Random Assignment in Psychology: Definition & Examples
Julia Simkus
Editor at Simply Psychology
BA (Hons) Psychology, Princeton University
Julia Simkus is a graduate of Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. She is currently studying for a Master's Degree in Counseling for Mental Health and Wellness in September 2023. Julia's research has been published in peer reviewed journals.
Learn about our Editorial Process
Saul McLeod, PhD
Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
Associate Editor for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
In psychology, random assignment refers to the practice of allocating participants to different experimental groups in a study in a completely unbiased way, ensuring each participant has an equal chance of being assigned to any group.
In experimental research, random assignment, or random placement, organizes participants from your sample into different groups using randomization.
Random assignment uses chance procedures to ensure that each participant has an equal opportunity of being assigned to either a control or experimental group.
The control group does not receive the treatment in question, whereas the experimental group does receive the treatment.
When using random assignment, neither the researcher nor the participant can choose the group to which the participant is assigned. This ensures that any differences between and within the groups are not systematic at the onset of the study.
In a study to test the success of a weight-loss program, investigators randomly assigned a pool of participants to one of two groups.
Group A participants participated in the weight-loss program for 10 weeks and took a class where they learned about the benefits of healthy eating and exercise.
Group B participants read a 200-page book that explains the benefits of weight loss. The investigator randomly assigned participants to one of the two groups.
The researchers found that those who participated in the program and took the class were more likely to lose weight than those in the other group that received only the book.
![](http://serviteca.online/777/templates/cheerup2/res/banner1.gif)
Importance
Random assignment ensures that each group in the experiment is identical before applying the independent variable.
In experiments , researchers will manipulate an independent variable to assess its effect on a dependent variable, while controlling for other variables. Random assignment increases the likelihood that the treatment groups are the same at the onset of a study.
Thus, any changes that result from the independent variable can be assumed to be a result of the treatment of interest. This is particularly important for eliminating sources of bias and strengthening the internal validity of an experiment.
Random assignment is the best method for inferring a causal relationship between a treatment and an outcome.
Random Selection vs. Random Assignment
Random selection (also called probability sampling or random sampling) is a way of randomly selecting members of a population to be included in your study.
On the other hand, random assignment is a way of sorting the sample participants into control and treatment groups.
Random selection ensures that everyone in the population has an equal chance of being selected for the study. Once the pool of participants has been chosen, experimenters use random assignment to assign participants into groups.
Random assignment is only used in between-subjects experimental designs, while random selection can be used in a variety of study designs.
Random Assignment vs Random Sampling
Random sampling refers to selecting participants from a population so that each individual has an equal chance of being chosen. This method enhances the representativeness of the sample.
Random assignment, on the other hand, is used in experimental designs once participants are selected. It involves allocating these participants to different experimental groups or conditions randomly.
This helps ensure that any differences in results across groups are due to manipulating the independent variable, not preexisting differences among participants.
When to Use Random Assignment
Random assignment is used in experiments with a between-groups or independent measures design.
In these research designs, researchers will manipulate an independent variable to assess its effect on a dependent variable, while controlling for other variables.
There is usually a control group and one or more experimental groups. Random assignment helps ensure that the groups are comparable at the onset of the study.
How to Use Random Assignment
There are a variety of ways to assign participants into study groups randomly. Here are a handful of popular methods:
- Random Number Generator : Give each member of the sample a unique number; use a computer program to randomly generate a number from the list for each group.
- Lottery : Give each member of the sample a unique number. Place all numbers in a hat or bucket and draw numbers at random for each group.
- Flipping a Coin : Flip a coin for each participant to decide if they will be in the control group or experimental group (this method can only be used when you have just two groups)
- Roll a Die : For each number on the list, roll a dice to decide which of the groups they will be in. For example, assume that rolling 1, 2, or 3 places them in a control group and rolling 3, 4, 5 lands them in an experimental group.
When is Random Assignment not used?
- When it is not ethically permissible: Randomization is only ethical if the researcher has no evidence that one treatment is superior to the other or that one treatment might have harmful side effects.
- When answering non-causal questions : If the researcher is just interested in predicting the probability of an event, the causal relationship between the variables is not important and observational designs would be more suitable than random assignment.
- When studying the effect of variables that cannot be manipulated: Some risk factors cannot be manipulated and so it would not make any sense to study them in a randomized trial. For example, we cannot randomly assign participants into categories based on age, gender, or genetic factors.
Drawbacks of Random Assignment
While randomization assures an unbiased assignment of participants to groups, it does not guarantee the equality of these groups. There could still be extraneous variables that differ between groups or group differences that arise from chance. Additionally, there is still an element of luck with random assignments.
Thus, researchers can not produce perfectly equal groups for each specific study. Differences between the treatment group and control group might still exist, and the results of a randomized trial may sometimes be wrong, but this is absolutely okay.
Scientific evidence is a long and continuous process, and the groups will tend to be equal in the long run when data is aggregated in a meta-analysis.
Additionally, external validity (i.e., the extent to which the researcher can use the results of the study to generalize to the larger population) is compromised with random assignment.
Random assignment is challenging to implement outside of controlled laboratory conditions and might not represent what would happen in the real world at the population level.
Random assignment can also be more costly than simple observational studies, where an investigator is just observing events without intervening with the population.
Randomization also can be time-consuming and challenging, especially when participants refuse to receive the assigned treatment or do not adhere to recommendations.
What is the difference between random sampling and random assignment?
Random sampling refers to randomly selecting a sample of participants from a population. Random assignment refers to randomly assigning participants to treatment groups from the selected sample.
Does random assignment increase internal validity?
Yes, random assignment ensures that there are no systematic differences between the participants in each group, enhancing the study’s internal validity .
Does random assignment reduce sampling error?
Yes, with random assignment, participants have an equal chance of being assigned to either a control group or an experimental group, resulting in a sample that is, in theory, representative of the population.
Random assignment does not completely eliminate sampling error because a sample only approximates the population from which it is drawn. However, random sampling is a way to minimize sampling errors.
When is random assignment not possible?
Random assignment is not possible when the experimenters cannot control the treatment or independent variable.
For example, if you want to compare how men and women perform on a test, you cannot randomly assign subjects to these groups.
Participants are not randomly assigned to different groups in this study, but instead assigned based on their characteristics.
Does random assignment eliminate confounding variables?
Yes, random assignment eliminates the influence of any confounding variables on the treatment because it distributes them at random among the study groups. Randomization invalidates any relationship between a confounding variable and the treatment.
Why is random assignment of participants to treatment conditions in an experiment used?
Random assignment is used to ensure that all groups are comparable at the start of a study. This allows researchers to conclude that the outcomes of the study can be attributed to the intervention at hand and to rule out alternative explanations for study results.
Further Reading
- Bogomolnaia, A., & Moulin, H. (2001). A new solution to the random assignment problem . Journal of Economic theory , 100 (2), 295-328.
- Krause, M. S., & Howard, K. I. (2003). What random assignment does and does not do . Journal of Clinical Psychology , 59 (7), 751-766.
![Random Assignment in Psychology: Definition & Examples 1 Print Friendly, PDF & Email](https://www.simplypsychology.org/wp-content/uploads/three-icons-with-text-light-blue.jpg)
- Skip to secondary menu
- Skip to main content
- Skip to primary sidebar
Statistics By Jim
Making statistics intuitive
Random Assignment in Experiments
By Jim Frost 4 Comments
Random assignment uses chance to assign subjects to the control and treatment groups in an experiment. This process helps ensure that the groups are equivalent at the beginning of the study, which makes it safer to assume the treatments caused any differences between groups that the experimenters observe at the end of the study.
![random assignment and independent variable photogram of tumbling dice to illustrate a process for random assignment.](https://i0.wp.com/statisticsbyjim.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/random_dice.png?resize=300%2C236&ssl=1)
Huh? That might be a big surprise! At this point, you might be wondering about all of those studies that use statistics to assess the effects of different treatments. There’s a critical separation between significance and causality:
- Statistical procedures determine whether an effect is significant.
- Experimental designs determine how confidently you can assume that a treatment causes the effect.
In this post, learn how using random assignment in experiments can help you identify causal relationships.
Correlation, Causation, and Confounding Variables
Random assignment helps you separate causation from correlation and rule out confounding variables. As a critical component of the scientific method , experiments typically set up contrasts between a control group and one or more treatment groups. The idea is to determine whether the effect, which is the difference between a treatment group and the control group, is statistically significant. If the effect is significant, group assignment correlates with different outcomes.
However, as you have no doubt heard, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. In other words, the experimental groups can have different mean outcomes, but the treatment might not be causing those differences even though the differences are statistically significant.
The difficulty in definitively stating that a treatment caused the difference is due to potential confounding variables or confounders. Confounders are alternative explanations for differences between the experimental groups. Confounding variables correlate with both the experimental groups and the outcome variable. In this situation, confounding variables can be the actual cause for the outcome differences rather than the treatments themselves. As you’ll see, if an experiment does not account for confounding variables, they can bias the results and make them untrustworthy.
Related posts : Understanding Correlation in Statistics , Causation versus Correlation , and Hill’s Criteria for Causation .
Example of Confounding in an Experiment
![random assignment and independent variable A photograph of vitamin capsules to represent our experiment.](https://i0.wp.com/statisticsbyjim.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/vitamins.jpg?resize=300%2C200&ssl=1)
- Control group: Does not consume vitamin supplements
- Treatment group: Regularly consumes vitamin supplements.
Imagine we measure a specific health outcome. After the experiment is complete, we perform a 2-sample t-test to determine whether the mean outcomes for these two groups are different. Assume the test results indicate that the mean health outcome in the treatment group is significantly better than the control group.
Why can’t we assume that the vitamins improved the health outcomes? After all, only the treatment group took the vitamins.
Related post : Confounding Variables in Regression Analysis
Alternative Explanations for Differences in Outcomes
The answer to that question depends on how we assigned the subjects to the experimental groups. If we let the subjects decide which group to join based on their existing vitamin habits, it opens the door to confounding variables. It’s reasonable to assume that people who take vitamins regularly also tend to have other healthy habits. These habits are confounders because they correlate with both vitamin consumption (experimental group) and the health outcome measure.
Random assignment prevents this self sorting of participants and reduces the likelihood that the groups start with systematic differences.
In fact, studies have found that supplement users are more physically active, have healthier diets, have lower blood pressure, and so on compared to those who don’t take supplements. If subjects who already take vitamins regularly join the treatment group voluntarily, they bring these healthy habits disproportionately to the treatment group. Consequently, these habits will be much more prevalent in the treatment group than the control group.
The healthy habits are the confounding variables—the potential alternative explanations for the difference in our study’s health outcome. It’s entirely possible that these systematic differences between groups at the start of the study might cause the difference in the health outcome at the end of the study—and not the vitamin consumption itself!
If our experiment doesn’t account for these confounding variables, we can’t trust the results. While we obtained statistically significant results with the 2-sample t-test for health outcomes, we don’t know for sure whether the vitamins, the systematic difference in habits, or some combination of the two caused the improvements.
Learn why many randomized clinical experiments use a placebo to control for the Placebo Effect .
Experiments Must Account for Confounding Variables
Your experimental design must account for confounding variables to avoid their problems. Scientific studies commonly use the following methods to handle confounders:
- Use control variables to keep them constant throughout an experiment.
- Statistically control for them in an observational study.
- Use random assignment to reduce the likelihood that systematic differences exist between experimental groups when the study begins.
Let’s take a look at how random assignment works in an experimental design.
Random Assignment Can Reduce the Impact of Confounding Variables
Note that random assignment is different than random sampling. Random sampling is a process for obtaining a sample that accurately represents a population .
![random assignment and independent variable Photo of a coin toss to represent how we can incorporate random assignment in our experiment.](https://i0.wp.com/statisticsbyjim.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/coin_toss.png?resize=300%2C300&ssl=1)
Random assignment uses a chance process to assign subjects to experimental groups. Using random assignment requires that the experimenters can control the group assignment for all study subjects. For our study, we must be able to assign our participants to either the control group or the supplement group. Clearly, if we don’t have the ability to assign subjects to the groups, we can’t use random assignment!
Additionally, the process must have an equal probability of assigning a subject to any of the groups. For example, in our vitamin supplement study, we can use a coin toss to assign each subject to either the control group or supplement group. For more complex experimental designs, we can use a random number generator or even draw names out of a hat.
Random Assignment Distributes Confounders Equally
The random assignment process distributes confounding properties amongst your experimental groups equally. In other words, randomness helps eliminate systematic differences between groups. For our study, flipping the coin tends to equalize the distribution of subjects with healthier habits between the control and treatment group. Consequently, these two groups should start roughly equal for all confounding variables, including healthy habits!
Random assignment is a simple, elegant solution to a complex problem. For any given study area, there can be a long list of confounding variables that you could worry about. However, using random assignment, you don’t need to know what they are, how to detect them, or even measure them. Instead, use random assignment to equalize them across your experimental groups so they’re not a problem.
Because random assignment helps ensure that the groups are comparable when the experiment begins, you can be more confident that the treatments caused the post-study differences. Random assignment helps increase the internal validity of your study.
Comparing the Vitamin Study With and Without Random Assignment
Let’s compare two scenarios involving our hypothetical vitamin study. We’ll assume that the study obtains statistically significant results in both cases.
Scenario 1: We don’t use random assignment and, unbeknownst to us, subjects with healthier habits disproportionately end up in the supplement treatment group. The experimental groups differ by both healthy habits and vitamin consumption. Consequently, we can’t determine whether it was the habits or vitamins that improved the outcomes.
Scenario 2: We use random assignment and, consequently, the treatment and control groups start with roughly equal levels of healthy habits. The intentional introduction of vitamin supplements in the treatment group is the primary difference between the groups. Consequently, we can more confidently assert that the supplements caused an improvement in health outcomes.
For both scenarios, the statistical results could be identical. However, the methodology behind the second scenario makes a stronger case for a causal relationship between vitamin supplement consumption and health outcomes.
How important is it to use the correct methodology? Well, if the relationship between vitamins and health outcomes is not causal, then consuming vitamins won’t cause your health outcomes to improve regardless of what the study indicates. Instead, it’s probably all the other healthy habits!
Learn more about Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) that are the gold standard for identifying causal relationships because they use random assignment.
Drawbacks of Random Assignment
Random assignment helps reduce the chances of systematic differences between the groups at the start of an experiment and, thereby, mitigates the threats of confounding variables and alternative explanations. However, the process does not always equalize all of the confounding variables. Its random nature tends to eliminate systematic differences, but it doesn’t always succeed.
Sometimes random assignment is impossible because the experimenters cannot control the treatment or independent variable. For example, if you want to determine how individuals with and without depression perform on a test, you cannot randomly assign subjects to these groups. The same difficulty occurs when you’re studying differences between genders.
In other cases, there might be ethical issues. For example, in a randomized experiment, the researchers would want to withhold treatment for the control group. However, if the treatments are vaccinations, it might be unethical to withhold the vaccinations.
Other times, random assignment might be possible, but it is very challenging. For example, with vitamin consumption, it’s generally thought that if vitamin supplements cause health improvements, it’s only after very long-term use. It’s hard to enforce random assignment with a strict regimen for usage in one group and non-usage in the other group over the long-run. Or imagine a study about smoking. The researchers would find it difficult to assign subjects to the smoking and non-smoking groups randomly!
Fortunately, if you can’t use random assignment to help reduce the problem of confounding variables, there are different methods available. The other primary approach is to perform an observational study and incorporate the confounders into the statistical model itself. For more information, read my post Observational Studies Explained .
Read About Real Experiments that Used Random Assignment
I’ve written several blog posts about studies that have used random assignment to make causal inferences. Read studies about the following:
- Flu Vaccinations
- COVID-19 Vaccinations
Sullivan L. Random assignment versus random selection . SAGE Glossary of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2009.
