There are many views on the differentiation of experimental techniques and a significant number of terms denoting them. If we summarize the results in this area, then the totality of the main types of experiment can be presented in the following form:
I. On the validity and completeness of the procedure
1. Real (specific).
2. Mental (abstract):
a) ideal;
b) infinite;
c) flawless.
II. According to the purpose of the experiment
1. Research.
2.Diagnostic (examination).
3. Demonstration.
III. By level of research
1. Preliminary (reconnaissance).
2. Basic;
3. Control.
IV. By type of impact on the subject
1. Internal.
2. External.
V. According to the degree of intervention by experimenters, the life activity of the subject (by type of experimental situation)
A. Classic grouping
1. Laboratory (artificial). ,
2. Natural (field).
3. Formative.
B. Extraordinary grouping:
1. An experiment that duplicates reality.
2. An experiment that improves reality.
VI. If possible, the influence of the experimenter on the independent variable
1. Triggered experiment.
2. The experiment being referenced.
VII. By the number of independent variables
1. One-factor (two-dimensional).
2. Multifactorial (multidimensional).
VIII. According to the number of subjects
1. Individual.
2. Group.
IX. By the method of identifying relationships between variables (by the procedure for varying the experimental situation)
1. Intraprocedural (inside).
2. Interprocedural (between).
3. Cross-procedural (intersection).
X. By type of change in the independent variable
1. Quantitative.
2. High quality.
Real (concrete) experiment is an experiment carried out in reality under specific experimental conditions. It is real research that provides factual material used for both practical and theoretical purposes. The experimental results are valid for specific conditions and populations. Their transfer to broader conditions is probabilistic in nature.
Thought experiment- an imaginary experience that cannot be accomplished in reality. Sometimes this category also includes mental manipulations regarding the organization and conduct of a planned real experiment in the future. But such preliminary “playing out” in the mind real experience– in fact, its obligatory attribute, implemented at the preparatory stages of the study (posing the problem, putting forward a hypothesis, planning).
Discussions about the “empiricalness” or “theoreticality” of a thought experiment seem to us endless and unpromising, since the boundary between the corresponding types of knowledge and research is very arbitrary. Proponents of the theoretical nature of a thought experiment usually refer to the fact that its application is associated mainly with the formulation and development of a hypothesis, and not with the stage of collecting data about the object being studied. This is true. A thought experiment is used mainly for the purpose of a clearer understanding of the hypothesis being put forward and for comparison with real experience as a standard. However, it contains all the signs and elements of an empirical real experiment, but only in a conditional and ideal form: direct second-» | the experimenter’s (albeit imaginary) participation in life "< the quality of the object (even if presented in the form of an ideal model); the strictest (albeit conditionally) control and recording of all variables and answers is carried out; Any number of repetitions of the experiment is allowed; an unambiguous understanding of the results of the experiment is achieved, etc. The main types of thought experiments are ideal, infinite and perfect experiment s.
The perfect experiment is an experiment in which the dependent variable is not influenced by any influence other than one independent variable. In reality, it is impossible to exclude the additional influence of many additional factors. Therefore, an ideal experiment is not actually feasible. In practice, the approximation of real experience to the ideal is realized by controlling additional variables outlined in the description of the experimental procedure.
Endless experiment– an experiment covering all possible experimental situations for the entire population under study (general population). In reality, the number of such situations is limitless due to the huge, and often unknown, size of the general population and the countless number of factors acting on the subject. Taking into account this entire infinite number of situations can only be done in the imagination of the researcher. Due to its limitlessness (in diversity and time), such an experiment was called infinite. The practical pointlessness of an endless experiment is in contradiction with one of the main ideas of empirical research - the transfer of results obtained on a limited sample to the entire population. It is needed only as a theoretical model.
Impeccable – it is an experiment that combines the features of both ideal and endless experiments. As a standard for a comprehensive experiment, it makes it possible to evaluate the completeness and, accordingly, the shortcomings of a specific real experience.
A research experiment is an experience aimed at obtaining new knowledge about the object and subject of study. It is with this type of experiment that the concept of “scientific experiment” is usually associated, since the main goal of science is knowledge of the unknown. While the other two types of experiment based on the goal criterion are primarily of an applied nature, the research experiment primarily performs a search function.
In psychological research we are usually talking about experiments that provide data on the behavior of people and animals, on various mental phenomena. But, perhaps, experiments that contribute to the development and improvement of empirical methods should also be included here. In these cases, the subject of research is not the actual mental phenomena, but the methods of studying them. In foreign literature, this type of experiment is sometimes designated by the term “ordering experiment,” which in Russian may be understood somewhat differently, and therefore cannot be recommended for use.
