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  N A T U R E OF C O N S T R U C T S  SOCIAL  PSYCHOLOGICAL  IN  RESEARCH  by  WILFRED JOACHIM B.A.,  University  A THESIS THE  of  SUBMITTED  ZERBE  British  IN  Columbia,  PARTIAL  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  MASTER  OF  1978  FULFILMENT  THE D E G R E E  OF  ARTS  in THE  F A C U L T Y OF GRADUATE (Department  We  accept to  THE  this the  of  required  Wilfred  as  conforming  standard  OF B R I T I S H  September  (c)  Psychology)  thesis  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  COLUMBIA  19 81  Joachim  Zerbe,  1981  OF  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and study.  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . understood t h a t  copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s  f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l n o t be allowed without my  permission.  Department o f  Psychology  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date  Iti s  January 15  f  1982  Columbia  written  ABSTRACT  A fundamental assumption i n s o c i a l research,  t h a t the c o n s t r u c t u n d e r l y i n g  psychological conditions  experiment i s s t a b l e and v a r i e s only i n q u a n t i t y itions,  i s explored.  i n an ^  across  cond-  I t i s argued t h a t i n s t e a d the r e s u l t  of the m a n i p u l a t i o n of the independent v a r i a b l e i s a q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e between the r e l e v a n t p s y c h o l o g i c a l ructs.  A d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between t h e o r i e s o f e m p i r i c a l  constructs  and those which p o s i t unobservable,  constructs. only  const-  The assumption o f c o n s t r u c t  hypothetical  stability relates  to t h e o r i e s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s between h y p o t h e t i c a l  ructs.  const-  The l a c k o f d i r e c t access t o the i d e n t i t y of geno-  t y p i c processes underlying a t i o n s allows  observable behaviour or manipul-  the p o s s i b i l i t y o f c o n s t r u c t  Methods o f improving access d i s c u s s e d  instability.  centre on i n c r e a s i n g  the number and d i v e r s i t y of o b s e r v a t i o n s  by r e p e a t i n g the  o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n and measurement of v a r i a b l e s 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 t o the c o n s t r u c t of i n t e r e s t . The Q-sort method o f c o r r e l a t i n g behaviour w i t h items descr i p t i v e o f p e r s o n a l i t y i s proposed as a method of examining the i d e n t i t y o f c o n s t r u c t s thesis that conditions  and thus of a s s e s s i n g  the hypo-  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 a p p l i e d to an examination of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n c e n t i v e and c h o i c e oner's Dilemma game.  and l a t e n c y behaviour i n the P r i s -  A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between cond-  iii i t i o n s was found f o r c h o i c e  behaviour but not f o r l a t e n c 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 , however, were d i f f e r e n t i n each c o n d i t i o n and f o r each behaviour, s u p p o r t i n g the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t c o n d i t i o n s d i f f e r i n some meaningful way. stronger  t e s t o f the hypothesis i n v o l v e d the c o n s t r u c t i o n  of templates d e s c r i b i n g the i d e a l - p e r s o n a l i t y most to e x h i b i t the designated  behaviour.  ment w i t h the h y p o t h e s i s , conditions.  likely  These templates were  able t o p r e d i c t behaviour w i t h i n c o n d i t i o n s  were very  A  and, i n agree-  no p r e d i c t a b i l i t y was found  across  However, w i t h i n - c o n d i t i o n v a l i d a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s  low, such t h a t the across  uninterpretable.  conditions  r e s u l t s were  I t was concluded t h a t the Q-sort method,  while a t t r a c t i v e , i s constrained to t e s t the h y p o t h e s i s .  i n i t s usefulness  Discussion  and a b i l i t y  i n c l u d e d examination o f the  l i n k between q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s 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  t h a t s o c i a l psychology improve  i t s r e c o g n i t i o n of m e t h o d o l o g i c a l assumptions made and of how these and t h e o r i e s 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 o f Tables  .  s  L i s t of Figures Acknowledgement's CHAPTER 1:  Introduction  • Constructs  i n S o c i a l Psychology .  I d e n t i f y i n g Constructs The Q-sort  . . . .. .  Method  The P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma Game . . . CHAPTER 2 :  Method  Overview Subjects Q-sort P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma Game . . . . . Dependent Measures CHAPTER 3 :  R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n  Manipulation  Check  I n c e n t i v e and Latency E f f e c t s . . F a c t o r Analyses Q-item--Behaviour C o r r e l a t e s Assessing  ..  Qualitative Differences  CHAPTER 4 : C o n c l u s i o n s L i m i t a t i o n s o f the Q-sort  Method  Person by S i t u a t i o n I n t e r a c t i o n . Implications REFERENCES  V  APPENDIX A The C a l i f o r n i a Q-Set  58  APPENDIX B Expanded P r i s o n e r ' s  Dilemma  Game I n s t r u c t i o n s  . . . .  61 .  APPENDIX C Q-item-Behaviour C o r r e l a t e s  . .  67  vi  L I S T OF  TABLES  PAGE T A B L E 1. F a c t o r each  loadings  condition,  from K e l l e y  o f pre-game r a t i n g s f o r and approximate  e t a l . (1968)  T A B L E 2. Q - i t e m — b e h a v i o u r behaviour,  Pennies  T A B L E 3. Q - i t e m — b e h a v i o u r behaviour,  Pennies  T A B L E 5. Q - i t e m — b e h a v i o u r behaviour,  correlates  f o r PD  Choice  condition correlates  28 f o r PD  Choice  correlates  29 f o r PD  Latency  condition correlates  30 f o r PD  Latency  Quarters.condition - -  T A B L E 6. M e a n r a t i n g s  T A B L E 7. C o r r e l a t i o n s  31  of individuals described  Q-item—behaviour  templates  25  Quarters condition  T A B L E 4. Q - i t e m — b e h a v i o u r behaviour.  loadings  correlates  between  similarity  33 to  and b e h a v i o u r  T A B L E 8. C o r r e l a t i o n s and b e h a v i o u r  between  scale  by  '  38  scores 43  vii  APPENDIX C.  PAGE TABLE 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 items,  c h o i c e and l a t e n c y behaviour, pennies and quarters conditions.  „  67  viii  L I S T OF  FIGURES PAGE  FIGURE  1.  P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma Game p a y o 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 h e  impetus and d i r e c t i o n f o r t h i s t h e s i s supervisor.  I am a l s o  a s my p r i n c i p a l  i n d e b t e d t o t h e o t h e r members o f  my c o m m i t t e e , D r . Bob Knox f o r h i s s u p p o r t a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t , D r . Danny Kahneman f o r h i s i n s i g h t a n d e x p e r t i s e , and  Dr. P h i l  despite  Smith  f o r a g r e e i n g t o s e r v e on t h e committee  b e i n g c a l l e d upon l a t e i n t h e p r o c e s s  y e t making a r e a l  and even  contribution.  I am g r a t e f u l f o r t h e u s e o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia,  Anthropology  and S o c i o l o g y S m a l l  L a b o r a t o r y , a n d t o D r . Reg R o b s o n f o r h i s in  i t s use.  Groups  assistance  1  CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Research i n s o c i a l psychology seeks t o e s t a b l i s h the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between v a r i a b l e s p e r t i n e n t , t o s o c i a l behavi o u r , and does so w i t h i n a w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l framework.  T h i s framework has two main requirements which  researchers  attempt to f u l f i l l .  The f i r s t  i s t h a t the oper-  a t i o n a l i z a t i o n or m a n i p u l a t i o n i s c o n c e p t u a l l y the independent v a r i a b l e o f i n t e r e s t .  related to :  Second i s t h a t the  measure used i s r e l a t e d t o the dependent v a r i a b l e as  intended.  U l t i m a t e l y , however, these requirements are assumed and e f f o r t i s d i r e c t e d at maintaining tions.  the v a l i d i t y o f the assump-  These assumptions concern the c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of  the o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d m a n i p u l a t i o n and measure: t h a t the psycho 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 t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between m a n i p u l a t i o n and measure i s c l e a r l y d i s c e r n i b l e . An ognized.  a d d i t i o n a l assumption i s made, however, but not r e c I t i s t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e i n the dependent v a r i a b l e  r e f l e c t s a q u a n t i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e i n the c o n s t r u c t l y i n g the independent v a r i a b l e . erences  i n the  under-  That i s , i f q u a n t i t a t i v e  diff-  independent v a r i a b l e r e s u l t i n q u a n t i t a t i v e  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the dependent v a r i a b l e i t i s assumed t h a t this difference also r e f l e c t s a quantitative difference i n the i n t e r v e n i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t . psychological construct  A q u a n t i t y of a  i s assumed to e x i s t i n a given  cond-  2  i t i o n and across c o n d i t i o n s the i d e n t i t y of the c o n s t r u c t i s s t a b l e ; i t v a r i e s only i n q u a n t i t y ,  For example, i n a  of the e f f e c t s of i n c e n t i v e on c o o p e r a t i o n would manipulate some o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o r i a h i g h l e v e l of i n c e n t i v e i n one i n another.  The  two  study  an experimenter —payoff—  to c r e a t e  c o n d i t i o n and a low  c o n d i t i o n s are c r e a t e d  level  identically  ( s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s take great care i n t h i s ) except f o r the q u a n t i t y of the conceptual i s present.  Any  v a r i a b l e or c o n s t r u c t which  difference in  subjects'  subsequent  behaviour i s i n t e r p r e t e d as a r e f l e c t i o n of t h i s q u a n t i t a t i v e difference. This t h e s i s questions  the assumption t h a t the  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 i n q u a n t i t y o n l y , an of c o n s t r u c t s t a b i l i t y . i s t h a t , a t times,  The  construct assumption  p r i n c i p a l argument of t h i s t h e s i s  the r e s u l t of manipulation  of the  independ-  ent v a r i a b l e i s a q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e i n the r e l e v a n t p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t s across c o n d i t i o n s .  That i s , r a t h e r  than 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 i n an experiment being the same, d i f f e r i n g o n l y i n q u a n t i t y , i t i s i n f a c t d i f f e r e n t across c o n d i t i o n s . independent m a n i p u l a t i o n  The  qualitatively  construct underlying  the  i n c o n d i t i o n A i s d i f f e r e n t from t h a t  u n d e r l y i n g c o n d i t i o n B. Constructs  i n S o c i a l Psychology  I t i s important term " c o n s t r u c t " . represents  to c o n s i d e r e a r l y what i s meant by  the  A c o n s t r u c t i s d e f i n e d as a concept which  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between e m p i r i c a l l y v e r i f i a b l e  3 events  or processes.  usually  represent  Thus t h e r e servable  Independent  a specific  i s the construct  behaviour  (1948), h o w e v e r , h a v e  ply  constructs  argued  of empirical  of  unobserved processes  and  "involve they  directly "pure"  habit  strength,  constructs Festinger's The  to  variables assumption defined  as used  no h y p o t h e s i s  reducible  constructs  that  variables"  to empirical  arenot Instances  a r e Tolman's demand, Examples  by M i l l e r  as  or the occurrence  i n original)."  psychological  i s applicable This  only  i s because  the combination  Hull's  of hypothetical  and D o l l a r d , and  constructs  i s valid.  i fconstructs  and manipulation  I f the construct  nothing  Dilemma  differ  where h y p o t h e t i c a l  o r o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s then  as being  Prisoner's  variables  of the  dissonance.  involved. be o n l y  manipulation  or entities  italics  a r e "sim-  f o rintervening  and Lewin's valence.  argument t h a t  conditions are  entities  are not wholly  (p.104;  are anxiety  between  (p.103)", a n d h y p o t h e t i c a l  refer to processes  intervening  and Meehl  variables which  by a s p e c i f i e d  terms which  observed  which i s  MacCorquodale  "do n o t m e e t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s  terms;  of  aggression  f o ra d i s t i n c t i o n  o f nonobserved  variable.  i s r e l a t e d t o ob-  v a r i a b l e s " and " i n v o l v e  the existence  variables  o r conceptual  which  or intervening  to  which  anxiety  factors.  (quantities) obtained  values  construct  or the construct  affected' by environmental  empirical  and dependent  more t h a n  constructs  a r e thought of empirical  the quantitativity cooperation  a n A" r e s p o n s e  game a n d o u r t h e o r y  across  respects  i s i nt h e  that def-  4 i n i t i o n then the assumption may be v a l i d . theory  However, i f our  says t h a t s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n the PD a f f e c t the  h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t cooperation---  a motivational  state  r e f l e c t i n g t r u s t and empathy^— then the assumption o f q u a n t i t a t i v i t y i s questionable. A l l c o n s t r u c t s are t h e o r e t i c a l - - a l l r e l a t e t o a s p e c i f i c theory  about the  dent v a r i a b l e s .  r e l a t i o n s h i p between independent and depenS o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s have, however, borrowed  a methodology based on t h e o r i e s about e m p i r i c a l and As  a p p l i e d i t t o t h e o r i e s about h y p o t h e t i c a l a consequence we have gained  to r e c o g n i z e  constructs.  an assumption but have  failed  i t . We d e a l mainly with S<-0-R r e s e a r c h but a c t  as i f i t was e x c l u s i v e l y S-R r e s e a r c h . we have access  only t o the stimulus  In S^O^R  are s e v e r e l y c o n s t r a i n e d .  research  and the response.  