When is the coffee sweet? Stirring alone does not change the taste of the coffee. Adding a sugar cube alone also doesn’t change the taste of the coffee, since the sugar will just sink to the bottom. It’s only when sugar is added, and the coffee is stirred that it tastes sweet.
We can say there is an interaction between adding sugar and stirring coffee. The effect of the stirring depends on the value of another variable (whether or not sugar is added).
When more than one IV is included in a model, we are using a factorial design. Factorial designs include 2 or more factors (or IVs) with 2 or more levels each. In the coffee example, our design has two factors (stirring and adding sugar), each with two levels.
In factorial designs (i.e., studies that manipulate two or more factors), participants are observed at each level of each factor. Because every possible combination of each IV is included, the effects of each factor alone can be observed. We also get to see how these factors impact each other. We say this design is fully crossed because every possible combination of levels is included.
A main effect is the effect of one factor. There is one potential main effect for each factor.
In this example, the potential main effects are stirring and adding sugar. To find the main effects, find the mean of each column (i.e., add the two numbers and divide by 2). If there are differences in these means, there is a significant main effect for one of the factors. Next, find the mean of each row (add going across and divide by 2). If there are differences in these row means, then there is a main effect for the other factor.
. | Stirring: Yes | Stirring: No | Row mean |
---|---|---|---|
Sugar: Yes | \(\bar{X}_{sweet}=100\) | \(\bar{X}_{sweet} = 0\) | \(\bar{X}_{sugar}= 50\) |
Sugar: No | \(\bar{X}_{sweet}=0\) | \(\bar{X}_{sweet} = 0\) | \(\bar{X}_{\text{no sugar}}=0\) |
Column mean | \(\bar{X}_{stir}=50\) | \(\bar{X}_{nostir}=0\) . |
In our example, we see two main effects. Adding a sugar cube (mean of 50) differs from not adding sugar (mean of 0). That’s the first main effect. The second is stirring; stirring (mean of 50) differs from not stirring (mean of 0).
When an interaction effect is present, each part of an interaction is called a simple effect. To examine the simple effects, compare each cell to every other cell in the same row. Next, compare each cell to ever other cell in the same column. Simple effects are never diagonal from each other.
In our example, we see a simple effect as we go from Stir+Sugar to NoStir+Sugar. There is no simple effect between Stir+NoSugar and NoStir+NoSugar (both are 0). What makes this an interaction effect is that these two simple effects are different from one another.
On the vertical, there is a simple effect from Stir+Sugar to Stir+NoSugar. There is no simple effect from NoStir+Sugar to NoStir+NoSugar (both are 0). Again, this is an interaction effect because these two simple effects are different.
When there is at least one (significant) simple effect that differs across levels of one of the IVs (as demonstrated above), then you can say there is an interaction between the two factors. In a two-way ANOVA, there is one possible interaction effect. We sometimes show this with a multiplication symbol: Sugar*Stir. In our example, there is an interaction between sugar and stirring.
In summary: An interaction effect is when the impact of one variable depends on the level of another variable.
Interaction effects are important in psychology because they let us explain the circumstances under which an effect occurs. Anytime we say that an effect depends on something else, we are describing an interaction effect.
A mediated relationship is a chain reaction; one variable causes another variable (the mediator), which then causes the DV. Please forgive another silly example; I am including it to keep the example as simple as possible. Here is how we diagram it:
This is a totally different situation that the previous one. The first variable is a preference for sweetness; do you like sweet foods and beverages? If participants prefer sweetness, then they will add more sugar. If they don’t prefer sugar in their coffee, then they will add less (or no) sugar. Thus, preference for sweetness is an IV that causes a change in the mediator, adding sugar. Finally, adding sugar is what causes the coffee to taste sweet. Any time we can string together three variables in a causal chain, we are describing a mediated relationship.
In summary: A mediated relationship occurs when one variable affects another (the mediator), and that variable (the mediator), affects something else.
Mediated relationships are important in psychology because they let us explain why or how an effect happens. The mediator is the how or the why. Why do participants who prefer sweetness end up with sweeter coffee? It is because they added sugar.
Reference Library
Collections
Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!
Psychology news, insights and enrichment
Currated collections of free resources
Browse resources by topic
Resource Selections
Currated lists of resources
Quasi-experiments contain a naturally occurring IV. However, in a quasi-experiment the naturally occurring IV is a difference between people that already exists (i.e. gender, age). The researcher examines the effect of this variable on the dependent variable (DV).
Study Notes
Topic Videos
Exam Support
Quizzes & Activities
Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885
© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.
Statistics By Jim
Making statistics intuitive
By Jim Frost Leave a Comment
A quasi experimental design is a method for identifying causal relationships that does not randomly assign participants to the experimental groups. Instead, researchers use a non-random process. For example, they might use an eligibility cutoff score or preexisting groups to determine who receives the treatment.