It was already pointed out earlier that sometimes a research (search, exploratory) experiment is an experiment that reveals the presence (or absence) of a causal relationship between an independent and dependent variable. In our opinion, the establishment of the presence of cause-and-effect relationships in an experiment is determined not by the type of experiment, but by the level of its information content. In science, this level is usually called the factor level of an experiment.
A diagnostic (survey) experiment is an experiment-task performed by a subject in order to detect or measure any qualities in him. These experiments do not provide new knowledge about the subject of research (personality quality). This is actually testing. But in each test, firstly, all the basic elements of the experimental method are present: the subject, his answers, the researcher, the experimental situation. Secondly, the testing procedure generally coincides with the experimental procedure. Thirdly, if new knowledge is not obtained here about the subject of research (this or that mental phenomenon), then new information can be obtained about the object (a specific person or animal). All this, combined with a broad interpretation of the concept of “experiment,” allows us to consider some types of diagnostic techniques as specific experiments aimed at clarifying individual differences.
This primarily includes objective tests, i.e. tests where the subject must achieve some results in a certain type of activity. These are psychomotor tests, intelligence tests, and achievement tests. Many psychophysiological and socio-psychological experiments are often used for diagnostic purposes. Since the diagnostic procedure is in the nature of an examination of the object of study, it is permissible to call diagnostic experiments “exploratory”.
A demonstration experiment is an experience of an illustrative nature that accompanies cognitive or entertainment activities. The immediate purpose of such experiments is to familiarize the audience with either the relevant experimental method, or with the effect obtained in the experiment. Demonstration experiments are most widespread in educational practice. With their help, students master research and diagnostic techniques. Often an additional goal is set - to interest students in the relevant field of knowledge. In scientific practice, such experiments are resorted to mainly for the purpose of a more complete explanation and visual presentation of the obtained scientific material and the hypotheses put forward. Demonstration experiments are also used in the entertainment sector. Especially when the resulting psychological effect can cause increased interest or a cheerful mood among the public.
A preliminary (exploratory) experiment is an experiment carried out to clarify the problem and provide adequate orientation to it. With its help, little-known situations are probed, hypotheses are clarified, and questions for further research are identified and formulated. Research of this intelligence nature is often called aerobatics. Based on the data obtained in preliminary experiments, questions about the need and possibilities for further research in this area and the organization of basic experiments are resolved.
Preliminary experiments, in addition to probing (reconnaissance) of the problem being studied, are widely used to solve more specific problems within the framework of the main study. Let us consider this to be the narrow meaning of the preliminary experiment. The most typical tasks in these cases are: 1) familiarizing subjects with the procedure of the main experiment so that they fully understand the instructions and prevent possible failures in the future; 2) debugging the experimental procedure. In particular, determining the optimal mode of stimulation presentation in the main experiments; 3) leveling (or eliminating) the influence of some internal additional variables (for example, anxiety, inexperience, increasing experience in a given activity, etc.). Such preliminary experiments conducted as part of the main study are sometimes called informational. The results of these experiments, as a rule, are not included in the main data set of subsequent main experiments.
The main experiment is a full-scale empirical study carried out with the aim of obtaining new scientific data on a problem of interest to the experimenter. The resulting result is used for both theoretical and applied purposes. The main experiment may be preceded by preliminary experiments of both an exploratory and fact-finding nature.
A control experiment is an experiment whose results are compared with the results of the main experiment. The need for control may arise for various reasons. For example: 1) errors were discovered in conducting basic experiments; 2) doubts about the accuracy of the procedure; 3) doubts about the adequacy of the procedure to the hypothesis; 4) the emergence of new scientific data that contradicts previously obtained data; 5) the desire for additional evidence of the validity of the hypothesis accepted in the main experiment and its transformation into a theory; 6) the desire to refute existing hypotheses or theories. It is clear that in terms of accuracy and reliability, control experiments should not be inferior to the main ones.
Control experiments, as well as preliminary ones, can have a broad and narrow interpretation. They have broad significance when they represent an independent study outside the framework of the main experiment, performed to verify its results. In this function, control experiments can be called confirming(or refuting). In this regard, the reader’s attention should once again be drawn to the fact that some authors call confirmatory experiments that reveal the type of cause-and-effect relationship between the independent and dependent variables. But the possibility of establishing through empirical research the type of dependence between variables, in our opinion, determines not the type of experiment, but the level of its information content. This level is usually called functional.
We can talk about the narrow meaning of a control experiment in cases where the study provides for special experiments that differ from the main ones in the absence of an independent variable and are carried out in parallel with them for the purpose of comparison. The results obtained in these auxiliary experiments on “control groups” serve as the background against which the dependencies obtained in the main experiments on “ex-” are pro-. perimental groups." This methodological technique has already been mentioned under the name “parallel group method”.