Share this:
![random assignment and independent variable random assignment and independent variable](https://i0.wp.com/assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pinit_fg_en_rect_gray_20.png)
Reader Interactions
November 13, 2019 at 4:59 am
Hi Jim, I have a question of randomly assigning participants to one of two conditions when it is an ongoing study and you are not sure of how many participants there will be. I am using this random assignment tool for factorial experiments. http://methodologymedia.psu.edu/most/rannumgenerator It asks you for the total number of participants but at this point, I am not sure how many there will be. Thanks for any advice you can give me, Floyd
May 28, 2019 at 11:34 am
Jim, can you comment on the validity of using the following approach when we can’t use random assignments. I’m in education, we have an ACT prep course that we offer. We can’t force students to take it and we can’t keep them from taking it either. But we want to know if it’s working. Let’s say that by senior year all students who are going to take the ACT have taken it. Let’s also say that I’m only including students who have taking it twice (so I can show growth between first and second time taking it). What I’ve done to address confounders is to go back to say 8th or 9th grade (prior to anyone taking the ACT or the ACT prep course) and run an analysis showing the two groups are not significantly different to start with. Is this valid? If the ACT prep students were higher achievers in 8th or 9th grade, I could not assume my prep course is effecting greater growth, but if they were not significantly different in 8th or 9th grade, I can assume the significant difference in ACT growth (from first to second testing) is due to the prep course. Yes or no?
May 26, 2019 at 5:37 pm
Nice post! I think the key to understanding scientific research is to understand randomization. And most people don’t get it.
May 27, 2019 at 9:48 pm
Thank you, Anoop!
I think randomness in an experiment is a funny thing. The issue of confounding factors is a serious problem. You might not even know what they are! But, use random assignment and, voila, the problem usually goes away! If you can’t use random assignment, suddenly you have a whole host of issues to worry about, which I’ll be writing about in more detail in my upcoming post about observational experiments!
Comments and Questions Cancel reply
Random Assignment in Psychology (Definition + 40 Examples)
![random assignment and independent variable practical psychology logo](https://practicalpie.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/practical-psychology-logo-60x60.jpg)
Have you ever wondered how researchers discover new ways to help people learn, make decisions, or overcome challenges? A hidden hero in this adventure of discovery is a method called random assignment, a cornerstone in psychological research that helps scientists uncover the truths about the human mind and behavior.
Random Assignment is a process used in research where each participant has an equal chance of being placed in any group within the study. This technique is essential in experiments as it helps to eliminate biases, ensuring that the different groups being compared are similar in all important aspects.
By doing so, researchers can be confident that any differences observed are likely due to the variable being tested, rather than other factors.
In this article, we’ll explore the intriguing world of random assignment, diving into its history, principles, real-world examples, and the impact it has had on the field of psychology.
History of Random Assignment
![random assignment and independent variable two women in different conditions](https://practicalpie.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/two-women-in-different-conditions.png)
Stepping back in time, we delve into the origins of random assignment, which finds its roots in the early 20th century.
The pioneering mind behind this innovative technique was Sir Ronald A. Fisher , a British statistician and biologist. Fisher introduced the concept of random assignment in the 1920s, aiming to improve the quality and reliability of experimental research .
His contributions laid the groundwork for the method's evolution and its widespread adoption in various fields, particularly in psychology.
Fisher’s groundbreaking work on random assignment was motivated by his desire to control for confounding variables – those pesky factors that could muddy the waters of research findings.
By assigning participants to different groups purely by chance, he realized that the influence of these confounding variables could be minimized, paving the way for more accurate and trustworthy results.
Early Studies Utilizing Random Assignment
Following Fisher's initial development, random assignment started to gain traction in the research community. Early studies adopting this methodology focused on a variety of topics, from agriculture (which was Fisher’s primary field of interest) to medicine and psychology.
The approach allowed researchers to draw stronger conclusions from their experiments, bolstering the development of new theories and practices.
One notable early study utilizing random assignment was conducted in the field of educational psychology. Researchers were keen to understand the impact of different teaching methods on student outcomes.
By randomly assigning students to various instructional approaches, they were able to isolate the effects of the teaching methods, leading to valuable insights and recommendations for educators.
Evolution of the Methodology
As the decades rolled on, random assignment continued to evolve and adapt to the changing landscape of research.
Advances in technology introduced new tools and techniques for implementing randomization, such as computerized random number generators, which offered greater precision and ease of use.
The application of random assignment expanded beyond the confines of the laboratory, finding its way into field studies and large-scale surveys.
Researchers across diverse disciplines embraced the methodology, recognizing its potential to enhance the validity of their findings and contribute to the advancement of knowledge.
From its humble beginnings in the early 20th century to its widespread use today, random assignment has proven to be a cornerstone of scientific inquiry.
Its development and evolution have played a pivotal role in shaping the landscape of psychological research, driving discoveries that have improved lives and deepened our understanding of the human experience.
Principles of Random Assignment
Delving into the heart of random assignment, we uncover the theories and principles that form its foundation.
The method is steeped in the basics of probability theory and statistical inference, ensuring that each participant has an equal chance of being placed in any group, thus fostering fair and unbiased results.
Basic Principles of Random Assignment
Understanding the core principles of random assignment is key to grasping its significance in research. There are three principles: equal probability of selection, reduction of bias, and ensuring representativeness.
The first principle, equal probability of selection , ensures that every participant has an identical chance of being assigned to any group in the study. This randomness is crucial as it mitigates the risk of bias and establishes a level playing field.
The second principle focuses on the reduction of bias . Random assignment acts as a safeguard, ensuring that the groups being compared are alike in all essential aspects before the experiment begins.
This similarity between groups allows researchers to attribute any differences observed in the outcomes directly to the independent variable being studied.
Lastly, ensuring representativeness is a vital principle. When participants are assigned randomly, the resulting groups are more likely to be representative of the larger population.
This characteristic is crucial for the generalizability of the study’s findings, allowing researchers to apply their insights broadly.
Theoretical Foundation
The theoretical foundation of random assignment lies in probability theory and statistical inference .
Probability theory deals with the likelihood of different outcomes, providing a mathematical framework for analyzing random phenomena. In the context of random assignment, it helps in ensuring that each participant has an equal chance of being placed in any group.
Statistical inference, on the other hand, allows researchers to draw conclusions about a population based on a sample of data drawn from that population. It is the mechanism through which the results of a study can be generalized to a broader context.
Random assignment enhances the reliability of statistical inferences by reducing biases and ensuring that the sample is representative.
Differentiating Random Assignment from Random Selection
It’s essential to distinguish between random assignment and random selection, as the two terms, while related, have distinct meanings in the realm of research.
Random assignment refers to how participants are placed into different groups in an experiment, aiming to control for confounding variables and help determine causes.
In contrast, random selection pertains to how individuals are chosen to participate in a study. This method is used to ensure that the sample of participants is representative of the larger population, which is vital for the external validity of the research.
While both methods are rooted in randomness and probability, they serve different purposes in the research process.
Understanding the theories, principles, and distinctions of random assignment illuminates its pivotal role in psychological research.
This method, anchored in probability theory and statistical inference, serves as a beacon of reliability, guiding researchers in their quest for knowledge and ensuring that their findings stand the test of validity and applicability.
Methodology of Random Assignment
![random assignment and independent variable woman sleeping with a brain monitor](https://practicalpie.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/woman-sleeping-with-a-brain-monitor.png)
Implementing random assignment in a study is a meticulous process that involves several crucial steps.
The initial step is participant selection, where individuals are chosen to partake in the study. This stage is critical to ensure that the pool of participants is diverse and representative of the population the study aims to generalize to.
Once the pool of participants has been established, the actual assignment process begins. In this step, each participant is allocated randomly to one of the groups in the study.
Researchers use various tools, such as random number generators or computerized methods, to ensure that this assignment is genuinely random and free from biases.
Monitoring and adjusting form the final step in the implementation of random assignment. Researchers need to continuously observe the groups to ensure that they remain comparable in all essential aspects throughout the study.
If any significant discrepancies arise, adjustments might be necessary to maintain the study’s integrity and validity.
Tools and Techniques Used
The evolution of technology has introduced a variety of tools and techniques to facilitate random assignment.
Random number generators, both manual and computerized, are commonly used to assign participants to different groups. These generators ensure that each individual has an equal chance of being placed in any group, upholding the principle of equal probability of selection.
In addition to random number generators, researchers often use specialized computer software designed for statistical analysis and experimental design.
These software programs offer advanced features that allow for precise and efficient random assignment, minimizing the risk of human error and enhancing the study’s reliability.
Ethical Considerations
The implementation of random assignment is not devoid of ethical considerations. Informed consent is a fundamental ethical principle that researchers must uphold.
Informed consent means that every participant should be fully informed about the nature of the study, the procedures involved, and any potential risks or benefits, ensuring that they voluntarily agree to participate.
Beyond informed consent, researchers must conduct a thorough risk and benefit analysis. The potential benefits of the study should outweigh any risks or harms to the participants.
Safeguarding the well-being of participants is paramount, and any study employing random assignment must adhere to established ethical guidelines and standards.
Conclusion of Methodology
The methodology of random assignment, while seemingly straightforward, is a multifaceted process that demands precision, fairness, and ethical integrity. From participant selection to assignment and monitoring, each step is crucial to ensure the validity of the study’s findings.
The tools and techniques employed, coupled with a steadfast commitment to ethical principles, underscore the significance of random assignment as a cornerstone of robust psychological research.
Benefits of Random Assignment in Psychological Research
The impact and importance of random assignment in psychological research cannot be overstated. It is fundamental for ensuring the study is accurate, allowing the researchers to determine if their study actually caused the results they saw, and making sure the findings can be applied to the real world.
Facilitating Causal Inferences
When participants are randomly assigned to different groups, researchers can be more confident that the observed effects are due to the independent variable being changed, and not other factors.
This ability to determine the cause is called causal inference .
This confidence allows for the drawing of causal relationships, which are foundational for theory development and application in psychology.
Ensuring Internal Validity
One of the foremost impacts of random assignment is its ability to enhance the internal validity of an experiment.
Internal validity refers to the extent to which a researcher can assert that changes in the dependent variable are solely due to manipulations of the independent variable , and not due to confounding variables.
By ensuring that each participant has an equal chance of being in any condition of the experiment, random assignment helps control for participant characteristics that could otherwise complicate the results.
Enhancing Generalizability
Beyond internal validity, random assignment also plays a crucial role in enhancing the generalizability of research findings.
When done correctly, it ensures that the sample groups are representative of the larger population, so can allow researchers to apply their findings more broadly.
This representative nature is essential for the practical application of research, impacting policy, interventions, and psychological therapies.
Limitations of Random Assignment
Potential for implementation issues.
While the principles of random assignment are robust, the method can face implementation issues.
One of the most common problems is logistical constraints. Some studies, due to their nature or the specific population being studied, find it challenging to implement random assignment effectively.
For instance, in educational settings, logistical issues such as class schedules and school policies might stop the random allocation of students to different teaching methods .
Ethical Dilemmas
Random assignment, while methodologically sound, can also present ethical dilemmas.
In some cases, withholding a potentially beneficial treatment from one of the groups of participants can raise serious ethical questions, especially in medical or clinical research where participants' well-being might be directly affected.
Researchers must navigate these ethical waters carefully, balancing the pursuit of knowledge with the well-being of participants.
Generalizability Concerns
Even when implemented correctly, random assignment does not always guarantee generalizable results.
The types of people in the participant pool, the specific context of the study, and the nature of the variables being studied can all influence the extent to which the findings can be applied to the broader population.
Researchers must be cautious in making broad generalizations from studies, even those employing strict random assignment.
Practical and Real-World Limitations
In the real world, many variables cannot be manipulated for ethical or practical reasons, limiting the applicability of random assignment.
For instance, researchers cannot randomly assign individuals to different levels of intelligence, socioeconomic status, or cultural backgrounds.
This limitation necessitates the use of other research designs, such as correlational or observational studies , when exploring relationships involving such variables.
Response to Critiques
In response to these critiques, people in favor of random assignment argue that the method, despite its limitations, remains one of the most reliable ways to establish cause and effect in experimental research.
They acknowledge the challenges and ethical considerations but emphasize the rigorous frameworks in place to address them.
The ongoing discussion around the limitations and critiques of random assignment contributes to the evolution of the method, making sure it is continuously relevant and applicable in psychological research.
While random assignment is a powerful tool in experimental research, it is not without its critiques and limitations. Implementation issues, ethical dilemmas, generalizability concerns, and real-world limitations can pose significant challenges.
However, the continued discourse and refinement around these issues underline the method's enduring significance in the pursuit of knowledge in psychology.
By being careful with how we do things and doing what's right, random assignment stays a really important part of studying how people act and think.
Real-World Applications and Examples
![random assignment and independent variable man on a treadmill](https://practicalpie.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/man-on-a-treadmill.png)
Random assignment has been employed in many studies across various fields of psychology, leading to significant discoveries and advancements.
Here are some real-world applications and examples illustrating the diversity and impact of this method:
- Medicine and Health Psychology: Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the gold standard in medical research. In these studies, participants are randomly assigned to either the treatment or control group to test the efficacy of new medications or interventions.
- Educational Psychology: Studies in this field have used random assignment to explore the effects of different teaching methods, classroom environments, and educational technologies on student learning and outcomes.
- Cognitive Psychology: Researchers have employed random assignment to investigate various aspects of human cognition, including memory, attention, and problem-solving, leading to a deeper understanding of how the mind works.
- Social Psychology: Random assignment has been instrumental in studying social phenomena, such as conformity, aggression, and prosocial behavior, shedding light on the intricate dynamics of human interaction.
Let's get into some specific examples. You'll need to know one term though, and that is "control group." A control group is a set of participants in a study who do not receive the treatment or intervention being tested , serving as a baseline to compare with the group that does, in order to assess the effectiveness of the treatment.
- Smoking Cessation Study: Researchers used random assignment to put participants into two groups. One group received a new anti-smoking program, while the other did not. This helped determine if the program was effective in helping people quit smoking.
- Math Tutoring Program: A study on students used random assignment to place them into two groups. One group received additional math tutoring, while the other continued with regular classes, to see if the extra help improved their grades.
- Exercise and Mental Health: Adults were randomly assigned to either an exercise group or a control group to study the impact of physical activity on mental health and mood.
- Diet and Weight Loss: A study randomly assigned participants to different diet plans to compare their effectiveness in promoting weight loss and improving health markers.
- Sleep and Learning: Researchers randomly assigned students to either a sleep extension group or a regular sleep group to study the impact of sleep on learning and memory.
- Classroom Seating Arrangement: Teachers used random assignment to place students in different seating arrangements to examine the effect on focus and academic performance.
- Music and Productivity: Employees were randomly assigned to listen to music or work in silence to investigate the effect of music on workplace productivity.
- Medication for ADHD: Children with ADHD were randomly assigned to receive either medication, behavioral therapy, or a placebo to compare treatment effectiveness.
- Mindfulness Meditation for Stress: Adults were randomly assigned to a mindfulness meditation group or a waitlist control group to study the impact on stress levels.
- Video Games and Aggression: A study randomly assigned participants to play either violent or non-violent video games and then measured their aggression levels.
- Online Learning Platforms: Students were randomly assigned to use different online learning platforms to evaluate their effectiveness in enhancing learning outcomes.
- Hand Sanitizers in Schools: Schools were randomly assigned to use hand sanitizers or not to study the impact on student illness and absenteeism.
- Caffeine and Alertness: Participants were randomly assigned to consume caffeinated or decaffeinated beverages to measure the effects on alertness and cognitive performance.
- Green Spaces and Well-being: Neighborhoods were randomly assigned to receive green space interventions to study the impact on residents’ well-being and community connections.
- Pet Therapy for Hospital Patients: Patients were randomly assigned to receive pet therapy or standard care to assess the impact on recovery and mood.
- Yoga for Chronic Pain: Individuals with chronic pain were randomly assigned to a yoga intervention group or a control group to study the effect on pain levels and quality of life.
- Flu Vaccines Effectiveness: Different groups of people were randomly assigned to receive either the flu vaccine or a placebo to determine the vaccine’s effectiveness.
- Reading Strategies for Dyslexia: Children with dyslexia were randomly assigned to different reading intervention strategies to compare their effectiveness.
- Physical Environment and Creativity: Participants were randomly assigned to different room setups to study the impact of physical environment on creative thinking.