Quasi-experimental research is a design that closely resembles experimental research but is different. The term “quasi” means “resembling,” so you can think of it as a cousin to actual experiments. In these studies, researchers can manipulate an independent variable — that is, they change one factor to see what effect it has. However, unlike true experimental research, participants are not randomly assigned to different groups.
Learn more about Experimental Designs: Definition & Types .
Researchers typically use a quasi-experimental design because they can’t randomize due to practical or ethical concerns. For example:
Quasi-experimental designs also come in handy when researchers want to study the effects of naturally occurring events, like policy changes or environmental shifts, where they can’t control who is exposed to the treatment.
Quasi-experimental designs occupy a unique position in the spectrum of research methodologies, sitting between observational studies and true experiments. This middle ground offers a blend of both worlds, addressing some limitations of purely observational studies while navigating the constraints often accompanying true experiments.
A significant advantage of quasi-experimental research over purely observational studies and correlational research is that it addresses the issue of directionality, determining which variable is the cause and which is the effect. In quasi-experiments, an intervention typically occurs during the investigation, and the researchers record outcomes before and after it, increasing the confidence that it causes the observed changes.
However, it’s crucial to recognize its limitations as well. Controlling confounding variables is a larger concern for a quasi-experimental design than a true experiment because it lacks random assignment.
In sum, quasi-experimental designs offer a valuable research approach when random assignment is not feasible, providing a more structured and controlled framework than observational studies while acknowledging and attempting to address potential confounders.
Quasi-experimental studies use various methods, depending on the scenario.
This design uses naturally occurring events or changes to create the treatment and control groups. Researchers compare outcomes between those whom the event affected and those it did not affect. Analysts use statistical controls to account for confounders that the researchers must also measure.
Natural experiments are related to observational studies, but they allow for a clearer causality inference because the external event or policy change provides both a form of quasi-random group assignment and a definite start date for the intervention.
For example, in a natural experiment utilizing a quasi-experimental design, researchers study the impact of a significant economic policy change on small business growth. The policy is implemented in one state but not in neighboring states. This scenario creates an unplanned experimental setup, where the state with the new policy serves as the treatment group, and the neighboring states act as the control group.
Researchers are primarily interested in small business growth rates but need to record various confounders that can impact growth rates. Hence, they record state economic indicators, investment levels, and employment figures. By recording these metrics across the states, they can include them in the model as covariates and control them statistically. This method allows researchers to estimate differences in small business growth due to the policy itself, separate from the various confounders.
This method involves matching existing groups that are similar but not identical. Researchers attempt to find groups that are as equivalent as possible, particularly for factors likely to affect the outcome.
For instance, researchers use a nonequivalent groups quasi-experimental design to evaluate the effectiveness of a new teaching method in improving students’ mathematics performance. A school district considering the teaching method is planning the study. Students are already divided into schools, preventing random assignment.
The researchers matched two schools with similar demographics, baseline academic performance, and resources. The school using the traditional methodology is the control, while the other uses the new approach. Researchers are evaluating differences in educational outcomes between the two methods.
They perform a pretest to identify differences between the schools that might affect the outcome and include them as covariates to control for confounding. They also record outcomes before and after the intervention to have a larger context for the changes they observe.
This process assigns subjects to a treatment or control group based on a predetermined cutoff point (e.g., a test score). The analysis primarily focuses on participants near the cutoff point, as they are likely similar except for the treatment received. By comparing participants just above and below the cutoff, the design controls for confounders that vary smoothly around the cutoff.
For example, in a regression discontinuity quasi-experimental design focusing on a new medical treatment for depression, researchers use depression scores as the cutoff point. Individuals with depression scores just above a certain threshold are assigned to receive the latest treatment, while those just below the threshold do not receive it. This method creates two closely matched groups: one that barely qualifies for treatment and one that barely misses out.
By comparing the mental health outcomes of these two groups over time, researchers can assess the effectiveness of the new treatment. The assumption is that the only significant difference between the groups is whether they received the treatment, thereby isolating its impact on depression outcomes.
Accounting for confounding variables is a challenging but essential task for a quasi-experimental design.
In a true experiment, the random assignment process equalizes confounders across the groups to nullify their overall effect. It’s the gold standard because it works on all confounders, known and unknown.
Unfortunately, the lack of random assignment can allow differences between the groups to exist before the intervention. These confounding factors might ultimately explain the results rather than the intervention.
Consequently, researchers must use other methods to equalize the groups roughly using matching and cutoff values or statistically adjust for preexisting differences they measure to reduce the impact of confounders.
A key strength of quasi-experiments is their frequent use of “pre-post testing.” This approach involves conducting initial tests before collecting data to check for preexisting differences between groups that could impact the study’s outcome. By identifying these variables early on and including them as covariates, researchers can more effectively control potential confounders in their statistical analysis.
