Advances in Psychological Science ›› 2022, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (6): 1367-1376.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.01367
• Research Method • Previous Articles Next Articles
WEI Xuhua, WANG Guangwei(), CHEN Yi
Received:
2021-08-09
Online:
2022-06-15
Published:
2022-04-26
Contact:
WANG Guangwei
E-mail:wgw2020@qq.com
CLC Number:
WEI Xuhua, WANG Guangwei, CHEN Yi. Manipulation checks in the managerial psychology experiment in China: Current status, problems, and suggestions[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(6): 1367-1376.
操纵检验类型 | 含义 | 用途 |
---|---|---|
直接操纵检验 | 测量预期变量水平 | 检验实验操纵是否激活了预期变量的问题 |
辨别式操纵检验 | 测量竞争性解释变量 | 检验和控制实验操纵所引发的竞争性解释 |
指导式操纵检验 | 通过客观题目测验被试是否认真填答 | 排除失真数据 |
操纵检验类型 | 含义 | 用途 |
---|---|---|
直接操纵检验 | 测量预期变量水平 | 检验实验操纵是否激活了预期变量的问题 |
辨别式操纵检验 | 测量竞争性解释变量 | 检验和控制实验操纵所引发的竞争性解释 |
指导式操纵检验 | 通过客观题目测验被试是否认真填答 | 排除失真数据 |
关键环节 | 使用现状 | 存在的问题 | 应对策略 |
---|---|---|---|
实施形式 | 国内操纵检验实施形式单一, 以自我报告为主 | 自我报告式操纵检验可能会引发被试对实验目的的解读和思考, 干扰实验进程 | 使用外部观察或客观指标等低干预性操纵检验形式 |
误差控制 | 仍有相当比例研究未使用成熟量表, 未使用辨别式操纵检验排除竞争性解释, 且使用指导式操纵检验等新兴操纵检验策略排除无效样本的比例较低 | 单一或不成熟的操纵检验题项和被试不认真填答会引发测量误差, 竞争性解释会引发系统误差, 进而产生有偏的实验结论 | 采用成熟多题项量表, 或者使用表述足够具体且清晰的单题项量表, 引入规范的无效样本排除策略(如指导式操纵检验), 使用辨别式操纵检验排除竞争解释 |
位置设计 | 只有部分学者注意到操纵检验位置对实验的影响, 多数实验将操纵检验置于因变量前 | 操纵检验前置会引发被试反思和猜测实验目的, 干扰实验进程, 改变被试填答策略 | 若操纵检验对实验结果无负面影响, 可放因变量前, 反之需置于因变量后; 若操纵持续时间短, 需置于因变量前, 反之可置于因变量后 |
实施时机 | 多数实验是在实验过程中完成操纵检验, 通过实验前的预实验形式或者实验后的定性编码形式开展操纵检验的比例较低 | 在实验过程中开展操纵检验会干扰实验进程, 预实验中操纵成功并不代表正式实验也成立, 实验后开展操纵检验受过程材料完备度和编码者的影响 | 事前操纵检验需要保证预实验与正式实验在参与对象和实验环境的同质性, 事后操纵检验需要保证过程材料的完整性和编码者的素质 |
分析策略 | 操纵检验数据的使用率较低, 仅限于自变量组间方差分析, 忽视了实验操纵强度、操纵中介分析等分析策略 | 操纵检验方差分析并不能保证实验外部效度, 并不能保证实验操纵是通过启动预期效应进而影响实验结果, 并不能保证不存在竞争性解释 | 利用操纵强度分析、操纵中介分析等新方法分析操纵检验数据, 为实验提供更翔实的证据 |
关键环节 | 使用现状 | 存在的问题 | 应对策略 |
---|---|---|---|
实施形式 | 国内操纵检验实施形式单一, 以自我报告为主 | 自我报告式操纵检验可能会引发被试对实验目的的解读和思考, 干扰实验进程 | 使用外部观察或客观指标等低干预性操纵检验形式 |