ences we make about the p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes two  constructs  l i n k i n g the  We do not have d i r e c t  to the i d e n t i t y o f the h y p o t h e t i c a l processes  Infer-  access  which u n d e r l i e  the behaviour we observe. Spence  (1944) r e l a t e s the task o f the s c i e n t i s t  as  t h a t of attempting t o d i s c o v e r ever more g e n e r a l i z e d laws by which the observable events w i t h i n h i s f i e l d of study may be brought i n t o 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 r e f i n e s (mainly i n the d i r e c t i o n of q u a n t i t a t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ) h i s concepts o r v a r i a b l e s , arranges h i g h l y c o n t r o l l e d (experimental) c o n d i t i o n s o f o b s e r v a t i o n and i n t r o d u c e s t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s (Spence, 19 44, p. 47). T h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s o r c o n s t r u c t s are e s s e n t i a l  5  t o s c i e n c e and t o psychology. explanatory  They are the " a b s t r a c t  p r i n c i p l e s " (Marx, 1951, p. 4) which e l e v a t e -  p s y c h o l o g i c a l theory  above the l e v e l of anecdote or mere  c o l l e c t i o n of o b s e r v a t i o n s .  Marx says t h a t w h i l e d i r e c t  e m p i r i c a l measurement i s the fundamental task of s c i e n c e too many phenomena appear too remotely r e l a t e d t o immedia t e l y o b s e r v a b l e v a r i a b l e s t o permit such a d i r e c t approach. For t h i s reason n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s have developed  theories  "based upon but not e n t i r e l y r e d u c i b l e t o bare e m p i r i c a l measurements  (Marx, 1951, p. 4 ) . " Constructs  on the b a s i s o f observed r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  are i n f e r r e d  This r e s u l t s i n a  t r e n d toward ambiguity which i s e s p e c i a l l y marked i n a complex f i e l d  like  psychology.  Aronson and C a r l s m i t h  (196 8) s t a t e the problem as  follows: the d i f f i c u l t y occurs because i n b u i l d i n g the experiment we do not d e a l d i r e c t l y w i t h conceptual v a r i a b l e s . We must d e a l w i t h imperfect t r a n s l a t i o n s o f conc e p t u a l v a r i a b l e s (p.>13). we have a conceptual variable...whose e f f e c t we wish t o study. There are many ways t o t r a n s l a t e t h i s a b s t r a c t conceptual v a r i a b l e i n t o a concrete experimental o p e r a t i o n . . . How can we. be sure t h a t t h i s o p e r a t i o n i s , i n f a c t , an e m p i r i c a l r e a l i z a t i o n of our conceptual variable? Or, conversely, how can we a b s t r a c t a conceptual v a r i a b l e from our procedure? (p. 14) T h e i r concern i s about a l a c k of' c o n s t r u c t across  experiments  s i t u a t i o n which has  validity  serious  consequences.  6 One i s r e f l e c t e d i n the complaint t h a t s o c i a l research  cannot be g e n e r a l i z e d  psychological  from the l a b o r a t o r y t o the  r e a l world, t h a t i t l a c k s e c o l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y . construct it  underlying  behaviour i s f a l s e l y  I f the  i d e n t i f i e d then  f o l l o w s t h a t i t w i l l not be g e n e r a l i z a b l e or comparable  t o other  settings.  A f u r t h e r r e s u l t i s the d i f f i c u l t y i n  replicating findings.  S i m i l a r l y , w h i l e c o n s t r u c t s may o r  may not be c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d ,  such l a c k of i n s i g h t i n t o  the t r u e determinant of behaviour r e s u l t s i n a s u r p l u s o f a l t e r n a t e explanations  f o r findings.  of a l t e r n a t e conceptual tionship The  Few s t u d i e s a r e f r e e  v a r i a b l e s which d e s c r i b e  the r e l a -  between the independent and dependent v a r i a b l e . p o s i t i o n being  advocated here i s t h a t  social  psychologists  should  a l s o show concern about the i d e n t i t y  of c o n s t r u c t s  across  c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n experiments.  we can compare across within  settings.  s e t t i n g s we must have  comparability  The absence of such c o m p a r a b i l i t y  uces problems very q u i c k l y .  Before  prod-  Much of the s c i e n t i f i c method  i s based on M i l l ' s method o f "concomitant v a r i a t i o n " ( M i l l , 1843;  Boring,  1969) which r e q u i r e s t h a t c o n d i t i o n s be quant-  itatively different.  The n o t i o n o f a v a r i a b l e i s o f a s i n g l e  concept changing i n q u a n t i t y .  A d i f f e r e n c e i n the dependent  measure i n an experiment i s t y p i c a l l y a t t r i b u t e d t o the i n dependent m a n i p u l a t i o n .  Differences  i n subjects'  choice  behaviour are i n f e r r e d as due t o the d i f f e r e n c e i n p a y o f f . However, they are not n e c e s s a r i l y due t o a d i f f e r e n c e i n the interveningjhypothetical construct psychological constructs  cooperation  are d i f f e r e n t across  and i f the r e l e v a n conditions  then  the e f f e c t o f a s i n g l e be  c o n s t r u c t on the dependent measure cannot  inferred. Similarly,  i t i s common f o r s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l exper-  iments t o c o n t a i n o n l y one dependent measure. o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t o f most relevance  The psych-  t o t h i s measure i s  assumed t o be the same across c o n d i t i o n s .  But i f c o n d i t i o n s  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 f o l l o w s t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the behaviour of s u b j e c t s r e f l e c t s d i f f e r e n t p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes. single  qualitatively  The r e s t r i c t i o n t o a  dependent measure produces p h e n o t y p i c a l l y  similar  behaviour t h a t may r e f l e c t very d i f f e r e n t genotypic logical  psycho-  processes.  We have seen the problem p s y c h o l o g i s t s face i n correctly  identifying  c o n s t r u c t s and i n making i n f e r e n c e s  on the b a s i s of unobservable processes.  I f t h i s i s the case,  f o r experiments then i t i s a l s o the case f o r c o n d i t i o n s i n experiments.  And i f c o n s t r u c t s are f a l s e l y i d e n t i f i e d i n  experimental  c o n d i t i o n s then these c o n d i t i o n s may be q u a l -  itatively different. construct underlying  Rather than a s i n g l e  conditions, multiple different  e q u a l l y unknown, may be p r e s e n t . t r u c t s be  identified?  perhaps unknown constructs,  How then can these cons-  8  I d e n t i f y i n g Constructs Aronson and C a r l s m i t h ' s (1968) chapter i n The Handbook of S o c i a l Psychology, represents  a  "Experimentation i n S o c i a l Psychology"  most cogent a n a l y s i s o f the importance o f  c o r r e c t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the conceptual v a r i a b l e l y i n g a given experimental s e t t i n g .  under-  They p o i n t out t h a t  w h i l e the problem of a s s u r i n g v a l i d o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of a conceptual v a r i a b l e o r h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t i s not unique t o s o c i a l psychology, i t i s more acute because our manipul a t i o n s are o f t e n extremely complex. tions,  They present two s o l u -  aimed a t i n c r e a s i n g the c o n f i d e n c e we have i n the  v a l i d i t y of our c o n s t r u c t s .  The f i r s t  i s that a set of  experiments must possess a number of e m p i r i c a l techniques which d i f f e r i n as many ways as p o s s i b l e , having i n common only (the) b a s i c c o n c e p t u a l v a r i a b l e . If a l l these techniques y i e l d the same r e s u l t , then we.become more and more convinced t h a t the u n d e r l y i n g v a r i a b l e which a l l the techniques have i n common i s , i n f a c t , the v a r i a b l e producing the r e s u l t s (p. 15). The second procedure i s t o show t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r e m p i r i c a l r e a l i z a t i o n o f our independent v a r i a b l e produces a l a r g e number o f 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 t o the independent v a r i a b l e (p.16). S o l u t i o n s s i m i l a r t o these have been d i s c u s s e d by Brunswik  (1956), Campbell  (1957), and Campbell and  Stanley  (196 3 ) .  Carlsmith's  The p r o p e r t y  common t o A r o n s o n  and  s o l u t i o n s i s the r e p l i c a t i o n of r e s u l t s :  a number o f d e p e n d e n t  v a r i a b l e s or over  operational!zations.  The  on s i n g l e d e p e n d e n t a p p e a r s t h a t we  over  independent  r e l i a n c e i n s o c i a l psychology  m e a s u r e s has  already  are. p e r p e t u a t i n g  been s t a t e d .  the problem r a t h e r  It  than  c o n t r i b u t i n g t o the s o l u t i o n . Increasing looking  t h e number o f d e p e n d e n t  f o r t h e o r e t i c a l linkages  assess the v a l i d i t y dependent relevance,  w h a t we  correlate with the  and  i s commonly how  of constructs.  v a r i a b l e , we  measures  Given that,  theorists f o r any  c a n n o t be c e r t a i n o f t h e c o n s t r u c t  c a n do i s s e e how  s c o r e s on t h e v a r i a b l e  o t h e r v a r i a b l e s which are supposed  same c o n s t r u c t .  I n t h i s way  of t h e measure i s a s s e s s e d .  o f most  the "construct  t o measure  validity"  A s i m i l a r method, w h i c h  m u l t i p l e measures t o examine t h e c o n s t r u c t  underlying  uses the  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 a n d F u n d e r  (1978)  have p r o p o s e d t h e Q - s o r t method  t o a s s e s s " t h e 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 "phenomenology of the s i t u a t i o n " .  This  m e t h o d i s b a s e d on  a r g u m e n t 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 c a n be  the described  i n t e r m s 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 given  way  i n the s e t t i n g .  So,  f o r example,  D i l e m m a s i t u a t i o n c a n be d e s c r i b e d ality  o f a p e r s o n who  a  Prisoner's  i n terms o f the p e r s o n -  tends t o choose a g i v e n  response.  10 Restated, the phenomenology or c o n c e p t u a l v a r i a b l e  under-  l y i n g behaviour i n a s e t t i n g can be expressed i n terms of the type of person e x h i b i t i n g the behaviour. T h i s method employs the C a l i f o r n i a Q-Set, a persona l i t y assessment  tool,  d e v i s e d by  Block  (1961).  In  f a c t , Block has a l s o used VWL Q-set i n the manner o u t l i n e d by Bern and Funder  (Block, 1977) .  The Q-Set c o n s i s t s of  100 d e s c r i p t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y statements, to delay g r a t i f i c a t i o n  ".  such as " i s unable  These items are s o r t e d by a  judge i n t o nine c a t e g o r i e s r a n g i n g from l e a s t t o most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the person b e i n g d e s c r i b e d .  Statements  which are n e i t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c nor u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c are p l a c e d i n the middle c a t e g o r i e s .  A s p e c i f i e d number of  statements are p l a c e d i n each category, w i t h fewest i n the extremely c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and  uncharacteristic  c a t e g o r i e s , more i n the moderately  characteristic  and  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c c a t e g o r i e s , and so on, with the most items i n the n e u t r a l category.  This r e s u l t s i n a bell-shaped  d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h mean 5 and standard d e v i a t i o n about The Q-Set was a descriptive tool.  designed f o r use by c l i n i c i a n s I t was  2.  as  intended t h a t they s o r t the  items as they would d e s c r i b e 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 b e i n g compared t o one another,  or  t o a h y p o t h e t i c a l " p e r f e c t l y a d j u s t e d person".  study,  as Bern and Funder have proposed,  In t h i s  the Q-Set w i l l be used t o  d e s c r i b e the e x p e r i m e n t a l s e t t i n g .  T h i s i s accomplished  11 by c o r r e l a t i n g Q-item setting, setting.  ratings  with behaviour i n the  a c r o s s a l l i n d i v i d u a l s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the The Q-items which c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y  (p<.10)  w i t h behaviour i n d i c a t e 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 t o e x h i b i t the behaviour or the type of person doing the behaving.  For example, the Q-item  to d e l a y g r a t i f i c a t i o n "  c o u l d be h i g h l y  " i s unable  negatively  c o r r e l a t e d with behaviour i n the s e t t i n g ,  indicating  that  people who are a b l e t o d e l a y g r a t i f i c a t i o n a r e those t h a t s c o r e h i g h l y and hence,  t h a t delay o f ^ g r a t i f i c a t i o n i s  an important component o f the behaviour i n the s e t t i n g and of i t s phenomenology. Bern and Funder  (1978). used t h i s Q-Sort technique t o  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. two  In one, c h i l d r e n were asked t o choose between  food items.  They were then t o l d t h a t the experimenter  was g o i n g t o s i t on the o t h e r s i d e o f the room and t h a t when he or she r e t u r n e d t h e c h i l d c o u l d have the p r e f e r r e d snack.  The c h i l d c o u l d have the l e s s p r e f e r r e d snack a t  any time by summoning the experimenter.  Delay time was  the l e n g t h o f time u n t i l the experimenter was summoned, up to 15 minutes.  Q-sort d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the c h i l d r e n were  o b t a i n e d from t h e i r parents, u s i n g the C a l i f o r n i a Q-Set  (Block and Block, 1969).  The items which  Child  correlated  p o s i t i v e l y with d e l a y time d e p i c t e d a c h i l d who adopts h i g h standards o f performance,  becomes p r o t e c t i v e of o t h e r s , i s  12  helpful,  c o o p e r a t i v e , empathic,  considerate, thoughtful,  and capable of d e v e l o p i n g c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  Bern and  Funder d e s c r i b e t h i s d e p i c t i o n as q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t with the l i t e r a t u r e on ego c o n t r o l and p r o - s o c i a l behaviour. N e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d items i n c l u d e " i s unable t o d e l a y gratification"  and d e s c r i b e the long d e l a y i n g c h i l d as  e m o t i o n a l l y unexpressive and not r e s t l e s s or f i d g e t y . However, the c h i l d i s a l s o d e p i c t e d as not very i n t e l l i g e n t , not v e r b a l l y f l u e n t , not eager t o l e a r n , not open t o experiences, and not s e l f - a s s e r t i n g ,  cheerful,  new  interesting,  or c r e a t i v e .  Bern and Funder say t h a t t h i s suggests  the c h i l d who  d e l a y s i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s as a c c u r a t e l y  d e s c r i b e d as one who  is dull,  p a s s i v e , and obedient t o  a u t h o r i t y as he or she i s d e s c r i b e d as one who l a r g e amount of s e l f - c o n t r o l Bern and Funder  "that  possesses a  (p. 490)."  compared t h e i r d e l a y of g r a t i f i c a t i o n  experiment with one by Block  (1977).  