choice (in seconds) were recorded by the experimenter during play. After completing the PD subjects were again asked to use the eight bipolar to describe the s i t u a t i o n i n which they had just p a r t i c i p a t e d . A check of the incentive manipulation (how well subjects f e l t they were paid) was also completed. 23 CHAPTER THREE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION M a n i p u l a t i o n check. A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between c o n d i -t i o n s on a check o f the i n c e n t i v e m a n i p u l a t i o n . T h i s check c o n s i s t e d o f a r a t i n g by s u b j e c t s o f how w e l l t h e y f e l t t h e y were p a i d , u s i n g a 9 - p o i n t s c a l e r a n g i n g from " e x t r e m e l y w e l l " t o " e x t r e m e l y p o o r l y " 1 . S u b j e c t s i n the q u a r t e r s c o n d i t i o n f e l t t h e y were b e t t e r p a i d (2.0 v s . 3.6, t ( 6 0 ) = 4.38, p < .001) . I n c e n t i v e and L a t e n c y e f f e c t s . Comparison o f the number o f A o r " c o o p e r a t i v e " r e s p o n s e s between c o n d i t i o n s r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c e n t i v e e f f e c t . S u b j e c t s i n the q u a r t e r s c o n d i t i o n made s i g n i f i c a n t l y more " c o o p e r a t i v e " r e s p o n s e s o v e r t h e twenty t r i a l s t h a n t h o s e i n t h e p e n n i e s c o n d i t i o n (9.6 v s . 7.3, t ( 6 0 ) - 2.19 p < . 0 5 ) . No d i f f e r e n c e between c o n d i t i o n s was found on the l a t e n c y measure (mean l a t e n c y i n seconds f o r t h e p e n n i e s and q u a r t e r s c o n d i t i o n s was 6.53 and 6.31, t (60) = 0.22, p < . 1 0 ) . 24 Factor Analyses A p r i n c i p a l components analysis of the pregame scale ratings for each condition was performed. This repres-ented an attempt at r e p l i c a t i o n of Kelley et. a l . ' s (1970) two factor solution - Evaluative and Dynamism - i n which the scale "cooperation - competition" was d i f f e r e n t i a l l y loaded depending on payoff. A two factor solution of the data c o l l e c t e d i n t h i s study and mean loadings taken from Kelley et. a l . (1970, p. 4 30) are shown i n Table 1. The patterns r e s u l t i n g from t h i s study f i t a Dynamism vs. Evaluative model less well than Kelley et. a l . ' s data. Insert Table 1. about here In Kelley et. a l . ' s study the evaluative factor was defined by high loadings of dishonest-honest, hostile*-peaceful, and moral<rimmoral.. The dynamism factor was defined by high loadings on passive-active, wise-foolish, weak-strong and brave cowardly. They found that cooperation-competition was loaded more on Dynamism when r e a l money incentive was used and more on Evaluative when points incentive was used. In t h i s study the loadings of cooperation-competition did not d i f f e r across conditions. There are several possible explanations for t h i s . F i r s t , the i d e n t i t y of the factors may not be the same in both PD conditions. Table 1. Factor loadings of pregame ratings for each condition, and mean loadings from Kelley et. a l . (1970).1 Scale Pennies Condition Quarters Condition: Kelley e t . a l . Eval. Factor Dynam. Factor Eval. Factor Dynam. Factor E v a l . Factor Dynamo Factor 1 passive-active .39 -.42 -.29 -.76 .52 2 dishonest-honest .54 -.09 .68 -.18 .67 3 hostile-peaceful .04 .89 .70 .22 -.43 4 wise-foolish .05 .72 -.59 . 55 -.41 5 cooperative-competitive . 35 -.30 -.37 -.27 . 35 .30 6 weak-strong .69 -.52 -.08 -.76 .55 7 brave-cowardly -.85 .12 -.23 . 79 .56 8 moral-immoral -.78 -.18 -.85 .01 .64 The factor loadings for Kelley e t . a l . were obtained and presented for each of eight experimental s i t e s , these have been averaged for comparison here. . 2 6 Agreement with the Kelley et. a l solution i s small and varied. Both hostile-peaceful and brave-cowardly, for example, are loaded high on one factor in a given condition but are loaded high on the opposite factor in the alternate . condition. Secondly, t h i s disagreement could be a conse-quence of having subjects describe the PD s i t u a t i o n rather than, as i n Kelly et. a l . , t h e i r own behaviour. Kelly et. a l . argue that Evaluative-Dynamism are key factors i n the descriptio'n of behaviour. This may not be true for descriptions of si t u a t i o n s . Thirdly, the discrepancies in, r e s u l t s may stem from differences between the mixed-motive game used by Kelly et. a l . and the Prisoner's Dilemma game. Q-item — Behaviour correlates The finding of a s i g n i f i c a n t incentive e f f e c t would normally lead one to conclude that incentive i s quantitatively related to cooperation. However examination of the Q-items which correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p< .10) with choice Aror "cooperative" behaviour reveals that d i f f e r e n t Q-items predict behaviour i n each condition: a d i f f e r e n t subset of subjects are "cooperating" in each condition. The finding that a d i f f e r e n t type of person i s making the A response lends support to the hypothesis that t h i s response has a d i f f e r e n t phenomenology i n each condition. Q-item correlates with PD choice behaviour in the pennies and Quarters conditions are shown i n Tables 2 and 3., respectively. 27 Q - i t e m c o r r e l a t e s w i t h P D l a t e n c y b e h a v i o u r i n the p e n n i e s and q u a r t e r s c o n d i t i o n s a r e shown i n T a b l e 4 and T a b l e 5, r e s p e c t i v e l y . I n s e r t T a b l e s 2, 3,. 4, and 5 about h e r e 28 Table 2. Q-item—behaviour correlates for Prisoner's Dilemma Choice behaviour, Pennies condition. Q-item r Items c o r r e l a t i n g p o s i t i v e l y with choice A behaviour Has warmth, has the capacity for close relationships Seeks reassurance from others Is protective of those close to him or her Enjoys aesthetic impressions Is s e l f - d e f e a t i n g Feels cheated and victimized by l i f e Behaves i n a giving way toward others Values own independence and autonomy Is concerned with philosophical problems Is turned to for advice and reassurance Is f a s t i d i o u s 42 *** 39 ** 36 ** 36 ** 36 ** 35 ** 33 ** 30 * 27 * 26 * 24 * Items c o r r e l a t i n g .negatively with choice A behaviour Tends to perceive many d i f f e r e n t contexts in sexual terms -.45 *** Extrapunitive, tends to transfer or project blame -.43 *** Appears'to have a high degree of i n t e l l e c t u a l capacity -.37 ** Arouses nurturant feelings i n others -.36 Judges s e l f and others i n conventional terms l i k e popularity -.35 Is s e l f indulgent -.27 Is emotionally bland -.25 * Is f a c i a l l y and/or gesturally expressive -.24 * •k-k-k p <.01 p < .05 p < .10 29 T a b l e 3. Q-item - b e h a v i o u r c o r r e l a t e s f o r P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma C h o i c e b e h a v i o u r , Q u a r t e r s c o n d i t i o n Q-itern r Items c o r r e l a t i n g ; p o s i t i v e l y w i t h c h o i c e A b e h a v i o u r Behaves i n an a s s e r t i v e f a s h i o n .42 *** Has a c l e a r - c u t i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t p e r s o n a l i t y • .39 ** Tends t o aro u s e l i k i n g and a c c e p t a n c e i n p e o p l e .38 ** Has i n s i g h t i n t o own m o t i v e s and b e h a v i o u r .37 ** I s c o ncerned w i t h p h i l o s o p h i c a l problems .30 * Has a wide range o f i n t e r e s t s .27 * I s an i n t e r e s t i n g , a r r e s t i n g p e r s o n .26 * Items c o r r e l a t i n g n e g a t i v e l y w i t h c h o i c e A b e h a v i o u r I s i n t r o s p e c t i v e and concerned w i t h s e l f as o b j e c t -.41 ** I s v u l n e r a b l e t o r e a l o r f a n c i e d t h r e a t , f e a r f u l -.36 ** Concerned w i t h own adequacy as a p e r s o n -.30 * G i v e s up and w i t h d r a w s . . . i n t h e f a c e o f a d v e r s i t y -.29 * I s f a s t i d i o u s -.28 * F e e l s a l a c k o f p e r s o n a l meaning i n l i f e -.28 * Seems t o be aware o f t h e i m p r e s s i o n he o r she makes on o t h e r s -.26 * A b l e t o see t o t h e h e a r t o f i m p o r t a n t problems -.25 * v * * * p<C.01 ** P <: . 05 * p < . 