Smithers Thinks A Special Juice Will Increase Production

Smithers Thinks That A Special Juice Will Increase the Productivity Of

Smithers thinks that a special juice will increase the productivity of workers. He creates two groups of 50 workers each and assigns each group the same task (in this case, they'er supposed to staple a set of papers). Group A is given the special juice to drink while they work. Group B is not given the special juice. After an hour, Smithers counts how many stacks of papers each group has made.

Identify the: 1. control group 2. independent variable 3. dependent variable 4. what should Smithers' conclusion be? 5. how could this experiment be improved

Paper For Above instruction

The experiment conducted by Smithers aims to determine the effect of a special juice on the productivity of workers. To analyze the experiment, it is essential to identify the key components such as the control group, the independent variable, the dependent variable, potential conclusions, and ways to improve the study.

1. Control Group

The control group in this experiment is Group B, which did not receive the special juice. This group serves as a baseline to compare the productivity of workers who did not consume the juice against those who did (Group A). Using a control group that does not receive the treatment ensures that any differences in productivity can be more confidently attributed to the effect of the special juice rather than other variables.

2. Independent Variable

The independent variable is the factor that is manipulated by the researcher. In this case, the independent variable is the consumption of the special juice. Specifically, it is whether the workers in Group A drank the special juice or not, as this is the variable that potentially influences productivity.

3. Dependent Variable

The dependent variable is the outcome that is measured to assess the impact of the independent variable. Here, the dependent variable is the number of stacks of papers produced by each group within an hour. The productivity of each group, indicated by the number of stacks, is what Smithers is measuring to determine the effect of the juice.

4. Smithers' Conclusion

Based on the data, Group A (which drank the special juice) produced fewer stacks (1,587) than Group B (which did not drink the juice, producing 2,113 stacks). Assuming the groups are comparable and no other variables influence output, Smithers' preliminary conclusion should be that the special juice does not increase productivity. In fact, the data suggests that drinking the juice may be associated with lower productivity, although more rigorous analysis would be required to confirm causality and rule out other factors. Smithers should consider conducting further experiments with larger sample sizes and controls for confounding variables to verify these results.

5. How to Improve the Experiment

The experiment can be improved in several ways to increase its validity and reliability. First, increasing the sample size beyond 50 workers per group would provide more representative data and improve statistical power. Second, random assignment of workers to groups is crucial to eliminate selection bias and ensure comparable groups in terms of skill, experience, and other variables. Third, implementing a double-blind design, where neither the workers nor the supervisors know who receives the juice, could reduce bias in performance and counting. Fourth, replicating the experiment across different tasks and environments could establish whether the observations are consistent and generalizable. Additionally, controlling other factors such as worker fatigue, environmental conditions, and task difficulty ensures that the observed effects are attributable solely to the independent variable—the special juice. Finally, collecting qualitative data and feedback from the workers could provide insights into possible reasons for lower productivity when drinking the juice, such as taste, side effects, or other factors.

References

• Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Context effects on memory and problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 95(2), 193-200.
• Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Rand McNally.
• Greenland, S. (2018). Validity, statistical power, and small sample sizes. Epidemiology, 29(2), 281-283.
• Kirk, R. E. (2013). Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. SAGE Publications.
• McNeish, D., & Wolf, M. G. (2020). Small sample sizes and statistical power in psychological research. Journal of General Psychology, 147(3), 191-216.
• Montgomery, D. C. (2017). Design and Analysis of Experiments. John Wiley & Sons.
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson.
• Trochim, W. M. (2006). Research Methods Knowledge Base. Atomic Dog Publishing.
• Yarkoni, T., & Westfall, J. (2017). Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: Lessons from machine learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1100-1122.