1.

1 THE LAB EXPERIMENT

As stated earlier, when a cause-and-effect relationship between an independent
and a dependent variable of interest is to be clearly established, then all other variables
that might contaminate or confound the relationship have to be tightly controlled. In
other words, the possible effects of other variables on the dependent variable have to
be accounted for in some way, so that the actual causal effects of the investigated
independent variable on the dependent variable can be determined. It is also necessary
to manipulate the independent variable so that the extent of its causal effects can be
established. The controls and manipulations are best done in an artificial setting (the
laboratory), where the causal effects can be tested. When controls and manipulations
are introduced to establish cause-and-effect relationships in an artificial setting, we
have laboratory experimental designs, also known as lab experiments.
1.2 CONTROL
When we postulate cause-and-effect relationships between two variables X and
Y, it is possible that some other factor, say A, might also influence the dependent
variable Y. In such a case, it will not be possible to determine the extent to which Y
occurred only because of X, since we do not know how much of the total variation of
Y was caused by the presence of the other factor A. For instance, a Human Resource
Development manager might arrange for special training to a set of newly recruited
secretaries in creating web pages, to prove to the VP (his boss), that such training would
cause them to function more effectively. However, some of the new secretaries might
function more effectively than others, mainly or partly because they have had previous
intermittent experience with the web. In this case, the manager cannot prove that the
special training alone caused greater effectiveness, since the previous intermittent
experience of some secretaries with the web is a contaminating factor. If the true effect
of the training on learning is to be assessed, then the learners‘ previous experience has
to be controlled. This might be done by not including in the experiment those who
already have had some experience with the web. This is what we mean when we say
we have to control the contaminating factors, and we will later see how this is done.

1.3 MANIPULATION OF THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

In order to examine the causal effects of an independent variable on a dependent
variable, certain manipulations need to be tried. Manipulation simply means that we
create different levels of the independent variable to assess the impact on the dependent
variable. For example, we may want to test the theory that depth of knowledge of
various manufacturing technologies is caused by rotating the employees on all the jobs
on the production line and in the design department, over a 4-week period. Then we
can manipulate the independent variable, ―rotation of employees,‖ by rotating one
group of production workers and exposing them to all the systems during the 4-week
period, rotating another group of workers only partially during the 4 weeks (i.e.,
exposing them to only half of the manufacturing technologies), and leaving the third
group to continue to do what they are currently doing, without any special rotation. By
measuring the depth of knowledge of these groups both before and after the
manipulation (also known as the ―treatment‖), it would be possible to assess the extent
to which the treatment caused the effect, after controlling the contaminating factors. If
deep knowledge is indeed caused by rotation and exposure, the results would show that
the third group had the lowest increase in depth of knowledge, the second group had
some significant increase, and the first group had the greatest gains.
2.1 CONTROLING THE CONTAMINATING EXOGENOUS OR
“NUISANCE” VARIABLES
A. Matching Groups
One way of controlling the contaminating or ―nuisance‖ variables is to match
the various groups by picking the confounding characteristics and deliberately
spreading them across groups. For instance, if there are 20 women among the 60
members, then each group will be assigned 5 women, so that the effects of gender are
distributed across the four groups. Likewise, age and experience factors can be matched
across the four groups, such that each group has a similar mix of individuals in terms
of gender, age, and experience. Because the suspected contaminating factors are
matched across the groups, we may take comfort in saying that variable X alone causes
variable Y, if such is the result of the study. But here, we are not sure that we have
controlled all the nuisance factors, since we may not be aware of them all. A safer bet
is to randomize
B. Randomization
Another way of controlling the contaminating variables is to assign the 60
members randomly (i.e., with no predetermination) to the four groups. That is, every
member would have a known and equal chance of being assigned to any of these four
groups. For instance, we might throw the names of all the 60 members into a hat, and
draw their names.
Thus randomization would ensure that if these variables do indeed have a
contributory or confounding effect, we would have controlled their confounding effects
(along with those of other unknown factors) by distributing them across groups. This
is achieved because when we manipulate the independent variable of piece rates by
having no piece rate system at all for one group (control) and having different piece
rates for the other three groups (experimental), we can determine the causal effects of
the piece rates on production levels. Any errors or biases caused by age, sex, and
previous experience are now distributed equally among all four groups. Any causal
effects found would be over and above the effects of the confounding variables.
C. Advantage randomization
The difference between matching and randomization is that in the former case
individuals are deliberately and consciously matched to control the differences among
group members, whereas in the latter case we expect that the process of randomization
would distribute the inequalities among the groups, based on the laws of normal
distribution. Thus, we need not be particularly concerned about any known or unknown
confounding factors. In sum, compared to randomization, matching might be less
effective, since we may not know all the factors that could possibly contaminate the
cause-andeffect relationship in any given situation, and hence fail to match some
critical factors across all groups while conducting an experiment. Randomization,
however, will take care of this, since all the contaminating factors will be spread across
all groups. Moreover, even if we know the confounding variables, we may not be able
to find a match for all such variables. For instance, if gender is a confounding variable,
and if there are only two women in a four-group experimental design, we will not be
able to match all the groups with respect to gender. Randomization solves these
dilemmas as well. Thus, lab experimental designs involve control of the contaminating
variables through the process of either matching or randomization, and the
manipulation of the treatment.
3.1 INTERNAL VALIDITY
Internal validity refers to the confidence we place in the cause-and-effect
relationship. In other words, it addresses the question, ―To what extent does the
research design permit us to say that the independent variable A causes a change in the
dependent variable B?‖ As Kidder and Judd (1986) note, in research with high internal
validity, we are relatively better able to argue that the relationship is causal, whereas in
studies with low internal validity, causality cannot be inferred at all. In lab experiments
where cause-and-effect relationships are substantiated, internal validity can be said to
be high.
A. External Validity Or Generalizability Of Lab Experiments
To what extent would the results found in the lab setting be transferable or
generalizable to the actual organizational or field settings? In other words, if we do find
a cause-and-effect relationship after conducting a lab experiment, can we then
confidently say that the same cause-and-effect relationship will also hold true in the
organizational setting? Consider the following situation. If in a lab experimental design
the groups are given the simple production task of screwing bolts and nuts onto a plastic
frame, and the results indicate that the groups who were paid piece rates were more
productive than those who were paid hourly rates, to what extent can we then say that
this would be true of the sophisticated nature of the jobs performed in organizations?
The tasks in organizational settings are far more complex, and there might be several
confounding variables that cannot be controlled—for example, experience.