10 30 Table 4. Q-item behaviour correlates for Prisoner's Dilemma latency behaviour, Pennies condition *** p < .01 ** p< .05 * p< .10 Q-item r  Items c o r r e l a t i n g p o s i t i v e l y with latency Is concerned with philosophical problems , .47 *** Is c r i t i c a l s k e p t i c a l , not e a s i l y impressed .42 ** Has a readiness to f e e l g u i l t y .37 ** Over reactive to minor fr u s t r a t i o n s , i r r i t a b l e .37 ** Has high aspiration l e v e l for s e l f .36 ** Behaves i n an e t h i c a l l y consistent manner .31 ** Enjoys aesthetic impressions .29 * Reluctant to commit s e l f to any d e f i n i t e course of action .27 * Tends to p r o f f e r advice .27 * Has s o c i a l poise and presence .25 * Appears to have a high degree of i n t e l l e c t u a l capacity .25 * Items c o r r e l a t i n g negatively with latency Responds to humour -.45 *** Interested i n members of opposite sex -.42 ** Tends to arouse l i k i n g and acceptance in people -.39 ** Handles anxiety and c o n f l i c t s by refusing to recognize t h e i r presence -.34 ** Is s k i l l e d i n s o c i a l techniques of imaginative play -.31 ** Is cheerful , . -.28 * Appears straight forward, forthright, candid -.27 Is f a c i a l l y and/or ges t u r a l l y expressive -.25 Is fas t i d i o u s -.25 * * 31 Table 5. Q-item behaviour correlates for Prisoner's Dilemma latency behaviour, Quarters condition. Q-item r  Items c o r r e l a t i n g p o s i t i v e l y with latency Is b a s i c a l l y d i s t r u s t f u l of people, questions motivation .53 *** Is c r i t i c a l s k eptical, not e a s i l y impressed .40 ** Has h o s t i l i t y toward others .38 ** Is power oriented values power i n s e l f and others .36 ** Seems to be aware of the impression he or she makes on others .35 ** Famous conservative values i n a variety of areas . 32 ** C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y pushes and stretches l i m i t .31 ** Expresses h o s t i l e feelings d i r e c t l y .30 * Tends to project his or her feelings and motivations .29 * Evaluates the motivations of others i n inte r p r e t i n g situations .26 * Emphasizes communication through action .26 * Has a rapid personal tempo, behaves and acts quickly .24 * Items c o r r e l a t i n g negatively with latency Behaves i n a sympathetic or considerate manner -.41 ** Genuinely values i n t e l l e c t u a l and cognitive matters - . 3 1 * * Behaves i n a giving way toward others -.30 ** Is vulnerable to r e a l or fancied threat, f e a r f u l -.30 * Reluctant to commit s e l f to any d e f i n i t e course of action -.30 * Is personally charming -.29 * Has insight into own motives and behaviour -.29 * Compares s e l f to others, i s a l e r t to differences -.27 * Is b a s i c a l l y anxious -.26 * Emphasizes being with others, gregarious -.26 * Is turned to for advice and reassurance -.24 * *** p <.01 ** p <.05 * p <. . 10 To'test further the hypothesis that the Q-item— behaviour correlates contrast between Tables 2 and 3 on the one hand and Tables 4 and 5 on the other, depict d i s t i n c t personality types, volunteer undergraduate students, acting as judges, were asked to consider these correlates as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c (for p o s i t i v e correlates) and uncharacteristic (for negative correlates) of a hypothetical person (each judge considered correlates for one incentive condition-behaviour combination only, the number of judges examining each combination i s shown in Table 6). These judges were asked to rate the hypothetical person described by the correlates on the eight 7-point rating scales described e a r l i e r , and to provide a l a b e l for the person. Results are shown in Table 6. Insert Table 6 about here Judges r a t e d "the p e r s o n d e s c r i b e d by t h e p e n n i e s c o n d i -t i o n - c h o i c e b e h a v i o u r c o r r e l a t e s as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p a s s i v e , more c o o p e r a t i v e , and more weak (p<£.05, o v e r a l l T 2 (33) = 149.8, p<.001) compared t o r a t i n g s o f the p e r s o n d e s c r i b e d by the q U a r t e r s c o n d i t i o n c o r r e l a t e s . F or l a t e n c y b e h a v i o u r the p e r s o n d e s c r i b e d by the p e n n i e s c o n d i t i o n - b e h a v i o u r c o r r e l a t e s was r a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p a s s i v e and m o r a l ( p < . 0 5 , o v e r a l l T 2 (34) = 107.1, p < . 0 0 1 ) . T a b l e 6. Mean r a t i n g s o f i n d i v i d u a l s d e s c r i b e d by Q - i t e m — b e h a v i o u r c o r r e l a t e s . C h o i c e B e h a v i o u r L a t e n c y B e h a v i o u r S c a l e (0 anchor-7 anchor) P e n n i e s Q u a r t e r s C o n d i t i o n C o n d i t i o n (n=21) (n=21) P e n n i e s C o n d i t i o n (n=20) Q u a r t e r s C o n d i t i o n (n=23) 1 p a s s i v e - a c t i v e 3.43 (p<.05) 6 .19 3.55 ( p < .05) 6.22 2 d i s h o n e s t - h o n e s t 5.52 5.00 5. 35 3.87 3 h o s t i l e - p e a c e f u l 4. 76 5.00 2 .55 1.78 4 w i s e - f o o l i s h 4.00 3.62 3.05 4.52 5 c o o p e r a t i v e - c o m p e t i t i v e 2.00 (p<.05) 4.86 5.20 6.43 6 weak-strong 3.14 (p<.05) 5.81 3.85 5.22 7 b r a v e - c o w a r d l y 4.57 2.90 4 . 30 3.74 . 8 moral-immoral 2.48 3.10 2.65 ( p < .05) 4.65 T y p i c a l l a b e l s g i v e n t o the p e r s o n d e s c r i b e d by the p e n n i e s c o n d i t i o n - c h o i c e b e h a v i o u r c o r r e l a t e s were n u r t u r a n t and c a r i n g , i n s e c u r e , i n t r o v e r t e d and p a s s i v e as opposed t o s e l f - c o n f i d e n t , s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d , e x t r a v e r t e d and s o c i a b l e , l a b e l s g i v e n t o the q u a r t e r s ' c o n d i t i o n ^ c h o i c e b e h a v i o u r d e s c r i p t i o n . A n t i s o c i a l and u n f r i e n d l y , s e l f -c e n t e r e d a n d , e g o t i s t i c a l , and i n t r o v e r t e d were t y p i c a l l a b e l s g i v e n t o the p e r s o n d e s c r i b e d by the p e n n i e s c o n d i t i o n - l a t e n c y b e h a v i o u r c o r r e l a t e s . The q u a r t e r s c o n d i t i o n - l a t e n c y b e h a v i o u r c o r r e l a t e s d e p i c t e d a p e r s o n . l a b e l l e d as s e l f - c e n t e r e d and e g o t i s t i c a l , a g g r e s s i v e , h o s t i l e and u n f r i e n d l y . . 35 Assessing Qualitative Differences According to Bern and Funder's (19 78) method, Q-item—'• behaviour correlates depict the phenomenology of the setting to which the method i s applied. A d i f f e r e n t set of correlates i n each of the conditions i n this study thus supports the hypothesis that these conditions d i f f e r i n an important way. However, assessment of a d i f f e r e n c e . i n phenomenology or underlying constructs across conditions necessitates analysis of the correlates i n a way unrelated to the subjective content of the Q-item correlates. Examination of the Q-item— behaviour correlates alone cannot distinguish between cond-i t i o n s which are q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t or those i n which nominally d i f f e r e n t correlates are the manifestation of a single, stable construct. ~ To assess the hypothesis of construct i n s t a b i l i t y i n a way unrelated to the impressions conveyed by the subjective content of the Q-item—behaviour correlates, "templates" were constructed for each condition and behaviour, as outlined by Bern and Funder (1978). Bern and Lord (1979) describe a template as a "personality description of the hypothetical i d e a l person who i s most l i k e l y to display the designated behaviour i n that s i t u a t i o n (p.834)." Templates are constructed by adjusting the composite Q-sort of the entire subject sample. This i s done by weighting those items which correlate (p<.10) with behaviour by adding or subtracting (depending on the sign of the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t ) two times the standard deviation of the item. That i s Q. = M. + <3.w. x 1 1 1 where Q^  i s the adjusted or template mean of the i t h item, and are the mean and standard deviation, respectively, of the i t h item for the subject sample, and w^  i s the weighting factor (-2 or 0) r e f l e c t i n g the relevance of the i t h item to the c r i t e r i o n behaviour being characterized. Thus items which are s i g n i f i c a n t l y p o s i t i v e l y correlated with behaviour are i n f l a t e d by two times t h e i r standard deviation and so are made "more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c " , and those which are s i g n i f i c a n t l y negatively correlated are made "more uncharacteristic." According to Bern and Funder (1978) the higher the corr e l a t i o n between a person's Q-sort and the template, the more l i k e l y that person i s to display the behaviour. However, because the template i s based on the mean Q-item ratings, the closer the person i s to the average Q-sort, the. higher the corr e l a t i o n w i l l also be. Therefore, to construct an index of a person's s i m i l a r i t y to the template, his or her Q-sort i s correlated with the template, and subtracted from t h i s value i s his or her Q-sort's c o r r e l a t i o n with the group average or "composite Q-sort". The r e s u l t i n g s i m i l a r i t y scores should, i f the template describes the situ a t i o n , be highly p o s i t i v e l y correlated with behaviour i n the setting. In t h i s study the c o r r e l a t i o n between subject's s i m i l a r i t y scores and t h e i r behaviour i n the se t t i n g was .62 and .45 for choice behaviour, i n the pennies and quarters conditions, respec-t i v e l y , and .56 and .68 for latency behaviour i n the same respective conditions (p<C.01, n= 30, one-tailed). These represent however, correlations between behaviour and templates constructed on the basis of that behaviour, a procedure which c a p i t a l i z e s on chance. Therefore, within condition v a l i d