Literature DB >> 18522052

Comparing online and lab methods in a problem-solving experiment.

Frédéric Dandurand1, Thomas R Shultz, Kristine H Onishi.   

Abstract

Online experiments have recently become very popular, and--in comparison with traditional lab experiments--they may have several advantages, such as reduced demand characteristics, automation, and generalizability of results to wider populations (Birnbaum, 2004; Reips, 2000, 2002a, 2002b). We replicated Dandurand, Bowen, and Shultz's (2004) lab-based problem-solving experiment as an Internet experiment. Consistent with previous results, we found that participants who watched demonstrations of successful problem-solving sessions or who read instructions outperformed those who were told only that they solved problems correctly or not. Online participants were less accurate than lab participants, but there was no interaction with learning condition. Thus, we conclude that online and Internet results are consistent. Disadvantages included high dropout rate for online participants; however, combining the online experiment with the department subject pool worked well.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18522052     DOI: 10.3758/brm.40.2.428

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  20 in total

1.  Trust me; I know what I am doing investigating the effect of choice list elicitation and domain-relevant training on preference reversals in decision making for others.

Authors:  Sebastian Neumann-Böhme; Stefan A Lipman; Werner B F Brouwer; Arthur E Attema
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2021-03-20

2.  OB3D, a new set of 3D objects available for research: a web-based study.

Authors:  Stéphane Buffat; Véronique Chastres; Alain Bichot; Delphine Rider; Frédéric Benmussa; Jean Lorenceau
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-10-06

3.  Revising the diagnosis of congenital amusia with the Montreal Battery of Evaluation of Amusia.

Authors:  Jasmin Pfeifer; Silke Hamann
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 3.169

4.  Effects of Individual Differences in Working Memory on Plan Presentational Choices.

Authors:  Nava Tintarev; Judith Masthoff
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-11-16

5.  The impact of affect labelling on responses to aversive flying-cues.

Authors:  Michelle Azoum; Gavin I Clark; Adam J Rock
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-19       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Sickness and sleep health predict frustration and affective responses to a frustrating trigger.

Authors:  Leonie J T Balter; Tina Sundelin; John Axelsson
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Brief Mindfulness Breathing Exercises and Working Memory Capacity: Findings from Two Experimental Approaches.

Authors:  Frosch Y X Quek; Nadyanna M Majeed; Meenakshi Kothari; Verity Y Q Lua; Hee Seng Ong; Andree Hartanto
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2021-02-01

8.  The musicality of non-musicians: an index for assessing musical sophistication in the general population.

Authors:  Daniel Müllensiefen; Bruno Gingras; Jason Musil; Lauren Stewart
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Are all "research fields" equal? Rethinking practice for the use of data from crowdsourcing market places.

Authors:  Ilka H Gleibs
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2017-08

10.  Evaluating Medical Devices Remotely: Current Methods and Potential Innovations.

Authors:  Anne Collins McLaughlin; Patricia R DeLucia; Frank A Drews; Monifa Vaughn-Cooke; Anil Kumar; Robert R Nesbitt; Kevin Cluff
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 2.888

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.