In many studies, researchers prefer that participants are oblivious to the manipulation or independent variable. For example, in a study conducted by Ruys and Stapel (2008), a series of either positive or negative words, such as pleasant or wrong, were presented rapidly on a screen. These words, which were masked and thus subliminal, were intended to influence the mood of participants. After these words were presented, participants completed other tasks, such as a procedure that assesses the extent to which they process information carefully or rapidly. This study, therefore, was undertaken to assess whether mood affects processing style.
Ruys and Stapel (2008) needed to ensure that participants were oblivious to the content of these words. If participants recognized the words, other explanations could explain the finding that negative words induce a careful processing style. Perhaps participants, for example, might expect negative words to shape their behavior and then merely align with these expectations.
Several protocols have been developed to assess awareness and suspicion in participants.
To illustrate, Ruys and Stapel (2008) applied a funnel debriefing procedure to ensure that participants were oblivious to the words and unaware these words were intended to affect behavior on the subsequent activity. A funnel debriefing procedure implies the researcher will ask increasingly specific questions (see also Fitzsimons & Shah, 2008, Experiment 2;; Stapel, Koomen, & Ruys, 2002).
First, researchers ask broad questions about the study (e.g., Ruys & Stapel, 2008). In particular, they might ask participants to specify their perceptions of the purpose or aim of this study. In addition, participants are asked whether or not performing the first task might affect behavior on a subsequent activity. Furthermore, participants are asked whether any facet of the study seemed odd or suspicious.
Second, researchers often ask questions about the stimuli (e.g., Ruys & Stapel, 2008). If masked words were presented, they might ask participants to specify whether or not they recognized the content of any flashes that appeared. If participants seemed to recognize these flashes were indeed words, they are asked whether or not they could specify any of these terms.
Finally, researchers might ask participants to complete a task that putatively entails conjecture (e.g., Ruys & Stapel, 2008). Participants might receive two stimuli--one from each condition. They are instructed to guess which of these stimuli might have appeared in the study.
In their study, Ruys and Stapel (2008) reported that none of the participants were aware that performing the first task might affect behavior on the second activity. In addition, although they had observed flashes, participants were oblivious to the content of any words--and their capacity to guess which of the two stimuli appeared in the study did not significantly exceed 50%.
Fitzsimons, G. M, & Shah, J. Y. (2008). How goal instrumentality shapes relationship evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 319-337.
Ruys, K. I., & Stapel, D. A. (2008). How to heat up from the cold: examining the preconditions for (unconscious) mood effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 777-791.
Stapel, D. A., Koomen, W., & Ruys, K. I. (2002). The effects of diffuse and distinct affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 60-74.
Last Update: 6/2/2016