The usually declare themselves the reason for success

The
SSB is the idea that people will usually declare themselves the reason for
success in a task. But, will usually blame others or the situation if the task
is failed. The researchers wanted to know if, in a task where two people work
together, if whether a person decides to take credit for the outcome of the
task (or attribute it to the partner) is contingent on the quality of the
relationship (either distant and unfamiliar like strangers or close and
familiar like friends). It was hypothesized that people of distant dyads would
exhibit strong displays of the SSB; they would blame the other in failure and
take all the credit in success. But, there was uncertainty of whether the SSB
would apply in the same manner to close dyads. There are two competing theories
over whether SSB will be shown in close dyads. The relationships-as-bound
theory, stating that intimate others are a part of the self, supports the idea
that SSB would not be exhibited. To blame the intimate partner would practically
be like blaming the self. The relations-as-enabler theory supports the idea
that SSB would be exhibited. Relationally close people tend not evaluate each
other negatively, as they do not wish to cause conflict. Even if one has honest
sentiments which would hurt the other, they wouldn’t express it aloud. They
adhere to each other’s self-image to reciprocally bolster their self-confidences
and continuously reaffirm each other’s character. However, if unannounced to
the other, one may reveal negative sentiments and manifest the SSB in a joint
task. Researchers wanted to know which theory would be further confirmed with
the following methods. The experimenters tried to fabricate relational
closeness between strangers. Their logic was, with using couples that genuinely
knew each other, there was the potential that individuals would keep themselves
from expressing SSB. For all the reasons mentioned regarding the relations-as-enabler.
Making it so the dyad was truly unfamiliar made it so there was no expectation
of interacting after the experiment and no fear of being disloyal. This makes
an SSB response seem inconsequential to the participant. Aside from that, dyads
were asked not to talk about the experiment or even interact outside of the experiment
if possible, which cemented the inconsequence. The logic here is good, but it will
be attacked later. They were given a light cover story and were told that they
would be working on a couple of unrelated studies. The first was the RCIT in
which a series of personal disclosure questions were asked. The experimenter
was absent during the RCIT, which is good consideration of environmental
characteristics and control over observation bias. If the participant’s
disclosures had any sort of effect on how the experimenter viewed the participant,
or vice versa, then there could be a potential extraneous variable. After the
RCIT, participants did a manipulation check where they were asked questions
concerning how close they felt to the partner after the RCIT. This is a
problem. The cover up story doesn’t detract from the salience of this
manipulation check. Many people would take the RCIT, see that the all the
questions are pertaining to learning about each other’s character, and then read
the manipulation check and immediately be given an insight into what the
researchers are measuring. Participants were then given another light cover
story saying they would be tasked with a creativity assignment. Those in the
close relationship condition stayed with the person they’d taken the RCIT with.