- Laughter Therapy for Depression: Individuals with depression were randomly assigned to laughter therapy sessions or control groups to assess the impact on mood.
- Financial Incentives for Exercise: Participants were randomly assigned to receive financial incentives for exercising to study the impact on physical activity levels.
- Art Therapy for Anxiety: Individuals with anxiety were randomly assigned to art therapy sessions or a waitlist control group to measure the effect on anxiety levels.
- Natural Light in Offices: Employees were randomly assigned to workspaces with natural or artificial light to study the impact on productivity and job satisfaction.
- School Start Times and Academic Performance: Schools were randomly assigned different start times to study the effect on student academic performance and well-being.
- Horticulture Therapy for Seniors: Older adults were randomly assigned to participate in horticulture therapy or traditional activities to study the impact on cognitive function and life satisfaction.
- Hydration and Cognitive Function: Participants were randomly assigned to different hydration levels to measure the impact on cognitive function and alertness.
- Intergenerational Programs: Seniors and young people were randomly assigned to intergenerational programs to study the effects on well-being and cross-generational understanding.
- Therapeutic Horseback Riding for Autism: Children with autism were randomly assigned to therapeutic horseback riding or traditional therapy to study the impact on social communication skills.
- Active Commuting and Health: Employees were randomly assigned to active commuting (cycling, walking) or passive commuting to study the effect on physical health.
- Mindful Eating for Weight Management: Individuals were randomly assigned to mindful eating workshops or control groups to study the impact on weight management and eating habits.
- Noise Levels and Learning: Students were randomly assigned to classrooms with different noise levels to study the effect on learning and concentration.
- Bilingual Education Methods: Schools were randomly assigned different bilingual education methods to compare their effectiveness in language acquisition.
- Outdoor Play and Child Development: Children were randomly assigned to different amounts of outdoor playtime to study the impact on physical and cognitive development.
- Social Media Detox: Participants were randomly assigned to a social media detox or regular usage to study the impact on mental health and well-being.
- Therapeutic Writing for Trauma Survivors: Individuals who experienced trauma were randomly assigned to therapeutic writing sessions or control groups to study the impact on psychological well-being.
- Mentoring Programs for At-risk Youth: At-risk youth were randomly assigned to mentoring programs or control groups to assess the impact on academic achievement and behavior.
- Dance Therapy for Parkinson’s Disease: Individuals with Parkinson’s disease were randomly assigned to dance therapy or traditional exercise to study the effect on motor function and quality of life.
- Aquaponics in Schools: Schools were randomly assigned to implement aquaponics programs to study the impact on student engagement and environmental awareness.
- Virtual Reality for Phobia Treatment: Individuals with phobias were randomly assigned to virtual reality exposure therapy or traditional therapy to compare effectiveness.
- Gardening and Mental Health: Participants were randomly assigned to engage in gardening or other leisure activities to study the impact on mental health and stress reduction.
Each of these studies exemplifies how random assignment is utilized in various fields and settings, shedding light on the multitude of ways it can be applied to glean valuable insights and knowledge.
Real-world Impact of Random Assignment
![random assignment and independent variable old lady gardening](https://practicalpie.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/old-lady-gardening.png)
Random assignment is like a key tool in the world of learning about people's minds and behaviors. It’s super important and helps in many different areas of our everyday lives. It helps make better rules, creates new ways to help people, and is used in lots of different fields.
Health and Medicine
In health and medicine, random assignment has helped doctors and scientists make lots of discoveries. It’s a big part of tests that help create new medicines and treatments.
By putting people into different groups by chance, scientists can really see if a medicine works.
This has led to new ways to help people with all sorts of health problems, like diabetes, heart disease, and mental health issues like depression and anxiety.
Schools and education have also learned a lot from random assignment. Researchers have used it to look at different ways of teaching, what kind of classrooms are best, and how technology can help learning.
This knowledge has helped make better school rules, develop what we learn in school, and find the best ways to teach students of all ages and backgrounds.
Workplace and Organizational Behavior
Random assignment helps us understand how people act at work and what makes a workplace good or bad.
Studies have looked at different kinds of workplaces, how bosses should act, and how teams should be put together. This has helped companies make better rules and create places to work that are helpful and make people happy.
Environmental and Social Changes
Random assignment is also used to see how changes in the community and environment affect people. Studies have looked at community projects, changes to the environment, and social programs to see how they help or hurt people’s well-being.
This has led to better community projects, efforts to protect the environment, and programs to help people in society.
Technology and Human Interaction
In our world where technology is always changing, studies with random assignment help us see how tech like social media, virtual reality, and online stuff affect how we act and feel.
This has helped make better and safer technology and rules about using it so that everyone can benefit.
The effects of random assignment go far and wide, way beyond just a science lab. It helps us understand lots of different things, leads to new and improved ways to do things, and really makes a difference in the world around us.
From making healthcare and schools better to creating positive changes in communities and the environment, the real-world impact of random assignment shows just how important it is in helping us learn and make the world a better place.
So, what have we learned? Random assignment is like a super tool in learning about how people think and act. It's like a detective helping us find clues and solve mysteries in many parts of our lives.
From creating new medicines to helping kids learn better in school, and from making workplaces happier to protecting the environment, it’s got a big job!
This method isn’t just something scientists use in labs; it reaches out and touches our everyday lives. It helps make positive changes and teaches us valuable lessons.
Whether we are talking about technology, health, education, or the environment, random assignment is there, working behind the scenes, making things better and safer for all of us.
In the end, the simple act of putting people into groups by chance helps us make big discoveries and improvements. It’s like throwing a small stone into a pond and watching the ripples spread out far and wide.
Thanks to random assignment, we are always learning, growing, and finding new ways to make our world a happier and healthier place for everyone!
Related posts:
- 19+ Experimental Design Examples (Methods + Types)
- Cluster Sampling vs Stratified Sampling
- 41+ White Collar Job Examples (Salary + Path)
- 47+ Blue Collar Job Examples (Salary + Path)
- McDonaldization of Society (Definition + Examples)
Reference this article:
About The Author
![random assignment and independent variable Photo of author](https://practicalpie.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/practical-psychology-logo-400x400.jpg)
Free Personality Test
![random assignment and independent variable Free Personality Quiz](https://practicalpie.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/personality-quiz.png)
Free Memory Test
![random assignment and independent variable Free Memory Test](https://practicalpie.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/memory1-e1652207414995.png)
Free IQ Test
![random assignment and independent variable Free IQ Test](https://practicalpie.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/iq2.png)
PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Follow Us On:
Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter
Psychology Resources
Developmental
Personality
Relationships
Psychologists
Serial Killers
Psychology Tests
Personality Quiz
Memory Test
Depression test
Type A/B Personality Test
© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
![random assignment and independent variable helpful professor logo](https://helpfulprofessor.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo-new-font-323x42.png)
Random Assignment in Psychology (Intro for Students)
![random assignment and independent variable Random Assignment in Psychology (Intro for Students)](https://helpfulprofessor.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Dave.jpg)
Dave Cornell (PhD)
Dr. Cornell has worked in education for more than 20 years. His work has involved designing teacher certification for Trinity College in London and in-service training for state governments in the United States. He has trained kindergarten teachers in 8 countries and helped businessmen and women open baby centers and kindergartens in 3 countries.
Learn about our Editorial Process
![random assignment and independent variable Random Assignment in Psychology (Intro for Students)](https://helpfulprofessor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Chris-200px.jpg)
Chris Drew (PhD)
This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.
![random assignment and independent variable random assignment and independent variable](https://helpfulprofessor.com/wp-content/plugins/helpfulprofessor-functions/img/certified-check.png)
Random assignment is a research procedure used to randomly assign participants to different experimental conditions (or ‘groups’). This introduces the element of chance, ensuring that each participant has an equal likelihood of being placed in any condition group for the study.
It is absolutely essential that the treatment condition and the control condition are the same in all ways except for the variable being manipulated.
Using random assignment to place participants in different conditions helps to achieve this.
It ensures that those conditions are the same in regards to all potential confounding variables and extraneous factors .
Why Researchers Use Random Assignment
Researchers use random assignment to control for confounds in research.
Confounds refer to unwanted and often unaccounted-for variables that might affect the outcome of a study. These confounding variables can skew the results, rendering the experiment unreliable.
For example, below is a study with two groups. Note how there are more ‘red’ individuals in the first group than the second:
![random assignment and independent variable a representation of a treatment condition showing 12 red people in the cohort](https://helpfulprofessor.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/image-2-1010x1024.png)
There is likely a confounding variable in this experiment explaining why more red people ended up in the treatment condition and less in the control condition. The red people might have self-selected, for example, leading to a skew of them in one group over the other.
Ideally, we’d want a more even distribution, like below:
![random assignment and independent variable a representation of a treatment condition showing 4 red people in the cohort](https://helpfulprofessor.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/image-4-1018x1024.png)
To achieve better balance in our two conditions, we use randomized sampling.
Fact File: Experiments 101
Random assignment is used in the type of research called the experiment.
An experiment involves manipulating the level of one variable and examining how it affects another variable. These are the independent and dependent variables :
- Independent Variable: The variable manipulated is called the independent variable (IV)
- Dependent Variable: The variable that it is expected to affect is called the dependent variable (DV).
The most basic form of the experiment involves two conditions: the treatment and the control .
- The Treatment Condition: The treatment condition involves the participants being exposed to the IV.
- The Control Condition: The control condition involves the absence of the IV. Therefore, the IV has two levels: zero and some quantity.
Researchers utilize random assignment to determine which participants go into which conditions.
Methods of Random Assignment
There are several procedures that researchers can use to randomly assign participants to different conditions.
1. Random number generator
There are several websites that offer computer-generated random numbers. Simply indicate how many conditions are in the experiment and then click. If there are 4 conditions, the program will randomly generate a number between 1 and 4 each time it is clicked.
2. Flipping a coin
If there are two conditions in an experiment, then the simplest way to implement random assignment is to flip a coin for each participant. Heads means being assigned to the treatment and tails means being assigned to the control (or vice versa).
3. Rolling a die
Rolling a single die is another way to randomly assign participants. If the experiment has three conditions, then numbers 1 and 2 mean being assigned to the control; numbers 3 and 4 mean treatment condition one; and numbers 5 and 6 mean treatment condition two.
4. Condition names in a hat
In some studies, the researcher will write the name of the treatment condition(s) or control on slips of paper and place them in a hat. If there are 4 conditions and 1 control, then there are 5 slips of paper.
The researcher closes their eyes and selects one slip for each participant. That person is then assigned to one of the conditions in the study and that slip of paper is placed back in the hat. Repeat as necessary.
There are other ways of trying to ensure that the groups of participants are equal in all ways with the exception of the IV. However, random assignment is the most often used because it is so effective at reducing confounds.
Read About More Methods and Examples of Random Assignment Here
Potential Confounding Effects
Random assignment is all about minimizing confounding effects.
Here are six types of confounds that can be controlled for using random assignment:
- Individual Differences: Participants in a study will naturally vary in terms of personality, intelligence, mood, prior knowledge, and many other characteristics. If one group happens to have more people with a particular characteristic, this could affect the results. Random assignment ensures that these individual differences are spread out equally among the experimental groups, making it less likely that they will unduly influence the outcome.
- Temporal or Time-Related Confounds: Events or situations that occur at a particular time can influence the outcome of an experiment. For example, a participant might be tested after a stressful event, while another might be tested after a relaxing weekend. Random assignment ensures that such effects are equally distributed among groups, thus controlling for their potential influence.
- Order Effects: If participants are exposed to multiple treatments or tests, the order in which they experience them can influence their responses. Randomly assigning the order of treatments for different participants helps control for this.
- Location or Environmental Confounds: The environment in which the study is conducted can influence the results. One group might be tested in a noisy room, while another might be in a quiet room. Randomly assigning participants to different locations can control for these effects.
- Instrumentation Confounds: These occur when there are variations in the calibration or functioning of measurement instruments across conditions. If one group’s responses are being measured using a slightly different tool or scale, it can introduce a confound. Random assignment can ensure that any such potential inconsistencies in instrumentation are equally distributed among groups.
- Experimenter Effects: Sometimes, the behavior or expectations of the person administering the experiment can unintentionally influence the participants’ behavior or responses. For instance, if an experimenter believes one treatment is superior, they might unconsciously communicate this belief to participants. Randomly assigning experimenters or using a double-blind procedure (where neither the participant nor the experimenter knows the treatment being given) can help control for this.
Random assignment helps balance out these and other potential confounds across groups, ensuring that any observed differences are more likely due to the manipulated independent variable rather than some extraneous factor.
Limitations of the Random Assignment Procedure
Although random assignment is extremely effective at eliminating the presence of participant-related confounds, there are several scenarios in which it cannot be used.
- Ethics: The most obvious scenario is when it would be unethical. For example, if wanting to investigate the effects of emotional abuse on children, it would be unethical to randomly assign children to either received abuse or not. Even if a researcher were to propose such a study, it would not receive approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) which oversees research by university faculty.
- Practicality: Other scenarios involve matters of practicality. For example, randomly assigning people to specific types of diet over a 10-year period would be interesting, but it would be highly unlikely that participants would be diligent enough to make the study valid. This is why examining these types of subjects has to be carried out through observational studies . The data is correlational, which is informative, but falls short of the scientist’s ultimate goal of identifying causality.
- Small Sample Size: The smaller the sample size being assigned to conditions, the more likely it is that the two groups will be unequal. For example, if you flip a coin many times in a row then you will notice that sometimes there will be a string of heads or tails that come up consecutively. This means that one condition may have a build-up of participants that share the same characteristics. However, if you continue flipping the coin, over the long-term, there will be a balance of heads and tails. Unfortunately, how large a sample size is necessary has been the subject of considerable debate (Bloom, 2006; Shadish et al., 2002).
“It is well known that larger sample sizes reduce the probability that random assignment will result in conditions that are unequal” (Goldberg, 2019, p. 2).
Applications of Random Assignment
The importance of random assignment has been recognized in a wide range of scientific and applied disciplines (Bloom, 2006).
Random assignment began as a tool in agricultural research by Fisher (1925, 1935). After WWII, it became extensively used in medical research to test the effectiveness of new treatments and pharmaceuticals (Marks, 1997).
Today it is widely used in industrial engineering (Box, Hunter, and Hunter, 2005), educational research (Lindquist, 1953; Ong-Dean et al., 2011)), psychology (Myers, 1972), and social policy studies (Boruch, 1998; Orr, 1999).
One of the biggest obstacles to the validity of an experiment is the confound. If the group of participants in the treatment condition are substantially different from the group in the control condition, then it is impossible to determine if the IV has an affect or if the confound has an effect.
Thankfully, random assignment is highly effective at eliminating confounds that are known and unknown. Because each participant has an equal chance of being placed in each condition, they are equally distributed.
There are several ways of implementing random assignment, including flipping a coin or using a random number generator.
Random assignment has become an essential procedure in research in a wide range of subjects such as psychology, education, and social policy.
Alferes, V. R. (2012). Methods of randomization in experimental design . Sage Publications.
Bloom, H. S. (2008). The core analytics of randomized experiments for social research. The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods , 115-133.
Boruch, R. F. (1998). Randomized controlled experiments for evaluation and planning. Handbook of applied social research methods , 161-191.
Box, G. E., Hunter, W. G., & Hunter, J. S. (2005). Design of experiments: Statistics for Experimenters: Design, Innovation and Discovery.
Dehue, T. (1997). Deception, efficiency, and random groups: Psychology and the gradual origination of the random group design. Isis , 88 (4), 653-673.
Fisher, R.A. (1925). Statistical methods for research workers (11th ed. rev.). Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh.
Fisher, R. A. (1935). The Design of Experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
Goldberg, M. H. (2019). How often does random assignment fail? Estimates and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 66 , 101351.
Jamison, J. C. (2019). The entry of randomized assignment into the social sciences. Journal of Causal Inference , 7 (1), 20170025.
Lindquist, E. F. (1953). Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and education . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Marks, H. M. (1997). The progress of experiment: Science and therapeutic reform in the United States, 1900-1990 . Cambridge University Press.