Additionally, researchers frequently track outcomes before and after the intervention to better understand the context for changes they observe.
Statisticians consider these methods to be less effective than randomization. Hence, quasi-experiments fall somewhere in the middle when it comes to internal validity , or how well the study can identify causal relationships versus mere correlation . They’re more conclusive than correlational studies but not as solid as true experiments.
In conclusion, quasi-experimental designs offer researchers a versatile and practical approach when random assignment is not feasible. This methodology bridges the gap between controlled experiments and observational studies, providing a valuable tool for investigating cause-and-effect relationships in real-world settings. Researchers can address ethical and logistical constraints by understanding and leveraging the different types of quasi-experimental designs while still obtaining insightful and meaningful results.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues in field settings . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Comments and questions cancel reply.
Travis Dixon August 21, 2017 Research Methodology , Teaching Ideas
One key characteristic of a quasi-experiment is that one or more conditions of a true experiment cannot be met. This often includes the fact that there is no random allocation to the treatment or control conditions in the experiment. So if there is no random allocation, but there is still an IV hypothesized to have an effect on a DV, the study can be classified as being quasi -experimental.
If something is quasi it means that it’s apparently something, or seems to be something, but it’s not quite. So a quasi-experiment appears to be an experiment, but it’s “not quite.”
This means that sometimes to determine if a study is quasi-experiment or a true experiment, you have to dig deep into the methodology.
A good example to compare a true experiment and a quasi-experiment is by looking at two very similar experiments ( summaries available here ):
Desbordes et al. (2005)on the effects of mindfulness on brain activity.
In Lazar’s experiment they compared the brains of meditation experts with a control group of participants that had no meditation experience. In this case, the researches could not randomly assign participants to be an expert or a control.
Since there is still an IV (meditation experience) that is hypothesized to have an effect on a DV (grey matter in the brain), this is an experiment. But because not all conditions of a true experiment can be met (in this case, there can be no random allocation), we can classify this as a quasi – experiment.
Desbordes et al. studied mindfulness (a type of meditation) on the activity in the brain but this is a true experiment because they controlled for extraneous variables and randomly assigning participants to the treatment and control groups (You can read more about this study here ).
These two studies work well together and can be partnered up to discuss a range of topics, including:
Traditionally “the experimental method” (which includes true, quasi, natural and field experiments) has been classified as one research method by the IB. This means that if you are asked an essay question to discuss or evaluate the use of one research method, you could identify the experimental method as your method, and include these two studies in your answer. The contrast between quasi and true experimental design could work well for the discussion or evaluation part of the answer.
Travis Dixon is an IB Psychology teacher, author, workshop leader, examiner and IA moderator.
COMMENTS
Quasi-Experimental Design. !If no manipulation is performed on the IV, the design is correlational. !If the IV is manipulated, but there is not complete random assignment to conditions, the design is called quasi-experimental.
The independent variable (IV) is the factor you aim to study or manipulate in your research. Unlike controlled experiments, where you can directly manipulate the IV, quasi-experimental design often deals with naturally occurring variables.
Like a true experiment, a quasi-experimental design aims to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between an independent and dependent variable. However, unlike a true experiment, a quasi-experiment does not rely on random assignment. Instead, subjects are assigned to groups based on non-random criteria.
Example: Quasi-experimental design. You study whether gender identity affects neural responses to infant cries. Your independent variable is a subject variable, namely the gender identity of the participants. You have three groups: men, women and other. Your dependent variable is the brain activity response to hearing infant cries.
Independent variable (IV): The variable that is implied (quasi-experiment, non-experiment) or demonstrated to be (experiment) the cause of an effect. When there is a manipulation, the variable that is manipulated is the IV.
Quasi-experiments contain a naturally occurring IV. However, in a quasi-experiment the naturally occurring IV is a difference between people that already exists (i.e. gender, age). The researcher examines the effect of this variable on the dependent variable (DV).
A quasi experimental design is a method for identifying causal relationships that does not randomly assign participants to the experimental groups. Instead, researchers use a non-random process. For example, they might use an eligibility cutoff score or preexisting groups to determine who receives the treatment.
So if there is no random allocation, but there is still an IV hypothesized to have an effect on a DV, the study can be classified as being quasi-experimental. If something is quasi it means that it’s apparently something, or seems to be something, but it’s not quite.
Quasi experiments have independent variables that already exist such as age, gender, eye color. These variables can either be continuous (age) or they can be categorical (gender). In short, naturally occurring variables are measured within quasi experiments.
It’s a quasi -experiment if it includes at least one SV that is going to be treated as if it were an IV; it’s a correlational study if all of the variables are either DVs or SVs being treated as covariates.