a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were calculated by randomly s p l i t t i n g each condition, constructing templates for each h a l f and computing a s i m i l a r i t y score for each subject of his p r her s i m i l a r i t y to the template derived from the other h a l f . These independent s i m i l a r i t y scores were then t correlated with behaviour. This resulted i n correlations of .18 and -.31 for choice behaviour i n the pennies and quarters conditions respectively (both halves combined), and .19 and .12 (both halves combined) for latency behaviour i n the same respective conditions. Such low and, in one case, negative v a l i d i t i e s seriously question the a b i l i t y of Q-sort templates to predict behaviour within given conditions. Correlations for separate halves are shown i n Table 7. Insert Table 7. about here - I f behaviour i n each condition of the Prisoner's Dilemma game r e f l e c t e d the same psychological process then we would expect s i m i l a r i t y with a template constructed on the basis of behaviour in the pennies condition to be highly p o s i t i v e l y correlated with behaviour i n the quarters Table 7. Correlations between s i m i l a r i t y to templates and behaviour. • Choice Behaviour Latency Behaviour Pennies Quarters Pennies Quarters Condition Condition Condition Condition Within Conditions .62*** .45** .56** .68*** (n=30) Half 1 . Cn = 15) .16 -.46 . 20 .43 S p l i t Half Within Condition (Combined (n=30)) (.18) (-.31) (.19) (.12) Vali d a t i o n Half 2 (n = 15) .31 -.24 . 15 .21 Across Conditions (n=30) -.19. -.22 -.01 . 09 (Combined (n=60)) (-. 29*) (. 01) *** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05 39 condition, and vice versa. We would expect the hypothetical person most l i k e l y to choose the A response (the "cooperative" person) i n one condition to do the same (be "cooperative") i n the other condition. To t e s t t h i s , s i m i l a r i t y scores were constructed for each subject of his or her Q-sort's s i m i l a r i t y to the across condition template. These s i m i l a r i t y scores were then correlated with the ind i v i d u a l ' s behaviour i n the cond-i t i o n he or she pa r t i c i p a t e d i n . The correlations which resulted were .01 (p>.10, n=60, both conditions combined) for latency behaviour and -.29 (p<.05, n=60, both conditions combined) for choice behaviour, suggesting that you cannot predict latency behaviour i n one condition on the basis of behaviour i n the other, and that individuals who tend to make A choices i n one condition would, in fact, tend to make B choices i n the other. In the presence of substantial within condition v a l i d -ation c o e f f i c i e n t s such results would support the hypothesis that the construct underlying behaviour i s not the same across Prisoner's Dilemma game incentive conditions. However in t h e i r absence these correlations are indistinguishable from the i n a b i l i t y of templates to predict behaviour within conditions. To compare the s p l i t - h a l f within-condition correlations with the across condition correlations a te s t for the sig^.;_ ::. nificance of the difference between dependent correlations was performed. Across condition correlations were computed for each h a l f of each condition, such that a l l ns=15. For example, the pennies condition s p l i t - h a l f c o r r e l a t i o n for Half 1 was compared to the quarters condition correlations for Half 1 and Half 2. Only one of the r e s u l t i n g 16 test was s i g n i f i c a n t (p<i.05, one-tailed). Investigation of the lack of v a l i d i t y or within condition p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i s hampered by the complexity of the s i m i l a r i t y score construction process: i n d i v i d u a l subjects' Q-sorts are correlated with both a Q-sort template and a composite Q-sort, the c o r r e l a t i o n with the composite i s subtracted from the co r r e l a t i o n with the template, and the r e s u l t i n g s i m i l a r i t y score i s correlated with behaviour. The weak l i n k i n this process i s the psychometrically dubious step of subtracting c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s . While Bern and Funder do not c a l l the r e s u l t a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t they do characterize i t as the template-specific component of s i m i l a r i t y . However, l e t us suppose that the s i m i l a r i t y score (r. - r ) = c r temp comp -.20. Any one of the following conditions could hold: (1) r. =.70 and r =.90; (2) r. =.00 and r =.20; temp comp temp comp (3) r =-.10 and r ^ =.10. While i n each case the.similar-temp temp i t y score i s i d e n t i c a l the three conditions are quite d i f f e r -ent . In (1) the score represents a vmuch larger difference in s i m i l a r i t y than i n (2). The i d e n t i c a l s i m i l a r i t y score i n (3), moreover, represents no difference i n s i m i l a r i t y to either the template or the composite (c.f. Glass and Stanley, 1970, p.312). A,much more str a i g h t forward method of assessing the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s i m i l a r i t y and behaviour i s c l e a r l y preferable and i s possible. A scale score which assesses the degree of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s i m i l a r i t y to a hypothetical i d e a l personality e x h i b i t i n g a designated behaviour can be constructed simply by adding the Q-item scores of the i n d i v i d u a l for those items which correlate p o s i t i v e l y (p<.10) with behaviour and subtracting those that correlate negatively. Thus in d i v i d u a l s who are more l i k e the hypo-t h e t i c a l i d e a l w i l l have higher scale scores and vice versa. Subtraction of some group average component i s not necessary. This "scale score" method can r e a d i l y be used to examine p r e d i c t a b i l i t y across conditions by deriving the scale scores from correlates i n one condition and then c o r r e l a t i n g them with behaviour i n the other condition. Computation of scale-score—behaviour correlations for the same data analyzed i n Table 7. reveals the i d e n t i c a l pattern, as shown i n Table 8. In f a c t , the scale score method r e s u l t s i n higher c o r r e l a t i o n within conditions and for the within condition v a l i d a t i o n than the s i m i l a r i t y score_method. Whether t h i s i s the r e s u l t of the method's a b i l i t y to better measure relationships and consequently assess r e l i a b i l i t y would need to be determined, although the s i m p l i c i t y of the method alone makes i t preferable to that of Bern and Funder. 42 Insert Table 8. about here Replication of the pattern i n Table 7. also reinforces the conclusion that, i n the present study, a lack of r e l i a b i l i t y i s present such that prediction within conditions i s precluded and that the lack of p r e d i c t a b i l i t y across conditions i s uninterpretable. *" Possible reasons for t h i s s i t u a t i o n include the f a i l u r e of the construct underlying the Prisoner's Dilemma game to have a consistent e f f e c t on subjects' behaviour. This could be the r e s u l t of inconsistent experimental procedures or of inherent i n s t a b i l i t y in the PD. Another reason for the low r e l i a b i l i t y may be the small sample size i n the two s p l i t halves (ns=150. E s p e c i a l l y i n the context of a personality description of 100 items such small sub-samples may not allow correlations to s t a b i l i z e . Increasing the sample size would also reduce the u n r e l i a b i l i t y a t t r i b u t a b l e to the inconsistent impact of the PD. The test for sign i f i c a n c e between dependent c o r r e l a t i o n s , as described e a r l i e r , when performed on-the data i n Table 8., r e s u l t s i n only 3 s i g n i f i c a n t differences out of 16 t e s t s . Table 8. Correlations between scale scores and behaviour. Choice Behaviour Latency Behaviour Pennies Condition Quarters Condition Pennies Condition Quarters Condition Within Conditions .80*** .66*** .81*** .75*** (n=30) S p l i t Half Half 1 (n= 15) .24 -.31 . 36 . 35 Within Condition Va l i d a t i o n Half 2 (n= 15) . 47 -.18 . 19 .21 Across Conditions (n=30) -.05 -.11 -.08 .04 *** p< .001 ** p< .01 * p < . 