A recent headline reads, "An 'awe walk' might do wonders for your well-being." Here is the journalist's summary of an empirical journal article.
The journalist starts by explaining that psychological researchers already know that exercise can improve mood. And we also already know that a feeling of awe can improve mental health. The journalist introduces the concept:
A somewhat nebulous emotion, awe generally is defined as the sense that you are in the presence of something larger and more consequential than yourself and that this something is mysterious and ineffable.
In the study,
They concentrated on people in their 60s, 70s and 80s, an age when some people can face heightened risks for declining mental health.
Read the journalist's description of the study, identifying the study's independent variable, dependent variables (there are more than one DV), and control variable(s):
The scientists asked 52 of the study volunteers if they would mind adding a weekly 15-minute walk to their normal schedules. ...Fresh, baseline studies of their mental health showed they were psychologically well-adjusted as well, with little anxiety or depression.
The scientists randomly divided these volunteers into two groups. One, as a control group, was asked to start walking, at least once a week, for 15 minutes, preferably outside, but given few other mandates.
The members of the other group likewise were asked to walk once a week, but also were instructed in how to cultivate awe as they walked.
Not surprisingly, they found that the awe walkers seemed to have become adept at discovering and amplifying awe. One volunteer reported focusing now on “the beautiful fall colors and the absence of them among the evergreen forest.” A control walker, in contrast, said she spent much of a recent walk fretting about an upcoming vacation and “all the things I had to do before we leave.”
The researchers also found small but significant differences in the groups’ sense of well-being. Over all, the awe walkers felt happier, less upset and more socially connected than the men and women in the control group. The volunteers in the control group reported some improvements in mood, but their gains were slighter.
Questions
a) What was this study's IV? What were its levels? Was the IV manipulated as independent groups or within groups?
b) Name three distinct DVs from this study, based on the journalist's description.
c) Which type of experiment is this? Posttest only? prettest-posttest? repeated measures? concurrent measures?
d) Pick one of the DVs you listed in (b). Sketch a bar graph of this DVs. (Hint: you are going to need to plot four data points--do you see why?).
e) Construct validity question: What's going on in the paragraph that starts, "Not surprisingly, they found that the awe walkers seemed to have become adept at discovering and amplifying awe."? Use the term "manipulation check" in your response, and explain why a manipulation check is relevant to construct validity.
f) Statistical validity question: The journalist describes "small but significant differences". What does this phrase mean? Use the term "effect size" in your answer.
g) External validity question: Can we generalize from this sample, or is generalization unknown? defend your answer (but please don't refer to sample size!)
h) Internal validity question: What role did random assignment play in this study? What if somebody says, "some people just like going for walks"--would you consider this to be a threat to internal validity? Why or why not?
The journalist also mentions another DV. The researchers asked people to take a couple of selfies during their walks:
Over the course of the eight weeks, the size of awe walkers’ countenances shrank in relation to the scenery around them. Their faces grew smaller, the world larger. Nothing similar occurred in the photos from the control group.
i) It sounds like the researchers did not preregister prediction about the selfie content. Is lack of preregistration a potential problem?
