Discussion response | PSYC 3003 – Methods in Psychological Inquiry | Walden University

please create a discussion response fro the following post :

McCann and Holmes (1984) tested the hypothesis that exercise reduces depression. They randomly assigned depressed undergraduate women either to an exercise condition (attending an aerobics class a couple of times a week for ten weeks) or to a relaxation training condition (the individuals relaxed at home by watching a videotape over the same period of time). Although the results showed that the exercise group reported less depression at the end of the ten-week period than did the relaxation group, why can’t the researchers conclude that exercise reduces depression?


I picked the scenario above because there were so many confounding variables. There is honestly no way that they could conclude that exercise reduces depression because there are too many unknown variables (Stangor 2014). Maybe this test occurred in spring when many people are coming out of their seasonal depression. Or maybe some of the subjects started antidepressants or began doing something that increases their happiness, like meeting a new person or getting a promotion. It also would make sense that a group that is forced to stay home would show higher rates of depression. This has been evidenced by the Coronavirus. The problem with this type of scenario is that it has demand characteristics because the subjects know what type of test they are in and can influence the data produced.

A possible way to limit the number of confounding variables might be a two-way factorial design. “Factorial designs involve the addition of new independent variables to one-way experiments, often with the goal of finding out whether the original results will hold up in new situations” (Stangor 2014). By adding onto the original test, or limiting the number of possible outcomes, they could narrow down the confounding variables. They could also use a repeated measure design, but the variables would likely change just as often as before so it would be difficult to limit.

Stangor, C. (2014). Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. [MBS Direct]. Retrieved from https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305981805/

please create a response to the above post, following the requirements below

Respond to at least one colleague who selected a different scenario than you did. Provide feedback by addressing one of the following:

  • Is there a confounding variable that the colleague did not detect? Provide your rationale.
  • Is there a variable identified that you do not agree to be a confounding variable? Provide your rationale.
  • Comment on your colleague’s proposed alternative method to eliminate the confounding variable(s). How might you remedy the confounding variable(s) differently?