Q3 - Psychologist: In our study, participants who were offer

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Explain a Result

Stimulus Breakdown:
Expected: If people wouldn't pay $5 for something, then they'd sell the same thing for under $5.

Unexpected: People who wouldn't buy a mug for $5 asked for more than that when they "owned" it and were selling it.

Answer Anticipation:
Both sides of this experiment involve valuation of a mug. What changed? They feel as if they own the mug in the second half of the experiment. The explanation will almost certainly play off of this: Owning something makes it feel more valuable.

Correct answer:
(D)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Opposite. If anything, this makes the discrepancy worse, and the inherent properties would be the same for equivalent mugs.

(B) Out of scope. These individuals did not possess the mugs for a long period of time.

(C) Out of scope. The argument doesn't state what the object previously sold for, and the people didn't seem to be aware of that when the decided how much they'd pay for it.

(D) Bingo. The comparison between the two situations, with an explanation of the outcome, is exactly what we should expect in an Explain question that's talking about two different groups in a study.

(E) Out of scope. Since the actual value of the mug isn't established, there can't be any assessment of it being undervalued.

Takeaway/Pattern:
When there are two groups in a study in an Explain question, the correct answer almost always compares the two groups and states a relevant metric that would impact the outcome.

#officialexplanation