05 44 CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSIONS The p r e s e n t r e s u l t s a r e un a b l e t o s u p p o r t t h e hypo-t h e s i s t h a t , i n the P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma game r e s e a r c h paradigm, the a s s u m p t i o n t h a t the c o n s t r u c t u n d e r l y i n g c o n d i t i o n s v a r i e s o n l y i n q u a n t i t y i s n o t v a l i d . T h i s does n o t , however, v a l i d a t e the a s s u m p t i o n — i t remains u n t e s t e d . Hence, e x a m i n a t i o n o f the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the assu m p t i o n and o f l i m i t s o f t h e Q - s o r t method as t e s t i s w a r r a n t e d . L i m i t a t i o n s o f the Q - s o r t Method The Q - s o r t method has been proposed as a method o f a s s e s s i n g the phenomenology o r p e r s o n a l i t y o f s i t u a t i o n s , the l o g i c b e h i n d i t b e i n g f a i r l y c o n v i n c i n g : a s i t u a t i o n can be d e s c r i b e d i n terms o f the p e r s o n a l i t y o f someone b e h a v i n g i n i t . We must remember, though, t h a t the C a l i f -o r n i a Q-Set i s a l s o a measure and t h a t w h i l e i t p r o v i d e s a way o f c h e c k i n g p o t e n t i a l l i n k a g e s , i t s own c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y c a n not be t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d . More r e l e v a n t t o t h i s s t u d y , even i f we g r a n t t h a t the Q-Set i s a good measure o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , i s t h a t i t may n o t be a good measure o f s i t u a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s . C o n s i d e r the case where the r e l a t i o n s h i p between model s t a t u s and i m i t a t i v e b e h a v i o u r i n c h i l d r e n i s examined. I f a p p l i c -a t i o n o f t h e Q - s o r t method r e s u l t e d i n c h i l d r e n who i m i t a t e n o t b e i n g d e s c r i b e d as i m i t a t o r s , one would n o t n e c e s s a r i l y c o n c l u d e t h a t the s i t u a t i o n was one i n whi c h the r e l a t i o n s h i p between model s t a t u s and i m i t a t i o n b e h a v i o u r c o u l d n o t be studied. Bern and Funder used the Q-sort method to assess the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of two delay of g r a t i f i c a t i o n settings, and found the children who behave in each to be quite d i f f e r e n t . This does not mean, however, that either setting cannot be used to examine the e f f e c t of s i t u a t i o n a l variables on delay of g r a t i f i c a t i o n . Bern and Funder assess which sett i n g has better construct v a l i d i t y : i n which i s the phenomenology e l i c i t e d by the setting most relevant to the behaviour to be studied. But even i f one setting i s better than another the poorer need not be thrown away. Provided that we meet the requirements of our experimental method-ology, and q u a n t i t a t i v e l y vary only what we intend, the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of relationships between s i t u a t i o n a l variables i n that s e t t i n g may not be impaired. Person by Situation Interaction An a d d i t i o n a l c r i t i c i s m of the usefulness of the Q-sort method centers i n i t s seeming reliance on person by s i t u a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n . The essence of the method i s j that Q-items depicting the phenomenology underlying a s e t t i n g w i l l be correlated with behaviour i n the setting. The hypothesis that q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t constructs . underlie each condition i n an experiment would seem to be supported by the demonstration that a d i f f e r e n t set of Q-items--behaviour correlates i s evident i n each condition. The question can be raised, however, as to whether such a demonstration d i f f e r s from one showing that i n d i v i d u a l 46 d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e s i n t e r a c t w i t h c o n d i t i o n s . I n o t h e r words, how does an e x p e r i m e n t c o n t a i n i n g q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f -f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s d i f f e r from one c o n t a i n i n g a p e r s o n by s i t u a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n ? A p e r s o n by s i t u a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n o c c u r s when the p a t t e r n o f s c o r e s on a dependent measure d i f f e r s a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s as a f u n c t i o n o f s u b j e c t s ' r a n k i n g on an i n -d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e measure. F o r example, s u b j e c t s who a r e m o r a l i s t i c may be c o o p e r a t i v e i n a game s i t u a t i o n when the i n c e n t i v e i s h i g h b u t u n c o o p e r a t i v e when i t i s low w h i l e amoral s u b j e c t s show the o p p o s i t e p a t t e r n . S u b j e c t s r a n k i n g on t h e t r a i t m oraIism d i f f e r s a c r o s s s e t t i n g s . I n such a s i t u a t i o n — w h e r e an i n t e r a c t i o n i s p r e s e n t — a p p l i c a t i o n o f the Q - s o r t method would r e s u l t i n the i t e m " i s m o r a l i s t i c " b e i n g p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h b e h a v i o u r under h i g h i n c e n t i v e and n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d under low. I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e , though, t h a t s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e measures (such as Q-items) may not c o r r e l a t e w i t h b e h a v i o u r i n e v e r y c o n d i t i o n , even i n the presence o f an i n t e r a c t i o n . W h i l e the p a t t e r n o v e r c o n d i t i o n s o f dependent s c o r e s may not be p a r a l l e l a c r o s s t r a i t l e v e l s , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c o r e s and t r a i t r a n k i n g may be a t t e n u a t e d and u n c o r r e l a t e d i n a g i v e n c o n d i t i o n . An example i s the s i t u a t i o n where t h e s c o r e s f o r two t r a i t l e v e l s a re the same i n one c o n d i t i o n but w i d e l y d i v e r g e n t i n a n o t h e r . A p p l i c a t i o n o f the Q - s o r t method would r e s u l t i n d i f f e r e n t c o r r e l a t e s i n each c o n d i t i o n . 47 , I n p r a c t i c e , t h e n , a p e r s o n by s i t u a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n would be e v i d e n c e d by d i f f e r e n t o r o p p o s i t e - s i g n e d Q-item c o r r e l a t e s a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s . C o n c e p t u a l l y , however, q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s and p e r s o n by s i t u a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n s a r e d i s t i n c t . The c l a s s i c p e r s o n by s i t u a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n assumes t h e same c o n s t r u c t a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s . The p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t y i s d i s t i n g u i s h i n g t h i s s i t u a t i o n from one i n wh i c h t h e a p p a r e n t i n t e r a c t i o n i s a c t u a l l y t h e r e s u l t o f s t u d y i n g c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h d i f f e r q u a l i t a t i v e l y . I t i s c o n c e i v a b l e and a t ti m e s more p l a u s i b l e t h a t t h e d i s c o v e r y o f an i n t e r a c t i o n i s due t o a q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e r a t h e r than a t r u e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p . A f u r t h e r c o n c e p t u a l t w i s t i s t h a t a q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e between c o n d i t i o n s — s u c h as one i n wh i c h t h e r e l e v a n t c o n s t r u c t i n one c o n d i t i o n i s e v a l u a t i o n and i n the o t h e r i s dynamism-^would n o t n e c e s s a r i l y produce d i f f e r -e n t i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e measure c o r r e l a t e s . Because t h e c o n s t r u c t u n d e r l y i n g b o t h t h e Independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s a r e h i d d e n t h e i m p l i c a t i o n o f a q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r -ence i s t h a t the meaning o f b e h a v i o u r has changed. I n the case o f p e r s o n by s i t u a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s may respond t o d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f t h e same c o n s t r u c t d i f f e r e n t l y ; n o t a l l p e o p l e a re e q u a l l y i n f l u e n c e d by d i f f e r -e n t l e v e l s o f t h e same v a r i a b l e . A q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e between c o n d i t i o n s though, may r e s u l t i n i n d i v i d u a l s r e s p o n d i n g d i f f e r e n t l y t o d i f f e r e n t c o n s t r u c t s , a s i t u a t i o n w h i c h c o u l d •manifest i t s e l f i n the l a c k o f an i n t e r a c t i o n . That I s , 48 not a l l people are equally influenced by d i f f e r e n t levels of d i f f e r e n t variables. The t r a i t moralism, for example may not i n t e r a c t with conditions because they may be q u a l i t a -t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t . In sum, then, i t appears that assessment of q u a l i t a t i v e differences v i a the Q-sort method i s indistinguishable from the uncovering of person by s i t u a t i o n interactions. A l -though conceptually there appears to be a d i s t i n c t i o n i f i n practise there i s none then the argument i s moot. The Q-sort method, while appealling, i s unable to "bootstrap" us to a solu t i o n . Implications Despite not being able to uncover a q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r -ence between