In Block's experiment,  c h i l d r e n were g i v e n a wrapped present and t o l d t h a t i t would remain  wrapped u n t i l he or she completed a p u z z l e .  experimenter helped the c h i l d complete about f o u r minutes  t o do so.  The  the p u z z l e , t a k i n g  The c h i l d then waited a  f u r t h e r 90 seconds w h i l e the experimenter b u s i e d h e r s e l f . During t h i s time the g i f t was time was  i n the c h i l d ' s s i g h t .  Delay  the time d u r i n g the 90 second i n t e r v a l b e f o r e the  c h i l d took the p r e s e n t .  Q-set items which c o r r e l a t e d with  d e l a y i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n were " i s p l a n f u l ,  t h i n k s ahead",  13  " i s a t t e n t i v e and able to concentrate",  "is reflective",  " t h i n k s and d e l i b e r a t e s b e f o r e a c t i n g . " p r e d i c t o r of delay  ( n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d ) was  t o delay g r a t i f i c a t i o n . " passive-obedient  single  " i s unable  In t h i s s i t u a t i o n the  dull-  c l u s t e r of items emerging from Bern and  Funder's experiment i s absent. t h a t these  The best  Bern and Funder  concluded  represent two s i t u a t i o n s t h a t appear c o n c e p t u a l l y e q u i v a l e n t but t h a t are f u n c t i o n a l l y q u i t e d i f f e r e n t and i t would appear t h a t d i f f e r e n t subsets of c h i l d r e n are delay-, i n g i n the two s e t t i n g s . T y p i c a l l y , one l e a r n s o n l y t h a t behaviour across two theoretically similar situations i s d i s a p p o i n t i n g l y i n c o n s i s t e n t ... Q-set i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e s v a l u a b l e guidance t o the i n v e s t i g a t o r who needs to redes i g n an experimental procedure so t h a t i t serves i t s intended conceptual purpose. Even p s y c h o l o g i s t s who have no i n t e r e s t i n i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s per se should welcome t h i s entree i n t o the phenomenology of the s i t u a t i o n s they have c r e a t e d (p. 491).  Bern and Funder's comparison of two t i o n experiments i s an example of how  delay of g r a t i f i c a -  two  similar settings  can have very d i f f e r e n t u n d e r l y i n g c o n s t r u c t s . as w e l l , how  the Q-sort technique  I t shows,  can be used t o uncover  the c o n s t r u c t or conceptual v a r i a b l e u n d e r l y i n g a given experimental  setting.  s e t t i n g s i n two  d i s t i n c t experiments i t s h o u l d be  t h a t the technique i s o n of two  While Bern and Funder examined clear  can be s i m i l a r l y a p p l i e d t o the compar-  or more s e t t i n g s i n a s i n g l e experiment,  s p e c i f i c a l l y to c o n d i t i o n s 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 o f the  assumption o f a q u a n t 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 might be The  assessed. experimental  use o f t h e Q-sort  paradigm chosen t o demonstrate t h i s  technique i s the P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma game.  T h i s s e t t i n g was chosen f o r two reasons.  First,  evidence  e x i s t s t o suggest t h a t c o n d i t i o n s assumed t o be q u a n t i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t might, i n f a c t , be q u a l i t a t i v e l y T h i s evidence w i l l be presented  below.  Prisoner's'Dilemma game r e p r e s e n t s  Second, the  a social  r e s e a r c h paradigm which has been c r i t i c i z e d and  l i f e l e s s compared t o other  settings.  not an o v e r l y complex, convoluted  different.  psychological as being  I t i s , therefore,  s e t t i n g i n which the man-  i p u l a t i o n i s so c o n t r i v e d o r e l a b o r a t e t h a t  qualitatively  d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s would be expected t o r e s u l t . it  stark  Rather,  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 r e l e v a n t p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t c o n d i t i o n s and r e p r e s e n t s ,  across  i n p r a c t i c e , a conservative  t e s t o f the argument t h a t such q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t . The  P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma Game A s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of research  i n s o c i a l psych-  ology has i n v o l v e d the PD and s i m i l a r mixed-motive games. Some o f t h i s r e s e a r c h has been c r i t i c i z e d with  regard t o the study o f b a r g a i n i n g  as l a c k i n g meaning  and i n t e r p e r s o n a l  15 i n t e r a c t i o n as i t occurs It  i n r e a l l i f e ( e . g . , Nemeth, 1972).  has been argued t h a t low or imaginary  payoffs i n Prisoner's  Dilemma Game experiments make them u n g e n e r a l i z a b l e to r e a l life. in  Research which has t r i e d  behaviour  to show t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s  e x i s t between high and  has produced e q u i v o c a l f i n d i n g s . (1966) and Knox and Douglas of did,  low p a y o f f c o n d i t i o n s  Evans  (1971) found  (1964), Wrightsman little  i n c e n t i v e on mean l e v e l of c o o p e r a t i o n .  or no  Knox and  effect Douglas  however, f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n i n t e r s u b j e c t  response v a r i a t i o n under high i n c e n t i v e . McNeel  McClintock  and  (1967) found m a r g i n a l l y more c o o p e r a t i o n under high  i n c e n t i v e i n a maximizing d i f f e r e n c e game. (1965) found reward.  Oskamp and  Perlman  a s m a l l e f f e c t with g r e a t e r c o o p e r a t i o n under high  Radlow, Weidner and  under r e a l than imaginary  Hurst  payoffs.  (1969) examined responses over  (1968) found more c o o p e r a t i o n Gumpert, Deutsch and  Epstein  f i v e reward l e v e l s / c o n c l u d i n g  t h a t no d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d over a l l c o n d i t i o n s although did  f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between i n d i v i d u a l s i n the  r e a l and in  they  imaginary  the former.  d o l l a r s c o n d i t i o n , with l e s s  Oskamp and K l i e n k e  ences over f i v e l e v e l s and  cooperation  (1970) showed no  i n another  differ-  experiment, found  a  n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t t r e n d toward more c o o p e r a t i o n i n a no reward condition. These c o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s c o u l d be due r e l a t i o n s h i p such t h a t whether c o o p e r a t i o n was decreased  to a nonlinear i n c r e a s e d or  depends on the l e v e l s of i n c e n t i v e chosen.  They  16  c o u l d be the r e s u l t o f improper o r u n r e l i a b l e experimental procedures.  I t c o u l d a l s o be t h a t not a l l the r e s e a r c h e r s  were s t u d y i n g by set  researchers  the same phenomenon.  T h i s has been n o t i c e d  who emphasize the importance of i n s t r u c t i o n a l  (Radlow, Weidner and Hurst, 1968).  kinds  could r e s u l t  conceptual Gallo  Results  of a l l  from the l a c k o f c o n s i s t e n c y  variables underlying  (1966) has s t a t e d :  different  i n the  conditions.  As  ,  another a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t cannot be d i s r e g a r d e d i s t h a t t h e meani n g of the s i t u a t i o n i s changed for' the s u b j e c t s when r e a l money i s a t s t a k e . . . I n a d d i t i o n , the meaning of v a r i o u s behaviours may be a l t e r e d when r e a l money i s a t stake (p. 19 ). In a mixed motive n e g o t i a t i o n s i t u a t i o n s i m i l a r t o the PD, K e l l e y , Shure, Deutsch, Faucheux, Moscovici,  Nuttin,  Rabbie, and Thibaut  Lanzetta  (1970)  examined  the e f f e c t of p o i n t s versus money as i n c e n t i v e s .  They  found t h a t money had p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s on the n e g o t i a t i o n such t h a t agreement was reached more q u i c k l y and more f r e q u e n t l y and w i t h g r e a t e r g a i n ever,  f o r the i n d i v i d u a l s .  they a l s o found t h a t money as compared t o p o i n t s probably does more than merely i n c r e a s e the v a l u e t o the s u b j e c t of the n e g o t i a t i o n outcomes. F a c t o r analyses of the meaning of c o o p e r a t i o n - competition i n the money and p o i n t s c o n d i t i o n s suggests t h a t the d e f i n i t i o n of the s i t u a t i o n i s m o d i f i e d t o some degree by the type of incentive. Money tends t o make the s i t u a t i o n one i n which c o o p e r a t i o n competition means Dynamism (weak and  How-  17  p a s s i v e versus s t r o n g and active)' r a t h e r than E v a l u a t i o n (Moral and honest versus immoral and d i s h o n e s t ) . T h i s more s u b t l e e f f e c t seems to be t h a t the s i t u a t i o n becomes a more i n s t r u m e n t a l or t a s k - l i k e one with money and more i n t e r p e r s o n a l or moral i n i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s when the i n c e n t i v e i s merely p o i n t s (p. 434). •  These s t u d i e s  s t r o n g l y suggest t h a t research  the e f f e c t of i n c e n t i v e on cooperation  may  paradigm i n which what i s assumed to be  s h o u l d a l s o be  represent  a  an e x c l u s i v e l y -  q u a n t 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 founded with the e x i s t e n c e  examining  i s a c t u a l l y con-  of a q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e .  It  c l e a r t h a t the Q-sort method can be used t o  assess the phenomenology of or c o n s t r u c t t i o n s w i t h i n an e x p e r i m e n t a l s e t t i n g .  underlying  condi-  According to  the  Q-sort technique, i f only a q u a n t i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s we  would expect the Q-item - behaviour c o r r e l a t e s to  the same i n each c o n d i t i o n .  be  That i s , the same type of  people would be e x h i b i t i n g the behaviour i n each c o n d i t i o n , the d i f f e r e n c e being t h a t i f i n c e n t i v e a f f e c t s behaviour  people  I f , however, a  i n one  c o n d i t i o n would e x h i b i t more of i t  q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s , we  expect t o f i n d d i f f e r e n t c o r r e l a t e s . a test.  cooperative  What f o l l o w s  would i s such  18 CHAPTER TWO:  METHOD  Overview S u b j e c t s a r r i v e d i n p a i r s and were ushered i n t o the room where the experiment was to take p l a c e .  The g e n e r a l  course o f the experiment was o u t l i n e d and s u b j e c t s were asked to  s i g n informed consent forms.  They were then i n t r o d u c e d  to  the C a l i f o r n i a Q-Set, l i s t e n e d  to and read the i n s t r u c -  t i o n s , and used the Q-Set to d e s c r i b e the person "they came with.  When a l l s u b j e c t s had completed  the p e r s o n a l i t y  d e s c r i p t i o n s these were c o l l e c t e d and response boxes f o r the P r i s o n e r ' s game s e t out. read i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the PD.  S u b j e c t s then heard and were S u b j e c t s completed  pregame  r a t i n g s o f the PD b e f o r e p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n 20 t r i a l s w i t h an anonymous p a r t n e r .  A post game q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n c l u d e d  r a t i n g the PD and a m a n i p u l a t i o n check.  S u b j e c t s were  then t o l d t h a t the experiment was over, any d e c e p t i o n s and the reasons f o r them were e x p l a i n e d , and they were  thanked  and a l l o w e d t o l e a v e . Subjects S i x t y undergraduate the experiment.  s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d as s u b j e c t s In  V o l u n t e e r s , a t the time they were r e c r u i t e d ,  were asked t o b r i n g a f r i e n d w i t h them to the experiment, someone who would be a b l e t o d e s c r i b e them f a i r l y  well.  Both i n d i v i d u a l s s e r v e d as s u b j e c t s i n the same e x p e r i m e n t a l session.  S u b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t the experiment would  19 i n v o l v e d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d 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 .  S u b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t they would have  an o p p o r t u n i t y t o earn some money but were not t o l d how much. Q-sort S u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the experiments i n groups of  two t o f o u r p a i r s .  I n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s were seated  at  s m a l l separate t a b l e s , out o f d i r e c t s i g h t of each o t h e r  S u b j e c t s were t o l d they were "going t o complete a persona l i t y d e s c r i p t i o n 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 . " S u b j e c t s were then g i v e n i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the Q-sorf» taken from Block read t o them.  (1961).  These i n s t r u c t i o n s were a l s o  The Q-items, a l s o taken from Block  (1961)  were presented on s m a l l c a r d s , and a f o l d e r was p r o v i d e d to  aid i n their sorting  A.).  (Q-items used are l i s t e d  S u b j e c t s were asked  person  t o use the Q-sort t o d e s c r i b e the  they came to the s e s s i o n w i t h .  40 minutes.  i n Appendi  S o r t i n g took  about  When a l l s u b j e c t s were f i n i s h e d the f o l d e r s  were c o l l e c t e d . P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma Game A f t e r completion  o f the Q-sort by a l l s u b j e c t s , they  p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma game.  Response  boxes used f o r the PD were s e t up on each t a b l e . were asked  t o choose "A" or "B" f o r each o f twenty  Subjects trials.  S u b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t t h e i r p a y o f f depended on the i n t e r -  20 s e c t i o n o f t h e i r c h o i c e and t h a t of the person anonymously p a i r e d w i t h . F i g u r e 1.  they were  The p a y o f f matrix i s shown i n  S u b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t they would be p a i r e d  w i t h someone i n the room other than the person  they came  with.  were p r e -  In f a c t , the "other" person's  responses  programmed to f o l l o w a random 60% c h o i c e "B" schedule and were i d e n t i c a l f o r a l l s u b j e c t s .  I n s e r t F i g u r e 1.  about  here  S u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n e i t h e r a Pennies i n c e n t i v e or a Quarters  i n c e n t i v e c o n d i t i o n , decided a t random.  f i g u r e s i n the c e l l s o f the p a y o f f matrix thus pennies  represented  and q u a r t e r s i n the r e s p e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n s .  were informed  of the " o t h e r ' s " c h o i c e a f t e r each  and p a i d themselves immediately number o f c o i n s from a t r a y .  The  Subjects  trial,  by t a k i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e  I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the PD  were adapted from Knox and Douglas'  (1968) expanded  i n s t r u c t i o n s and were aimed a t maximizing the understanding and  r e l e v a n c e of the game s i t u a t i o n .  ' Dependent Measures A f t e r h e a r i n g the i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the PD but b e f o r e p a r t i c i p a t i n g , s u b j e c t s were asked  to r a t e the s i t u a t i o n  i n which they were about t o p a r t i c i p a t e on each of e i g h t  21  F i g u r e 1.  P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma Game p a y o f f  Matrix  (Payoff t o Person 1 i s top number i n c e l l s , p a y o f f t o Person 2 i s bottom number).  3  0  3  5  5  1  0  1  CHOICE A  PERSON 1  CHOICE B  CHOICE A  CHOICE B  PERSON 2  7-point b i p o l a r s c a l e s .  The anchors  f o r the s c a l e s were:  p a s s i v e - a c t i v e , dishonest-honest, h o s t i l e - p e a c e f u l , f o o l i s h , c o o p e r a t i v e - c o m p e t i t i v e , weak-strong, cowardly,  and moral-immoral  of the PD.  i n the P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma  they chose "A" o r "B") and the l a t e n c y of t h e i r ( i n seconds) were recorded by the experimenter A f t e r completing  brave-  ( a f t e r K e l l e y e t . a l . , 1970).  S u b j e c t s then p a r t i c i p a t e d i n 20 t r i a l s S u b j e c t s ' responses  wise-  (whethe  choice during play.  the PD s u b j e c t s were again asked t o  use the e i g h t b i p o l a r t o d e s c r i b e the s i t u a t i o n i n which they had j u s t p a r t i c i p a t e d . manipulation also  A check of the i n c e n t i v e  (how w e l l s u b j e c t s f e l t they were paid) was  completed.  23 CHAPTER THREE: Manipulation  RESULTS AND  check.  A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was t i o n s on  a check of the  consisted of a r a t i n g  to "extremely  condition = 4.38,  felt  p<  found between c o n d i -  incentive manipulation.  by s u b j e c t s o f how  were p a i d , u s i n g a 9 - p o i n t well"  DISCUSSION  w e l l they  scale ranging  poorly" .  Subjects  1  they were b e t t e r p a i d  This  from  i n the  (2.0 v s .  check  felt  they  "extremely quarters 3.6,  t(60)  .001) .  I n c e n t i v e and  Latency  effects.  Comparison of the  number  of A o r " c o o p e r a t i v e " responses between c o n d i t i o n s r e v e a l e d a significant  incentive effect.  Subjects  i n the  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 " over  the twenty t r i a l s  (9.6  v s . 7.3,  c o n d i t i o n s was in 6.53  t(60)  than  - 2.19  f o u n d on  6.31,  t  (60)  i n the pennies  p<.05).  the  seconds f o r the pennies and  those  No  = 0.22,  responses condition  d i f f e r e n c e between  l a t e n c y measure and  quarters  (mean l a t e n c y  quarters conditions p<.10).  was  24 Factor  Analyses  A p r i n c i p a l components a n a l y s i s of the pregame s c a l e r a t i n g s f o r each c o n d i t i o n was ented two  performed.  This repres-  an attempt a t r e p l i c a t i o n of K e l l e y e t . a l . ' s (1970)  f a c t o r s o l u t i o n - E v a l u a t i v e and Dynamism - i n which  the s c a l e " c o o p e r a t i o n - c o m p e t i t i o n " was loaded depending on A two  payoff.  f a c t o r s o l u t i o n of the data c o l l e c t e d i n t h i s  study and mean l o a d i n g s taken p. 4 30)  are shown i n Table  t h i s study  differentially  from K e l l e y e t . a l . (1970,  1.  The p a t t e r n s r e s u l t i n g from  f i t a Dynamism v s . E v a l u a t i v e model l e s s w e l l  than K e l l e y e t . a l . ' s data.  I n s e r t Table  1. about here  In K e l l e y e t . a l . ' s study  the e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r  d e f i n e d by high l o a d i n g s of d i s h o n e s t - h o n e s t , p e a c e f u l , and moral<rimmoral..  was  hostile*-  The dynamism f a c t o r  was  d e f i n e d by high l o a d i n g s on p a s s i v e - a c t i v e , w i s e - f o o l i s h , weak-strong and  brave cowardly.  They found  that cooperation-  c o m p e t i t i o n was  loaded more on Dynamism when r e a l money  i n c e n t i v e was  used and more on E v a l u a t i v e when p o i n t s  i n c e n t i v e was  used.  In t h i s study  the l o a d i n g s of  c o m p e t i t i o n d i d not d i f f e r a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s . several possible explanations of the f a c t o r s may  for this.  First,  cooperation-  There are the  identity  not be the same i n both PD c o n d i t i o n s .  Table  1.  F a c t o r loadings o f pregame r a t i n g s f o r each c o n d i t i o n , and mean loadings from K e l l e y e t . a l . (1970).1  Pennies Condition Scale  Eval. Factor  Dynam. Factor  Quarters Condition: Eval. Factor  Dynam. Factor  Kelley e t . a l . Eval. Factor  Dynamo Factor  .52  1  passive-active  .39  -.42  -.29  -.76  2  dishonest-honest  .54  -.09  .68  -.18  .67  3  hostile-peaceful  .04  .89  .70  .22  -.43  4  wise-foolish  .05  .72  -.59  5  cooperative-competitive  . 35  -.30  -.37  -.27  6  weak-strong  .69  -.52  -.08  -.76  7  brave-cowardly  -.85  .12  -.23  . 79  8  moral-immoral  -.78  -.18  -.85  .01  -.41  . 55 . 35  .30 .55 .56  .64  The f a c t o r loadings f o r K e l l e y e t . a l . were obtained and presented f o r each of e i g h t experimental s i t e s , these have been averaged f o r comparison here.  . 2 6 Agreement and  w i t h the K e l l e y e t . a l s o l u t i o n i s s m a l l  varied.  Both h o s t i l e - p e a c e f u l and brave-cowardly, f o r  example, are loaded high on one f a c t o r i n a given but  are loaded high  condition.  on the opposite  condition  f a c t o r i n the a l t e r n a t e .  Secondly, t h i s disagreement c o u l d be a conse-  quence o f having s u b j e c t s  describe  the PD s i t u a t i o n  r a t h e r than, as i n K e l l y e t . a l . , t h e i r own behaviour. K e l l y e t . a l . argue t h a t Evaluative-Dynamism are key f a c t o r s i n the descriptio'n o f behaviour. descriptions of situations. in,  This may n o t be t r u e f o r  T h i r d l y , the d i s c r e p a n c i e s  r e s u l t s may stem from d i f f e r e n c e s between the mixed-  motive game used by K e l l y e t . a l . and the P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma game. Q-item — The  Behaviour c o r r e l a t e s f i n d i n g o f 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 would  normally l e a d one t o conclude t h a t i n c e n t i v e i s q u a n t i t a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to cooperation.  However examination o f the Q-  items which c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y  (p< .10) with  Aror "cooperative"  that  behaviour r e v e a l s  different  Q-items p r e d i c t behaviour i n each c o n d i t i o n : subset o f s u b j e c t s  are "cooperating"  choice  a different  i n each c o n d i t i o n .  The  f i n d i n g t h a t a d i f f e r e n t type o f person i s making the A response lends support t o the hypothesis t h a t d i f f e r e n t phenomenology i n each c o n d i t i o n . c o r r e l a t e s with PD choice Quarters c o n d i t i o n s  t h i s response has a Q-item  behaviour i n the pennies and  are shown i n Tables 2 and 3., r e s p e c t i v e l y .  27  Q-item correlates with pennies T a b l e 5,  and q u a r t e r s  PD latency  conditions  behaviour i n the  a r e shown i n T a b l e  respectively.  I n s e r t T a b l e s 2,  3,. 4, a n d  5  about  here  4  and  28  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 P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma Choice behaviour, Pennies c o n d i t i o n . Q-item  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  r behaviour  Has warmth, has the c a p a c i t y f o r c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s Seeks reassurance from others Is p r o t e c t i v e of those c l o s e t o him or her Enjoys a e s t h e t i c impressions Is s e l f - d e f e a t i n g F e e l s cheated and v i c t i m i z e d by l i f e Behaves i n a g i v i n g way toward others Values own independence and autonomy Is concerned w i t h p h i l o s o p h i c a l problems Is t u r n e d t o f o r advice and reassurance Is f a s t i d i o u s Items c o r r e l a t i n g .negatively with c h o i c e A  p <.01 p < .05 p < .10  *** ** ** ** ** ** ** * * * *  behaviour  Tends t o p e r c e i v e many d i f f e r e n t contexts i n s e x u a l terms E x t r a p u n i t i v e , tends t o t r a n s f e r or p r o j e c t blame Appears'to have a h i g h degree of i n t e l l e c t u a l c a p a c i t y Arouses n u r t u r a n t f e e l i n g s i n others Judges s e l f and others i n c o n v e n t i o n a l terms l i k e popularity Is s e l f i n d u l g e n t Is e m o t i o n a l l y b l a n d Is 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 •k-k-k  42 39 36 36 36 35 33 30 27 26 24  -.45 *** -.43 *** -.37 ** -.36 -.35 -.27 -.25 * -.24 *  29  T a b l e 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 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  correlating; p o s i t i v e l y with choice A behaviour  B e h a v e s i n an a s s e r t i v e f a s h i o n 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 Tends t o a r o u s e l i k i n g a n d a c c e p t a n c e i n p e o p l e Has i n s i g h t i n t o own m o t i v e s a n d b e h a v i o u r Is concerned w i t h p h i l o s o p h i c a l problems Has a w i d e r a n g e o f i n t e r e s t s 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 Items  •  .42 .39 .38 .37 .30 .27 .26  *** ** ** ** * * *  c o r r e l a t i n g negatively with choice A behaviour  I s i n t r o s p e c t i v e and c o n c e r n e d w i t h s e l f as o b j e c t Is v u l n e r a b l e t o r e a l or fancied threat, f e a r f u l C o n c e r n e d w i t h own a d e q u a c y a s a p e r s o n G i v e s up a n d 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 Is f a s t i d i o u s 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 Seems t o be a w a r e o f t h e i m p r e s s i o n he o r s h e makes on others Able 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 v * * *  ** *  p<C.01 P <: . 05 p < . 10  -.41 -.36 -.30 -.29 -.28 -.28  ** ** * * * *  -.26 * -.25 *  30 Table 4.  Q-item behaviour c o r r e l a t e s f o r P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma l a t e n c y behaviour, Pennies c o n d i t i o n Q-item  Items c o r r e l a t i n g p o s i t i v e l y with  r  latency  Is concerned w i t h p h i l o s o p h i c a l problems , 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 Has a r e a d i n e s s t o f e e l g u i l t y Over r e a c t i v e t o minor f r u s t r a t i o n s , i r r i t a b l e Has high a s p i r a t i o n l e v e l f o r s e l f Behaves i n an e t h i c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t manner Enjoys a e s t h e t i c impressions 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 course of action Tends t o p r o f f e r a d v i c e Has s o c i a l p o i s e and presence Appears t o have a high degree of i n t e l l e c t u a l c a p a c i t y  .47 .42 .37 .37 .36 .31 .29  *** ** ** ** ** ** *  .27 .27 .25 .25  * * * *  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 l a t e n c y Responds to humour I n t e r e s t e d i n members of o p p o s i t e sex Tends to arouse l i k i n g and acceptance i n people Handles a n x i e t y and c o n f l i c t s by r e f u s i n g to r e c o g n i z e t h e i r presence Is s k i l l e d i n s o c i a l techniques of i m a g i n a t i v e p l a y Is c h e e r f u l , . Appears s t r a i g h t forward, f o r t h r i g h t , candid Is 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 Is f a s t i d i o u s *** ** *  p < .01 p< .05 p< .10  -.45 -.42 -.39  *** ** **  -.34 -.31 -.28 -.27 -.25 -.25  ** ** * * *  31 Table 5.  Q-item behaviour c o r r e l a t e s f o r P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma l a t e n c y behaviour, Quarters c o n d i t i o n .  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 w i t h l a t e n c y Is b a s i c a l l y d i s t r u s t f u l of people, q u e s t i o n s m o t i v a t i o n 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 Has h o s t i l i t y toward others Is power o r i e n t e d values power i n s e l f and others Seems t o be aware of the impression he o r she makes on others Famous c o n s e r v a t i v e values i n a v a r i e t y of areas C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y pushes and s t r e t c h e s l i m i t Expresses h o s t i l e f e e l i n g s d i r e c t l y Tends t o p r o j e c t h i s or her f e e l i n g s and m o t i v a t i o n s E v a l u a t e s the m o t i v a t i o n s of others i n i n t e r p r e t i n g situations Emphasizes communication through a c t i o n Has a r a p i d p e r s o n a l tempo, behaves and a c t s q u i c k l y  .53 .40 .38 .36  *** ** ** **  .35 ** . 32 ** .31 ** .30 * .29 * .26 * .26 * .24 *  Items c o r r e l a t i n g n e g a t i v e l y with l a t e n c y Behaves i n a sympathetic or c o n s i d e r a t e manner Genuinely values i n t e l l e c t u a l and c o g n i t i v e matters Behaves i n a g i v i n g way toward others Is v u l n e r a b l e t o r e a l or f a n c i e d t h r e a t , f e a r f u l 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 course of action Is p e r s o n a l l y charming Has i n s i g h t i n t o own motives and behaviour Compares s e l f t o o t h e r s , i s a l e r t t o d i f f e r e n c e s Is b a s i c a l l y anxious 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 Is turned t o f o r a d v i c e and reassurance *** ** *  p <.01 p <.05 p <. . 10  -.41 ** -.31** -.30 ** -.30 * -.30 -.29 -.29 -.27 -.26 -.26 -.24  * * * * * * *  To'test  f u r t h e r the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the  Q-item—  behaviour c o r r e l a t e s c o n t r a s t  between Tables 2 and  the  5 on the o t h e r ,  one  hand and  Tables 4 and  d i s t i n c t personality  types,  3 on  depict  v o l u n t e e r undergraduate  s t u d e n t s , a c t i n g as judges, were asked to c o n s i d e r  these  c o r r e l a t e s as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ( f o r p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t e s ) uncharacteristic person  (for negative correlates)  of a  hypothetical  (each judge c o n s i d e r e d c o r r e l a t e s f o r one  c o n d i t i o n - b e h a v i o u r combination o n l y ,  incentive  the number of  examining each combination i s shown i n Table 6). judges were asked to r a t e the h y p o t h e t i c a l by  the  c o r r e l a t e s on  described Results  earlier,  are  the e i g h t  and  described  scales  to p r o v i d e a l a b e l f o r the  shown i n Table  judges  These  person  7-point r a t i n g  and  person.  6.  I n s e r t Table 6 about here  J u d g e s 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 c o o p e r a t i v e , a n d more weak  (p<£.05, o v e r a l l  149.8, p < . 0 0 1 ) compared t o r a t i n g s o f t h e p e r s o n by t h e q  U a  r t e r s condition correlates.  t h e 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 r r e l a t e s was  rated significantly  (p<.05, o v e r a l l  T  2  (34) = 1 0 7 . 1 ,  more p a s s i v e , T  (33) =  2  described  For latency behaviour  condition-behaviour more p a s s i v e and  p<.001).  