Myers, J. L. (1972). Fundamentals of experimental design (2nd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Ong-Dean, C., Huie Hofstetter, C., & Strick, B. R. (2011). Challenges and dilemmas in implementing random assignment in educational research. American Journal of Evaluation , 32 (1), 29-49.
Orr, L. L. (1999). Social experiments: Evaluating public programs with experimental methods . Sage.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Quasi-experiments: interrupted time-series designs. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference , 171-205.
Stigler, S. M. (1992). A historical view of statistical concepts in psychology and educational research. American Journal of Education , 101 (1), 60-70.
![random assignment and independent variable Dave](https://helpfulprofessor.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Dave-150x150.jpg)
- Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 23 Achieved Status Examples
- Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 25 Defense Mechanisms Examples
- Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 15 Theory of Planned Behavior Examples
- Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 18 Adaptive Behavior Examples
![random assignment and independent variable Chris](https://helpfulprofessor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Chris-200px-150x150.jpg)
- Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 23 Achieved Status Examples
- Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Ableism Examples
- Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 25 Defense Mechanisms Examples
- Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Theory of Planned Behavior Examples
Leave a Comment Cancel Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
5.2 Experimental Design
Learning objectives.
- Explain the difference between between-subjects and within-subjects experiments, list some of the pros and cons of each approach, and decide which approach to use to answer a particular research question.
- Define random assignment, distinguish it from random sampling, explain its purpose in experimental research, and use some simple strategies to implement it
- Define several types of carryover effect, give examples of each, and explain how counterbalancing helps to deal with them.
In this section, we look at some different ways to design an experiment. The primary distinction we will make is between approaches in which each participant experiences one level of the independent variable and approaches in which each participant experiences all levels of the independent variable. The former are called between-subjects experiments and the latter are called within-subjects experiments.
Between-Subjects Experiments
In a between-subjects experiment , each participant is tested in only one condition. For example, a researcher with a sample of 100 university students might assign half of them to write about a traumatic event and the other half write about a neutral event. Or a researcher with a sample of 60 people with severe agoraphobia (fear of open spaces) might assign 20 of them to receive each of three different treatments for that disorder. It is essential in a between-subjects experiment that the researcher assigns participants to conditions so that the different groups are, on average, highly similar to each other. Those in a trauma condition and a neutral condition, for example, should include a similar proportion of men and women, and they should have similar average intelligence quotients (IQs), similar average levels of motivation, similar average numbers of health problems, and so on. This matching is a matter of controlling these extraneous participant variables across conditions so that they do not become confounding variables.
Random Assignment
The primary way that researchers accomplish this kind of control of extraneous variables across conditions is called random assignment , which means using a random process to decide which participants are tested in which conditions. Do not confuse random assignment with random sampling. Random sampling is a method for selecting a sample from a population, and it is rarely used in psychological research. Random assignment is a method for assigning participants in a sample to the different conditions, and it is an important element of all experimental research in psychology and other fields too.
In its strictest sense, random assignment should meet two criteria. One is that each participant has an equal chance of being assigned to each condition (e.g., a 50% chance of being assigned to each of two conditions). The second is that each participant is assigned to a condition independently of other participants. Thus one way to assign participants to two conditions would be to flip a coin for each one. If the coin lands heads, the participant is assigned to Condition A, and if it lands tails, the participant is assigned to Condition B. For three conditions, one could use a computer to generate a random integer from 1 to 3 for each participant. If the integer is 1, the participant is assigned to Condition A; if it is 2, the participant is assigned to Condition B; and if it is 3, the participant is assigned to Condition C. In practice, a full sequence of conditions—one for each participant expected to be in the experiment—is usually created ahead of time, and each new participant is assigned to the next condition in the sequence as he or she is tested. When the procedure is computerized, the computer program often handles the random assignment.
One problem with coin flipping and other strict procedures for random assignment is that they are likely to result in unequal sample sizes in the different conditions. Unequal sample sizes are generally not a serious problem, and you should never throw away data you have already collected to achieve equal sample sizes. However, for a fixed number of participants, it is statistically most efficient to divide them into equal-sized groups. It is standard practice, therefore, to use a kind of modified random assignment that keeps the number of participants in each group as similar as possible. One approach is block randomization . In block randomization, all the conditions occur once in the sequence before any of them is repeated. Then they all occur again before any of them is repeated again. Within each of these “blocks,” the conditions occur in a random order. Again, the sequence of conditions is usually generated before any participants are tested, and each new participant is assigned to the next condition in the sequence. Table 5.2 shows such a sequence for assigning nine participants to three conditions. The Research Randomizer website ( http://www.randomizer.org ) will generate block randomization sequences for any number of participants and conditions. Again, when the procedure is computerized, the computer program often handles the block randomization.
4 | B |
5 | C |
6 | A |
Random assignment is not guaranteed to control all extraneous variables across conditions. The process is random, so it is always possible that just by chance, the participants in one condition might turn out to be substantially older, less tired, more motivated, or less depressed on average than the participants in another condition. However, there are some reasons that this possibility is not a major concern. One is that random assignment works better than one might expect, especially for large samples. Another is that the inferential statistics that researchers use to decide whether a difference between groups reflects a difference in the population takes the “fallibility” of random assignment into account. Yet another reason is that even if random assignment does result in a confounding variable and therefore produces misleading results, this confound is likely to be detected when the experiment is replicated. The upshot is that random assignment to conditions—although not infallible in terms of controlling extraneous variables—is always considered a strength of a research design.
Matched Groups
An alternative to simple random assignment of participants to conditions is the use of a matched-groups design . Using this design, participants in the various conditions are matched on the dependent variable or on some extraneous variable(s) prior the manipulation of the independent variable. This guarantees that these variables will not be confounded across the experimental conditions. For instance, if we want to determine whether expressive writing affects people’s health then we could start by measuring various health-related variables in our prospective research participants. We could then use that information to rank-order participants according to how healthy or unhealthy they are. Next, the two healthiest participants would be randomly assigned to complete different conditions (one would be randomly assigned to the traumatic experiences writing condition and the other to the neutral writing condition). The next two healthiest participants would then be randomly assigned to complete different conditions, and so on until the two least healthy participants. This method would ensure that participants in the traumatic experiences writing condition are matched to participants in the neutral writing condition with respect to health at the beginning of the study. If at the end of the experiment, a difference in health was detected across the two conditions, then we would know that it is due to the writing manipulation and not to pre-existing differences in health.
![](http://serviteca.online/777/templates/cheerup2/res/banner1.gif)
Within-Subjects Experiments
In a within-subjects experiment , each participant is tested under all conditions. Consider an experiment on the effect of a defendant’s physical attractiveness on judgments of his guilt. Again, in a between-subjects experiment, one group of participants would be shown an attractive defendant and asked to judge his guilt, and another group of participants would be shown an unattractive defendant and asked to judge his guilt. In a within-subjects experiment, however, the same group of participants would judge the guilt of both an attractive and an unattractive defendant.
The primary advantage of this approach is that it provides maximum control of extraneous participant variables. Participants in all conditions have the same mean IQ, same socioeconomic status, same number of siblings, and so on—because they are the very same people. Within-subjects experiments also make it possible to use statistical procedures that remove the effect of these extraneous participant variables on the dependent variable and therefore make the data less “noisy” and the effect of the independent variable easier to detect. We will look more closely at this idea later in the book . However, not all experiments can use a within-subjects design nor would it be desirable to do so.
One disadvantage of within-subjects experiments is that they make it easier for participants to guess the hypothesis. For example, a participant who is asked to judge the guilt of an attractive defendant and then is asked to judge the guilt of an unattractive defendant is likely to guess that the hypothesis is that defendant attractiveness affects judgments of guilt. This knowledge could lead the participant to judge the unattractive defendant more harshly because he thinks this is what he is expected to do. Or it could make participants judge the two defendants similarly in an effort to be “fair.”
Carryover Effects and Counterbalancing
The primary disadvantage of within-subjects designs is that they can result in order effects. An order effect occurs when participants’ responses in the various conditions are affected by the order of conditions to which they were exposed. One type of order effect is a carryover effect. A carryover effect is an effect of being tested in one condition on participants’ behavior in later conditions. One type of carryover effect is a practice effect , where participants perform a task better in later conditions because they have had a chance to practice it. Another type is a fatigue effect , where participants perform a task worse in later conditions because they become tired or bored. Being tested in one condition can also change how participants perceive stimuli or interpret their task in later conditions. This type of effect is called a context effect (or contrast effect) . For example, an average-looking defendant might be judged more harshly when participants have just judged an attractive defendant than when they have just judged an unattractive defendant. Within-subjects experiments also make it easier for participants to guess the hypothesis. For example, a participant who is asked to judge the guilt of an attractive defendant and then is asked to judge the guilt of an unattractive defendant is likely to guess that the hypothesis is that defendant attractiveness affects judgments of guilt.
Carryover effects can be interesting in their own right. (Does the attractiveness of one person depend on the attractiveness of other people that we have seen recently?) But when they are not the focus of the research, carryover effects can be problematic. Imagine, for example, that participants judge the guilt of an attractive defendant and then judge the guilt of an unattractive defendant. If they judge the unattractive defendant more harshly, this might be because of his unattractiveness. But it could be instead that they judge him more harshly because they are becoming bored or tired. In other words, the order of the conditions is a confounding variable. The attractive condition is always the first condition and the unattractive condition the second. Thus any difference between the conditions in terms of the dependent variable could be caused by the order of the conditions and not the independent variable itself.
There is a solution to the problem of order effects, however, that can be used in many situations. It is counterbalancing , which means testing different participants in different orders. The best method of counterbalancing is complete counterbalancing in which an equal number of participants complete each possible order of conditions. For example, half of the participants would be tested in the attractive defendant condition followed by the unattractive defendant condition, and others half would be tested in the unattractive condition followed by the attractive condition. With three conditions, there would be six different orders (ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, and CBA), so some participants would be tested in each of the six orders. With four conditions, there would be 24 different orders; with five conditions there would be 120 possible orders. With counterbalancing, participants are assigned to orders randomly, using the techniques we have already discussed. Thus, random assignment plays an important role in within-subjects designs just as in between-subjects designs. Here, instead of randomly assigning to conditions, they are randomly assigned to different orders of conditions. In fact, it can safely be said that if a study does not involve random assignment in one form or another, it is not an experiment.
A more efficient way of counterbalancing is through a Latin square design which randomizes through having equal rows and columns. For example, if you have four treatments, you must have four versions. Like a Sudoku puzzle, no treatment can repeat in a row or column. For four versions of four treatments, the Latin square design would look like:
A | B | C | D |
B | C | D | A |
C | D | A | B |
D | A | B | C |
You can see in the diagram above that the square has been constructed to ensure that each condition appears at each ordinal position (A appears first once, second once, third once, and fourth once) and each condition preceded and follows each other condition one time. A Latin square for an experiment with 6 conditions would by 6 x 6 in dimension, one for an experiment with 8 conditions would be 8 x 8 in dimension, and so on. So while complete counterbalancing of 6 conditions would require 720 orders, a Latin square would only require 6 orders.
Finally, when the number of conditions is large experiments can use random counterbalancing in which the order of the conditions is randomly determined for each participant. Using this technique every possible order of conditions is determined and then one of these orders is randomly selected for each participant. This is not as powerful a technique as complete counterbalancing or partial counterbalancing using a Latin squares design. Use of random counterbalancing will result in more random error, but if order effects are likely to be small and the number of conditions is large, this is an option available to researchers.
There are two ways to think about what counterbalancing accomplishes. One is that it controls the order of conditions so that it is no longer a confounding variable. Instead of the attractive condition always being first and the unattractive condition always being second, the attractive condition comes first for some participants and second for others. Likewise, the unattractive condition comes first for some participants and second for others. Thus any overall difference in the dependent variable between the two conditions cannot have been caused by the order of conditions. A second way to think about what counterbalancing accomplishes is that if there are carryover effects, it makes it possible to detect them. One can analyze the data separately for each order to see whether it had an effect.
When 9 Is “Larger” Than 221
Researcher Michael Birnbaum has argued that the lack of context provided by between-subjects designs is often a bigger problem than the context effects created by within-subjects designs. To demonstrate this problem, he asked participants to rate two numbers on how large they were on a scale of 1-to-10 where 1 was “very very small” and 10 was “very very large”. One group of participants were asked to rate the number 9 and another group was asked to rate the number 221 (Birnbaum, 1999) [1] . Participants in this between-subjects design gave the number 9 a mean rating of 5.13 and the number 221 a mean rating of 3.10. In other words, they rated 9 as larger than 221! According to Birnbaum, this difference is because participants spontaneously compared 9 with other one-digit numbers (in which case it is relatively large) and compared 221 with other three-digit numbers (in which case it is relatively small).
Simultaneous Within-Subjects Designs
So far, we have discussed an approach to within-subjects designs in which participants are tested in one condition at a time. There is another approach, however, that is often used when participants make multiple responses in each condition. Imagine, for example, that participants judge the guilt of 10 attractive defendants and 10 unattractive defendants. Instead of having people make judgments about all 10 defendants of one type followed by all 10 defendants of the other type, the researcher could present all 20 defendants in a sequence that mixed the two types. The researcher could then compute each participant’s mean rating for each type of defendant. Or imagine an experiment designed to see whether people with social anxiety disorder remember negative adjectives (e.g., “stupid,” “incompetent”) better than positive ones (e.g., “happy,” “productive”). The researcher could have participants study a single list that includes both kinds of words and then have them try to recall as many words as possible. The researcher could then count the number of each type of word that was recalled.
Between-Subjects or Within-Subjects?
Almost every experiment can be conducted using either a between-subjects design or a within-subjects design. This possibility means that researchers must choose between the two approaches based on their relative merits for the particular situation.
Between-subjects experiments have the advantage of being conceptually simpler and requiring less testing time per participant. They also avoid carryover effects without the need for counterbalancing. Within-subjects experiments have the advantage of controlling extraneous participant variables, which generally reduces noise in the data and makes it easier to detect a relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
A good rule of thumb, then, is that if it is possible to conduct a within-subjects experiment (with proper counterbalancing) in the time that is available per participant—and you have no serious concerns about carryover effects—this design is probably the best option. If a within-subjects design would be difficult or impossible to carry out, then you should consider a between-subjects design instead. For example, if you were testing participants in a doctor’s waiting room or shoppers in line at a grocery store, you might not have enough time to test each participant in all conditions and therefore would opt for a between-subjects design. Or imagine you were trying to reduce people’s level of prejudice by having them interact with someone of another race. A within-subjects design with counterbalancing would require testing some participants in the treatment condition first and then in a control condition. But if the treatment works and reduces people’s level of prejudice, then they would no longer be suitable for testing in the control condition. This difficulty is true for many designs that involve a treatment meant to produce long-term change in participants’ behavior (e.g., studies testing the effectiveness of psychotherapy). Clearly, a between-subjects design would be necessary here.
Remember also that using one type of design does not preclude using the other type in a different study. There is no reason that a researcher could not use both a between-subjects design and a within-subjects design to answer the same research question. In fact, professional researchers often take exactly this type of mixed methods approach.
Key Takeaways
- Experiments can be conducted using either between-subjects or within-subjects designs. Deciding which to use in a particular situation requires careful consideration of the pros and cons of each approach.
- Random assignment to conditions in between-subjects experiments or counterbalancing of orders of conditions in within-subjects experiments is a fundamental element of experimental research. The purpose of these techniques is to control extraneous variables so that they do not become confounding variables.
- You want to test the relative effectiveness of two training programs for running a marathon.
- Using photographs of people as stimuli, you want to see if smiling people are perceived as more intelligent than people who are not smiling.
- In a field experiment, you want to see if the way a panhandler is dressed (neatly vs. sloppily) affects whether or not passersby give him any money.
- You want to see if concrete nouns (e.g., dog ) are recalled better than abstract nouns (e.g., truth).
- Birnbaum, M.H. (1999). How to show that 9>221: Collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychological Methods, 4 (3), 243-249. ↵
![random assignment and independent variable Creative Commons License](https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/4.0/88x31.png)
Share This Book
- Increase Font Size
![random assignment and independent variable Logo for BCcampus Open Publishing](https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/cropped-BCcampus-logo-colour.png)
Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.
