User:Alexander L. Davis/Notebook/In the Problem Pit/2013/03/14: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
* It is going to be important to draw the citizen science sample from the same population as those who are offered the program. If people use self-projection, then those projections will be most valid from the actual sample, rather than MTurk masters participants who may be idiosyncratic. | * It is going to be important to draw the citizen science sample from the same population as those who are offered the program. If people use self-projection, then those projections will be most valid from the actual sample, rather than MTurk masters participants who may be idiosyncratic. | ||
* I feel like their ability to generate questions is not so good. They seem to pick up on the intuitive things that most people would think of: do they want the device, do they think the money is enough. What methods can we use to help them generate effective questions using their knowledge? Are we already tapping that? | |||
==Unexpected Observations== | ==Unexpected Observations== | ||
* | * The person in the configural condition had an unexpected approach, asking progressive questions about this person's willingness to participate, as if it were a willingness to accept for the program. | ||
==New Hypotheses== | ==New Hypotheses== | ||
* There seems to be a consistent self-projection element. People think other people would do or not do for the same reasons as themselves. | * There seems to be a consistent self-projection element. People think other people would do or not do for the same reasons as themselves. | ||
Line 62: | Line 65: | ||
* Have an image of the frame rather than a link. | * Have an image of the frame rather than a link. | ||
* Explain why we want this info, how will it be used. | * Explain why we want this info, how will it be used. | ||
* People throw the mail away without reading it. | |||
* Might use a telephone interview. | |||
==Faults== | ==Faults== | ||
Line 71: | Line 76: | ||
* Broke the questionnaire up into multiple pages, with a random subset of two questions on each page. | * Broke the questionnaire up into multiple pages, with a random subset of two questions on each page. | ||
* Cut the length by having participants do two-thirds (55) of the predictions. | * Cut the length by having participants do two-thirds (55) of the predictions. | ||
* Need to explain how the frame works. | |||
<!-- ##### DO NOT edit below this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### --> | <!-- ##### DO NOT edit below this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### --> |
Revision as of 12:04, 15 March 2013
Project name | <html><img src="/images/9/94/Report.png" border="0" /></html> Main project page Next entry<html><img src="/images/5/5c/Resultset_next.png" border="0" /></html> |
Entry titleFirst Pass CommentsThese are the first two pretests. I have a vague concern about the research, not knowing exactly what the focus or story is. I am considering xx. Created a qualification in MTurk for one participant to allow him to be in future problem pit studies. I need to create an acceptance sampling method to keep the number of pre-test participants bounded.
Unexpected Observations
New Hypotheses
Current Protocol
Current MaterialsNew Data
Participant 1
Participant 2
Faults
Corrections
|