moral  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 b y Q - i t e m — b e h a v i o u r  Choice Scale (0 a n c h o r - 7  anchor)  Behaviour  Pennies Condition (n=21)  Quarters Condition (n=21) ( p < . 0 5 ) 6 .19  correlates.  Latency Pennies Condition (n=20) 3.55  Behaviour Quarters Condition (n=23)  1  passive-active  3.43  ( p < .05)  2  dishonest-honest  5.52  5.00  5. 35  3.87  3  hostile-peaceful  4. 76  5.00  2 .55  1.78  4  wise-foolish  4.00  3.62  3.05  4.52  5  cooperative-competitive  2.00  ( p < . 0 5 ) 4.86  5.20  6.43  6  weak-strong  3.14  ( p < . 0 5 ) 5.81  3.85  5.22  7  brave-cowardly  4.57  2.90  4 . 30  3.74  8  moral-immoral  2.48  3.10  2.65  ( p < .05)  6.22  4.65  .  Typical  l a b e l s given t o the person described  pennies condition-choice and  caring,  insecure,  b e h a v i o u r c o r r e l a t e s were  l a b e l s given t o the  behaviour description.  A n t i s o c i a l and u n f r i e n d l y ,  l a b e l s given to the person described  behaviour correlates.  condition-latency  behaviour correlates  as s e l f - c e n t e r e d and  unfriendly.  self-  typical  by t h e p e n n i e s  condition-latency  hostile  and  quarters'condition^choice  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  labelled  nurturant  i n t r o v e r t e d a n d p a s s i v e as o p p o s e d  to 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 , extraverted sociable,  by t h e  The  quarters  depicted  and e g o t i s t i c a l ,  a person .  aggressive,  . 35 Assessing Qualitative  Differences  A c c o r d i n g t o Bern and Funder's  (19 78) method, Q-item—'•  behaviour c o r r e l a t e s d e p i c t the phenomenology of the s e t t i n g to which the method i s a p p l i e d .  A d i f f e r e n t s e t of c o r r e l a t e s  i n each of the c o n d i t i o n s i n t h i s study thus supports the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t these c o n d i t i o n s d i f f e r i n an important However, assessment  way.  of a d i f f e r e n c e . i n phenomenology or  underlying constructs across c o n d i t i o n s necessitates of the c o r r e l a t e s i n a way  analysis  u n r e l a t e d to the s u b j e c t i v e  content of the Q-item c o r r e l a t e s .  Examination of the Q - i t e m —  behaviour c o r r e l a t e s alone cannot d i s t i n g u i s h between condi 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 c o r r e l a t e s are the m a n i f e s t a t i o n of a single, stable construct.  ~  To assess the h y p o t h e s i s of c o n s t r u c t i n s t a b i l i t y i n a way  u n r e l a t e d to the impressions conveyed  content of the Q - i t e m — b e h a v i o u r  by the s u b j e c t i v e  correlates,  "templates" were  c o n s t r u c t e d f o r each c o n d i t i o n and behaviour, as o u t l i n e d by Bern and Funder  (1978).  Bern and Lord (1979) d e s c r i b e a template  as a " p e r s o n a l i t y d e s c r i p t i o n of the h y p o t h e t i c a l i d e a l person who  i s most l i k e l y to d i s p l a y the designated behaviour i n t h a t  situation  (p.834)."  the composite  Templates  are c o n s t r u c t e d by  Q-sort of the e n t i r e s u b j e c t sample.  done by w e i g h t i n g those items which c o r r e l a t e behaviour by adding or s u b t r a c t i n g  adjusting This i s  (p<.10) w i t h  (depending on the s i g n 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 d e v i a t i o n of the item.  That i s Q. = x  M. 1  +  <3.w. 1 1  where Q^ i s the a d j u s t e d o r template mean o f the i t h item, and  a r e the mean and standard d e v i a t i o n , r e s p e c t i v e l y ,  of the i t h item f o r the s u b j e c t sample, and w^ i s the weighting  factor  (-2 or 0) r e f l e c t i n g the r e l e v a n c e o f  the i t h item t o the c r i t e r i o n behaviour being c h a r a c t e r i z e d . 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 with behaviour  correlated  a r e i n f l a t e d by two times t h e i r  standard  d e v i a t i o n and so a r e 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 n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d are made "more u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . "  A c c o r d i n g t o Bern and Funder  (1978) the h i g h e r the c o r r e l a t i o n between a person's and the template, the behaviour.  Q-sort  the more l i k e l y t h a t person i s t o d i s p l a y  However, because the template  i s based on  the mean Q-item r a t i n g s , the c l o s e r the person i s t o the average  Q-sort,  the. h i g h e r the c o r r e l a t i o n w i l l a l s o be.  T h e r e f o r e , t o c o n s t r u c t an index of a person's t o the template, template,  h i s or h e r Q-sort i s c o r r e l a t e d with the  and s u b t r a c t e d from t h i s value i s h i s or her  Q-sort's c o r r e l a t i o n with the group average Q-sort". template  similarity  or  "composite  The r e s u l t i n g s i m i l a r i t y s c o r e s should, i f the d e s c r i b e s the s i t u a t i o n , be h i g h l y p o s i t i v e l y  c o r r e l a t e d w i t h behaviour  i n the s e t t i n g .  In t h i s  study  the c o r r e l a t i o n between s u b j e c t ' s s i m i l a r i t y scores and t h e i r behaviour behaviour, tively,  i n the s e t t i n g was .62 and .45 f o r c h o i c e  i n the pennies  and q u a r t e r s c o n d i t i o n s , respec-  and .56 and .68 f o r l a t e n c y behaviour  i n the same  r e s p e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n s (p<C.01,  n= 30, o n e - t a i l e d ) .  These r e p r e s e n t however, c o r r e l a t i o n s between behaviour and templates c o n s t r u c t e d on the b a s i s of t h a t behaviour, a procedure which c a p i t a l i z e s on chance.  Therefore, w i t h i n  c o n d i t i o n v a l i d a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were c a l c u l a t e d by randomly s p l i t t i n g each c o n d i t i o n , f o r each h a l f and computing  constructing  templates  a s i m i l a r i t y score f o r each  s u b j e c t o f h i s p r her s i m i l a r i t y t o the template d e r i v e d from the o t h e r h a l f .  These independent  were then c o r r e l a t e d with behaviour. t  s i m i l a r i t y scores  This resulted i n  c o r r e l a t i o n s o f .18 and -.31 f o r c h o i c e behaviour i n the pennies and q u a r t e r s c o n d i t i o n s r e s p e c t i v e l y combined),  (both h a l v e s  and .19 and .12 (both h a l v e s combined) f o r l a t e n c y  behaviour i n the same r e s p e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n s .  Such low and,  i n one case, n e g a t i v e v a l i d i t i e s s e r i o u s l y q u e s t i o n the a b i l i t y o f Q-sort templates t o p r e d i c t behaviour w i t h i n given conditions.  C o r r e l a t i o n s f o r separate halves are  shown i n Table 7.  I n s e r t Table 7. about  here  - I f behaviour i n each c o n d i t i o n o f the P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma game r e f l e c t e d the same p s y c h o l o g i c a l process then we would expect s i m i l a r i t y with a template c o n s t r u c t e d on the b a s i s o f behaviour i n the pennies c o n d i t i o n t o be h i g h l y p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with behaviour i n the q u a r t e r s  Table  7.  C o r r e l a t i o n s between s i m i l a r i t y t o templates and b e h a v i o u r .  Choice Behaviour  •  Pennies Condition  Within Conditions  .62***  (n=30)  S p l i t Half Within Condition Validation  Across Conditions  H a l f 1 . Cn = 15) (Combined (n=30)) Half 2 (n = 15)  (n=30) (Combined  ***  Quarters Condition  p < .001  **  p < .01  *  p < .05  (n=60))  .45**  Latency Behaviour Pennies Condition  Quarters Condition  .56**  .68***  .16  -.46  . 20  .43  (.18)  (-.31)  (.19)  (.12)  .31  -.24  -.19.  -.22 (-.29*)  .21  . 15  -.01  . 09  (. 01)  condition,  39 We would expect the h y p o t h e t i c a l  and v i c e v e r s a .  person most l i k e l y t o choose the A response person) i n one c o n d i t i o n i n the other To  (the " c o o p e r a t i v e "  t o do the same (be "cooperative")  condition.  t e s t t h i s , s i m i l a r i t y scores were c o n s t r u c t e d f o r  each s u b j e c t condition  o f h i s o r her Q-sort's s i m i l a r i t y t o the across  template.  These s i m i l a r i t y scores were then  c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l ' s behaviour i n the condi t i o n he o r she p a r t i c i p a t e d i n .  The c o r r e l a t i o n s which  r e s u l t e d were .01 ( p > . 1 0 , n=60, both c o n d i t i o n s for latency  combined)  behaviour and -.29 ( p < . 0 5 , n=60, both  conditions  combined) f o r c h o i c e behaviour, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t you cannot predict  latency  behaviour i n one c o n d i t i o n  behaviour i n the o t h e r , and t h a t make A c h o i c e s i n one c o n d i t i o n  on the b a s i s o f  i n d i v i d u a l s who tend t o would, i n f a c t , tend t o make  B c h o i c e s i n the o t h e r . In the presence o f s u b s t a n t i a l w i t h i n  condition  valid-  a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s such r e s u l t s would support the h y p o t h e s i s that  the c o n s t r u c t  across Prisoner's  u n d e r l y i n g behaviour i s not the same Dilemma game i n c e n t i v e  i n t h e i r absence these c o r r e l a t i o n s  conditions.  However  are i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e  from the i n a b i l i t y o f templates t o p r e d i c t behaviour  within  conditions. To  compare the s p l i t - h a l f w i t h i n - c o n d i t i o n  w i t h the a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n  c o r r e l a t i o n s a t e s t f o r the sig^.;_ : .  n i f i c a n c e o f the d i f f e r e n c e was performed.  correlations :  between dependent  Across c o n d i t i o n  correlations  c o r r e l a t i o n s were computed  f o r each h a l f o f each c o n d i t i o n , such t h a t a l l ns=15. For example, the pennies c o n d i t i o n s p l i t - h a l f c o r r e l a t i o n f o r Half  1 was compared t o the q u a r t e r s  for Half  1 and H a l f 2.  was s i g n i f i c a n t  condition correlations  Only one o f the r e s u l t i n g 16 t e s t  (p<i.05, o n e - t a i l e d ) .  I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the l a c k o f v a l i d i t y or w i t h i n predictability  condition  i s hampered by the complexity o f the s i m i l a r i t y  score c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o c e s s :  i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s ' Q-sorts are  c o r r e l a t e d 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 s u b t r a c t e d  from the  c o 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 c o r r e l a t e d w i t h behaviour.  process i s the p s y c h o m e t r i c a l l y correlation coefficients.  The weak l i n k i n t h i s  dubious step o f s u b t r a c t i n g  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 c h a r a c t e r i z e i t as the t e m p l a t e - s p e c i f i c  component of s i m i l a r i t y .  l e t us suppose t h a t the s i m i l a r i t y c r  -.20.  score  However,  (r. - r ) = temp comp  Any one o f the f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s c o u l d  hold:  (1) r. =.70 and r =.90; (2) r. =.00 and r =.20; temp comp temp comp (3) r =-.10 and r ^ =.10. temp temp i t y score ent  .  While i n each case t h e . s i m i l a r -  i s i d e n t i c a l the three  In (1) the score  conditions  represents  are q u i t e  a much l a r g e r d i f f e r e n c e v  i n 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 in  (3), moreover, r e p r e s e n t s  p.312).  score  no d i f f e r e n c e i n s i m i l a r i t y t o  e i t h e r the template or the composite 1970,  differ-  ( c . f . Glass  and Stanley,  A,much more s t r a i g h t forward method of a s s e s s i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between s i m i l a r i t y and preferable  and  i s possible.  the  behaviour i s c l e a r l y  A s c a l e 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 p e r s o n a l i t y e x h i b i t i n g a d e s i g n a t e d behaviour can constructed  simply by adding the Q-item scores of  be  the  i n d i v i d u a l f o r those items which c o r r e l a t e p o s i t i v e l y ( p < . 1 0 ) w i t h behaviour and negatively.  subtracting  Thus i n d i v i d u a l s who  those t h a t  are more l i k e the  t h e t i c a l i d e a l w i l l have h i g h e r s c a l e scores and versa.  Subtraction  not n e c e s s a r y .  This  " s c a l e score"  method can  s c a l e scores from c o r r e l a t e s i n one  Computation of s c a l e - s c o r e — b e h a v i o u r  pattern,  vice  readily  condition  c o r r e l a t i n g them w i t h behaviour i n the other  f o r the  hypo-  of some group average component i s  used to examine p r e d i c t a b i l i t y a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s the  correlate  deriving  and  then  condition.  correlations  same data analyzed i n Table 7. r e v e a l s as shown i n Table 8.  by  be  In f a c t , the  method r e s u l t s i n h i g h e r c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h i n  the i d e n t i c a l  scale  score  conditions  and  f o r the w i t h i n  c o n d i t i o n v a l i d a t i o n than the  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 b e t t e r measure r e l a t i o n s h i p s and  similarity  consequently  a s s e s s r e l i a b i l i t y would need t o be determined, although the  s i m p l i c i t y of the method alone makes i t p r e f e r a b l e  t h a t of Bern and  Funder.  to  42  I n s e r t Table 8. about here  R e p l i c a t i o n o f the p a t t e r n the c o n c l u s i o n reliability  i n Table 7 . a l s o  t h a t , i n the p r e s e n t study, a lack o f  i s p r e s e n t such t h a t p r e d i c t i o n w i t h i n  i s p r e c l u d e d and t h a t the l a c k of p r e d i c t a b i l i t y conditions  reinforces  conditions  across  i s u n i n t e r p r e t a b l e . *"  P o s s i b l e reasons f o r t h i s s i t u a t i o n i n c l u d e of the c o n s t r u c t  underlying  the P r i s o n e r ' s  have a c o n s i s t e n t e f f e c t on s u b j e c t s '  the f a i l u r e  Dilemma game t o  behaviour.  This  c o u l d be the r e s u l t o f i n c o n s i s t e n t experimental procedures or o f i n h e r e n t for  instability  the low r e l i a b i l i t y  the two s p l i t  halves  i n the PD.  Another reason  may be the small sample s i z e i n  (ns=150.  E s p e c i a l l y i n the c o n t e x t  of a p e r s o n a l i t y d e s c r i p t i o n o f 100 items such small subsamples may not allow the  c o r r e l a t i o n s to s t a b i l i z e .  Increasing  sample s i z e would a l s o 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 t o the i n c o n s i s t e n t impact of the PD.  The t e s t f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e between dependent c o r r e l a t i o n s , as d e s c r i b e d 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 d i f f e r e n c e s out of 16 t e s t s .  Table  8.  