Chapter 6: Experimental Research
Experimental Design
Learning Objectives
- Explain the difference between between-subjects and within-subjects experiments, list some of the pros and cons of each approach, and decide which approach to use to answer a particular research question.
- Define random assignment, distinguish it from random sampling, explain its purpose in experimental research, and use some simple strategies to implement it.
- Define what a control condition is, explain its purpose in research on treatment effectiveness, and describe some alternative types of control conditions.
- Define several types of carryover effect, give examples of each, and explain how counterbalancing helps to deal with them.
In this section, we look at some different ways to design an experiment. The primary distinction we will make is between approaches in which each participant experiences one level of the independent variable and approaches in which each participant experiences all levels of the independent variable. The former are called between-subjects experiments and the latter are called within-subjects experiments.
Between-Subjects Experiments
In a between-subjects experiment , each participant is tested in only one condition. For example, a researcher with a sample of 100 university students might assign half of them to write about a traumatic event and the other half write about a neutral event. Or a researcher with a sample of 60 people with severe agoraphobia (fear of open spaces) might assign 20 of them to receive each of three different treatments for that disorder. It is essential in a between-subjects experiment that the researcher assign participants to conditions so that the different groups are, on average, highly similar to each other. Those in a trauma condition and a neutral condition, for example, should include a similar proportion of men and women, and they should have similar average intelligence quotients (IQs), similar average levels of motivation, similar average numbers of health problems, and so on. This matching is a matter of controlling these extraneous participant variables across conditions so that they do not become confounding variables.
Random Assignment
The primary way that researchers accomplish this kind of control of extraneous variables across conditions is called random assignment , which means using a random process to decide which participants are tested in which conditions. Do not confuse random assignment with random sampling. Random sampling is a method for selecting a sample from a population, and it is rarely used in psychological research. Random assignment is a method for assigning participants in a sample to the different conditions, and it is an important element of all experimental research in psychology and other fields too.
In its strictest sense, random assignment should meet two criteria. One is that each participant has an equal chance of being assigned to each condition (e.g., a 50% chance of being assigned to each of two conditions). The second is that each participant is assigned to a condition independently of other participants. Thus one way to assign participants to two conditions would be to flip a coin for each one. If the coin lands heads, the participant is assigned to Condition A, and if it lands tails, the participant is assigned to Condition B. For three conditions, one could use a computer to generate a random integer from 1 to 3 for each participant. If the integer is 1, the participant is assigned to Condition A; if it is 2, the participant is assigned to Condition B; and if it is 3, the participant is assigned to Condition C. In practice, a full sequence of conditions—one for each participant expected to be in the experiment—is usually created ahead of time, and each new participant is assigned to the next condition in the sequence as he or she is tested. When the procedure is computerized, the computer program often handles the random assignment.
One problem with coin flipping and other strict procedures for random assignment is that they are likely to result in unequal sample sizes in the different conditions. Unequal sample sizes are generally not a serious problem, and you should never throw away data you have already collected to achieve equal sample sizes. However, for a fixed number of participants, it is statistically most efficient to divide them into equal-sized groups. It is standard practice, therefore, to use a kind of modified random assignment that keeps the number of participants in each group as similar as possible. One approach is block randomization . In block randomization, all the conditions occur once in the sequence before any of them is repeated. Then they all occur again before any of them is repeated again. Within each of these “blocks,” the conditions occur in a random order. Again, the sequence of conditions is usually generated before any participants are tested, and each new participant is assigned to the next condition in the sequence. Table 6.2 shows such a sequence for assigning nine participants to three conditions. The Research Randomizer website will generate block randomization sequences for any number of participants and conditions. Again, when the procedure is computerized, the computer program often handles the block randomization.
Participant | Condition |
---|---|
1 | A |
2 | C |
3 | B |
4 | B |
5 | C |
6 | A |
7 | C |
8 | B |
9 | A |
Random assignment is not guaranteed to control all extraneous variables across conditions. It is always possible that just by chance, the participants in one condition might turn out to be substantially older, less tired, more motivated, or less depressed on average than the participants in another condition. However, there are some reasons that this possibility is not a major concern. One is that random assignment works better than one might expect, especially for large samples. Another is that the inferential statistics that researchers use to decide whether a difference between groups reflects a difference in the population takes the “fallibility” of random assignment into account. Yet another reason is that even if random assignment does result in a confounding variable and therefore produces misleading results, this confound is likely to be detected when the experiment is replicated. The upshot is that random assignment to conditions—although not infallible in terms of controlling extraneous variables—is always considered a strength of a research design.
Treatment and Control Conditions
Between-subjects experiments are often used to determine whether a treatment works. In psychological research, a treatment is any intervention meant to change people’s behaviour for the better. This intervention includes psychotherapies and medical treatments for psychological disorders but also interventions designed to improve learning, promote conservation, reduce prejudice, and so on. To determine whether a treatment works, participants are randomly assigned to either a treatment condition , in which they receive the treatment, or a control condition , in which they do not receive the treatment. If participants in the treatment condition end up better off than participants in the control condition—for example, they are less depressed, learn faster, conserve more, express less prejudice—then the researcher can conclude that the treatment works. In research on the effectiveness of psychotherapies and medical treatments, this type of experiment is often called a randomized clinical trial .
There are different types of control conditions. In a no-treatment control condition , participants receive no treatment whatsoever. One problem with this approach, however, is the existence of placebo effects. A placebo is a simulated treatment that lacks any active ingredient or element that should make it effective, and a placebo effect is a positive effect of such a treatment. Many folk remedies that seem to work—such as eating chicken soup for a cold or placing soap under the bedsheets to stop nighttime leg cramps—are probably nothing more than placebos. Although placebo effects are not well understood, they are probably driven primarily by people’s expectations that they will improve. Having the expectation to improve can result in reduced stress, anxiety, and depression, which can alter perceptions and even improve immune system functioning (Price, Finniss, & Benedetti, 2008) [1] .
Placebo effects are interesting in their own right (see Note “The Powerful Placebo” ), but they also pose a serious problem for researchers who want to determine whether a treatment works. Figure 6.2 shows some hypothetical results in which participants in a treatment condition improved more on average than participants in a no-treatment control condition. If these conditions (the two leftmost bars in Figure 6.2 ) were the only conditions in this experiment, however, one could not conclude that the treatment worked. It could be instead that participants in the treatment group improved more because they expected to improve, while those in the no-treatment control condition did not.
![random assignment and independent variable ""](https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2019/08/6.2.png)
Fortunately, there are several solutions to this problem. One is to include a placebo control condition , in which participants receive a placebo that looks much like the treatment but lacks the active ingredient or element thought to be responsible for the treatment’s effectiveness. When participants in a treatment condition take a pill, for example, then those in a placebo control condition would take an identical-looking pill that lacks the active ingredient in the treatment (a “sugar pill”). In research on psychotherapy effectiveness, the placebo might involve going to a psychotherapist and talking in an unstructured way about one’s problems. The idea is that if participants in both the treatment and the placebo control groups expect to improve, then any improvement in the treatment group over and above that in the placebo control group must have been caused by the treatment and not by participants’ expectations. This difference is what is shown by a comparison of the two outer bars in Figure 6.2 .
Of course, the principle of informed consent requires that participants be told that they will be assigned to either a treatment or a placebo control condition—even though they cannot be told which until the experiment ends. In many cases the participants who had been in the control condition are then offered an opportunity to have the real treatment. An alternative approach is to use a waitlist control condition , in which participants are told that they will receive the treatment but must wait until the participants in the treatment condition have already received it. This disclosure allows researchers to compare participants who have received the treatment with participants who are not currently receiving it but who still expect to improve (eventually). A final solution to the problem of placebo effects is to leave out the control condition completely and compare any new treatment with the best available alternative treatment. For example, a new treatment for simple phobia could be compared with standard exposure therapy. Because participants in both conditions receive a treatment, their expectations about improvement should be similar. This approach also makes sense because once there is an effective treatment, the interesting question about a new treatment is not simply “Does it work?” but “Does it work better than what is already available?
The Powerful Placebo
Many people are not surprised that placebos can have a positive effect on disorders that seem fundamentally psychological, including depression, anxiety, and insomnia. However, placebos can also have a positive effect on disorders that most people think of as fundamentally physiological. These include asthma, ulcers, and warts (Shapiro & Shapiro, 1999) [2] . There is even evidence that placebo surgery—also called “sham surgery”—can be as effective as actual surgery.
Medical researcher J. Bruce Moseley and his colleagues conducted a study on the effectiveness of two arthroscopic surgery procedures for osteoarthritis of the knee (Moseley et al., 2002) [3] . The control participants in this study were prepped for surgery, received a tranquilizer, and even received three small incisions in their knees. But they did not receive the actual arthroscopic surgical procedure. The surprising result was that all participants improved in terms of both knee pain and function, and the sham surgery group improved just as much as the treatment groups. According to the researchers, “This study provides strong evidence that arthroscopic lavage with or without débridement [the surgical procedures used] is not better than and appears to be equivalent to a placebo procedure in improving knee pain and self-reported function” (p. 85).
Within-Subjects Experiments
In a within-subjects experiment , each participant is tested under all conditions. Consider an experiment on the effect of a defendant’s physical attractiveness on judgments of his guilt. Again, in a between-subjects experiment, one group of participants would be shown an attractive defendant and asked to judge his guilt, and another group of participants would be shown an unattractive defendant and asked to judge his guilt. In a within-subjects experiment, however, the same group of participants would judge the guilt of both an attractive and an unattractive defendant.
The primary advantage of this approach is that it provides maximum control of extraneous participant variables. Participants in all conditions have the same mean IQ, same socioeconomic status, same number of siblings, and so on—because they are the very same people. Within-subjects experiments also make it possible to use statistical procedures that remove the effect of these extraneous participant variables on the dependent variable and therefore make the data less “noisy” and the effect of the independent variable easier to detect. We will look more closely at this idea later in the book. However, not all experiments can use a within-subjects design nor would it be desirable to.
Carryover Effects and Counterbalancing
The primary disad vantage of within-subjects designs is that they can result in carryover effects. A carryover effect is an effect of being tested in one condition on participants’ behaviour in later conditions. One type of carryover effect is a practice effect , where participants perform a task better in later conditions because they have had a chance to practice it. Another type is a fatigue effect , where participants perform a task worse in later conditions because they become tired or bored. Being tested in one condition can also change how participants perceive stimuli or interpret their task in later conditions. This type of effect is called a context effect . For example, an average-looking defendant might be judged more harshly when participants have just judged an attractive defendant than when they have just judged an unattractive defendant. Within-subjects experiments also make it easier for participants to guess the hypothesis. For example, a participant who is asked to judge the guilt of an attractive defendant and then is asked to judge the guilt of an unattractive defendant is likely to guess that the hypothesis is that defendant attractiveness affects judgments of guilt. This knowledge could lead the participant to judge the unattractive defendant more harshly because he thinks this is what he is expected to do. Or it could make participants judge the two defendants similarly in an effort to be “fair.”
Carryover effects can be interesting in their own right. (Does the attractiveness of one person depend on the attractiveness of other people that we have seen recently?) But when they are not the focus of the research, carryover effects can be problematic. Imagine, for example, that participants judge the guilt of an attractive defendant and then judge the guilt of an unattractive defendant. If they judge the unattractive defendant more harshly, this might be because of his unattractiveness. But it could be instead that they judge him more harshly because they are becoming bored or tired. In other words, the order of the conditions is a confounding variable. The attractive condition is always the first condition and the unattractive condition the second. Thus any difference between the conditions in terms of the dependent variable could be caused by the order of the conditions and not the independent variable itself.
There is a solution to the problem of order effects, however, that can be used in many situations. It is counterbalancing , which means testing different participants in different orders. For example, some participants would be tested in the attractive defendant condition followed by the unattractive defendant condition, and others would be tested in the unattractive condition followed by the attractive condition. With three conditions, there would be six different orders (ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, and CBA), so some participants would be tested in each of the six orders. With counterbalancing, participants are assigned to orders randomly, using the techniques we have already discussed. Thus random assignment plays an important role in within-subjects designs just as in between-subjects designs. Here, instead of randomly assigning to conditions, they are randomly assigned to different orders of conditions. In fact, it can safely be said that if a study does not involve random assignment in one form or another, it is not an experiment.
An efficient way of counterbalancing is through a Latin square design which randomizes through having equal rows and columns. For example, if you have four treatments, you must have four versions. Like a Sudoku puzzle, no treatment can repeat in a row or column. For four versions of four treatments, the Latin square design would look like:
A | B | C | D |
B | C | D | A |
C | D | A | B |
D | A | B | C |
There are two ways to think about what counterbalancing accomplishes. One is that it controls the order of conditions so that it is no longer a confounding variable. Instead of the attractive condition always being first and the unattractive condition always being second, the attractive condition comes first for some participants and second for others. Likewise, the unattractive condition comes first for some participants and second for others. Thus any overall difference in the dependent variable between the two conditions cannot have been caused by the order of conditions. A second way to think about what counterbalancing accomplishes is that if there are carryover effects, it makes it possible to detect them. One can analyze the data separately for each order to see whether it had an effect.
When 9 is “larger” than 221
Researcher Michael Birnbaum has argued that the lack of context provided by between-subjects designs is often a bigger problem than the context effects created by within-subjects designs. To demonstrate this problem, he asked participants to rate two numbers on how large they were on a scale of 1-to-10 where 1 was “very very small” and 10 was “very very large”. One group of participants were asked to rate the number 9 and another group was asked to rate the number 221 (Birnbaum, 1999) [4] . Participants in this between-subjects design gave the number 9 a mean rating of 5.13 and the number 221 a mean rating of 3.10. In other words, they rated 9 as larger than 221! According to Birnbaum, this difference is because participants spontaneously compared 9 with other one-digit numbers (in which case it is relatively large) and compared 221 with other three-digit numbers (in which case it is relatively small) .
Simultaneous Within-Subjects Designs
So far, we have discussed an approach to within-subjects designs in which participants are tested in one condition at a time. There is another approach, however, that is often used when participants make multiple responses in each condition. Imagine, for example, that participants judge the guilt of 10 attractive defendants and 10 unattractive defendants. Instead of having people make judgments about all 10 defendants of one type followed by all 10 defendants of the other type, the researcher could present all 20 defendants in a sequence that mixed the two types. The researcher could then compute each participant’s mean rating for each type of defendant. Or imagine an experiment designed to see whether people with social anxiety disorder remember negative adjectives (e.g., “stupid,” “incompetent”) better than positive ones (e.g., “happy,” “productive”). The researcher could have participants study a single list that includes both kinds of words and then have them try to recall as many words as possible. The researcher could then count the number of each type of word that was recalled. There are many ways to determine the order in which the stimuli are presented, but one common way is to generate a different random order for each participant.
Between-Subjects or Within-Subjects?
Almost every experiment can be conducted using either a between-subjects design or a within-subjects design. This possibility means that researchers must choose between the two approaches based on their relative merits for the particular situation.
Between-subjects experiments have the advantage of being conceptually simpler and requiring less testing time per participant. They also avoid carryover effects without the need for counterbalancing. Within-subjects experiments have the advantage of controlling extraneous participant variables, which generally reduces noise in the data and makes it easier to detect a relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
A good rule of thumb, then, is that if it is possible to conduct a within-subjects experiment (with proper counterbalancing) in the time that is available per participant—and you have no serious concerns about carryover effects—this design is probably the best option. If a within-subjects design would be difficult or impossible to carry out, then you should consider a between-subjects design instead. For example, if you were testing participants in a doctor’s waiting room or shoppers in line at a grocery store, you might not have enough time to test each participant in all conditions and therefore would opt for a between-subjects design. Or imagine you were trying to reduce people’s level of prejudice by having them interact with someone of another race. A within-subjects design with counterbalancing would require testing some participants in the treatment condition first and then in a control condition. But if the treatment works and reduces people’s level of prejudice, then they would no longer be suitable for testing in the control condition. This difficulty is true for many designs that involve a treatment meant to produce long-term change in participants’ behaviour (e.g., studies testing the effectiveness of psychotherapy). Clearly, a between-subjects design would be necessary here.