Internal experiment- this is a real experiment where mental phenomena are caused or changed directly by the volitional effort of the subject, and not by influence from the outside world. Experimentation is carried out in the subjective space of a person, where he plays the role of both the experimenter and the subject. Internal influence always includes an independent variable, and ideally it should be limited only to it. This brings the internal experiment closer to the mental ideal.
It is clear that this kind of experiment can only be carried out by well-trained subjects. They must be able to focus on the phenomena being studied (their mental processes and states), separate them from accompanying mental factors, unambiguously and competently report their experiences and impressions, etc. It is clear that such experiments are feasible only within the framework of introspection. Hence their insignificant distribution. Even the introspectionists of the past rarely resorted to self-influence, but preferred to combine introspection with external stimulation.
An external experiment is a common experimental way of studying mental phenomena, when their appearance or change is achieved through external influences on the sensory organs of the subject.
A laboratory (artificial) experiment is an experiment carried out in artificially created conditions that allow strictly dosing stimulation (independent variables) and controlling other influences on the subject (additional variables), as well as accurately recording his responses, including dependent variables. The subject is aware of his role in the experiment, but his overall design is usually unknown to him.
Since the provision of these conditions is possible, as a rule, in specially equipped premises - laboratories, the method is called laboratory experiment. A synonym is the term - artificial an experiment that emphasizes the unnaturalness of the experimental situation in this type of research. All considerations regarding the relationship between these designations, expressed when considering laboratory observations, are also valid in this case.
Due to the artificiality of the conditions and the regulation of the behavior of the subject (through instructions), a laboratory experiment is distinguished by a particularly high degree of reliability, reliability and accuracy of the results.
The main disadvantage is the low level of so-called “ecological validity”, i.e. possible inconsistency with natural life situations. This “remoteness from life” is due to the following main factors. Firstly, by the omission from the experimental situation of conditions essential for the phenomenon being studied. Thus, in the experience of learning nonsense syllables, there are no semantic connections, which are one of the leading determinants in the work of human memory. Experiments measuring sensory sensitivity or reaction time usually lack the factor of signal significance, which life situations plays a vital role and has a huge impact on the severity of mental reactions. The second reason for the “separation from life” is the analytical nature of the laboratory experiment. It lies in the fact that in experience usually any mental phenomenon is considered separately from others. Thus, any types of sensations, memory, emotions, etc. are subject to study. Analysis in an experiment prevails over synthesis. The third important negative factor is the abstractness of the laboratory experiment. It is expressed in his separation from practical activities person. The patterns revealed under artificial conditions are quite general. Often the application of these laws to practice results in a mechanical transfer of results obtained under one set of conditions to others of a completely different kind.
And yet, claims about the “unviability” of a laboratory experiment cannot shake its status as the most accurate scientific method. It is still believed that a laboratory experiment is “ highest form empirical knowledge." Erdf*'s dominant position in science is undeniable. Classic examples of laboratory experiments provide psychophysical methods and methods for measuring reaction time.
A natural (field) experiment is an experiment carried out under normal conditions for the subject with a minimum of interference in his life activity on the part of the experimenter. The presentation of the independent variable is, as it were, “woven” naturally into the normal course of his activities. Depending on the type of activity performed and the corresponding situation, types of natural experiments are distinguished: in conditions of communication, work, play, educational, military activity, in everyday life and leisure. A specific type of this type of experiment is an investigative experiment, in which the artificiality of the procedure is combined with the naturalness of the conditions of illegal actions.
Usually, if this is possible for organizational and ethical reasons, the subjects are not informed about the experiment and, naturally, they are not aware of their role in it. Experimental tasks or external stimulation appear here as an integral part of the work they perform.
A natural experiment is, to a certain extent, an intermediate form between experiment and objective observation. Indeed, the observational component here is more significant than in a laboratory experiment. Some features of the observation method even appear stronger than experimental features. Thus, the experimenter’s initiative clearly appears only during the period of preparing the experiment and “introducing” the necessary tasks into the process of the subject’s subsequent activities. During further time, the researcher, as a rule, plays a more or less passive role as an observer. Further, the experimenter in this case is practically deprived of the opportunity to strictly control and maintain at a constant level most additional variables, both internal and external. It is also very difficult to vary the conditions for the development of the phenomena being studied. The repeatability of experiments is not easy, since it is impossible to reproduce identical situations in natural conditions almost impossible. In addition, the experimenter is usually deprived of the opportunity to strictly register both the dependent and independent variables. Therefore, the results here are mostly presented in descriptive form.