Those in the distant relationship condition switched to a new partner who had
also taken the RCIT. As such, taking the RCIT was something all participants
did and was controlled. All participants were told that they were taking the Lange
Elliot Creativity Test, which has a realistic and professional sounding name. The
name makes it a better cover story than the first. Also, because participants
are likely still caught-up in the first manipulation check. The test was allegedly
looking to see how many uses for an object the dyad could come up with. They
were told that would be given feedback and that it was normal. Participants
were told that the uses they generated for an object and the uses their partner
generated would be written down and placed together in a box. The participants
were told the total number of non-repeated answers in the box would be added together
to get a score of how creative they were. Participants were asked how important
creativity was to them as a manipulation check. The participants were then told
of their scores. Their scores were referred to as “combined”. Participants in
the close relation condition were assigned to either a condition where they
were told their collective scores were good or that their collective scores
were bad. Participants in the distant relation condition were assigned to either
the good score or bad score condition as well. All in all, the independent
variables are: type of relation with two levels of close and distant, type of
score feedback with levels good and bad, and gender (but you asked to leave that
out). The dependent variable is the degree of SSB response as assessed by the
final two questions about positive contribution and which partner was more
responsible (before the final manipulation check). After, participants were told
that the experimenters couldn’t figure out what answers each member of the dyad
had contributed to the box. The participants, with guaranteed disclosure, were
asked to answer two questions that would “help” the researchers. These
questions measured SSB. Participants were asked who was most responsible and
who made the greatest positive contribution to the task. This is a fishy cover
because most participants would know that, if the experimenter threw the
answers into a box, that the participant would have no way of knowing the
proportionality of the contributions. Participants were then asked to complete
two more manipulation checks. They were asked how well they thought they did
and how well they thought their partner did and how important the task was to
them. In the results, they claim the RCIT was effective at creating relational
closeness. Statistically, this may be so. However, the participants may have
simply said they felt closer because of social desirability. They may feel like
a bad person if they said they didn’t feel close to the person who just gave
them such vast amounts of person information in such a small-time frame. Or,
they could’ve believed that they must surely be close to this person now
because of all the personal things they said, without considering the
artificiality of the circumstance. This may not be considered an internal
validity problem. The issue here may generalizability towards genuinely close
relationships. However, the very first manipulation check that asked how close
participants felt to their partner is enough to deem this study as low in
internal validity. Researchers asked what the importance of creativity was to
participants. Seemingly, to show that the participants were invested in the
activity. This too is prone to some biases. Participants may try to justify
doing creativity assessment to themselves post hoc. Creativity is a quality that’s
socially pedestaled, so they may just fall into saying they value creativity to
stray from dissonance. The question should’ve been given to them before the task
instead. Authors concluded that participants in close condition were more
egalitarian in their distribution of responsibility for questions assessing SSB.
The relationship-as-bound theory was what the authors confirmed, but I do not
believe that causal attributions can be made regarding the results of this study.
Random assignment is assumed, so subject characteristics are at the will of
chance. However, primarily because of the corrupting nature of the cover
stories, demand characteristics are high. 

The
SSB is the idea that people will usually declare themselves the reason for
success in a task. But, will usually blame others or the situation if the task
is failed. The researchers wanted to know if, in a task where two people work
together, if whether a person decides to take credit for the outcome of the
task (or attribute it to the partner) is contingent on the quality of the
relationship (either distant and unfamiliar like strangers or close and
familiar like friends). It was hypothesized that people of distant dyads would
exhibit strong displays of the SSB; they would blame the other in failure and
take all the credit in success. But, there was uncertainty of whether the SSB
would apply in the same manner to close dyads. There are two competing theories
over whether SSB will be shown in close dyads. The relationships-as-bound
theory, stating that intimate others are a part of the self, supports the idea
that SSB would not be exhibited. To blame the intimate partner would practically
be like blaming the self. The relations-as-enabler theory supports the idea
that SSB would be exhibited. Relationally close people tend not evaluate each
other negatively, as they do not wish to cause conflict. Even if one has honest
sentiments which would hurt the other, they wouldn’t express it aloud. They
adhere to each other’s self-image to reciprocally bolster their self-confidences
and continuously reaffirm each other’s character. However, if unannounced to
the other, one may reveal negative sentiments and manifest the SSB in a joint
task. Researchers wanted to know which theory would be further confirmed with
the following methods. The experimenters tried to fabricate relational
closeness between strangers. Their logic was, with using couples that genuinely
knew each other, there was the potential that individuals would keep themselves
from expressing SSB. For all the reasons mentioned regarding the relations-as-enabler.