Remember also that using one type of design does not preclude using the other type in a different study. There is no reason that a researcher could not use both a between-subjects design and a within-subjects design to answer the same research question. In fact, professional researchers often take exactly this type of mixed methods approach.
Key Takeaways
- Experiments can be conducted using either between-subjects or within-subjects designs. Deciding which to use in a particular situation requires careful consideration of the pros and cons of each approach.
- Random assignment to conditions in between-subjects experiments or to orders of conditions in within-subjects experiments is a fundamental element of experimental research. Its purpose is to control extraneous variables so that they do not become confounding variables.
- Experimental research on the effectiveness of a treatment requires both a treatment condition and a control condition, which can be a no-treatment control condition, a placebo control condition, or a waitlist control condition. Experimental treatments can also be compared with the best available alternative.
- You want to test the relative effectiveness of two training programs for running a marathon.
- Using photographs of people as stimuli, you want to see if smiling people are perceived as more intelligent than people who are not smiling.
- In a field experiment, you want to see if the way a panhandler is dressed (neatly vs. sloppily) affects whether or not passersby give him any money.
- You want to see if concrete nouns (e.g., dog ) are recalled better than abstract nouns (e.g., truth ).
- Discussion: Imagine that an experiment shows that participants who receive psychodynamic therapy for a dog phobia improve more than participants in a no-treatment control group. Explain a fundamental problem with this research design and at least two ways that it might be corrected.
- Price, D. D., Finniss, D. G., & Benedetti, F. (2008). A comprehensive review of the placebo effect: Recent advances and current thought. Annual Review of Psychology, 59 , 565–590. ↵
- Shapiro, A. K., & Shapiro, E. (1999). The powerful placebo: From ancient priest to modern physician . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. ↵
- Moseley, J. B., O’Malley, K., Petersen, N. J., Menke, T. J., Brody, B. A., Kuykendall, D. H., … Wray, N. P. (2002). A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347 , 81–88. ↵
- Birnbaum, M.H. (1999). How to show that 9>221: Collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 243-249. ↵
An experiment in which each participant is only tested in one condition.
A method of controlling extraneous variables across conditions by using a random process to decide which participants will be tested in the different conditions.
All the conditions of an experiment occur once in the sequence before any of them is repeated.
Any intervention meant to change people’s behaviour for the better.
A condition in a study where participants receive treatment.
A condition in a study that the other condition is compared to. This group does not receive the treatment or intervention that the other conditions do.
A type of experiment to research the effectiveness of psychotherapies and medical treatments.
A type of control condition in which participants receive no treatment.
A simulated treatment that lacks any active ingredient or element that should make it effective.
A positive effect of a treatment that lacks any active ingredient or element to make it effective.
Participants receive a placebo that looks like the treatment but lacks the active ingredient or element thought to be responsible for the treatment’s effectiveness.
Participants are told that they will receive the treatment but must wait until the participants in the treatment condition have already received it.
Each participant is tested under all conditions.
An effect of being tested in one condition on participants’ behaviour in later conditions.
Participants perform a task better in later conditions because they have had a chance to practice it.
Participants perform a task worse in later conditions because they become tired or bored.
Being tested in one condition can also change how participants perceive stimuli or interpret their task in later conditions.
Testing different participants in different orders.
Research Methods in Psychology - 2nd Canadian Edition Copyright © 2015 by Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani, & I-Chant A. Chiang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.
Share This Book
- Bipolar Disorder
- Therapy Center
- When To See a Therapist
- Types of Therapy
- Best Online Therapy
- Best Couples Therapy
- Managing Stress
- Sleep and Dreaming
- Understanding Emotions
- Self-Improvement
- Healthy Relationships
- Student Resources
- Personality Types
- Sweepstakes
- Guided Meditations
- Verywell Mind Insights
- 2024 Verywell Mind 25
- Mental Health in the Classroom
- Editorial Process
- Meet Our Review Board
- Crisis Support
Independent Variables in Psychology
Adam Berry / Getty Images
- Identifying
Potential Pitfalls
The independent variable (IV) in psychology is the characteristic of an experiment that is manipulated or changed by researchers, not by other variables in the experiment.
For example, in an experiment looking at the effects of studying on test scores, studying would be the independent variable. Researchers are trying to determine if changes to the independent variable (studying) result in significant changes to the dependent variable (the test results).
In general, experiments have these three types of variables: independent, dependent, and controlled.
Identifying the Independent Variable
If you are having trouble identifying the independent variables of an experiment, there are some questions that may help:
- Is the variable one that is being manipulated by the experimenters?
- Are researchers trying to identify how the variable influences another variable?
- Is the variable something that cannot be changed but that is not dependent on other variables in the experiment?
Researchers are interested in investigating the effects of the independent variable on other variables, which are known as dependent variables (DV). The independent variable is one that the researchers either manipulate (such as the amount of something) or that already exists but is not dependent upon other variables (such as the age of the participants).
Below are the key differences when looking at an independent variable vs. dependent variable.
Expected to influence the dependent variable
Doesn't change as a result of the experiment
Can be manipulated by researchers in order to study the dependent variable
Expected to be affected by the independent variable
Expected to change as a result of the experiment
Not manipulated by researchers; its changes occur as a result of the independent variable
There can be all different types of independent variables. The independent variables in a particular experiment all depend on the hypothesis and what the experimenters are investigating.
Independent variables also have different levels. In some experiments, there may only be one level of an IV. In other cases, multiple levels of the IV may be used to look at the range of effects that the variable may have.
In an experiment on the effects of the type of diet on weight loss, for example, researchers might look at several different types of diet. Each type of diet that the experimenters look at would be a different level of the independent variable while weight loss would always be the dependent variable.
To understand this concept, it's helpful to take a look at the independent variable in research examples.
In Organizations
A researcher wants to determine if the color of an office has any effect on worker productivity. In an experiment, one group of workers performs a task in a yellow room while another performs the same task in a blue room. In this example, the color of the office is the independent variable.
In the Workplace
A business wants to determine if giving employees more control over how to do their work leads to increased job satisfaction. In an experiment, one group of workers is given a great deal of input in how they perform their work, while the other group is not. The amount of input the workers have over their work is the independent variable in this example.
In Educational Research
Educators are interested in whether participating in after-school math tutoring can increase scores on standardized math exams. In an experiment, one group of students attends an after-school tutoring session twice a week while another group of students does not receive this additional assistance. In this case, participation in after-school math tutoring is the independent variable.
In Mental Health Research
Researchers want to determine if a new type of treatment will lead to a reduction in anxiety for patients living with social phobia. In an experiment, some volunteers receive the new treatment, another group receives a different treatment, and a third group receives no treatment. The independent variable in this example is the type of therapy .
Sometimes varying the independent variables will result in changes in the dependent variables. In other cases, researchers might find that changes in the independent variables have no effect on the variables that are being measured.
At the outset of an experiment, it is important for researchers to operationally define the independent variable. An operational definition describes exactly what the independent variable is and how it is measured. Doing this helps ensure that the experiments know exactly what they are looking at or manipulating, allowing them to measure it and determine if it is the IV that is causing changes in the DV.
Choosing an Independent Variable
If you are designing an experiment, here are a few tips for choosing an independent variable (or variables):
- Select independent variables that you think will cause changes in another variable. Come up with a hypothesis for what you expect to happen.
- Look at other experiments for examples and identify different types of independent variables.
- Keep your control group and experimental groups similar in other characteristics, but vary only the treatment they receive in terms of the independent variable. For example, your control group will receive either no treatment or no changes in the independent variable while your experimental group will receive the treatment or a different level of the independent variable.
It is also important to be aware that there may be other variables that might influence the results of an experiment. Two other kinds of variables that might influence the outcome include:
- Extraneous variables : These are variables that might affect the relationships between the independent variable and the dependent variable; experimenters usually try to identify and control for these variables.
- Confounding variables : When an extraneous variable cannot be controlled for in an experiment, it is known as a confounding variable .
Extraneous variables can also include demand characteristics (which are clues about how the participants should respond) and experimenter effects (which is when the researchers accidentally provide clues about how a participant will respond).
Kaliyadan F, Kulkarni V. Types of variables, descriptive statistics, and sample size . Indian Dermatol Online J . 2019;10(1):82-86. doi:10.4103/idoj.IDOJ_468_18
Weiten, W. Psychology: Themes and Variations, 10th ed . Boston, MA: Cengage Learning; 2017.
National Library of Medicine. Dependent and independent variables .
By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."
![random assignment and independent variable Explore Psychology](https://www.explorepsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/EP-Logo5.png)
What Is Random Assignment in Psychology?
Categories Research Methods
Random assignment means that every participant has the same chance of being chosen for the experimental or control group. It involves using procedures that rely on chance to assign participants to groups. Doing this means that every participant in a study has an equal opportunity to be assigned to any group.
For example, in a psychology experiment, participants might be assigned to either a control or experimental group. Some experiments might only have one experimental group, while others may have several treatment variations.
Using random assignment means that each participant has the same chance of being assigned to any of these groups.
Table of Contents
How to Use Random Assignment
So what type of procedures might psychologists utilize for random assignment? Strategies can include:
- Flipping a coin
- Assigning random numbers
- Rolling dice
- Drawing names out of a hat
How Does Random Assignment Work?
A psychology experiment aims to determine if changes in one variable lead to changes in another variable. Researchers will first begin by coming up with a hypothesis. Once researchers have an idea of what they think they might find in a population, they will come up with an experimental design and then recruit participants for their study.
Once they have a pool of participants representative of the population they are interested in looking at, they will randomly assign the participants to their groups.
- Control group : Some participants will end up in the control group, which serves as a baseline and does not receive the independent variables.
- Experimental group : Other participants will end up in the experimental groups that receive some form of the independent variables.
By using random assignment, the researchers make it more likely that the groups are equal at the start of the experiment. Since the groups are the same on other variables, it can be assumed that any changes that occur are the result of varying the independent variables.
After a treatment has been administered, the researchers will then collect data in order to determine if the independent variable had any impact on the dependent variable.
Random Assignment vs. Random Selection
It is important to remember that random assignment is not the same thing as random selection , also known as random sampling.
Random selection instead involves how people are chosen to be in a study. Using random selection, every member of a population stands an equal chance of being chosen for a study or experiment.
So random sampling affects how participants are chosen for a study, while random assignment affects how participants are then assigned to groups.
Examples of Random Assignment
Imagine that a psychology researcher is conducting an experiment to determine if getting adequate sleep the night before an exam results in better test scores.
Forming a Hypothesis
They hypothesize that participants who get 8 hours of sleep will do better on a math exam than participants who only get 4 hours of sleep.
Obtaining Participants
The researcher starts by obtaining a pool of participants. They find 100 participants from a local university. Half of the participants are female, and half are male.
Randomly Assign Participants to Groups
The researcher then assigns random numbers to each participant and uses a random number generator to randomly assign each number to either the 4-hour or 8-hour sleep groups.
Conduct the Experiment
Those in the 8-hour sleep group agree to sleep for 8 hours that night, while those in the 4-hour group agree to wake up after only 4 hours. The following day, all of the participants meet in a classroom.
Collect and Analyze Data
Everyone takes the same math test. The test scores are then compared to see if the amount of sleep the night before had any impact on test scores.
Why Is Random Assignment Important in Psychology Research?
Random assignment is important in psychology research because it helps improve a study’s internal validity. This means that the researchers are sure that the study demonstrates a cause-and-effect relationship between an independent and dependent variable.
Random assignment improves the internal validity by minimizing the risk that there are systematic differences in the participants who are in each group.
Key Points to Remember About Random Assignment
- Random assignment in psychology involves each participant having an equal chance of being chosen for any of the groups, including the control and experimental groups.
- It helps control for potential confounding variables, reducing the likelihood of pre-existing differences between groups.
- This method enhances the internal validity of experiments, allowing researchers to draw more reliable conclusions about cause-and-effect relationships.
- Random assignment is crucial for creating comparable groups and increasing the scientific rigor of psychological studies.
Random Assignment
- First Online: 17 May 2019
Cite this chapter
- Gideon J. Mellenbergh 2
535 Accesses
A substantial part of behavioral research is aimed at the testing of substantive hypotheses. In general, a hypothesis testing study investigates the causal influence of an independent variable (IV) on a dependent variable (DV) . The discussion is restricted to IVs that can be manipulated by the researcher, such as, experimental (E- ) and control (C- ) conditions. Association between IV and DV does not imply that the IV has a causal influence on the DV . The association can be spurious because it is caused by an other variable (OV). OVs that cause spurious associations come from the (1) participant, (2) research situation, and (3) reactions of the participants to the research situation. If participants select their own (E- or C- ) condition or others select a condition for them, the assignment to conditions is usually biased (e.g., males prefer the E-condition and females the C-condition), and participant variables (e.g., participants’ sex) may cause a spurious association between the IV and DV . This selection bias is a systematic error of a design. It is counteracted by random assignment of participants to conditions. Random assignment guarantees that all participant variables are related to the IV by chance, and turns systematic error into random error. Random errors decrease the precision of parameter estimates. Random error variance is reduced by including auxiliary variables into the randomized design. A randomized block design includes an auxiliary variable to divide the participants into relatively homogeneous blocks, and randomly assigns participants to the conditions per block. A covariate is an auxiliary variable that is used in the statistical analysis of the data to reduce the error variance. Cluster randomization randomly assigns clusters (e.g., classes of students) to conditions, which yields specific problems. Random assignment should not be confused with random selection. Random assignment controls for selection bias , whereas random selection makes possible to generalize study results of a sample to the population.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Subscribe and save.
- Get 10 units per month
- Download Article/Chapter or eBook
- 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
- Cancel anytime
- Available as PDF
- Read on any device
- Instant download
- Own it forever
- Available as EPUB and PDF
- Durable hardcover edition
- Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
- Free shipping worldwide - see info
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Cox, D. R. (2006). Principles of statistical inference . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lai, K., & Kelley, K. (2012). Accuracy in parameter estimation for ANCOVA and ANOVA contrasts: Sample size planning via narrow confidence intervals. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 65, 350–370.
PubMed Google Scholar
McNeish, D., Stapleton, L. M., & Silverman, R. D. (2017). On the unnecessary ubiquity of hierarchical linear modelling. Psychological Methods, 22, 114–140.
Murray, D. M., Varnell, S. P., & Blitstein, J. L. (2004). Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: A review of recent methodological developments. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 423–432.
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis . London, UK: Sage.
van Belle, G. (2002). Statistical rules of thumb . New York, NY: Wiley.
Download references
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Emeritus Professor Psychological Methods, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Gideon J. Mellenbergh
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Gideon J. Mellenbergh .
Rights and permissions
Reprints and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Mellenbergh, G.J. (2019). Random Assignment. In: Counteracting Methodological Errors in Behavioral Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12272-0_4
Download citation
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12272-0_4
Published : 17 May 2019
Publisher Name : Springer, Cham
Print ISBN : 978-3-319-74352-3
Online ISBN : 978-3-030-12272-0
eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)
Share this chapter
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
- Publish with us
Policies and ethics
- Find a journal
- Track your research
Random Sampling vs. Random Assignment
Random sampling and random assignment are fundamental concepts in the realm of research methods and statistics. However, many students struggle to differentiate between these two concepts, and very often use these terms interchangeably. Here we will explain the distinction between random sampling and random assignment.
Random sampling refers to the method you use to select individuals from the population to participate in your study. In other words, random sampling means that you are randomly selecting individuals from the population to participate in your study. This type of sampling is typically done to help ensure the representativeness of the sample (i.e., external validity). It is worth noting that a sample is only truly random if all individuals in the population have an equal probability of being selected to participate in the study. In practice, very few research studies use “true” random sampling because it is usually not feasible to ensure that all individuals in the population have an equal chance of being selected. For this reason, it is especially important to avoid using the term “random sample” if your study uses a nonprobability sampling method (such as convenience sampling).
![random assignment and independent variable request a consultation](https://www.statisticssolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/gentleman-cap-and-gown-1.png)
Discover How We Assist to Edit Your Dissertation Chapters
Aligning theoretical framework, gathering articles, synthesizing gaps, articulating a clear methodology and data plan, and writing about the theoretical and practical implications of your research are part of our comprehensive dissertation editing services.
