= Solution
\b[Several mechanisms could explain an observed association without a causal effect of power on friendliness.] No exposure was assigned, so this is an <observational study>. Age, organizational role, wealth, gender, industry, public prominence or other common causes could produce <confounding>. Reverse direction is also possible: interpersonal behavior might influence advancement and hence power. Adjusting for age alone would not remove every alternative explanation.
The measured outcome is \i[perceived friendliness from a photograph]. Facial expression, pose, lighting, clothing, attractiveness and familiarity could affect those ratings independently of everyday behavior. If raters recognize an executive or know their status, expectations could alter the outcome; financial experts' power ratings may themselves involve judgment and <measurement error>. These are <construct validity> issues, since a photographic impression need not measure friendliness toward colleagues.
The preselected thirty executives are not a probability sample of all workers or even necessarily of all executives. <Selection bias>, narrow representation and <restriction of range> could alter associations and limit <external validity>. Multiple ratings of the same executive are also not independent executive observations; ignoring that structure would be <pseudoreplication>. These possibilities apply whether the reported association is positive, negative or inconclusive; the unavailable numerical findings are not assumed.
Back to article page