误差控制 | 仍有相当比例研究未使用成熟量表, 未使用辨别式操纵检验排除竞争性解释, 且使用指导式操纵检验等新兴操纵检验策略排除无效样本的比例较低 | 单一或不成熟的操纵检验题项和被试不认真填答会引发测量误差, 竞争性解释会引发系统误差, 进而产生有偏的实验结论 | 采用成熟多题项量表, 或者使用表述足够具体且清晰的单题项量表, 引入规范的无效样本排除策略(如指导式操纵检验), 使用辨别式操纵检验排除竞争解释 |
位置设计 | 只有部分学者注意到操纵检验位置对实验的影响, 多数实验将操纵检验置于因变量前 | 操纵检验前置会引发被试反思和猜测实验目的, 干扰实验进程, 改变被试填答策略 | 若操纵检验对实验结果无负面影响, 可放因变量前, 反之需置于因变量后; 若操纵持续时间短, 需置于因变量前, 反之可置于因变量后 |
实施时机 | 多数实验是在实验过程中完成操纵检验, 通过实验前的预实验形式或者实验后的定性编码形式开展操纵检验的比例较低 | 在实验过程中开展操纵检验会干扰实验进程, 预实验中操纵成功并不代表正式实验也成立, 实验后开展操纵检验受过程材料完备度和编码者的影响 | 事前操纵检验需要保证预实验与正式实验在参与对象和实验环境的同质性, 事后操纵检验需要保证过程材料的完整性和编码者的素质 |
分析策略 | 操纵检验数据的使用率较低, 仅限于自变量组间方差分析, 忽视了实验操纵强度、操纵中介分析等分析策略 | 操纵检验方差分析并不能保证实验外部效度, 并不能保证实验操纵是通过启动预期效应进而影响实验结果, 并不能保证不存在竞争性解释 | 利用操纵强度分析、操纵中介分析等新方法分析操纵检验数据, 为实验提供更翔实的证据 |
[1] | 段锦云, 郭昭君. (2019). 实验法在人力资源管理研究中的应用. 人力资源管理评论, (1), 23-35. |
[2] | 方杰, 温忠麟. (2018). 三类多层中介效应分析方法比较. 心理科学, 41(4), 962-967. |
[3] | 葛林洁, 王丹, 郭一蓉, 张昱城. (2021). 实验室实验与现场实验在组织行为学中的应用. 中国人力资源开发, 38(2), 42-56. |
[4] | 李小平, 闫鸿磊, 云祥. (2014). 权力感的启动对内隐和外显暴力态度的影响. 应用心理学, 20(4), 323-331. |
[5] | 李晓倩, 马亮. (2021). 公共管理实验研究中的实验报告: 现状与评价--以国际期刊论文为例. 公共管理与政策评论, 10(1), 55-65. |
[6] | 柳武妹, 黄河清, 叶富荣. (2020). 消费者行为研究中的田野实验: 概念、操作介绍与开展建议. 外国经济与管理, 42(3), 35-56. |
[7] | 刘咏梅, 陈思璇, 卫旭华. (2015). 诱导效应的影响机制--产品感知风险的调节作用. 心理科学, 38(6), 1425-1431. |
[8] | 王阳, 温忠麟. (2018). 基于两水平被试内设计的中介效应分析方法. 心理科学, 41(5), 1233-1239. |
[9] | 卫旭华, 张亮花. (2019). 单题项测量: 质疑、回应及建议. 心理科学进展, 27(7), 1194-1204. |
[10] | Abbey J. D., & Meloy M. G. (2017). Attention by design: Using attention checks to detect inattentive respondents and improve data quality. Journal of Operations Management, 55(1), 63-70. |
[11] |
Bless H., & Burger A. M. (2016). A closer look at social psychologists' silver bullet: Inevitable and evitable side effects of the experimental approach. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(2), 296-308.
doi: 10.1177/1745691615621278 URL |
[12] |
Campbell D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297-312.
