How grounded is your love life? in a recent experiment, psychologists at university of pittsburgh and the university of waterloo in canada decided to examine stability, turbulence and love. the researchers focused on stability because it is a term that has both literal and abstract meanings. our bodies can be physically stable or they can be wobbly, and so can our intimate relationships. the study participants were 40 college students who reported being involved in a committed relationship that had lasted for at least a year. the researchers randomly assigned half of their volunteers to sit at a normal desk and the other half to sit at a workstation that had been subtly altered so that both the chair and the desk wiggled slightly. the volunteers individually completed questionnaires about their lives and romantic relationships, including whether they felt the relationship would last. the volunteers were alone in the room when they completed the questionnaire and were instructed to not put their name on the questionnaire. the ratings of perceived stability ranged from 1- 7 (1 = not at all likely to last to 7 = certain this relationship will last). a participant could report any number between 1 and 7 on that scale. the students who had been seated at the unstable workstations were much more likely to perceive instability in their love lives (mean = 4.17) than were the students whose chairs and work spaces didn’t waver (mean = 4.93). there is a statistically significant difference between these means (t(38) = 3.64; p< 0.05). a: 1. state the research question in plain language (i wonder if is related to 2. state the null hypothesis 3. state a research hypothesis 4. is the research hypothesis directional or non-directional? b: name the predictor / independent variable give the operational definition of the predictor / independent variable. evaluate the construct validity of the predictor / independent variable (be sure to consider face, method, and procedural aspects though not all aspects will necessarily need to be discussed; point out strengths and weaknesses of this measure.) c: considering the previous scenario: name the outcome / dependent variable give the operational definition of the outcome / dependent variable. evaluate the construct validity of the operational definition for the outcome / dependent variable. (be sure to consider face, method, and procedural aspects though not all aspects will necessarily need to be discussed; point out strengths and weaknesses of this measure.)