C o r r e l a t i o n s between s c a l e scores and  behaviour.  Choice Behaviour  Within Conditions (n=30)  S p l i t Half Within Condition Validation  Across Conditions (n=30)  *** ** *  p< .001 p< .01 p < . 05  Latency  Behaviour  Pennies Condition  Quarters Condition  Pennies Condition  Quarters Condition  .80***  .66***  .81***  .75***  H a l f 1 (n= 15)  .24  -.31  . 36  . 35  H a l f 2 (n= 15)  . 47  -.18  . 19  .21  -.05  -.11  -.08  .04  44 CHAPTER FOUR:  CONCLUSIONS  The p r e s e n t r e s u l t s a r e u n a b l e t o s u p p o r t t h e h y p o thesis that, the  i n the Prisoner's  assumption that  varies  only  validate  D i l e m m a game r e s e a r c h  the construct  i n quantity  underlying  i s not v a l i d .  paradigm,  conditions  T h i s does n o t , however,  the a s s u m p t i o n — i t remains untested.  Hence,  e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e a s s u 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 . Limitations  o f t h e Q - s o r t Method  The Q - s o r t m e t h o d h a s b e e n p r o p o s e d a s a m e t h o d o f assessing  t h e phenomenology o r p e r s o n a l i t y  the  l o g i c behind i t being f a i r l y  can  be d e s c r i b e d  behaving i n i t . ornia  convincing:  i n terms o f t h e p e r s o n a l i t y  Q-Set i s a l s o a m e a s u r e a n d t h a t w h i l e  validity  o f someone  i t s own  the C a l i f -  i t provides construct  c a n n o t 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  that  a situation  We m u s t remember, t h o u g h , t h a t  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 ,  the  of situations,  t o t h i s s t u d y , e v e n i f we g r a n t  that  Q-Set i s a g o o d m e a s u r e 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 i t may n o t be a g o o d m e a s u r e 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 t h e c a s e where t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between model and  i m i t a t i v e behaviour i n c h i l d r e n  a t i o n o f t h e Q - s o r t method r e s u l t e d not  being described  conclude that  i s examined.  status  I f applic-  i n c h i l d r e n who  imitate  a s i m i t a t o r s , one w o u l d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y  t h e s i t u a t i o n was one i n w h i c h t h e 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  the  characteristics  and  found the  different. cannot be  of two  children  delay of g r a t i f i c a t i o n  who  T h i s does not  behave i n each to be  on d e l a y of g r a t i f i c a t i o n . better  settings,  quite  mean, however, t h a t e i t h e r  used to examine the  s e t t i n g has  Q-sort method to assess  setting  e f f e c t of s i t u a t i o n a l  Bern and  variables  Funder assess which  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  s e t t i n g most r e l e v a n t to  behaviour to be  But  even i f one  studied.  than another the  poorer need not  t h a t we  requirements of our  meet the  ology, and  quantitatively  investigation i n that  Person by An  Situation  additional  not  be  situation  that  The  intend,  between s i t u a t i o n a l  the  the  correlated  variables  u s e f u l n e s s of  The  on  the person  essence of the method i s j  phenomenology u n d e r l y i n g a w i t h behaviour i n the  setting.  q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t constructs .  u n d e r l i e each c o n d i t i o n supported by  the  impaired.  c r i t i c i s m of the  Q-items d e p i c t i n g  hypothesis that  Provided  Interaction  interaction.  s e t t i n g w i l l be  better  e x p e r i m e n t a l method-  Q-sort method c e n t e r s i n i t s seeming r e l i a n c e by  is  thrown away.  vary only what we  of r e l a t i o n s h i p s  s e t t i n g may  be  setting  the  i n an experiment would seem to  demonstration that  a d i f f e r e n t set of  be Q-  items--behaviour c o r r e l a t e s  i s e v i d e n t i n each  The  however, as to whether such a  q u e s t i o n can  be  raised,  demonstration d i f f e r s from one  showing that  condition.  individual  46 difference variables interact with conditions. w o r d s , how d o e s an e x p e r i m e n t ferent conditions d i f f e r situation  In other  containing qualitatively  f r o m one c o n t a i n i n g a p e r s o n  difby  interaction?  A person  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 t h e  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  across  c o n d i t i o n s a s 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 a n i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e measure.  F o r e x a m p l e , 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 t h e incentive  i s high but uncooperative  when i t i s l o w w h i l e  a m o r a l s u b j e c t s show t h e o p p o s i t e p a t t e r n . on t h e t r a i t m o r a I i s m d i f f e r s  Subjects  across settings.  ranking  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 of the Q-sort  method would r e s u l t i n t h e i t e m " i s m o r a l i s t i c "  being p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h behaviour  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 l o w . It  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  d i f f e r e n c e measures with behaviour an i n t e r a c t i o n .  ( s u c h a s Q - i t e m s ) may n o t c o r r e l a t e  i n every While  c o n d i t i o n , even i n t h e presence  across t r a i t  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  is the  of  the p a t t e r n over c o n d i t i o n s of  d e p e n d e n t s c o r e s may n o t be p a r a l l e l  attenuated  individual  levels,  r a n k i n g may be  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 .  t h e s i t u a t i o n w h e r e t h e s c o r e s f o r two t r a i t  An e x a m p l e  levels are  same i n one c o n d i t i o n b u t 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 of the Q-sort correlates  method w o u l d r e s u l t i n d i f f e r e n t  i n each c o n d i t i o n .  47 ,  In practice,  t h e n , a p e r s o n by s i t u a t i o n  w o u l d be e v i d e n c e d b y d i f f e r e n t correlates  across conditions.  qualitative are  differences  distinct.  interaction  or opposite-signed Conceptually,  however,  a n d p e r s o n by s i t u a t i o n  The c l a s s i c p e r s o n by s i t u a t i o n  a s s u m e s 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 . difficulty  i s distinguishing  this situation  which the apparent i n t e r a c t i o n  i s actually  interactions interaction The p r a c t i c a l  f r o m one i n the r e s u l t of  studying c o n d i t i o n s which d i f f e r q u a l i t a t i v e l y . c o n c e i v a b l e a n d a t t i m e s more p l a u s i b l e of  an i n t e r a c t i o n  Q-item  It i s  that the discovery  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  rather  than a true 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 further difference  conceptual twist  i s that a qualitative  between c o n d i t i o n s — s u c h  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  a s one i n w h i c h t h e 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  ent  individual difference  produce  measure c o r r e l a t e s .  differ-  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 variables  are hidden the i m p l i c a t i o n  of a qualitative  ence i s t h a t t h e meaning o f b e h a v i o u r has changed. c a s e o f p e r s o n by s i t u a t i o n may r e s p o n d t o d i f f e r e n t differently; ent  levels  interaction  In the individuals  l e v e l s o f t h e same c o n s t r u c t  not a l l people are equally influenced  o f t h e same v a r i a b l e .  A qualitative  b e t w e e n c o n d i t i o n s t h o u g h , may r e s u l t differently  different  differ-  by d i f f e r difference  i n individuals  responding  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 which  •manifest i t s e l f  i n the lack  o f an i n t e r a c t i o n .  could  That I s ,  48 not a l l people are 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 of d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s .  The t r a i t moralism, f o r example  may not i n t e r a c t w i t h c o n d i t i o n s because they may be q u a l i t a tively different. In sum, then, i t appears t h a t assessment of q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s v i a the Q-sort method i s i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the u n c o v e r i n g of person by s i t u a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n s . A l though c o n c e p t u a l l y p r a c t i s e there  there appears to be a d i s t i n c t i o n i f i n  i s none then the argument i s moot.  method, w h i l e a p p e a l l i n g , i s unable t o "bootstrap"  The Q-sort us t o a  solution. Implications Despite  not being  ence between c o n s t r u c t s  able t o uncover a q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r underlying  c o n d i t i o n s , i t should be  c l e a r t h a t the assumption of c o n s t r u c t made and t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s The  s t a b i l i t y i s , i n fact,  need t o c o n s i d e r  i t s implications.  nature o f the assumption o f c o n s t r u c t  i s t h a t the c o n s t r u c t u n d e r l y i n g v a r i e s only  i n quantity  taken by r e s e a r c h e r s  across  conditions  conditions.  stability  i n an experiment Great care i s  t o ensure t h a t no other v a r i a b l e a l s o  v a r i e s q u a n t i t a t i v e l y ( i s confounded) so t h a t the only d i f f e r e n c e i s the one intended. assumption i s v a l i d ferences  As d i s c u s s e d  earlier,  this  f o r e m p i r i c a l c o n s t r u c t s , where i n -  a r e made o n l y about o b s e r v a b l e p r o c e s s e s .  The concern  raised i n t h i s thesis r e l a t e s instead to that c l a s s of studies where the conceptual  r e l a t i o n s h i p i n v o l v e s unobseryahle,  o f t e n i n t e r n a l or m o t i v a t i o n a l , h y p o t h e t i c a l  constructs.  t  49 Examination of t h i s  t y p e i s commonplace i n s o c i a l  psychology.  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  psychological processes deal only with observable Our  studies  elements.  l a c k c l e a r statement o f the type o f theory they  r e l a t e t o , and hence t h e t y p e o f methodology w h i c h i s appropriate.  Can we make i n f e r e n c e s a b o u t  cesses , o r o n l y about phenotypic In  and  behaviour?  t h e P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma game, f o r e x a m p l e , t h e d i s -  tinction relates If  genotypic pro-  t o how we d e f i n e c o o p e r a t i o n a n d i n c e n t i v e .  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 p e o r number o f r e s p o n s e s i n c e n t i v e i s o n l y t h e m a g n i t u d e o f p a y o f f , t h e n we c a n  s t u d y t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n 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 helping, or i fincentive  t r u s t and  i s seen as a m o t i v a t i o n a l  t h e n we m u s t show c o n c e r n a b o u t  the range  can draw about a g i v e n s t u d y , and about  state,  o f i n f e r e n c e s we  t h e assumptions  we  make i n t h e s t u d y i n g . M o s t 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 c o n c e r n e d 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 . in eliminating  the problem  o f dropped  We a r e n o t i n t e r e s t e d wallets  s t r e e t s o r o f people a d m i n i s t e r i n g shocks others.  littering  to fictitious  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 .  Social psychologists are often interested only i n finding 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 : t o r e s p o n d o n T'-point s c a l e s . .  we a s k p e o p l e  The when we  l i n k between method and  theory  i s a s p e c i a l problem  are i n v e s t i g a t i n g h y p o t h e t i c a l v a r i a b l e s .  always d i f f i c u l t theory and  It is  to make the t r a n s i t i o n from o b s e r v a t i o n  hence we  are on s a f e r ground i f we  with e m p i r i c a l v a r i a b l e s . number of bystanders  deal only  D i s c u s s i o n of the e f f e c t s of  the  on behaviour can be more c o n f i d e n t i n  the absence of r e f e r e n c e 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 the u n d e r l y i n g m o t i v a t i o n a l r e f e r e n t . have much g r e a t e r c o n f i d e n c e  S i m i l a r i l y , we  i n i n f e r e n c e s about the  of f a c t o r s on h e l p i n g behaviour than on a l t r u i s m . caveats, while  to  as  should effect  These  t r u e g e n e r a l l y , are e s p e c i a l l y r e l e v a n t i n  t h i s c o n t e x t because of the added u n c e r t a i n t y as to whether the m o t i v a t i o n a l s t a t e r e f l e c t i n g empathy i s a f r a g i l e s t a t e and  can be c r e a t e d i n one  c o n d i t i o n and  not i n another.  In the P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma game i n f e r e n c e s would seem to be warranted about the e f f e c t s of changing p a y o f f , whether t h a t always r e p r e s e n t s motivation  i s not c l e a r .  cooperation  I t may  a l s o be  or some other  i n q u e s t i o n whether  the c h o i c e of behaviour i s between c o o p e r a t i o n or some other concept represented  but  by c h o i c e s  I t i s f o r t u n a t e , but a methodological  and  "A"  and  pitfall,  competition "B". that  s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s are concerned with making i n f e r e n c e s about more them j u s t s u r f a c e behaviours  and  situations.  When the i d e n t i t y of the i n t e r v e n i n g h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t i s a key and  concern we  must be m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y  t h e o r e t i c a l l y more s p e c i f i c .  more r i g o r o u s  51 Another i m p l i c a t i o n , 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 t h a t the meaning of the dependent measure i s d i f f e r e n t across conditions.' and absence  I t i s p o s s i b l e f o r both the presence  of a d i f f e r e n c e i n measures to be the r e s u l t  of two c o n s t r u c t s , d i f f e r e n t i n meaning, r a t h e r than the e f f e c t of one.  The concept of a change i n meaning of be-,  h a v i o u r i s not f o r e i g n to psychology.  A phenotypic be-  h a v i o u r such as endorsement of a p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e f  may  r e p r e s e n t p r i v a t e i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of t h a t b e l i e f or j u s t p u b l i c compliance.  Gallo  (1966) suggested t h a t the meaning  of behaviour i n the PD i s not always the same.  No  social  p s y c h o l o g i s t would say t h a t a behaviour always has the same meaning.  And y e t s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s have not l i n k e d  this  change t o a q u a l i t a t i v e s h i f t i n meaning a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s i n an experiment.  