constructs underlying conditions, i t should be clear that the assumption of construct s t a b i l i t y i s , i n fact, made and that researchers need to consider i t s implications. The nature of the assumption of construct s t a b i l i t y i s that the construct underlying conditions i n an experiment varies only in quantity across conditions. Great care i s taken by researchers to ensure that no other variable also varies q u a n t i t a t i v e l y (is confounded) so that the only difference i s the one intended. As discussed e a r l i e r , this assumption i s v a l i d for empirical constructs, where i n -ferences are made only about observable processes. The concern raised i n t h i s thesis relates instead to that class of studies where the conceptual r e l a t i o n s h i p involves unobseryahle, often i n t e r n a l or motivational, hypothetical constructs. t 49 E x a m i n a t i o n o f t h i s t y pe i s commonplace i n s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y . S o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l methodology, however, has borrowed a t h e o r y based on e m p i r i c a l c o n s t r u c t s , where t h e o r i e s o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s d e a l o n l y w i t h o b s e r v a b l e elements. Our s t u d i e s l a c k c l e a r s t a t e m e n t o f the type o f t h e o r y t h e y r e l a t e t o , and hence the t y p e o f methodology w h i c h i s a p p r o p r i a t e . Can we make i n f e r e n c e s about g e n o t y p i c p r o -c e s s e s , o r o n l y about p h e n o t y p i c b e h a v i o u r ? I n t h e P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma game, f o r example, t h e d i s -t i n c t i o n r e l a t e s t o how we d e f i n e c o o p e r a t i o n and i n c e n t i v e . I f c o o p e r a t i o n i s o n l y a c e r t a i n t y pe o r number o f res p o n s e s and i n c e n t i v e i s o n l y the magnitude o f p a y o f f , then we can s t u d y t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between them w i t h o u t c o n c e r n . I f , however, c o o p e r a t i o n i s a b e h a v i o u r r e f l e c t i n g t r u s t and h e l p i n g , o r i f i n c e n t i v e i s seen as a m o t i v a t i o n a l s t a t e , t h e n we must show c o n c e r n about the range o f i n f e r e n c e s we can draw about a g i v e n s t u d y , and about t h e assumptions we make i n t h e s t u d y i n g . Most o f t e n i n s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y we a r e n o t concerned w i t h t h e e m p i r i c a l v a r i a b l e s we s t u d y . We a r e n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n e l i m i n a t i n g t h e problem o f dropped w a l l e t s l i t t e r i n g s t r e e t s o r o f p e o p l e a d m i n i s t e r i n g shocks t o f i c t i t i o u s o t h e r s . A l t r u i s m and a g g r e s s i o n , however, a r e o f i n t e r e s t . S o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s a r e o f t e n i n t e r e s t e d o n l y i n f i n d i n g e v i d e n c e o f v a r i a n c e o f an i n t e r n a l s t a t e : we ask p e o p l e t o respond on T'-point scales.. The l i n k between method and theory i s a s p e c i a l problem when we are i n v e s t i g a t i n g hypothetical v a r i a b l e s . I t i s always d i f f i c u l t to make the t r a n s i t i o n from observation to theory and hence we are on safer ground i f we deal only with empirical variables. Discussion of the e f f e c t s of the number of bystanders on behaviour can be more confident i n the absence of reference to d i f f u s i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as the underlying motivational referent. S i m i l a r i l y , we should have much greater confidence i n inferences about the e f f e c t of factors on helping behaviour than on altruism. These caveats, while true generally, are e s p e c i a l l y relevant i n t h i s context because of the added uncertainty as to whether the motivational state r e f l e c t i n g empathy i s a f r a g i l e state and can be created in one condition and not i n another. In the Prisoner's Dilemma game inferences would seem to be warranted about the effects of changing payoff, but whether that always represents cooperation or some other motivation i s not c l e a r . I t may also be i n question whether the choice of behaviour i s between cooperation and competition or some other concept represented by choices "A" and "B". It i s fortunate, but a methodological p i t f a l l , that s o c i a l psychologists are concerned with making inferences about more them just surface behaviours and s i t u a t i o n s . When the i d e n t i t y of the intervening hypothetical construct is a key concern we must be methodologically more rigorous and t h e o r e t i c a l l y more s p e c i f i c . 51 Another implication, i f i n f a c t , there are q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t constructs underlying d i f f e r e n t conditions, i s that the meaning of the dependent measure i s d i f f e r e n t across conditions.' It i s possible for both the presence and absence of a difference i n measures to be the r e s u l t of two constructs, d i f f e r e n t i n meaning, rather than the e f f e c t of one. The concept of a change i n meaning of be-, haviour i s not foreign to psychology. A phenotypic be-haviour such as endorsement of a p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e f may represent private i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of that b e l i e f or just public compliance. Gallo (1966) suggested that the meaning of behaviour i n the PD i s not always the same. No s o c i a l psychologist would say that a behaviour always has the same meaning. And yet s o c i a l psychologists have not linked t h i s change to a q u a l i t a t i v e s h i f t i n meaning across conditions i n an experiment. Developmental psychologists, on the other hand, have questioned the assumption of behavioural isomorphism over developmental stages, t h e i r primary independent var i a b l e . Crying behaviour, for example, i s argued to have d i f f e r e n t meaning, to be f u n c t i o n a l l y d i f f e r e n t , at d i f f e r e n t ages (Bell and Ainsworth, 1972) . Discussion of a lack of construct s t a b i l i t y i s hampered by the lack of a language or terminology to adequately describe the problem. The term "confounded" ref e r s to an unintended variable-changing qu a n t i t a t i v e l y along with or instead of the on intended. But what do you c a l l a q u a l i t a -t i v e s h i f t instead of or additional to the one intended? There i s no q u i c k m e t h o d o l o g i c a l remedy. What i s needed i s improvement o f the l e a p from o b s e r v a t i o n t o t h e o r y In the absence o f d i r e c t a c c e s s we must i n c r e a s e the number and d i v e r s i t y o f t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s we t h e o r i z e from. R a t h e r t h a n making b r o a d i n f e r e n c e s on t h e b a s i s o f f i r s t - t i m e s t u d i e s we must seek t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t the independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s r e p r e s e n t what they a r e i n t e n d e d t o and t h a t t h e y do so i n a l l c o n d i t i o n s . T h i s we a c c o m p l i s h by i n c r e a s i n g t h e number and d i v e r s i t y o f dependent measure i n our s t u d i e s , and by r e p e a t i n g our independent m a n i p u l a t i o n i n t h e form of d i f f e r e n t o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s . We m i g h t c o n s i d e r , f o r example, em p l o y i n g p h y s i o l o g i c a l measures, o r u n o b t r u s i v e b e h a v i o u r a l measures, i n a d d i t i o n t o more common p a p e r - a n d - p e n c i l measures, where p o s s i b l e . We a r e s e e k i n g t o i n c r e a s e t h e l i n k a g e s between our v a r i a b l e s and t h u s between o b s e r v a t i o n and t h e o r y . L i n k a g e s w h i c h concur w i t h t h e o r y r e i n f o r c e i t and t h o s e t h a t do n o t s h o u l d be r e c o g -n i z e d as i n d i c a t e d t h a t c o n s t r u c t s may be w r o n g l y i d e n t i f i e d a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s o r whole e x p e r i m e n t s . In p r a c t i c e , s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h r e l i e s m o s t l y on s i n g l e dependent measure e x p e r i m e n t s . A measure wh i c h p a r a d o x i c a l l y c o n t r i b u t e s t o the problem i s the m a n i p u l a t i o n check employed i n most s t u d i e s . A m a n i p u l a t i o n check may t e l l you t h a t , on the s u r f a c e a t l e a s t , a d i f f e r -ence seems t o e x i s t between c o n d i t i o n s on the independent v a r i a b l e . I t does n o t , however, t e l l you i f t h a t i s the major p e r c e i v e d d i f f e r e n c e between c o n d i t i o n s , and i t does not t e l l you what the c r i t i c a l difference i s . A difference between conditions i n the desired d i r e c t i o n does not