- Bring dissertation editing expertise to chapters 1-5 in timely manner.
- Track all changes, then work with you to bring about scholarly writing.
- Ongoing support to address committee feedback, reducing revisions.
![random assignment and independent variable author david](https://www.statisticssolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/author-david.png)
Random assignment refers to the method you use to place participants into groups in an experimental study. For example, say you are conducting a study comparing the blood pressure of patients after taking aspirin or a placebo. You have two groups of patients to compare: patients who will take aspirin (the experimental group) and patients who will take the placebo (the control group). Ideally, you would want to randomly assign the participants to be in the experimental group or the control group, meaning that each participant has an equal probability of being placed in the experimental or control group. This helps ensure that there are no systematic differences between the groups before the treatment (e.g., the aspirin or placebo) is given to the participants. Random assignment is a fundamental part of a “true” experiment because it helps ensure that any differences found between the groups are attributable to the treatment, rather than a confounding variable.
So, to summarize, random sampling refers to how you select individuals from the population to participate in your study. Random assignment refers to how you place those participants into groups (such as experimental vs. control). Knowing this distinction will help you clearly and accurately describe the methods you use to collect your data and conduct your study.
Have a language expert improve your writing
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.
- Knowledge Base
- Methodology
- Random Assignment in Experiments | Introduction & Examples
Random Assignment in Experiments | Introduction & Examples
Published on 6 May 2022 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on 13 February 2023.
In experimental research, random assignment is a way of placing participants from your sample into different treatment groups using randomisation.
With simple random assignment, every member of the sample has a known or equal chance of being placed in a control group or an experimental group. Studies that use simple random assignment are also called completely randomised designs .
Random assignment is a key part of experimental design . It helps you ensure that all groups are comparable at the start of a study: any differences between them are due to random factors.
Table of contents
Why does random assignment matter, random sampling vs random assignment, how do you use random assignment, when is random assignment not used, frequently asked questions about random assignment.
Random assignment is an important part of control in experimental research, because it helps strengthen the internal validity of an experiment.
In experiments, researchers manipulate an independent variable to assess its effect on a dependent variable, while controlling for other variables. To do so, they often use different levels of an independent variable for different groups of participants.
This is called a between-groups or independent measures design.
You use three groups of participants that are each given a different level of the independent variable:
- A control group that’s given a placebo (no dosage)
- An experimental group that’s given a low dosage
- A second experimental group that’s given a high dosage
Random assignment to helps you make sure that the treatment groups don’t differ in systematic or biased ways at the start of the experiment.
If you don’t use random assignment, you may not be able to rule out alternative explanations for your results.
- Participants recruited from pubs are placed in the control group
- Participants recruited from local community centres are placed in the low-dosage experimental group
- Participants recruited from gyms are placed in the high-dosage group
With this type of assignment, it’s hard to tell whether the participant characteristics are the same across all groups at the start of the study. Gym users may tend to engage in more healthy behaviours than people who frequent pubs or community centres, and this would introduce a healthy user bias in your study.
Although random assignment helps even out baseline differences between groups, it doesn’t always make them completely equivalent. There may still be extraneous variables that differ between groups, and there will always be some group differences that arise from chance.
Most of the time, the random variation between groups is low, and, therefore, it’s acceptable for further analysis. This is especially true when you have a large sample. In general, you should always use random assignment in experiments when it is ethically possible and makes sense for your study topic.
Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.
Random sampling and random assignment are both important concepts in research, but it’s important to understand the difference between them.
Random sampling (also called probability sampling or random selection) is a way of selecting members of a population to be included in your study. In contrast, random assignment is a way of sorting the sample participants into control and experimental groups.
While random sampling is used in many types of studies, random assignment is only used in between-subjects experimental designs.
Some studies use both random sampling and random assignment, while others use only one or the other.
![random assignment and independent variable Random sample vs random assignment](https://www.scribbr.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/random-sample-vs-random-assignment.webp)
Random sampling enhances the external validity or generalisability of your results, because it helps to ensure that your sample is unbiased and representative of the whole population. This allows you to make stronger statistical inferences .
You use a simple random sample to collect data. Because you have access to the whole population (all employees), you can assign all 8,000 employees a number and use a random number generator to select 300 employees. These 300 employees are your full sample.
Random assignment enhances the internal validity of the study, because it ensures that there are no systematic differences between the participants in each group. This helps you conclude that the outcomes can be attributed to the independent variable .
- A control group that receives no intervention
- An experimental group that has a remote team-building intervention every week for a month
You use random assignment to place participants into the control or experimental group. To do so, you take your list of participants and assign each participant a number. Again, you use a random number generator to place each participant in one of the two groups.
To use simple random assignment, you start by giving every member of the sample a unique number. Then, you can use computer programs or manual methods to randomly assign each participant to a group.
- Random number generator: Use a computer program to generate random numbers from the list for each group.
- Lottery method: Place all numbers individually into a hat or a bucket, and draw numbers at random for each group.
- Flip a coin: When you only have two groups, for each number on the list, flip a coin to decide if they’ll be in the control or the experimental group.
- Use a dice: When you have three groups, for each number on the list, roll a die to decide which of the groups they will be in. For example, assume that rolling 1 or 2 lands them in a control group; 3 or 4 in an experimental group; and 5 or 6 in a second control or experimental group.
This type of random assignment is the most powerful method of placing participants in conditions, because each individual has an equal chance of being placed in any one of your treatment groups.
Random assignment in block designs
In more complicated experimental designs, random assignment is only used after participants are grouped into blocks based on some characteristic (e.g., test score or demographic variable). These groupings mean that you need a larger sample to achieve high statistical power .
For example, a randomised block design involves placing participants into blocks based on a shared characteristic (e.g., college students vs graduates), and then using random assignment within each block to assign participants to every treatment condition. This helps you assess whether the characteristic affects the outcomes of your treatment.
In an experimental matched design , you use blocking and then match up individual participants from each block based on specific characteristics. Within each matched pair or group, you randomly assign each participant to one of the conditions in the experiment and compare their outcomes.
Sometimes, it’s not relevant or ethical to use simple random assignment, so groups are assigned in a different way.
When comparing different groups
Sometimes, differences between participants are the main focus of a study, for example, when comparing children and adults or people with and without health conditions. Participants are not randomly assigned to different groups, but instead assigned based on their characteristics.
In this type of study, the characteristic of interest (e.g., gender) is an independent variable, and the groups differ based on the different levels (e.g., men, women). All participants are tested the same way, and then their group-level outcomes are compared.
When it’s not ethically permissible
When studying unhealthy or dangerous behaviours, it’s not possible to use random assignment. For example, if you’re studying heavy drinkers and social drinkers, it’s unethical to randomly assign participants to one of the two groups and ask them to drink large amounts of alcohol for your experiment.
When you can’t assign participants to groups, you can also conduct a quasi-experimental study . In a quasi-experiment, you study the outcomes of pre-existing groups who receive treatments that you may not have any control over (e.g., heavy drinkers and social drinkers).
These groups aren’t randomly assigned, but may be considered comparable when some other variables (e.g., age or socioeconomic status) are controlled for.
In experimental research, random assignment is a way of placing participants from your sample into different groups using randomisation. With this method, every member of the sample has a known or equal chance of being placed in a control group or an experimental group.
Random selection, or random sampling , is a way of selecting members of a population for your study’s sample.
In contrast, random assignment is a way of sorting the sample into control and experimental groups.
Random sampling enhances the external validity or generalisability of your results, while random assignment improves the internal validity of your study.
Random assignment is used in experiments with a between-groups or independent measures design. In this research design, there’s usually a control group and one or more experimental groups. Random assignment helps ensure that the groups are comparable.
In general, you should always use random assignment in this type of experimental design when it is ethically possible and makes sense for your study topic.
To implement random assignment , assign a unique number to every member of your study’s sample .
Then, you can use a random number generator or a lottery method to randomly assign each number to a control or experimental group. You can also do so manually, by flipping a coin or rolling a die to randomly assign participants to groups.
Cite this Scribbr article
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.
Bhandari, P. (2023, February 13). Random Assignment in Experiments | Introduction & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 12 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/random-assignment-experiments/
Is this article helpful?
![random assignment and independent variable Pritha Bhandari](https://www.scribbr.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/pritha-author-pic.jpg)
Pritha Bhandari
Other students also liked, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, controlled experiments | methods & examples of control, control groups and treatment groups | uses & examples.
![random assignment and independent variable Logo for M Libraries Publishing](https://open.lib.umn.edu/app/uploads/2018/10/cropped-ULpressbooks-logo-1.png)
Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.
7.3 Quasi-Experimental Research
Learning objectives.
- Explain what quasi-experimental research is and distinguish it clearly from both experimental and correlational research.
- Describe three different types of quasi-experimental research designs (nonequivalent groups, pretest-posttest, and interrupted time series) and identify examples of each one.
The prefix quasi means “resembling.” Thus quasi-experimental research is research that resembles experimental research but is not true experimental research. Although the independent variable is manipulated, participants are not randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Because the independent variable is manipulated before the dependent variable is measured, quasi-experimental research eliminates the directionality problem. But because participants are not randomly assigned—making it likely that there are other differences between conditions—quasi-experimental research does not eliminate the problem of confounding variables. In terms of internal validity, therefore, quasi-experiments are generally somewhere between correlational studies and true experiments.
Quasi-experiments are most likely to be conducted in field settings in which random assignment is difficult or impossible. They are often conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment—perhaps a type of psychotherapy or an educational intervention. There are many different kinds of quasi-experiments, but we will discuss just a few of the most common ones here.
Nonequivalent Groups Design
Recall that when participants in a between-subjects experiment are randomly assigned to conditions, the resulting groups are likely to be quite similar. In fact, researchers consider them to be equivalent. When participants are not randomly assigned to conditions, however, the resulting groups are likely to be dissimilar in some ways. For this reason, researchers consider them to be nonequivalent. A nonequivalent groups design , then, is a between-subjects design in which participants have not been randomly assigned to conditions.
Imagine, for example, a researcher who wants to evaluate a new method of teaching fractions to third graders. One way would be to conduct a study with a treatment group consisting of one class of third-grade students and a control group consisting of another class of third-grade students. This would be a nonequivalent groups design because the students are not randomly assigned to classes by the researcher, which means there could be important differences between them. For example, the parents of higher achieving or more motivated students might have been more likely to request that their children be assigned to Ms. Williams’s class. Or the principal might have assigned the “troublemakers” to Mr. Jones’s class because he is a stronger disciplinarian. Of course, the teachers’ styles, and even the classroom environments, might be very different and might cause different levels of achievement or motivation among the students. If at the end of the study there was a difference in the two classes’ knowledge of fractions, it might have been caused by the difference between the teaching methods—but it might have been caused by any of these confounding variables.
Of course, researchers using a nonequivalent groups design can take steps to ensure that their groups are as similar as possible. In the present example, the researcher could try to select two classes at the same school, where the students in the two classes have similar scores on a standardized math test and the teachers are the same sex, are close in age, and have similar teaching styles. Taking such steps would increase the internal validity of the study because it would eliminate some of the most important confounding variables. But without true random assignment of the students to conditions, there remains the possibility of other important confounding variables that the researcher was not able to control.
Pretest-Posttest Design
In a pretest-posttest design , the dependent variable is measured once before the treatment is implemented and once after it is implemented. Imagine, for example, a researcher who is interested in the effectiveness of an antidrug education program on elementary school students’ attitudes toward illegal drugs. The researcher could measure the attitudes of students at a particular elementary school during one week, implement the antidrug program during the next week, and finally, measure their attitudes again the following week. The pretest-posttest design is much like a within-subjects experiment in which each participant is tested first under the control condition and then under the treatment condition. It is unlike a within-subjects experiment, however, in that the order of conditions is not counterbalanced because it typically is not possible for a participant to be tested in the treatment condition first and then in an “untreated” control condition.
If the average posttest score is better than the average pretest score, then it makes sense to conclude that the treatment might be responsible for the improvement. Unfortunately, one often cannot conclude this with a high degree of certainty because there may be other explanations for why the posttest scores are better. One category of alternative explanations goes under the name of history . Other things might have happened between the pretest and the posttest. Perhaps an antidrug program aired on television and many of the students watched it, or perhaps a celebrity died of a drug overdose and many of the students heard about it. Another category of alternative explanations goes under the name of maturation . Participants might have changed between the pretest and the posttest in ways that they were going to anyway because they are growing and learning. If it were a yearlong program, participants might become less impulsive or better reasoners and this might be responsible for the change.
Another alternative explanation for a change in the dependent variable in a pretest-posttest design is regression to the mean . This refers to the statistical fact that an individual who scores extremely on a variable on one occasion will tend to score less extremely on the next occasion. For example, a bowler with a long-term average of 150 who suddenly bowls a 220 will almost certainly score lower in the next game. Her score will “regress” toward her mean score of 150. Regression to the mean can be a problem when participants are selected for further study because of their extreme scores. Imagine, for example, that only students who scored especially low on a test of fractions are given a special training program and then retested. Regression to the mean all but guarantees that their scores will be higher even if the training program has no effect. A closely related concept—and an extremely important one in psychological research—is spontaneous remission . This is the tendency for many medical and psychological problems to improve over time without any form of treatment. The common cold is a good example. If one were to measure symptom severity in 100 common cold sufferers today, give them a bowl of chicken soup every day, and then measure their symptom severity again in a week, they would probably be much improved. This does not mean that the chicken soup was responsible for the improvement, however, because they would have been much improved without any treatment at all. The same is true of many psychological problems. A group of severely depressed people today is likely to be less depressed on average in 6 months. In reviewing the results of several studies of treatments for depression, researchers Michael Posternak and Ivan Miller found that participants in waitlist control conditions improved an average of 10 to 15% before they received any treatment at all (Posternak & Miller, 2001). Thus one must generally be very cautious about inferring causality from pretest-posttest designs.
Does Psychotherapy Work?
Early studies on the effectiveness of psychotherapy tended to use pretest-posttest designs. In a classic 1952 article, researcher Hans Eysenck summarized the results of 24 such studies showing that about two thirds of patients improved between the pretest and the posttest (Eysenck, 1952). But Eysenck also compared these results with archival data from state hospital and insurance company records showing that similar patients recovered at about the same rate without receiving psychotherapy. This suggested to Eysenck that the improvement that patients showed in the pretest-posttest studies might be no more than spontaneous remission. Note that Eysenck did not conclude that psychotherapy was ineffective. He merely concluded that there was no evidence that it was, and he wrote of “the necessity of properly planned and executed experimental studies into this important field” (p. 323). You can read the entire article here:
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Eysenck/psychotherapy.htm
Fortunately, many other researchers took up Eysenck’s challenge, and by 1980 hundreds of experiments had been conducted in which participants were randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions, and the results were summarized in a classic book by Mary Lee Smith, Gene Glass, and Thomas Miller (Smith, Glass, & Miller, 1980). They found that overall psychotherapy was quite effective, with about 80% of treatment participants improving more than the average control participant. Subsequent research has focused more on the conditions under which different types of psychotherapy are more or less effective.
![random assignment and independent variable Han Eysenck](https://open.lib.umn.edu/app/uploads/sites/171/2015/07/3c5b91dc7566ff92eb1b39afb3b38cdd.jpg)
In a classic 1952 article, researcher Hans Eysenck pointed out the shortcomings of the simple pretest-posttest design for evaluating the effectiveness of psychotherapy.
Wikimedia Commons – CC BY-SA 3.0.
Interrupted Time Series Design
A variant of the pretest-posttest design is the interrupted time-series design . A time series is a set of measurements taken at intervals over a period of time. For example, a manufacturing company might measure its workers’ productivity each week for a year. In an interrupted time series-design, a time series like this is “interrupted” by a treatment. In one classic example, the treatment was the reduction of the work shifts in a factory from 10 hours to 8 hours (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Because productivity increased rather quickly after the shortening of the work shifts, and because it remained elevated for many months afterward, the researcher concluded that the shortening of the shifts caused the increase in productivity. Notice that the interrupted time-series design is like a pretest-posttest design in that it includes measurements of the dependent variable both before and after the treatment. It is unlike the pretest-posttest design, however, in that it includes multiple pretest and posttest measurements.