But a natural experiment is much “closer to life” than a laboratory one. This type of experiment is especially widely used in applied research and in the field of socio-psychological problems.
A synonym for a natural experiment is a “field experiment.” Everything that has been said about a similar term regarding field observation is appropriate here. Priority in the development and implementation of natural experiments in psychology and pedagogy belongs to A.F. Lazursky.
Formative experiment – This is a method of actively influencing the subject, promoting his mental development and personal growth. The main areas of application of this method are pedagogy, developmental (primarily children's) and educational psychology. The active influence of the experimenter consists mainly in creating special conditions and situations that, firstly, initiate the emergence of certain mental functions and, secondly, allow them to be purposefully changed and formed. The first is typical for both laboratory and natural experiments. The second is the specificity of the form of experiment being considered. The formation of the psyche and personal properties is a long process. Therefore, the formative experiment is usually carried out over a long period of time. And in this respect it can be classified as a longitudinal study.
Fundamentally, such an impact can lead to negative consequences for the subject or society. Therefore, the qualifications and good intentions of the experimenter are extremely important. Research of this kind should not harm the physical, mental and moral health of people.
To a certain extent, the formative experiment occupies an intermediate position between laboratory and natural. What makes it similar to the laboratory is the artificiality of creating special conditions, and what makes it similar to the field is the natural nature of these very conditions. The predominant use of formative experiment in pedagogy led to the understanding of this method as one of the forms psychological and pedagogical experiment. Another form of psychological and pedagogical experiment is then considered experiment stating allowing only to register this or that phenomenon or the level of its development in children. It still seems that the hierarchy of concepts should be different, if only because the concept of “formation” is broader than the pedagogical concepts of “training” and “upbringing.” The formation procedure can apply not only to the animate world, but also to the inanimate world. As for the formation of mental qualities, it is applicable not only to humans, but also to animals. Actually, animal learning is based on this.
Outside the pedagogical context, B. F. Lomov considers a formative experiment when he analyzes the problem of the influence of the experimenter on the responses of the subject. And the psychological and pedagogical experiment then acts as a special case of a formative one. We can give other examples of concretizing a formative experiment that perform not only pedagogical functions. So, experimental genetic method Research on mental development, proposed by L. S. Vygotsky, is aimed at studying the formation of various mental processes. The development of the experimental genetic method as a research, diagnostic and educational technique is method of systematically step-by-step formation of mental actions, proposed by P. Ya. Galperin.
Widespread educational experiment, the main task of which is to vary the content and forms educational activities of a person in order to determine the impact of these changes on the pace and characteristics of a person’s mental (primarily mental) development. As we see, in this version, the research component is not inferior to the teaching one. And the training itself can be carried out not only in pedagogical terms, but also in professional ones.
A great contribution to the development, improvement and application of these methods was made by domestic psychologists L. A. Venger, P. Ya. Galperin, V. V. Davydov, A. V. Zaporozhets, G. S. Kostyuk, A. N. Leontyev, A. A. Lyublinskaya, D. B. Elkonin.
The essence of the formative experiment in the context of child psychology was very precisely formulated by L. I. Bozhovich: this is a method of “studying the child’s personality in the process of his active and purposeful upbringing.”
In addition to educational and psychological-pedagogical, many other terms are used as synonyms for formative experiment: transformative, creative, constructive, educational, genetic modeling experiment, method of active formation of the psyche and even psychotherapeutic experiment.
Close to the just discussed division into laboratory and natural views experiment classification proposed by R. Gottsdanker. Based on approximately the same criterion (the degree of intervention of the experimenter in the activity of the subject), he distinguishes two types of experiments: duplicating and improving the real world.
Experiments that duplicate reality– these are experiments that simulate specific situations real life, the results of which have a low level of generalization. Their conclusions are applicable to specific people in specific activity conditions, which is why they are also called full compliance experiments. These experiments pursue purely practical purposes. This type of experiment is close to the natural type according to the classical grouping.
Experiments that improve reality- These are experiments in which only some of the variables to be studied are subject to change. The remaining variables are stable. This type is similar to a laboratory experiment according to the generally accepted classification.
The given classification by R. Gottsdanker in Lately some researchers qualify it as “far-fetched and archaic”, since “in developed sciences they strive to avoid a “direct closure” between the experimental result and reality, since it is clear that the experiment is built on the basis of the requirements of the theory being tested, and not from the requirements of compliance with reality.” Such criticism is due to the understanding that the external validity of a psychological experiment as the ultimate adequacy of the experimental situation to life circumstances, firstly, is fundamentally unattainable and, secondly, is relevant only in applied, but not in basic research. But then all these critical arrows should just as well be aimed at dividing the experiment into “non-life” laboratory and “close to life” natural.
