Social Psychology Experiment; Results

**O'nus** · 03-13-2005 09:48 PM

A'hoy hoy,

I conducted a mass, random sample, survey through MSN and chat rooms. Conducted entirely on the internet, I randomly picked people from chat rooms and surveyed everyone on my MSN list on how they feel about a scenario. The survey consisted of two question: how they felt about the funding cut-back on "Herod's flu" research and if they felt threatened by it. The results are interesting. Many psychological aspects apply to this experiment and so there it entails a large report.

I'm curious what you, the psychology scholars of Dream Views, think of this experiments results. Considering experiments such as Darley & Batson's (1973), I decided this experiment would immediately eliminate diffusion of responsiblity considering I am directly asking individuals questions. Also, the manipulate the sense of time for my survey. To illustrate this, this is the first message in my survey:

Hi there, I'm doing a survey and I was wondering if you would give me your opinion..? *It's just two questions.[/b]

"It's just two questions" manipualtes the sense of time and gives me a better chance of polling an audience.

My primary goal in this experiment was to see if individuals would take the time out of what they are doing to look up the disease "Herod's flu". If anyone were to look the disease up, they would find that it is a fictional disease from a novel. Considering the amount of multi-tasking done on the computer, I was curious how many would deliberately hault it to help me. Also, I wished to see if there was any difference on internet survey's as compared to field surveying or phone surveying.

Before I rant on, here are my results.

Results:
[list]
Offered opinion:
[list]
- Offered opinion and admitted ignorance:
- Believed they were safe:
- Concerned:
- Didn't care:
- Total:
[list]
Gave no opinion b/c of ignorance:
Looked up the definition of "Herod's flu":
Did not answer:
Total:
[list]

What I am finding interesting is that, according to the survey results, more people believed they were safe from a disease they knew nothing about or they didn't care. It was the minority of those surveyed were concerned (16%/76%). Perhaps this is an example of perceptual errors of reality?

I may post my psychological report on this experiment according to the amount of interest (views).

I appreciate any input you may have. Thank you very much.

**jacobo** · 03-13-2005 10:16 PM

the experiment doesn't seem too controlled. yes, they might be multitasking on the computer but you don't know if they are or not. you also wouldn't know how much they were multitasking had they in fact been multitasking. also, to know where they're signed onto the internet from (library, classroom, work, home) would be a lot of help. just the general situations that they're presented with and trying to answer questions during is a huge part of this experiment, i think. -- this seems like a hard experiment to control. perhaps you could pull participants into a computer lab and ask them to sign up for some phony email account or something and somehow incorporate the questions into the service. you'd have a little more control this way. and it should also be noted that the percentage of people who actually own a computer isn't too overwhelming... so the sample isn't entirely random. a good example might be if someone has a computer they might have more money than someone who doesn't... and in having more money they might hold health in a higher regard than others because they can afford the checkups and dentist appointments (were these canadian, american or international participants?) -- i think it's a good experiment but i don't think you can truly make assertions about the human psyche through the impersonal internet. -- i like the idea behind the experiment but the science community would never move forward without critiques.

-jakells

**O'nus** · 03-13-2005 10:22 PM

Originally posted by adidas
the experiment doesn't seem too controlled. yes, they might be multitasking on the computer but you don't know if they are or not. you also wouldn't know how much they were multitasking had they in fact been multitasking. also, to know where they're signed onto the internet from (library, classroom, work, home) would be a lot of help. just the general situations that they're presented with and trying to answer questions during is a huge part of this experiment, i think. -- this seems like a hard experiment to control. perhaps you could pull participants into a computer lab and ask them to sign up for some phony email account or something and somehow incorporate the questions into the service. you'd have a little more control this way. and it should also be noted that the percentage of people who actually own a computer isn't too overwhelming... so the sample isn't entirely random. a good example might be if someone has a computer they might have more money than someone who doesn't... and in having more money they might hold health in a higher regard than others because they can afford the checkups and dentist appointments (were these canadian, american or international participants?) -- i think it's a good experiment but i don't think you can truly make assertions about the human psyche through the impersonal internet. -- i like the idea behind the experiment but the science community would never move forward without critiques.

-jakells

Ack, I didn't postulate my purpose.

The experiment is to help understand a person's psyche while they are on the internet. Yes, the circumstances of those surveyed would make a difference but it is rather difficult for me to do.. or impersonally ask "What are you doing?"

Either way, I was most interested in how many deliberately took the time to look up the disease and how many felt threatened.