Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Are within-subjects designs transparent?

Contents:

Author Info

  • Charles Lambdin
  • Victoria A. Shaffer
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Researchers frequently argue that within-subjects designs should be avoided because they result in research hypotheses that are transparent to the subjects in the study. This conjecture was empirically tested by replicating several classic between-subjects experiments as within-subjects designs. In two additional experiments, psychology students were given the within-subjects versions of these studies and asked to guess what the researcher was hoping to find (i.e. the research hypothesis), and members of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making (SJDM) were asked to predict how well students would perform this task. On the whole, students were unable to identify the research hypothesis when provided with the within-subjects version of the experiments. Furthermore, SJDM members were largely inaccurate in their predictions of the transparency of a within-subjects design.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/9921/jdm9921.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/9921/jdm9921.html
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Society for Judgment and Decision Making in its journal Judgment and Decision Making.

    Volume (Year): 4 (2009)
    Issue (Month): 7 (December)
    Pages: 554-566

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:4:y:2009:i:7:p:554-566

    Contact details of provider:

    Related research

    Keywords: methodology; research design.;

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Maria Vittoria Levati & Topi Miettinen & Birendra K. Rai, 2010. "Context and Interpretation in Laboratory Experiments: The Case of Reciprocity," Jena Economic Research Papers 2010-090, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:4:y:2009:i:7:p:554-566. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jonathan Baron).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.