Claude Bernard proposed to distinguish between two types of experiment: provoked and referenced. Paul Fresse considered this division to be very useful in psychology.
A induced experiment is an experiment in which the experimenter himself influences the independent variable. Changes in NP can be both quantitative and qualitative. And then the results observed by the experimenter (in the form of the subject’s reactions) are, as it were, provoked by him. It is obvious that the vast majority of experimental studies relate to this type. P. Fress, not without reason, calls this type of experiment “classical”.
The experiment being referred to is one in which a change in the independent variable is made without intervention by the experimenter. These include personality changes, brain damage, cultural differences, etc. According to P. Fress, these cases are very valuable, “since the experimenter cannot introduce variables whose action would be slow (education system), and does not have the right to experiment on a person if his experiment is likely to cause serious and irreversible physiological or psychological damage." There may be cases where an experiment is induced for some variables, but is referred to for others.
One-factor (two-dimensional) experiment is an experiment with one independent and one dependent variable. Since there is only one factor influencing the responses of the subject, experience is called one-factor or single-level. And since there are two measurable quantities - NP and ZP, the experiment is called two-dimensional or bivalent. Isolating only two variables allows us to study a mental phenomenon in its “pure” form. The implementation of this research option is carried out using the procedures described above for controlling additional variables and presenting an independent variable. The bulk of experimental material in psychology was obtained using single-factor experiments. Let us recall that they are still the main tool for studying mental phenomena at the functional level, that is, at the level that allows us to establish functional dependencies between variables. It is clear that a one-factor experiment is being implemented in laboratory conditions.
Multifactorial (multidimensional) experiment is an experiment with several independent And usually one dependent variable. The presence of several dependent variables cannot be ruled out, but this case is still extremely rare in psychological research. Although, apparently, this is the future, since real mental phenomena always represent a complex system of many interacting factors. The name “poorly organized systems”, common in science, is applicable to them, which precisely emphasizes the multiplicity of determination of their manifestation.
Multifactorial experimentation developed in two main directions. The first is associated with the already mentioned English scientist R. Fisher, the developer of variance analysis. This approach is based on the ideas of statistical laws. The second direction is associated with the ideas of cybernetics. Apparently, this circumstance determines the designation of a multifactorial experiment by the term “ki- Bernetic experiment". By now, perhaps, both directions have merged together and are difficult to distinguish.
In psychology, a multifactorial experiment is used in situations where it is impossible to exclude or level out the influence of additional variables or when the research objective requires to find out the joint influence of several independent variables on the subject. Naturally, this system includes factors that can be taken into account (and even better, measurable).
Thus, what cannot be achieved by direct manipulation of variables in a one-way experiment can be achieved by statistical analysis set of variables in a multivariate experiment. The usual method for such analysis is analysis of variance (and its modifications). Streamlining the multivariate experimental procedure is achieved through the experimental design process outlined above. The main advantage of the method is the approximation of the experimental situation to the real living conditions of the subject. The risk of distortion or “contamination” of results with side effects, which is inherent in the single-factor option, is significantly reduced. Here, instead of trying to eliminate contaminating effects (mutual influence), they are studied. “Analysis of the relationships between the characteristics being studied allows us to identify the largest number of hidden structural factors on which the observed variations in the measured variables depend.”
Currently, psychological science believes that the observed initial signs of an individual’s behavior are only superficial indicators that indirectly reflect personality traits hidden from direct observation, the knowledge of which makes it possible to simply and clearly describe individual behavior. It is believed that these hidden traits (the factors that truly determine behavior) are fewer than the surface ones. Descriptions through factors as a system of interconnected external signs are much more economical than descriptions through these external signs. Thus, a multifactorial experiment helps to identify the true, essential determinants of human behavior. It is clear that multivariate experimentation can be successfully applied in areas where behavior is studied under natural conditions.
Nevertheless, the multifactorial experiment is still only gaining an equal position with the single-factor experiment. The main reasons for this situation are considered to be: 1) the difficulty (or sometimes the inability) to break out of the usual stereotypes about the rules for conducting research and 2) the small number of publications on the theory of multivariate research.
Synonyms for multifactorial experiment: multilevel; multidimensional, multivalent experiment
Individual experiment - an experiment with one subject.
Group experiment - an experiment with several subjects at the same time. Their mutual influences can be both significant and insignificant; they can be taken into account by the experimenter or not. If the mutual influence of the subjects on each other is determined not only by co-presence, but also by joint activity, then it is possible to talk about collective experiment.