Figure 7.5 “A Hypothetical Interrupted Time-Series Design” shows data from a hypothetical interrupted time-series study. The dependent variable is the number of student absences per week in a research methods course. The treatment is that the instructor begins publicly taking attendance each day so that students know that the instructor is aware of who is present and who is absent. The top panel of Figure 7.5 “A Hypothetical Interrupted Time-Series Design” shows how the data might look if this treatment worked. There is a consistently high number of absences before the treatment, and there is an immediate and sustained drop in absences after the treatment. The bottom panel of Figure 7.5 “A Hypothetical Interrupted Time-Series Design” shows how the data might look if this treatment did not work. On average, the number of absences after the treatment is about the same as the number before. This figure also illustrates an advantage of the interrupted time-series design over a simpler pretest-posttest design. If there had been only one measurement of absences before the treatment at Week 7 and one afterward at Week 8, then it would have looked as though the treatment were responsible for the reduction. The multiple measurements both before and after the treatment suggest that the reduction between Weeks 7 and 8 is nothing more than normal week-to-week variation.
Figure 7.5 A Hypothetical Interrupted Time-Series Design
![random assignment and independent variable A Hypothetical Interrupted Time-Series Design - The top panel shows data that suggest that the treatment caused a reduction in absences. The bottom panel shows data that suggest that it did not](https://open.lib.umn.edu/app/uploads/sites/171/2015/07/005f570e5d4b313591618c78274e705d.jpg)
The top panel shows data that suggest that the treatment caused a reduction in absences. The bottom panel shows data that suggest that it did not.
Combination Designs
A type of quasi-experimental design that is generally better than either the nonequivalent groups design or the pretest-posttest design is one that combines elements of both. There is a treatment group that is given a pretest, receives a treatment, and then is given a posttest. But at the same time there is a control group that is given a pretest, does not receive the treatment, and then is given a posttest. The question, then, is not simply whether participants who receive the treatment improve but whether they improve more than participants who do not receive the treatment.
Imagine, for example, that students in one school are given a pretest on their attitudes toward drugs, then are exposed to an antidrug program, and finally are given a posttest. Students in a similar school are given the pretest, not exposed to an antidrug program, and finally are given a posttest. Again, if students in the treatment condition become more negative toward drugs, this could be an effect of the treatment, but it could also be a matter of history or maturation. If it really is an effect of the treatment, then students in the treatment condition should become more negative than students in the control condition. But if it is a matter of history (e.g., news of a celebrity drug overdose) or maturation (e.g., improved reasoning), then students in the two conditions would be likely to show similar amounts of change. This type of design does not completely eliminate the possibility of confounding variables, however. Something could occur at one of the schools but not the other (e.g., a student drug overdose), so students at the first school would be affected by it while students at the other school would not.
Finally, if participants in this kind of design are randomly assigned to conditions, it becomes a true experiment rather than a quasi experiment. In fact, it is the kind of experiment that Eysenck called for—and that has now been conducted many times—to demonstrate the effectiveness of psychotherapy.
Key Takeaways
- Quasi-experimental research involves the manipulation of an independent variable without the random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions. Among the important types are nonequivalent groups designs, pretest-posttest, and interrupted time-series designs.
- Quasi-experimental research eliminates the directionality problem because it involves the manipulation of the independent variable. It does not eliminate the problem of confounding variables, however, because it does not involve random assignment to conditions. For these reasons, quasi-experimental research is generally higher in internal validity than correlational studies but lower than true experiments.
- Practice: Imagine that two college professors decide to test the effect of giving daily quizzes on student performance in a statistics course. They decide that Professor A will give quizzes but Professor B will not. They will then compare the performance of students in their two sections on a common final exam. List five other variables that might differ between the two sections that could affect the results.
Discussion: Imagine that a group of obese children is recruited for a study in which their weight is measured, then they participate for 3 months in a program that encourages them to be more active, and finally their weight is measured again. Explain how each of the following might affect the results:
- regression to the mean
- spontaneous remission
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues in field settings . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16 , 319–324.
Posternak, M. A., & Miller, I. (2001). Untreated short-term course of major depression: A meta-analysis of studies using outcomes from studies using wait-list control groups. Journal of Affective Disorders, 66 , 139–146.
Smith, M. L., Glass, G. V., & Miller, T. I. (1980). The benefits of psychotherapy . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.
Pardon Our Interruption
As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:
- You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
- You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
- You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
- A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .
To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.
Have a language expert improve your writing
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
- Knowledge Base
Methodology
- Quasi-Experimental Design | Definition, Types & Examples
Quasi-Experimental Design | Definition, Types & Examples
Published on July 31, 2020 by Lauren Thomas . Revised on January 22, 2024.
Like a true experiment , a quasi-experimental design aims to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between an independent and dependent variable .
However, unlike a true experiment, a quasi-experiment does not rely on random assignment . Instead, subjects are assigned to groups based on non-random criteria.
Quasi-experimental design is a useful tool in situations where true experiments cannot be used for ethical or practical reasons.
![random assignment and independent variable Quasi-experimental design vs. experimental design](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Quasi-experimental-design-vs-experimental-design.webp)
Table of contents
Differences between quasi-experiments and true experiments, types of quasi-experimental designs, when to use quasi-experimental design, advantages and disadvantages, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about quasi-experimental designs.
There are several common differences between true and quasi-experimental designs.
True experimental design | Quasi-experimental design | |
---|---|---|
Assignment to treatment | The researcher subjects to control and treatment groups. | Some other, method is used to assign subjects to groups. |
Control over treatment | The researcher usually . | The researcher often , but instead studies pre-existing groups that received different treatments after the fact. |
Use of | Requires the use of . | Control groups are not required (although they are commonly used). |
Example of a true experiment vs a quasi-experiment
However, for ethical reasons, the directors of the mental health clinic may not give you permission to randomly assign their patients to treatments. In this case, you cannot run a true experiment.
Instead, you can use a quasi-experimental design.
You can use these pre-existing groups to study the symptom progression of the patients treated with the new therapy versus those receiving the standard course of treatment.
Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting
Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:
- Academic style
- Vague sentences
- Style consistency
See an example
![random assignment and independent variable random assignment and independent variable](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/dissertation-proofreading-service.png)
Many types of quasi-experimental designs exist. Here we explain three of the most common types: nonequivalent groups design, regression discontinuity, and natural experiments.
Nonequivalent groups design
In nonequivalent group design, the researcher chooses existing groups that appear similar, but where only one of the groups experiences the treatment.
In a true experiment with random assignment , the control and treatment groups are considered equivalent in every way other than the treatment. But in a quasi-experiment where the groups are not random, they may differ in other ways—they are nonequivalent groups .
When using this kind of design, researchers try to account for any confounding variables by controlling for them in their analysis or by choosing groups that are as similar as possible.
This is the most common type of quasi-experimental design.
Regression discontinuity
Many potential treatments that researchers wish to study are designed around an essentially arbitrary cutoff, where those above the threshold receive the treatment and those below it do not.
Near this threshold, the differences between the two groups are often so minimal as to be nearly nonexistent. Therefore, researchers can use individuals just below the threshold as a control group and those just above as a treatment group.
However, since the exact cutoff score is arbitrary, the students near the threshold—those who just barely pass the exam and those who fail by a very small margin—tend to be very similar, with the small differences in their scores mostly due to random chance. You can therefore conclude that any outcome differences must come from the school they attended.
Natural experiments
In both laboratory and field experiments, researchers normally control which group the subjects are assigned to. In a natural experiment, an external event or situation (“nature”) results in the random or random-like assignment of subjects to the treatment group.
Even though some use random assignments, natural experiments are not considered to be true experiments because they are observational in nature.
Although the researchers have no control over the independent variable , they can exploit this event after the fact to study the effect of the treatment.
However, as they could not afford to cover everyone who they deemed eligible for the program, they instead allocated spots in the program based on a random lottery.
Although true experiments have higher internal validity , you might choose to use a quasi-experimental design for ethical or practical reasons.
Sometimes it would be unethical to provide or withhold a treatment on a random basis, so a true experiment is not feasible. In this case, a quasi-experiment can allow you to study the same causal relationship without the ethical issues.
The Oregon Health Study is a good example. It would be unethical to randomly provide some people with health insurance but purposely prevent others from receiving it solely for the purposes of research.
However, since the Oregon government faced financial constraints and decided to provide health insurance via lottery, studying this event after the fact is a much more ethical approach to studying the same problem.
True experimental design may be infeasible to implement or simply too expensive, particularly for researchers without access to large funding streams.
At other times, too much work is involved in recruiting and properly designing an experimental intervention for an adequate number of subjects to justify a true experiment.
In either case, quasi-experimental designs allow you to study the question by taking advantage of data that has previously been paid for or collected by others (often the government).
Quasi-experimental designs have various pros and cons compared to other types of studies.
- Higher external validity than most true experiments, because they often involve real-world interventions instead of artificial laboratory settings.
- Higher internal validity than other non-experimental types of research, because they allow you to better control for confounding variables than other types of studies do.
- Lower internal validity than true experiments—without randomization, it can be difficult to verify that all confounding variables have been accounted for.
- The use of retrospective data that has already been collected for other purposes can be inaccurate, incomplete or difficult to access.
If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
- Normal distribution
- Degrees of freedom
- Null hypothesis
- Discourse analysis
- Control groups
- Mixed methods research
- Non-probability sampling
- Quantitative research
- Ecological validity
Research bias
- Rosenthal effect
- Implicit bias
- Cognitive bias
- Selection bias
- Negativity bias
- Status quo bias
A quasi-experiment is a type of research design that attempts to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. The main difference with a true experiment is that the groups are not randomly assigned.
In experimental research, random assignment is a way of placing participants from your sample into different groups using randomization. With this method, every member of the sample has a known or equal chance of being placed in a control group or an experimental group.
Quasi-experimental design is most useful in situations where it would be unethical or impractical to run a true experiment .
Quasi-experiments have lower internal validity than true experiments, but they often have higher external validity as they can use real-world interventions instead of artificial laboratory settings.
Cite this Scribbr article
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
Thomas, L. (2024, January 22). Quasi-Experimental Design | Definition, Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 14, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quasi-experimental-design/
Is this article helpful?
![random assignment and independent variable Lauren Thomas](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/lauren-profile-pic.jpg)
Lauren Thomas
Other students also liked, guide to experimental design | overview, steps, & examples, random assignment in experiments | introduction & examples, control variables | what are they & why do they matter, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".
I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”
![](http://serviteca.online/777/templates/cheerup2/res/banner1.gif)
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Why does random assignment matter? Random assignment is an important part of control in experimental research, because it helps strengthen the internal validity of an experiment and avoid biases.. In experiments, researchers manipulate an independent variable to assess its effect on a dependent variable, while controlling for other variables. To do so, they often use different levels of an ...
When to Use Random Assignment. Random assignment is used in experiments with a between-groups or independent measures design. In these research designs, researchers will manipulate an independent variable to assess its effect on a dependent variable, while controlling for other variables.
Correlation, Causation, and Confounding Variables. Random assignment helps you separate causation from correlation and rule out confounding variables. As a critical component of the scientific method, experiments typically set up contrasts between a control group and one or more treatment groups. The idea is to determine whether the effect, which is the difference between a treatment group and ...
Random assignment acts as a safeguard, ensuring that the groups being compared are alike in all essential aspects before the experiment begins. This similarity between groups allows researchers to attribute any differences observed in the outcomes directly to the independent variable being studied.
Random assignment is essential because it increases the likelihood that the groups are the same at the outset. With all characteristics being equal between groups, other than the application of the independent variable, any differences found between group outcomes can be more confidently attributed to the effect of the intervention.
Random assignment is used in the type of research called the experiment. An experiment involves manipulating the level of one variable and examining how it affects another variable. These are the independent and dependent variables: Independent Variable: The variable manipulated is called the independent variable (IV)
The independent variable is the cause. Its value is independent of other variables in your study. The dependent variable is the effect. Its value depends on changes in the independent variable. Example: Independent and dependent variables. You design a study to test whether changes in room temperature have an effect on math test scores.
Random assignment is a method for assigning participants in a sample to the different conditions, and it is an important element of all experimental research in psychology and other fields too. In its strictest sense, random assignment should meet two criteria. One is that each participant has an equal chance of being assigned to each condition ...
Random assignment leaves it completely up to chance to determine which subjects receive the critical part of the experiment, which is imperative for determining that the independent variable is ...
Random assignment is a method for assigning participants in a sample to the different conditions, and it is an important element of all experimental research in psychology and other fields too. In its strictest sense, random assignment should meet two criteria. One is that each participant has an equal chance of being assigned to each condition ...
The independent variable (IV) in psychology is the characteristic of an experiment that is manipulated or changed by researchers, not by other variables in the experiment. For example, in an experiment looking at the effects of studying on test scores, studying would be the independent variable. Researchers are trying to determine if changes to ...
Random assignment in psychology involves each participant having an equal chance of being chosen for any of the groups, including the control and experimental groups. It helps control for potential confounding variables, reducing the likelihood of pre-existing differences between groups. This method enhances the internal validity of experiments ...
1. Identify the independent and dependent variables from one of the hypothetical experiments below. 2. Explain HOW you (the researcher) will conduct random assignment. 3. Argue WHY you (the researcher) will conduct random assignment. In your answer, be sure to discuss at least one confounding variable that is equally distributed between the control
Random assignment or random placement is an experimental technique for assigning human participants or animal subjects to different groups in an experiment (e.g., a treatment group versus a control group) using randomization, such as by a chance procedure (e.g., flipping a coin) or a random number generator. [1] This ensures that each participant or subject has an equal chance of being placed ...
You manipulate the independent variable by splitting participants into two groups: Participants in the experimental group are asked to wear a lab coat during the study. ... To control participant variables, you should aim to use random assignment to divide your sample into control and experimental groups. Random assignment makes your groups ...
A substantial part of behavioral research is aimed at the testing of substantive hypotheses. In general terms, a hypothesis testing study investigates the effects of an independent variable (IV) on a dependent variable (DV).The key question is whether an effect is really caused by the IV or that the effect is spurious.
Random selection is thus essential to external validity, or the extent to which the researcher can use the results of the study to generalize to the larger population. Random assignment is central to internal validity, which allows the researcher to make causal claims about the effect of the treatment. Nonrandom assignment often leads to non ...
Random assignment is a fundamental part of a "true" experiment because it helps ensure that any differences found between the groups are attributable to the treatment, rather than a confounding variable. So, to summarize, random sampling refers to how you select individuals from the population to participate in your study. Random assignment ...
Why does random assignment matter? Random assignment is an important part of control in experimental research, because it helps strengthen the internal validity of an experiment.. In experiments, researchers manipulate an independent variable to assess its effect on a dependent variable, while controlling for other variables. To do so, they often use different levels of an independent variable ...
Random assignment helps ensure that the groups are comparable. ... In randomization, you randomly assign the treatment (or independent variable) in your study to a sufficiently large number of subjects, which allows you to control for all potential confounding variables.
Key Takeaways. Quasi-experimental research involves the manipulation of an independent variable without the random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions. Among the important types are nonequivalent groups designs, pretest-posttest, and interrupted time-series designs.
one of the key components to experimental designs; occurs when an experimenter systematically alters the levels of a variable. levels. the variations of the independent variable. goal of manipulation. to equalize the experimental and control groups. random assignment. one of the key components to experimental designs; every participant has an ...
Put all group member names on the assignment! The goal of this project is to get you thinking about your independent variable(s), how you will operationalize them, and how you will guard against threats to internal validity. 1. Write the name of the independent variable you plan to manipulate and a brief conceptual definition of that variable (e.g.
Revised on January 22, 2024. Like a true experiment, a quasi-experimental design aims to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between an independent and dependent variable. However, unlike a true experiment, a quasi-experiment does not rely on random assignment. Instead, subjects are assigned to groups based on non-random criteria.