Stuart McKelvie asks:
Also: Should we have another name for the "independent" variable
when
it is not truly experimentally manipulated? And should we have
another name for the "dependent" variable in this situation?
We have wrestled with this problem within our department. Some of us prefer
to call these variables "independent" because of their place in statistical
analyses. That certainly makes things easier for our students, but I argue
that the label "independent" should be reserved for those variables that the
experimenter manipulates. We have generally agreed to call these variables
"non-manipulated independent variables." In truth that is not entirely
satisfactory to me. I would prefer to call them something like "organismic"
(watch your spelling here) or "subject" variables. My preference for this
label relates to another post I saw this morning (I can't remember who wrote
it). Variables like age and gender are stand in variables and reflect the
effects of a number of other things like experience, genes and their
combinations. IMHO the latter label makes this point more clearly.
The question about a new name for the dependent variable in this situation
is one that I have not thought about. I am interested in reading others'
thoughts about that idea.
Dennis
Dennis M. Goff
Dept. of Psychology
Randolph-Macon Woman's College
Lynchburg, VA 24503