Intraprocedural experiment ( lat. intra - inside) is an experiment in which all experimental situations (and, in essence, all values of the independent variable) are presented to the same group of subjects. If the subject is alone, i.e., individual experience is carried out, then they talk about intra-individual experiment. Comparison of this subject's responses obtained in different situations(For different meanings NP), and makes it possible to identify dependencies between variables. This option is especially convenient for quantitative changes in NP to determine functional dependencies.
It is possible to implement the procedure under consideration in a group version. Such experiments are usually devoted to studying interpersonal relationships in different social groups. Then the experiments can be called shtragroupovymi. To be fair, it must be said that in the literature known to us the term “intragroup experiment” is absent. It is intended for now to be considered as a logical addition to the intraindividual. The main goal of such experiments is to identify general patterns for a particular population.
Interprocedural experiment ( lat. inter – between) – an experiment in which different groups of subjects are presented with the same experimental situations. Work with each individual contingent is carried out either in different places or in different time, or by different experimenters, but using identical programs. The main goal of such experiments is to clarify individual or intergroup differences. Naturally, the former are revealed in a series of individual experiments, and the latter – in group experiments. And then in the first case they talk about interindividual experiment, secondly - about intergroup, or more often intergroup experiment.
Cross-procedural experiment ( English cross - to cross) is an experiment in which different groups of subjects are presented with different situations. If subjects work alone, then we are talking about cross-individual experiment. If each situation corresponds to a certain group of subjects, then this is cross group experiment, which is sometimes called intergroup, which is a terminological inaccuracy. Between-groups is a synonym for inter- rather than cross-group experiment. This inaccuracy stems either from inadequate translation of foreign sources, or from a careless attitude to terminology.
This type of experiment is used with equal success both to study general psychological and differential psychological factors and patterns. The implementation of a cross-procedure is typical for multifactorial experimentation.
A quantitative experiment is an experiment in which the independent variable can be decreased or increased. The range of its possible values represents a continuum, that is, a continuous sequence of values. These values, as a rule, can be expressed numerically, since the NP has units of measurement. Depending on the nature of the NP, its quantitative representation can be carried out different ways. For example, time interval (duration), dosage, weight, concentration, number of elements. These are physical indicators. The quantitative expression of NP can also be realized through psychological indicators: both psychophysical and psychometric.
The quantitative nature of NP does not yet guarantee the receipt of metric (interval and proportional) experimental data, but is their essential prerequisite.
A qualitative experiment is one in which the independent variable has no quantitative variation. Its meanings appear only as various qualitative modifications. Examples: sexual differences in populations, modal differences in signals, etc. The limiting case of a qualitative representation of a NP is its presence or absence. For example: presence (absence) of interference.
The qualitative nature of NP does not necessarily lead to non-metric experimental results. But obtaining metric data here, as a rule, is more problematic than in quantitative experiments.
JUST PLANS AND MORE SUCCESSFUL PLANS
Undoubtedly, the first condition for conducting an experiment is its organization, the presence of a plan. But not every plan can be considered successful. Let us assume that the experiments described in Chapter 1 were carried out differently, using the following designs.
1. In the first experiment, let the weaver first wear headphones for 13 weeks, and then work without them for 13 weeks.
2. Suppose Yoko decided to use only two cans of each type of juice in her experiment, and the entire experiment took four days instead of 36.
3. Jack decided to apply the partial method of memorization to the first two plays, and the whole method to the next two.
4. Or, keeping the same sequence of methods, Jack chose short waltzes for the experiment, rather than the longer pieces that he usually learned.
We feel quite clearly that in comparison with the experiments previously described, all these plans are unsuccessful. And if we had a sample for comparison, then we could definitely say exactly why the original plans were better. A flawless experiment serves as such a model. In the next section, we discuss it in detail and then see how it is used to evaluate our experiments.
We now have examples of successfully and unsuccessfully designed experiments. Is it possible to further improve a well-designed experiment? And is it possible to make an experiment absolutely flawless? The answer is: any experiment can be improved indefinitely, or - which is the same thing - a perfect experiment cannot be carried out. Real experiments improve as they get closer to perfection.
The perfect experiment
Impeccability is best defined in terms of the concept of an ideal experiment (Keppel, 1973, p. 23). In an ideal experiment, only the independent variable (and, of course, the dependent variable, which takes on different values under different conditions), is allowed to change. Everything else remains the same, so the dependent variable is only affected by the independent variable. This is certainly not the case in our three well-designed experiments. Weavers wore headphones and worked without them at different times - even or odd weeks. The pieces that Jack learned using the whole and partial methods were also different. Yoko never drank both types of tomato juice on the same day. In each case, something else changed in addition to the independent variable. In subsequent chapters, we'll cover a different type of experiment in which different subjects are used for each independent variable condition, allowing for time variations (like even and odd weeks) and task differences (like memorized pieces) to be eliminated. But they also do not meet all the requirements of an ideal experiment, because the subjects will also be different. As you will soon see, a perfect experiment is impossible. However, the idea itself is useful, and it is what guides us when improving real experiments.