t e l l you whether the desired construct i s at a l l present i n a given condition. And yet the very presence of a manipula-ti o n check reassures the experimenter and forces him or her into a quantitative inference. Bern and Lord (1979) have c a l l e d for the use of t h e i r "template matching" technique for probling e c o l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y . They argue that e c o l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y requires that i n d i v i d u a l s behaving i n a s p e c i f i e d way i n a research setting are described as doing so i n "real l i f e . " The caveat to t h e i r proposal, though, i s that to t r u l y show that a research paradigm has e c o l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y requires that "the r e l a t ion ship s between s i t u a t i o n a l variables and the behaviour i n the setting re-) p l i c a t e the 'relationships between s i t u a t i o n a l variables and the behaviour outside the laboratory (Bern and Lord, 1979, p.841) This thesis c a l l s for the examination of the nature of r e l a t i o n s h i p s within laboratory and other seetings before comparison can be made to behaviour and the e f f e c t of variables i n other settings. Before we address comparability across experiments we need comparability and construct s t a b i l i t y across conditions within experiments. In conclusion, s o c i a l psychologists need to be more thoughtful of how methodological assumptuions r e l a t e to theory. We need to state c l e a r l y what kind of research we are doing. what the nature of the constructs involved i s , and how we a r e t h e r e b y l i m i t e d . S o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r y needs t o debate the d e f i n i t i o n o f i t s c o n c e p t s and c o n s t r u c t s and t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , b e i n g c o g n i z a n t o f t h e a s s u m p t i o n s t h u s made. 55 REFERENCES Aronson, E. and Carlsmith, J.M. Experimentation in S o c i a l Psychology. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.) The  Handbook of S o c i a l Psychology (2nd ed). Don M i l l s : Addison-Wesley, 1968. B e l l , S.M. and Ainsworth, M.D.S. Infant crying and maternal responsiveness. C h i l d Development, 1972, 4_3, 1171-1190. Bern, D.J. and Funder, D.C. Predicting more of the people more of the time: Assessing the personality of s i t u a t i o n s . Psychological Review, 1978, 8_5, 485-501. Bern, D.J. and Lord, C.G. Template Matching: A Proposal for Probing the E c o l o g i c a l V a l i d i t y of Experimental Settings i n S o c i a l Psychology. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1979, 37, 833-846. Block, J . The Q-sort method i n personality assessment and  p s y c h i a t r i c research. S p r i n g f i e l d , 111: Charles C. Thomas, 1961. Block, J . Advancing the psychology of personality: Paradigm-a t i c s h i f t or improving the qu a l i t y of research? In D. Magnusson and N.S. Endler (eds.) Personality at the Crossroads: Current issues i n i n t e r a c t i o n a l psychology. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. Block, J. and Block, J.H. Introduction to the C a l i f o r n i a C h i l d Q-Set (memorandum) Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a I n s t i t u t e for Personality Assessment and Research, 1969. . Boring, E.G. Perspective: A r t i f a c t and Control. In R. Rosenthal and R.L. Rosnow (eds.) A r t i f a c t i n Behavioural Research, New York: Academic Press, 19 69. • Brunswik, E. Perception and the representative design of  psychological experiments. Berkeley, University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1956. Campbell, D.T. Factors relevant to v a l i d i t y of experiments i n s o c i a l settings. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 195 7, 54_, 297-312. Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. In N.L. Gage (ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 196 3. 56 Evans, G. Ef f e c t s of u n i l a t e r a l promise and value of rewards upon cooperation and t r u s t . Journal of Abnormal and  Soci a l Psychology, 1964, 69, 587-590. Gallo, P.S. J r . E f f e c t s of increased incentives upon the use of threat i n bargaining. Journal of Personality and  Soc i a l Psychology, 1966, 4, 14-20. Gumpert, P., Deutsch, M. and Epstein, Y, Eff e c t s of incentive magnitude on cooperation i n the prisoner's dilemma game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 11, 66-69. Hu l l , C.L., Howland, C.I., Ross, R.T., H a l l , M., Perkins, D.T. and F i t c h , F.B. Mathematico-deductive theory of  rote learning. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940. Kelley, H.H., Shure, G.H., Deutsch, H., Faucheux, C., Lanzetta, J.T., Moscovici, S., Nuttin, J.M., Rabbie, J.M., and Thibaut, J.W. A comparative experimental study of negotiation behaviour, Journal'of Personality and Soc i a l  Psychology, 1970, 16, 411-438. Knox, R.E., Douglas, R. T r i v i a l Incentives, Marginal Comp-rehension and Dubious Generalizations from Prisoner's Dilemma Studies. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology, 1971, 20, 160-165. Marx. M.H. The General Nature of Theory Construction. In M. Marx (ed.) Psychological Theory. New York: Macmillan, 1951. ! MacCorquodale, K.C. and Meehl, P.E. On a d i s t i n c t i o n between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review, 1948, _55, 95-107. McClintock, C.G. and McNeel, S.P. Pr i o r Dydadic Experience and Monetary Reward as Determinants of Cooperative and Competitive Game Behaviour. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology, 1967, 5_, 282-294 . M i l l , J.S. A system o f - l o g i c , r a t i o c i n a t i v e and inductive, being a connected view of the p r i n c i p l e s of evidence and  the method of s c i e n t i f i c i nvestigation.184 3. Reprint: London: Longmans, Green, 19 30. Nemeth, C. A c r i t i c a l analysis of research u t i l i z i n g the prisoner's dilemma paradigm for the study of bargaining. In L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol.12) New York: "Academic Press, TTllT. 57 Oskamp, S. and K l i e n k e , C. Amount o f reward i n a v a r i a b l e i n the p r i s o n e r ' s dilemma game. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and  S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1970, 16, 133-140. Oskamp, S. and Per l m a n , D. F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g c o o p e r a t i o n i n p r i s o n e r ' s dilemma games, J o u r n a l o f C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n . 1965, 9, 358-374. Radlow, R., Weidner, M.F. and H u r s t , P.M. The e f f e c t o f i n c e n t i v e magnitudes and ' m o t i v a t i o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n ' upon c h o i c e b e h a v i o u r i n a two p e r s o n non-zero-sum game. • J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1968, 74_, 199-208. Spence, K.W. The n a t u r e o f t h e o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n i n contemporary p s y c h o l o g y . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1944, 51, 47-68. Tolman, E.C. O p e r a t i o n a l b e h a v i o u r i s m and c u r r e n t t r e n d s i n p s y c h o l o g y . I n P r o c . 25th A n n i v . C e l e b r . Inaug. Grad.  S t u d . Los A n g e l e s : U n i v e r s i t y o f South e r n C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1936. Wrightsman, L.S. P e r s o n a l i t y and a t t i t u d e c o r r e l a t e s o f t r u s t i n g and t r u s t w o r t h y b e h a v i o u r i n a two p e r s o n game. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 4, 328-332. APPENDIX A THE CALIFORNIA Q-SET 1. Is c r i t i c a l , s k e p t i c a l , not e a s i l y impressed. 2. Is a genuinely dependable and responsible person. • 3. Has a wide range of i n t e r e s t s . 4. Is a t a l k a t i v e i n d i v i d u a l . 5. Behaves i n a giving way toward others. 6. Is f a s t i d i o u s . 7. Favors conservative values i n a variety of areas. 8. Appears to have a high degree of i n t e l l e c t u a l capacity. 9. Is uncomfortable with uncertainty and complexities. 10. Anxiety and tension f i n d outlet i n bodily symptoms. 11. Is protective of those close to him or her. 12. Tends to be self-defensive. 13. Is thin-skinned; s e n s i t i v e to anything that can be construed as c r i t i c i s m or an interpersonal s l i g h t . 14. Genuinely submissive; accepts domination comfortably. 15. Is s k i l l e d i n s o c i a l techniques of imaginative play, pretending and humor. 16. Is introspective and concerned with s e l f as an object. 17. Behaves i n a sympathetic or considerate manner. 18. I n i t i a t e s humor. 19. Seeks reassurance from others. 20. Has a rapid personal tempo; behaves and acts quickly. 21. Arouses nurturant feelings i n others. 22. Feels a lack of personal meaning i n l i f e . 23. Extrapunitive; tends to transfer or project blame. 24. Prides s e l f on being "objective", r a t i o n a l . 25. Tends toward over-control of needs and impulses; binds tensions excessively; delays g r a t i f i c a t i o n unnecessarily. 