Introduction (already written)
Critical evaluation of methods, findings, and theoretical contribution.
Snyder and Swann (1978)
Strengths
Low certainty of targets introversion-extraversion for both interviewer and judges make results interesting, contributes to theory unpack why to raise critical evaluation from the personal opinion level to a substantiated evaluation level.
Only study to show how the hypothesis-confirming strategies influence interviewee
Weaknesses
Causality: Don’t consider targets actual personality, cannot know how much (if at all) the target participants demonstrate inflated/deflated traits belonging to their tested hypothesis
Poor operationalisation: Judges rated extraversion/introversion of targets using audio recordings – no visual aid (facial expression/hand movements) make rating less accurate?
Coherence: Interviewer participants never asked what their impression were of the target. Doesn’t confirm whether they think their hypothesis is confirmed after a social interaction.
Contamination by measurement: Results due to task manipulation, not hypothesis-confirming bias. In their own experiments, Semin and Strack (1980) found that ‘hypothesis-confirming strategies’ seem to be the result of the task participants were asked to complete rather than what they were led to believe.
Dardenne and Leyens (1995)
Strengths
Deeper focus into the selection of different types of questions; confirmatory (matching, biased, leading, preservative) and diagnostic
Considers the impact of interviewer’s social skill level (Self-Monitoring Scale; Snyder 1974 Consider assessing this is assessed appropriately) and interviewee status on questions selected
Status X Hypothesis X Self-Monitoring X Lead X Question Type design, provided various significant reactions although the significance of the results doesn’t necessarily validate the experimental design. Consider assessing the complexity of the design also in relation to the sample size.
Weaknesses
Responder bias: Do participants want to ensure a smooth social interaction, or do they want to accommodate the experiment? Although one could counterargue that any question selected wouldn’t directly bear on the experimenter so their impression management wouldn’t work.
Longer waiting times for diagnostic questions, compared to matching/leading questions – how do we know this led them to avoid diagnostic questions?
Perhaps as the introvert/extrovert hypothesis is ‘Already known’ it’s less probable for people to ask diagnostic questions, resulting in higher instances of bias/leading questions how would you overcome the issue of having a focal hypothesis to work on?
Critical comparison of the two articles
Historical Context (differences) – Cognitive Miser (Snyder and Swann, 1978) vs Motivation taction (Dardenne and Leyens, 1995) approach
Outline Psychological climate at the time that the articles were published
Heuristics vs motivation – how to measure?
Strengths
Both demonstrate potential real-world application towards stereotypes (people prone to confirmation bias and how can we change it?)
Weaknesses
Low ecological validity: it is not normal that people prepare in advance a set number of questions and present them in a sequential form (Semin and Strack, 1980) Unless it’s a specific context, like a job interview.
Trait, extrovert/introvert is well popularized, especially in the predominately psychology student participant groups Consider the focus on introversion/extroversion rather than consider also other personality traits.
Suggests motivation to have a smooth social interaction, but is this motivation to get to know or to get along with the other person?
Sample sizes and Effect size (Cohen’s) – how significant are the results?