In an ideal (impossible) experiment, the weaver would work with and without headphones at the same time! Jack Mozart would simultaneously learn the same piece using whole and partial methods. In both of these cases, the difference in the values of the dependent variable would be due only to the independent variable, the difference in its conditions. In other words, all incidental circumstances, all other potential variables would remain at the same unchanged level.
Endless experiment
Poor Yoko! In her case, even a perfect experiment will not be flawless. No wonder she fears that tomato juice of the same variety varies in quality in different cans. Even if she had conducted a perfect experiment, managing to drink two different types of juice from the same glass at the same time, her estimates would still only apply to particular examples of each type. Yet Yoko could eliminate the effects of juice quality variability across jars, achieving a different kind of impossible feat. “All” she needs is not to stop her experiment after 36 days and continue it indefinitely. Then she could average not only the variability of each type of juice, but also possible fluctuations in own assessments its taste. This is an endless experiment. It is not difficult to see that it is not only impossible, but also meaningless. After all, the general meaning of the experiment is to draw conclusions that have a wider application based on a limited amount of data. However, an endless experiment, like an ideal one, also serves as our guiding idea.
In fact, Jack Mozart and the authors of the weaving workshop study could also be asked to conduct an endless experiment instead of an ideal one. After all, even if in an ideal experiment Jack discovers that the partial method is more effective for this particular piece, the question remains whether the advantages of this method will continue to be learned when learning other pieces. The first experiment raises the same doubts: what if the weaver worked better with headphones only during the experiment? However, they (and you) need to be warned that endless experimentation also has its downsides. The very fact that subjects are presented with one of the experimental conditions may affect (during the study period) their performance under another condition. It is possible that the partial method was more effective during the experiment only due to the contrast with the holistic method. And after the experiment, only one method will be used, and the contrast factor will disappear. All this proves that neither ideal nor endless experiments are completely flawless. Fortunately, they not only have different disadvantages, but also different advantages and can serve to evaluate real experiments that are very far from perfect.
Full Compliance Experiment
Neither ideal nor endless experiments can eliminate the shortcomings of Jack Mozart's unsuccessful version of the study - learning waltzes instead of sonatas. At best, Jack could have carried out a brilliant experiment on waltzes - which, however, would not make them sonatas!
To completely eliminate shortcomings of this kind, a full compliance experiment is needed. This experiment is also pointless, although it is practically feasible. In his study, Jack would have to learn the same pieces that he would learn after this. There is no benefit from such an experiment, just like from an endless one. But no one can point out to Jack the inconsistency of the plays that he learned in his experiment.
All three types of (almost) flawless experiments are unrealistic. An ideal experiment is impossible, an experiment of complete compliance is meaningless, and an infinite experiment is both. They are useful as “thought” experiments. They tell us what to do to create an effective experiment. Ideal and infinite experiments show how to avoid extraneous influences and thereby achieve greater confidence that the experimental results truly reflect the relationship. independent and dependent variables. The full compliance experiment reminds us of the need to control for other important experimental variables, which we hold constant.
Donald Campbell together with a co-author, he published a book on planning experiments in the field of psychology: Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Researchy, where he used the phrase "perfect experiment"
“In an ideal experiment, only the independent variable (and, of course, the dependent variable, which takes on different values under different conditions), is allowed to change. Everything else remains unchanged, and therefore the dependent variable is affected only by the independent variable.”
Robert Gottsdanker, Fundamentals of psychological experiment, M., Moscow University Publishing House, 1982, p. 51.
“In our three well-designed experiments, this was certainly not the case. The weavers wore headphones and worked without them at different times - on even or odd weeks. The pieces that Jack learned using the whole and partial methods were also different. And Yoko never drank both types of tomato juice on the same day.
In each case, something else changed in addition to the independent variable. […]
As you will soon see, a perfect experiment is impossible. However, the idea itself is useful, and it is what guides us when improving real experiments.
In an ideal (impossible) experiment, the weaver would work with and without headphones at the same time! Jack Mozart would simultaneously learn the same piece using whole and partial methods!
In both of these cases, the difference in the values of the dependent variable would be due only to the independent variable, the difference in its conditions. In other words, all incidental circumstances, all other potential variables would remain at the same unchanged level.”
