Question

Help

Answer 1

Researchers posted ads in the newspaper to recruit participants for their study of a new treatment for agoraphobia (the fear of open places). 87 people responded to the ad, but only 60 of those actually reported being agoraphobics. Of the sixty, 20 were randomly placed in a condition (NEW) in which they received the new treatment. It was explained to the NEW participants that the treatment they would be receiving was promising but new, so they would be monitored carefully to watch for any undesirable side effects. Twenty other participants were assigned to a condition (OLD) in which they received an older, more traditional form of treatment. These participants were told that they were not receiving the new treatment but an older treatment that had been around for awhile, so the chances of side effects were minimal. Finally, 20 other participants were randomly assigned to a group (NO) that received no therapy.
After six months of treatment, researchers found that the participants in the NEW condition were exhibiting 64% fewer symptoms of agoraphobia than before they started the treatment. Participants in the OLD condition were exhibiting 42% fewer symptoms, and participants who did not receive therapy exhibited 22% fewer symptoms than six months ago. Researchers were pleased with the results, concluding in an article they were writing that a new treatment had been found that will be more successful with agoraphobics than previous treatments.

Do you agree with the conclusion of the researchers? Write a paragraph or two describing an alternative explanation for the result.

Answer 2

@AKLein18

Answer 3

I suppose yes because all they are doing is comparing the "old" to the "new", and since the people are dependent on the independent variable (the studies) they change accordingly to how well the test is arranged. So going by that logic, since the new test provided better results than the old, it is effective (if you need to explain why the "none was there, just use the same reasoning in the previous paragraph). Although be careful of the physiological effect which may effect the research negatively since it's a false result (the person being effected by what they believe is supposed to happen is not part of the "new" program).

Answer 4

or old program

Answer 5

whoops ^^'

Answer 6

Ok so i put all that but instead of saying new program i put old?

Answer 7

@AKLein18

Answer 8

Oh no no. (sorry for the misunderstanding) I meant to tag that onto the last sentence. So, "...to happen is not part of the "new" or "old" program". Is what I meant.

Answer 9

oh so i put the whole paragraph and put new or old program?

Answer 10

Yeah.. just tag it on at the end (I just meant to edit the last sentence).

Answer 11

Like this?? I suppose yes because all they are doing is comparing the "old" to the "new", and since the people are dependent on the independent variable (the studies) they change accordingly to how well the test is arranged. So going by that logic, since the new test provided better results than the old, it is effective (if you need to explain why the "none was there, just use the same reasoning in the previous paragraph). Although be careful of the physiological effect which may effect the research negatively since it's a false result (the person being effected by what they believe is supposed to happen is not part of the "new" or “old” program).

Answer 12

Yeah, but you may want to put that into your own words. Plagiarism is really a big deal. Plus, if you can figure out how to put it into your own words, then you understand it :). (If you don't understand the answer, just compare the answer to the problem and try to figure where it came from.)