doi: 10.1037/h0040950 URL |
[13] |
Chester D. S., & Lasko E. N. (2021). Construct validation of experimental manipulations in social psychology: Current practices and recommendations for the future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(2), 377-395.
doi: 10.1177/1745691620950684 URL |
[14] |
Curran P. G. (2016). Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66(1), 4-19.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.006 URL |
[15] | Ejelöv E., & Luke T. J. (2020). "Rarely safe to assume": Evaluating the use and interpretation of manipulation checks in experimental social psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 87, 103937. |
[16] |
Fayant M. P., Sigall H., Lemonnier A., Retsin E., & Alexopoulos T. (2017). On the limitations of manipulation checks: An obstacle toward cumulative science. International Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 125-130.
doi: 10.5334/irsp.102 URL |
[17] | Festinger. (1953). Research methods in the behavioral sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. |
[18] |
Fiedler K., Schott M., & Meiser T. (2011). What mediation analysis can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231-1236.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.007 URL |
[19] | Haslam S. A., & McGarty C. (2014). Research methods and statistics in psychology. London: Sage. |
[20] |
Hauser D. J., Ellsworth P. C., & Richard G. (2018). Are manipulation checks necessary?. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 998.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00998 pmid: 29977213 |
[21] | Hauser D. J., & Schwarz N. (2015). It's a trap! Instructional manipulation checks prompt systematic thinking on "tricky" tasks. SAGE Open, 5(2), 1-6. |
[22] |
Hoprekstad L., Hetland J., Bakker A. B., Olsen O. K., Espevik R., Wessel M., & Einarsen S. V. (2019). How long does it last? Prior victimization from workplace bullying moderates the relationship between daily exposure to negative acts and subsequent depressed mood. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(2), 164-178.
doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2018.1564279 |
[23] | Kassam K. S., Berry M. W., & Tom D. (2013). The effects of measuring emotion: Physiological reactions to emotional situations depend on whether someone is asking. Plos One, 8(6), 649-659. |
[24] |
Keltner D., Ellsworth P. C., & Edwards K. (1993). Beyond simple pessimism: Effects of sadness and anger on social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 740-752.
pmid: 8505705 |
[25] |
Kotzian P., Stoeber T., Hoos F., & Weissenberger B. E. (2020). To be or not to be in the sample? On using manipulation checks in experimental accounting research. Accounting Research Journal, 33(3), 469-482.
doi: 10.1108/ARJ-06-2019-0128 URL |
[26] |
Kühnen. (2010). Manipulation checks as manipulation: Another look at the ease-of-retrieval heuristic. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(1), 47-58.
doi: 10.1177/0146167209346746 URL |
[27] |
Kyriazos T. A., & Stalikas A. (2018). Applied psychometrics: The steps of scale development and standardization process. Psychology, 9(11), 2531-2560.
doi: 10.4236/psych.2018.911145 URL |
[28] |
Lench H. C., Taylor A. B., & Bench S. W. (2014). An alternative approach to analysis of mental states in experimental social cognition research. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 215-228.
doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0351-0 URL |
[29] |
Lerche V., & Voss A. (2018). Speed-accuracy manipulations and diffusion modeling: Lack of discriminant validity of the manipulation or of the parameter estimates?. Behavior Research Methods, 50(6), 2568-2585.
doi: 10.3758/s13428-018-1034-7 URL |
[30] |
Oppenheimer D. M., Meyvis T., & Davidenko N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867-872.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009 URL |
[31] |
Paas L. J., Dolnicar S., & Karlsson L. (2018). Instructional manipulation checks: A longitudinal analysis with implications for MTurk. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 35(2), 258-269.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2018.01.003 URL |
[32] |
Parigi P., Santana J. J., & Cook K. S. (2017). Online field experiments: Studying social interactions in context. Social Psychology Quarterly, 80(1), 1-19.