Robert Gottsdanker, Fundamentals of psychological experiment, M., Moscow University Publishing House, 1982, p. 51-52.
The ideal experiment is scientific model, a mental ideal, a standard against which real experiments can be evaluated.
If you want to experimentally test a hypothesis, you can do the experiment by simply imitating a sample, but it is much better to understand what you are doing. No two experiments are identical, and blindly copying an experimental design often leads to difficulties.
Undoubtedly, the first condition for conducting an experiment is its organization, the presence of a plan. But not every plan can be considered successful. It is quite clear that in comparison there are plans that are more successful and there are plans that are less successful or completely unsuccessful. When deciding to conduct an experiment, we encounter the concept experimental design . The experimental designs of the first samples of the study represent three methods of ordering, or three types of sequences of presentation of different conditions of the independent variable, used in an experiment with one subject. The model for their comparison will be a “flawless” experiment like reference(practically unfeasible).
3.1. The concept of a “flawless” experiment
Any experiment can be improved indefinitely, but a perfect experiment cannot be conducted. Real experiments are being improved as we approach an impeccable experiment, which can be presented in three forms: as an ideal experiment, an endless experiment, and an experiment of complete compliance.
The perfect experiment
In an ideal experiment, only the independent variable (and, of course, the dependent variable, which takes on different values under different conditions), is allowed to change. Everything else remains the same, so the dependent variable is only affected by the independent variable. A perfect experiment is impossible. However, the idea itself is useful; it is what guides the improvement of real experiments.
For example, in an ideal (impossible) experiment, the weaver would work with and without headphones at the same time! In this case, the difference in the values of the dependent variable would be due to only independent variable, the difference in its conditions. In other words, all secondary circumstances, all other potential the variables would remain at the same constant level.
Endless experiment
In order to average not only the variability of each of the states of the independent variable, but also possible fluctuations in the states of the subject himself, it is necessary to continue the experiment ad infinitum. This is an endless experiment. It is not only impossible, but also meaningless. After all, the general meaning of the experiment is that, on the basis limited amount of data to draw conclusions that have broader applications. However, this experiment also serves as a guiding idea.
An endless experiment has disadvantages. The very fact that subjects are presented with one of the experimental conditions may affect (during the study period) their performance under another condition. Therefore, neither ideal nor endless experiments are completely flawless. Fortunately, they not only have different disadvantages, but also different advantages and can serve to evaluate real experiments that are very far from a perfect experiment.
Full Compliance Experiment
If, in an unsuccessful version of the study, Jack Mozart had learned waltzes instead of sonatas, an experiment would be needed to eliminate this kind of shortcoming full compliance. This experiment is also pointless because Jack would have to memorize same plays that he will continue to learn after him. But, having learned the pieces once, it is impossible to learn them even after the end of the experiment.
All three types of (almost) flawless experiments are unrealistic. They are useful as “thought” experiments. They tell you what to do to create an effective experiment. Perfect and endless experiments show how to avoid extraneous influences and thereby achieve greater confidence that the experimental results truly reflect the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Experiment full compliance reminds us of the need to control other important experimental variables, which we keep constant.
We now have examples of successfully and unsuccessfully designed experiments. Is it possible to further improve a well-designed experiment? And is it possible to make an experiment absolutely flawless? The answer is: any experiment can be improved indefinitely, or - which is the same thing - a perfect experiment cannot be carried out. Real experiments improve as they get closer to perfection.
The perfect experiment
Impeccability is best defined in terms of the concept of an ideal experiment (Keppel, 1973, p. 23). In an ideal experiment, only the independent variable (and, of course, the dependent variable, which takes on different values under different conditions), is allowed to change. Everything else remains the same, so the dependent variable is only affected by the independent variable. This is certainly not the case in our three well-designed experiments. Weavers wore headphones and worked without them at different times - even or odd weeks. The pieces that Jack learned using the whole and partial methods were also different. Yoko never drank both types of tomato juice on the same day. In each case, something else changed in addition to the independent variable. In subsequent chapters, we'll cover a different type of experiment in which different subjects are used for each independent variable condition, allowing for time variations (like even and odd weeks) and task differences (like memorized pieces) to be eliminated. But they also do not meet all the requirements of an ideal experiment, because the subjects will also be different. As you will soon see, a perfect experiment is impossible. However, the idea itself is useful, and it is what guides us when improving real experiments.
In an ideal (impossible) experiment, the weaver would work with and without headphones at the same time! Jack Mozart would simultaneously learn the same piece using whole and partial methods. In both of these cases, the difference in the values of the dependent variable would be due only to the independent variable, the difference in its conditions. In other words, all incidental circumstances, all other potential variables would remain at the same unchanged level.
Loading...