26. Is productive; gets things done. 27. Shows condescending behavior i n relations with others. 28. Tends to arouse l i k i n g and acceptance i n people. 29. Is turned to for advice and reassurance. 30. Gives up and withdraws where possible i n the face of f r u s t r a t i o n and adversity. 31. Regards s e l f as p h y s i c a l l y a t t r a c t i v e . 32. Seems to be aware of the impression he or she makes on others. 33. Is calm, relaxed i n manner. 34. Over-reactive to minor fr u s t r a t i o n s ; i r r i t a b l e . 35. Has warmth; has the capacity for close relationships;, compassionate. 36. Is subtly n e g a t i v i s t i c ; tends to undermine and obstruct or sabotage. Adapted from Block, 1966. 59 37. I s g u i l e f u l and d e c e i t f u l , m a n i p u l a t i v e , o p p o r t u n i s t i c . 38. Has h o s t i l i t y towards o t h e r s . 39. T h i n k s and a s s o c i a t e s t o i d e a s . i n u n u s u a l ways; has u n c o n v e n t i o n a l t h o u g h t p r o c e s s e s . 40. I s v u l n e r a b l e ' t o r e a l o r f a n c i e d t h r e a t , g e n e r a l l y f e a r f u l . 41. I s m o r a l i s t i c . 42. R e l u c t a n t t o commit s e l f t o any d e f i n i t e c o u r s e o f a c t i o n ; t e n d s t o d e l a y o r a v o i d a c t i o n . 43. I s f a c i a l l y and/or g e s t u r a l l y e x p r e s s i v e . 44. E v a l u a t e s t h e m o t i v a t i o n o f o t h e r s i n i n t e r p r e t i n g s i t u a t i o n s . 45. Has a b r i t t l e e go-defense; has a s m a l l r e s e r v e o f i n t e g r a t i o n ; w ould be d i s o r g a n i z e d and m a l a d a p t i v e when under s t r e s s o r trauma. 46. Engages i n p e r s o n a l f a n t a s y and daydreams, f i c t i o n a l s p e c u l a t i o n s . 47. Has a r e a d i n e s s t o f e e l g u i l t y . 48. Keeps p e o p l e a t a d i s t a n c e ; a v o i d s c l o s e i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 49. I s b a s i c a l l y d i s t r u s t f u l o f p e o p l e i n g e n e r a l ; q u e s t i o n s t h e i r m o t i v a t i o n s . 50. I s u n p r e d i c t a b l e and changeable i n b e h a v i o r and a t t i t u d e s . 51. G e n u i n e l y v a l u e s i n t e l l e c t u a l and c o g n i t i v e m a t t e r s . 52. Behaves i n an a s s e r t i v e f a s h i o n . 53. V a r i o u s needs t e n d toward r e l a t i v e l y d i r e c t and uncon-t r o l l e d e x p r e s s i o n ; u n a b l e t o d e l a y g r a t i f i c a t i o n . 54. Emphasizes b e i n g w i t h o t h e r s ; g r e g a r i o u s . 55. I s s e l f - d e f e a t i n g . 56. Responds t o humor. 57. I s an i n t e r e s t i n g , a r r e s t i n g p e r s o n . 58. ' E n j o y s sensuous e x p e r i e n c e s ( i n c l u d i n g t o u c h , t a s t e , s m e l l , p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t ) . 59. I s concerned w i t h own body and the adequacy o f i t s p h y s i o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n i n g . 60. Has i n s i g h t i n t o own m o t i v e s and b e h a v i o r . 61. C r e a t e s and e x p l o i t s dependency i n p e o p l e . 62. Tends t o be r e b e l l i o u s and non-conforming. 63. Judges s e l f and o t h e r s i n c o n v e n t i o n a l terms l i k e " p o p u l a r i t y , " "the c o r r e c t t h i n g t o do," s o c i a l p r e s s u r e s , e t c . 64. I s s o c i a l l y p e r c e p t i v e o f a wide range o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l cues. 65. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y pushes and t r i e s t o s t r e t c h l i m i t s ; sees what he o r she can get away w i t h . 66. E n j o y s e s t h e t i c i m p r e s s i o n s ; i s e s t h e t i c a l l y r e a c t i v e . 67. I s s e l f - i n d u l g e n t . 68. I s b a s i c a l l y a n x i o u s . 69. I s s e n s i t i v e t o a n y t h i n g t h a t can be c o n s t r u e d as a demand. 60' 70. Behaves i n an e t h i c a l l y consistent manner; i s consistent with own personal standards. 71. Has high aspiration l e v e l for s e l f . 72. Concerned with own adequacy as a person, eit h e r at conscious or unconscious l e v e l s . 73. Tends to perceive many d i f f e r e n t contexts i n sexual terms; e r o t i c i z e s s i t u a t i o n s . 74. Is subjectively unaware of self-concern; feels s a t i s f i e d with s e l f . 75. Has a clear-cut, i n t e r n a l l y consistent personality. 76. Tends to project his own feelings and motivations onto others. 77. Appears straightforward, forthright, candid i n dealing with others. 78. Feels cheated and victimized by l i f e ; s e l f - p i t y i n g . 79. Tends to ruminate and have persistent, pre-occupying thoughts. 80. Interested i n members of the opposite sex. 81. Is p h y s i c a l l y a t t r a c t i v e ; good looking. 82. Has f l u c t u a t i n g moods. 83. Able to see to the heart of important problems. 84. Is cheerful. 85. Emphasizes communication through action and non-verbal behavior. 86. Handles anxiety and c o n f l i c t s by, i n e f f e c t , refusing to recognize t h e i r presence; repressive or d i s s o c i a t i v e tendencies. 87. Interprets b a s i c a l l y simple and clear-cut situations i n complicated and p a r t i c u l a r i z i n g ways. 88. Is personally charming. 89. Compares s e l f to others. Is a l e r t to r e a l or fancied differences between s e l f and other people. 90. Is concerned with philosophical problems; e.g., r e l i g i o n s , values, the meaning of l i f e , etc. 91. Is power oriented; values power i n s e l f or others. 92. Has s o c i a l poise and presence; appears s o c i a l l y at ease. 93. Behaves i n a s t y l e and manner.appropriate to his or her gender. 94. Expresses h o s t i l e feelings d i r e c t l y . 95. Tends to p r o f f e r advice. 96. Values own independence and autonomy. 97. Is emotionally bland; has flattened a f f e c t . 98. Is ve r b a l l y fluent; can express ideas well. 99. Is self-dramatizing; h i s t r i o n i c . 100. Does not vary roles; relates to everyone in the same way. 61 APPENDIX B. EXPANDED PRISONER'S DILEMMA GAME INSTRUCTIONS In t h i s e x p e r i m e n t b o t h you and a p a r t n e r w i l l be i n v o l v e d i n a s i t u a t i o n i n whi c h you can make some money. Your p a r t n e r w i l l be chosen anonymously by t h e e x p e r i -menter. He o r she w i l l n o t be t h e f r i e n d you came w i t h . The e x p e r i m e n t i s analogous t o a r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n i n whic h what you g a i n o r l o s e depends not o n l y on what you do, b u t a l s o on what someone e l s e does. The t a s k i t s e l f r e q u i r e s each o f you t o make d e c i s i o n s o r c h o i c e s , but b e f o r e you r e a d t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s we want t o s t r e s s how i m p o r t a n t i t i s t h a t you r e a d them c a r e f u l l y i n o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n d j u s t what you a r e g o i n g t o be d o i n g . When-e v e r we have r u n t h i s k i n d o f experiment i n t h e p a s t we found t h a t a g r e a t many pe r s o n s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n i t d i d not f u l l y u n d e r s t a n d t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s , and as a r e s u l t t h e y were n o t t o o s u r e o f what t h e y were d o i n g . F o r t h i s r e a s o n , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t you a r e g o i n g t o r e a d a r e r a t h e r d e t a i l e d , and as a c r u c i a l p a r t o f t h e ex p e r i m e n t q u e s t i o n s w i l l be asked t o a s s e s s your u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e s i t u a t i o n b e f o r e you b e g i n . There w i l l be a s e r i e s o f t r i a l s , and on each t r i a l you w i l l be r e q u i r e d t o make a d e c i s i o n o r c h o i c e between 62 two strategies, and at the same time the other person w i l l also choose one of the two strategies. You w i l l receive a monetary payoff based on these choices; however, neither of you can control the amount of thi s payoff by y o u r s e l f — the payoff w i l l depend on the way i n which the choices made by you and the other person combine. In other words, the two of you are Interdependent. Recall that under-standing of th i s s i t u a t i o n i s of extreme importance. On the basis of our previous studies we f e e l that there are two important aspects involved i n understanding the s i t u a t i o n : (1) understanding HOW to go about making your choice, and (2) understanding WHY you might want to make a pa r t i c u l a r choice. In the instructions we w i l l attempt to explain how you can make your choice, a rather simple and straightforward procedure, and we f e e l that a good understanding of th i s should enable you to understand why p a r t i c u l a r choices might be made. In any case, questions w i l l be asked of you to assess your understanding of what you w i l l be doing. WHAT WE ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN IS THAT WHEN YOU MAKE A PARTICULAR CHOICE YOU KNOW WHY YOU MADE THAT CHOICE: WHAT YOU EXPECT TO GAIN OR LOSE BY THAT CHOICE. 