doi: 10.1177/0190272516680842 URL |
[33] |
Prentice D. A., & Miller D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 160-164.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.160 URL |
[34] | Rogers J., & Révész A. (2019). Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Routledge. |
[35] |
Schäfer T., & Schwarz M. A. (2019). The meaningfulness of effect sizes in psychological research: Differences between sub-disciplines and the impact of potential biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 813.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00813 pmid: 31031679 |
[36] | Schwarz N., & Strack F. (2014). Does merely going through the same moves make for a "direct" replication? Concepts, contexts, and operationalizations. Social Psychology, 45(4), 305-306. |
[37] | Sigall, Harold, Mills, & Judson. (1998). Measures of independent variables and mediators are useful in social psychology experiments: But are they necessary?. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(2), 218-226. |
[38] | Webb E. J., Campbell D. T., Schwartz R. D., & Sechrest L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally. |
[39] | Wilson T. D., Aronson E., & Carlsmith K. (2010). The art of laboratory experimentation. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 51-81). Hoboken: Wiley. |
[40] |
Word C. O., Zanna M. P., & Cooper J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(2), 109-120.
doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(74)90059-6 URL |
[1] | FANG Junyan, WEN Zhonglin. The endogeneity issue in longitudinal research: Sources and solutions [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(4): 507-518. |
[2] | HUANG Shunsen, CHEN Haojie, LAI Xiaoxiong, DAI Xinran, WANG Yun. Multiverse-style analysis: Introduction and application [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(2): 196-208. |
[3] | CHEN Xinwen, LI Hongjie, DING Yulong. Exploring the neural representation patterns in event-related EEG/MEG signals: The methods based on classification decoding and representation similarity analysis [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(2): 173-195. |
[4] | BAO Han-Wu-Shuang, WANG Zi-Xi, CHENG Xi, SU Zhan, YANG Ying, ZHANG Guang-Yao, WANG Bo, CAI Hua-Jian. Using word embeddings to investigate human psychology: Methods and applications [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 0, (): 0-0. |
[5] | ZHU Xun, GU Xin. Evaluation of predictors’ relative importance: Methods and applications [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(1): 145-158. |
[6] | FANG Jie, WEN Zhonglin. Moderation analysis for longitudinal data [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(11): 2461-2472. |
[7] | ZHAI Hongkun, LI Qiang, WEI Xiaowei. Power analysis in structural equation modeling: Principles and methods [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(9): 2117-2130. |
[8] | WANG Yang, WEN Zhonglin, WANG Huihui, GUAN Fang. The second type of mediated moderation [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(9): 2131-2142. |
[9] | WEN Zhonglin, XIE Jinyan, FANG Jie, WANG Yifan. Methodological research on hypothesis test and related issues in China’s mainland from 2001 to 2020 [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(8): 1667-1681. |
[10] | WEN Zhonglin, CHEN Hongxi, FANG Jie, YE Baojuan, CAI Baozhen. Research on test reliability in China’s mainland from 2001 to 2020 [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(8): 1682-1691. |
[11] | WEN Zhonglin, FANG Jie, XIE Jinyan, OUYANG Jinying. Methodological research on mediation effects in China’s mainland [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(8): 1692-1702. |
[12] | FANG Jie, WEN Zhonglin, OUYANG Jinying, CAI Baozhen. Methodological research on moderation effects in China’s mainland [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(8): 1703-1714. |
[13] | WANG Yang, WEN Zhonglin, LI Wei, FANG Jie. Methodological research and model development on structural equation models in China’s mainland from 2001 to 2020 [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(8): 1715-1733. |
[14] | LIU Yuan, DU Hongyan, FANG Jie, WEN Zhonglin. Methodology study and model development for analyzing longitudinal data in China’s mainland [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(8): 1734-1746. |
[15] | LIN Jiao-Min, LI Ai-Mei, ZHOU Ya-Ran, HE Jun-Hong, ZHOU Lei. The prospect of gaze manipulation technology in decision-making research: Altering decision-making [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(8): 1794-1803. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||