8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Are Manipulation Checks Necessary?

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Researchers are concerned about whether manipulations have the intended effects. Many journals and reviewers view manipulation checks favorably, and they are widely reported in prestigious journals. However, the prototypical manipulation check is a verbal (rather than behavioral) measure that always appears at the same point in the procedure (rather than its order being varied to assess order effects). Embedding such manipulation checks within an experiment comes with problems. While we conceptualize manipulation checks as measures, they can also act as interventions which initiate new processes that would otherwise not occur. The default assumption that manipulation checks do not affect experimental conclusions is unwarranted. They may amplify, undo, or interact with the effects of a manipulation. Further, the use of manipulation checks in mediational analyses does not rule out confounding variables, as any unmeasured variables that correlate with the manipulation check may still drive the relationship. Alternatives such as non-verbal and behavioral measures as manipulation checks and pilot testing are less problematic. Reviewers should view manipulation checks more critically, and authors should explore alternative methods to ensure the effectiveness of manipulations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Separating the Shirkers from the Workers? Making Sure Respondents Pay Attention on Self-Administered Surveys

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Neural correlates of dispositional mindfulness during affect labeling.

              Mindfulness is a process whereby one is aware and receptive to present moment experiences. Although mindfulness-enhancing interventions reduce pathological mental and physical health symptoms across a wide variety of conditions and diseases, the mechanisms underlying these effects remain unknown. Converging evidence from the mindfulness and neuroscience literature suggests that labeling affect may be one mechanism for these effects. Participants (n = 27) indicated trait levels of mindfulness and then completed an affect labeling task while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging. The labeling task consisted of matching facial expressions to appropriate affect words (affect labeling) or to gender-appropriate names (gender labeling control task). After controlling for multiple individual difference measures, dispositional mindfulness was associated with greater widespread prefrontal cortical activation, and reduced bilateral amygdala activity during affect labeling, compared with the gender labeling control task. Further, strong negative associations were found between areas of prefrontal cortex and right amygdala responses in participants high in mindfulness but not in participants low in mindfulness. The present findings with a dispositional measure of mindfulness suggest one potential neurocognitive mechanism for understanding how mindfulness meditation interventions reduce negative affect and improve health outcomes, showing that mindfulness is associated with enhanced prefrontal cortical regulation of affect through labeling of negative affective stimuli.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                21 June 2018
                2018
                : 9
                : 998
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Psychology, University of Southern California , Los Angeles, CA, United States
                [2] 2University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, MI, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Nadin Beckmann, Durham University, United Kingdom

                Reviewed by: Paschal Sheeran, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States; James D. Sauer, University of Tasmania, Australia

                *Correspondence: David J. Hauser, davidhau@ 123456usc.edu

                Present address: David J. Hauser, Department of Psychology, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

                This article was submitted to Personality and Social Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00998
                6022204
                29977213
                4631020f-d2d0-4f7f-95c4-8bf080c03b89
                Copyright © 2018 Hauser, Ellsworth and Gonzalez.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 10 February 2018
                : 28 May 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 60, Pages: 10, Words: 0
                Categories
                Psychology
                Review

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                manipulation checks,experimental methods,research design,mediation,emotion

                Comments

                Comment on this article