Developmental  p s y c h o l o g i s t s , on the o t h e r  hand, have q u e s t i o n e d the assumption over developmental  of b e h a v i o u r a l isomorphism  s t a g e s , t h e i r primary independent  variable.  C r y i n g behaviour, f o r example, i s argued to have d i f f e r e n t meaning, t o be f u n c t i o n a l l y d i f f e r e n t , a t d i f f e r e n t ages ( B e l l and Ainsworth, 1972) . D i s c u s s i o n of a l a c k of c o n s t r u c t s t a b i l i t y i s hampered by the l a c k of a language or terminology to adequately d e s c r i b e the problem.  The term "confounded"  r e f e r s to an  unintended v a r i a b l e - c h a n g i n g q u a n t i t a t i v e l y along w i t h or i n s t e a d of the on i n t e n d e d .  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 i n s t e a d of or a d d i t i o n a l to the one  intended?  T h e r e 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 In and  t h e a b s e n c e o f d i r e c t a c c e s s we  must i n c r e a s e t h e number  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  than making broad s t u d i e s we  theory  t h e o r i z e from.  i n f e r e n c e s on t h e b a s i s o f  Rather  first-time  must seek t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t the i n d e p e n d e n t  and  dependent v a r i a b l e s r e p r e s e n t what t h e y a r e i n t e n d e d t o 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 .  i n c r e a s i n g t h e number and our in  s t u d i e s , and  T h i s we  accomplish  and by  d i v e r s i t y o f dependent measure i n  by r e p e a t i n g o u r  independent  manipulation  the 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 .  c o n s i d e r , f o r example, employing  We  might  p h y s i o l o g i c a l measures, or  u n o b t r u s i v e b e h a v i o u r a l m e a s u r e s , i n a d d i t i o n t o more common paper-and-pencil to  m e a s u r e s , where p o s s i b l e .  We  are  seeking  i n c r e a s e t h e l i n k a g e s b e t w e e n o u r v a r i a b l e s and  b e t w e e n o b s e r v a t i o n and  theory.  t h e o r y r e i n f o r c e i t and  those  Linkages  In mostly  practice, on  which concur  t h a t do n o t s h o u l d be  n i z e d a s i n d i c a t e d t h a t c o n s t r u c t s may a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s or whole  thus  be w r o n g l y  with  recog-  identified  experiments.  s o c i a l psychological research  s i n g l e dependent measure e x p e r i m e n t s .  relies A measure  which p a r a d o x i c a l l y c o n t r i b u t e s to 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 . c h e c k may  tell  you  t h a t , on  manipulation  the s u r f a c e a t l e a s t , a  e n c e seems t o e x i s t b e t w e e n c o n d i t i o n s on t h e variable.  A  I t does n o t , however, t e l l  you  differ-  independent  i f t h a t i s the  m a j o r p e r c e i v e d d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n 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 d i f f e r e n c e i s .  A difference  between c o n d i t i o n s i n the d e s i r e d d i r e c t i o n does not you whether the d e s i r e d c o n s t r u c t i s a t a l l p r e s e n t given c o n d i t i o n .  And  t i o n check r e a s s u r e s  tell in a  y e t the very presence of a manipulathe experimenter and  f o r c e s him  or  her  into a quantitative inference. Bern and  Lord  (1979) have c a l l e d  f o r the use  of  their  "template matching" technique f o r p r o b l i n g e c o l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y . They argue t h a t e c o l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y r e q u i r e s t h a t 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 as doing  so i n " r e a l l i f e . "  i n a research The  caveat  s e t t i n g are  to t h e i r  described  proposal,  though, i s t h a t to t r u l y show t h a t a r e s e a r c h paradigm  has  e c o l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y r e q u i r e s t h a t "the r e l a t ion s h i p s between s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s and  the behaviour i n the s e t t i n g r e -  p l i c a t e the ' r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s the behaviour o u t s i d e the l a b o r a t o r y This t h e s i s c a l l s  (Bern and  Lord,  and  1979,  p.841)  f o r the examination of the nature  of r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n l a b o r a t o r y and  other  seetings  comparison can be made to behaviour and  the e f f e c t  v a r i a b l e s i n other  address  settings.  across experiments we  )  Before  we  need c o m p a r a b i l i t y  and  before  of  comparability  construct  s t a b i l i t y a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n experiments. In c o n c l u s i o n , s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s need to be more t h o u g h t f u l o f how theory.  We  are doing.  methodological  assumptuions r e l a t e t o  need to s t a t e c l e a r l y what k i n d of r e s e a r c h  we  what the nature of the c o n s t r u c t s i n v o l v e d i s ,  and  how  we  are thereby  limited.  Social  psychological theory  needs t o debate the d e f i n i t i o n of i t s concepts and of  the nature of t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , the assumptions  t h u s made.  and c o n s t r u c t s  being  cognizant  55 REFERENCES  Aronson, E. and C a r l s m i t h , J.M. Experimentation i n 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. I n f a n t c r y i n g and maternal responsiveness. C h i l d Development, 1972, 4_3, 1171-1190. Bern, D.J. and Funder, D.C. P r e d i c t i n g more of the people more of the time: A s s e s s i n g the p e r s o n a l i t y of s i t u a t i o n s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1978, 8_5, 485-501. Bern, D.J. and Lord, C.G. Template Matching: A P r o p o s a l f o r P r o b i n g the E c o l o g i c a l V a l i d i t y of Experimental S e t t i n g s i n S o c i a l Psychology. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1979, 37, 833-846. Block, J . The Q-sort method i n p e r s o n a l i t y assessment and p s y c h i a t r i c r e s e a r c h . S p r i n g f i e l d , 111: C h a r l e s C. Thomas, 1961. Block, J . Advancing the psychology of p e r s o n a l i t y : Paradigma t i c s h i f t o r improving the q u a l i t y of research? In D. Magnusson and N.S. E n d l e r (eds.) P e r s o n a l i t y a t the Crossroads: Current i s s u e s 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. B l o c k , J . and Block, J.H. I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the C a l i f o r n i a C h i l d Q-Set (memorandum) B e r k e l e y : U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a I n s t i t u t e f o r P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment and Research, 1969. . B o r i n g , E.G. P e r s p e c t i v e : A r t i f a c t and C o n t r o l . In R. Rosenthal and R.L. Rosnow (eds.) A r t i f a c t i n B e h a v i o u r a l Research, New York: Academic P r e s s , 19 69. • Brunswik, E. P e r c e p t i o n and the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e design of p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiments. B e r k e l e y , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1956. Campbell, D.T. F a c t o r s r e l e v a n t to v a l i d i t y of experiments in social settings. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 195 7, 54_, 297-312. Campbell, D.T. and S t a n l e y , J.C. Experimental and q u a s i experimental designs f o r r e s e a r c h . In N.L. Gage (ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 196 3.  56 Evans, G. E f f e c t s o f u n i l a t e r a l promise and value of rewards upon c o o p e r a t i o n and t r u s t . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1964, 69, 587-590. G a l l o , P.S. J r . E f f e c t s o f i n c r e a s e d i n c e n t i v e s upon the use of t h r e a t i n b a r g a i n i n g . 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 Psychology, 1966, 4, 14-20. Gumpert, P., Deutsch, M. and E p s t e i n , Y, E f f e c t s of i n c e n t i v e magnitude on c o o p e r a t i o n 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 Psychology, 1969, 11, 66-69. H u l l , C.L., Howland, C.I., Ross, R.T., H a l l , M., P e r k i n s , D.T. and F i t c h , F.B. Mathematico-deductive theory o f r o t e l e a r n i n g . New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1940. K e l l e y , H.H., Shure, G.H., Deutsch, H., Faucheux, C., L a n z e t t a , J.T., M o s c o v i c i , S., N u t t i n , J.M., Rabbie, J.M., and Thibaut, J.W. A comparative experimental study o f n e g o t i a t i o n behaviour, 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 Psychology, 1970, 16, 411-438. Knox, R.E., Douglas, R. T r i v i a l I n c e n t i v e s , Marginal Comprehension and Dubious G e n e r a l i z a t i o n s from P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma S t u d i e s . 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 Psychology, 1971, 20, 160-165. Marx. M.H. The General Nature o f Theory C o n s t r u c t i o n . In M. Marx (ed.) P s y c h o l o g i c a l 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 h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s and i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1948, _55, 95-107. M c C l i n t o c k , C.G. and McNeel, S.P. P r i o r Dydadic Experience and Monetary Reward as Determinants o f C o o p e r a t i v e and Competitive Game Behaviour. 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 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 i n d u c t i v e , b e i n g a connected view o f the p r i n c i p l e s o f evidence and the method o f s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 1 8 4 3. R e p r i n t : London: Longmans, Green, 19 30. Nemeth, C. A c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f r e s e a r c h u t i l i z i n g the p r i s o n e r ' s dilemma paradigm f o r the study o f b a r g a i n i n g . In L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances i n Experimental S o c i a l Psychology (Vol.12) New York: "Academic P r e s s , TTllT.  57  Oskamp, S. a n d K l i e n k e , C. Amount o f r e w a r d i n a v a r i a b l e i n t h e p r i s o n e r ' s d i l e m m a game. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 0 , 16, 133-140. Oskamp, S. a n d P e r 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 d i l e m m a 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. R a d l o w , R., W e i d n e r , M.F. a n d 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 ' u p o n c h o i c e b e h a v i o u r i n a t w o p e r s o n n o n - z e r o - s u m 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 , 1 9 6 8 , 74_, 199-208. S p e n c e , 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 c o n t e m p o r a r y psychology. P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , 1 9 4 4 , 5 1 , 47-68. T o l m a n , 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 a n d c u r r e n t t r e n d s i n psychology. I n P r o c . 25th A n n i v . C e l e b r . Inaug. Grad. Stud. Los Angeles: U n i v e r s i t y o f Southern 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 a n d 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 a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 4, 328-332.  APPENDIX A THE  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.  CALIFORNIA Q-SET  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. Is a genuinely dependable and r e s p o n s i b l e person. • Has a wide range o f i n t e r e s t s . Is a t a l k a t i v e i n d i v i d u a l . Behaves i n a g i v i n g way toward o t h e r s . Is f a s t i d i o u s . Favors c o n s e r v a t i v e values i n a v a r i e t y of areas. Appears t o have a high degree of i n t e l l e c t u a l c a p a c i t y . Is uncomfortable with u n c e r t a i n t y and c o m p l e x i t i e s . A n x i e t y and t e n s i o n f i n d o u t l e t i n b o d i l y symptoms. Is p r o t e c t i v e of those c l o s e to him or her. Tends t o be s e l f - d e f e n s i v e . Is t h i n - s k i n n e d ; s e n s i t i v e to anything t h a t can be construed as c r i t i c i s m or an i n t e r p e r s o n a l s l i g h t . Genuinely submissive; accepts domination comfortably. Is s k i l l e d i n s o c i a l techniques of i m a g i n a t i v e play, p r e t e n d i n g and humor. Is i n t r o s p e c t i v e and concerned with s e l f as an o b j e c t . Behaves i n a sympathetic or c o n s i d e r a t e manner. I n i t i a t e s humor. Seeks reassurance from o t h e r s . Has a r a p i d p e r s o n a l tempo; behaves and a c t s q u i c k l y . Arouses n u r t u r a n t f e e l i n g s i n o t h e r s . F e e l s a l a c k of p e r s o n a l meaning i n l i f e . E x t r a p u n i t i v e ; tends t o t r a n s f e r or p r o j e c t blame. P r i d e s s e l f on b e i n g " o b j e c t i v e " , r a t i o n a l . Tends toward o v e r - c o n t r o l of needs and impulses; binds tensions e x c e s s i v e l y ; delays g r a t i f i c a t i o n unnecessarily. Is p r o d u c t i v e ; gets t h i n g s done. Shows condescending behavior i n r e l a t i o n s with o t h e r s . Tends t o arouse l i k i n g and acceptance i n people. Is turned t o f o r advice and reassurance. Gives up and withdraws where p o s s i b l e i n the face of f r u s t r a t i o n and a d v e r s i t y . 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 . Seems t o be aware of the impression he or she makes on others. Is calm, r e l a x e d i n manner. O v e r - r e a c t i v e t o minor f r u s t r a t i o n s ; i r r i t a b l e . Has warmth; has the c a p a c i t y f o r c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; , compassionate. Is s u b t l y n e g a t i v i s t i c ; tends t o undermine and o b s t r u c t or sabotage.  Adapted from Block,  1966.  59  37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. ' 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69.  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 . Has h o s t i l i t y t o w a r d s o t h e r s . 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 unconventional thought processes. Is v u l n e r a b l e ' t o r e a l or fancied threat, g e n e r a l l y fearful. Is m o r a l i s t i c . 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 ; tends to delay or avoid a c t i o n . Is 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 . Evaluates the m o t i v a t i o n of others i n i n t e r p r e t i n g situations. Has a b r i t t l e e g o - d e f e n s e ; 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 o u l d be d i s o r g a n i z e d a n d maladaptive when u n d e r s t r e s s o r t r a u m a . E n g a g e s i n p e r s o n a l f a n t a s y and d a y d r e a m s , f i c t i o n a l speculations. Has a r e a d i n e s s t o f e e l g u i l t y . 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 relationships. Is b a s i c a l l y d i s t r u s t f u l of people i n general; questions their motivations. I s u n p r e d i c t a b l e and c h a n g e a b l e i n b e h a v i o r and a t t i t u d e s . 