63 INSTRUCTIONS We have already noted that t h i s experiment i s an abstraction of a r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n i n which what you gain or lose depends not only on what you do, but also on what someone else does. In p a r t i c u l a r , we have a sum of money to divide up. The way this money i s divided depends on the choices that both of you make during the experiment. We should note that you may or may not exhaust the e n t i r e supply of money i n the tray during the exper-i m e n t — t h i s w i l l depend upon your choices. However, we want to assure you that whatever amount you make during the experiment you w i l l be allowed to keep, and whateve'r i s l e f t over w i l l return to the grant from which i t came. This money i s not coming out of the experimenter's pocket, but rather i t i s from a grant given for the purpose of conducting t h i s experiment. Observe the diagram on the table i n front of you. You are Persons A and B r e s p e c t i v e l y — i f the l e t t e r on the table i n front of you i s A, then you are Person A; i f the T e t t e r B i s i n front of you, then you are Person B. There w i l l be twenty t r i a l s i n t h i s experiment and t h i s i s what you w i l l each do on a t r i a l : Person A w i l l choose between the Choice 1 row and the Choice 2 row of the diagram' (rows run h o r i z o n t a l l y ) , and at the same time Person B w i l l choose between the Choice 1 column and the Choice 2 column of the diagram (columns run v e r t i c a l l y ) . On any given t r i a l then, each of you may choose either 1 ' or 2. In order to i l l u s t r a t e how the payoffs are assoc-iated with your choices, l e t us assume that on a t r i a l Person A chooses 1, and Person B chooses 2. This i s shown on the diagram below. CHOICE 1 PERSON A CHOICE 2 CHOICE 1 CHOICE 2 PERSON B By choosing 1., Person A has determined that the payoff w i l l come from the TOP row of the diagram; by choosing 2, Person B has determined that the payoff w i l l come from the RIGHT HAND column of the diagram. You can see that these two choices overlap i n the TOP RIGHT HAND c e l l of the diagram. The top number i s the payoff to Person A, and the bottom number i s the payoff to Person B. These numbers represent pennies so in thi s case Person A would f receive nothing and Person B would receive f i v e pennies ($.05). S i m i l a r l y , you can see that i f you each choose 2, your choices overlap i n the LOWER RIGHT HAND c e l l , and you each w i l l receive one penny. Now that you see how the payoffs are determined, consider what would happen i f you both choose 1. Or, what would happen i f Person A chooses 3 and Person B chooses 1. Notice that each of you has a choice between two alt e r n a t i v e s , and that there are four possible ways that the choices can combine to determine a payoff. Two of these payoffs favour both of you equally (3,3 and 1,1), but one i s larger than the other; the remaining payoffs favour one person but not the other (0,5 and 5,0). There w i l l be twenty t r i a l s i n the experiment, and a l l choices are final--once you have indicated your choice, you w i l l not be allowed to change to the other a l t e r n a t i v e . You w i l l not be allowed to communicate with each other-^this means no sighing, laughing, or any other form of communication which might indicate how you fe e l about given outcomes, or how you would l i k e the other person to behave. Remember also that your partner w i l l be chosen by the experimenter so that you do not know which of the group you are paired with. You w i l l indicate your choice on the response box by pressing either the button marked 1 or the button marked 2. Your choice w i l l be shown i n amber on the 66 d i s p l a y . When b o t h o f you have made your c h o i c e s an e l e c t r i c c i r c u i t w i l l be completed and you w i l l see j u s t what th e o t h e r p e r s o n chose. T h e i r c h o i c e w i l l be shown i n r e d on the d i s p l a y . Check what c e l l your p a y o f f i s i n and pay y o u r s e l f by t a k i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e number o f c o i n s from the t r a y . Note t h e n , t h a t n e i t h e r o f you w i l l know what th e o t h e r p e r s o n has chosen u n t i l a f t e r b o t h o f you have i n d i c a t e d y o u r c h o i c e s . You w i l l pay y o u r s e l f a f t e r each t r i a l . When the d i s p l a y r e s e t s i t s e l f t o 0 p r o c e e d t o t h e n e x t t r i a l u n t i l a t o t a l o f 20 t r i a l s have been completed. A t t h i s p o i n t the e x p e r i m e n t w i l l be c o n c l u d e d and you may keep whatever amount of money you have ac c u m u l a t e d o v e r the 20 t r i a l p e r i o d . NOTE: Because the consequences o f your c h o i c e s a r e q u i t e i m p o r t a n t i n terms o f t h e d i f f e r e n t amounts o f money you can make on a t r i a l , i t s h o u l d be o b v i o u s t o you t h a t i t i s a good i d e a t o t r y and f i g u r e o u t j u s t what c h o i c e the o t h e r p e r s o n i s l i k e l y t o make b e f o r e you d e c i d e t o choose 1 o r 2. 67 APPENDIX C T a b l e I . Q - I t e m — B e h a v i o u r C o r r e l a t e s f o r a l l i t e m s , c h o i c e and l a t e n c y b e h a v i o u r , p e n n i e s and q u a r t e r s ' c o n d i t i o n s . (n=30, each c o n d i t i o n ) P e n n i e s C o n d i t i o n Q u a r t e r s C o n d i t i o n Item C h o i c e L a t e n c y C h o i c e L a t e n c y B e h a v i o u r B e h a v i o u r B e h a v i o u r B e h a v i o u r 1 -.1835 .4166 -.1461 .3973 2 .0376 -.0189 .2138 -.0844 3 -.0642 .0568 .2655 .0246 4 -.1108 -.2220 .1392 -.1097 5 .3291 -.0008 -.1719 -.3054 6 .2412 -.2544 -.2814 -.0158 7 .1129 -.0635 . 1221 .3188 8 -.3731 .2467 -.1464 .0181 9 -.0617 -.2028 .1080 -.0621 10 -.1177 - .0779 . 1582 .0204 11 . 3587 -.1396 -.1494 .1251 12 -.2023 -.1769 -.1099 -.0790 13 .0595 .0135 .0687 -.1998 14 .2268 -.1158 .0215 .0777 15 .0221 -.3132 . 1512 -.0696 16 .0838 . 1585 -.4079 .0314 17 .1935 -.1522 -.0505 -.4112 18 .1457 -.2255 .0259 -.0058 19 " .3906 .1839 .0355 -.1079 20 -.1241 -.1733 -.1330 .2428 21 -.3609 -.1599 .0187 .0264 22 .0287 .1479 -.2762 -.2398 23 - .4268 -.1289 .0319 -.1380 24 -.1556 .1540 .1134 .0128 25 -.1536 .2253 -.0576 -5.0061 26 .0445 .0363 .2128 .0231 27 .0420 -.0747 .2391 -.1044 2.8 .0678 -.3900* . 3772 -.0406 29 .2580 .0282 .0169 -.2431 30 -.0524 .1481 -.2942 -.1310 31 -.1619 .1733 . 0348 .1145 32 .0150 -.1674 - .2620 .3496 33 -.0670 -.1123 -.1407 -.1538 34 -.0951 .3676 -.0934 .1796 35 . 4240 -.1324 -.1577 -.0633 68 T a b l e I . Q - I t e m — B e h a v i o u r C o r r e l a t e s , c o n t i n u e d . P e n n i e s C o n d i t i o n Q u a r t e r s C o n d i t i o n -•Item C h o i c e L a t e n c y C h o i c e L a t e n c y B e h a v i o u r t B e h a v i o u r B e h a v i o u r Behaviou: 36 -.1395 -.0251 -.0106 .2003 37 -.1076 .0223 .1023 .2184 38 .1525 .0834 -.2299 .3755 39 .0918 -.0857 .1940 -.0691 40 .2188 -.0694 -.3566 -.3044 41 .0601 -.0111 .1207 .2297 42 -.0860 .2732 -.0396 -.3016 43 -.2463 -.2450 .1048 .0480 44 .1247 -.1279 -.2221 .2654 45 -.0430 .1602 -.1357 -.1519 46 .1138 -.1888 -.1081 -.1042 47 .1194 .3722 .0607 -.0840 48 -.0695 .1623 .1588 .1034 49 -.1546 .1938 -.0774 .5331 50 -.0409 .0393 -.1034 .0962 51 -.0722 .1512 . .0772 -.3069 52 -.1912 .0926 .4223 .2157 53 -.1877 -.1470 .2057 .0135 54 -.0628 -.1199 . 1192 -.2593 55 . 3584 -.1723 .1104 -.1440 56 .0041 -.4465 .0106 -.1445 57 .0877 -.1941 .2592 .0392 58 .2059 -.2252 -.1729 .0646 59 -.1998 .1008 -.1547 .0211 60 -.0692 .2158 . 3686 -.2860 61 -.0052 -.2392 .1806 .1827 62 -.0468 -.1286 -.1875 .2135 63 -.3457 .0347 -.0903 -.1148 64 .0921 -.0121 - .0494 -.0975 65 .0733 -.2386 -.0810 .3064 66 . 3572 .2922 - .0602 -.1335 67 -.2749 -.2401 .0174 .0264 68 .0543 .024 3 -.0854 -.2657 69 -.1561 .1963 -.1044 .0106 70 . 1463 . 3125 .1138 -.1923 71 -.1787 . 3628 .0356 -.0859 72 .0 710 -.0558 - .2992 -.1387 73 -.4510 -.1346 -.0309 -.0547 74 -.0963 -.0654 . 1074 .1991 75 .1135 -.0293 .3932 -.1076 Q-Item--Behaviour C o r r e l a t e s , c o n t i n u e d . P e n n i e s C o n d i t i o ^ Q u a r t e r s C o n d i t i o n C h o i c e  B e h a v i o u r -.1841 . 1748 . 3472 .2357 -.0006 -.1326 -.0100 -.1255 . 2278 -.0908 .0022 -.0124 .2397 -.1687 .2740 -.0521 -.1831 -.1760 .0714 .0042 .2963 -.2496 . 1654 -.0575 -.0077 L a t e n c y B e h a v i o u r -.1097 -.2734 .0740 -.0554 -.4162 .0293 .1168 .1126 -.2754 .2049 -.3404 -.0242 .0508 .1858 .4746 -.1593 .2472 - .0668 .0291 .2684 .2356 .0113 -.0818 -.1458 .0139 C h o i c e  B e h a v i o u r .1069 -.0556 -.2268 .0077 -.2075 -.1021 -.0991 -.2540 .2292 .1320 -.0957 -.0803 -.1739 .1127 . 3039 .2 306 .0536 .0146 -.0431 -.0941 -.1071 . 1376 . 0338 -.0399 -.1673 L a t e n c y  B e h a v i o u r .2883 -.1911 -.1620 -.1298 .1111 .15 8 7 -.1051 -.2046 -.0709 .2566 -.0832 -.2071 -.2884 -.2691 -.0960 .3638 .1642 .1736 .2995 -.0829 .1624 -.0830 -.1065 .0398 -.2227 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095553/manifest

Comment

Related Items