Geer and Maisel (1972)

Aims

To see if perceived control or actual control can reduce stress reactions to aversive stimuli (photos of crash victims).

Procedure

Lab experiment – 60 psychology undergrads from New York University 

Independent group design – randomly assigned:

1. Given full control over how long they say the photographs for.
2. Yoked to the control group, warned how long photos would be shown and noise would precede them.
3. Yoked to control group, told from time to times they would see photos or hear tones.

All in a sound-shielded room, wired to Galvanic skin response devices and heart rate monitors.

Beckman Model RB polygraph – collected psycho-physiological data.

Findings

• Group 2 (predictability group) were most stressed by the tone as they knew what was coming, but did not have control over the photograph.
• Group 1 (control group) were less stressed by the photograph because they had control.

Conclusions

It is likely that having the control to terminate aversive stimuli reduced the stressful impact of those stimuli.

Strengths:

• Reliable – scientific methods and machinery was used to gather ad record the data and reactions of participants. This makes the results more reliable as they can be proven.
• Laboratory experiment – the experimenters had a lot of control over the participants since the experiment was conducted in a lab, therefore extraneous variables were less likely to affect the stress of participants.
• Random assignment – participants were randomly assigned to the groups, reducing possible experimenter bias.

Weaknesses:

• Sample – the participants were psychology students, therefore they may have reacted or behaved in a certain way because they may have guessed what the research was about. They have knowledge on the subject, so it could reduce reliability. Also, they studied at NYU and were only 60. This makes the research ungeneralizable to the wider population.
• Laboratory experiment – the students may have been affected by demand characteristics. Also, the method lacks realism and has low ecological validity. These two factors may have affected the results negatively. Stress should not be produced.
• Ethics – the images and sounds caused distress to the participants, therefore the researchers should have followed up on their mental health as they could have affected them severely.