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 . B e h a v e s i n an a s s e r t i v e f a s h i o n . V a r i o u s n e e d s t e n d t o w a r d r e l a t i v e l y d i r e c t and u n c o n t r o l l e d expression; unable to delay g r a t i f i c a t i o n . Emphasizes being w i t h o t h e r s ; g r e g a r i o u s . Is s e l f - d e f e a t i n g . R e s p o n d s t o humor. 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 . Enjoys sensuous experiences ( i n c l u d i n g touch, t a s t e , smell, physical contact). I s c o n c e r n e d w i t h own b o d y and t h e a d e q u a c y o f i t s physiological functioning. 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 . C r e a t e s and e x p l o i t s d e p e n d e n c y i n p e o p l e . Tends t o be r e b e l l i o u s and n o n - c o n f o r m i n g . J u d g e s 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 t e r m s l i k e " p o p u l a r i t y , " " t h e 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 , etc. I s s o c i a l l y p e r c e p t i v e of a wide range of i n t e r p e r s o n a l cues. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y p u s h e s and t r i e s t o s t r e t c h l i m i t s ; s e e s w h a t he o r she can g e t away w i t h . Enjoys e s t h e t i c impressions; i s e s t h e t i c a l l y r e a c t i v e . Is s e l f - i n d u l g e n t . Is b a s i c a l l y anxious. 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 c o n s i s t e n t manner; i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h own p e r s o n a l standards. 71. Has h i g h a s p i r a t i o n l e v e l f o r s e l f . 72. Concerned w i t h own adequacy as a person, e i t h e r a t conscious or unconscious l e v e l s . 73. Tends t o p e r c e i v e 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 s u b j e c t i v e l y unaware of s e l f - c o n c e r n ; f e e l s s a t i s f i e d with s e l f . 75. 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 . 76. Tends t o p r o j e c t h i s own f e e l i n g s and m o t i v a t i o n s onto others. 77. Appears s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , f o r t h r i g h t , candid i n d e a l i n g with others. 78. F e e l s cheated and v i c t i m i z e d by l i f e ; s e l f - p i t y i n g . 79. Tends t o ruminate and have p e r s i s t e n t , pre-occupying thoughts. 80. I n t e r e s t e d i n members of the o p p o s i t e sex. 81. Is p h y s i c a l l y a t t r a c t i v e ; good l o o k i n g . 82. Has f l u c t u a t i n g moods. 83. Able t o see t o the h e a r t of important problems. 84. Is c h e e r f u l . 85. Emphasizes communication through a c t i o n and non-verbal behavior. 86. Handles a n x i e t y and c o n f l i c t s by, i n e f f e c t , r e f u s i n g to r e c o g n i z e t h e i r presence; r e p r e s s i v e or d i s s o c i a t i v e tendencies. 87. I n t e r p r e t s b a s i c a l l y simple and c l e a r - c u t s i t u a t i o n s i n complicated and p a r t i c u l a r i z i n g ways. 88. Is p e r s o n a l l y charming. 89. Compares s e l f t o o t h e r s . Is a l e r t t o r e a l or f a n c i e d d i f f e r e n c e s between s e l f and other people. 90. Is concerned with p h i l o s o p h i c a l problems; e.g., r e l i g i o n s , values, the meaning of l i f e , e t c . 91. Is power o r i e n t e d ; v a l u e s power i n s e l f or o t h e r s . 92. Has s o c i a l p o i s e 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 t o h i s or her gender. 94. Expresses h o s t i l e f e e l i n g s d i r e c t l y . 95. Tends t o p r o f f e r a d v i c e . 96. Values own independence and autonomy. 97. Is e m o t i o n a l l y bland; has f l a t t e n e d a f f e c t . 98. Is v e r b a l l y f l u e n t ; can express i d e a s w e l l . 99. Is s e l f - d r a m a t i z i n g ; h i s t r i o n i c . 100. Does not vary r o l e s ; r e l a t e s t o everyone i n the same way.  61  APPENDIX B. EXPANDED PRISONER'S DILEMMA GAME INSTRUCTIONS  In  t h i s experiment  both you and a p a r t n e r w i l l  i n v o l v e d i n a s i t u a t i o n i n which Your p a r t n e r w i l l menter.  which do,  y o u c a n make some money.  be c h o s e n a n o n y m o u s l y b y t h e e x p e r i -  He o r s h e w i l l  The e x p e r i m e n t  be  n o t b e t h e f r i e n d y o u came w i t h .  i s analogous  to a real  life  situation i n  w h a t y o u g a i n o r l o s e d e p e n d s n o t o n l y on w h a t y o u  b u t a l s o on w h a t someone e l s e d o e s .  The t a s k  itself  r e q u i r e s e a c h o f y o u t o make d e c i s i o n s o r c h o i c e s , b u t b e f o r e y o u 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 important to  i t i s t h a t y o u r e a d them c a r e f u l l y i n o r d e r  understand  j u s t w h a t y o u a r e g o i n g t o be d o i n g .  e v e r we h a v e r u n t h i s k i n d o f e x p e r i m e n t found not  t h a t a g r e a t many p e r s o n s  fully  understand  When-  i n t h e p a s t we  participating i n i t did  the instructions,  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 . reason,  how  For this  t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t you a r e going t o read are  rather detailed, questions w i l l  and as a c r u c i a l p a r t o f t h e experiment  be a s k e d  t o assess your  understanding of  the s i t u a t i o n before you begin. There w i l l you w i l l  be a s e r i e s o f t r i a l s ,  a n d on e a c h  trial  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 b e t w e e n  62  two s t r a t e g i e s , a l s o choose  and a t t h e same time the other person  one o f the two s t r a t e g i e s .  You w i l l  will  receive  a monetary p a y o f f based on these c h o i c e s ; however, n e i t h e r of you can c o n t r o l the amount o f t h i s p a y o f f by y o u r s e l f — the p a y o f f w i l l depend on t h e way i n which t h e c h o i c e s made by you and t h e o t h e r person combine. In other words, the two o f you a r e Interdependent.  Recall that  under-  s t a n d i n g o f t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s o f extreme importance.  On  the b a s i s o f our p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s we f e e l t h a t t h e r e are two important aspects i n v o l v e d i n understanding the situation: (1)  understanding HOW t o go about making your choice, and  (2)  understanding WHY you might want t o make a p a r t i c u l a r choice.  In  the i n s t r u c t i o n s we w i l l  attempt  t o e x p l a i n how you can  make your c h o i c e , a r a t h e r simple and s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d procedure,  and we f e e l t h a t a good understanding o f t h i s  s h o u l d enable you t o understand why p a r t i c u l a r c h o i c e s might be made.  In any case, q u e s t i o n s w i l l be asked o f  you t o assess your understanding o f 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 a l r e a d y noted t h a t t h i s experiment i s an a b s t r a c t i o n of a r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n i n which what you g a i n or l o s e depends not only on what you do, but a l s o on what someone e l s e does. of money t o d i v i d e up.  In p a r t i c u l a r , we have a  The way  sum  t h i s money i s d i v i d e d  depends on the c h o i c e s t h a t both of you make d u r i n g the experiment. the  We  s h o u l d note t h a t you may  or may  e n t i r e supply of money i n the t r a y d u r i n g the exper-  i m e n t — t h i s w i l l depend upon your c h o i c e s . want t o assure you t h a t whatever the is  not exhaust  we  amount you make d u r i n g  experiment you w i l l be allowed t o keep, l e f t over w i l l  However,  and  whateve'r  r e t u r n t o the grant from which i t came.  T h i s money i s not coming out of the experimenter's pocket, but  r a t h e r i t i s from a g r a n t g i v e n f o r the purpose of  conducting t h i s  experiment.  Observe the diagram on the t a b l e i n f r o n t 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  t a b l e i n f r o n t o f you i s A, then you are Person A;  i f the T e t t e r B i s i n f r o n t 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  this  i s what you w i l l each do on a t r i a l :  choose  Person A w i l l  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 ) , Person B w i l l  and at the same time  choose between the Choice 1 column and the  Choice 2 column o f the diagram On any g i v e n t r i a l or  2.  (columns run v e r t i c a l l y ) .  then, each o f you may choose e i t h e r 1 '  In order t o i l l u s t r a t e how the p a y o f f s a r e assoc-  i a t e d w i t h your c h o i c e s , l e t us assume t h a t on a t r i a l Person A chooses  1, and Person B chooses 2.  T h i s i s shown  on the diagram below.  CHOICE 1 PERSON A CHOICE 2  CHOICE 1  CHOICE 2  PERSON B  By c h o o s i n g 1., Person A has determined that the p a y o f f w i l l come from the TOP row o f the diagram; by choosing 2, Person B has determined t h a t the p a y o f f w i l l come from the  RIGHT HAND column o f the diagram.  You can see t h a t  these two c h o i c e s o v e r l a p i n the TOP RIGHT HAND c e l l o f the  diagram.  and the bottom  The top number i s the p a y o f f t o Person A, number i s the p a y o f f t o Person B.  numbers r e p r e s e n t pennies so i n t h i s  These  case Person A would  f  r e c e i v e n o t h i n g and Person ($.05).  B would r e c e i v e f i v e  pennies  S i m i l a r l y , you can see t h a t i f you each choose 2,  your c h o i c e s o v e r l a p i n the LOWER RIGHT HAND c e l l , each w i l l r e c e i v e one penny. p a y o f f s a r e determined, both choose 1. 3 and Person  and you  Now t h a t you see how t h e  c o n s i d e r what would happen i f you  Or, what would happen i f Person A chooses  B chooses 1.  N o t i c e t h a t each o f you has a c h o i c e between two a l t e r n a t i v e s , and t h a t t h e r e a r e f o u r p o s s i b l e ways t h a t the c h o i c e s can combine t o determine a p a y o f f . of  Two  these p a y o f f s favour both o f you e q u a l l y (3,3 and 1,1),  but one i s l a r g e r than the o t h e r ; the remaining favour one person but n o t the other  payoffs  (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 c h o i c e s are f i n a l - - o n c e you have i n d i c a t e d your c h o i c e , you w i l l n o t be allowed alternative.  t o change t o the other  You w i l l n o t be allowed t o communicate  w i t h each o t h e r - ^ t h i s means no s i g h i n g , l a u g h i n g , o r any o t h e r form o f communication which might i n d i c a t e how you f e e l about g i v e n outcomes, o r how you would l i k e the other person  t o behave.  Remember a l s o t h a t your p a r t n e r w i l l be  chosen by the experimenter of  so t h a t you do n o t know which  the group you are p a i r e d w i t h . You w i l l  i n d i c a t e your c h o i c e on the response box  by p r e s s i n g e i t h e r the button marked 1 o r the button marked 2.  Your c h o i c e w i l l be shown i n amber on the  66 display. electric  When b o t h o f y o u h a v e made y o u r c h o i c e s an circuit will  be c o m p l e t e d and y o u w i l l  what t h e o t h e r p e r s o n chose. i n r e d on t h e d i s p l a y .  Their choice w i l l  Check what c e l l  see be  just shown  your payoff i s  i n and p a y y o u r s e l f by t a k i n g t h e 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  know w h a t t h e o t h e r p e r s o n h a s c h o s e n u n t i l of  you have i n d i c a t e d y o u r c h o i c e s .  a f t e r each t r i a l .  until  are  a total  keep whatever  a c c u m u l a t e d o v e r t h e 20 t r i a l Because  of your c h o i c e s  q u i t e i m p o r t a n t i n terms o f the  make on a t r i a l ,  and  i t s h o u l d be  can obvious  you t h a t i t i s a good i d e a t o t r y f i g u r e o u t j u s t what c h o i c e t h e  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 or  yourself to 0  o f 20 t r i a l s  period.  the consequences  both  have  be  amount o f money y o u  d i f f e r e n t amounts o f money y o u  to  pay  A t t h i s p o i n t the experiment w i l l  c o n c l u d e d and y o u may  NOTE:  You w i l l  When t h e d i s p l a y r e s e t s i t s e l f  proceed t o the next t r i a l been completed.  after  will  2.  have  67 APPENDIX C Table  I.  Q-Item—Behaviour Correlates f o r a l l items, 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, e a c h c o n d i t i o n )  Pennies Condition Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 " 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2.8 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  Quarters Condition  Choice Behaviour  Latency Behaviour  Choice Behaviour  -.1835 .0376 -.0642 -.1108 .3291 .2412 .1129 -.3731 -.0617 -.1177 . 3587 -.2023 .0595 .2268 .0221 .0838 .1935 .1457 .3906 -.1241 -.3609 .0287 - .4268 -.1556 -.1536 .0445 .0420 .0678 .2580 -.0524 -.1619 .0150 -.0670 -.0951 . 4240  .4166 -.0189 .0568 -.2220 -.0008 -.2544 -.0635 .2467 -.2028 - .0779 -.1396 -.1769 .0135 -.1158 -.3132 . 1585 -.1522 -.2255 .1839 -.1733 -.1599 .1479 -.1289 .1540 .2253 .0363 -.0747 -.3900* .0282 .1481 .1733 -.1674 -.1123 .3676 -.1324  -.1461 .2138 .2655 .1392 -.1719 -.2814 . 1221 -.1464 .1080 . 1582 -.1494 -.1099 .0687 .0215 . 1512 -.4079 -.0505 .0259 .0355 -.1330 .0187 -.2762 .0319 .1134 -.0576 .2128 .2391 . 3772 .0169 -.2942 . 0348 - .2620 -.1407 -.0934 -.1577  Latency Behaviour .3973 -.0844 .0246 -.1097 -.3054 -.0158 .3188 .0181 -.0621 .0204 .1251 -.0790 -.1998 .0777 -.0696 .0314 -.4112 -.0058 -.1079 .2428 .0264 -.2398 -.1380 .0128 -5.0061 .0231 -.1044 -.0406 -.2431 -.1310 .1145 .3496 -.1538 .1796 -.0633  68 Table I .  Q-Item—Behaviour  Correlates, continued.  Pennies Condition •Item  Choice Behaviour  Latency Behaviour  t  36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75  -.1395 -.1076 .1525 .0918 .2188 .0601 -.0860 -.2463 .1247 -.0430 .1138 .1194 -.0695 -.1546 -.0409 -.0722 -.1912 -.1877 -.0628 . 3584 .0041 .0877 .2059 -.1998 -.0692 -.0052 -.0468 -.3457 .0921 .0733 . 3572 -.2749 .0543 -.1561 . 1463 -.1787 .0 710 -.4510 -.0963 .1135  -.0251 .0223 .0834 -.0857 -.0694 -.0111 .2732 -.2450 -.1279 .1602 -.1888 .3722 .1623 .1938 .0393 .1512 . .0926 -.1470 -.1199 -.1723 -.4465 -.1941 -.2252 .1008 .2158 -.2392 -.1286 .0347 -.0121 -.2386 .2922 -.2401 .024 3 .1963 . 3125 . 3628 -.0558 -.1346 -.0654 -.0293  Quarters ConditionChoice Behaviour -.0106 .1023 -.2299 .1940 -.3566 .1207 -.0396 .1048 -.2221 -.1357 -.1081 .0607 .1588 -.0774 -.1034 .0772 .4223 .2057 . 1192 .1104 .0106 .2592 -.1729 -.1547 . 3686 .1806 -.1875 -.0903 - .0494 -.0810 - .0602 .0174 -.0854 -.1044 .1138 .0356 - .2992 -.0309 . 1074 .3932  Latency Behaviou: .2003 .2184 .3755 -.0691 -.3044 .2297 -.3016 .0480 .2654 -.1519 -.1042 -.0840 .1034 .5331 .0962 -.3069 .2157 .0135 -.2593 -.1440 -.1445 .0392 .0646 .0211 -.2860 .1827 .2135 -.1148 -.0975 .3064 -.1335 .0264 -.2657 .0106 -.1923 -.0859 -.1387 -.0547 .1991 -.1076  Q-Item--Behaviour C o r r e l a t e s , c o n t i n u e d . Pennies Conditio^  Quarters  Condition  Choice Behaviour  Latency Behaviour  Choice Behaviour  Latency Behaviour  -.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  -.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  .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  .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