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).k: put your critical thinking skills to the test. consider the internal validity of this study: 1. is there a selection effect to worry about? that is, were the groups equivalent at the start? why or why not? (think about how we make groups equivalent)2. now think of a different aspect of internal validity: potentially confounding variables. name three variables, that were not mentioned in the article, that you would want to know about. that is, think of three things about the participants' experiences/treatment that you would want to ensure were not systematically different between the two groups. do not mention participant variables as those should even out if the groups were equivalent at the start. (for example: i would want to know if the stable desk and the unstable