Making it so the dyad was truly unfamiliar made it so there was no expectation
of interacting after the experiment and no fear of being disloyal. This makes
an SSB response seem inconsequential to the participant. Aside from that, dyads
were asked not to talk about the experiment or even interact outside of the experiment
if possible, which cemented the inconsequence. The logic here is good, but it will
be attacked later. They were given a light cover story and were told that they
would be working on a couple of unrelated studies. The first was the RCIT in
which a series of personal disclosure questions were asked. The experimenter
was absent during the RCIT, which is good consideration of environmental
characteristics and control over observation bias. If the participant’s
disclosures had any sort of effect on how the experimenter viewed the participant,
or vice versa, then there could be a potential extraneous variable. After the
RCIT, participants did a manipulation check where they were asked questions
concerning how close they felt to the partner after the RCIT. This is a
problem. The cover up story doesn’t detract from the salience of this
manipulation check. Many people would take the RCIT, see that the all the
questions are pertaining to learning about each other’s character, and then read
the manipulation check and immediately be given an insight into what the
researchers are measuring. Participants were then given another light cover
story saying they would be tasked with a creativity assignment. Those in the
close relationship condition stayed with the person they’d taken the RCIT with.
Those in the distant relationship condition switched to a new partner who had
also taken the RCIT. As such, taking the RCIT was something all participants
did and was controlled. All participants were told that they were taking the Lange
Elliot Creativity Test, which has a realistic and professional sounding name. The
name makes it a better cover story than the first. Also, because participants
are likely still caught-up in the first manipulation check. The test was allegedly
looking to see how many uses for an object the dyad could come up with. They
were told that would be given feedback and that it was normal. Participants
were told that the uses they generated for an object and the uses their partner
generated would be written down and placed together in a box. The participants
were told the total number of non-repeated answers in the box would be added together
to get a score of how creative they were. Participants were asked how important
creativity was to them as a manipulation check. The participants were then told
of their scores. Their scores were referred to as “combined”. Participants in
the close relation condition were assigned to either a condition where they
were told their collective scores were good or that their collective scores
were bad. Participants in the distant relation condition were assigned to either
the good score or bad score condition as well. All in all, the independent
variables are: type of relation with two levels of close and distant, type of
score feedback with levels good and bad, and gender (but you asked to leave that
out). The dependent variable is the degree of SSB response as assessed by the
final two questions about positive contribution and which partner was more
responsible (before the final manipulation check). After, participants were told
that the experimenters couldn’t figure out what answers each member of the dyad
had contributed to the box. The participants, with guaranteed disclosure, were
asked to answer two questions that would “help” the researchers. These
questions measured SSB. Participants were asked who was most responsible and
who made the greatest positive contribution to the task. This is a fishy cover
because most participants would know that, if the experimenter threw the
answers into a box, that the participant would have no way of knowing the
proportionality of the contributions. Participants were then asked to complete
two more manipulation checks. They were asked how well they thought they did
and how well they thought their partner did and how important the task was to
them. In the results, they claim the RCIT was effective at creating relational
closeness. Statistically, this may be so. However, the participants may have
simply said they felt closer because of social desirability. They may feel like
a bad person if they said they didn’t feel close to the person who just gave
them such vast amounts of person information in such a small-time frame. Or,
they could’ve believed that they must surely be close to this person now
because of all the personal things they said, without considering the
artificiality of the circumstance. This may not be considered an internal
validity problem. The issue here may generalizability towards genuinely close
relationships. However, the very first manipulation check that asked how close
participants felt to their partner is enough to deem this study as low in
internal validity. Researchers asked what the importance of creativity was to
participants. Seemingly, to show that the participants were invested in the
activity. This too is prone to some biases. Participants may try to justify
doing creativity assessment to themselves post hoc. Creativity is a quality that’s
socially pedestaled, so they may just fall into saying they value creativity to
stray from dissonance. The question should’ve been given to them before the task
instead. Authors concluded that participants in close condition were more
egalitarian in their distribution of responsibility for questions assessing SSB.
The relationship-as-bound theory was what the authors confirmed, but I do not
believe that causal attributions can be made regarding the results of this study.
Random assignment is assumed, so subject characteristics are at the will of
chance. However, primarily because of the corrupting nature of the cover
stories, demand characteristics are high. 

x

Hi!
I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out